Dear BlueAnon: The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump

At least not yet. Let's look at that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Now, while it doesn't explicitly stipulate that a conviction by trial or guilty plea is necessitated, and while Reconstruction Radicals didn't consider it that way at the time, I have little doubt that any state or federal court today (and any state court ruling otherwise would be appealed to the federal level, or will be) would say that petitions and suits to remove Trump — or even state legislative actions to do so — are not "ripe" because of the lack of a legal verdict against him.

I don't care what Michael Luttig or Second Amendment flip-flopper Larry Tribe say, per PolitiFact. Nor do I care what the current generation of Kermit Roosevelt says:

Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, said, "There’s nothing in the text of the Constitution to make me think that this requirement for office-holding is any different from the others imposed by the Constitution, such as being 35 (years old) and being a natural-born citizen. Those obviously don’t require a conviction. So I think the argument is strong that court proceedings aren’t necessary for someone to implement the disqualification."

Besides federal courts in general likely differing, two SCOTUS Justices certainly will — Thomas and Alito, of course — probably Kavanaugh, possibly??? Gorsuch and maybe??? Barrett. If both the question marks agree, it doesn't matter what the Blind Ump thinks.

Madison Cawthorn? The appeals court was wrong.

Couy Griffin, Otero County, New Mexico, commissioner? Proves my point; charged and convicted first.

So, if Trump is on the ballot next year? Blame Jack Smith for not charging him with seditious conspiracy, or the federal version of "aiding and abetting." 

Oh, all of the above apply to renegade Republican celebrity candidate (best label I can think of for him) John Anthony Castro as well, and I'm still unsure exactly what string he's running. But, former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmini agrees with me.

Otherwise, this is basically like BlueAnon types (and some Never Trumpers) talking up the 25th Amendment without reason while Trump was president. (Greg AtLast also knew this.) They are again looking for a constitutional solution to a (currently) political question. And, since Jack Smith didn't indict him on anything close to sedition, I expect it will remain currently political through next November's election day.

British bollocks on Ukraine, seconded by Timothy Garton Ash

In what Mark Ames called two, then three, additional "Friedman Units," referring to Teapot Tommy's ever-increasing level of bullshit + warmongering in the early years of the Iraq War, British historian and pundit Timothy Garton Ash has cosigned by Twitter a Financial Times piece of bullshit that itself cosigns idiocy by British generals.

The last graf is the worst, as its clear Cold War 2.0 bollocks.

Ukraine must win on the battlefield to survive as a state. Not only is this victory vital to Nato’s security and its ongoing relationship with Russia, it will also influence China’s appetite for military adventure. The current counteroffensive shows Putin’s occupation can be beaten. It will take longer and cost more than we hoped, but hope isn’t enough. The west must now commit to the harder campaign ahead or condemn Ukraine to fighting without the prospect of winning.

Wrong from the first sentence on, originally, and if that first sentence is now true, it's the fault of NATO Cold War 2.0 warmongers like Ash. The rest of the paragraph remains wrong. 

Second sentence? No, not vital to NATO at all. Vital to its "relationship" to Russia only if defined in master-slave terms. Will this "influence China's appetite"? Only to mistrust the West even more.

Third sentence? No, it shows no such thing. If this is what passes for insight among British Nat-sec Nutsacks, no wonder the tattered shreds of empire are going bankrupt.

Fourth is wrong from two and three.

Fifth? No, the West must commit to no such thing. This does sound just like Iraq or Afghanistan.

And, "commit" to what? Or, WITH what? 

As I told him, Zelensky is now doing a Ukrainian version of Jesus rounding up people for the wedding banquet. This is what he proposes to fight with:

Ukraine's "Ministry of Defense approved a new Schedule of Diseases, according to which fitness for military service is assessed and regulated the service of those with limited fitness." Now people with following diseases will be recognized as suitable for all military service:… pic.twitter.com/yQPoiV9czA

— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) September 3, 2023

Good luck there! But, since it's truncated, let me give you the FULL LIST:

Now people with following diseases will be recognized as suitable for all military service: "2nd – clinically cured tuberculosis; 4-c – viral hepatitis with minor functional impairment; 5th – asymptomatic HIV carrier; 12th - slowly progressing and non-progressing with minor functional disorders and rare exacerbations of anemia, blood coagulation disorders, purpura, hemorrhagic conditions, other diseases of the blood and hematopoietic organs, some disorders involving the immune mechanism. 13th - diseases of the endocrine system with minor functional disorders; 14th - mild short-term painful manifestations of mental disorders; 17th - neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders with moderately pronounced, short-term manifestations, with an asthenic state; 21-c – slowly progressing diseases of the central nervous system with minor functional disorders; 22nd – episodic and paroxysmal disorders, except for epilepsy, with minor violations of the functions of organs and systems."

Good luck there!

But Ash and other Nat-sec-Nutsacks, British and American media divisions, just like the other 101st Fighting Keyboarders of the NAFO Nazis, aren't volunteering for a manpower surge.

Per his fellow British journalist, Anatol Lieven, the British Net-sec Nutsacks and Fleet Street media like Ash must be as blind as their US counterparts, as he discusses American blindness on Afghanistan transferring to Ukraine. The funny thing is that Warmonger Joe

Texas progressives talk luck, hypocrisy

Showing how the political term "independent" is bullshit, here in Tex-ass, support for Warren Kenneth Paxton's impeachment conviction is almost as low among indys as among Rethugs.

SocraticGadfly noted all the Texas-connected Basketball Hall of Fame inductions last month, listened to most of the speeches and wondered why nobody noted the role of pure dumb luck.

Off the Kuff has good news on the drag ban, book rating ban, and Death Star bill, and bad news on the gender affirming care ban.

Austin is getting introduced to actual world music.

Texas' hypocrisy on abortion is not surprising, since it's ultimately in the name of politics.

Meatball Ron's Florida congressional redistricting map ruled state-unconstitutional. 

Self-driving cars may indeed be safer than you and I, with one BIG BIG BIG caveat. The study included ONLY Google's Waymo and GM's Cruise, and not Smelling Musky's Tesla.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project says that law enforcement unions that call for the removal of judges are a threat to democracy. There is no public safety without democracy.  

Progress Texas brings you the most misguided bills that have gone into effect, though as noted the drag ban bill is now blocked.  

Texas 2036 has a more comprehensive look at the new laws now in effect.  

Law Dork returns to the ridiculous "religious liberty training" sanctions case against Southwest Airlines.  

Jason Stanford notes that the weather doesn't care if you believe in climate change or not. 

The San Antonio Report tells of the burgeoning Afghan refugee community in that town.  

Ken Hoffman reminisces about the late Jimmy Buffett.

Block that shit from the Texas Lege

At the federal level:

Blocked from enforcement: the Lege's school book rating law, First Amendment grounds and prior restraint grounds tied to that.

Blog from enforcement: the Lege's near-ban on drag shows, First Amendment grounds.

At the state level:

Blocked from enforcement: The "death star" law gutting local control for home-rule cities, on state unconstitutionality grounds. The Monthly reports that a lot of conservative larger cities, like Plano, dislike the bill as much as the Austins, Houstons and Dallases of the world. Plano joined Waco, Denton and Arlington in filing an amicus to the original suit, launched by Houston with El Paso and San Antonio joining. The most sinister part of HB 2127 is that it allows private biz to sue municipalities if they claim "any harm" from municipal ordinances. A lot of smaller cities would cave, simply because they couldn't afford the legal fees, even with TML help.

Blocked from enforcement, but enstated on appeal: The ban on medical drug portions of so-called (sic) gender-affirming care.

China, Xi, stagnation and its future; will its apologists ever stop?

Foreign Affairs explicitly calls it "Xi's Age of Stagnation." Yes, it is Beltway-type wisdom, but nonetheless, it's backed up by others.

The starting point is COVID, of course. The mishandling of what happened at Wuhan was likely exacerbated by Xi's increasingly tight semi-authoritarianism. Again, it's not just the Nat-sec Nutsacks and Cold Warriors 2.0 who say this. Less credulous precincts of the left (ie, NOT Howie Hawkins and his China minders, Margaret Flowers and the late Kevin Zeese, with more here, along with cultists like Rainier Shea and hacks for money like Max Blumenthal, or alleged but WTF not really leftists in my book like Adam Tooze) know that China blew it from early on, on COVID, whether there was a lab leak or not. (And, per Pro Publica et al, I say there is a reasonable to fairly high probably there was.)

Follow that with lockdowns whenever strains of COVID raised their heads, in fair part because Sinovax et al suck even by mRNA effectiveness standards, and neither China nor Russia developed alternatives to mRNA type shots like Novavax, Johnson & Johnson etc., and the Chinese economy stagnated indeed. Western nations being impacted by COVID and their residents cutting purchasing, followed by supply chain snafus etc., exacerbated this.

Meanwhile, by a year ago, despite Beijing's official lies by silence, likely at least 2 million had been killed.

Then, as the Foreign Affairs piece notes, Xi went Great Barrington Declaration after the mass shutdowns in Shanghai, draconian ones indeed, in summer-fall of 2022 produced protest levels (and samidzat comments) that even he couldn't ignore. Let er rip! And he did, and per the piece killed another million or so. (Given just how bad rural health care is in much of China, it was probably well over 1 million. China probably has 3.5 million, maybe 4 million, COVID deaths.)

But, despite these mistakes, The Great Virusman (I see what I did) got his third term, and luckily for him, got it before Shanghai blew up, and is on his way to being China's third leader for life or nearly so, after Mao and Deng.

From there, we get into items newish to me. That's about how Xi's Great Firewall and other thought control affect what might be considered a "middle class" in China, not just the intellectuals. But, intellectuals, especially at universities, bear the brunt of the stifling.

But, the middle class really worries about the economic fallout. Like this:

Ordinary Chinese workers have a different set of concerns, mostly relating to the economy and the pandemic. During the first quarter of 2023, China’s slowing economy barely reached the government growth target of five percent, and it achieved that level only with heavy state spending. The youth unemployment rate is over 20 percent, and many people wonder how their children will be able to get married if they cannot afford to buy an apartment. Figures for the second quarter were slightly better, but only compared with the second quarter of last year, when the economy was nearly brought to a standstill by COVID lockdowns. A variety of indicators show growing vulnerabilities in a range of sectors, and many Chinese feel they are in a recession. A group of textile manufacturers from Wenzhou in coastal Zhejiang Province told me that sales across China are down 20 percent this year, forcing them to lay off staff. They believe the economy will recover, but they also think that the go-go years are gone. “We’re in a cloudier era,” one of them said.

Oof. The piece adds that the whiplashes of full lockdowns followed by semi-complete liftings, then back again, have other psychological fallout.

Meanwhile, the stagnation means that, contra Xi's Overton window attempts to define them away, poverty and even homelessness still exist in China.

As for Xi? The piece says that Deng did (some degree of) experimentation but implicitly expresses doubt he has the personal flexibility to do similar. 

Other things? Per this book on global carbon footprints, Xi's China is still "dirty" in a lot of its manufacturing. Ditto for its electric generation, despite all the talk of China greening up. Result? Chinese carbon emissions are a fair chunk higher than the US per ton of CO2 and a lot higher than Western Europe.

Another piece on its stagnation, from Heatmap, ties it with clean energy. It notes that Xi is doubling down on state capitalism, especially in heavy industry and manufacturing. That, in turn, means lots of cement, and if you know anything about climate change, you know that cement production is a bad carbon emitter.

On the flip side, it notes the state capitalism is likely to produce a glut of electric cars. With China already the world's largest carmaking country, many would be exported. This would hit the US industry hard, and probably be catastrophic for Europe, notes Robinson Mayer. (Note: He's formerly of the Atlantic, so like the first piece, this has an establishmentarian angle.)

About anti-maskers citing that Cochrane study

Even though it's 6-7 months old, because a modest (and almost certainly short-term) uptick in COVID cases has COVID doomers spouting #MasksUp on Twitter, a flawed study from the Cochrane Collaboration is getting airplay on Twitter again itself.

And, flawed it is.

The main thing is, and most the review participants admitted it, is that it does NOT track well mask compliance or lack thereof. This:

The Cochrane Review also combines studies where face masks or respirators were worn continuously5 with studies where these tools were used inconsistently.

Means its got a degree of flaws right there. 

Especially when combined with this:

The Cochrane Review does acknowledge that “adherence with interventions was low in many studies.” This, in part, is why some experts don’t think RCTs are the best way to study whether or not masks and respirators are effective. Scientists aren’t following a person around to see if they are actually wearing the intervention consistently—there is a lack of certainty in methodology.

Derp!

The second is that only 6 of the 78 randomized controlled trials it studied actually were done during COVID. Therefore, even if its masks advice might be true in general, it can't be extrapolated specific to COVID so readily.

The third is that Tom Jefferson, lead author for the scientists on this study, may have had some axe-grinding, as this indicates:

“Scientific review confirms doubters’ stance on masks and COVID-19,” declared a popular Instagram post from Fox News. 

The lead author of the Cochrane review, Tom Jefferson, seemed to endorse this interpretation when he said in an interview, later quoted by conservative columnist Bret Stephens in a widely viewed opinion piece for the New York Times, “There is just no evidence that they” — referring to masks — “make any difference.” 

But experts — and the Cochrane Library — say this is an inaccurate representation of what the review found.

Wow.

Beyond that pull quote, the axe-grinding? This:

He has endorsed several unorthodox views about COVID-19 and some of his writing has been republished by the Brownstone Institute, a group that has described itself as the “spiritual child” of the widely criticized Great Barrington Declaration. In the latest update to the Cochrane review, under a section in which authors disclosed potential conflicts of interest, he reported “declaring an opinion on the topic of the review in articles for popular media.”

Well, Great Barrington me! (He also comes off as a bit trollish in a dry, understated British way.

I don't know if Cochrane has any sort of internal review process, because his 15-plus years as author of papers on respiratory virus intervention certainly needs review. Anyway, given that he's previously been cited by Brownstone, it's clear he knew what he was doing in interviews on this and being used by Bret Stephens. The fact that he did so while overstating what the study found is additionally problematic.

Per Zeynep Tufekci, Karla Soares-Weiser, editor in chief of the Cochrane Library, DID call him out at the time. Being a sociologist, she things part of what drives anti-maskers is seeing that some early rules were indeed kind of dumb.

But, with Jefferson, it's not "dumb." It's medically deliberately self-misinformed:

In that interview, he said there is no basis to say the coronavirus is spread by airborne transmission — despite the fact that major public health agencies have long said otherwise. He has long doubted well-accepted claims about the virus. In an article he co-wrote in April 2020, Jefferson questioned whether the Covid outbreak was a pandemic at all, rather than just a long respiratory illness season. At that point, New York City schools had been closed for a month and Covid had killed thousands of New Yorkers. When New York was preparing “M*A*S*H”-like mobile hospitals in Central Park, he said there was no point in mitigations to slow the spread.

Wow. Yep, like a Tom Malone, this is the wingnut guiding wingnuts. And, more from Tufekci, it seems that he's been editorially rebuked by Soares-Weiser before, and hasn't taken kindly to it. So? If there's a way to boot him from writing the respiratory virus reports, do it!

Tufekci adds these thoughts at the end, noting that "masks/no masks" is also a simplistic false framing.

Masks are a tool, not a talisman or a magic wand. They have a role to play when used appropriately and consistently at the right times. They should not be dismissed or demonized.

This is definitely true.

Back to the first link for more on that:

“Other research does tend to point in the direction of at least some protection,” Dr. [William] Schaffner told Health. “Nobody thinks masking is the complete and total answer. That’s also a false expectation. But they are an additional layer of protection.”

That's the bottom line.

Well, really, the bottom line right now, contra the doomers, is, there is no big surge. (We did cross the 200 deaths/wk threshold the last week of August, but still stayed below 300 deaths, and that appears to be on the decline again.

One last pre-trial look at Warren Kenneth Paxton's oiliness

In the one hand I have shit; in the other, I have Ken Paxton!

First, state Senatecritters like Charlie Geren, as well as Housecritters on the GOP side who voted for impeachment, don't like Defend Texas Liberty PAC targeting them.

Speaking of, I got texted by Defend Texas Liberty PAC or whoever the hell, to sign a petition. They were targeting David Spiller (my state House legiscritter and of course one of the impeachment managers). I texted back that he was a lawyer himself and knew what he was doing, that for a Rethug, he'd make a much better AG than Paxton should Warren be convicted, Strangeabbott want him as a permanent replacement and he be interesting. I added that, if Christofascist Tim Dunn hadn't given them enough money, I'd mail a bag of dog feces for the cause. Then, of course, told them they were blocked.

Second, Warren K. and Angela together visited Kosovo (not reported by DPS when itemizing security costs for their trip to Europe), the most corrupt country in Europe (Ukraine is generally regarded as No. 2 by actual leftists, #BlueAnon), but why? The Observer reports that it was essentially for money-laundering kind of reasons, related to an apparent shell company where Angela is on the board of directors. Oh, their friend who met with them and the Kosovo Parliament? James Frinzi is also a friend of Trump. Perhaps that's part of what's driving all this pushback. 

Third? So you don't get confused? The Monthly's Mimi Swartz has a "cheat sheet" of the charges, the players, etc. That piece reminds us that Der Grüppenführer, Danny Goeb, aka Dan Patrick, has gotten $3 million from Defend Texas Liberty himself over the years.

This:

Patrick also knows the attorney general could be a political rival for, say, governor, and might even think acquitting Paxton could be a political liability. (That sending Paxton packing could be good for the people of Texas hasn’t really come up.) If that’s the case, the question is: can he get rid of the AG without looking like he’s the one getting rid of the AG?

About sums things up. Sort of.

Contra Mimi, I don't think Danny Boy is interested in challenging Strangeabbott (whose thoughts on the case haven't even been rumored for state media consumption) in 2026. And, he'll have a duty to retire in 2030. A more likely take is that Danny Boy is looking for someone more pliable than Strangeabbott to fill that chair.

Per the numbers? Half of Senate Rethugs must vote to convict, assuming all Dems do. Swartz doubts that. Tis true that 70 percent of the House GOP voted to impeach, but the Senate has long trended more conservative, in part due to its smaller size and bigger districts.

Per the Christofascists, my Senatecritter, Springer, is one of their targets. I'll give you at least 50-50 odds he votes to acquit.

And, beyond Christofascists, just plain old fascists like Former Fetus Forever Fuckwad Jonathan Stickland are rowing their oars.

On the political angle, the Chronic notes that it's House Speaker Dade "Dade" Phelan, not Danny Boy, who really has the most on the political line. If Warren K is not convicted, the Tim Dunn crowd will go hard after any remnants of even slightly Joe Straus type Rethugs in the House. The piece notes that DTL went 0-19 in 2022 primaries, but an acquittal would certainly change that. Even more fun, per the piece, would be a conviction, but one with only one or two votes to spare.

As for his testifying? As I said in my previous update, I think it's possible he could be compelled to get on a witness stand, but that Paxton could plead the Fifth as soon as that happens. I would assume Danny Boy's new legal counsel has advised him on that. (Sidebar: This shows a definite stupidity of the state constitution; were we the feds, the head of the Texas Supreme Court would be presiding.)

Fourth, as for time frame? I had originally thought the first week would suffice. Then, we got the 4,000 page document dump, and I said it would take most the second week. Now, we have Warren personally going on the attack, along with others. I wouldn't be surprised if at least part of a third week isn't eaten up. Danny Boy, in this Trib piece about him temporarily forswearing campaign contributions during the trial, agrees.

==

For a trial-start capper, Pro Publica has a piece on Paxton's politicization of the office by who he has, and hasn't, defended among state agencies and entities.

==

First update: Motions to dismiss failed 24-6. My nutter, Springer, was NOT in the 6. The six who were in his corner? Bob Hall zero surprise. Not much more on Tan Parker or Lois Cockwhore. (Thanks for that one from long ago, Brains.)

Besides the motions to dismiss, some motions got up to 10 senators. Springer was nay on all 10, which means Dunn and Stickland can't peel him off on the verdict vote, it seems. Ditto for Kelly Hancock.

The second biggest motion was to exclude evidence from before his current term. That failed 22-8. Sorry, Mimi Swartz, but your crystal ball might be broken.

Without a floor vote, Danny Boy did grant the motion to exclude Paxton from testifying.

==

And, I was not paid to write this post by Brad Parscale.

==

And, did I say "three weeks"? Per this Trib piece about the first week, and the overall speed? We'll be here a month or more.

Top blogging of August

As is normal, while these were the 10 most read pieces of mine in the past month, they weren't necessarily all from the last month.

With that, let's jump in, and we'll go reverse order this month for a big drumroll at the end.

No. 10 was posted the middle of last week and so is new indeed. "The Texas Tribune, its future and its legend" sums up my thoughts on the layoffs there in light of its history.

No. 9? My roundup of the latest pre-trial Warren Kenneth Paxton impeachment news. Will have more in the next couple of weeks! Speaking of, I got texted by Defend Texas Liberty PAC or whoever the hell, to sign a petition. They were targeting David Spiller (my state House legiscritter and of course one of the impeachment managers). I texted back that he was a lawyer himself and knew what he was doing, that for a Rethug, he'd make a much better AG than Paxton should Warren be convicted, Strangeabbott want him as a permanent replacement and he be interesting. I added that, if Christofascist Tim Dunn hadn't given them enough money, I'd mail a bag of dog feces for the cause. Then, of course, told them they were blocked.

No. 8 was a mid-month Texas Progressives roundup of various hypocrisies.

No. 7 is this year's version of my call-out of "more credulous precincts of the left," Jeff St. Clair's phrase which applies also to him in this case, over Hiroshima, this time over the word "justified."

No. 6 is really more credulous precincts of the left. Jacobin's Branko Marcetic extends previous cluelessness to cover his "duh" over Woody Harrelson backing RFK Jr.

No. 5? An expanded review, with an alt-history ending, of Jonathan Eig's excellent new bio of MLK.

No. 4? I call out #BernAnon's Ryan Knight for spreading misinformation about Jessica McCabe.

No. 3? I diss Michael Simpson, the self-styled "Skeptical Raptor," for his dissing without information the lab-leak theory of COVID.

No. 2? I call out Texas Parks and Wildlife for its lies and laziness about the former Fairfield Lake State Park.

DRUMROLL ....

No. 1? I call out Hunter Lovins, formerly of the Rocky Mountain Institute, for her latest neoliberal bullshit non-answer to climate change.