“I would say it was bravado, if you want to know the truth, it was bravado. I was talking and just holding up papers and talking about them, but I had no documents. I didn’t have any documents.” -- Trump, yesterday, in his latest attempt at an ill-advised public public defense. I must add a reminder here before we go any further. I’m pretty sure that most people can repeat this next part by heart, but it still bears repeating -- “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you.” -- Miranda Warning Trump has a great many “tells” to know when he’s lying. For starters, it begins when he opens his mouth, at which point everyone should immediately be on guard. But there are others that aren't just Red Alert warnings, but definitive. One is when he says that someone referred to him as “Sir.” Another is when he uses the words “two weeks,” as in explain that he’s going to provide information in “two weeks.” The word “many” is one of his tells, when used for things like “many people say…” And so is when he begins a sentence with “Wrong!” after he has been quoted as having said something damning to himself. There are a lot of others, but a notable one that’s important here is when he says a variation of “If you want to know the truth” or “To be totally honest.” To be totally honest, sir, if people wanted to know the truth, many say they wouldn’t go to Trump to find it. What leaps out in Trump’s ever-changing attempt at a defense yesterday is him now claiming “bravado” when caught on tape acknowledging that he was unable to declassify material he had in his possession that he told those in the room was classified (something, it should be noted, would be illegal for him to knowingly have), which contradicts his earlier explanation that nothing he had was classified because he could simply declassify it all with his mind. And this criminal admission doesn’t even get to the “bravado” part: him saying on the recording that he has classified material on his desk, which he now insists it wasn't classified, that he then shows to his visitor – who responds with “Wow.” This is the thing: I can’t remember the last time – or any time – when Trump has said that he was lying. As far as I recall, everything he’s said, according to him, is not only “the truth,” but “perfect.” He doesn’t lie, he doesn't get things wrong, he doesn’t brag, he doesn’t have to, he’s perfect, if you must know the truth, sir. So, for Trump to try to suggest he was just bragging about having something very important that he didn’t actually have is not just improbable, but borders on the impossible. Further, for Trump to now say he was lying about having something very important, which would be illegal for him to knowingly have, suggests he’s terrified and has no other defense. By the way, to be clear, many of his supporters and staff have said that Trump was exaggerating about something, and it wasn’t literally true – explaining that you can’t go by what Trump says, but what he means – but Trump himself doesn’t say that. Trump says that everything he does is perfect. Of course, in this case, even putting his “bravado” excuse aside, for anyone to believe what Trump is trying to flim-flam here to a puppy-eyed, trusting cult audience is that all he was showing – as he has said -- was, among other things, just newspaper clippings. Which would mean he wants us to believe that newspaper clippings can be top-secret, classified documents and would mean that the reporter in the room was awed to the point of “Wow” when showed a newspaper clipping to her. Fun Fact: No one has ever been charged with a federal espionage crime for the illegal possession of a newspaper article. There’s an even bigger problem for Trump with all of this. Even if, somehow, Trump was able to convince his most loyal, trusting, ill-informed acolytes about his “bravado,” they won’t be serving on the jury. There might be Trump supporters on the jury, but not those who believe JFK is coming back to life to run with Trump, since they will be culled out quickly during jury selection. Reasonably sane people will be on the jury. But that’s not the bigger problem for Trump here, only a pesky problem. The bigger problem is that, because his lawyers are not total idiots who want to lose their law licenses for malpractice, Trump will never be taking the stand and so will never be able to make his claim of “bravado.” This means that everything else that Trump says, on the tapes committing his crimes, and in public acknowledging what he’s said on the tapes committing his crimes is perfect, “can and will be used against him in a court of law.” Even his simple statements like “I didn’t have any documents” can be played to a jury to show the level of his state of mind and lies, since – of course, he had documents! We’ve all seen the photos of the documents, he admitted having documents, he’s said (incorrectly) that he had the right to have the documents, he’s been indicted for having the documents. And yet there he is, on tape, saying “I didn’t have any documents.” This is the equivalent of a five-year-old child with crumbs on his fact and a broken cookie jar at his feet saying, “I didn’t have any cookies. Or the equivalent of perhaps my favorite movie scene – Jimmy Durante in the movie, Jumbo. Which brings us back to – “You have the right to remain silent.”
A right which it seems likely Trump will never, ever, not ever take advantage of. And not doing so, it appears will -- time and again -- help bury him.
0 Comments
This shouldn't take long. But it's pretty wonderful. Last week, I read a story in the Los Angeles Times about Max Park from Cerritos who set the world record for fastest solving of a 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube. There are 43 quintillion possibilities -- and it took him...3.13 seconds. The old record of 3.47 seconds was the Gold Standard and had stood for almost five years. As the article notes -- "Park’s dad said that when Max was a young child with autism, the family hoped he would take to Rubik’s Cubes to help with his fine motor skills. When his parents took him to his first competition more than a decade ago, Schwan Park said they hoped it would be 'a giant therapy play date.' "But then Max started winning." The article notes that Max has set close to 70 records in speed cubing competitions over the past decade. What stood out from this records is that the 3x3x3 is the original Rubik’s Cube, and the record is for a single time. (There are specialty competitions like taking the fewest moves or using just one hand.) “This was the actual apex of records … it’s the one that everyone covets,” his father Schwan Park said. I figured the video of the record had to be on YouTube. And it was. Just don't blink, because it's over really fast. Yesterday, a friend asked what my reaction was about the NBC poll showing Trump 4 points behind Biden, just as in 2020? He noted that this would give Trump more independents than he thought would be the case. And added how it’s other-worldly to believe that after everything that's happened, everything we know, how anyone other than the most cultish GOP base could actually vote to put him back into the Oval office. How could 80% of women oppose Dobbs and 60% of all voters find his behavior deserving of criminal indictment, he asked, and have that translate into a mere 4 point edge for Biden?
Much as I wish the margin was larger, indeed massive, and I’m sorry to see it as close as it is, I don’t give this poll much thought, bordering on zero. My only reaction is a bit of general surprise, rather than it having the slightest impact in terms of the election. (And even at that, I don’t think I’d have expected more than a 10-point difference. So, 4 points is not only in semi-range, but maybe even close given margin of error.) This is SO far out from the election. Most people aren’t even thinking about it yet. There are no nominees. And so, I don’t sense this is really a head-to-head match-up poll, but more Biden’s numbers are low because of his popularity, and Trump’s are high because Republicans support him. It’s not until they’re actually running against one another and laying out their plans and debating each other and more indictments come down and more details of the evidence that people will start focusing on “Which of these two people do I want to be president?” In this poll, it just asks preference right now – there’s nothing about abortion, guns, the environment, more factoring in. And when it comes time to vote, those will all be at issue. And further, as we all know, we don’t elect by national vote. So, the more important question is how does this break down in terms of Electoral College votes? For all we know, Biden could be “leading” by just five points in swing states – but in ALL swing states – while Trump could be leading massively in Red states, making his numbers seem better than they are. (And leading by five points right now in every swing state – if that’s the case – is significant. In fact, more than merely significant: it’s what is necessary for victory,) There’s about 6 points undecided in the NBC poll. Once issues come into play – abortion, guns, the environment, banning books, inflation should be down even more, and the Infrastructure Bill’s projects should be in greater operation -- let’s be conservative and say that those undecideds breaks for Biden 4-2. That makes the margin for Biden 6 points. And support for Trump among Republicans should likely drop off a point or two when there are more indictments, and it comes to actually voting for him to be president again. The four closest swing states are Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia. Of those, Michigan has swung pretty Democratic since 2020. And I think Kari Lake going full lunatic has screwed Arizona Republicans for 2024, and it should be more solidly Democratic. Wisconsin is a question mark, but when issues come to play, especially abortion and guns, I don’t think it will back Trump. And though Georgia was very close in 2020, it should be more solidly Democratic given all the things going on in that state – two Democratic U.S. senators, a likely Trump indictment for election fraud and a record of rebuking Trump by electing state officials he opposed. To be clear, these are all “should,” but they’re “should” based on supportive reasons. That said, there’s a reason that the NBC poll numbers are fairly close – as national numbers. Much as I think Democrats are in much better shape than Republicans, I actually love to have Democrats wary, which means they won’t take anything for granted and will keep working very hard to get the message out and get the vote out. I don’t like people being “scared” (because I don’t think you ever win running scared), but – outside of swamping the other side with a 20 point margin… -- I like people being wary. Still, yes, it’s surprising to have only a 4-point national margin. But I just think a lot of it is a momentary snapshot of personal party-line approval (or lack thereof) and has little to do with actually voting on issues in the election and who you want sitting in the Oval Office. And yes, it’s just numbingly sick that so many Republicans support Trump. But I think that will change as issues are on the table and as more indictments come and…as he begins campaigning as a lunatic. You know my long-held belief that a big turning point will be the first debate when he’s asked, “Who won the 2020 election?” – and he then goes on a long rant that he won and why. But yeah, it’s pathetic that so many Republicans still support a man under two current indictments (one of them for espionage), who has at least two likely-indictments coming soon, was found liable for sexual assault, was impeached twice and has a long track record of losing elections for the party. And is a white supremacist, pathological lying, anti-Semitic fascist. For starters. Last week, I posted an article here about a piece in the Los Angeles Times by their TV critic Robert Lloyd. He had written an article on 30 wonderful international streaming series, most of which sounded great, and I linked to it. Unfortunately, it turned out that Lloyd’s article was for a special section in the paper, and as a result it was behind a paywall, and so no one could access it without being a subscriber. I didn’t want to cut-and-paste the entire article here, since I didn’t think that was proper for the paper. However, I did what I hope is a reasonable compromise. I culled out 19 of the series I found most interesting – and which were on the most-accessible streaming platforms – and significantly trimmed down the detailed paragraphs of each that Robert Lloyd wrote. Instead, I added just simple capsule descriptions, most only one sentence, to identify what each series is about. And then finally, while the Times article listed all the shows by the country that made them, I rearranged them by the streaming service they’re on – and noted their country parenthetically. I’ve seen two of the series mentioned here. The entire series of the tremendous Extraordinary Attorney Woo, and the first season so far of Call My Agent (which has been adapted by British TV.) HULU El Encargado (Argentina). A dark comedy of social and economic class about the manager of a luxury condominium in Buenos Aires, who has come to identify the building as his own. The Office (India). An Indian adaptation of the series. Boris (Italy). The fourth season of a series revived after 11 years. A hectic backstage comedy about making an Italian TV series on the life of Jesus, fictionally funded by a Netflix-like American company. One Dollar Lawyer” (South Korea) is about an attorney who only accepts $1 from needy clients; he’s cool, colorful, eccentric and behind on the rent. NETFLIX Rough Diamonds (Belgium). Set in Antwerp among Orthodox Jewish diamond merchants, a suicide brings family members back together, Albanian mobsters and an interested prosecutor. Call My Agent (France) about a talent agency, mixed with real actors spoofing themselves. Standing Up (France) a terrifically sweet series set in the comedy clubs of the city’s less chic quarters, its characters struggling to make a name for themselves. From the same creator as Call My Agent, also with real French comics playing themselves mixed in. Dark (Germany). There’s a wormhole in the caves below a nuclear plant. A time- traveling multifamily drama, with moody, mysterious sorrow and shades of gray. The Law According to Lidia Poët (Italty). A mystery set in 1880s Turin, based on Italy’s first female lawyer who was kicked out of the bar and became a detective, assisting her lawyer brother. Smart, exciting and a bit naughty, it moves through social strata and historical moments. Midnight Diner (Japan). An anthology series set around a backstreet Tokyo eatery, that opens at midnight, where night owls offer short stories that tend to the bittersweet, but mostly sweet. Food plays an integral role; some episodes even end with a demonstration of the episode’s main dish. Tiger and Dragon (Japan). A deceptively complex comedy about storytelling. A young yakuza is frustrated because he can’t tell a joke, comes to collect a debt from a master of rakugo, which is a classical form of comic performance, and becomes his apprentice. Characters enact the tales they tell from stage. Extraordinary Attorney Woo (South Korea) is a sweet, oddball legal series about a lawyer with autism spectrum disorder. The tone is largely whimsical, often comic, but never mocking. AMAZON PRIME VIDEO Guilty Minds (India). Character-rich, lively legal drama, in Hindi and English about old friends on opposite sides handling big issues. A Private Affair (Spain). Set in 1960s, the rich sister of the new police commissioner faces prejudice after seeing a woman murdered, and turns investigator with intelligence, beauty, bravery, madcap adventure and romance. High production values and very cinematic give eight episodes an epic feel. With Jean Reno as Hector, her butler and reluctant Watson. AMAZON PRIME FREEVEE The Three Musketeers (South Korea ) translated to 17th century South Korea, some new narrative twists, romance, comedy, intrigue, fascinating period work and swordplay. APPLE TV+ Pachinko (South Korea). American-made trilingual epic melodrama tells of four generations of a Korean family, beginning with Korea under Japanese colonial rule to modern day. MAX Garcia! (Spain). A super-spy is put into suspended animation in 1961 and awakens in the present day. He’s adopted by a talkative aspiring journalist and must adjust from having lived in a dictatorship to now in a democratic nation with political skullduggery trying to bring him down. Mainly a comedy with some Spanish tragedy, romance and action, on the need to change. I Don’t Like Driving (Spain). TV critic Lloyd says this might be his favorite. A beautifully shaped, novelistic single-season comedy about a middle-aged, misanthropic literature professor who decides to finally learn to drive. He’s been stuck emotionally and literally. relying on others, and then some new people come into his life. HBO My Brilliant Friend (Italy). Adapting three of Elena Ferrante’s “Neapolitan” novels, an intimate epic that follows its two life-long friends from 6 to 66, women in a world ruled by childish men. And as I posted at the end of my previous article, just for the heck of it again, this is the trailer for Extraordinary Attorney Woo. The trailer is enjoyable and shows the series' charm, though perhaps over-emphasizes the whimsy a bit and doesn't even begin to come close to doing the program justice -- not touching on some of the fascinating law cases, its serious conflicts, or any of the show's twists. But it gives a somewhat reasonable sense of things and you do get to see the tremendous lead actress, Park Eun Bin. (She originally passed, not sure if she could do the character justice and be respectful, so she went off and did another series. But the producers waited for her. She reconsidered and signed on. They were wise to wait.) I love the series, which has become a huge international hit, but you should know it might take 2-3 episodes for it to fully kick in. That’s what happened with me, after having it recommended by a friend. And I in turn recommended the series to a friend -- who stopped after one episode. Three months later, he told me he'd given it another try. And became so overwhelmingly hooked that he binged the entire 16-episode season in a few days. Last week, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) sent out a tweet in which he highlighted a news headline that stated: “Texas Governor Signs Law Banning Drag Performances in Public.” And then he proudly added below, “That’s right.” There are a few problems with this. Like, er...for starters, the bill doesn’t mention drag performances. And that’s only the start of the problems. What the law signed by Gov. Abbott (R-Purgatory) does is make it a criminal offense “to engage in sexually oriented performances on public property, on the premises of a commercial enterprise, or in the presence of a child.” We now enter “Be Careful What You Wish For” Land. For starters, as I noted, what Gov. Abbott signed into law does not mention drag performances, but even more ironic, it could be argued that the law actually continues to permit drag performers reading stories to school children, since “reading a story” so does not inherently seem to be a “sexually oriented performance.” The dress is just a costume, after all, nothing more: an actor portraying a female character – just like a woman might wear the exact same costume portraying a female character. Maybe even the same female character. (“Say, kids, you liked when Zelda read to you, didn’t you?! Well, good news, Zelda is back – and today she’s played by…”) The performance itself is just reading a sweet story, perhaps Winne-the-Pooh, for instance, or Green Eggs and Ham. Hardly sexually-oriented. So, it should be fine, by this law. Worse though for the authors of the bill – and for Texans – is what the new law does seem to cover instead. For instance, it would seem to pertain to NFL cheerleaders (perhaps most notably, the famously scantily-clad Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders) wriggling through their “sexually-oriented” routines. And high school cheerleaders. And suggestively-dressed waitresses coming on to customers at restaurants like Hooters and Twin Peaks. And strip clubs. And stage musicals like Cabaret, West Side Story, Grease, Chicago, Spring Awakening, Kiss Me Kate, Sweet Charity, Company and on and on and on -- even, heavens to Betsy, Damn Yankees (where Lola tries to seduce Joe Hardy in “Whatever Lola Wants”). Now, imagine a high school putting one of these shows on – or just about any musical about romance, which is inherently “sexually-oriented.” And all R-rated movies, even if there is no child in the audience accompanied by an adult. After all, consider: the law makes it a criminal offense “to engage in sexually oriented performances…on the premises of a commercial enterprise” – like a movie theater. Indeed, it not only doesn’t say “if a child is present,” but specifically separates the necessity of children being in attention, saying, “…or” – as in, “or in the presence of a child.” And to make things worse for Texans (as if not having cheerleaders at their football games is bad enough), that phrase “…or in the presence of a child” means it can include the privacy of your home. A public property or being in a commercial enterprise isn’t required. After all, after the law states that it is a criminal offense “to engage in sexually oriented performances” and lists several situations where this would be illegal in public, it then adds, “…or in the presence of a child.” But...but it's even worse. That's because the reason the law doesn't include mention of banning drag performances is because it was written in a way, specifically, to hopefully avoid a Constitutional challenge. And then Abbott -- in his giddiness to show his abuse on civil and human rights -- went and strutted by retweeting the newspaper headline and spilled the beans! So…good going Texas. Good going Gov. Abbott. In trying to go all fascist and homophobic and intrusive into people lives, you seem to have screwed yourselves horribly -- without even addressing the problem you wanted to abusively control in the first place. That’s the slippery slope you risk getting on when trying to build a path to the netherworld. Sometimes, the road to hell is paved with bad intentions. From the archives. The guest contestant for this week’s Piano Puzzler is Zachary Simpson from Orlando, Florida. I got the hidden song pretty quickly – I could hear the tune right off but it was hidden well-enough that I couldn’t identify it, but it kicked in soon enough. As for the composer style, I had a guess, and it sounded close but I didn’t feel comfortable that I was right – and in fact, it was the contestant’s guess, too, to which composer Bruce Adolph said, “VERY close.” And it was close – but wrong.
|
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|