11 Comments

Many messaging experts, including Antonia Scatton (whose Substack is a must-read), have been hammering on this point: that referring to Trump as a would-be dictator only makes him seem stronger to his followers. They insist he should, instead, be called a “loser” at every opportunity--that THAT is the word that maddens and infuriates him. So I’m glad to see that Biden is following this advice--I think we all must constantly do the same.

Expand full comment
Jan 29Liked by David Kurtz

Job well done David!

Expand full comment
Jan 29Liked by David Kurtz

Good morning, David...a solid compilation this morning on tTrump's losses in CIVIL actions, where he can't hide behind the cloak of "I'm the president and I can do no wrong" - well, he did try that tack in EJC I, but lost badly in the courts. So, yeah, the POS is on the hook for a few hundred million, but how much of that will be paid by shunting PAC money into escrow? Or his many "defense funds" tailored for judgments just like these. One can't rid oneself of the notion that yet again it's "other people's money" that's keeping this goniff afloat, and that only the criminal charges will really bite if he's convicted on one or more of the 91 charges he's up against.

Given the snail's pace of the criminal cases, and the fact that as yet there has been no decision on tRump's "immunity" plea,

there only remains the Bragg CRIMINAL prosecution in the hush-money case that has a remote chance of going to trial this spring, as the federal cases and GA are certain to be pushed out months beyond original trial dates, allowing the Manhattan DA a window of opportunity to get it done. One lives in hope.

Expand full comment
Jan 29Liked by David Kurtz

Thank you, David. Keep it rolling.

Expand full comment

Judge Kaplan: "My advice to you is that you never disclose that you were on this jury and I won’t say anything more about it."

I'm guessing when that jury got selected, they'd never have imagined being warned to be fearful for their lives from supporters of a President of the United States of America.

Expand full comment

Re the Lincoln speech quoted: in the same speech, he also noted -- I don’t know history of the period well enough but maybe presciently -- that the worst enemy the nation faced was domestic. The Civil War clearly proved that.

And, of course, every bad about this nation is smothered with the fingerprints of the former Confederacy even if they’re no more than enablers. (Great thought experiment is to game what would have happened if the war wasn’t fought. I mean besides the money saved from parasites. Apologies to anyone who finds the concept triggering or upsetting.)

Or as I tend to put it in the household: the south lost the war but almost immediately won the peace.

As for the Scalia reference, SCOTGOP for sure and likely Scalia himself have had different standards depending on POTUS’ party. Too, the Roberts court has shown huge discrepancy in the application of precedent so, you know...

Last: I’m not so sure that fPOTUS personally is rich enough to pay the Carroll verdict. Probably is but, again, not sure.

Expand full comment

The point has often been made, by people on both sides of the aisle, that the Constitution "is not a suicide pact."

On the basis of that obvious fact, why are we expected to roll over and say "Welcome back" and hand The Nation's Greatest Threat the keys to the White House, knowing what he intends to do once in there, should he win in November?

If t here's going to be a civil war, I'm glad to fight it on the grounds of keeping him and the MAGAts OUT!

Expand full comment