I don’t know what happened to Jonathan Turley, but he may have hit a new low. He posted a long thread on Twitter, but the first, slimy, cringe-filled tweet in the thread said all you need to know. It read -- “The Hill is out with my column in [sic] a recent discovery of the criminal history of the great-great-grandfather of Joe Biden. It turns out that the evasion of accountability may be something of a family trait acquired through generations of natural selection.” Yes, really. Mary Trump, though, had the best response. She replied back to Turley, “Now do my family.” Brilliant. Other responses online were, as you might imagine, less polite. Giving him the...well, pointed piece of their mind. Blunt and scathing about how totally responsible he was. I went to Turley’s Twitter page and saw a long posting from him there where he went into great detail slamming people who he said totally missed that his reference to “natural selection” was a quip. (In fairness, you might need a microscope to find the joke he intended.) I replied to that tweet by writing back to him -- “Ohhhh, it was just a humor column!! I get it. Like something for ‘The Onion.’ Cool.” However, I then decided to check out his article on the chance that everyone had it wrong, and that maybe Turley did, in fact, write a sarcastic article that ridiculed Republicans going on and on about the supposed “Biden crime family.” But nope, no such luck, his article was dead-on totally serious. The only “quip” in sight was that knee-slapper about “natural selection.” To be fair, I only skimmed the article, since I couldn’t stomach it, but it seemed to be almost entirely about -- literally -- Joe Biden’s great-great grandfather, Moses Robinette, and a serious legal issue he had, stabbing a man in a bar fight. In 1864!!! He was charged with attempted murder, sentenced and sent to prison, but pardoned by Abraham Lincoln. And at the very end of the article, Turley suggested that this from 160 years ago was just core to the Biden family history. At that point, I also replied to his initial tweet that promoted the article. What I wrote was -- “The great-great grandfather, eh? Cool. (I don't have a clue who mine are. So, how nice to find his!) “After you follow up on Mary Trump's request to do her family, maybe you can do the great-great-great grandfathers of the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Carnegies and Astors.” But after a friend sent me an article on the historical story of the event that he’d read in The Smithsonian magazine, I decided not to leave it there. So, I also tracked down the original article in the Washington Post that The Smithsonian references. And I then gave in, took a deep sigh, and read Jonathan Turley’s article so I could compare them all. It turns out that Turley’s article is actually much worse than I first thought. As a result, I wrote a 5-part tweet explaining just a handful of the slight changes he made so that the story would seem worse. Here’s that Twitter response thread, which I’ve put all together and smoothed out to make it read better than tweets do (with their character limitations). It was sent to Jonathan Turley as a reply to his initial tweet. I just finished reading the original articles of this 1864 tale that initially appeared in the Washington Post, and then followed up by The Smithsonian. As it happens, I trust them more on history than Mr. Turley's retelling, most especially with his slight changes to make the story worse. He writes that Moses Robinette (Joe Biden’s great-great-grandfather) pulled "a knife," which sounds big and dangerous. The historians, however, say "pen knife" and "pocketknife which, while dangerous, is certainly less so. He says Moses stabbed John Alexander "repeatedly," which sounds like in a crazed, angry fury and out of control. Neither of the historians say "repeatedly," just stabbed. (One of the historical articles does say there were several cuts, but even though that certainly means it wasn’t just a single stab, of course, something that is “several cuts” doesn’t seem as being wild, but perhaps more defense.) Also, though Mr. Turley repeatedly refers to the charge of attempted murder, for which Moses Robinette was charge, he leaves it there. What he doesn’t ever say, as the historians do in their articles, is that John Alexander survived. Maybe that goes without saying from the word “attempted,” but saying it actually drives the outcome home clearly. Turley says that Moses was overheard by Alexander "bad-mouthing" him. What the historians say, however, is that all that’s known is Moses was talking about Alexander, but it’s not clear at all what was said. Mr. Turley says dismissively that mere "friends" took it upon themselves to ask the army to intercede with "powerful political figures," suggesting something unseemly. The friends were actually three officers in the Army! They all served with Moses Robinette and apparently went to their superior officers, as protocol would require. He says Alexander didn't have a weapon, which everyone agrees on, but omits defense testimony that the man was "much superior in the strength and size" and drunk, stating that he was clearly a threat to Robinette, even without a knife or gun. He says that Moses Robinette "didn’t have any formal medical training." The historians call him a "veterinary surgeon." Turley uses damning words like "pressured" and "leaned on" in the pardon petition that got to Abraham Lincoln. The historians only say that Lincoln got the petition, went through all the documentation and pardoned him. He also goes out of his way to demean the pardon by saying, pretty unnecessarily it seems that Lincoln was known for giving out many pardons. That may be true, but it doesn’t even remotely mean the pardons weren’t justified. Abd, most especially, it doesn’t mean that the pardon of Moses Robinette specifically was without full merit. And he derides Moses as being a "political ally" for those asking for and granting the pardon. This clearly sounds like there were some underhanded shenanigans going on. What the historians say, though, is that if he was in Turley's words a “political ally,” that’s because -- he was on the side of the Union, and was loyal and helpful to the Union cause. As far as political allies go, that's a pretty good one. At least as far as U.S. history and democracy goes. But worst by far is the end. That’s when Mr. Turley inexplicably and reprehensibly tries to tie this 1864 bar fight, that ends with a pardon, to Hunter Biden -- and even to Joe Biden (including the President despite zero evidence of even a crime). And throws in a total dismissal of the importance of Republican star impeachment witness Alexander Smirnov being discredited for being a Russian asset and admitting to lying. All from this from a Civil War bar fight story that ends with a pardon. But to Turley, he calls it a "familiar pattern" of "what the Bidens do best." Having read the two articles by article historians, I’m still trying to figure out what Mr. Turley means “it” is. It was an utterly awful article that Jonathan Hurley wrote, and which The Hill published. When the Washington Post and The Smithsonian wrote their articles, they were historical pieces showing an interesting, off-beat tale of the distant ancestor of the U.S. President. What Jonathan Turley did was turn a quaint piece of bar-fight history from 160 years ago, overlapping with Abraham Lincoln, into attempted evidence of modern-day political crime. As I said, I don’t know what in the world happened to Jonathan Turley. The best I can figure is that he seems to gotten infected by close contact to Alan Dershowitz…
0 Comments
I'm sure that most people have heard the tragic, grisly story of the son who killed his father, decapitated him and then posted a video of it on YouTube, calling for a "revolution" against "the Biden regime" and "illegal immigrants." NBC News posted a tweet about the story on Twitter, which read, "A Pennsylvania man has been arrested after allegedly killing his father and displaying his decapitated head in a YouTube video."
I was curious, since that left out a critical part of the story, so I click on the link. The much longer story went into great detail -- yet for all the length, it too left out that critical part of the story. There was no mention at all of the man calling for a "revolution" against "the Biden regime" and "illegal immigrants." I can't imagine why NBC News did this. The only remote guess I can make is that they felt it was potentially "triggering" for other political violence. And if so, the point is valid -- but I don't think the omission is. Because without it, there can be no outrage at the political ramifications of Trump and Republican officials inciting such ghastly violence. To me, and some others with more substantive voices than mine that I saw, his is utterly irresponsible of NBC News. Hopefully when they covered it on television, they rectified this unacceptable error in judgement. By the way, what I also wrote on social media yesterday was that the story is not even remotely indicative of all people on the far-right, nor should anyone suggest that it is. However, I do look forward to Trump and Republican officials condemning it (and not leaving it to just Democrats doing so) and tempering their hyperbole out of awareness how their words can have a serious effect on those who are disturbed. That said, I don't expect Trump to do so, nor to I expect Republican officials to do so either. But I live in hope. And if they don't do so, their silence should speak volumes. Over the past month, I’ve been reading stories in the local papers or other news sources about how former Los Angeles Dodger Steve Garvey is improving in the polls for U.S. Senator for California, as if this news means him might win.
I am so tired of these articles and reports. In fairness, I was tired of them when the first such story appeared. Imagine the weariness now a month and several new polls later. But by now, please, just stop it. If you can't respect your audience, at least respect reality. Steve Garvey is not going to become a U.S. Senator from California. Never mind that California is a very blue state. Or that there are three Democrats in the race who are highly admired – Representatives Adam Schiff, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee. Or that Garvey has zero political experience. Or a 25% favorable rating. Or that his squeaky-clean All American Boy image got badly tarnished after he left the Dodgers, with stories of his teammates disliking him so much they’d get into fights in the locker room, and then his divorce. Or all those together. Just look at the polling data itself – the same polling data that shows Garvey “improving” in the polls, as articles suggest he might actually win. He is “improving” in the polls much the same way that Nikki Haley is “improving” in Republican polls, yet 40 points behind the guy in first place. In Haley’s case, of course, she’s running against someone under four indictments who has been found guilty of fraud and liable for the equivalence of rape. With Garvey, he’s running against people who didn’t try to overthrow the government. Further, one of those who he’s running against led the House impeachment trial against Trump. Another is best known for hanging corporate executives out to dry in House hearings. And the third is the only person in all of Congress who had the courage to vote against what is now seen as the disastrous Afghanistan War. So, Garvey can’t point to his opponents as trying to overthrow democracy, and therefore he has an even higher wall to get over than Nikki Haley. Is Steve Garvey improving in the polls? Absolutely. Does he have a chance of becoming U.S. Senator from California? Not even remotely. Let’s go to the numbers for perspective – Three days ago, the Los Angeles Times reported on a poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies. And there, Adam Schiff leads with 21%. Katie Porter has 17%. And Steve Garvey has moved up to 13%. Barbara Lee is at 9%. So, yes, one-by-one, that looks like Garvey has a chance. Except he doesn’t. Steve Garvey has no chance. Keep in mind, what’s at play is the state primary. And the way it works in California is that -- unless a candidate gets 50% of the primary vote, which won’t happen here -- the two top vote-getters then face each other in the general election. And right now, among these top four contenders, the three Democrats lead Garvey by…47-13%! (Most of the others polled are undecided. But being very blue California with three well-liked Democratic candidates, undecided voters are likely undecided between Adam Schiff, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee. Not undecided between Steve Garvey and Adam Schiff. Or between Garvey and four no-name GOP each polling around 2%.) In fact, if you add up all the Democratic candidates on the ballot, including a few lesser names, they add up to 51%. And that doesn’t included what is near-certainly the bulk of the undecided votes. So, it’s likely that, at the moment – making a pure guess estimate – Democrats are beating Steve Garvey/Republicans by 65-35%. Or maybe even as high as 70-30% Steve Garvey is not going to become a U.S. Senator from California. At best for Garvey, it means Katie Porter won't finish second in the primary to get in the general election run-off. That would be a shame, because a general election race between her and Adam Schiff would be close (though Schiff has been ahead of her since polling began). But a race in very blue California between highly-admired Adam Schiff, who was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and was lead prosecutor against Trump in his first impeachment trial (and who is even a bit of a “martyr” figure to Democrats because Republicans, in acts of spiteful political retribution for his activities against Trump, censured him and also kicked him off the Intelligence Committee), and former first-baseman Steve Garvey – who has zero experience, is 75 years old, and last played baseball 37 years ago in 1987, long before a great many voters were even born, many who have no idea who he is – will be a blow-out. A Garvey race against either Katie Porter or Barbara Lee wouldn’t be much different. No, not knowing that Steve Garvey played baseball does not mean some people won’t vote for him – but when your sole claim to fame on which you’re running is “I played for the Dodgers,” it’s a huge hurdle. On top of the other massive, existing hurdles he faces -- like running against highly admired Democrats in a very blue state. Steve Garvey is not going to become a U.S. Senator from California. I’m sure that Garvey’s team and delusional Republicans like to point at Arnold Schwarzenegger getting elected governor. But that was a wildly-different situation. For starters, it was two decades ago, when politics was oh-so monumentally different, without things like Insurrection, abortion, democracy and wanna-be fascist dictators as part of the landscape. But also, he was a Very Big Hollywood Star who won, not in a normal one-against-one race, but after a recall election, in which Democrats didn’t put up any major opponents on an open ballot, since they were fighting the recall. There was a debate of all candidates that was referred to as being sort of like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Later, as the incumbent, he was re-elected, but it’s worth noting, he left office with a 27% approval. This is not the world Steve Garvey faces. One where, among everything else, Democrats are outpolling him, at a minimum, 51-13%. And likely winning the vast majority of undecideds. Teeth-gnashing articles about Garvey “improving” in the polls, as if it means he might win, without making clear that the only thing this actually means is that he’ll be on the general election ballot with no chance of winning, are nothing more than clickbait stories, disingenuous attempts to make it appear like there’s a horserace. There is no horserace in which Steve Garvey is one of the horses. At best, he will finish second in the primary (which is fair to write as story) and then jog along in the general election as the Democratic candidate gallops by. Steve Garvey is not going to become a U.S. Senator from California. Enough already. The news media should write news stories for what the news actually is. Not what you think you can fool people into misunderstanding by obfuscating the larger view, just to make it look like there’s a close competition. And no, Nikki Haley isn’t getting the Republican nomination either. Even if she too improves in the polls -- and closes the gap to 30 points. Joe Rogan is a popular right-wing podcaster, not especially known for his research or accuracy, but a major supporter of Trump. (Thought, "not especially known for his research or accuracy" sort of fits.) On his show the other day, though, Rogan and his guest, ace political analyst Bo Nickal -- an MMA fighter -- surprisingly relentlessly ridiculed Trump for saying there were airports during the Revolutionary War, laughing repeatedly at Trump, even to the point of saying "You're done." Here's the thing though -- They didn't know that they were ridiculing Trump. They thought they were mocking President Biden. Indeed, if they'd done just the very slightest bit of research, since it was well-covered at the time, they would have realized out that, in fact, Joe Biden had never said what they thought, and that it was Trump they were not ridiculing Almost more remarkably, Rogan and his ace political analyst MMA-fighter guest were fact checked on the air by the show's producer. What started it all was Rogan and Nickal ridiculing President Biden for supposedly saying there were airports during the Revolutionary War, which got them laughing at Biden and saying "You're done." But that's when the show's producer unexpectedly interrupted to tell them, er, I think it might have been Trump who said that. (I can only assume the producer realized that it was better to correct them on-air before their ridiculing of what was really Trump got out of hand.) The mistake Rogan and guest made is that when Biden talked about airports in the Revolutionary War he was quoting Trump and making fun of him. At first, the producer played the tape of Biden saying this, though it's clear (or should be clear to anyone with half a sense) that he's quoting Trump, referring to him as "the stable genius," for having said it. Yet even though that should be clear, Rogan and Nickal still keep laughing, thinking this is the proof of what they were referring to. But then, the producer interrupts again and says, no, Biden was talking about Trump -- and then played the tape of Trump talking about airports in the Revolutionary War. (Something he said, it should be noted, back July 5, 2019. And, as noted, was widely in the news at the time.) This is all on video, and Rogan's deer-caught-in-the-headlights expression leaps out. "Ohhhh..." And then, both he and Nickal backtrack so fast you can smell the burning rubber, and -- being the good cult acolytes they are -- let Trump totally off the hook, after having mocked President Biden at length for being who they thought said it. And they cowardly dismiss it now that they know it was Trump who said it! "So, he fucked up," Rogan shrugs. To which Nickal oh-so-apolgetically adds, "You can tell he messed up his words." What's wonderful, too, is that the producer also corrects them for apparently thinking that President Biden had been referring to "stable Jesus," rather than him saying "stable genius." (I can't swear to this, because the video cuts out some material -- likely of them continuing to ridicule Biden. But it's the only thing that makes sense when you hear the producer bring up "stable genius, not 'stable genius' and Rogan and Nickal respond to being corrected.) But what I might like the most of all in the tape is when Nickal tries to pass off blame for their awful gaffe on others -- yet not realizing he's really slamming himself and Rogan for not just leaping to the totally wrong conclusion -- but wrong about something they missed that was in all the news at time...FOUR YEARS AGO. "That's the thing about media these days," Nickal says, almost accusatorially at others, you gotta look into it." Well, yes, you do. And given that it's actually Rogan's show and job to do say, it's something he should have recognized long ago. But hasn't. In the end, though, this is pure extreme-right "thinking" these days, and as quintessential an example of the Republican base adoration of Trump, without recognizing that SO many things he projects on others that they hate so much are really about Trump himself. And it's also pure Joe Rogan. And his listener base. Clueless about facts and reality. And taking the concept of pulling thoughts out of one of your body orifices as standing in for "thoughtful analysis" And now, as they say in sports, let's go to the tape -- Yesterday, there was a horrible story of three U.S. college students – all born in Palestine, though two are American citizens, and the third is here on a student visa – being shot while on holiday visiting family in Vermont. Fortunately, two are apparently recovering well, though the third young man is in more critical condition.
But all I could think of was an item that crossed my feed on social media over the weekend. It was about a Breitbart story posted that was so telling in how blisteringly ignorant that extreme-right publication assumes their readers are. The headline was – “SHOCK REPORT: New Analysis Reveals Over 23 Million Naturalized US Citizens, Formerly Immigrants now Eligible to Vote in the Upcoming 2024 Presidential Election..” Yes, really. Most of the Twitter responses were utterly scathing in their ridicule, faux-“outraged” that actual legal citizens were allowed to vote – like (as I pointed out) pretty much every American’s ancestors has done since it was codified as in the U.S. Constitution -- but it was head-shaking and sickening to see some far-right respondents so gallingly upset by the story that they asked – and I swear this is true -- if there was anything that could be done and if this could be appealed to the Supreme Court could do. But that’s what the GOP today has become. So ignorant and so upset at the mere mention of “immigrants,” thinking it must mean they’re illegal. From the Breitbart article: “As more immigrants naturalize and become eligible to vote, they continue to gain political power. The number of immigrant voters is only projected to rise in the next decade, and in some states, foreign-born voters are already capable of deciding elections.” Whenever a Republican official rails about “illegal immigrants,” they always try (well, okay, not every official tries…) to let you know they have nothing against legal immigrants, who came into the country legally and are legally legal, they’re only talking about “illegal immigrants.” And y’know, maybe even some of them really do feel that way. But when you’re an elected representative of what is today a fascist political party – and when one of the main tenets of fascism is xenophobia and hatred of people who are different – there’s a pretty good chance that if your soapbox ranting about “illegal immigrants” bleeds over to be perceived as immigrants, period, that a fascist party whose base has a foundation of racism and white supremacy isn’t going to lose a whole lot of sleep about it, especially since it’s likely their assumption is that those people aren’t going to vote for you anyway. On top of that, the difficulty of looking at a person who isn’t white and trying to determine if they’re an illegal immigrant or just a garden variety legal immigrant is a high bar to get over. And when someone is racist and hates minorities to begin with, there’s a really good chance that they’re not going to take the time and effort to find out. In large part, because they probably don’t care all that much. And so, the immigrant is as good a target for the outlet of releasing your hate. They're just one and the same. Legal, illegal, whatever. They're immigrants. Never mind, of course, that somewhere in your own past, unless you’re an American Indian, you absolutely, 100% had an ancestor who was an immigrant. And for all you know, they may have gotten in illegally. Which brings us back to that Breitbart story. Because they knew the story was ludicrous and meaningless, but they also knew that they could inflame the racist, unthinking base by pointing out a “SHOCKING” news item about “immigrants.” Never mind that it was not only legal, but it was everyday, basic Standard Operating Procedure for how the United Sates actually works. And is supposed to work. Actually. Which brings us back to today’s Republican Party and Trump leading the way with his plans for interment camps, lists of Muslims, and religious travel bans. Because no matter how much he and they insist all they are against are “illegal immigrants,” it’s hugging distance for their hatred of immigrants, which they’re more than happy to inflame if it comes to that. Never mind that they are the heirs of immigrants. Including Trump whose grandfather Friedrich immigrated to the United States from Germany, where the family name was Drumpf. The New York Times had an egregiously-weak headline (bordering on malpractice) about the speech Trump gave on Saturday -- Veterans Day, no less -- writing only that "Trump Takes Veteran Day Speech in a Very Different Direction" Saying that Trump's Veteran Day speech went in a very different direction is like saying that Thelma and Louise took a very different route getting down from the cliff than was on the map. The Washington Post got it right – And then a bit later in the day, Forbes took up the story and reported it properly in its headline, as well -- It is my hope that the New York Times puts on its adult pants soon and that they and other newspapers report the reality of Trump as clearly and directly as the Washington Post and Forbes understand. If you want to be the "Newspaper of record," you have to report the record, and not keep it so far away the coverage requires binoculars. Being objective starts with knowing the object. I am loathe to compare anyone to Hitler. Hitler is in a category alone -- with Hitler, it's not just that he was autocratic, or authoritarian, or fascist, or a despot. But rather that he built death camps, rounded up and systematically murdered six million Jews and others, built an army to overrun Europe and attempted to take over the world. So, Trump is not like Hitler. Nor am I aware of anyone else since Hitler, not matter how brutal. Hitler stand alone in his own small cubicle in Hell. But when somebody clearly and blatantly uses Hitler's words to advance his own fascist, despotic goals, it is appropriate to say so and to quote them. The MeidasTouch group put a meme together from Trump's speech -- once again, on Veterans Day -- and social media posts to drive this home as impactfully as possible. As MeidasTouch wrote -- "This is not merely a coincidence. "It is deliberate. "We must not sit idly by as fascism rears its ugly head in America." And still, again, it must be reiterated that this latest of Trump speeches was made on Veterans Day, the day the United States honors the men and women who served in the armed forces to protect democracy, including those who fought in World War II to defeat Hitler. An added, bitter irony given how Trump has enabled neo-Nazis as the core of his base Trump is telling everyone who he is. And he's pretty clear about it. "[I]f I happen to be president," he says, "and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them...” He thinks that Gen. Mark Milley, Trump's own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be killed. On Veterans Day, he posts a long, raging manifesto on social media frothing against thugs, vermin and the Radical Left willing to "cheat on elections" and willing to do "anything possible" to "destroy America" that begins by saying without a hint of irony or self-awareness "In honor of our great Veterans," and then ending with "The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave, than the threat from within. Despite the hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." That is Trump. Who has ridiculed people who joined the military, called those who died in battled "losers," and refused to visit a World War II graveyard in France...because there was a light rain. There is Trump, attempting to pretend he honors these very same veterans who saved democracy and defeated Hitler -- all the while insisting that neo-Nazis have some very fine people among them. That isn't true even if you compare them to the white supremacists Trump enables. By the way, an added, unmentioned, problem for Republicans is that when Trump is the official GOP nominee, all Republicans running throughout the country, in any race, national, state or local, will have to endorse and support him as the party leader. Candidates in purple districts will be in huge trouble. Because if they don't back his words, they risk losing GOP voter support. This is what happens in a democracy when your party wraps itself around a leader who is openly fascist, autocratic and is comfortable echoing Adolf Hitler. No, Trump is not Hitler. And isn't even remotely close. He just seems to be okay with people thinking how much he admires the guy. To quote the great Molly Ivins from another, but related occasion. Trump's speech on Saturday "sounded better in the original German." |
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
|