|
The guest on this week’s Al Franken podcast is the New Yorker’s David Kirkpatrick. As the show writes, “One of Donald Trump's most successful initiatives in his second term has been making himself and his family richer than ever. We're joined by David Kirkpatrick, who earlier this year wrote a piece outlining all the ways the legendary grifters have cashed in during Trump’s presidency. The Trump family has long been associated with shameless cash grabs, but we have reached new levels of corruption by using his office for their money-making schemes: international real estate deals, Trump-branded merchandise, and cryptocurrency. David lays out the long list of ethical implications involved and calculates the staggering amount of money Donald Trump and his family have made off of his presidency.”
0 Comments
When I saw that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced this department was opening an investigation into U.S. Senator, former astronaut and retired Navy Captain Mark Kelly for his participation in the video with five others Democrats that explained (according the the Uniform Military Code of Justice) members of the military are not required to follow "illegal" orders -- as to whether he should be returned to active service leading to a court martial. (Fun Fact: "Captain" in the Navy is one rank below Rear Admiral.) I responded with a tweet that read -- "HEADLINE: "Former Fox Host Brings Non-Existent Charges Against American Hero. Alcohol Suspected." This is going to end as the latest massive embarrassment for Hegseths's tenure as a lackey for Trump. It also added weight to the amount of time I've spent online the last few days responding to MAGOP officials in Congress and in the White House attacking the six Democrats (all of them either who served high in the military or the U.S. intelligence services) who posted a video explaining that no one in the military has to follow illegal orders. And almost all the attacks each said pretty much the same thing. Mind you, no, I don’t expect any of them are reading what I say, nor do they care. But I’m replying so that anyone in the middle who might believe what the MAGOPs are saying or are uncertain are able to see a contrary thought that shows the attacks are not what they seem. The MAGOP attacks I’m referring to are those against the six Democrats who posted a video explaining that no one in the military has to follow illegal orders. And in fact, by the Uniform Military Code of Justice they are required not to. Almost all of the attacks have followed the same pattern. They left out the word “illegal,” and say the Democrats are lying to the military by telling them they don’t have to follow orders, and call the action “seditious” (indeed, the supposedly clever name they’ve come up is the “Seditious Six”). And suggest they should be brought up on charges. Not to worry -- though I saw I've been spending time responding to all this, it's fairly easy. Since most of the attacks are so similar, then depending the tweet I’m answering, I have almost a template. It's more annoying that our MAGOP officials are being this deceitful, ignorant and foolish than it is time consuming. And so, my replies tend to be some adaptation of the following: 1. No, they did NOT say that. You are lying. To be clear, I’m not remotely the only person in social media who is pushing back. The number has steadily grown. While MAGOPs at first seemed to believe that they had a great issue at hand have started to see that their efforts of leaving out the word "illegal" are backfiring on them a bit. That’s why, I suspect, a few of them are trying a new tact. They appear to think it's a great "gotcha" attack. Actually, it’s an incredibly empty one, though. This new attempt focuses on how so far none of the six Democrats have named one illegal order that Trump has given. (Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has been most prevalent with this try, though he’s not alone "JD Vance" and Rep. Nancy Mace have been busy.) And the MAGOPs seem to suggest that the Democrats are lying and have nothing. The problem for them, of course, is that many people online start listing a range of illegal orders that Trump has given, notably bombing fishing boats without due process, but also others orders. I tend not to (leaving that to others) but do throw a related comment in on occasion. For the most part, my response to these charges is – “While courts have overturned some of Trump’s orders as illegal – like last Friday the court saying that the order to send the National Guard into D.C. was illegal -- the video only states that members of the military need not follow “illegal” orders. But mostly, it’s just letting the military know that any order in the future that’s illegal should not be followed, as described in the Uniform Military Code of Justice. Do you not agree that those in the military should not follow illegal orders??” There's an alternative version, though, I use that tends to fit certain of these attacks better, the ones that try hard to make the case that since no illegal orders were given, the six Democrats have broken military law. What I respond is – “When members of the military enlist, they swear to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice that says they should not follow illegal orders. But no illegal orders are specified or have yet been issued to them. Why do you have a problem with that??!” But there are two particular MAGOP tweets that stand out to me as my favorites. The first came from Roger Stone, who went on about how the six Democrats were violating the law (for reasons he didn’t explain…) and that they should be prosecuted. It was too hard to pass up, so I replied, “Says the man who literally violated the law and went to prison for it.” But the best came from the aforementioned Mike Lee (who I always try to remind people that he posted on social media in October, 2020 that “We’re not a democracy”). In this effort, sure that he had a great point wrote – “Why would one encourage troops to ignore orders from the commander in chief—based on an apparent presumption the he issues illegal orders—in the absence of illegal orders?” I decided to get right to the heart of the matter. And replied: “Thanks for asking -- because Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies, adjudicated of rape and guilty of fraud, showing disdain for the law...and many of his orders have already been thrown out of court as illegal, so it is reasonable to think he may issue illegal orders ahead.” After having gone through this for the past few days, I was so pleased to read about what Joe Scarborough said Monday morning on his MS NOW program, saying with much greater fervor the points I was trying to get across. He was almost giddy and stunned that, in his words, Republicans were making utter fools of themselves, falling into what was, in essence, a Democratic trap. “I saw one lughead,” he commented, “who goes on CNN regularly saying, ‘They are clearly trying to take down the chain of command,’” Scarborough added. “No! This is, if he knew anything about the military, he would know that when they raise their right hand, they swear an oath. They swear an oath to the Constitution to not follow illegal orders.” “I can't believe I have to say that, this was a brilliant move,” Scarborough later went on. “I cannot believe I'm even saying this about the Democratic Party. This was a brilliant move by Democrats for two reasons.” “One, they have Republicans actually defending illegal orders — like these people in the MAGAshpere,” he laughed before repeating, “Like people — I saw one lughead who goes on CNN. They're so stupid that they're defending illegal orders. So bravo, Democrats there. Like they played right into your trap. And number two, all weekend, what did you have? You had Democrats, who served this country in the military, who served this country in the CIA…[and] for the face of the Democratic Party, they knew this was going to cause a controversy, every single person there will have served this country in uniform or in the CIA. And it was a brilliant move. And I’ve got to say,” Scarborough went on, “…the most extreme MAGA defenders walked right into their trap.” Yeah, defending the position that members of the military should follow illegal orders is quite a fascinating concept. Especially when the Commander-in-Chief, and leader of your party, has been convicted of 34 felonies, adjudicated of rape, found guilty of fraud, has dementia...and an approval of just 33%. If you didn't see Jon Stewart's Monday hosting of The Daily Show, his Main Story was about the Epstein files. All that needs to be said is that it's brutal, scathing and extremely funny. And it ends with a joke that's brilliant, but also SO pointed because the foundation of it is real. And whoever on staff tracked it down deserves a huge bonus. If you didn’t see Last Week Tonight with Jon Oliver on Sunday night, the Main Story was on Felony Murder. It's actually a pretty interesting report on what the crime is (perhaps different from what most people think), how the U.S. is the only major nation in the world that still has it on the books, and how it has been abused. Somehow, too, they're able to make the story often very funny, even amid such a topic. This is a small matter. It did get a little attention the other day, albeit just a very little, but events over the weekend, most notably the No Kings rallies across the country, swamped it. But it's so emblematic of Trump and today's MAGOP that it can't go without mention George Santos was kicked out of Congress by a huge bipartisan vote of 311-114, seen as so breathtakingly crooked and reprehensible that he was viewed even by Republicans as an embarrassing stain on the Republican Party by Republicans. He was then indicted and convicted of wire fraud and "aggravated identity theft, which included defrauding his donors -- and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to 87 months in prison, over seven years. On Friday, he had his sentence commuted by Trump. This should come as a shock to no one. My sense is that this should be consider professional courtesy among fraudsters and grifters. I suspect too that Trump in his dementia projected a bit of himself into Santos. To be clear, this is not a pardon. Santos remains a convicted felon. He just gets to home after only three months, seven years short of his full sentence, and start thinking of ways to scam others sooner than he expected. The question I have is not about Trump. It's about the MAGOPs in Congress. It's if people who were so utterly mortified by the crimes committed by Santos that they viewed him as such a galling embarrassment to the party that he should actually be expelled from the House of Representatives will be bothered by Trump's action and say so. My guess is that they won't. My guess is that they'll say (if they say anything...) that it was Trump's right to do what he did. By the way, a person has the right to empty his 401K to buy a bulldozer and use it just one time to crack open a peanut, and then discard it -- and the peanut. But most people would consider that a bizarre and irresponsible thing to do. It's a story that doesn't affect much. But it's like shining a klieg light on a massive billboard. Trump's action speaks so loudly about who he is -- a lifelong swindler protecting a fellow con. And the likely lack of response by most (if not all) MAGOPs in Congress speaks just as loudly about who they are -- craven toadies for their convicted felon cult leader. And that commuting the sentence of someone expelled from Congress and guilty of seven years in prison for fraud and "aggravated identity theft" comes on the heels of Trump pushing the indictment of a former FBI Director and current New York state Attorney General out of pure retribution sends an even bigger sign to the public about Trump, MAGOPs and their disdain for the rule of law. This is going to be short. But every time I see ruthless Border Czar Tom Homan, caught on video by the FBI taking a bribe, trying to do the very best he can to defend himself, I always want to yell at the TV screen -- as a personal service of kindness to him (and a public service to the reporter) -- that, no, he's not helping matters, but rather he's doing the exact opposite. And so typing this out and getting it out of my system will help release that gnawing annoyance from building up. Two things. Whenever Tom Homan tries to defend his taking money as not being a bribe because he never used it for the purposes it was given to him, what he misses is (even if what he says is true, which we have no particular reason to believe is the case) that that just means he was a con man scamming his mark of $50,000 for giving the perception he was taking the bribe they were paying for. And every time Tom Homan says he is oh-so-nobly taking a huge pay cut from his previous job, only getting a paltry 18% of what he made before, hoping to convince anyone listening that this means he couldn't possibly have taken a bribe, he doesn't realize he is actually giving the reason for taking the bribe! To make up for his pay loss. |
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
Archives
January 2026
Categories
All
|
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2026
|