"When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather: for the sky is red,' and in the morning, 'It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowring.' -- Matthew 16:2




We knew this was coming. Some, hoping for the immediate, quoted Morrison: "We want the world and we want it now!" Others, perhaps the older community members, advocated patience. We knew that if one got on the Lincoln Highway in New York City and headed west, it was merely a matter of time until one reached San Francisco.

The question was not "if," but "when?" When will a prosecutor ask a judge to tell the defendent to shut his mouth? To quit stirring the pot, attempting to derail the justice system by inserting lies to bring about violence?

When the defendent left an orange skid mark on the social fabric by announcing his third run for the presidency, we knew it was for only two reasons: to pardon himself, and to punish those who he identifies as "enemies." There was no mystery there. It doesn't rank as an epiphany.

His entire "campaign" has been one of rage and self-pity. He targets the legal system and everyone who has been part of the effort to hold him responsible for his numerous crimes. His legal team admits as much by claiming this is a Amendment 1 issue and that Mr. Smith is attempting to silence his presidential campaign.

The growing tensions signal a red sky for media magpies to begin to search a steaming cow pie for glittering objects. Kristen Welker pecks away gently at the bloated orange turd, hoping for a sound byte equivalent to Cosell's "Down goes Frazier!" But that would require serious questioning, and magpies are not noted for being serious.

Jack Smith is serious. The criminal charges against the defendent are serious. The judge considering putting a tailored gag order on the defendent is also a serious person. And the defendent poses a serious threat against everything good this country stands for.

Malaise pointed out that the defendent broke on the issue of abortion today. You and I know that this was something others prepared him to say, as he has no actual opinion or beliefs on this. He merely seeks to capitalize on it. If he thought he could benefit from making abortions mandatory for pregnant non-white women, he'd do it in a second. Full term.

When off script -- which is most of the time, especially when asked a serious question -- his deformed inner- Roy Cohn breaks through. And that is exactly what we will see if the judge attemps to put the tailored gag over his foul mouth. He will attempt to strike back harder. And then the fun begins.

I'd like to take a moment to talk about three things I've been thinking about. The first of these has to do with the sad news that Cha shared with us on Sunday, about the unexpected death of community member "Me." Back about 19 years ago, Me, Saoirse9, and I became pretty close friends on DU's "Plame Threads." It turned out that Me and I had more in common than being internet buddies.

Me liked hearing stories about my four children. There was one she found particularly hilarious. One day, my younger son -- in his early teens -- called out to me, "Yo, Dog!" I explained that was not the nature of our relationship, and he agreed. Seconds later, I heard him say, "Yo, Pup!" Me said it was indeed a measure of my son and my relationship.

Next, I'd like to comment on the defendent's claim of being 6' 3" and 215 pounds. Below is a film of a 6' 3", 213 pound heavyweight champion. Were the defendent not a sociopath, he would experience shame in claiming to be in the same physical shape as the Champ. Indeed, his pathetic lie provides evidence of how his brain avoids shame.



Call it speculation on my part, but anyone reading this who watched the film has thought of a substitute for Cleveland "Big Cat" Williams in the above clip.

Now to the defendent in 2024. I suspect that even if by some miracle the USSC ruled he was ineligible to be president -- "Miracles do happen, they just take a doggone lot of work" (Rubin Carter; Washington, DC; Jily 4, 1976) -- the republican party will nominate him to be their candidate. And, of course, President Biden is our candidate. In theory, having the defendent as their candidate puts us in a position to wipe the mat down-vallot.

But we can't be overconfident. It will take a "doggone lot of work." And as Rubin used to remind me, the best defense is a hell of an offense. I think it is important to consider how grass roots citizens can help focus on the enemy. I almost wrote "the opposition," but they are the ignorant, unconscious enemy. These issues are important for us to be considering now, and an essential one.

The need to crush them was illustrated in an OP/thread a couple days ago (It was locked as in the wrong forum, and really should have been in GD, because it is an important reminder:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3122325

As noted in the comments, "conservative" is not accurate. They are radicals. People my age recognize that today's republicans make 1964's Barry Goldwater look like a stable thinker. It has the synergy of the white nationalists and rabid-right christian sects -- and there is a heck of a lot of overlap in their ideologies. Their interpretation of the Constitution is cloned from their total misunderstanding of the message of the bible. They are the kids you couldn't stand since grade school, and they still insist on telling you how to live your life.

2024 offers us a unique opportunity to crush them. If we only beat them, this cancerous growth will continue to grow. Thus, we should spend some time considering the issue of the post-2024 succession. I'm not referencing two of the "big three" theories (social learning or succession planning), which apply as much to the corporate world as the political. Even the third, transformational leadership, has to be viewed in a certain context. However, it is important to recognize its focus on empowering its members and thus changing institutions.

We have to recognize the three primary types of "leadership" in groups of human beings: traditional ("our ancestors fif it this way", bureaucratic (static methods of operation within a large population, usually from the top levels down), and charismatic (a person with what followers consider unique appeal and ability). Charismatic leaders tend to be shooting stars that are replaced by their follower(s) with bureaucratic talents.

Like others here, it makes me gag to refer to the defendent as "charismatic." But he is in the sense that many sociopaths are. Add the money required to live his previous lifestyle, along with his calls to the darker impulses of a segment of society, and he ended up president. Enduring this era has made it seem unending, but the truth is that his time in politics ends next year. It wasn't that long on the larger sense. But if we do not completely crush the republican party that both created him and he in turn created -- Locard's exchange principle from 200 years ago --it transforms.

I've been watching some film of this fellow Ramaswamy, and consider him a (if not "the" type of "leader" that will lead the attack on democracy. If we do not crush the republicans in 2024, it is likely we will be dealing with him in 2026 and '28.

ESPN+ starting at 5 pm/est

(1) Title fight: Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois, 12 rounds, for Usyk's WBO, IBF and WBA heavyweight titles

(2) Jared Anderson vs. Andriy Rudenko, 10 rounds, heavyweights


Two interesting heavyweight bouts on ESPN+ today. There could be a surprise, however unlikely.

" Bullfight critics ranked in rows
Crowd the enormous Plaza full;
But he's the only one who knows—
And he's the man who fights the bull."
-- Domingo Ortega


Because we are not part of any of the four court cases, we are not constrained by the rules that we would have to follow were we jurors. We can ignore "innocent until proven guilty" bit, and say the defendent is guilty as sin on every charge. More, we are free to talk with each other about the cases, a pleasure the jurors will not enjoy until they are placed in a room to decide either guilty or not guilty.

I'm curious how people are "scoring" the on-going events, both inside and outside the various courtrooms. As those familiar with me on this forum know, I'm convinced that all of life imitates the great sport of boxing -- thus, in my simple mind, I make use of a similar scoring system. It can be summed up by an old saying judges consider after each round: who would you rather be?

In the two federal cases, I view it like Smith vs the defendent. After each and every round in the court, I will speculate that everyone here recognizes that Smith is the matador. I hesitate to refer to the defendent as the bull. Again, just my opinion, but I think Smith has castrated the defendent .... not that an angry steer doesn't pose dangers when being brought to be butchered.

Outside of court, I've found Smith's two brief statements most impressive. The defendent is behaving exactly as anticipated. Nothing one of the two has said or done outside of a court hearing presents a risk to him or his case. The other continues to gore himself, almost daily.

In the two state cases, it is obvious that the defendent recognizes that it wouldn't matter if he were the republican nominee, or somehow elected after being convicted. He couldn't attempt to pardon himself. And in the Georgia case in particular, a conviction will result in incarceration. I'll add that I have a very high opinion of the prosecutors in both of those case.

A couple of weeks ago, one of my best friends questioned my saying that we are witnessing the melt-down of the sociopathic defendent. She said she is not seeing it. I take full responsibility for this, because I failed to frame it in the context of boxing, or even bull-fighting. It is rare to see a one-punch knockout in boxing. It happens, but it is more common to wear an opponent out, and batter him into submission. Likewise, a matador doesn't kill the bull as quickly as happens in a slaughter house.

A sociopath's melt-down also takes time. As the pressure increases, the defendent becomes more desperate. Prosecutors know that we are no longer in the golden age of the mafia, where anti-social personality disordered mobsters stuck to the criminal code of honor. Facing a few years in prison was part of their job. Today we have weak men and women surrounding the defendent. There is no question in the defendent's shallow minds that some of those surrounding him have "betrayed" him.

Likewise, the matadors know that the lawyers for the co-defendents are quoting Dylan's Napolean in rags, asking, "Do you want to make a deal?" The defendent, being increasingly paranoid, knows this, too. These are the accumulating blows that wear the defendent down and tire him out. Thus, we see him spinning out of control, in the dance of a slow-motion melt-down. He will continue to be incapable of goring himself outside of the court, as the trials draw nearer.

Des·per·a·tion
noun
a state of despair, typically one which results in rash or extreme behavior.


There are a couple OPs on LBN and GD regarding the defendent's "truth social"post that involves threats against his "enemies list." This came after an anguishing few days for the ex-president. This includes the ghost of the former Mike Pence haunting him.

People may think Pence has been ingesting steroids, as he has made a few luke-warm statements about his role in the new federal case. I've joked on this forum about Pence's absolute lack if charisma. I've compared his ability to stand out among republicans to Yoko Ono's artwork, a glass of milk in a snow drift during a blizzard. But this is the beginning of our seeing the old Mike Pence.

I do credit him for not meeting the defendent's demand on January 6. I also remember him from 1988, after his first election loss, becoming a radio show host. He did so until 1999, when he began his next political campaign. At the time, he was a real Rush Limbaugh-sassy type of guy. He was actually popular with the early tea party about eight years after that. His popularity was rooted in his views of the Constitution and compulsive need to judge others by his rigid belief system.

Pence is an opportunist. And he knows that he has been exposed as perhaps the #1 witness against the defendent. This is a moment he has known would come. He will attempt to boost his campaign from Yoko's art to the relatively impotent republican leadership in exhile, as well to appeal to the pre-maga tea partiers (if any exist). Trump is aware of this.

I told a couple friend on Thursday that the defendent would soon attack Pence. One asked me when I thought this would happen? I said there was no way he could go through the weekend without splattering threats and insults on his truth social bit. The defendent thinks that Pence has joined Jack Smith's team, and he feels betrayed.

Thus, before the weekend officially started, the defendent's "if you come for me, I'll come after you" post. It isn't specific to Pence, of course. But it is as bad as his lawyer going on television to say that the defendent merely picked Option D for breaking the law. It's not just that Jack Smith has already reported the threat to the judge. It's that the judge isn't going to allow the defendent to violate the court's restrictions.

We will see tighter reins placed on the defendent. Yet, because he does fear and despair by venting anger and threats, he will become increasingly desperate. The self-defeating melt-down will increase in pace.

"Greg Jacob, Vice President Mike Pence’s counsel, recounted a White House meeting on Jan. 4, 2021, in which Eastman said told Trump that his plan to thwart the counting of the Electoral College violated federal statute. ......

"The panel also showed written evidence that Eastman knew he was pushing a fallacious argument. Rep. Pete Aguilar, the California Democrat who led the hearing Thursday, showed an earlier Eastman memo that recognized that the vice president didn’t have the unilateral authority to reject electors: “Nowhere does it suggest that the President of the Senate gets to make the determination on his own,” Eastman wrote.

"In another bombshell from the hearing, the committee showed a Jan. 11, 2021, email from Eastman requesting a pardon from Trump for his role in the attempts to stop the transfer of power to Biden.

“ 'I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works,' Eastman wrote to Trump’s personal attorney and confidant Rudy Guiliani, according to an email obtained by the Jan. 6 committee. Aguilar said Eastman did not get one. Trump publicly announced 143 pardons on the last night of his presidency. Eastman was not among them."

-- https://time.com/6188491/john-eastman-jan-6-testimony-trump/


I want to say from the giddy-up that I am not a "fan" of either CNN or Maggie Haberman. But that does not mean that I think neither has any value. Let's look at one example from last night:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/08/02/donald-trump-mood-indictment-2020-election-overturn-special-counsel-investigation-maggie-haberman-sot-src-vpx.cnn

"Rattled" is accurate. "Furious" also fits. We know that, true to his nature as a sociopath, the defendent always seeks to blame others. As a paranoid creature, he becomes increasingly suspicious when learning, for example, that all of the witnesses listed in yesterday's indictments are republicans associated with him. He views this as betrayal.

Next, consider that the defendnt's legal team had assured him for moths that Jack Smith's J6 investigation would result in something similar to the Mueller Report, but not criminal charges against him. Now they are telling him that his best bet is to present an Amendment 1 defense, and appeal his conviction to the US Supreme Court, if need be.

That does not sit well with the defendent at this time. For he is suspicious of the federal judges that he apppointed as they, too, have betrayed him on the election cases his team brought to court. This includes his distrust of the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that the defendent has a shallow grasp of the balance of power in the federal system, at best.

Jack Smith made clear that this is not about what the defendent said, it was about what he did to advance his lies in a criminal conspiracy. It is a stretch to claim he was going on the advice of a respected constitutional scholar when that very fellow told him the plan was not legal.

The defendent is floundering in the deep dark waters of his mind. It is not to be mistaken for "the hero's journey," the common template of mythology, and perhaps best explained ny Joseph Campbell. No, this is an old man in the sea of his own making, fearing a shark, about to go under.

This trial will almost certainly take place before the scheduled May date for the stolen documents, for there does not appear to be any classified materials. The claim that he was following lawyers' advice is weak for three reasons. The lawyers you listened to are currently unindicted co-conspirators. More, that claim would allow the DoJ access to their communications ...... though it appearsthey have some. And third, this includes John Eastman's saying the fake electors plan might not be legal.

It is likely that most, if not all, of the unindicted co-conspirators will be indicted fairly soon. There is the possibility that one or more of these may have been given a pardon by the defendent in the final days of his presidency. If so, that would be a delighful thing to bring out in the defendent's trial. Keep in mind that it woul preclude an unindicted conspirator from claiming the 5th.

If several (or all) are indicted, they will look to protect their own individual behinds. It will be interesting to see how many, if any, accept legal representation paid for with a promise from the defendent. Reports suggest legal fees from the other cases have draine financial resources from the defendent's PAC. The defendent and co-conspirators in Florida have not had an easy time finding adequate representation.

Would even Sidney Powell think that a defendent sponsired lawyer would have her best interests at heart? Would any independent law firm willing to represent these people say that they should stick with the ex-president? Point fingers at one another? Be confident that Jack Smith is bringing a weak case that they can easily win? Or might they be more likely to recommend being the first one on the chopping block to try to make a dea?

Only time will tell.

“You remember Huston’s plan? Implement it,” Nixon said. “I want it implemented on a thievery basis. Goddamn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”
Richard Nixon in June 1971; from Newsweek/ Wasington Post transcript in 1997.


The above quote isn't about Watergate. It is about the Brookings Institution. Nixon, as folks of my generation recall, was worried that Brookings had documentation oh his illegal attempts to sabotage LBJ's efforts to engage in "peace talks" in Vietnam. Nixon wanted Brookings firebombed, allowing people dressed as firemen to enter and blast open the safe to steal the documents. Within months, of course, Nixon replaced firemen with plumbers to make a series of break-ins lnown collectively as Watergate.

There have been numerous comparisons between Nicon's tactics and those if the defendent in the last week. There are many obvious similarities in their behaviors. Both had connections with organized crime long before becoming president. It is interesting to note that documents that became public in more recent years suggest that Nixon believed that a file which Castro sent documenting Dick's connections with the CIA-organized crime attacks on Cuba to Teddy Kennedy. Hence, he thought they were housed at Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate building.

The "plumbers," of course, included fellows who had been involved in attempts to destabilize the Cuban government. The recent HBO series reportedly did not make some of the characters as serious as they actually were -- admittedly, I did not see it. But most were capable, dangerous individuals. The defendent has been charged with hiring what politely could be called a lower class of criminals ...... rather than firemen and plumbers, he had techno-janitors hoping to erase recordings of his crimes.

Other than the quality of criminals, though, the modes of operation are much the same. Now, unlike the defendent, I do not think Nixon was a sociopath. Dick had numerous features from the Cluster B personality disorders, including obviously anti-social ones. For this reason, the two resorted to similat behaviors under pressure. In the legal system, prosecutors do not need to prove "motive," only document "how" crimes were done. Yet a prosecutor who proves motive -- the "why" -- generally makes for a stronger case.

As noted, there is documentation available now that tends to show why Nixon was afvocating a series of crimes that fit the infamous "Huston Plan." If he could have accomplished the same goals legally, he would have. But by their nature, they required crimes. I do not believe the same holds true with the defendent, though I recognize others may disagree. Thus, I think it may be useful to do something akin to a forensic MRI of the decaying grayish-orange matter between the defendent's ears.

By his very nature, the defendent prefers to lie and commit crimes, much more than he likes telling the truth or doing things the legal way. He delights in thinking he has fooled people -- and we see that he has fooled millions of citizens. Add to this that he was schooled by a disgraced mob lawyer, resulting to the defendent behaving much in the manner of a mob boss. But we know this, don't we? My saying it adds nothing new.

What I think is important in understanding the "why" is what a person is afraid of. Nixon obviously feared an accurate history of his connections and activities keeping him from being re-elected. Then he feared getting caught. As odd of a human as Dick was, his fears can be understood, though not his actions.

Now, in ways, this fits the defendent, as well. He fears being caught now, far more than he did when facing legal cases before he was president. Obviously, he considers the White House to be his only "safe space." But in order to return to the safety of the past, as Carlos learned in "Journey to Ixtlan," one most face their greatest fears and insecurities.

I note that we know the defendent has a phobia when it comes to sharks. He gets uncomfortable seeing them on a television screen, although there is absolutely zero chance he will encounter one. What is it that the defendent finds so unsettling about sharls? I will speculate it is their eyes. Interestingly, I've had a few associates say that Jack Smith has that exact same look in his eyes when he is focused on a target.

Severe pressures caused Nixon to get sick during much of his career. That's normal. But Watergate caused him to isolate, to drink heavily, and have episodes of striking out at "enemies" from a safe distance. On the other hand, the defendent attempts to be in public around supporters. He lies with even more intensity than usual, striking out verbally against his "enemies." He will continue to have melt-downs in public -- the type defense lawyers dislike. His goal is to regain the White House, institute authoritarian rule, and create an updated version of "the Troubles" in this country.

Thus, we all must think seriously about both the "why" and the "how" of how we will behave between now and election day.

Water Thanks
-- Joseph Bruchac

The drop of water
hangs from the faucet
pu;sing, the heart
of the well still beating.
I never drink water
Harold Elm told me
even from the sink
without saying
a prayer of thanks.
The drop of water
trembles, holding
the faces of all the worlds.


I had just finished an outline for an upcoming presentation, when I checked my computer for messages. An old friend had asked when I'd be posting another essay here, so blame her for this. For I had finished the outline by noting the message of Handsome Lake in 1798. I will get to that shortly.

I've been thinking about water lately. Also soil and what grows in it, as well as air. But a bit more on water. More, I've read a number of OP/threads regarding the environment on this forum in recent weeks. So I thought I'd write a few ideas about water, based largely upon my having served as Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman's top aide for decades.

Scientists agree that all life on earth came from the great oceans long, long ago. Note that I am not including those who are invested in "creationism/ intelligent design," but am focusing on real scientists. It all started in water.

Thus, when scientists look for potential evidence of life on distant planets, they look to see if there might have been water on them. This is not a coincidence. It is science.

Life on earth depends upon some degree of contact with water. For most life forms that ave evolved on this living planet including human beings, water is necessary on a frequent basis. All fresh water has living beings in it, and all being on land require contact with water.

The only water that does not contain life is that which has been polluted with toxic industrial wastes. Life that comes in contact with this polluted water will become sick and die. In the case of human beings, science has documented that the damage from such poisons can affect the next generation.

This is because the toxins that humans pour into water flow downstream and continue to do harm. This is in both the context of geography and time.

I will end this with the story of an Iroquois man named Handsome Lake. (His brother Corn Planter may be better known to those who have studied the "border wars" of the Revolutionary War.) Handsome Lake was a drunk, the type of man you would cross the street to avoid. In 1798, he drank himself into a coma.

After three days, his daughters believed he was dead, and they dressed him for burial. But he came to, and would tell of a journey into the future that four spirit entities took him on. They showed him that human beings would severely damage the environment, and that people would suffer. This included a vision of the destruction of soil, and the poisoning of the air.

However, for this essay, I will focus on his saying that, due to human activity, water would heat up, become oily, and unfit for human consumption. I remember when Bill Moyers was interviewing Onondaga Faith Keeper Oren Lyons at Oren's cabin, and Oren told him about the Code of Handsome Lake. How did he know this in 1798, Oren asked?

I remember when my boys were little, sitting in that same cabin. Oren said that while this vision of environmental devastation would come to be, it was up to every generation to act in a manner that said "not on my turn." I would often visit Handsome Lake's grave, and be determined to do all Icould. Today, as an old man, I think of thee things, and look at my children and my grandson. Surely my generation has failed them. I understand why young people say we need to try something far beyond what my generation accomplished.

"Kill the pig. Cut her throat. Spill her blood."
-- William Golding; Lord of the Flies; 1954; chapter 4, page 58.


I had a novel idea while watching the morning news. Imagine, if you will, a shipload of mainly republicans being stranded on an island. Recognizing that the opportunity exists for them to create a self-government based upon a mutated form of christian nationalism that worships the bloated pre-corpse of a sociopathis swine, they seek to inflict their fears and hatreds upon all inhabitants of the island.

Leadership is based upon three things: who has the biggest mouth, who tells the biggest lies, and who has a tiny, mushroom-shaped penis. The last qualification is required for leadership among this tribe of women-hating males, although their ranks will accept applications from women-hating women.

This is the classic setting for "crowd psychology" versus individuality with a twist of crowd psychopathy. The struggle between emotional urges and rational thinking. Immoral group passions versus individual morality. Scenes of sacrificing massive quantities of McDonald's french fries -- let's call them "freedom fries" -- to the orange blob. Heinz ketchup dripping from the walls.

I haven't gotten to where adults, led by Jack Smith, arrive to give these boys a damned good spanking. But I'm working on it. I'm thinking that the best outcome would be if the good people of the United States stand up and "kill" the maga swine in the 2024 election. Indeed, the 2024 election will not be a Hollyweird flick based upon my novel. It is real life, not reel life. We are facing a threat to our democracy that is more dangerous than any we have faced inhistory. And we have the opportunity to crush it. Let's roll.