Another Step

On Sunday, Politico reported

A federal judge has, for the second time in two days, blocked President Donald Trump from sending National Guard troops into Oregon, ruling that the administration appeared to defy her Saturday order that Trump lacked a legal basis for sending the military into Portland.

Unfortunately, the drama spurred by the latest- as of this moment- tyrannical move by the Administration will continue.  So, too, will the drama in the White House briefing room where on Monday, CNN's Kaitlan Collins asked presidential press secretary Karoline Leavitt  "which officials in Portland have said the National Guard is needed there?"

Wisely, Leavitt did not answer this question. Instead, she stated in pertinent part

The President is using the authority as Commander in Chief- U.S. Code 12406, which clearly states that the President has a right to call up the National Guard in cases where he deems it's appropriate and if you look at what has happened in Portland Oregon, for more than 100 nights I was talking to our law enforcement team about it this morning. For more than 100 days, night after night the ICE facility had been really under siege by these anarchists outside. They have been disrespecting law enforcement.

"Disrespecting?" A call has been placed to 2017. They want their jargon back.

Leavitt continued

They've been inciting violence. We saw again a guillotine rolled out in front of this federal building. And so the President wants to ensure that our federal buildings and assets are protected. And that's exactly what he is trying to do.

Yet, Donald Trump knows little about guillotines, though he knows quite a bit about hanging gallows, including the one mostly constructed by protesters on the morning of January 6, 2021. That would be the "Hang Mike Pence" one, whose use President Trump appeared to have endorsed.

Leavitt, still:

Ultimately, in a case in Los Angeles, the Judge ruled on 9th Circuit, that panel of judges ruled those troops could remain. And the President was well within his authority. So we are appealing this decision, as you know. We expect hearing on it pretty quickly and we're very confident in the President's legal authority to view this. And we were vey confident we would win on the merits of law.

If that Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge had ruled "those troops could remain," she probably wouldn't have written "this country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs."  Nor would the Administration be "appealing this decision" if it had gone Donald's way. (Later in the day, "a federal judge in Illinois declined the request to immediately block the deployment.")

Collins then returned to her actual question, which Leavitt in over 200 words had avoided answering.

My full exchange with Karoline Leavitt on what officials in Portland, including the police chief, are saying about whether the National Guard is needed versus what President Trump is claiming. pic.twitter.com/i4C3iSkkil

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) October 6, 2025

The president's spokeswoman was echoing, in brief, claims made by Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin, who on Thursday had told NBC affiliate KGW8 that two nights earlier

.... over 100 rioters stormed an ICE facility in Portland. They assaulted law enforcement- even putting one member of law enforcement into the hospital- trespassed on federal property, attacked law enforcement by blinding them with strobe lights, and blocked the entrance to the facility. Six rioters were arrested, including for charges of assaulting law enforcement.

Despite its best efforts, KGW was unable to verify the allegations from DHS and

As for the alleged trespassing and attacks on law enforcement, KGW reporters observed only a few protesters over the course of several days crossing a painted line on the ground and one individual placing a sign on the building. Protesters were also seen using strobe flashlights and loudspeakers, though the situation appeared largely non-violent.

It was largely non-violent despite the best efforts of federal law enforcement officers, who appear to be the ones doing their best to incite violence. 

Nonetheless, Trump spokeswoman Leavitt is entitled to consideration of her core argument, which was "the President is using the authority as Commander in Chief- U.S. Code 12406, which clearly states that the President has a right to call up the National Guard in cases where he deems it's appropriate."

The statute cited reads

Whenever—

(1)the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;

(2)there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or

(3)the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;

the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

Sending National Guard members to Portland, Chicago, or anywhere has nothing to do with any possible invasion by a foreign nation. The protests in major cities is not a "rebellion," nor the threat of a rebellion. It is not "January 6"; it is not directed toward the authority of the government of the USA but against a policy, be it immigration or crime. And the President is not issuing the orders through the governors- who publicly oppose the regime's threatened action- of the states affected

The Administration simply does not have the statutory or constitutional authority to do this on its own. Given that some federal judges are intimidated by Donald Trump, the President would be delighted to gain judicial endorsement, or at least formal acceptance, of his tyrannical tactics. Presumably, even if he ultimately is blocked legally, Donald will proceed because that's what despots do. 

It's a terrible plan in itself, but also intended to normalize an environment in which federal forces roam the streets of major cities, especially important in light of our quaint tradition of free elections. One of Oregon's excellent senators:

Trump's troops are deliberately attacking peaceful protesters to incite violence.⁰⁰The goal is to generate riots to justify the expansion of authoritarian measures and to strengthen the case for the troop deployments.⁰⁰Let me be emphatically clear: there is no "invasion" or…

— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) October 4, 2025

Share |

Lesson Learned, Maybe

Well, as the cool kids would say circa 2022, "that didn't age well."  It turns out that the Anti-Defamation League (nee B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League) was wrong- and taught us an important lesson. Al-Jazeera reported on January 22 of this year

After Elon Musk made an apparent Nazi salute at an inauguration rally for United States President Donald Trump, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) rushed to defend the SpaceX founder.

The self-described anti-Semitism watchdog and “leading anti-hate organization in the world” dismissed Musk’s raised arm as “an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm” in a social media post on Monday.

Months earlier, however, Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the staunchly pro-Israel ADL, compared the Palestinian keffiyeh to the Nazi swastika....

While speaking at the Capital One Arena following Trump’s inauguration, Musk put his hand to his chest, then swiftly raised his arm as he thanked the crowd for electing the Republican president.

The 53-year-old billionaire then turned around and did it again.

His motion resembled the Nazi gesture — known as the “Sieg Heil”, German for “hail victory” — which has roots in an ancient Roman salute.

“My heart goes out to you. It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured,” Musk said.

While it is not uncommon for politicians to extend their arms to greet an audience, the combination of Musk’s rhetoric about “civilization” and the repeated gesture raised many eyebrows.

However, on January 23, Musk went punny:

Don’t say Hess to Nazi accusations!

Some people will Goebbels anything down!

Stop Gőring your enemies!

His pronouns would’ve been He/Himmler!

Bet you did nazi that coming 😂

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 23, 2025

Later that day on the same format, the ADL, evidently not amused, responded

Making inappropriate and highly offensive jokes that trivialize the Holocaust only serve to minimize the evil and inhumanity of Nazi crimes, denigrate the suffering of both victims and survivors and insult the memory of the six million Jews murdered in the Shoah,

There was little or no reaction to the statement from the ADL as it seemed to roll off Musk's back. However, as explained by the Guardian, on October 1, FBI director Kash Patel

denounced the group and said the agency would cut ties with the non-profit.

Patel's announcement followed days of attacks by rightwing influencers and Elon Musk on the ADL over its online database on extremism, which included a page on slain far-right pundit Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA and the organization's link to far-right extremists. On Tuesday, the ADL deleted its entire Glossary of Extremism, a flagship project which contained more than 1,000 entries on groups and movements with connections to hateful ideologies. the move failed to quell the backlash....

Over the weekend, several influential rightwing accounts began posting screenshots of the ADL’s page on Turning Point USA (TPUSA), attacking the organization for including Kirk’s group in its Glossary of Extremism. One of the first posts, from a self-described “Twitter troll”, accused the ADL of having “blood on their hands”.

The ADL did not actually list TPUSA as an extremist organization, but instead documented incidents where its leadership and affiliated activists had either aligned with extremists or made “racist or bigoted comments”. Other rightwing activists soon followed the troll with more posts about the ADL. Some spread a screenshot of the ADL’s page on the Christian Identity movement – an extremist ideology that espouses a racial holy war against Jews and other minorities – to allege that the ADL was biased against Christians as a whole.

The attacks by rightwing influencers had  included

The ADL considers Christianity a hateful terrorist extremist belief.

You don’t hate the ADL enough. pic.twitter.com/6iThCkObcZ

— iamyesyouareno (@iamyesyouareno) September 28, 2025

Musk responded on X "The ADL hates Christians, therefore it is a hate group." But the organization's criticism was not of Christians but of Christian Identity, a movement said to date to 1989 and which is

characterized by a belief in white supremacy and anti-Semitism. Followers of Christian Identity believe that the covenant recounted in the Bible was actually made between God and the Anglo-Saxons and other European peoples, who are the real Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. Christian Identity characterizes Jews as the offspring of Eve and Satan and views people of African descent as subhuman. Though it has been largely unsuccessful in persuading “white Israelites” of their purported identity, small churches are active, mainly in the northwestern United States. The movement proselytizes through publications, recordings, and the Internet. Aryan Nations, a prominent Christian Identity-based hate group founded in the United States in the 1970s, developed a strong network of white supremacist groups, many of which congregated at a compound in Hayden Lake, Idaho.

The Anti-Defamation League threw Elon Musk a lifeline in late January. A prestigious and very reputable opponent of anti-Semitism, it could have called Musk out for what did appear to be a Nazi salute.

Instead, it defended his gesture, thereby tamping down criticism in establishment circles. Yet now, it has been pummeled by the world's wealthiest billionaire and his MAGA supporters.

Compare that to the controversy surrounding Jimmy Kimmel's remark(s) about Charlie Kirk's disciples.  Disney's decision. The BBC noted that the decision 

to suspend Kimmel was met with protests in California and lambasted by the writers and actors guilds, lawmakers and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who argued that the suspension violated free speech rights and spurs a chilling effect.

Hundreds of celebrities and Hollywood creatives also signed a letter backing Kimmel.

Ben Stiller, Jennifer Aniston, Meryl Streep and Robert DeNiro are among those who called Kimmel's suspension a "dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation".

Critics of Disney also called for people to boycott Disney+, Hulu and other services in order to cut into the entertainment conglomerate's bottom line.

As fellow comedic talk show hosts Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Seth Myers ridiculed and condemned the suspension...

Dylan Byers from US media website Puck told BBC Radio 4's Today programme there has been "a lot of hand-wringing" at Disney since last week "about how to right this ship".

The "blowback was intense" and came from figures ranging from former presidents and Hollywood stars to ex-Disney executives, he said.

"And at a certain point, I think that became too much." 

The "too much" included also denunciation from legislators, legal experts, and a social media postings from viewers who announced cancellation of subscriptions to Disney's online streaming platform and ABC's platform. And from September 17, when the suspension was announced to September 23 when it was revoked, the value of the stock of The Walt Disney company plunged 2.39%, $4.49 billion of its market value.

                 

So the furious response to the initial Kimmel decision resulted in the company changing its mind and reinstating the talk-show host. That is a different situation than what prevailed with Elon Musk following his salute to the Third Reich. Nonetheless, there is a moral to the story: the right-wing which now runs this country is not interested in the left or the center reaching out and giving it the benefit of the doubt. Fighting the onslaught will not always work but a conciliatory approach will nearly always fail. Take the advice of the late Tom Petty, and never back down.

 

Share |

The Dreadful Mike Johnson

Mike Johnson is at it again, this time with George Stephanopoulos. Two short guys, one big argument, one good interviewer, and one lying sack of human manure:

 

Stephanopoulos: “Do you believe it's appropriate to use American cities as training for the U.S. military calling those people in the American city as the enemy within?”

Johnson: “I'm not going to comment on your characterization of what the President said.” pic.twitter.com/5pPFmaRZBi

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) October 1, 2025

(Stephanopoulos) The President also said at the Pentagon yesterday that he wants cities to be used as training grounds for the American military. Is this the highest and best use of the US military? Is this the right way to train them?

(Johnson) I don't serve at the Pentagon. I run the House of Representatives. And what we need to be talking about today is the harm the American people are going to feel because of what Chuck Schumer is doing. Let me tell you...

(Stephanopoulos) Well, hold on a second. No, answer the question. As Speaker of the House, do you believe it is appropriate to use American cities as training grounds, calling those people in American cities "the army within." I'm asking you, as Speaker of the House, do you think that's appropriate?

(Johnson) I'm not going to comment on your characterization of what the President said.

(Crosstalk)

(Johnson) Well, you can take his quote out of context, as you often do. I don't thin that's fair to the President. I'll tell you what he's done, though. He's put National Guard troops here in D.C. and cleaned up the crime problem. People can walk.....

In his speech to military generals he summoned to the Marine base at Quantico, Virginia, President Trump, with his characteristic mixture of belligerence and child-like behavior, spewed lies and other disinformation. Speaker Johnson claimed Stephanopoulos had taken Donald's "quote out of context." Stephanopoulos noted that Trump had said that he "wants cities to be used as training grounds for the American military" and asked Johnson if he believed it "appropriate to use American cities as training grounds, calling those people in American cities 'the army within'."      

Here, in context- comments before and after the pertinent remark included- is what the President stated beginning at 37:21 and afterward, at 41:58 (applicable phrases in italics):

It's -- they're just -- they don't understand. They've destroyed the -- the image of media now is at the lowest point it's ever been. It's lower than Congress. Can you believe that? It's something. But together, with many of you in the room, we've brought back the fundamental principle that defending the homeland is the military's first and most important priority.

That's what it is. Only in recent decades did politicians somehow come to believe that our job is to police the far reaches of Kenya and Somalia, while America is under invasion from within. We're under invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms.

At least when they're wearing a uniform, you can take them out. These people don't have uniforms. But we are under invasion from within. We're stopping it very quickly. After spending trillions of dollars defending the borders of foreign countries, with your help, we're defending the borders of our country from now on. We're not going to let this happen.

Biden let people come in from prisons, mental institutions, drug dealers, murderers....

****

You know, we had millions coming in, pouring in. 25 million all told and of those 25 million, many of them should never be in our country. They would take their worst people and their people from prisons and jail and they put them in a caravan and they'd walk up. CNN was interviewing one person. Oh, why are you coming?

I want freedom. Good. Were you in jail? Yes. For what? Murder. I said, you're in for -- you had to see this anchor, a young woman. She's like I couldn't believe. She'll probably lose her job, but -- because the left doesn't want to hear that. But we're running it based on common sense and based on love of our country.

But I want to salute every service member who has helped us carry out this critical mission. It's really a very important mission. And I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military National Guard, but military, because we're going into Chicago very soon. That's a big city, with an incompetent governor, stupid governor, stupid.

They threw him out of his family business....

Stephanopoulos wisely ended the segment with "Mr. Speaker, thank you . Nothing I said about the President was out of context. Those were direct quotes from the President. Thank you for your time." 

Johnson then slipped in "cherry picked, out of a long speech."  "Cherry picked means "select the best or most desirable;" in this case, only those items the interviewer wanted to mention.  The GOP has as its leader- with no evident dissatisfaction- in the House of Representatives a guy who evidently believes that calling major American cities training grounds for the US military, and the people therein, is trivial. That underscores the importance of unmasking Republican toadies and in this case, doing so skillfully.

Share |

Today's Lie

House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson appears to be a devout individual. Shortly after becoming Speaker, he was asked a general question by Fox News' Sean Hannity about his political views and stated "Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That's my worldview."  In 2022, he had stated "There is not a distinction or dichotomy between your religion and your religious life and the rest of your life. It is all one." 

Thus it's surprising- or not- that Johnson is working overtime to spread this week's Republican zombie lie. Here he tells ABC's George Stephanopoulos

Forty-four Senate Democrats voted to reject a clean, non-partisan continuing resolution to keep the United States government open. The Democrats said instead that they wanted to give health care to illegal aliens instead of keeping critical services provided to American cities. That's what happened, plain and simple. Every Democrat in the House except for one voted against the clean, continuing resolution.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The Democratic proposal is designed to prevent millions of Americans from losing their health insurance, losing Medicaid coverage, or paying higher healthcare premiums. Why are you against that?

MIKE JOHNSON: That's an absurd statement

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's a… pic.twitter.com/1W2iXYlDMu

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 1, 2025

"Non-partisan" because one Democrat voted for the GOP plan. However, Stephanopoulos called him out, noting 

Here are the facts. The proposal does not provide health care for illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants cannot buy health care under the Affordable Care Act. They cannot receive health care subsidies. Illegal immigrants are ineligible for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health program. the Democratic bill does not make them eligible. 

As can be seen in the video above, Johnson contested Stephanopoulos' statements. But in the Speaker's own words, this is the truth, "plain and simple," as explained by Newsweek's Dan Gooding:

Democrats released a budget proposal that seeks to extend Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies before they expire at the end of the year. The plan, put forward by Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro and Washington Senator Patty Murray, also includes a reversal of Medicaid cuts made earlier this year.

The pair argues that if their proposal is not put in place, then “15 million Americans” will be kicked off their health care plans, because of the provisions made in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would see health care provisions expire in 2027, including for legal immigrants accessing ACA subsidies....

The proposal does not include free healthcare for illegal immigrants....

According to KFF, an organization that analyzes health policy in the U.S., under the Republicans' 2025 Tax and Budget Law, 1.4 million lawfully present immigrants could lose health coverage.

The analysis refers to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) own reporting, which said $131 billion could be saved by making it so that a smaller list of lawful immigrants is able to access Medicaid and CHIP. Among the immigrants set to lose access to health care plans are refugees and asylees, those paroled into the U.S., and those with Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

All of this is something Democrats have denounced, but there do not appear to be concrete plans to keep coverage for the groups about to become ineligible.

Immigrants in the U.S. without legal status—now referred to as illegal aliens, commonly as undocumented immigrants—are largely barred from accessing healthcare under the ACA, as well as Medicaid and Medicare.

There are some exemptions to this rule, namely for emergency room care, which the government does then repay, but this applies to all patients without other medical insurance, regardless of immigration status. 

Gooding is correct that in the federal code, these individuals are (remarkably) referred to as "illegal aliens" and in the media, among prominent Democrats and some prominent Republicans, as "undocumented immigrants." Both labels are ridiculous. The first can apply to extraterrestrial beings. (Ask 100 Americans what an "alien" is and most will rationally think of  unidentified flying objects.) Further, "aliens" is unnecessarily adversarial and disparaging.  

Kudos to Stephanopoulos for using the accurate, value-neutral term "illegal immigrants." "Undocumented immigrants" is a sanitized version of "illegal immigrants." There are, after all, illegal immigrants and legal immigrants, not undocumented immigrants and "documented immigrants."

Johnson is not the only well-known Republican skillfully and smoothly lying through this crisis. The cross-wearing presidential press secretary:

Democrats are shutting down the federal government because President Trump won’t force taxpayers to pay for free health care for illegal aliens.

Just think about that…

Democrat elected representatives are punishing their own constituents to fight for illegals.

Deranged. pic.twitter.com/tkp2evE7PA

— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) September 30, 2025

Both Johnson and Leavitt are very open about their Christian faith. Given their commitment to dishonesty, it would be more accurate to say that they are very open about their alleged Christian faith. 

Share |

Militarizing the Streets

On CBS' Face the Nation, Kentucky senator Rand Paul was asked about President Trump's allegation that Portland, Oregon is "under siege from attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists."  In part, he responded

I do think, though, that it's important, when people start talking about labeling people, that we realize everybody, the worst among us, even those accused of heinous crimes, will get due process.

It may be unfair to criticize a GOP member of Congress who is not on bended knee and aching to satisfy the bi- uh, Donald Trump. However, Paul, also:

Rand Paul: "Chicago is a nightmare. It is literally a war zone." pic.twitter.com/sKiMpLZmxE

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 28, 2025

Host Margaret Brennan asked Senator Paul about Portland, whereupon the latter oddly and awkwardly pivoted to Chicago and stated

I think he has the legal authority to send troops to protect federal buildings and federal proceedings, such as courts. And that's been around since the civil rights era. We have acknowledged that the federal government will sometimes come in, despite what states say.

I do think it's better when the states agree to it, for example, I mean, in Chicago. Chicago is a nightmare. It is literally a war zone. And the people being hurt the worst are those who are poor and living in these communities. I have been to the most dangerous precinct in Chicago, and it's just despair and sadness.

Donald hasn't been in Chicago since he stayed at Trump Tower downtown during the 2024 presidential campaign. He hasn't been in Baltimore, either, though he has complained about crime there and has been offered a tour by Maryland governor Wes Moore. Tough guy.

Fortunately, though to Trump insignificantly, Chicago is no war zone. (Democratic strategists and consultants warn other Democrats not to talk about a decline in crime in major cities. Democratic politicians are warned that they are expressing indifference and a lack of  sensitivity if they do so. However, facts are facts, and Chicago is no war zone.

Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Therefore, if Donald Trump declares cities such as Portland are "ravaged by war," would sending soldiers there constitute a declaration of war contrary to the Constitution?  

It would be, but Donald's words are meant to inflame passions and coupled with other statements, are intended to rally the troops, to keep them at the ready, as was "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by."

There is another, more important reason, closely related to the point by a Never Trump Republican:

Shouldn't Schumer and Jeffries tell Trump:

Sorry, can't make it to the White House tomorrow! You say a major city is so 'war-ravaged' as to require deploying federal troops authorized to use 'Full Force' against U.S. citizens. So we're heading off to Portland to take a look.

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) September 28, 2025

The near-term purpose is to use soldiers against citizens and other residents. The mid-term objective is to station soldiers in major American cities so that we the people will get accustomed to seeing them there and accept that situation as normal. There are elections (presumably) coming up in thirteen months and the Trump Administration very likely intends to station uniformed, armed personnel strategically during the balloting. 

There is no time to waste in creating an effective photo-op. Prominent Democrats should challenge the President to visit those cities he believes are "war zones," preferably with a local and/or state official accompanying him. If Trump takes them up on the offer, it can easily be turned into a Democratic win; if he declines, as he did for Baltimore, Democrats should pounce.

It would be easy for those local and state officials to prove that the city visited is no war zone, and it is astounding that no Democrat aside from the governor of Maryland has publicly offered this opportunity to Donald. It's critical to be there and can be devastating strategically to appear as if you're avoiding the area. (Think President George W. Bush and Hurricane Katrina.) 

If a Democrat or two does do that, the public will respond positively. Also, we may find that a few redeemable Republicans, such as Rand Paul, might reassess their undying support for President Trump. (That's a joke.)

Share |

With Cheese, On Rye

It was not "lawfare." Invoking the term "lawfare" virtually no one used until MAGAts popularized it because no one understands it does not an argument make. And there were 91 indictments obtained against Donald J. Trump because his behavior warranted 91 indictments. However, there is an even more significant error made here.

I’m not a big fan of the Comey indictment, but if he did nothing wrong a jury will clear him.

But to all the people setting their hair on fire about weaponizing the Justice Department to go after political enemies, show me your posts decrying the lawfare and ANY of the 91…

— Marc Thiessen 🇺🇸❤️🇺🇦🇹🇼🇮🇱 (@marcthiessen) September 26, 2025

James Comey will get vocal support from the left and those in the middle and on the right who still believe in the rule of law and justice.  Further, he is very well off and can afford a gaggle of lawyers to defend himself against political persecution.

Others can't, however. And "others" there is doing a lot of work, to the tune of the vast majority of Americans who are indicted, even the vast majority of Americans who actually are guilty of the charges pressed against them. Some are fortunate enough to have the state opt for a preliminary hearing but most face a grand jury because prosecutors are not stupid. As is typical (with some variation) in the USA, in New Jersey a grand jury

consists of 23 regular citizens, much like a courtroom jury consists of 12 of your peers. The grand jurors hear evidence for and against you regarding your criminal charge. The 23 members then determine whether enough probable cause exists to formally indict you of a criminal offense. You do not need to be present at the grand jury proceedings. In fact, it’s rare for defendants to attend this part of the legal process.

The members of the grand jury and the county prosecutor are the only ones present at this meeting. Grand jury presentation does not occur in a courtroom either. Your criminal defense attorney will not be there nor will a judge. The prosecutor represents the state of New Jersey and presents evidence to determine whether probable cause exists to move forward with issuing an indictment in your name.

The state must receive a majority vote from the 23 members of the grand jury to proceed with an indictment.

Moreover

The set-up of grand jury proceedings makes it easy for the county prosecutor to argue for probable cause whether there’s evidence against your criminal charge or not. Finally, grand jury proceedings are secret. That means neither you nor your criminal defense attorney are privy to why the members of the grand jury opted for indictment.

In New Jersey, a pre-indictment conference will be held which, if unsuccessful in resolving the matter, will yield to a grand jury proceeding. many states, the prosecutor may opt for a preliminary hearing, which would involve both the judge and the defendant's lawyer.

In either case, once the office of a prosecutor or district attorney decides to proceed with a case, the state holds virtually all the cards. If the government (state, county, or municipal) decides to indict an individual, he almost certainly will be indicted.

That resulted in the maxim, expressed in 1985 by the then-chief justice of New York State's Supreme Court, "any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." A critical point, but he pulled his punches- in most jurisdictions, the "good" is not necessary. Not surprisingly

According to a U.S. Department of Justice study, "Grand juries are notorious for being ‘rubberstamps' for the prosecutor for virtually all routine criminal matters." (McDonald, William F., Plea Bargaining: Critical Issues and Common Practices (1985).) It's also suggested that grand juries rubber stamp prosecutors' charges because grand jurors are not adept at evaluating evidence like judges are—making it easier to convince a grand jury than a judge that the defendant should stand for trial.

And so Mark Thiessen's idiocy, far more likely his disingenuousness, "if he (Comey) did nothing wrong a jury will clear him."  It also is absurd, because jurors, like human beings, are not perfect and make mistakes.

However, the greater problem is that almost any prosecutor can obtain an indictment against any individual or ham sandwich. Throughout the country, in most cases, the defendant therefore must effectively plead guilty because he (occasionally, she) will not have the time or money to go through a trial. 

An individual typically will not be able to pay for a private attorney to defend him. (A court-assigned attorney may be available. Good luck finding one who is neither politically compromised, inefficient, or overworked.) Even if he does, he may not be able to set aside the time for the court appearances (plural)- the case will demand while counting on the generosity of his employer.

Usually, this: if indictment, the defendant will, one way or another, be found guilty, whether he committed the offense or not.

This is something rarely mentioned on cable news telecasts. It might have been conceded, presumably by a liberal or progressive defense attorney or ex-defense attorney, five years ago. There was such outrage over treatment of black suspects because of (perceived or real) racism. However, even then, the legal community, in an informal, unspoken conspiracy, said nothing. 

It's the structure in which they work and they were not about to question the basic, foundational injustice of that criminal justice system. Race was a much sexier- and safer- problem for them to invoke. Now, after Donald Trump has been elected President for a second time and the tea leaves read, the issue of racism is strategically avoided and the underlying unfairness of the system continues to be ignored.

With President Trump reigning supreme and determined to make his self-identification of "King of America" a reality, James Comey is his first victim. In the criminal justice system, the cliche "innocent until proven guilty" means little to nothing. 

Though the former FBI director, has been indicted, there is a good chance the case will be dismissed before it reaches trial. If it does go to a jury, it is probable there will be a not guilty verdict. Nonetheless, Donald has made at least part of his point, a warning that critics must keep silent or else.  And there will be other indictments against individuals who dare to question Trump because, well, there are a lot of ham sandwiches.

Bondi: A very liberal grand jury in one of the most liberal jurisdictions in the country just indicted James Comey. We know of course we have to go to trial and we will have a great trial team and everybody of course is innocent until proven guilty. We are going to trial in this… pic.twitter.com/gb52CpamfP

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 27, 2025

.

Share |

As Carville Would Put It, "It Was the Candidate, Stupid"

There have been dozens of reasons asserted to explain the descent of the national Democratic Party the last several years. One rarely if ever mentioned, but hinted at in this CNN article of 1/21/21, is

Former South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Jaime Harrison has officially been elected the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, winning the organization’s election after President Joe Biden selected him for the top political job.

Harrison, who unsuccessfully ran for the Senate in 2020, will now be asked to guide the top committee at a time when Democrats have control of all three key bodies in Washington, the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

As with everyone else, I didn't recognize the impact this would have on the national party. And unlike almost everyone aside from Chris Cillizza, I do know now.

She built a Presidential campaign from scratch, chose a VP in two weeks, and pulled off one of the most successful Democratic convention in decades in under a month.

She crushed an opponent who has stood on more presidential debate stages than anyone in history. She energized… https://t.co/e3PQLrgkPQ

— Jaime Harrison (@harrisonjaime) September 24, 2025

I haven't read Cillizza's full response to Harrison's tweet, for which a subscription to the journalist's Substack is necessary. Nonetheless, one thing is clear: Cillizza believes Kamala Harris was a bad candidate and Jaime Harrison believes she was not, or at least pretends to believe that.

It's not that Harrison is wrong about everything. He's right about several things, ironically thereby proving Cillizza's theory and disproving his own.

The then-Vice President did "pull off" an extremely successful convention.  She "crushed an opponent"  in debate, "energized an electorate," and "raised a billion dollars in just 107 days."  Further, she was an extremely well-qualified candidate in that she possessed an excellent resume: top law enforcement official in a big city, top law enforcement officer in our largest state, a US Senator representing our largest state, and Vice-President of the USA.

Taken as a whole, that is extremely impressive. 

Nevertheless, those were elements of her campaign- the fund-raising: well-executed, exciting rallies; tremendous debate performance. None of those go to whom Kamala Harris is.

She did have only 107 days, as the title of her new, controversial memoirs,"107 Days," not so subtly remind us. Those were 15-16 weeks to persuade voters that they should not return to office an individual who had been defeated for re-election four years earlier by someone generally believed no longer to have the full capacity (whether cognitive or physical) to run the country for another four years. 

The former Senator was handed a gift. She did not have to run a gauntlet of primaries, in which she would have been tempted to take stands and make statements endearing her to a Democratic primary electorate but which would have been fodder for the opposing party in a general election.

Moreover, there is no assurance that Harris would have won the nomination if contested in that traditional manner. She entered the presidential race in 2019 and could not advance even to the first primary or convention. The Californian certainly tried hard enough, even winning plaudits from the political crowd for describing rival candidate Joe Biden as a racist without branding him as a "racist." Slick.

   

 

That strategic tour de force unsurprisingly brought a lot of money into her campaign coffers, though upon further review, we learned that she herself had expressed a similar view of mandatory school busing. It was a masterful performance by Harris, though eventually registered Democrats recognized who she was and she was done.

Done, but not finished. Persuaded by US Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, who was in Democratic House leadership and a friend of former Vice President Biden, to select a black woman as his running mate, the nominee selected Ms. Harris. Jill Biden was reportedly incensed by Harris' attack in debate upon her husband and therefore opposed her husband's decision, proving that sometimes, mother does  know best.

The vice presidential nominee had minimal or no effect upon the presidential race in 2020.  President Biden thereafter put her in charge of border policy, enabling critics to label her "czar." Her ineptitude and bad presidential policy- the latter probably a greater factor- led to a remarkable upsurge in illegal border crossings and requests there for asylum, which played a major role in November 2024. 

After Biden dropped out of that race, Harris became the default Democratic presidential nominee. She already was vice president, thus arguably heir apparent, and she is black. Yet, well before then, as of early September of 2023, there was talk about the possibility of the Biden-Harris ticket being challenged for the 2024 nomination. However, according to this little-noticed, yet extremely significant article from NBC News at the time, "longtime Democratic strategist" Karen Finney stated

When you had people who were trying to test the waters, the party rose up and made it clear to those individuals- who were mostly white men- that to disrespect the vice president would not be well received by women and people of color within the party. They got a little bit of a smack in the face.

The message was- and is- clear: that irrespective of any other factors, Kamala Harris had to be on the ticket for reasons (demographic) beyond her, or anyone's control. She was entitled to it, whether she would be an effective successor as President to Joe Biden, a net benefit in the campaign, or anything else.

Fortunately for her- vice president, after all- she was able to escape the scrutiny of the media, rival candidates, and others inevitable during a primary campaign. And even then, she may have lost. In the video below, a well-meaning Wisconsin reader maintains (at 2:40) "it was a very short amount of time for the Party to get its act together before the election and had President Biden decided not to run sooner, I think that Vice President Harris would have had a better chance." 

It (with her help) did get its act together, she was polling better than Trump, and then the voters got to know her better. So, no.

 

We cannot know how Kamala Harris would have fared in a primary race. However, we all saw her fail on ABC's The View, CBS' 60 Minutes, and with Dana Bash on CNN. She doesn't think well on her feet, an attribute common to many of us who don't run for public office.

That wasn't her campaign; that was her. She is weak in some formats, is substandard as a retail politician, and seems to feel entitled. A sense of entitlement is common in politicians but unlike most of them, Harris is unable to hide it.

Little of that seems to be pertinent to Jaime Harrison. Oh, but it is. In the last sentence of his response to Chris Cillizza, the ex-DNC chairman asks rhetorically "what the hell have you done to sit in judgement of our MVP?"

Besides being a citizen of the USA, in which the First Amendment still applies, Cillizza is a veteran journalist, and relatively objective one.  He is entitled (being entitled is not bad; having a sense of entitlement is) to his own opinion, an educated one, which often is right, less frequently, wrong. 

Harrison's question is bizarre for another reason: he refers to Harris as "our MVP."  "MVP" stands for Most Valuable Player. Say what you will about Harris, who would have been an infinitely better President than has Donald Trump. She lost an election, a winnable one, and that hardly qualifies her as an MVP for the Party which Jaime Harrison was appointed to strengthen. There is only one major political party which now supports freedom of speech, and that commitment may flourish a little more with him no longer its leader.

Share |