Last month, an incredible report emerged about the lengths that failed-gubernatorial-candidate-slash-rabid-election-denier Kari Lake was going to in her quest to become Donald Trump’s 2024 vice presidential pick. Lake, sources told People, “spent a significant portion of her time at Mar-a-Lago during its open season,” so much so that she was apparently at the Florida resort “more than Melania Trump,” a.k.a. Trump’s wife. “Kari Lake is there all the time,” a person familiar with the matter told the outlet. “There’s a suite there that she practically lives in.” Yet, unfortunately for the VP hopeful, practically becoming roommates with Trump does not appear to be helping her chances. In fact, according to a new report, it’s quite the opposite.
Trump has apparently grown “less enthusiastic about Lake,” the Daily Beast revealed on Thursday. Why? According to people familiar with the former guy’s thinking, she’s a “spotlight hound” who is always striving for attention. (Sound like any ex-presidents you know??) And while her unflagging loyalty to Trump is obviously viewed as a positive, the 45th POTUS reportedly doesn’t like Lake “running around saying she should be VP.” Said another source close to Team Trump: “I think she is an effective surrogate, but I’m not sure she will be a VP pick. But who knows?”
I doubt even Trump is that stupid. Come on. Why would he do that when he could pick Kristi Noem who actually won the governorship of her state and is more his “style” anyway, if you know what I mean?
I think this creeps me out more than anything I’ve seen in recent days. A Hollywood desperate to make money at the dying box office is sure to see this and decide that we need more of it:
Type the words “sound of freedom” into Twitter (decent people who wish to live good, happy lives should under no circumstances actually do this) and the search will yield dozens of triumphant reports crowing about the improbable victory of a film by that title over the likes of Indiana Jones at the box office this week.
That’s not, strictly speaking, accurate – Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny had already been out for five days, the first three of which out-earned Sound of Freedom’s opening-day take, when the new independent thriller came to theaters on Tuesday. But for a fleeting moment this past Fourth of July, while the intended audience of Indy’s latest outing was presumably spending time with their families and friends at barbecues or in other social situations, an unoccupied fandom rallied by the star Jim Caviezel claimed the day with a $14.2m gross versus Dial of Destiny’s $11.7m. No matter that these figures require selective, almost willfully misleading framing to allow for the David-and-Goliath narrative trumpeted by supporters; as the copious tweets accusing Disney of being in cahoots with a global cabal of high-power pedophiles make clear, the truth doesn’t have too much purchase around these parts.
However one chooses to slice it, Sound of Freedom has over-delivered on expectations in dollars and cents, a feat of profitability uncommon for a comparatively low-budget production without a major Hollywood-led promotional campaign. Judging by the robust round of applause that concluded the fully-seated screening I attended on Wednesday evening – and this, in the liberal Sodom of Manhattan! – it would seem that the folks at the two-year-old Angel Studios have tapped into a substantial and eagerly marshaled viewership.
Following that money leads back to a more unsavory network of astroturfed boosterism among the far-right fringe, a constellation of paranoids now attempting to spin a cause célèbre out of a movie with vaguely simpatico leanings. The uninitiated may not pick up on the red-yarn-and-corkboard subtext pinned onto a mostly straightforward extraction mission in South America, pretty much Taken with a faint whiff of something noxious in the air. Those tuned in to the eardrum-perforating frequency of QAnon, however, have heeded a clarion call that leads right to the multiplex.
Caviezel stars as special agent Tim Ballard, a Homeland Security Investigations operative who really did work for the state busting up child-trafficking rings for more a decade. (Or so he claims – the DHS can neither confirm nor deny the real Ballard’s employment history.) Even if he did not literally have the face of Christ, Ballard would still exude an angelic aura as he gently hoists dirty-faced moppets out of peril with the gravely uttered catchphrase: “God’s children are not for sale.”
In Sound of Freedom, he leads a unit to Colombia and eventually goes rogue on his single-minded quest to locate and liberate the still-missing sister of a boy he managed to save from sex slavery. The defenseless siblings are drawn into the nefarious clutches of their abductors in the stomach-turning opening sequence, which clinically walks us through the steps by which a glamorous and implicitly trustworthy woman poses as a modeling scout to round up the most apple-cheeked prospects and separate them from their parents. In a montage that plays like a JonBenét Ramsey fancam, she stokes our horror by primping the youngsters with red lipstick and suggestively mussed-up hair.
And yet a coating of plausible deniability covers a film that takes care to be the most anodyne version of itself, all while giving those in the know just enough to latch onto. The traffickers are anonymous foreigners, mentioned as “rebels” in an unspecified regional conflict with no connection to the alleged Clinton Crime Family, though a title card at the end points back to America as a hub for the “$150bn business” of exploitation. The religious dimension seldom extends beyond a god-fearing undertone, most perceptible in archetypes like the reformed sinner on the righteous path. (Character actor supreme Bill Camp classes up the joint as “Vampiro”, a former narco who gave up his profligate lifestyle after fornicating with a 14-year-old while in a cocaine haze.) The trafficking follows no motivation more elaborate than the servicing of rich predators, eliding all talk of body-part black markets and the precious organic biochemical of adrenochrome harvested as a Satanic key to eternal life. The first rule of QAnon: you don’t talk about QAnon where the normals can hear you.
Caviezel has saved that for his promotional media appearances, such as a recent drop-in to Steve Bannon’s show War Room on MyPillow proprietor Mike Lindell’s streaming channel Lindell TV. In the course of their interview, he conveyed the severity of the situation by explaining that an enterprising salesperson would have to move 1,000 barrels of oil to match the sum they’d get for filling one barrel with the rendered corpses of the innocent. Elsewhere, he’s parroted falsehoods about Pizzagate and other underground cells subsisting on human blood, all of it pointing back to a foundation of conspiratorial thought targeting the Jewish and transgender communities.
These zestier strains of scaremongering are absent in the text itself, but they lurk in the shadows around a film outwardly non-insane enough to lure in the persuadable; the disappointingly un-juicy Sound of Freedom pretends to be a real movie, like a “pregnancy crisis center” masquerading as a bona fide health clinic. (Our hero Ballard, by the way, went on to found the paramilitary rescue squad Operation Underground Railroad, a group criticized as “arrogant, unethical, and illegal” by the authorities. But then, they would say that. They’re in on it, this goes all the way to the top, etc.)
Those hoping for a few detached laughs at the deep-dish delusion sneaking onto the mainstream radar will be bored by the straight face donned for the duration of the run time – until, that is, a small counter in the corner of the credit roll warns of a “Special Message” in two minutes. Having dropped his character, Caviezel himself appears to say that though we might be feeling frightened or saddened, he’d like everyone to leave with a message of hope for the future. Directly after establishing that he’s not the center of attention here, he betrays an evident messianic complex by announcing that his movie could very well be the most important ever made, going so far as to compare it to Uncle Tom’s Cabin in its campaign to shine a light on 21st-century slavery. This is all for the children, we’re told, but they can’t do much to save themselves, can they?
For the first time, a self-serving foundation peeks through the cracks of noble service, the lone honest beat in a purported exposé of scandalizing facts. All of a sudden, this snare of wild-eyed falsehoods starts to make sense, its scattered ideology falling in line under the organizing principle of hoarded influence. And right on cue, as if in divine affirmation, a QR code pops onscreen linking to a site that puts patrons two key strokes away from buying $75 worth of additional tickets for the movie they’ve just seen. Though we differ on the culprits and causes, everyone agrees that child trafficking is indefensible, a third-rail standing that also makes the subject effective as a cudgel. Caviezel’s final statement double crystallizes the nonetheless foggy stakes: if you’re not with us, you’re with them, whoever they are.
Jim Cavaziel is a wingnut’s wingnut. He’s always swum in the fever swamp, starring in Mel Gibson movies and the like. This one is a stealth QAnon project which makes it the worst thing he’s done yet. It doesn’t feature “frazzle drip” or anything quite that openly partisan but those in the know understand it and those who aren’t are slowly being seduced into this idea of an international cabal of pedophiles secretly running the world. A lot of people really seem to be drawn to that narrative. I can only guess why that might be.
Yes, Hollywood is “liberal.” But only if it doesn’t cost them money. And right now the movie business is in crisis. If this thing finds a bigger audience, you can bet they’ll be looking for other similar projects. And that’s not good at all.
I watched that whole interview and found his excuses appalling. I know this guy is a defense lawyer and he’s just making his best case for his client but the gaslighting was so extreme I found myself screaming at the TV. The whole world saw what happened on January 6th. That these people think they can persuade us that we didn’t see what we know we saw is astonishing. Philip Bump takes a look:
Kenneth Thomas was convicted last month for his participation in the pro-Trump riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. As he awaits his sentencing later this year, he sought permission to travel to Missouri to participate in a festival dedicated to defendants in Capitol riot cases, permission that the judge overseeing his case denied.
On Thursday night, Thomas’s attorney John Pierce joined CNN’s Abby Phillip to discuss the judge’s decision, with which he predictably disagreed. But over the course of the conversation, Pierce made a broader point about the events of that day: that Jan. 6 was not the violent event that so many have argued.
“January 6th was a very complex event,” Pierce told Phillip. “There were a lot of people who engaged in various kinds of conduct. Mr. Kenneth Joseph Thomas was found not guilty of engaging in violence on the Capitol grounds.”
This is true; the verdict form shows that Thomas was instead convicted on four counts of “assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers” and “disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds” but not “engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds.”
What Thomas engaged in, Pierce argued, didn’t constitute violence but a defense of his fellow protesters.
“He was there to protect other people,” Pierce claimed. “There is very clear evidence that there was excessive force by police officers and he was trying to assist an elderly person who was being beaten by batons when he was on the ground.”
Here, he’s referring to one of the moments described in the Justice Department’s criminal complaint against Thomas.
Body-camera footage, it asserts, “showed that, even after law enforcement officers pushed him back, THOMAS returned at least twice to punch or strike the officers with his fist and forearm. THOMAS continued to attack law enforcement this way or attempt to push them back for at least 25 seconds straight.”
In court — and, later, to the right-wing website Gateway Pundit — Thomas argued that this incident involved his trying to get police to give space to a fellow protester who’d fallen on the ground. In a video shared at Gateway Pundit, you can hear Thomas exhorting officers to “let him up.” He is seen in a camel-colored coat and light-tan baseball cap, pushing police back.
But this is only one moment cited in the complaint. There are two others in which Thomas allegedly resisted police efforts to clear the area.
“As the law enforcement officers advanced, THOMAS turned to his side, using his elbow and shoulder to strike the front line officers,” the complaint reads. Video “showed THOMAS push back against the officers in this way four more times and attempt to punch with his fist once, while ordering the rioters to ‘hold the line.’ ”
Footage Thomas shared on YouTube appears to show these moments. (Removed from YouTube, the video was preserved by jan6archive.com.)
“There was — look, the narrative that, with all due respect to your network, sometimes has been pushed that this was a — just a violent event, that there was violence on both sides,” Pierce told Phillip.
“No, no,” Phillip replied. “It was a violent event. Police officers were there doing their job.”
“Abby,” Pierce said, “some of the police officers were not doing their jobs. Some of the police officers were going way beyond doing their jobs including unjustified lethal force, okay?”
A bit later, he added that “the vast majority — I know this stuff better than you, with all due respect, way better. The vast majority of individuals who are on the Capitol grounds were there and they were peaceful.”
Phillip asked if that included his client; Pierce replied that “we argued at trial that it did and he was found not guilty.”
The divide in perceptions about the riot articulated by Pierce has existed since the attack itself. Do you consider the central aspect of the day to be that thousands of people were present near the Capitol without going inside, much less attacking police officers to do so? Or do you focus instead on those violent actors and their having facilitated the disruption of the counting of electoral votes? Most Americans focus on the latter, the dangerous, deadly exceptions.
But on CNN, as at trial and at the Gateway Pundit, the defense of Thomas draws a more nuanced line. Was Thomas demanding that protesters “hold the line” (as he himself apparently dug in) an unacceptable act of resistance to the police? Was his physically pushing police back, as in the animation above, just a manifestation of a political disagreement?
This question really gets to the heart of what occurred that day. Many of the protesters made clear in their chants and taunts that they believed the police should not stand in their way given that they, the protesters, were defending the Constitution from what they incorrectly believed was an illegitimate election. They thought the police should side with them — probably because they saw the police as siding with them in general. This was the “back the blue”/”blue lives matter” team! The ones President Donald Trump would recognize to applause at his campaign rallies! But here they’re siding with the left?
There’s a privilege in this. There’s a privilege in assuming that the police should stand aside as you try to overrun the Capitol, certainly, but there’s also a privilege in shrugging at having pushed police out of the way. In the midst of confused, angry protests, there’s often some jostling. And what Thomas is shown doing, at least in the available video, falls short of assaulting police in an effort to inflict injury. But is it therefore excusable? To Pierce’s point, is it even broadly representative? If your view is that the police are generally in alignment with you and should spend their time enforcing laws other people break, then: yes.
Republican politicians have spent the last two-plus years arguing that the government cracked down on Jan. 6 rioters as a proxy for the political right more broadly and/or that those imprisoned were “political prisoners.” Some of this is opportunistic. Some of it, though, is rooted in the idea that what occurred wasn’t really that bad. That the police generally were acting in a way that they shouldn’t have been acting. It’s the same impulse that pivots from the search for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago to calls to defund the FBI — why are you doing this instead of investigating real crimes?
At another point in the video Thomas uploaded to YouTube, someone near him in the crowd can be heard shouting.
“This is a peaceful protest!” the voice says. “Antifa’s causing the problem!”
Even at that moment, it wasn’t their fault.
I once knew a very right wing man who found himself on the wrong side of police for the first time in his life in his 50s. One of them called him a “dirtbag” and he was extremely offended and couldn’t believe it. This was a person who had been as pro-police brutality as you can get. He just didn’t think it would ever be applied to a (white) man like him.
I think most of these people on January 6th assumed the cops would help them hang Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi. But when that didn’t happen they turned on them.
It seems that every conversation I have about politics these days begins with someone making a breathless observation that “OMG! Joe Biden is soooo oooooold!” I get it. He is old. And he looks his age. Anyone but movie stars who have had extensive plastic surgery look old at 81 and they usually just look weird. He walks stiffly and he’s losing his hair — again. (He had a receding hairline before he was 30 and famously had hair transplants.)
He also stumbles over his words and rambles when he’s speaking spontaneously, but as someone who’s been watching the guy for decades I can tell you that he’s always done that. Everyone knows now that he’s been fighting a stutter all his life but he’s also one of those garrulous old-style East Coast politicians who tells stories and flits from subject to subject. Still, there’s no getting around the fact that he’s the oldest president we’ve ever had and he’s running for another term, so people are going to be concerned.
But if he’s so over the hill that he’s unable to function how come he’s done such a good job in his first term under very trying circumstances?
I don’t really blame people for focusing so much on his age because if they watch the news only casually or just read the headlines as most people do, they don’t know about his accomplishments. Political coverage is still focused on the Trump Show starring the the dancing House MAGAs (with special guest stars The Supremes) and there isn’t much time left to discuss the boring nitty gritty of what we used to call governing. As I’ve said before, the whole country was traumatized from the Trump years and the pandemic and frankly, the press has clung to a narrative of national misery for far too long, and it seeps out into the ether and infects the body politic.
It seems as if every bit of good news from the past year has been qualified with gloom and doom.:”Yes, the job market is the best it’s been in more than 50 years but … the price of toilet paper has gone up by 35% since 2019!” “Gas prices have dropped to less than they were before the pandemic but … interest rates are higher causing people to worry about their 401ks.” It’s not that these worries aren’t legitimate but it feels as though any positive news is required to be followed by something designed to keep people from feeling too optimistic about the future. So it’s been difficult to make the case that Biden’s presidency has brought material improvement to most people’s lives even though it manifestly has done so.
I’ve noticed that others are starting to make note of this phenomenon:
The US has one of the best recoveries in the world. Inflation is now lower than g7 peers. The hot labor market has put a real dent in inequality. And Biden had a historically great midterm.
And yet for two years, pundits have been totally consumed by alleged policy mistakes. https://t.co/S8bPpg6O16
I was like many progressive types who didn’t expect much from Joe Biden but I reconciled myself to the idea that it would be enough to have a caretaker president who would allow the country to calm down a little bit after the tumultuous Trump years. I was wrong. Biden has been one of the most active presidents in recent memory, making changes that are abrupt departures not only from Republicans but Democrats as well, including his old boss Barack Obama.
Taking office in the middle of a deadly pandemic and after an insurrection with a razor thin margin in both houses of congress, his legislative achievements include the American Rescue Plan which staved off an economic collapse and created a massive rollout of life-saving vaccines. Despite much handwringing and gnashing of teeth that this would drive the economy into the ditch, it has done the opposite, creating 12 million jobs, the most of any single presidential term in history. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act created major legacy defining progress on domestic manufacturing, infrastructure, climate change mitigation. deficit reduction, corporate taxes and out of pocket health costs. After another paroxysm of gun violence he even managed to usher through the first bipartisan gun safety bill in 30 years.
Did he get everything on his agenda done? Of course not. There have been many disappointments along the way. But these are, as he would say, “big f-ing deals” and that they were accomplished in a congress so closely divided is nothing short of miraculous.
On foreign policy the administration has done an admirable job restoring relationships with America’s allies and bringing together a coalition to back Ukraine as it defends itself against the Russian invasion. His withdrawal from Afghanistan was messy but at least he did it, which is something his predecessors all claimed they wanted to do and didn’t. (I’m not sure there was any other way but awful for such an awful war to end anyway.) He doesn’t seem to consider dictators and despots as his special friends which is a nice change.
Biden is starting to campaign now and is touting “Bidenomics” which is succinctly described as an overturning of trickle-down economics to focus federal money in ways that benefit the middle class. (Trump and his followers call this communism.) On Thursday he was in South Carolina touting a new manufacturing facility that will make solar energy products. Unlike a certain predecessor who constantly threatened to punish Americans who failed to support him he’s making the point that he’s the president for everyone, not just those who vote for him and his signature legislation is making a difference in a lot of red states (not that they will ever give him or he Democrats credit.) He is, however, good-naturedly taunting all the Republicans who are racing to take credit for these projects after voting against the funding by saying “I’ll be there for the ground-breaking.”
Meanwhile, the prices of groceries and gasoline have come back down to earth and most economists have lowered their expectation of a recession as the US has seen better growth and lower inflation than any peer nation in the world over the past 12 months.
If this is what happens when you have an elder as a leader maybe we ought to think about amending the constitution and raising the eligibility age for president.
There were reports a couple of weeks ago that Hollywood producer and big Democratic donor Jeffrey Katzenberg was advising the Biden campaign to lean into the age thing pointing out that people aren’t as ageist as we may think. After all, the biggest box office draw this past weekend was 80 year old Harrison Ford reprising his role as Indiana Jones. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, both 79, are about to go on tour again and can be expected to sell out. Paul McCartney at 81 is producing AI Beatles records.
Some people just have a strong life force no matter what their age and if they’re lucky they have wisdom, confidence and judgment too. Joe Biden seems to be among that group and his bucket list is to leave a legacy of major improvements in the way government works. For an old guy he sure is getting a whole lot done and wants to do more. The country will be much better off if we let him.
Whatever your age now, you’ll be old sooner than you’d like. Old age carries risks. Joints wear out and bones get brittle. Live long enough and cancers of various kinds may catch up with you. Cancer claimed Joel Siberman, a media trainer and friend, one of progressives’ brightest lights, five years ago. But perhaps the most frightening of scaries is mental decline. Particularly from Alzheimer’s. Watching it claim the mind of someone you love is tragic enough.
For the first time, the FDA has approved a medication for Alzheimer’s. Not a cure, but a drug shown to “modestly” slow the disease in its early stages (Associated Press):
U.S. officials granted full approval to a closely watched Alzheimer’s drug on Thursday, clearing the way for Medicare and other insurance plans to begin covering the treatment for people with the brain-robbing disease.
The Food and Drug Administration endorsed the IV drug, Leqembi, for patients with mild dementia and other symptoms caused by early Alzheimer’s disease. It’s the first medicine that’s been convincingly shown to modestly slow the cognitive decline caused by Alzheimer’s.
Japanese drugmaker Eisai received conditional approval from the FDA in January based on early results suggesting Leqembi worked by clearing a sticky brain plaque linked to the disease.
The FDA confirmed those results by reviewing data from a larger, 1,800-patient study in which the drug slowed memory and thinking decline by about five months in those who got the treatment, compared to those who got a dummy drug.
Five months? OK, modestly.
It’s a start. As with most drugs like this, you really don’t want to read the side-effects warnings of “serious and life-threatening events” and “some of which have been fatal.”
Still, some Alzheimer’s experts have said it is unclear from the medical evidence whether Leqembi’s ability to delay erosion of memory and cognition would be enough to be noticeable or meaningful for patients and their families. And while most cases of brain swelling and bleeding have been mild or moderate and have resolved, there have been some serious cases.
“The risks are very vivid,” said Dr. Jason Karlawish, a co-director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Memory Center, who said he will prescribe Leqembi after carefully evaluating patients and explaining the potential pros and cons. “Within the first few months, you may have small bleeds or swelling in your brain, which may or may not be symptomatic and if not detected in time can cause disability.”
That’s a lot of risk/reward to ponder for Leqembi’s $26,500 cost, even if Medicare covers 80 percent. Co-payments could run into the thousands for a drug whose effects may be unnoticeable.
Kari Lake’s oh-so-unsubtle efforts to audition as Donald Trump’s 2024 running mate may be backfiring. Sure, she came in first for VP in CPAC’s straw poll this year. But the failed Arizona gubernatorial candidate and championship election-denier seems not to know to avoid upstaging The Donald.
Lake has spent more time at Mar-a-Lago than Melania Trump lately, a source toldPeople, in “a suite there that she practically lives in.” The Daily Beast reports that Lake is falling out of Trump’s favor:
“She’s a shameless, ruthless demagogue who wants power and will do whatever she has to do to get it,” a Trump adviser told The Daily Beast.
This adviser added that, in recent months, Trump has been less enthusiastic about Lake himself.
Two Trump advisers who spoke to The Daily Beast said the heart of Trump’s frustration with Lake is that, in his eyes, she always wants attention.
As one of the advisers put it, she’s a “spotlight hound.”
People called Bill Clinton “the Big Dog.” But nobody had better stand between Trump and center stage. He’s the biggest spotlight hound in any room.
“I don’t think President Trump needs a vice president,” she said. “He is that powerful as a leader, he doesn’t really need anyone.”
Her over-the-top adoration aside, Trump has continued to publicly support Lake.
Trump apparently doesn’t ding her too much for her loss in the Arizona governor race, with one adviser saying Trump views Lake’s defeat as “similar” to his—with election fraud to blame.
Lake may be coming on a bit too hard, at least for Trump advisers who spoke to Daily Beast. But Lake is still on the short list. Especially, as one adviser said, “He definitely wants someone who can defend him well on TV.” Yeah, Lake can do that.
The Daily Beast previously reported that a slate of female lawmakers—including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, even former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii—were names that Trump had been entertaining as possible 2024 running mates. But since then, Trump and advisers who have discussed the matter with him agree that needing to select a woman candidate might be a “false premise.”
For a misogynist? Of course. Plus, Trump should be enough for the red-hatted MAGA faithful. He may prefer a pretty face like the one he married (last), but not one who will try to steal his spotlight. Even soft-focus on Lake may be too much focus for Trump.
Perhaps she’ll just run for Senate.
“I'm just getting started. I am seriously contemplating a run — possibly for Senate. I may have to do it. We'll see what happens.”
QAnon congresswoman-turned-GOP House leadership darling Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-GA) membership with the House Freedom Caucus has been in question ever since she laid down her life/remaining dignity to back House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) in his speakership race. Since then, she’s been picking fights and at odds with members of the rebellious faction for being too tight with the establishment crowd.
While there’s been speculation for weeks that the Georgia congresswoman may soon get the boot from the fringe group, it turns out that the Freedom Caucus has actually already voted to punish Greene for forgetting where she came from.
Freedom Caucus member Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) told Politico Thursday that “a vote was taken to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from the House Freedom Caucus for some of the things she’s done.” Harris reportedly wouldn’t say how he personally voted on the matter, but said that the ousting was “an appropriate action.” When Politico asked if the vote meant she was officially excommunicated, Harris said: “As far as I know, that is the way it is.”
While Harris also claimed to Politico that she was booted because she called Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) a “little bitch” on the House floor, members’ irritation with Greene and her cozy relationship with McCarthy and other members of Republican leadership have been seemingly growing for some time. Per Politico:
Asked if Greene breaking from the group on the debt bill or her support for McCarthy were factors, Harris said, “I think all of that mattered.”
“I think the straw that broke the camel’s back was publicly saying things about another member in terms that no one should,” he said.
I’m going to guess that she told Kevin about the Freedom Caucus strategy. She’s an amoral harpy even toward her own. Trump should watch his back.
Marge Greene may implode. If she doesn’t she could end up owning the MAGA cult.
You have to love that puts President Trump in quotes…
I don’t know who has told him this garbage or if anyone has. He might have just heard something in passing and turned it into this preposterous narrative. And it is true that the more he says this the more his cult will be convinced that he’s the one living in reality while everyone else is involved in a massive conspiracy to destroy Deal Leader. That’s how brainwashing works.
But the fact is that he is completely unhinged on this subject and you have to wonder what’s setting him off right now. Maybe it’s this:
28% of Republicans and 31% of Independents say a conviction would make them less likely to support Trump.
The good news for him is that most people don’t want to see him in jail. I think that’s ok. You can’t put secret service agents in jail with him and they are required to protect him. Years of house arrest would suit me just fine, along with restrictions on his use of internet and television.
Law schools that give preferences to minorities and women in admissions and hiring risk getting sued by America First Legal, the conservative legal group warned in a letter to 200 U.S. law schools following last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision on affirmative action.
America First Legal, a nonprofit group headed by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, said on its website that it sent the letter threatening to sue the law schools if they extend any “discriminatory preferences” based on race, gender or national origin. The group also said decisions based on factors in an applicant’s biography that could serve as a proxy for race—such as socioeconomic status—is also unlawful.
The letter, dated June 30 and reviewed by Reuters, came one day after the U.S. Supreme Court held that giving some minority college applicants a boost over others based on their race violated the U.S. Constitution.
“You must immediately announce the termination of all forms of race, national origin, and sex preferences in student admissions, faculty hiring, and law review membership or article selection,” the letter said, adding that law schools “must” announce policies prohibiting preferential treatment before the start of the school year.
Who the hell do Stephen Miller and his grubby little minions think they are? The last I heard we have a judicial system and you need to have standing if you want to sue someone. Is the new rule that everyone can just bring a hypothetical case against anyone just in case they might violate what some jerk like Miller decides is the interpretation of the law? Even that awful wedding website business wasn’t thin bad.
But then it appears there is a coordinated strategy to intimidate colleges and universities before they take any actions at all:
Ohio GOP Senator JD Vance demanded 10 colleges and universities preserve their communications after their “expressed open hostility” to the Supreme Court’s recent affirmative action ruling.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action at institutions of higher learning is unconstitutional in a case involving Harvard University’s application policies that adversely impacted Asian students’ admissions. Schools can, however, weigh race as a factor if the applicant has discussed how his or her race has impacted their life.
Following the decision, several presidents of top American colleges — including the entirety of Ivy League universities — announced their institutions’ commitments to “diversity” on campus in light of the ruling.
“I write to express concern about your institutions’ openly defiant and potentially unlawful reaction to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, which reaffirmed the bedrock constitutional principle of equality under the law and therefore forbade invidious race-based preferences in college admissions,” Vance wrote college presidents in his Thursday letter.
“As you know, the Court has instructed you to honor the spirit, and not just the letter, of the ruling,” he continued. “Going forward, the Court explained, ‘universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.’”
Vance noted that “within hours of the decision’s pronouncement,” the presidents and their “institutions expressed open hostility to the decision and seemed to announce an intention to circumvent it.”
I’m pretty sure we are heading toward an open declaration that hiring or admitting racial and ethnic minorities at all is discrimination against white people. They are clearly hostile to diversity at all. These people long for Jim Crow and they aren’t trying to hide it.
