bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘THE INTERCEPT’

“LAW AND ORDER” REPUBLICANS SEEK IMMUNITY FOR TRUMP

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 28, 2024 at 12:13 am

On Thursday, August 8, 1974, Richard M. Nixon resigned as the 37th President of the United States.

On Monday, August 8, 2022, for the first time in American history, Donald Trump became the first former President to be the subject of an FBI raid. 

The raid came without warning on Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida. FBI agents, armed with a search warrant, scoured the premises—for documents Trump illegally took before he left the White House on January 20, 2021.

In January, 2022, the National Archives had retrieved 15 boxes of records from Mar-a-Lago, including materials that had been identified as classified. 

“I really don’t believe that the department would have taken such a significant step as pursuing a search warrant for the president’s residence about information they already had back,” said Andrew McCabe, a former FBI deputy director on CNN “Newsroom.”

The most famous members of Mar-a-Lago - YouTube

Mar-a-Lago

“There had to be a suspicion, a concern and indeed specific information that led them to believe that there were additional materials that were not turned over.”

Both the FBI and the Justice Department refused to comment on any aspect of the raid.

But Donald Trump rushed to do so.

“These are dark times for our Nation, as my beautiful home, Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided and occupied by a large group of FBI agents. Nothing like this has ever happened to a President of the United States before.

“After working and cooperating with the relevant government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate.

“What is the difference between this and Watergate, where operatives broke into the Democratic National Committee? Here, in reverse, Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States.”

Donald Trump

There are several differences between Watergate and the FBI raid on Trump’s residence—that is, for anyone who cares about enforcing the law.

First, the burglary at the Watergate hotel—on June 17, 1972—was completely illegal, carried out by a group of men working for President Richard M. Nixon. They had installed illegal bugging equipment in the suite used by the Democratic National Committee—but that had malfunctioned.

So they made a second entry to repair it.

It was during that second burglary that the burglars were arrested.

Second, the raid on Trump’s home was fully authorized by the Justice Department. 

To get judicial approval for the search, investigators had to present to a judge a detailed affidavit that established probable cause that a crime had been committed and that evidence of that crime existed at the property where the search was sought.

But before prosecutors asked a magistrate judge to approve the warrant, investigators had to obtain the approval from the highest levels of the Justice Department. Too much historical and political significance was at stake.

“Not only would the investigators have to suggest it, not only would a line prosecutor have to agree with it, but multiple layers of management would have had to approved of it—all the way up to the Attorney General,” Daren Firestone, a former DOJ attorney, told CNN.

Third, Donald Trump—before and during his Presidency—had amassed a solid record of criminality.

In 2018, Trump was forced to pay more than $2 million in court-ordered damages to eight different charities for illegally misusing charitable funds for political purposes at his Trump Foundation. The Foundation was shut down under court-supervised dissolution in 2019.

And his Trump University scammed its students, promising to teach them “the secrets of success” in the real estate industry—then delivered nothing. In 2016, a federal court approved a $25 million settlement  with many of those students.

The Controversy Surrounding Trump University - ABC News

Trump’s record of criminality during his four years in the White House is too lengthy to catalog here. To cite just two of his greatest crimes:

  1. Refusing to accept the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election, and claiming that he was “cheated” by widespread voter fraud; and
  2. Inciting the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol where Electoral College votes were being counted to determine the winner of that election.

Almost four years after the 2020 election, no evidence of widespread voter fraud has emerged—even though Trump continues to spread “The Big Lie.”

Meanwhile, “law-and-order” Republicans have rushed to Trump’s defense.

“The Department of Justice has reached an intolerable state of weaponized politicization,” said then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

“There must be an immediate investigation and accountability into Joe Biden and his Administration’s weaponizing this department against their political opponents—the likely 2024 Republican candidate for President of the United States,” said New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, a member of House GOP leadership.

Missouri GOP Senator Josh Hawley—a major instigator of the January 6 attack on Congress—said that President Joseph Biden “has taken our republic into dangerous waters.” He demanded that Attorney General Merrick Garland resign or be impeached.

John Adams, America’s second President, coined the phrase “a government of laws, not of men.”

Republicans scurrying for Trump’s favor now support the opposite.

FASCISM’S APPEAL–IN HITLER’S GERMANY AND TRUMP’S AMERICA: PART TWO (END)

In History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 27, 2024 at 12:12 am

Throughout the 1930s, Fascism seemed to be  on the rise, democracy seemed to be on the wane.

The latter was especially true in Great Britain and France.   

World War 1 had left Europe devastated and disillusioned. Britain had lost 880,000 men, which amounted to six percent of the adult male population.

For France, the losses were worse: About six million, including 1.4 million dead and 4.2 million wounded. This amounted to roughly 71 percent of those who had fought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cenotaph_Unveiling,_1920.jpg

The Cenotaph, in London, honoring the unknown British dead of World War 1

Nazi Germany, by contrast, seemed robust and purposeful, not just waiting for the future but creating the future it desired: “Volk” festivals, party rallies, awards, uniforms, pageantry were everywhere—climaxed by the country’s hosting of the 1936 Olympics. 

In foreign affairs Germany proved equally on the march: First retaking the demilitarized Rhineland between itself and France (1936); then annexing Austria (1938); then Czechoslovakia (1938).

The 12-year Reich: A Social History Of Nazi Germany 1933-1945: Grunberger, Richard: 9780306806605: Amazon.com: Books

Today, many Right-wing Americans believe that democracy no longer serves their needs—or even ensures their survival. They have turned to authoritarianism—rule by a strongman who demands strict obedience at the expense of personal freedom.

And the strongman they are rallying behind—for now—is Donald Trump.

In the 2023 novel, The Mitford Affair, by Marie Benedict, Sydney Bowles, the matriarch of the aristocratic Mitford family, cheers for a Nazi victory over Great Britain: “We must not win this war….What will become of your sisters if Great Britain wins?

“I mean, Diana and [her husband, Oswald] Mosley are here in England, but they’ve publicly aligned themselves with fascism generally and [Adolf] Hitler specifically. We must follow their lead and do all we can to make sure the right thing happens. And Unity—“

This is a reference to Unity Valkyrie Mitford, the sister who has spent five years in Germany hoping to seduce its Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler into becoming her own. 

Nancy Mitford, Sydney’s daughter, is appalled: “Not only is she placing the needs of her two favorite children above the rest…but she’s putting them above what’s best for the entire nation. And urging me to commit treason—like her and my sisters apparently—in the process.”

During a visit to Diana’s home, Nancy is further outraged by a series of silver-framed photos of her sisters taken during their visits to Nazi Germany: “I am barraged by pictures of Diana and Unity with Hitler, [Joseph] Goebbels and decorated Nazi officers.

The Mitford sisters: the fascists – Dance's Historical Miscellany

Unity and Diana Mitford posing with SS soldiers

“There are my sisters giving the Nazi salute, smiling against a backdrop of soldiers, and even sharing a meal with the Nazi leaders.”

A warning from her cousin, Winston Churchill, the future prime minister, finally leads her to betray Diana’s plans to set up a pro-Fascist radio station to aid Nazi Germany:  

“Imagine what damage a radio station in enemy hands broadcasting across England could do—creating easy communication between the enemy within and the enemy without, as well as sending out propaganda and false information to the British people.”

Today, in the United States, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s role in placing Donald Trump in the White House is well-known. So are Trump’s sympathies with Putin. And so are those of many Republicans—such as the two men who showed up at a Trump rally in 2018 wearing: “I’d Rather Be Russian Than Democrat” T-shirts.

Do you consider Russian-Americans to be Russian? - Quora

Repeatedly, Trump has made clear his antagonism toward NATO, the 74-year alliance between the United States and Europe that has contained Russian aggression.

Yet while Trump has viciously attacked the patriotism of Democrats generally and President Joseph Biden in particular, Democrats have been unwilling to directly call Trump a traitor.

Trump has called those arrested for violently trying to overturn the 2020 Presidential election “hostages” and “patriots.” He’s also predicted “a bloodbath” if he’s not re-elected in 2024.

It’s past time for the Biden administration to borrow a lesson from England: After Hitler launched his invasion of France, Churchill unleashed Defense Regulation 18B. This gave the government the power to detain anyone deemed a threat to the nation’s safety or subject to foreign influence.

No formal charges or a trial was necessary. 

Marie Benedict ends her novel on a warning note for Americans: Fascists don’t change. 

After being imprisoned separately, Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists [BUF] and his wife, Diana, are allowed to be confined together. Witnessing their prison reunion is Diana’s sister, Nancy.

“It’s really me, my darling. And we will never be parted again,” says Mosley.

“Never,” says Diana, with a fierceness that shocks Nancy, who thinks:

“I watch as my sister bestows upon her husband a wide, knowing, secret smile, and it is clear she remains entirely in his sway, just as I believe Unity was under Hitler’s.

“I know with utter certainty that Diana could sacrifice everything—country, family, her own life—for this man and his cause.” 

Similarly, there is literally no crime that Trump-–and his fanatical followers—are not willing to commit to establish a Right-wing dictatorship.

Like Winston Churchill, President Biden needs to order the Justice Department to take drastic action—now—to prevent this from happening.

FASCISM’S APPEAL–IN HITLER’S GERMANY AND TRUMP’S AMERICA: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 26, 2024 at 12:26 am

Sometimes a historical novel can tell frightening truths about not only a past time but the present one.  

Such is the case with The Mitford Affair (2023), by Marie Benedict.  

The years 1933 through 1939 saw the rise of Nazi Germany and the embrace of Fascism by millions—not only Germans but those outside Germany.

Among these were members of England’s aristocratic Mitford family. As the book’s cover blurb states:

“Between the World Wars, the six Mitford sisters―each more beautiful, brilliant, and eccentric than the next―dominate the English political, literary, and social scenes.

“Though they’ve weathered scandals before, the family falls into disarray when Diana divorces her wealthy husband to marry a fascist leader and Unity follows her sister’s lead all the way to Munich, inciting rumors that she’s become Adolf Hitler’s mistress.

“As the Nazis rise in power, novelist Nancy Mitford grows suspicious of her sisters’ constant visits to Germany and the high-ranking fascist company they keep. When she overhears alarming conversations and uncovers disquieting documents, Nancy must make excruciating choices as Great Britain goes to war with Germany.”

The Mitford Affair: A Novel

From 1933 to 1939, Adolf Hitler moved from triumph to triumph—rearming Germany, largely eliminating unemployment, lifting the morale of the vast majority of Germans. And as he did so, Fascism became increasingly popular, even chic. 

Millions saw Fascism as their only protection against Communism. Democracy was widely regarded as too weak to compete with the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin’s legions.

While England was plagued by widespread unemployment and continuing disillusionment over the traumas of World War 1, Hitler’s Germany radiated a newfound pride and purpose.

Sisters Diana and Unity Mitford had their own private reasons for their attraction to Deutschland. Diane had married Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists (BUF). From Hitler, she hoped to gain funding for the BUF, and eventually did.

Mitford Sisters ...

Jessica, Nancy, Diana, Unity and Pamela Mitford in 1935

Later, she and Mosley sought the creation of a German-financed ratio station to aim propaganda at their fellow Britons. Both expected—and celebrated—the future conquest of England and its total domination by Hitler.

Unity, meanwhile, became obsessed with Hitler the man. She studied German to speak conversationally with him, and for 10 months staked out his favorite restaurant in hopes of meeting him.

Adolf Hitler

Her patience bore fruit when, after repeatedly noticing her, Hitler, through an adjutant, invited her to his table. He was charmed by her knowledge of German—and her middle name: “Valkyrie.”

In Norse mythology, Valkyries were maidens sent by the god Odin to choose the dead warriors who merited a place in Valhalla.

She won even greater favor from Hitler by giving an anti-Semitic speech at a Hitler Youth festival at Hesselberg and posting an open letter in Der Sturmer (“The Daily Stormer”), the rabidly anti-Semitic newspaper run by Julius Streicher:

“The English have no notion of the Jewish danger. Our worst Jews work only behind the scenes. We think with joy of the day when we will be able to say England for the English! Out with the Jews! Heil Hitler. P.S. please publish my name in full, I want everyone to know I am a Jew hater.”

Unity Mitford

Eva Braun, Hitler’s secret mistress, saw Unity as a rival and attempted suicide with an overdose of sleeping pills. She survived, and this led Hitler to bestow greater attention on her.

For five years—at dinners, concerts, party rallies and private meetings–-Hitler remained charmed by Unity and Diana. He reveled in the company of two beautiful women who were members of the British aristocracy—and proudly and openly Fascist.

And they, in turn, remained charmed by him—and excited at their proximity to his lethal power.

Yet, in the end, all three met with disaster.

Diana never got the German radio station for her husband. Instead, she and Mosley found themselves imprisoned as German collaborators after England declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939.

Oswald Mosley

Unity, devastated that the two countries she most loved were now at war, shot herself in the temple with a small pistol Hitler had given her for protection. She survived, but remained a vegetable for the rest of her life.

Hitler paid her doctor bills, and when she was able to speak asked her if she wanted to remain in Germany or return to England. She chose England, so Hitler arranged her transportation by ambulance to neutral Switzerland. Her mother and youngest sister, Deborah, met her there and escorted her back to England. 

She died on May 28,1948, of meningitis caused by the cerebral swelling around the bullet. 

On April 30, 1045, having lost the war he had unleashed, Hitler shot himself in his underground bunker.

The Mitford Affair ends in April, 1941, so there is no mention of the death of Unity or Hitler, or the release of Diana and Oswald Mosley from prison in 1943 due to Mosley’s ill health. They were placed under house arrest until the end of the war and denied passports until 1949.

Although the novel centers on characters and incidents that reach back almost a century ago, it’s packed with truths increasingly relevant to America as it nears the 2024 Presidential election.

Those truths will be explored in Part Two of this series.

MAJOR DUNDEE: 1860s AMERICA MEETS 21ST CENTURY AMERICA

In Entertainment, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 25, 2024 at 12:10 am

Major Dundee is a 1965 Sam Peckinpah Western focusing on a Union cavalry officer (Charlton Heston) who leads a motley troop of soldiers into Mexico to rescue three children kidnapped by Apaches.  

Along the way they liberate Mexican villagers and clash with French lancers trying to establish Mexico as a French colony under would-be emperor Archduke Maximilian 1.

The Wild Bunch is universally recognized as Peckinpah’s greatest achievement. It has certainly had a far greater impact on audiences and critics than Major Dundee. According to Heston, this was really the movie Peckinpah wanted to make while making Dundee, but he couldn’t quite get his mind around it.

As a result, Dundee’s virtues have been tragically overlooked. It has a larger cast of major characters than Bunch, and these are men an audience can truly like and identify with:

  • The charm of Benjamin Tyreen (Richard Harris), a Confederate lieutenant forced into Union service;
  • The steady courage of Sergeant Gomez (Mario Adorf);
  • The quiet dignity of Aesop (Brock Peters), a black soldier;
  • The quest for maturity in young, untried bugler Tim Ryan (Michael Anderson, Jr.);
  • The on-the-job training experience of impetuous Lt. Graham (Jim Hutton); and
  • The stoic endurance of Indian scout Sam Potts (James Coburn).

These men are charged with a dangerous and dirty mission, and do it as well as they can, but you wouldn’t fear inviting them to meet your family.

Sam Peckinpah: 'Mayor Dundee'

Major Dundee (Charlton Heston)

That was definitely not the case with The Wild Bunch, four hardened killers prepared to rip off anyone, anytime, and leave a trail of bodies in their wake. The only place where you would have felt safe seeing them, in real-life, was behind prison bars.

The Wild Bunch

Dundee is an odyssey movie, in the same vein as Saving Private Ryan. Both films start with a battle, followed by the disappearance of characters who need to be searched for and brought back to safety.

Just as Dundee assembles a small force to go into Mexico, so, too, does Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) do the same, with his hunting ground being France.

Dundee’s men retrieve the kidnapped children and survive a near-fatal battle with Indians. Miller’s men twice clash with the Germans before finding their quarry, James Ryan.

Before Dundee can return to the United States, he must face and defeat a corps of French soldiers. Before Miller can haul Ryan back to safety, he must repulse a German assault.

Both groups of soldiers—Dundee’s and Miller’s—are transformed by their experiences in ways neither group could possibly articulate. (Miller, being a highly literate schoolteacher, would surely do a better job of this than the tight-jawed Dundee.)

Dundee’s soldiers return to a United States that’s just ended its Civil War with a Union victory—and the death of slavery. Miller’s soldiers return to a nation that is now a global superpower.

Of course, Ryan was fortunate in having Steven Spielberg as its director.  With his clout, there was no question that Ryan would emerge as the film he wanted.

Peckinpah lacked such clout. And he fought with everyone, including the producer, Jerry Bressler, who ultimately held the power to destroy his film. This guaranteed that his movie would emerge far differently than he had envisioned.

Sam Peckinpah.JPG

Sam Peckinpah

In 2005, an extended version of Dundee was released, featuring 12 minutes of restored footage. (Much of the original footage was lost after severe cuts to the movie.)

In this new version, we fully see how unsympathetic a character the martinet Dundee really is. Owing to Heston’s career of playing heroes—such as Moses and El Cid—it’s easy to overlook Dundee’s arrogance and lethal fanaticism and automatically view him as a hero.

If he is indeed that, he is a hero with serious flaws.

And his self-imposed mission poses questions for us today:

  • Where is the line between professional duty and personal fanaticism?
  • How do we balance the success of a mission against its potential costs—especially if they prove appalling?
  • At what point—if any—does personal conscience override professional obligations?

Whether intentionally or not, in Major Dundee, Peckinpah laid out a microcosm of the American history that would immediately follow the Civil War.

Former Confederates and Unionists would forego their regional animosities and fight against a recognized mutual enemy—the Indians. This would prove a dirty and drawn-out war, stripped of the glory and (later) treasured memories of the Civil War.

Just as Dundee’s final battle with French lancers ended with an American victory won at great cost, so, too, would America’s forays into the Spanish-American War and World Wars 1 and 11 prove the same.

Ben Tyreen’s commentary on the barbarism of French troops (“Never underestimate the value of a European education”) would be echoed by twentieth-century Americans uncovering the horrors of Dachau and Buchenwald.

And America would learn to project its formidable military power at great cost. Toward the end of the movie, Teresa Santiago (Senta Berger), the ex-patriot Austrian widow, would ask Dundee: “But who do you answer to?

It is a question that still vividly expresses the view of the international community as this superpower colossus hurtles from one often-disastrous conflict to the next.

AN ORIGINAL APPROACH TO GANGBUSTING

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 13, 2024 at 12:10 am

There is a phrase that’s well-known south of the border: “Pan, o palo.” Or, in English: “Bread or  stick.”     

And this, in turn, comes down to: Do as I say and you’ll get this nice reward. Disobey me and you’ll get your head bashed in.

According to the FBI’s website, “some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs are criminally active in the U.S. today.

“Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, prostitution and human trafficking, and fraud. Many gang members continue to commit crimes even after being sent to jail.” 

Gangs are responsible for an average of 48% of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90% in others. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Logo and symbol, meaning, history, PNG, brand

FBI seal

These gangs aren’t going to disappear, no matter how many of their members die or wind up in prison.

For decades, the rhetoric of the Cold War has carried over into the debate over policing. “Hawks” on the Right have demanded a “hard” approach to law enforcement, emphasizing punishment.  “Doves” on the Left have pursued a “soft” line, stressing social programs and rehabilitation.

But it isn’t enough to be “hard” or “soft” in pursuing the goal of a safe, law-abiding society. It’s necessary to be “smart” above all.

If you can’t eradicate evil, then you should try to direct at least some of its elements into a safer path. 

So it’s clearly time for an innovative approach to gangbusting.

Instead of merely using “the stick,” state and federal governments should use a combination of rewards and punishments to reduce gang membership and protect innocent citizens who are often the victims of gangland violence.

Each state should invite its resident gang members to take part in a series of competition for the title of “State Gang Champion.” These would be modeled on competitions now existing within the National Football League—a series of playoffs to determine which two gangs will duke it out in the “Super Rumble.” 

These competitions would be completely voluntary, thus eliminating any charges of State coercion. They would be modeled on the country’s current mania for “Ultimate Warrior” contests for kickboxers and bare-knuckled fighters.

Contestants—from at least 10 opposing gangs—would meet in a football-sized arena.

No firearms would be allowed, thus ensuring safety for spectators. Contestants could otherwise arm themselves with whatever weapons they desired—such as baseball bats, swords, axes, spears or chains.

Everyone who agreed to participate would automatically be guaranteed full immunity for whatever carnage they inflicted.

The object of these contests would be to officially determine which State gang was the “baddest” for the year. Tickets could be purchased by fans looking for an afternoon’s festival of gore.

Television networks could—-and no doubt would—vie for rights to film the events, just as they now do for streaming wrestling or boxing matches.

So why would hardcore gangs even consider participating in such a series of contests?

Photographing LA's Gang Wars | Gang culture, 18th street gang, Gang tattoos

L.A. gang

For a multitude of reasons. 

First, they would be able to eliminate members of rival gangs without risk of prosecution and imprisonment. 

Second, they would be able to gauge—through the heat of combat—the toughness of their enemies and their own members.

Third, they would gain at least temporary stardom—just as successful gladiators did under the Roman Empire and winning football quarterbacks do today.

Fourth, the winning gang would gain official status as “The Baddest” gang in the State for that year.

On this last point: Napoleon Bonaparte created the Order of the Legion of Honor, distributed 15,000 crosses to his soldiers and called his troops the “Grand Army.”  When someone criticized him for giving “toys” to his war-hardened veterans, Napoleon replied: “Men are ruled by toys.”

And for the State there would be gains as well.

First, these contests would literally eliminate a great many gang members who could not be removed any other way.

Second, police and prosecutors could concentrate their limited resources on gangs that refused to participate and/or were deemed to pose the greatest threat.

Third, millions of dollars in State revenues would be generated through ticket sales and the buying of streaming rights.

Fourth, for Republican politicians, there would be an added bonus: Their constituents would find this an especially attractive way to fight crime because it would adhere to the two concepts most precious to Right-wingers: Killing people and making money.

Admittedly, many law-abiding citizens would be repulsed by the carnage that would result from implementing this proposal. But these are generally the people who disdain boxing or wrestling contests anyway.

Given our increasingly jaded and violence-prone society, however, even most of these people would eventually tolerate these contests as an effective way to simultaneously raise badly-needed tax revenues and reduce the size of criminal gangs.

In short: With sufficient creativity and ruthlessness, it should be possible to reclaim control of our streets from the evils of gang violence.

IF DONALD TRUMP STARRED IN “CASABLANCA”

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on March 6, 2024 at 12:10 am

According to Wikipedia: 

“Casablanca is a 1942 American romantic drama film directed by Michael Curtiz and starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, and Paul Henreid.   

“Filmed and set during World War II, it focuses on an American expatriot (Bogart) who must choose between his love for a woman (Bergman) and helping her husband (Henreid), a Czechoslovak resistance leader, escape from the Vichy-controlled city of Casablanca to continue his fight against the Germans.”

It was immediately recognized as a classic—and its reputation has only grown over the continuing decades.

Ronald Reagan was reportedly an early front-runner for the part of Rick Blaine, but the role went—fortunately—to Bogart. For Casablanca’s millions of devoted fans, it’s unimaginable that anyone else could have played that role.

And yet, with a little imagination, it’s possible to imagine a remake of this classic—with Donald Trump starring as Rick.

For the role of his former lover, Ilsa Lund, there could be no better choice than his daughter, Ivanka, whose body he has repeatedly and publicly lusted over. Rudy Giuliani would lend new meaning to the role of Sam, the house pianist.

Black-and-white film screenshot with the title of the film in fancy font. Below it is the text "A Warner Bros. – First National Picture". In the background is a crowded nightclub filled with many people.

Thus, if Casablanca were remade today:   

* * * * *

IVANKA: Play it once, Rudy. For old times’ sake.

RUDY:  I don’t know what you mean, Miss Ivanka.

IVANKA: Play it, Rudy. Play “My Heart Belongs to Daddy.”

RUDY:  Oh, I can’t remember it, Miss Ivanka. I’m a little rusty on it.

IVANKA: I’ll hum it for you. Da-dy-da-dy-da-dum, da-dy-da-dee-da-dum…

Rudy Giuliani as Sam

[Rudy begins playing]

IVANKA: Sing it, Rudy.

RUDY: [Singing] You must remember this / A kiss is still a kiss / A bust is just goodbye. / The fingerprinting ink applies / As cops drive by. / And when the cops in blue / Come kick the door in two / You think you wanna cry / No matter how the jailhouse swings— 

TRUMP: [Rushing up] Rudy, I thought I told you never to play—

[Sees Ivanka. Rudy closes the piano and rolls it away]   

* * * * *

IVANKA: Red Donald, I have to talk to you.

TRUMP:  I saved my first drink to have with you. 

IVANKA: No, Red Donald, not tonight.

TRUMP: Especially tonight.   

IVANKA: Please…

TRUMP: Why did you have to come to Trump Tower? There are other places.

IVANKA: I wouldn’t have come if I’d known you were here. I thought you were out shooting children. Believe me Red Donald, I didn’t know….

TRUMP: It’s funny about your voice, how it hasn’t changed. I can still hear it. “Red Donald, dear, I’ll go with you anyplace. We’ll get on a train together and never stop–“

IVANKA: Don’t, Red Donald! I can understand how you feel.

TRUMP: You understand how I feel. How long was it we had, honey?

IVANKA: I didn’t count the nights.

Ivanka Trump Says 'Lock Her Up!' Doesn't Apply In Her Case, 59% OFF

Donald Trump as Rick, Ivanka as Ilsa

TRUMP: Well, I did. Every one of ’em. Mostly I remember the last one. The wow finish. A guy waiting by the bed, with plenty of orgy butter in jars on the nightstand, with a comical look in his face because his date stood him up.

IVANKA: Can I tell you a story, Red Donald?

TRUMP: Has it got a wow finish?

IVANKA: I don’t know the finish yet.

TRUMP: Well, go on. Tell it – maybe one will come to you as you go along.

IVANKA: It’s about a girl who knew a man—a very great and courageous man. He opened up for her a whole beautiful world full of knowledge and thoughts and ideals. Everything she knew or ever became was because of him. And she looked up to him and worshiped him….with a feeling she supposed was love.

TRUMP:  You mean me, right?

IVANKA: Of course. But after you I met Jared.

TRUMP: Yes, it’s very pretty. I’ve heard a lot of stories in my time. They went along with the sound of a tinny piano playing in the parlor downstairs. “Mister, I loved my Daddy once when I was a kid,” it always began.

 * * * * *

TRUMP: Last night we said a great many things. You said I was to do the thinking for both of us. Well, I’ve done a lot of it since then, and it all adds up to one thing: you’re getting in that car with Jared where you belong.

IVANKA: But, Daddy, no, I… 

TRUMP: Now, you’ve got to listen to me! You have any idea what you’d have to look forward to if you stayed here? Nine chances out of ten, we’d both wind up on the sidewalk when Biden takes over. Isn’t that true, Rudy?

GIULIANI: I’m afraid President Biden would insist.

IVANKA:  You’re saying this only to make me go.

TRUMP: I’m saying it because it’s true. Inside of us, we both know you belong with Jared—even though I can’t imagine how you could prefer him to me.

Jared Kushner as Victor Laszlo

IVANKA: But what about us?

TRUMP: We’ll always have the Lincoln Bedroom. We didn’t have, we lost it until you came to Trump Tower. We got it back last night.

IVANKA: When I said I would never leave you.

TRUMP: And you never will. But I’ve got a job to do, too. First, I’ve got to ditch Melania. Then we have to do something about Jared. Ivanka, I’m no good at being noble, so I won’t try. Someday you’ll understand that.

[Ivanka lowers her head and begins to cry]

TRUMP: Now, now…[Gently places his hand under her chin and raises it so their eyes meet] Here’s looking at you, slut.  

KING HENRY VIII MEETS WITH KING DONALD 1: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 5, 2024 at 12:11 am

Donald Trump has never shown any interest in—let alone knowledge of—history. Yet he might well feel warmly towards an English king who took power 508 years before he did.         

Henry VIII came to the throne in 1509 and ruled as a tyrant until his death in 1547. 

Trump came to the Presidency in 2017 and ruled as a tyrant until his electoral ouster in 2021. 

In his youth Henry was athletic, highly intelligent, and spoke French, Latin and Spanish. Highly religious, he immensely enjoyed hunting and tennis. His scholarly interests included writing books and music, and he was a lavish patron of the arts.

A Portrait of the King: Henry VIII Reigns in “Tudors to Windsors” | Inside the MFAH | The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston

Henry VIII

Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968 with a B.S. in Economics. In 2015, his lawyer, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue Trump’s high school, colleges, and the College Board if they released Trump’s academic records.

At six-feet-two with a slim athletic build, fair complexion and prowess on the jousting and tennis courts, Henry was considered extremely handsome, and even referred to as an “Adonis.” But as he aged, he became obese and his health suffered. 

As a young man, standing six-feet-three and with an athletic build, Trump was considered handsome and a ladies’ man. But he thought exercise a waste of energy, saying it depletes the body’s energy. By the time he ran for President. By 2015-16, he was grotesquely overweight, with orange skin and stood with a pronounced forward tilt.

Henry married six times—resulting in two divorces (Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves), two beheadings (Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard) and one death after childbirth (Jane Seymour). His last wife, Catherine Parr, outlived him.

Trump has been married three times—to Ivana Trump, Marla Maples and Melania Trump. He cheated on Ivana (before divorcing her) with Marla, then cheated on Marla (before divorcing her) with Melania.

Why Donald Trump Is Henry VIII Reincarnated - AskMen

Parody of Donald Trump as Henry VIII

Both during and in-between marriages he bedded many other women—and boasted about it. His most infamous boast almost cost him the White House.

During a 2005 exchange with Billy Bush, then the host of Access Hollywood, Trump said: “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

Henry VIII ruled England for 36 years, made radical changes to the English Constitution, and ushered in the theory of the divine right of kings in opposition to papal supremacy.

Donald Trump ruled the United States for four years, put radical Right-wing Justices on the Supreme Court, and boasted that it would be great if the country had—like China—a “President-for-Life.”

To make that a reality, he refused to accept electoral defeat in 2020 and incited a violent attack on Congress to stop the count of Electoral College votes proving that former Vice President Joseph Biden had won.

These are some of the high-profile figures who were seen storming the US CapitolMelania Trump 'disappointed' by Trump supporters' Capitol riot - ABC7 Chicago

Trump inciting the January 6 attack on Congress

Henry was an intellectual, the first English king with a modern humanist education. He owned a large library, annotated many books and published one of his own. 

Trump published 20 books under his name, but all were written by ghostwriters. This is confirmed by an analysis of his speech patterns—which puts him at a fourth-grade level, the lowest of the previous 15 Presidents.

Henry was ridiculed for his obesity and was subject to raging mood swings and paranoia.

Trump was ridiculed for his obesity, his slow reading of speeches and his obscene egotism: How smart he is, his wealth, his brilliance. 

He spouted conspiracy theories:

  • The “Deep State” was out to destroy him.
  • News media was “the enemy of the people.”
  • He lost the 2020 Presidential election because of a conspiracy involving Democrats and rigged voting machines.

It is estimated that Henry executed up to 57,000 people—members of the clergy, ordinary citizens and nobles who had taken part in uprisings and protests.

His victims fell into three categories: Heresy; Treason and Denial of his Royal Supremacy as Head of the English Church.

Among the most prominent: Sir Thomas More, his former chancellor, and Thomas Cromwell, his chief minister.

Trump never executed anyone, but he encouraged his legions of Right-wing supporters to attack those he considered enemies: The media, liberals, Hispanics, blacks, “uppity” women, Asians.

After he publicly invited the Proud Boys paramilitary group to “stand back and stand by,” its members conspired to kidnap and execute Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who had resisted Trump’s demand to “open” the state during the Coronavirus pandemic.

Henry VIII is largely remembered today for his six wives, massive appetite for food, his bloated appearance and his murderous tyranny.

Donald Trump will be remembered as the first President who tried to remain in office despite losing a Presidential election, his two impeachments, and, to date, his being the only former President to be indicted for 91 felonies.

Englishmen believed the country would collapse without a male heir to the throne. Americans believe the country will collapse if an ex-President stands trial for his crimes. 

England survived. So will the United States.

KING HENRY VIII MEETS KING DONALD 1: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 4, 2024 at 12:10 am

There is more in common between Donald Trump and King Henry VIII than at first might seem possible.               

And the 1969 movie, “Anne of the Thousand Days,” brings it vividly to light.    

Throughout much of the film, Henry (Richard Burton) lusts to romantically—and sexually—capture the beautiful Anne Boleyn (Geneviève Bujold). The fact that he’s married to Catherine of Aragon matters not at all.

Henry justifies his infidelity on the fact that Catherine has failed to give him a male heir.

He’s been having an affair with Anne’s younger sister, Mary, but is now bored with her. The fact that she’s now pregnant with his child matters not at all, either.

He first notices Anne, 18, at a court ball. She’s engaged to the son of the Earl of Northumberland, and they have received their parents’ permission to marry. But Henry is enraptured with Anne’s beauty and orders his Lord Chancellor, Cardinal Wolsey, to break the engagement.

ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS Movie POSTER 27x40 Richard Burton Genevieve Bujold - Picture 1 of 1

Anne is furious, and blames both Henry and Wolsey for ruining her happiness. But as the King’s infatuation continues, she becomes intoxicated with the power it brings her. 

Henry presses Anne to become his mistress. But she says she won’t bear an illegitimate child. Desperate to have a son, Henry decides to divorce Catherine and marry Anne.

For Anne, it’s the ultimate seduction, and she agrees. She’s ordained as Queen, but is popularly reviled by the supporters of Catherine.

Months later, Henry is dismayed when Anne gives birth to a daughter, Elizabeth—who will eventually become Queen after Henry’s death.

Henry turns his always-wandering eye to Jane Seymour, one of Anne’s maids. Anne banishes Jane from the court. 

Full-length portrait of King Henry VIII

Henry VIII

Anne is furious that Sir Thomas More, the King’s Chancellor, opposes Henry’s divorce from Catherine. She refuses to sleep with Henry unless he executes More.

Anne gets her wish: More is beheaded. But her next child—a boy—is stillborn.

By now, Henry is convinced Anne will never be able to give him a male heir. He schemes to divorce her and marry Jane. He contrives with his new chief minister, Thomas Cromwell, to have Anne falsely charged with infidelity.

At her trial, Anne vigorously defends herself, proving that the witnesses against her are lying.

In a private meeting with her, Henry offers to free her if she’ll agree to annul their marriage. Since this will make Elizabeth illegitimate, Anne refuses—and goes courageously to her death 

Throughout the movie, Englishmen from Henry on down are convinced that England will collapse if a woman ascends the throne.

And, of course, England not only survives but thrives under the 45-year reign of Queen Elizabeth.

Which brings us to Donald Trump.

Like Henry, Trump is a man of voracious appetites—for wealth, for fame, for sex. Like Henry, he is untroubled by scruples and will commit any crime to attain whatever he wants. Like Henry, he is a man of fierce temper—always eager to crush anyone he thinks has wronged him.

Related image

Donald Trump 

Countless Englishmen who lived under Henry thought England would collapse if a woman took the throne.

Now countless Americans believe the United States will collapse if a former President is brought to trial.

On March 30, Trump was indicted by a New York grand jury. He thus became the first current or former President to face criminal charges.

On April 1, CNN reported/editorialized:  “Former President Donald Trump’s indictment….has thrust the nation into uncharted political, legal and historical waters, and raised a slew of questions about how the criminal case will unfold. 

“The Manhattan district attorney’s office has been investigating Trump in connection with his alleged role in a hush money payment scheme and cover-up involving adult film star Stormy Daniels that dates to the 2016 Presidential election.”

Trump has attacked Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg as pursuing a leftist vendetta to prevent him from running for President in 2024.

“If they can do this to me,” he has thundered in countless fund-raising appeals to his Right-wing followers, “they can do this to you.” 

Which raises the question: “How many others have tried to illegally overturn a legitimate Presidential election and/or paid hush-money to a porn ‘actress’?”

Trump has repeatedly tried to appear the victim of “a Democratic-led witch hunt.” But if politics has tainted the dispensing of justice in Trump’s case, it’s been on his behalf.    

As President, he had immunity from civil and criminal lawsuits. He couldn’t be tried at local, state and federal levels. And he had good reason to avoid facing trial at any level.  Among the cases facing him while he held office:

  • The Manhattan District Attorney’s criminal case against the Trump Organization for tax evasion.
  • The New York Attorney General’s civil investigation into the Trump Organization for fraud.
  • The E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit (he called her a liar after she claimed he raped her in the 1990s). 
  • The Mary Trump lawsuit: His niece is suing him for allegedly defrauding her out of millions of dollars.
  • The Trump Tower lawsuit: Five people claim that Keith Schiller, the Trump Organization’s then chief of security, hit one of them on the head when they were protesting outside of the company’s Manhattan headquarters in 2015. 

ADAM SCHIFF: STANDING UP TO A TRAITOR AND HIS ACCOMPLICES—PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on March 1, 2024 at 12:11 am

On March 24, 2019, Attorney General William Barr received the long-awaited report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller about Russian efforts to subvert the 2016 Presidential election.  

According to Barr, the report—which no one else in the government had seen—showed no evidence that President Donald Trump had colluded with Russian Intelligence agents.

And now House Republicans—acting entirely on that claim—suddenly went on the offensive.

On March 28, all nine Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence demanded in a letter that Representative Adam Schiff (D-California) resign as its chairman.  

On the same day, President Donald Trump tweeted: “Congressman Adam Schiff, who spent two years knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking, should be forced to resign from Congress!”

Other Republicans quickly joined the chorus:

  • House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California): Schiff owed “an apology to the American public” and should step down from his post as head of the Intelligence committee.
  • Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel: “They [Schiff and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-New York] should be removed from their chairmanships. They owe the American people an apology. They owe this President an apology, and they have work to do to heal this democracy because this is our country we are talking about.”
  • South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham: “He’s getting into conspiracy land and he’s acting like an Oliver Stone type figure.” 
  • White House Adviser Kelleyanne Conway: “He’s been on every TV show 50 times a day for practically the last two years, promising Americans that this President would either be impeached or indicted. He has no right, as somebody who has been peddling a lie, day after day after day, unchallenged. Unchallenged and not under oath. Somebody should have put him under oath and said, ‘You have evidence, where is it?’”

On March 28, Schiff—speaking in a firm and controlled voice—addressed his critics in the House and beyond. 

It was a speech worthy of that given by Mark Antony at the funeral of Julius Caesar.

Adam Schiff official portrait.jpg

Adam Schiff

“My colleagues may think it’s okay that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for President as part of what was described as ‘the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign.’ You might think that’s okay.

“My colleagues might think it’s okay that when that was offered to the son of the President, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the President’s son did not call the FBI, he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help. No, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help of the Russians. You might think it’s okay that he took that meeting.

“You might think it’s okay that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting.

“You might think it’s okay that the President’s son-in-law also took that meeting.

“You might think it’s okay that they concealed it from the public.

“You might think it’s okay that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better.

“You might think it’s okay that when it was discovered a year later that they’d lied about that meeting and said it was about adoptions, you might think it’s okay that the President is reported to have helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s okay. I don’t. 

Related image

“You might think it’s okay that the Presidential chairman of a campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s okay.  I don’t.  

“You might think it’s okay that campaign chairman offered polling data, campaign polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s okay.

“You might think it’s okay that the President himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, ‘if they were listening.’

“You might think it’s okay that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s okay.

Related image

“You might think that it’s okay that the President’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communications with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s okay.

“You might think it’s okay that an associate of the President made direct contact with the GRU  [the Russian military Intelligence agency] through Guccifer 2 and Wikileaks, that is considered a hostile Intelligence agency.

“You might think that it’s okay that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile Intelligence agency had to say, in terms of dirt on his opponent.

“You might think it’s okay that the National Security Adviser-Designate [Mike Flynn] secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s okay he lied about it to the FBI.

“You might say that’s just what you need to do to win, but I don’t think it’s okay. I think it’s immoral. I think it’s unethical. I think it’s unpatriotic. And yes, I think it’s corrupt and evidence of collusion.” 

Not one Republican dared challenge even one accusation Schiff had made.

ADAM SCHIFF: STANDING UP TO A TRAITOR AND HIS ACCOMPLICES—PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on February 29, 2024 at 12:10 am

Adam Schiff began his political career as a member of the California State Senate (1996-2000). In 2001, he was elected to the House of Representatives.

From 2015 to 2019, he chaired the House Intelligence Committee, where he made his greatest contribution to not only California but the nation.

Today he is a candidate for United States Senator from California.

A former assistant United States attorney, he is a highly literate man. Among his favorite plays is William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar.” It’s a far more sophisticated piece of writing than most people realize.

Adam Schiff

Mark Antony, addressing a crowd of Romans at the funeral of his former patron, Julius Caesar, faces a serious problem.

Caesar has been murdered by a band of conspirators who feared he intended to make himself king.  The chief conspirator, Marcus Brutus, is one of the most honored men in ancient Rome.  And he has just addressed the same crowd.

As a result, they are now convinced that the assassination was fully justified. They assume that Antony intends to attack the conspirators. And they are ready to attack him—maybe physically—if he does.

But Antony is too smart to do that—at least initially.  

Instead, he assures the crowd: “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.” 

And he praises the chief conspirator: “The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious. If so, it was a grievous fault—and grievously hath Caesar answered it.”

Then he introduces a line he will repeat with great effectiveness throughout the rest of his speech: “For Brutus is an honorable man—so are they all, all honorable men.”

The “Death of Julius Caesar,” as depicted by Vincenzo Camuccini.

For Antony, the line is ironic. But it serves his purpose to appease the crowd. Later, he will wield it like a sword against the same conspirators.

“He was my friend, faithful and just to me.” And then: “But Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man.”

Antony then goes on to extol Caesar as the foremost Roman of his time:

  • As a military victor: “You all do know this mantle. I remember the first time ever Caesar put it on. ‘Twas on…that day he overcame the Nervii.”
  • As a humanitarian: “When that the poor hath cried, Caesar hath wept.”

And then, as if against his better judgment, he says: “But here’s a parchment with the seal of Caesar. I found it in his closet—’tis his will. Let but the commons hear this testament—which, pardon me, I do not mean to read—and they would go and kiss dead Caesar’s wounds.” 

Now the crowd is entirely at Antony’s disposal. They hurl abuse at the conspirators: “They were traitors!”  “They were villains, murderers!”

So Antony, claiming to read Caesar’s will, pronounces: “To every Roman citizen he gives…seventy-five drachmas.” 

Related image

Marlon Brando as Mark Antony in the 1953 film, “Julius Caesar”

In addition, claims Antony, Caesar has left his fellow citizens “his private arbours and new-planted orchards on this side Tiber. He hath left them you, and to your heirs forever, common pleasures, to walk abroad, and recreate yourselves.”

By now the crowd is fired up—against the conspirators.

“Here was a Caesar!” cries Antony.  “When comes such another?”

A citizen shouts: “We’ll burn [Caesar’s] body in the holy place. And with the brands fire the traitors’ houses.”

The crowd disperses—to pay fiery homage to Caesar and burn the houses of Brutus and the other conspirators.

Caesar’s assassins flee Rome for their lives. In time, they will face the legions of Antony and Octavian, the young nephew of Caesar—and choose suicide over capture and execution.

On March 28, 2019, Schiff used the same repetitive technique in addressing his “Republican colleagues” on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Days earlier, Attorney General William Barr had claimed to summarize the long-awaited report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller about Russian efforts to subvert the 2016 Presidential election.

According to Barr, the report—which no one else in the government has seen—showed no evidence that President Donald Trump had colluded with Russian Intelligence agents.

And now House Republicans—acting entirely on that claim—were going on the offensive.

On March 28, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and all other eight Republicans on the Committee demanded in a letter that Schiff resign as its chairman. 

“Mr. Chairman,” the letter read, “since prior to the inauguration of President Trump in January 2017, you’ve been at the center of a well-orchestrated media campaign claiming, among other things, that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.

“On March 24, 2019, the special counsel delivered his findings to the Department of Justice….The special counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 election….

“Despite these findings, you continue to proclaim to the media that there is ‘significant evidence of collusion.’

“The findings of the Special Counsel conclusively refute your past and present conclusions and have exposed you as having abused your position to knowingly promote false information, having damaged the integrity of this Committee, and undermined faith in U.S. Government institutions.”