<....Indeed, bills have been filed in more than a dozen states to remove power from reform-minded prosecutors from Polk County, Iowa to Mississippi. Black women prosecutors have been the high-profile face of the targets of these challenges. But other reform-minded prosecutors have also faced well-financed recall or Republican legislative impeachment efforts since 2020.

This attack on the authority of prosecutors is a rule of law crisis to be sure. Indeed the virtual silence of organizations like the National Association of District Attorneys in the wake of these attacks, reflects a concerning inertia within the profession. But it would be a mistake to see this purely as an attack on prosecutors. It is part of a larger anti-democratic power grab that threatens our democracy, by ensuring one-party rule, no matter what the outcome of elections.

In Wisconsin in 2018, former Republican Gov. Scott Walker used the lame duck session to sign bills stripping power from the newly elected Democratic governor to change policies around health care, welfare and economic development, and to allow one of the most gerrymandered Republican-controlled legislatures in the country the right to intervene in certain cases challenging state laws. Walker may have copied this move from outgoing Republican governor of North Carolina who, as he departed office in 2016, signed bills—again passed by a heavily gerrymandered Republican-controlled legislature—limiting the incoming Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s cabinet appointment power, and ensured that the state elections board would remain under the control of Republicans.

Back in Kentucky, Gov. Andy Beshear has also seen the Republican-controlled general assembly pass bills that strip additional powers long-held by prior governors. The new laws would prevent anyone but the state attorney general (currently Republican Daniel Cameron) from using public funds to challenge the constitutionality of laws passed by the general assembly. Another new law would remove the power of the governor to approve contracts and tax incentive agreements entered into by the executive branch. Still another, filed on the day Beshear won election strips away the governor’s ability to select his own secretary of transportation.

Which brings us back to McConnell, who indeed may have patented the modern version of this viral form of voter suppression. It was McConnell who, in essence, removed the power of a sitting president to fill an open seat on the United States Supreme Court when he refused to allow hearings and consideration of President Obama’s nominee, then-Judge Merrick Garland. In essence, the Republicans declared that a Democratic president would be denied the constitutional power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, as long as the GOP controlled the Senate.

One final and important point. We have seen this particular tactic before in the late 1980s, when a wave of successful voting rights cases resulted in the election of some of the first Black officials in local offices in the South. One such place was Etowah County, Alabama, where for the first time a Black person was elected to serve the County Commission. Traditionally each county commissioner in Etowah had full power and authority over construction, roads, equipment and contracts in his commission district. But after the election of the first Black commissioner, the majority white county commission voted that now such powers would be held by the full commission, ensuring that the new Black commissioner could only exercise authority approved by the majority white commission.

Now, this practice of power re-allocation, as with all voter suppression techniques first work-shopped on Black communities in the South, has metastasized into a national phenomenon. Unchecked it will make the act of voting a Potemkin exercise, and upend the very concept of representative government. This is an efficiently sinister effort to solidify one-party rule. Its geographic breadth and reach to offices both high and low, requires a national legislative response. With Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, the prospects are dim. But this should be powerful motivation for congressional Democrats and indeed for all Americans who wish to live in a democracy—to turn out and vote this year and next—in essence to save the framework of democracy while there’s still time. It should be clear now that for the foreseeable future, democracy remains on the ballot.>

<We still don’t know whether Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., will seek a second term next year. What we do know is that she has spent a lot of time rubbing elbows with the wealthy donors whose support she’d count on if she did.

Those fetes are crucial, particularly because of her decision in December to leave the Democratic Party and become an independent. She still officially caucuses with Senate Democrats, despite Republicans’ blatant overtures to cross over. But a new article by Politico’s Jonathan Martin shows that while Sinema has worked tirelessly to cultivate a bipartisan, above-the-fray mien in public, behind the scenes she has been busy burning bridges in a way that will leave her not just independent but isolated.

The column is filled with tidbits about Sinema’s behavior behind closed doors at Republican-heavy events, where she has opted to “belittle her Democratic colleagues, shower her GOP allies with praise and, in one case, quite literally give the middle finger to President Joe Biden’s White House.”

Among the many snide comments attributed to Sinema are digs at Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and her pro-filibuster buddy Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. (she feels she has “better tax policy ideas” than he does). The barb most people have latched onto is about the weekly Democratic caucus lunches, which she’d already rarely attended even before she went solo:

“I spend my days doing productive work, which is why I’ve been able to lead every bipartisan vote that’s happened the last two years,” Sinema reportedly said. In fact, as writer Kyle Tharp pointed out on Twitter, Sinema has apparently decided that “productive work” is selling her used stuff on Facebook Marketplace. Because it’s certainly not meeting with her constituents. While she may appear at these fundraisers and at gala affairs like the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, let’s not forget that Arizonans had to chase her into a bathroom just to ask her about whether she supported Biden’s agenda back in 2021.

It’s not clear who many of the sources for Martin’s reporting are, but that matters less than that Sinema felt willing to say these things in front of these crowds at all. It’s evidence of extremely poor judgment, especially when so much of the Senate’s activity is built on personal relationships. The bipartisan wins in the last Congress aren’t replicable in this one, not when House Republicans have already lambasted their Senate counterparts for being too open to compromise. Her willingness to bad-mouth her supposed allies makes it even less likely that she’ll be spearheading any deals in the near future.

Moreover, it seems Sinema was unaware that many of the people she was entertaining with her riffs on her colleagues don’t have her best interests at heart. It may say “I” next to her name now, but so long as she still provides a vote for Democratic interests, she’s a problem for many of the Republicans in the crowds. And while she has a long history of political shapeshifting, she can’t change her scales enough to win a GOP primary against someone like failed gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., has already announced that he’ll run for the Democratic nomination to replace Sinema. For all her pandering to the supposed “middle-of-the-road Arizonan,” polling on behalf of Gallego’s campaign last year had her crashing and burning in a potential three-way race. That’s on top of previous polling that had showed her with a net unfavorable rating among basically every demographic in the state. And just last month, Gallego was well ahead of his competition in both head-to-head and three-way races.

I’m not sure how Sinema’s hobnobbing with elites will do much to change those numbers, no matter how much money big donors throw at her. Sinema may be banking on the newly established “No Labels Party” in her state to help counteract the structural disadvantages of running as an independent. Or maybe she hopes being able to contrast herself with a far-right extremist like Lake leaves her enough votes to eke out a victory. Or she may just be betting on her shilling for bankers to land a cushy gig once her term expires.

But for all her self-regard as an indispensable, savvy dealmaker, I’m just not sure that Sinema is very good at this game. Washington is a town that doesn’t forget slights easily, and if someone else is sitting at her desk come 2025, I doubt any Democrats will be heartbroken.>

<On Thursday, Donald Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran was seen entering the Washington, D.C. federal courthouse where grand jury disputes are heard. By all accounts, he was there to take one more swing at Trump’s executive privilege claims, this time as they apply to former Vice President Mike Pence’s testimony in the special counsel’s Jan. 6 investigation.

Corcoran was again seen entering that same courthouse on Friday — but he was expected to wear a very different hat this time, serving as a witness before a grand jury in the special counsel’s Mar-A-Lago records investigation.

While Corcoran has represented Trump since April 2022, when the Justice Department began investigating Trump’s potential records-related violations, he is perhaps best known for drafting a June 3 certification signed by another Trump lawyer stating that all classified documents at Mar-a-Lago had been returned to federal authorities. The FBI’s search last August, which turned up more than 100 additional classified documents, revealed that statement to be blatantly false.

How did Corcoran even find himself in this position, you ask? Corcoran testified to the grand jury in early January, but declined to answer some questions on grounds of attorney-client privilege. So in early February, special counsel Jack Smith asked then-Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force Corcoran to testify about those subjects under the “crime-fraud exception,” a legal rule that attorney-client privilege cannot apply when a client uses a lawyer, with or without that lawyer’s knowledge, to further a crime or fraud.

On March 17 — Howell’s last day as chief judge — she not only ordered Corcoran to testify, but also reportedly ruled that Corcoran would have to turn over by Wednesday documents, including “handwritten notes, invoices and transcriptions of personal audio recordings,” reflecting Trump’s likely “criminal scheme.”

Although Trump’s team asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay Howell’s ruling, it refused his request Wednesday after a lightning round of briefing. And therefore, Corcoran is required to produce the documents — in fact, he might already have done so — as well as testify.

That development has led to all sorts of questions from friends, family, colleagues and even near-strangers as I travel with my family this week. For one, yes, it is indeed unusual, if not unheard of, for a lawyer to be litigating against a party one day and then testifying under court-ordered examination by that same party the next one. But putting aside that oddity, folks have asked me another, harder question: After the D.C. Circuit refused Trump’s request for a stay on Wednesday, why didn’t Trump seek immediate Supreme Court intervention to stop Corcoran’s testimony?

Trump and his legal team aren’t saying, but I’ll venture a guess. It’s not solely because he would have lost, as some have speculated, although any rejection by the court would be as embarrassing as it would be legally damaging. After all, Trump has made clear he believes this Supreme Court — controlled by conservative justices, three of whom he appointed — owes him one.

But my hunch is that Trump’s team let Corcoran’s testimony happen because of what’s likely involved in any request to pause, much less, review a crime-fraud-related ruling: the evidence. Put another way, if Trump had petitioned the Supreme Court to stay Corcoran’s testimony and document production, the justices would have seen some, if not all, of what Judge Howell and the three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit have already reviewed: proof that Trump misled Corcoran and engaged in criminal conduct.

And for someone whose one last hope, if he is ultimately charged or tried by any of the multiple entities now investigating him, is that same Supreme Court. Letting the justices see evidence of his alleged crimes now would be a bridge too far. Even if that means Corcoran’s notes and transcripts of “personal audio recordings” are now in the DOJ’s control, even if Corcoran had to return to the grand jury as a witness the day after arguing the application of Trump’s other privileges, Trump can’t afford to lose the Supreme Court yet.>

<Donald Trump calls Alvin Bragg, the district attorney who may soon indict him, an “animal”: In a racially-tinged tirade on Truth Social, the former president also highlighted Bragg’s links to billionaire and conservative boogeyman George Soros.

Donald Trump and His Latest Rant

Donald Trump predicted last week that he would be indicted this week, although, with the delay of a pair of grand jury proceedings, it’s likely that any criminal charges for the ex-president will arrive next week at the earliest.

But in the meantime, Trump has been teeing off against the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, in increasingly personal and cruel terms, going so far as to denounce Bragg as a “Soros-backed animal.”....>

<Trump Goes Racist

For calling the African-American Bragg an “animal,” a term with significant racial undertones, Trump was widely condemned.

Historian Kevin Kruse called that, along with the shot at Soros, a “nice racist two-for.”

Jonathan Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation League, criticized the “animal” language as “racist and gross,” adding that “it might appeal to white supremacists, but it should be rejected by all decent Americans.”

Greenblatt also took exception to Trump’s statement that the potential prosecution was “Gestapo…but worse.”

He Just Won't Stop

Trump was at it again early Friday morning, promising “potential death & destruction.”....

....The previous day, Trump had posted something similar, accusing the district attorney’s office of seeking to “create years of hatred, chaos, and turmoil.”

GOP Goes to War on Bragg

Bragg has not responded directly to Trump’s comments, but his general counsel did reply Thursday to efforts by Republicans in Congress to investigate his investigation.

Congress has no oversight over a local prosecutor who is not part of the federal court system. But that didn’t stop three top House Republicans, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), James Comer (R-KY), and Bryan Steil (R-WI) from writing a letter earlier this week demanding both an interview with Bragg as well as a massive trove of documents.

Leslie B. Dubeck, the general counsel to the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, wrote to the three Republicans Thursday.

Dubeck called it “an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution. The Letter only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene. Either fact is a legitimate basis for a congressional inquiry.”

She added that “the District Attorney is obliged by the federal and state constitutions to protect the independence of state law enforcement functions from federal interference,” adding that the office was willing to meet with committee staff for a “better understanding” to discuss “what information the DA's Office can provide that relates to a legitimate legislative interest and can be shared consistent with the District Attorney's constitutional obligations.”

The letter went on to allege that complying with the committee’s demands would interfere with law enforcement, and also violate New York’s sovereignty.>

<Senior National Political Reporter at NBC News Sahil Kapur asked Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) Friday for a response to former President Donald Trump’s latest headline-grabbing screed against his possible upcoming indictment in New York City, which many critics labeled as incitement to violence.

Kapur detailed Jordan’s reaction on Twitter, “Asked Rep. Jim Jordan what he makes of Trump’s warning about “potential death & destruction” if indicted; Jordan said he hasn’t seen Trump’s post.”

“When I showed this to him on my phone, he said he can’t read well without his glasses. He added he’s reviewing DA Bragg’s letter,” Kapur added, referencing the back and forth between Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and House Republicans who have asked for Bragg to testify before Congress on the matter.....>

<Members of the Florida Legislature moved this week to shield Gov. Ron DeSantis’s travel records from the public, proposing to change the state’s public information laws just as the governor ramps up what is expected to be a 2024 presidential campaign.

The bill, which was advanced by state senators in both parties, includes a sweeping retroactive clause that would block the release of many records of trips already taken by Mr. DeSantis and other officials, as well as their families and staff members. The sealed information would include who accompanied officials like Mr. DeSantis on trips within Florida and around the country. In recent months, he has traveled widely as he promotes a new book and moves toward a White House bid.

Florida has long had expansive public information laws, known as sunshine laws, codified in the State Constitution. They allow the public to gain access to a variety of government records, including criminal files, tax documents and travel logs. These laws have exposed abuses of state resources by Florida officials: In 2003, for example, Jim King, the president of the State Senate, was found to have used a state plane to fly home on the weekends.

On Wednesday, Republicans and Democrats unanimously passed the new bill out of the State Senate’s committee on governmental oversight and accountability. A similar bill moving through the House is currently before the subcommittee on ethics, elections and open government. Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature.

It was unclear why Democrats joined Republicans in voting the bill out of committee, and whether they would support it in the vote on the floor.

One Democratic state senator who voted in favor, Tina Polsky, said that she had initially thought the bill was solely about security and that she had now changed her mind and would not support the bill. She said she thought others might change their minds, too. The Florida Democratic Party roundly denounced the bill, saying Republicans were trying to hide Mr. DeSantis’s connections with wealthy donors.

Jonathan Martin, a Republican state senator from Fort Myers and the sponsor of his chamber’s bill, said in an interview with The Tampa Bay Times that the main impetus for the legislation was the heightened interest in Mr. DeSantis.

“There has been an increase in public records requests regarding our governor and his travel simply because of his notoriety and his position for the past few years,” Mr. Martin told the Florida newspaper. He added after the vote that security concerns had also played a role, saying: “I don’t think we’re trying to hide what the governor is doing or who he’s meeting with. I think what we’re trying to do is protect the people that are protecting him.”

Mr. Martin’s office did not respond to requests for comment, nor did the governor’s office. A spokesman for Mr. DeSantis’s political operation referred inquiries to the governor’s office.

The Legislature has often moved in lock step with Mr. DeSantis, rarely challenging him or publicly disagreeing with him for fear of retribution in the form of vetoes of special projects or threats of a primary challenge.

One Republican senator, however, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said that the effort to shield records could prove to be a risky move for the governor, and that “if the optics of it are such that some can’t vote for it,” it would be a sign of weakness for Mr. DeSantis.

Ms. Polsky, the Democratic state senator, said that fellow Democrats on the subcommittee had been “a little surprised by the bill, and we were led to believe it just had to do with security and not the transportation part of it, and so honestly I think we all didn’t get the chance to ask the questions we want to ask.” She added that she would not support the bill if it came to a full floor vote, saying: “Honestly, I think it was a mistake.”

Nikki Fried, the chair of the state Democratic Party, said, “The Republicans doing his bidding in the Legislature are trying to shield him from transparency as he travels the country promoting his failed ‘Florida blueprint’ and cozies up with wealthy and special-interest donors.”

Dana Kelly, a spokeswoman for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which is led by a DeSantis appointee, said the state agency supported the legislation because “the threat picture has changed significantly over the last decade, with violence and attempted violence against elected and appointed officials nationally.” She added that releasing travel details “represents a risk not only to those we protect, but also F.D.L.E. agents and citizens attending events.”....>

<....Government accountability experts expressed deep skepticism about the effort.

“I see no reason for this bill,” said Barbara Petersen, the executive director of the Florida Center for Government Accountability. “We’ve always had access to the governor’s travel records, always, and why Governor DeSantis needs special protection is totally unclear to me.”

She added: “I can understand that there is a security issue for current travel or future travel. But how is there a security issue for travel that’s already occurred?”

While Florida politicians have long tried to erode the state’s public records laws, the DeSantis administration has been particularly notable for how it has stalled requests for documents and sought more exemptions. Last month, WKMG-TV, an Orlando television station, reported that several state agencies had sent requested public records to the governor’s office for review. The office would then delay their release, sometimes for as long as nine months, according to the report.

Public records experts also worry about further reductions in governmental transparency. A state judge recently ruled that Mr. DeSantis could assert executive privilege to avoid revealing whom he had consulted with on judicial appointments.

Mr. DeSantis has faced mounting questions about his use of state resources as well as his reliance on donors’ planes.

An investigation in November by The Orlando Sentinel found that a coterie of wealthy donors had helped pay for Mr. DeSantis’s travel during his re-election campaign, as well as for his trips to support other Republican candidates during the midterm elections.

Mr. DeSantis’s office has also been forced by court order to turn over public records. After his administration began rounding up Venezuelan asylum seekers in San Antonio and putting them on private planes to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, Ms. Petersen’s group filed records requests seeking further details about the program.

The group eventually filed a lawsuit after being unable to obtain the records, and in October, a state judge ruled that Mr. DeSantis’s office must turn over the documents. Yet late last year, Ms. Petersen’s organization said that Mr. DeSantis and his administration had not produced all of the records, and filed a lawsuit seeking contempt of court. The group still does not have all of the records it requested, she said.

Ms. Polsky, the Democratic state senator, said, “The ironic part of it is, this bill will pass if they want it to pass, but even if it didn’t exist, they still don’t cough up the public records the way they should.” She added, “So it’s probably not going to make a difference in the end, but we will make sure to make a much bigger deal than we did.”>

<Gwyneth Paltrow was called to the witness stand Friday in a civil suit filed against her, where she disputed allegations that she caused an accident at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort in 2016 that left a man seriously injured.

Terry Sanderson, 76, who is seeking $300,000 from Paltrow, says she slammed into him from behind in a ski collision that left him with a concussion, brain injury and four broken ribs. But Paltrow alleges that it was actually Sanderson at fault and that he is exploiting her wealth.

Paltrow and Sanderson both dispute who hit whom and who was farther up the hill at the time of the crash. Deer Valley’s website says the person ahead or downhill has the right of way.

Paltrow was called to the stand Friday by Sanderson’s attorneys, after the jury heard from Sanderson's daughters, an eyewitness and medical experts.

Paltrow said she was “gently” skiing down the slope when she felt a body press into her back and saw two skis slide between hers. She and Sanderson fell to the ground, Paltrow said, adding that she momentarily froze before becoming upset and yelling an expletive at Sanderson.

Paltrow apologized for the outburst, saying she felt violated and initially believed the crash might have been a sexual assault.

“There was a body pressing against me and a very strange grunting noise,” she said.

Paltrow said she remained at the scene until a ski instructor who had been working with one of her children told her she could go. The instructor filled out a report documenting the incident, Paltrow said, and made sure that Sanderson was OK.

Paltrow is seeking $1 in damages and the reimbursement of attorney's fees.

When a lawyer for Sanderson, Kristin VanOrman, pressed Paltrow about an eyewitness account of the crash that differs from hers, Paltrow questioned the witness' accuracy and said: "Mr. Sanderson categorically hit me on the ski slope and that is the truth."

The witness is Sanderson's acquaintance, Craig Ramon, who was at the resort with him as part of a meetup group. He testified Tuesday that he was roughly 35 feet uphill from Sanderson at the time of the accident.

Ramon said he heard a scream and within a few seconds, saw Paltrow slam into Sanderson from behind. He stopped beside them after seeing them both fall to the ground, saying Paltrow stood back up but Sanderson was facedown in the snow for about two minutes.

Paltrow did not speak to them, Ramon said, leaving about four minutes after the accident without identifying herself or asking if Sanderson was alright or needed medical attention.

Ramon denied assertions from Paltrow's attorneys that a ski patrol member came by the scene of the accident, and told the court he flagged ski patrol after he and Sanderson attempted to continue to ski downhill. Sanderson was clearly "not OK," so Ramon said he asked for help to get Sanderson to the resort's nurse's station.

Paltrow's attorneys are expected to take up her defense next week, after Sanderson's attorneys rest their case.>

Hope the entitled dolt gets soaked for more than the $300k her opponent is seeking.

Chessgames needs to come down off that high horse thinking that only GMs matter to the chess world. Let's make room in the directory for every master including Paolo Boi!>

'Drinking, gambling and porn'?

One journalist's view:

<New York has been in a strange fever this past week, awaiting the imminent arrest of former president Trump. Or at least we were told that it was imminent. Trump himself told his followers that he expected to be arrested on Tuesday. But Tuesday came and went and no arrest happened. The media was camped outside the state courthouse downtown, and on a street parallel to Trump Tower row upon row of police cars and security service vehicles loitered, waiting.

What were they all doing? Well, one explanation is that Trump called for his supporters to turn out and protest his arrest. Because nobody can think of a time when Trump called for his supporters to turn out to protest and anything bad happened, right?

But if the police were loitering for Trump supporters, they were in the wrong place. New York is not a Republican city and New Yorkers themselves do not have any special love for Trump. You could say that New Yorkers looked down on Trump long before the rest of the world got into the habit. They are pioneers in the field.

What seemed to be occurring was some kind of negotiation. A negotiation between prosecutors, the secret service who protect the former president, and the local New York police. What seems to have been under discussion is the manner of the arrest.

In a nation more than used to surprises, the details of this might still startle some. For instance, you might expect that Trump and his team would want to avoid any scene that humiliates the former president. But sources this week claimed that Trump actually wants to be handcuffed and for this to be caught on film. He believes that these images will rile up his base and help trampoline his run for the presidency in 2024. It is a high-risk strategy, but then Trump is a master of high risk.

What this looks like in the wider country is a wholly different matter. For some Americans, the idea that the former president could face a courtroom and perhaps even a jail cell over the Stormy Daniels scandal is preposterous. It is alleged that Trump paid hush money to the adult film star from campaign funds, whereas it should have been paid from his personal funds. “So what?”, many people think. Of all the things that might disbar Trump from running for office again, the idea that this should do for him seems bizarre.

Rumour has it that the local district attorney may be starting to worry about this himself. There is word that he is concerned about the strength of the case. And so he should be. For the only thing more disastrous for America than Trump being hauled to court in handcuffs would be for this to happen only for Trump to get off. His Left-wing opponents think – hope – that this is impossible. But it is eminently possible. And in that situation Trump can present himself not only as a victim of deep state enmity but as a martyr. Someone who has had to put up with efforts to unseat him from the moment he won the 2016 election.

He isn’t wrong on the political persecution. Whatever you think of Donald Trump, it is undeniable that political opponents within the system tried to destroy him from the moment that he broke the Republican Party machine and gained office. For the duration of his presidency, there were endless efforts to indict him and impeach him. These included the fabricated claims about Russian collusion and much more. Investigations showed that these added up to what Americans call a “nothing-burger”. But elements within the intelligence community, among others, looked like they were trying to do something deeply undemocratic....>

<....That perception remains among Trump’s base. He is still ahead in the polls among Republican voters, and in part this is because they see him as a fighter – their fighter – against the “deep state”. These people recognise that Trump is no saint, but they believe that he is a bruiser and that the country needs a bruiser to take on the vested interests, the deep state and much more.

But if this seems mad, it certainly isn’t much madder than anything else going on in America at present. At the very moment that the Chinese Communist Party is ostentatiously trying to replace America as the global superpower, America itself is in a mess. At the local level, the quality of state governments and city governance is at an all-time low. San Francisco has fallen through the floor with drug problems, rife homelessness and more. But at this juncture the local authorities are seriously discussing the prospect of distributing reparations for slavery, which ended two centuries ago.

Entire states – notably California – are taxing themselves into poverty, chasing out the super-rich and slowly strangling the goose that laid the golden egg. The country’s intellectual class has largely been replaced by a type of noisy huckster pundit who throws out incendiary claims about the iniquities of the country and are well remunerated for doing so. Supreme Court judges cannot say what a woman is. Law students are walking out of the most prestigious law schools if they think they might hear an opinion they disagree with. And all of this is presided over by a president who is clearly, visibly, ailing but who is pretending that he is going to stay in office for another six years.

It is strange. Because on many measures – notably economic – America is doing considerably better than Britain or Europe. The authorities have brought down inflation, and fuel prices and other commodities with it. You might look at the nation’s spreadsheets and come to the conclusion that things are on track and maybe even normal. The problem is that in city after city you only have to look out of the window – or study the crime rates – to know this is not the case.

Through a bewildering number of techniques the world’s leading democracy is driving itself mad. The sub-text of the Trump indictment is whether it is also prepared to drive itself off the cliff.>

So deep, insightful....

Make that hackneyed, trite, limp, unoriginal, vapid, dull....you get the picture.

<House Republicans are reaffirming their commitment to passing a proposed amendment to place thresholds on the number of terms those in Congress may serve.

Earlier this year, South Carolina GOP Rep. Ralph Norman introduced H.J.Res.11, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit those serving in the House to three terms, for a total of six years, and those serving in the Senate to two terms, for a total of 12 years.

"We've gotten a great response from other Republicans who also support term limits," Norman said of his proposed amendment in a statement to Fox News Digital this week. "This was one of Rep. McCarthy's promises, and we intend on following through with making sure it gets done."

For those elected during a special election to fill a vacancy, the proposal, according to Norman's office, defines the length of a "qualifying term" as at least one year in the House of Representatives and at least three years in the Senate.

House Republicans — including Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C. — are reaffirming their push for a vote on a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms those in Congress may serve.

Norman also said he is "talking to the Judiciary Committee and Rep. [Jim] Jordan to make sure H.J.Res.11 gets scheduled for markup, and then it will definitely go through regular order."

Russell Dye, who serves as the communications director and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox that Norman's measure is something the committee and Jordan plan to evaluate.

"Of course, Mr. Jordan supports term limits, and this is something we plan on obviously looking at," Dye said.

Norman's office said that the measure, which received bipartisan support and has 86 co-sponsors, starts the term limit counter after ratification, meaning that politicians elected prior to that date would not yet be subject to term limits.

"It's inappropriate for our elected leaders to make long-term careers off the backs of the American taxpayer," Norman told Fox News Digital in January. "We've seen the corruption it can lead to. While there is value in experience, it's easy to become disconnected from those you serve after too many years in Washington. Most Americans support term limits, but the problem is convincing politicians they ought to serve for a period of time and then go home and live under the laws they enacted."

In agreement, Maine Rep. Jared Golden, the first Democrat to co-sponsor the amendment offered by Norman, said earlier this year that the House of Representatives "was never intended at its inception to be a place where someone served for 30 years."

"Mainers voted in support of term limits in a large part because they don’t believe elected office should be a long-term career," Golden said at the time. "Instead, they want fresh ideas and new leadership. Terms limits will go a long way towards delivering those ideas and leadership in Washington."

Norman's proposed amendment, which has been offered in the past, is exactly the type of measure Florida GOP Congressman Matt Gaetz — a key holdout in Kevin McCarthy's bid to become speaker — is pushing for.

"I’m a proud co-sponsor of Rep. Norman’s legislation for a Constitutional Amendment that would limit House members to 3 terms (6 years) and Senators to 2 terms (12 years)," Gaetz told Fox News Digital in January.

"During the week-long negotiations with Speaker McCarthy, we secured a historic opportunity to finally have a vote on terms limits on the House floor and will aggressively pursue its passage," Gaetz added at the time....>

And here I thought the only thing Gaetz 'aggressively pursued' was teenaged girls....

<....The measure has also received support from Kentucky GOP Rep. James Comer, who serves as chairman of the House Oversight Committee and said earlier this year during an appearance on Fox News Channel's "America's Newsroom" that his constituents are "excited" about term limits legislation.

"The people in Kentucky back home this weekend, they were excited about the changes in the rules," Comer said. "They were the most excited about term limits. You know, this is something that Republicans campaigned on every election, but yet we haven't had a term limits vote in the six years I've been in Congress. So I'm glad that we're going to do that. We're finally going to do the things that we campaigned on."

GOP Rep. Don Bacon has also expressed support for a vote on term limits, telling reporters this year that he believes the measure would be a "good thing" for House members to vote on, but that he doesn't see it going far in the Senate.

The idea of limiting congressional service has been tossed around among lawmakers for years, but it has never resulted in any serious legislation as members continue their decades-long careers in both chambers.

Eleven members currently serving in either the House or Senate have worked more than 35 years in one or both chambers. For instance, the longest-serving member of Congress is GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, whose career in politics spans nearly 65 years from his time as a member of the Iowa House of Representatives in 1959. Grassley was first elected to the U.S. House in 1975 and later to the Senate in 1980, where he has served as chair of multiple committees during his more than 48-year career in federal politics.

Following Grassley, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey, who served in the House for nearly 40 years before becoming the junior senator for the state in 2013, has a combined 46-year career in both chambers.

Other current members of Congress who have a more than 35-year career in federal politics include: Oregon Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden (42 years); Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. (42 years); Kentucky GOP Rep. Hal Rogers (42 years); New Jersey GOP Rep. Chris Smith (42 years); Maryland Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer (41 years); Illinois Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin (40 years); Ohio Democrat Rep. Marcy Kaptur (40 years); Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (38 years); and Maryland Democrat Sen. Ben Cardin (36 years).>

<Rudy Giuliani, 78, has claimed on a Newsmax segment that indicting Donald Trump, 76, would be “the kind of thing that ends a civilization.” The former president (who ‘concerned’ chief of staff John Kelly with his ‘immoral’ and ‘abnormal’ actions) is currently being investigated by the Manhattan district attorney over his alleged involvement in bribing the adult film star Stormy Daniels with his then-lawyer Michael Cohen.

A New York grand jury has been hearing evidence for Trump’s hush money case. They invited him to testify last week. Legal experts say he has reached the “last stop” before an indictment. Throughout the trial, Trump claimed that it was a “fake case” and a “political witch-hunt.”

Trump told his Truth social media followers on Saturday, March 18 that he expected to be arrested on Tuesday and called for protests. In his post, he urges his followers to, “Protest, take our nation back!” If he does get arrested, it will make Trump the first former president to be indicted. It could also harm his chances of reclaiming the presidency in the 2024 race.

Daniels, 44, was allegedly paid $130,000 by Cohen in 2016 to stay silent about her supposed affair with Trump while his 2016 presidential campaign was underway. Cohen, 56, has claimed under oath that Trump told him to bribe Daniels and that he reimbursed him.

Speaking to Newsmax on Sunday, Giuliani said about Trump’s looming indictment: “It’s usually the downfall of a great republic when the prosecution system is turned into a political device. You can look at ancient history, and you can see this is the kind of thing that ends a civilization.”

The hush money investigation in New York isn’t the only legal challenge Trump is facing at the moment. The former president is also being probed for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. And just last week, the district attorney for Atlanta signaled that a decision on the two-year investigation was imminent.

Giuliani, who was the former mayor of New York City, joined Trump’s personal legal team in 2018. He was the most vocal Trump ally who promoted election fraud rumors in the 2020 presidential race. Giuliani could even lose his law license over his false election claims. He also appeared before a Georgia grand jury as part of the investigation looking into whether Trump interfered in the past election.>

<Donald Trump made some big promises to supporters at his rally in Waco, Texas on Saturday, vowing to defeat “demonic forces” in the “final battle” of 2024 and make the country a “free nation again.”

But over the course of the next hour and a half, he made clear that the only apparent strategy he has for vanquishing the country’s supposed “demons” is relentlessly complaining about his own troubles.

The rally—an attempt to re-energize his supporters, and his own campaign operation after months of a sleepy campaign in which he hunkered down at his Mar-a-Lago estate and had dinner with a white nationalist, among other things—came as Trump himself stoked fears of his own imminent arrest.

Now facing the possibility of being indicted by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg—as early as this coming week—over the alleged misreporting of a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of his 2016 campaign, his 2024 campaign would appear to be teetering dangerously close to the edge.

But despite the Daniels case looming large, along with a litany of other ongoing investigations, the former president attempted to sound fearless.

“2024 is the final battle. That’s going to be the big one,” Trump proudly declared. “You put me back in the White House, their reign will be over and America will be a free nation again.”

While at times riffing off his prepared remarks, one personal problem continually found sunlight: A potential indictment being handed down by Bragg’s office, which he referred to as “something straight out of the Stalinist Russia horror show.”

“In my case, every piece of my personal life, financial life, business life, and public life has been turned upside down and dissected like no one in the history of our country,” Trump fumed at the start of the rally. “It probably makes me the most innocent man in the history of our country,” he later added.

Last week, the former president set off a firestorm after sending out a series of all capitalized posts on his social media site, Truth Social, suggesting his arrest was just hours away last Tuesday. But, notably, the day came and went, and an indictment from Bragg’s office has yet to come.

“From the beginning, it’s been one witch hunt and phony investigation after another,” Trump continued while belaboring personal grievances such as what he argued is “prosecutorial misconduct” unfairly targeting himself.

While tossing red meat to MAGA fanatics in the audience, there was one topic Trump didn’t address: The location of the rally. Nearly thirty years ago, a nearly two-month deadly standoff in Waco left painful memories for the town after the religious-cult Branch Davidians had a standoff with federal agents, leaving more than 80 law enforcement officials dead.

Sharing beliefs with Christians and convictions about the world ending, Branch Davidians at their Waco compound stockpiled weapons, which would be used to carry out the deadly fire-fight—where they expressed similar anti-government sentiment to that seen on Jan 6.

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung argued in a statement to The Daily Beast that the location was chosen due to it being “centrally located and close to all four of Texas’ biggest metropolitan areas.” “Anyone who makes that absurd comparison obviously has their own delusional agenda,” he added....>

<....Investigation talk—which earned less applause from the crowd than culture war complaints—was heavy. Trump also talked about the politics of politics.

The former president took aim at Ron DeSantis—who he referred to as “Ron DeSanctimonious”—only to tout his own increasingly growing margins against the Florida governor in 2024 presidential polling.

DeSantis, who gained popularity after implementing lax coronavirus guidelines in the Sunshine State, has since seen his poll numbers soften. Moreover, as The Daily Beast reported, his book tour has begun to show public cracks under increased attacks from the Trump camp and national media scrutiny.

Then Trump praised those he views as loyalists—who haven’t left his side. Chief among them was firebrand MAGA-loving Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was in the audience.

“Marjorie Taylor Greene. I don’t want to insult you by saying this, Marjorie, but on the plane, I said, ‘People don’t realize how brilliant she is,’” Trump said—going on to praise her visits to the D.C. jail where Jan. 6 defendants remain behind bars.

“Would you like to run for the Senate?” Trump then asked in Greene’s direction. “I would fight like hell for you.”

Trump’s suggestion might surprise those around Greene, as The Daily Beast first reported that the Georgia lawmaker had made her way onto a 2024 Trump vice presidential shortlist.>

<During Super Bowl week, news emerged that Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre had sued broadcasters (and former NFL players) Pat McAfee and Shannon Sharpe and Mississippi auditor Shad White for defamation in connection with the ongoing Mississippi welfare-fraud scandal.

It appears that Favre sued each of them separately.

The case against McAfee was filed in Lamar County, Mississippi. Via sports and betting lawyer Daniel Wallach, McAfee removed the case from state court to federal court on Friday.

It was the only play by McAfee, given that Favre is a Mississippi native, who lives in Lamar County. Home cooking exists in state courts, when it comes to defendants who don’t live in that state. For that reason, federal law allows cases filed in state court against out-of-state defendants to be removed to federal court (if the plaintiff is seeking more than $75,000), where the judges are appointed for life and not part of the local political scene.

Although Favre’s lawsuit doesn’t make a specific demand in dollars, the filing includes quotes from Favre’s lawyer regarding the value of the case.

“Well I guarantee you the jury in Mississippi will make certain he learns how to apologize,” Eric Herschmann said regarding McAfee. “It’s going to cost Pat McAfee millions of dollars, and if it bankrupts him then he will have learned his lesson.”

As we’ve previously opined (and opinions are always protected under the First Amendment), Favre is the one who may learn his lesson here. McAfee’s statements, while perhaps technically on the wrong side of the line, seemed to be consistent with the widespread conclusions many have reached regarding Favre, based on facts that have emerged in connection with the Mississippi welfare scandal.

Far more importantly for Favre will be proving that his reputation was damaged by McAfee’s statements. To do that, Favre’s pre-existing reputation becomes relevant, because there’s no way to determine whether it was harmed without establishing where it was.

This gives McAfee’s lawyers license to delve into the nooks and crannies of anything and everything Favre has ever done, including but not limited to a certain alleged escapade involving a coworker, a camera, and crocs.

And because truth is always a defense to any defamation case, McAfee’s lawyers now have an avenue for investigating whether and to what extent Favre knew that money he received from Mississippi was coming from funds meant for welfare recipients. Anything Favre says in that case can and will be used against him, if he’s ever accused of criminal wrongdoing by state or federal authorities.

Finally, Herschmann’s habit of talking tough about the case continues to be curious, to say the least. While it’s a matter of individual lawyer style, I learned during 19 years of practice that no one knows how any case is going to play out in court — until it does. There are too many unexpected twists and turns, too many potential issues with whether and to what extent witnesses might fold under questioning, too many variables both tangible and intangible that will influence whether the randomly-selected jury agrees or disagrees with the position a given party is espousing.

The best play, in my experience, is to work the case quietly, build it diligently, and then let the evidence do the talking — and hopefully let the jury do the shouting.

In this case, we’re a long way from trial. But, man, if it ever happens, I may have to spend a week or two in a federal courthouse in Mississippi.>

<Walt Disney's CEO Bob Iger has shown no willingness to back down in the face of the governor's efforts to campaign against diversity training.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has made Disney World, one of his state's largest employers, the target of his so-called war on woke.

At the root of the dispute are former Walt Disney CEO Bob Chapek's remarks opposing the Republican governor's new law, which limits the ability of educators to discuss gender identity and sexual orientation with children.

Labeled the Don't Say Gay bill, the law met with huge pushback from Disney employees, who had criticized Chapek for initially not speaking out against the bill.

That led the then-Disney boss to take a direct stand against the governor's actions, which in turn led DeSantis to strip the company of its special tax status.

DeSantis has decided to use Disney as the center of his political-theater culture war because it's an easy, and nonmoving, target. The company can't pack up Disney World and move it to New York, Massachusetts, or some other liberal bastion, so it mostly has to take whatever the governor dishes out.

But while DeSantis wants to use Disney as a target, he's mostly playing to the cameras; clearly, he's not actually looking to take down the largest single-site employer in the U.S. Disney World generates tens of thousands of jobs, pays the state a lot of money. and brings in billions of tourism dollars -- many of which are spent outside its gates in the broader Florida economy.

Disney CEO Iger Uses Actions, Not Words

Disney CEO Bob Iger understands that actions speak louder than words and words can come back to haunt you.

The returned Mouse House boss has not called out DeSantis, nor did he fight the governor's takeover of its Reedy Creek Improvement District.

On paper, Disney World appears to have lost its right to self-govern. That's true, but it doesn't mean much because it's not as if the state -- even DeSantis's handpicked cronies who now oversee the former Reedy Creek Improvement District -- intend to actually get in Disney's way. The company prints money for the state.

So, that's why Iger -- who had publicly spoken against the Don't Say Gay bill when he was a private citizen and not Disney CEO, has not called out DeSantis. A speech decrying the governor's actions, pointing out that they “put vulnerable, young LGBTQ people in jeopardy,” as he said before taking the CEO job back, would not help Disney.

Instead, Iger has let his company's actions speak.

Disney World plans to host a "major conference promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in the workplace" at the Disney World Resort this September, the Tampa Bay Times reported.

Disney Boldly Challenges DeSantis

Disney World will host the annual Out & Equal Workplace Summit in September.

"The largest LGBTQ+ conference in the world, with more than 5,000 attendees every year. It brings together executives, ERG leaders and members, and HR and DEI professionals and experts -- all working for LGBTQ+ equality," the event's organizer, Out & Equal, said on its website.

"Over more than 20 years, Summit has grown to become the preferred place to network and share strategies that create inclusive workplaces, where everyone belongs and where LGBTQ+ employees can be out and thrive."

The Tampa Bay Times called simply hosting the event "a defiant display of the limits of DeSantis’s campaign against diversity training."

Instead of giving a speech and becoming even more of a right-wing-media talking point, Iger showed his employees where Disney stands through his actions. It's a smart choice by a seasoned executive not to become an actor in DeSantis's political theater.

The Florida governor wants to be perceived as battling 'woke" Disney without actually hurting his state's relationship with the company. The newspaper described exactly how that works when it looked at the new government powers the state has taken from the theme park giant.

The subsequent legislation left most of Disney’s special powers in place despite the governor’s attempt to dissolve the district. The conservative members the governor appointed to the board hinted at the first meeting of the new board that they would exercise leverage over Disney, such as prohibiting COVID-19 restrictions at Disney World. But legal experts have said that the new board’s authority has no control over Disney content.

DeSantis wants a culture war, or at least one that'll play out in the media. Iger knows better and has played the situation perfectly.>

<....With the pun "Smir Tactics" it would certainly seem that our resident cyberbully and trolls would be all over this one.>

Why not stfu and have done, <fredthestalker>?

< pompous pe telling us that the 29...Qxf4 players are incompetent even though they knew enough to notice the difference and make for an interesting conversation....>

Yet, if you had offered up any objection to the line chosen, you would post and expect others to accept it as holy writ, <fredfradiavolo>.

<....perhidious the narcist [sic] looks down on others as if they are lifetime 700 rated....>

You <are> a life 700 player, at best, in no wise the master you have claimed to be.

Since you are in the slow reading group, lemme explain something ta ya, kid:

You're in the wrong game with the wrong opponent.

<....He's a blatant basher through and through, post after post, year after year, decade after decade.>

<OSWALD

What dost thou know me for?

KENT

<....Have you seen Russ lately?!? Russ looks more like Ben Finegold. Russ goes all shaw [sic] psycho in his recent movie "Unhinged." It's rage against everybody who disagrees -

....Seems like this blockbuster would be a huge hit with Kenny's Kids. Somebody will nominate Russ for a free membership.>

The next jacket this heah boy will be wearing is one without sleeves.