Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

The Gulf Of Trump

“Gulf of America” is hardly his first choice

“Look at the size of this. It’s massive,” said Trump.

Donald Trump refuses to rule out taking military or economic actions against a NATO ally (Denmark) to take control of Greenland or to annex the Sudetenland Panama Canal.

Republican strategist Kristen Soltis Anderson argues this morning that Trump is misunderstood (Raw Story):

“What Donald Trump is trying to argue is that there are many other conflicts around the world where it’s not in our interest to be involved,” said Republican strategist Kristen Soltis Anderson. “We’ve gotten too overextended, [Trump says] but this is in our interest. This is in our hemisphere, this is something that is important for us to do, and in a way, I think the reason why you see Donald Trump so animated about all of this is I think he views it as a really big real estate transaction. What does Donald Trump do? Big real estate transactions, branding – the Gulf of America. I mean, this is this is just Donald Trump taking the same playbook he’s been running for decades and now trying to apply it to the U.S. government yet again.”

C’mon, Gulf of America is hardly the first choice for the guy who gets a fee for slapping his name on buildings he doesn’t own. But I digress.

CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams agreed that Trump wasn’t fully serious about his imperialist ambitions, but he cautioned against dismissing his comments altogether.

“We were here four years ago where the former president, president-elect will make these claims that in many ways are kind of preposterous, but there’s an element of truth to them,” Williams said. “Like, yes, we technically could under the laws of the military annex another nation if we so chose. But here we are once again, assessing the seriousness of these kind of harebrained, almost schemes being cooked up by the former president. That could be the future of America, but it’s hard to know where we go from here.”

Watch the clip here

As everyone knows, Trump is obsessed with size. He famously assured voters his hands were not really small and indicated nothing about the size of his tool. Trump admires Russian President Vladmir Putin who is richer, smarter, more ruthless, and controls a much larger swath of territory than the U.S. president-elect.

Seriously? Trump desperately wants an invitation to the International Autocrats Club (Putin, Kim Jong Un, Viktor Orbán, et al.), that would never have a flaccid imbecile like him as a member. He imagines that grabbing a big hunk of land like Greenland would be his ticket to admission (plus his throwing millions out of the country and building concentration camps to hold them until he can). It’s a Charlie the Tuna move. Sorry, Donny.

MSNBC’s Alex Wagner on Tuesday recounts that one of Trump’s billionaire friends first floated the idea to Trump of “acquiring” Greenland. He was so obsessed with the idea, reported Peter Baker that “Greenland was one issue that absorbed the National Security Council staff for months.”

“Part of Trump’s fixation with buying Greenland,” Wagner said, “may have stemmed from his failure to understand how maps work.” Wagner provided graphics to explain the Mercator projection to the size-obsessed, idiot president-elect who wasn’t watching.

The Mercator projection distorts the size of land masses near the poles and makes them unrealistically large.
Greenland is not nearly as large as it looks on a flat map.

Trump once said, “I love maps. And I always said: ‘Look at the size of this. It’s massive. That should be part of the United States.’”

Little Donny pictures TRUMP plastered across Greenland being visible from outer space.

Go to timestamp 6:05.

Election Stealing In Broad Daylight

The GOP is just getting warmed up

The North Carolina Supreme Court Building in Raleigh. Photo by Indy beetle (CC0 1.0)

When Republicans win elections, they celebrate and move on. When they lose, they scream foul and launch lawsuits. And insurrections. Americans marked the fourth anniversary of the Trump insurrection on Monday. Donald Trump was impeached and indicted for trying to steal the presidential election he lost in 2020.

North Carolina Republicans now mean to steal 60,000 votes and an entire statewide election. In broad daylight. In court. For a Republican state Supreme Court candidate, a judge yet. Two recounts confirm that Jefferson Griffin lost his election to incumbent Associate Justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes. Griffin’s attorneys hired Republican political consulting firm Coldspark to identify potential votes for challenge.

Four people I know, friends, including the former local president of the NAACP, are among the 60,000 Democrats, Republicans and independents whose votes Judge Griffin wants vacated so he can sit on the state’s highest court. Griffin means to steal the election ecumenically.

Robert Orr, former associate justice on the state Supreme Court (a former Republican), told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Tuesday night that the NCGOP likely had this challenge teed up in advance “in case Trump lost North Carolina” by a narrow margin. They’re using that playbook to overturn Riggs’s election instead.

WUNC:

On Tuesday morning, the state board of elections appealed to the 4th Circuit, just a few hours after a federal district court judge granted Republican judicial candidate Jefferson Griffin’s motion to remand his election protest to the state Supreme Court.

The elections board’s federal appeal notwithstanding, the North Carolina Supreme Court’s conservative majority issued a temporary stay blocking the state elections board from certifying Griffin’s electoral loss to Democrat Allison Riggs, the incumbent justice he’s trying to unseat.

Lawyers for Griffin use language echoing Donald Trump’s complaints about his 2020 loss to Joe Biden, the very complaints he used to launch that the infamous insurrection. The GOP playbook is familiar, Rolling Stone noticed. Griffin held a sizable lead on Election Day but saw it evaporate after the counting of all absentee and provisional ballots. Fraud, clearly.

NC Newsline:

Most of the votes Griffin wants thrown out are those his campaign claims were cast by people who did not include a driver’s license or partial Social Security number on their voter registration applications.  People who did not include those numbers on their applications are not legally registered, Republican lawyers have argued. Many of those voters have been voting regularly for years. 

John Eastman-level skeevy

Griffin’s attorneys base their challenge on registration requirements added under the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) passed in 2002 (NC Newsline):

The state Board of Elections’ written order filed after it rejected Griffin’s protests says that just because driver’s license or partial Social Security numbers didn’t show up in the voter registration file doesn’t mean voters didn’t supply them.

A brief filed on behalf of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and individual voters emphasizes that point. Griffin’s target list is inaccurate, the brief says, because it fails to account for voters who did not have to supply the information or for data entry errors or database mismatches that resulted when women married and changed their last names. 

Anne Tindall, one of the lawyers with the Protect Democracy Project representing the League and individual voters, said in an interview last week that the women and non-white voters were overrepresented on the list of 225,000 people Republicans originally wanted purged from the rolls.  Those are voters who are more likely to have hyphenated names or names people misspell, she said. 

Those aren’t the only votes at risk. Also under threat are nearly 300 ballots from voters living overseas, Rolling Stone reports, “including members of the military, a category of voter known as UOCAVA, short for the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, a federal law.” These include voting-age citizens born to Americans living overseas (to parents from N.C.) but who’ve never actually lived in the state. Federal and state law provide for these Americans to vote in the state of their parents’ last residency. Republicans are challenging their votes as illegitimate anyway. 

This is John Eastman-level, skeevy lawyering. The California State Bar Court recommended Eastman’s disbarrment (his license has been suspended). His license to practice law in the District of Columbia is suspended. He still faces criminal charges in Georgia and Arizona.

How this case impacts you

The (more) insane part of this affair is that Griffin’s election challenge is based on HAVA, a federal law. Throwing the case back to the state Supreme Court makes zero sense. Unless you’re a Trump judge like U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, and U.S. District Judge Richard Myers II is. 

Secondly, if Republicans succeed in stealing Riggs’s seat based on HAVA, they will deploy the same tactic wherever and whenever they lose elections going forward. They may gut HAVA protections they dislike through congressional action, but will be sure to preserve provisions that allow them to steal elections (and your votes) the way Trump and Eastman attempted to with their fake electors scheme.

Griffin and his legal team are going to fight his election loss all the way to the Supreme Court, and they don’t care if it’s the state’s or SCOTUS. They’re both majority GOP.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals may yet step in and wrest back jurisdiction in this case. The N.C. Supreme Court acknowledged that in its stay order. But unlike Trump whose go-to gambit is delay, delay, delay, “because it concerns certification of an election,” they’re in a hurry to wrap up the steal by the end of January.

Every time someone ineligible casts a fraudulent ballot, Republicans insist, it “steals your vote.” Your vote. They make it personal. Under cover of that faux outrage they’ve launched a thousand efforts at vote suppression. Like this one. They’re coming for your vote next.

UPDATE: Perhaps feeling the heat, Republican justices on the state Supreme Court revised their previous order to include justice statements. What was a 5-1 opinion now stands at 4-2 with Republican Justice Richard Dietz joining Democrat Anita Earls in dissent.

In my view, the challenges raised in this petition strike at the very heart of our state’s Purcell principle. The petition is, in effect, post-election litigation that seeks to remove the legal right to vote from people who lawfully voted under the laws and regulations that existed during the voting process. The harm this type of post-election legal challenge could inflict on the integrity of our elections is precisely what the Purcell principle is designed to avoid.

Any issue Dietz may have with State Board rules in place long before the election, he writes, should have been litigated long before the election, not now. Voters bear no responsibility for that.

Permitting post-election litigation that seeks to rewrite our state’s election rules—and, as a result, remove the right to vote in an election from people who already lawfully voted under the existing rules—invites incredible mischief. It will lead to doubts about the finality of vote counts following an election, encourage novel legal challenges that greatly delay certification of the results, and fuel an already troubling decline in public faith in our elections. I therefore believe our state version of the Purcell principle precludes the relief sought in the petition and respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision not to deny it outright.

Also note that this Supreme Court contest is just one of hundreds held acrsoss the state (already certified), some of which were lost by Republicans by a mere handful of votes. What remedy could this GOP court order at this point if it permits the cancelling of any portion of the contested 60,000 votes?

Is There An Ellsberg In Our Midst?

Trump is fighting tooth and nail to keep Jack Smith’s report from being released to the public and you have to wonder why. He beat them all. He’s not going to be prosecuted. But as Bill Kristol points out, there is a good reason for him to want to keep it out of the public record:

Trump knows how crucial his rewriting of the history of January 6th was to his victory in November. If most Republicans had held to their original judgment of January 6th as a day of shame—if they had continued to believe that it was what Trump the very next day called a “heinous attack” that “defiled the seat of American democracy”—Trump would not have been the 2024 GOP nominee. If most Americans had thought January 6th not just an unfortunate event but a disqualifying disgrace, Trump wouldn’t have won the general election.

The whitewashing of January 6th was key to Trump’s political comeback.

And Trump has the sense—and I think he’s right about this—that he must make sure that January 6th stays whitewashed for the sake of his political success going forward.

Kristol goes on to note that the Southern segregationists of the mid-20th century understood very well that it would not be enough to defend their racist policies and that in order to maintain legitimacy they needed to defend their “nobility of the Southern effort in the “War Between the States,” the depredations of Reconstruction, and the historic legitimacy of states’ rights.”

Trump also must defend his traitorous behavior on January 6th and to do so he’ll demand that everyone around him are election deniers and that they will attack those who tried to hold him accountable. And as he says, plenty of otherwise “respectable” types may not extoll the virtues of January 6th, but they’ll find plenty of ways to make sure it’s minimized.

Sadly, as Kristol concludes, even if the report is released:

In a sense, the release now of Smith’s report will simply signify the failure of the effort, over the last four years, of accountability and truth-telling about January 6th. It will be the last gasp, for now, of a lost cause.

As I write this, the report is supposed to be released on Friday pending the decision by the 11th circuit which is reviewing the stay issued by none other than Trump’s judicial poodle Aileen Cannon. We’ll see.

If they decide to bury it, I just hope there’s a Daniel Ellsberg out there brave enough to leak it anyway. We just can’t survive as a nation if this total collapse of accountability continues. The record must at least be preserved and the only way to do that is to make it public.

Hezbollah Insurrectionists?

Is he ok? That’s really bizarre, even for him.

Rumors have been flying that Trump is only planning to pardon most of the insurrectionists not all of them and the J6 choir is very unhappy about it, assuming that they will be the ones left in jail since they are the violent criminals. I’ll bet he comes through for all of them, saying that all the prosecutions are political. He appreciates what they did for him.

Failed State?

https://twitter.com/cwebbonline/status/1876492017938878499

It’s a hellscape:

California likely will not have a budget deficit next year, but incoming President Donald Trump’s agenda portends an uncertain road ahead for California’s budget, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on Monday.

The budget outlook Newsom describes is a major turnaround from the $47 billion deficit last year and the $32 billion shortfall the year before. Newsom and the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which makes budget projections for the Legislature, both attribute the improvement to stock market gains by the state’s wealthiest taxpayers and cuts in previous years.

But, Newsom cautioned, the steep cuts to federal government spending that Trump has promised could darken the bright picture he painted of California’s economy. Newsom said the incoming president could impact California’s budget depending on how his trade, tariff and immigration policies play out. That happened last time Trump was in office, Newsom said.

“Even as we were working with the Trump administration, they were still assaulting our values and programs and hard-earned rights under the law,” Newsom said. “We should anticipate nothing less than that.”

His proposal would largely keep state spending consistent with what he and lawmakers agreed to last year, with some increases in a few areas. 

[…]

Most urgently, Newsom is seeking $25 million in additional funding for Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office to defend the state’s laws in court against expected efforts by Trump to erode them. He called lawmakers into a special legislative session to approve the funding shortly after Trump was elected. They intend to act on the proposal before Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

By the way, California gained population last year. Just saying.

The Corruption of Social Media

The Billionaires Compete for Dear Leader’s Favor

Yep:

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is making sweeping changes to the social internet, all in line with the desires of President-elect Donald Trump and his supporters. Out with the fact-checkers that conservatives deride. In with more permissive rules for posting conservative opinions.

The recent elections “feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech,” Zuckerberg said in his announcement, justifying relaxed new content moderation rules on Facebook, Instagram and Threads.

“Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more,” Zuckerberg said, repeating a right-wing talking point used to undermine fact checking.

Because Meta is such a dominant force in the industry, with billions of users on its platforms worldwide, the changes will resonate even more widely, reshaping whole swaths of the internet in MAGA-friendly ways

I can’t understand what these billionaires think they’ll accomplish with this destruction but it appears to me that they are just playing schoolyard games with each other, currying favor with Trump and trying to outcompete each other.

They even announced it on Fox and Friends:

Tuesday morning’s announcements seemed like they were addressed directly to Trump, especially since Meta first gave the news exclusively to “Fox & Friends,” one of the president-elect’s favorite TV shows.

The company’s newly promoted policy chief Joel Kaplan, a former senior adviser to George W. Bush, sat with the Fox co-hosts and fully agreed with the show’s “censorship” versus “freedom” framing. Kaplan’s appearance was the latest sign of Meta recalibrating in advance of Trump’s second term in office.

Trump and some key allies have been harshly critical of Zuckerberg and Facebook in the past. Trump once accused Zuckerberg of election interference and threatened to send him to prison for “the rest of his life.”

They all have business with the government and are also terrified of Trump and his henchmen.

This is the Orban/Putin model. I just can’t believe how obvious they’re being about it. But why not? If Trump has proved anything it’s that there are no consequences for total shamelessness. Who cares?

I gave up Facebook a long time ago and I will give up X too just as soon as Blue sky finally attains the scale I need to do my work (and allows me to embed and play videos on to the site.) Social media is about to make a major leap into the abyss and I’m not sure what happens now.

Is This A Bad Dream?

Aaaand:

More threats:

The average price of eggs in the US today is $3.02.

Social Media’s MAGA Makeover

Prepare to be gaslit

From Brian Stelter’s bold-heavy Reliable Sources newsletter this morning:

Mark Zuckerberg just announced sweeping changes to the social internet, all in line with the desires of President Trump and Trump voters. 

Out with the fact-checkers that conservatives deride. In with more permissive rules for posting opinions that conservatives hold dear. 

The recent elections “feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech,” Zuckerberg said in a video that was shared first with Fox News. 

That’s one of the reasons why Zuckerberg said big changes are coming to Facebook, Instagram and Threads. Because Meta is such a dominant force in the industry, the changes will resonate even more widely, reshaping whole swaths of the internet in MAGA-friendly ways. 

Among the announcements:  

>> Meta will “get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse.” He didn’t elaborate.  

>> “Fact-checkers have just been too politically biased, and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S.,” Zuckerberg asserted, so Facebook is cutting ties with third-party fact-checkers and moving toward an X-style community notes system.  

>> “We’re bringing back civic content,” Zuckerberg said. “For a while the community asked to see less politics because it was making people stressed, so we stopped recommending these posts. But it feels like we’re in a new era now, and we’re starting to get feedback that people want to see this content again.” 

Overall, CNN’s Clare Duffy writes, the moderation changes are “a stunning reversal in how Meta handles false and misleading claims on its platforms.” Meta’s framing – in its PR blog post – is “More Speech and Fewer Mistakes.” An alternate title could be “More Lies and More Confusion.”

There’s a strong Ministry of Truth vibe here.

Stelter notes that with Zuckerberg giving the exclusive to “Fox & Friends,” perhaps this move is an attempt to derail Trump’s threat to send Meta’s founder to prison for “the rest of his life.” 

Meta’s policy chief, Joel Kaplan, tells F&F, that eliminating fact checkers “is a great opportunity for us to reset the balance in favor of free expression,” and make their platforms places where lies, smears, and propaganda may flourish, he did not add. “[W]hat we’re doing is we’re getting back to our roots and free expression.”

[Checking on my supply of Tums.]

Stelter continues:

I am struck by a commonality between Zuckerberg and Elon Musk‘s recent announcements: 

Zuck said “civic content,” i.e. political news, will be more prominently featured going forward, and Meta will work “to keep the communities friendly and positive.” 

Musk said last week that X’s algorithm will be tweaked “to promote more informational/entertaining content,” citing “too much negativity” that hurts the user experience. 

The X change seems like an appeal to advertisers, since sponsors don’t want ads next to conspiracy theories and hate speech. But consider the timing: Musk is pushing his “new ‘everything is awesome’ algo tweak just in time for the new administration. To reduce ‘negativity.’ Fascinating,” TPM publisher Josh Marshall remarked. And Zuckerberg wants more politics back in peoples’ feeds – but he wants to keep it “friendly and positive…”

Meantime, my follower count on Bluesky continues to mount.

Chutzpah, Thy Name Is Trump

Oh, that’s rich

The leaders of the incoming Republican administration share the same first and middle intials, just in reversed order: D.J. Trump and J.D. Vance. I’m trying to decide if they stand for Delayed Justice or Justice Denied.

On the delay and deny front, Juan M. Merchan, the New York trial judge overseeing Donald Trump’s “hush-money payment to a porn star” trial, denied a Monday request by Trump’s lawyers to delay his Friday sentencing, reports The New York Times:

Although Mr. Trump’s lawyers had implored the judge to postpone the sentencing, Justice Merchan dismissed their claims as “a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past.”

Mr. Trump is now poised to escalate his effort, court filings show, turning to a New York appeals court in hopes that it will intervene in his case.

Late Monday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers filed a civil proceeding against Justice Merchan before the appeals court, challenging two of the judge’s recent decisions to uphold Mr. Trump’s conviction. Mr. Trump’s lawyers will argue to the appeals court that Mr. Trump is immune from criminal prosecution now that he is the president-elect.

The flurry of filings demonstrates the great lengths to which Mr. Trump will go to avoid his sentencing.

It is premature, of course, but bookmark that last sentence as a nominee for understatement of the year. Trump will go to any length to avoid accountability for his misdeeds. He’s made a second career of it.

With a change of administrations pending, Trump’s attorneys argue that Attorney General Merrick Garland should not release to the public special counsel Jack Smith’s draft report on his two investigations into Trump.

One investigation examines Trump’s alleged theft of classified documents and another his alleged participation in trying to overhrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. Department of Justice regulations dictate that “special counsels must submit reports explaining their legal decisions at the conclusion of an investigation,” The Washington Post reports. Garland has said he would release (with necessary redactions) any reports that reach is desk.

This is rich:

But Trump’s lawyers say releasing the two-volume report days before their client is again sworn in as president would be disruptive for his transition, according to a letter to Garland included in a motion filed in Florida federal court Monday evening.

“Releasing Smith’s report is obviously not in the public interest — particularly in light of President Trump’s commanding victory in the election and the sensitive nature of the ongoing transition process,” Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro said in the letter.

Donald Trump — yes, that Donald Trump — on the anniversay of the Jan. 6 insurrection is concerned about actions that would be disruptive to the “sensitive” presidential transition process. Trump’s “commanding victory” hung on a handful of votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump’s lawyers have made a similar argument in their currently unsuccessful attempt to cancel the president-elect’s sentencing this Friday in his separate New York state criminal conviction for falsifying documents related to a hush money payment before the 2016 election.

May their tongues cling to the roof of their mouths.