Guilty! (x34)

Mark Sumner of Daily Kos was one of many news outlets reporting that the jurors of the nasty guy’s election interference trial found him guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying campaign records to illegally influence an election. Yay! We can now call him a convicted felon. So celebrate! Then Sumner gives a few reasons to temper our glee. The nasty guy will appeal. That could take years. Considering that and that he’s been out on bail, don’t look for the photo of him in handcuffs. Since this is the nasty guy’s first conviction (but it’s also his 34th!) he is unlikely to get jail time. He’s more likely to get a fine, community service (which I can’t see him actually doing), and probation (how does a probation officer visit the Oval Office?). Sentencing comes four days before the Republican Convention, where he’ll be renominated. Influencing the sentencing will be extra factors, such as how does the Secret Service protect him in jail (baffles me why they would need to)? Also there is the threat of violence from his minions – but that should be compared to how many times he threatened the judge, prosecutors and their families, and the jury. There have been convicted felons who ran for president. Lyndon LaRouche did it five times, once from prison. The effect of this conviction on the election are unclear. What to think depends on which poll you read. There are three big trials (and, if I did the math right, 54 more charges) to go, though none likely before election day. These convictions are not going to slow the nasty guy down. He’s still a threat to the nation and democracy. In remarks after the verdict he said the only decision that matters is the ballot box in November. And for once he’s right. In a post before the verdict was announced Sumner wrote that the language the nasty guy has been using at the courthouse, and also by his Republican proxies, has hinted of violence. And, as is his way, what he has said was misinformation – about the legitimacy of the trial, that it was a witch hunt, and that Biden was behind it. Republicans have been taking up the call. Though the mob hasn’t shown up at the courthouse (and he had to lie about why they hadn’t) there is still a threat of violence ahead.

Republican allies and right-wing media figures are playing a crucial role in Trump’s effort to erode faith in the trial by spreading false claims about [Judge] Merchan, jurors, and court proceedings. This coordinated attack on the judicial process undermines trust in the legal system and poses a significant threat to public safety.

On to other articles about the nasty guy that have accumulated over the last week. Mark Kreidler, in an article for Capital and Main posted on Kos, discussed why a group of 48 health care leaders are warning about the disasters of a second nasty guy term in the Oval Office. They are speaking out because they feel the consequence are dire and nobody is listening. Their basic argument: Under the nasty guy health care will get more expensive and less accessible, and worst for the marginalized. Their evidence is his repeated attempts to overturn Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) – don’t let his lack of success fool you. There are lots of ways to mess it up even if it isn’t repealed. The nasty guy also wants to defund or bring under political control the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration. They may not have been great during the pandemic, but we don’t want to hear them recommend injecting bleach. Kreidler likes that they wrote the letter, but thinks they need to write more than one. Greg Sargent of the New Republic wrote a couple days ago that the nasty guy’s threats are becoming more aggressive. The nasty guy posted a rant by one of his followers and then commented on it. The rant was directed at liberals in general. This isn’t the first time he has used or elevated violent language, though Sargent says this round is more aggressive through the phrase “get rid” of. It also isn’t the first time he has threatened using state power to persecute the large and not well defined class of his enemies. That class now includes media (the ones not for him), his ideological enemies (presumably liberals and Republicans not sufficiently loyal), immigrants, and even student demonstrators.

What if some subset of Trump supporters continues backing him not in spite of his efforts to place himself above our institutions and the law—not in spite of his threats to unleash punishment and suffering on other large groups of Americans—but precisely because of those things? ... If Trump voters are sticking with him through all these [threats], we should be asking whether these factors are key drivers of some of this support, not credulously treating them as self-evidently incidental to it.

Kerry Eleveld of Kos discussed how we might counteract the media that has a bias against Biden and for the nasty guy. Far right outlets manufacture controversies that support the nasty guy. We can counteract that by talking directly with fellow voters. The tactic depends who you are talking to. If an independent, talk about the nasty guy promising he would never leave office. If their big worry is the economy, talk about what Biden has been doing compared to the nasty guy’s promise of more tax cuts for corporations. If a young voter talks about abortion protections, LGBTQ protections, gun rights, and voting rights and which candidate will do what. Talk about how their issues align with Democrats. Or talk about how scary a second nasty guy term would be. In a pundit roundup Chitown Kev of Kos quoted Cat Zakrzewski, Joseph Menn, Naomi Nix, and Will Oremus of the Washington Post about efforts at neutralizing misinformation leading up to important elections around the world.

Modeled after vaccines, these campaigns — dubbed “prebunking” — expose people to weakened doses of misinformation paired with explanations and are aimed at helping the public develop “mental antibodies” to recognize and fend off hoaxes in a heated election year. In the run-up to next month’s European Union election, for example, Google and partner organizations are blanketing millions of voters with colorful cartoon ads on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram that teach common tactics used to propagate lies and rumors on social media or in email.

Down in the comments are several good cartoons for Memorial Day. I’ll share one by Mike Luckovich. It shows Arlington Cemetery with the caption, “Gave their lives for their country.” Beside it is the Senate GOP with the caption, “Gave their country for Trump’s lies.” Extending my little break from the nasty guy for a bit more on Memorial Day, here is a cartoon posted by missLtoe from WaPo showing a photo of a military cemetery. One of the tombstones says, “Book bans, anti-science, authoritarianism, sexism, loss of bodily autonomy... I thought we already fought a war against fascism.” Aldous Pennyfarthing of Kos wrote the nasty guy is trying to do one better than the Gipper. A week ago...

Trump promised that Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who’s currently being detained in Russia and has been jailed for a year, would be released “almost immediately” after the November election—but only if Trump wins.

If this isn’t another lie (likely) it is another violation of the Logan Act, conducting diplomacy outside of official government channels. Putin denied any contact with the nasty guy about Gershkovich. But he’s also known for his lying. The nasty guy may be hinting at a deal once he’s in the Oval Office again. A hostage might be a fair swap for Ukraine’s freedom and independence. So this might be a request to meddle in our elections. Or this clumsy attempt at diplomacy (he announced it to the public) might assure Gershkovich is never released. That mention of the Gipper is about the 1980 election, when the Iranian hostage crisis was in the news every day. A year ago in March the New York Times confirmed that Reagan sabotaged Carter’s efforts to secure the hostages’ release before the election. He did this by sending Ben Barnes and John Connally to several Middle East capitals to pass along the message that if the hostages are released after the election Reagan will win and give them a better deal. The big difference is that Reagan said nothing in public. Please remember the nasty guy is toying with an actual person’s life. In another pundit roundup Greg Dworkin quoted Seth Masket of “Tusk” on Substack, written after Nikki Haley said she would vote for the nasty guy:

So why is Haley backing him now? I doubt there’s any sort of deal that’s been worked out. Trump doesn’t need her support. She’s backing him for the same reason virtually every other public figure in the party does: she wants to still have a career as a Republican, whether in the next Trump administration or otherwise, and she’s seen the very visible examples of what happens to those who fail to bend the knee. And despite all the concerns she’s raised about Trump, she likely still sees another term by him as better than another by Biden. ... Why would Trump be smart to reach out to Haley and her supporters? That requires effort, and she just demonstrated that he would have her vote despite him exerting no effort at all. Haley is repeating a pattern that we have seen time and again from nearly all Republican officials, that despite some modest protestations, there is quite literally nothing he can do that will keep them from supporting him over a Democrat.

Down in the comments of a third pundit roundup, this one posted a month ago, are a couple cartoons to mention. One by Ted Littleford shows an Arab American saying, “Because of Gaza my conscience simply won’t let me back Biden.” Behind him the nasty guy is tapping his shoulder and holding a deportation order. A cartoon from Canada that would be appropriate here and elsewhere around the world and for a great deal of human history. A man has bottles of rage, fear, malice, spite, blame, and hate. He says, “Hey, I’ll stop selling it, when they stop buying it.” In a fourth roundup Kev quoted Jennifer Ruben of WaPo, discussing historian Ken Burns’ commencement speech at Brandeis University. I think these are Ruben’s words:

The media should collectively recognize that the pretense that “an unequal equation is equal” amounts to an in-kind gift to authoritarians who crave the appearance of normalcy and respectability. Sharp contrasts and moral judgment are kryptonite to MAGA forces, who would love nothing better than months more of fantasy politics (“What if Biden backed out?”) and poll obsession (that only now begin to reflect the views of likely voters). The media would do well to focus on the authoritarian threat. A candidate such as Trump, who lies about his crowd size, the results of past elections and the sentiments of certain voters, intends to convey inevitability, strength and the futility of resistance. Trump assiduously follows the totalitarian playbook to demoralize opponents and condition the public to believe only he can possibly win. (He also sets the stage for election denial: How could I lose with such big crowds?). The false premise that President Biden is destined to lose (because Trump says so? because of premature, irrelevant polling?) is not news; it’s Trumpian propaganda. The press can avoid Trump’s manipulation by explaining the playbook and refusing to present his braggadocio as fact.

In the last couple days of the trial the nasty guy claimed it was so crooked that “Mother Theresa could not beat these charges.” Monty Wolverton has a cartoon imagining her reply:

Well, I don’t remember falsifying business records to conceal criminal activity and damaging information from voters and violating state and federal election laws. But if you say so...”