Stormy Daniels under oath is history. She reveals how Donald Trump is unqualified to be president

Echo opinion by Joan Vennochi published in the Boston Globe:

As Stormy Daniels testified about the alleged sexual encounter she said she had with Donald Trump in 2006 – and that he denies – the former president did not hide his fury. In a sidebar that took place during her testimony, the presiding trial judge told Trump’s lawyer that his client was “cursing audibly and he is shaking his head visibly and that’s contemptuous.”

Stormy Daniels tells her story under oath about the sexual encounter with Donald Trump.

Trump’s confrontation with the adult film star brought something he abhors: “The process makes him accountable – having to sit there and face her in a dingy courtroom in New York, silent, facing detention in an even dingier holding facility,” Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge who teaches at Harvard Law School, told me.

If Trump’s anger over that is unsurprising, so is the fact that it stands in sharp contrast to his willingness to weaponize sex and politics. Remember when right before his Oct. 2016, debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump showcased some of the women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct?

With that, he not only tried to neutralize the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape that had just come out, he tried to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her husband’s alleged transgressions.

“The layers of irony and hypocrisy surrounding Donald Trump’s actions seem boundless,” said Colette Phillips, a Democratic activist who supported Hillary Clinton.

The Bill Clinton accusers who showed up at Trump’s pre-debate press conference included Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey. Another woman who attended had allegedly been raped by a man Hillary Clinton defended when she was a lawyer. At the time, Trump described them as “four very courageous women.”

Trump is now facing women who, by that definition, should also be considered courageous. A year ago, a jury found Trump responsible for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll and then defaming her by saying she made-up the story that he sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in 1996.

In January, another jury awarded $83.3 million to Carroll after Trump continued to attack her on social media.

In the ongoing hush money trial, Trump is accused of covering up a $130,000 payment that was made to Daniels in Oct. 2016, in exchange for her silence about their alleged sexual encounter. Prosecutors say the purpose of the payment was to suppress a damaging story, and with that, undermine the integrity of the 2016 presidential election.

Daniels’s testimony was seen as a way to establish Trump’s motivation for the reimbursement of the money paid to her, and the subsequent falsification of his business records.

As he sulks in that Manhattan courtroom, Trump may well be wondering why anyone thought Daniels’s story needed to be bought and squelched in the first place. For all the panic over the Access Hollywood tape, he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton had already proven that voters care more about policies than they do about moral principles – at least if the candidate is a man.

Clinton won the White House despite rumors about sexual liaisons and accusations of sexual misconduct. In his second term, he was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice to cover up an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern.

He ignored calls to resign and the Senate eventually acquitted him. Throughout Clinton’s presidency, women continued to support him, including prominent feminists like Gloria Steinem and he left office with an official exit approval rating of 66 percent.

While the recent #MeToo movement put a new spotlight on some of that old Clinton history, it didn’t stop President Biden from inviting Clinton and former president Barack Obama to join him recently at a big Radio City Music Hall fundraiser.

Yet Hillary Clinton has frequently been called upon to address her husband’s behavior, and asked to distinguish it from Trump’s. And she likely paid a higher price for it. After all, she lost the presidency to Trump.

Erin O’Brien, an associate professor who teaches a course on “Women, Politics, and Policy” at UMass Boston, said in an email that “research shows voters make female candidates ‘pay’ more for violating feminine stereotypes such as being demure, faithful, etc. Bill Clinton’s considerable transgressions were, for many in the Trump coalition (evangelicals, gender traditional) evidence of her having too much ambition and not keeping Bill Clinton in line – too much outward ambition and not taking care of the marriage.”

As for the impact of Daniels’s testimony, O’Brien said she doubts it will change many minds. Evangelicals and those she describes as “gender traditionalists in the Trump coalition” long ago decided “to look the other way on issues of fidelity with Trump because he delivered on striking down Roe and they see him as the vessel to a federal abortion ban.” Meanwhile, “the immoral woman is a temptress old as time.”

For sure, putting Trump on trial comes with risks. So if he’s not convicted, what will that face-to-face with Daniels mean?

“I fear it will be an empty gesture, if the jury hangs, as it might,” said Gertner.  (IMO disagree with Gertner, check out the column by Maureen Dowd- "Donnie After Dark", in The New York Times.)

Still, because of Daniels’ courage, Trump’s moment of accountability is now part of history.

Donald Trump wants revenge and retribution! He is not qualified to run for any political office

 Trump is a clear, present danger💥

To the Editor, Daily Press: Is Donald Trump a “good person”❓😖His track record suggests otherwise. He’s repeatedly cheated on his wives, faced allegations of sexual assault and rape, and incited a mob to try to overthrow an election. 

Trump openly praised white supremacists and resorts to name-calling like a sixth-grade bully. His decisions have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans during COVID, endangered national security by revealing secrets, and added trillions to the national debt. He’s actively obstructed the return of presidential records to the government and threatens revenge and retribution, if reelected.

By any reasonable standard, being a “good person” should be a fundamental quality for a president. Donald Trump does not meet this standard. In fact, his actions and behavior make him a clear and present danger to the United States.

Robert Hails Tahlequah, Oklahoma

"There he goes again!" Donald Trump is determined to destroy democratic election integrity

Echo opinion letter to the Editor published in the Los Angeles Times: When Trump vacillates on accepting election results, he’s saying he’ll end democracy.

Jackie Calmes wrote: Republicans! Here they go again! (Ronald Reagan redux) Six months before election day, for the third straight presidential contest, Donald Trump and his Republican lickspittles are sounding alarms about virtually nonexistent voting fraud, laying the groundwork to claim that he wuz robbed should he lose to President Biden.

Dear Editor:  Columnist Jackie Calmes is right to worry over the vacillation expressed by former President Trump and his vice presidential hopefuls over (#fakenews❗) election results. (“Our elections have integrity. These politicians do not,” Opinion, May 12)

Let’s all understand something: The question, “If you do not win, will you accept election results?” is the same as, “Do you accept the American system of democratic representation established by the Constitution?”

The answer has to be an unqualified yes😲❗

The dodgy answer we get from Trump and (the cult) Co. is their way of saying, “I support the overthrow of the American system of representative government.”

So for voters, the question this fall will be, “Do you want this country to continue the American experiment in democracy, or shall we call it quits?”

Election day choices don’t get much more basic than this.

From William Yarchin, in Huntington Beach, California

Stormy Daniels finally has her Trump porn story told under oath. "A real man would also testify under oath...."

Stormy was working blue, and the judge was seeing red.

Echo opinion published by Maureen Dowd in The New York Times:

Donnie After Dark 👽😁

Justice Juan Merchan chided Donald Trump’s lawyer Susan Necheles, saying he didn’t understand why she hadn’t objected to seamy details about the President and the Porn Star spilling out.

“Why on earth she wouldn’t object to the mention of a condom I don’t understand,” Merchan complained about Necheles.

But I wanted to hear about the condom — or lack thereof. The New York trial involves an abstruse legal strategy and illusory crime. It’s the weakest of the cases against Trump. It’s certainly not putting him on trial for the attempted coup d’état he incited or for treating top secret documents as dinner conversation fodder at his golf clubs. But it now seems almost certain that none of the other cases will be resolved before the election.

So we’re left with a two-bit case that has devolved into dirty bits, filled with salacious details — a spanking, a missionary position and ping-ponging insults like “horseface” and “orange turd.”

Yet, even if it plays like a cheesy old Cinemax “After Dark” show, it’s still illuminating. The case doesn’t hinge on Stormy Daniels’s story about her liaison with Trump, or even if the former president is lying when he says they didn’t have sex. (He would say that, wouldn’t he?)

It’s instructive about the moral values — or lack thereof — of our once and perhaps future president.

We know that Trump is a louche operator. But, given that he is leading in crucial swing states, it doesn’t hurt to be reminded of just how louche (IOW Trump is a sordid creature👺).

To paraphrase Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman, every word Trump utters is a lie, including “and” and “the.”

Trump’s legal team seems to be hoping that Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, his former aides who tearily testified for the prosecution, gave the impression that he didn’t want the Stormy story to come out on the eve of the 2016, election because he was tenderly concerned about how it would affect Melania, rather than selfishly concerned about his presidential aspirations.

Asked about Trump’s intentions, Stormy offered a shrug to the jury, saying, “I wouldn’t know what he wanted to protect.”

In her telling, Trump wasn’t concerned about his wife, with a new baby at home. He told Stormy not to worry about Melania.

Stormy said he was more focused on her resemblance to Ivanka and a possible threesome with another blond porn star, Alana Evans, of “It’s Okay! She’s My Mother in Law 13” and “Dirty Little Sex Brats 9.”

When Necheles tried to make Stormy seem tawdry on cross-examination, the mistress of exotica flipped the script. Sure, she was an opportunist and a finagler and a marketer of tacky products, she conceded in essence, but if it was OK for a man who ascended to the highest office in the land, wasn’t it OK for her?

Stormy made mincemeat of Necheles’s tone-deaf attempt to paint her as a shabby self-promoter with one response: “Not unlike Mr. Trump.”

As The Times noted, Stormy and Donnie were like twins: “He wrote more than a dozen self-aggrandizing books; she wrote a tell-all memoir. He mocked her appearance on social media; she fired back with a scatological insult. He peddled a $59.99 Bible; she hawked a $40 ‘Stormy, saint of indictments’ candle, that carried her image draped in a Christlike robe.”

Trump may have undermined his own case, falling prey to his own capacious and quivering ego. He clearly wanted his lawyers to push his unconvincing tale that — even though he paid $130,000 to keep Stormy from talking and even though she described what’s in his dopp kit and the details of his anatomy — the 2006 Lake Tahoe rendezvous was a figment of her imagination.

Necheles doggedly pursued this fruitless tack with Stormy, to her own and Trump’s detriment.

“You made all this up, right?” the lawyer pressed.

“No,” Stormy replied.

When Necheles kept pecking, noting that the actress, director and producer had starred in porn films with “phony stories about sex,” Stormy leveled her by slyly replying that if she had made up the story about her encounter with Trump, “I would have written it to be a lot better.” She also schooled Trump’s lawyer on the fact that “The sex is very real. That’s why it’s pornography and not a B movie.”

Trump came across as a loser in her account — a narcissist, cheater, sad Hugh Hefner wannabe, trading his satin pajamas for a dress shirt and trousers (and, later, boxers) as soon as Stormy mocked him. The man who was the likely source of the “Best Sex I Ever Had” tabloid headline, attributed to Marla Maples at the time, no doubt loathes Stormy for having described their batrachian grappling, as Aldous Huxley called sex, as “textbook generic.”

Like a legal dominatrix, Stormy continued to emasculate the former president after her testimony, tweeting: “Real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court. Oh … wait. Nevermind.”

The compelling part of this case is not whether Trump did something wrong with business papers. The compelling part is how it shows, in a vivid way, that he’s the wrong man for the job.

Presbyterian Church in America cancels a panel with Christian David French?

(RNS) —The Presbyterian Church in America canceled a recently announced panel about helping pastors to deal with polarization — saying the topic was too divisive. (Say 😲whaaaaa❓) Published in the Religion News Service. 

“The concerns that have been raised about the seminar and its topic have been so significant that it seems wisest for the peace and unity of the church not to proceed in this way,” the PCA’s Administrative Committee said Tuesday (May 14) when canceling the event.

Instead of the panel—which the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) referred to as a seminar—the PCA will hold a prayer time at the denomination’s General Assembly, scheduled for June 10-14, in Richmond, Virginia.

Leaders of the 393,000-member denomination, which has about 1,600 churches, had last week announced the panel, titled “How to Be Supportive of Your Pastor and Church Leaders in a Polarized Political Year.” The inclusion of author and New York Times columnist David French, a longtime PCA member who recently left the denomination, led to online outrage.

David French is a Christian commentator

Critics — many from outside the PCA — labeled French, best known for his vocal opposition to Donald Trump, as liberal and divisive and accused PCA leaders of trying to cause “rancor and controversy” over politics. Those critics mostly disagreed with French’s political views.

Ben Dunson, a PCA minister and founding editor of the American Reformer, a publication that seeks to reform “Christian institutions that have become corrupted by false ideologies and practices,” called French the “most polarizing” panelist the denomination could have chosen.

“I cannot imagine a worse choice to help the PCA through the contentious issues we are facing,” Bunson wrote in opposing French’s presence on the proposed panel, which he said would disrupt the denomination’s “peace and purity.”

Critics also called out bestselling author Nancy French, David French’s wife, for being too critical of the PCA in her new memoir.

The panel would have also included Paul McNulty, the president of Grove City College, a conservative school that published a report rejecting “wokeness” in 2022, along with a pair of PCA pastors, but their inclusion received little attention relative to French’s.

David French declined to comment for this story.

As American society has become more polarized, religious groups have become increasingly divided along political lines. A majority of white Christians, including Catholics, mainline Protestants and evangelicals, are allied with the Republication Party, while Black Protestants, Hispanic Protestants, nones and non-Christians are allied with the Democratic Party. That means churches are less likely to be politically diverse, a reality that intensified during the Trump and COVID-19 era.

The hostility between parties has also grown in recent decades, with each side believing the other is more “immoral, dishonest and close-minded” than other Americans, according to Pew Research.

As a result, voting for the wrong candidate can be seen as a sign of sin or heresy. Cooperating across party lines is often viewed as a betrayal. 

Presbyterians free speech is perceived as "betrayal"?

Donald Trump tells Americans how he will destroy the U.S. Constitution

Echo opinion by Charles M. Blow published in The New York Times:  At a rally in Wildwood, N.J., former guy Donald Trump said that if he is re-elected, he will “immediately deport” any campus protesters who “come here from another country and try to bring jihadism or anti-Americanism or antisemitism.”

Trump Is Still at War With the Constitution

Of course, Trump dwells in linguistic imprecision (😉IOW "lies"). What does “try to bring” mean? Are we using his definitions of jihadism, anti-Americanism and antisemitism? How would those sentiments be monitored? Would the deportations be extrajudicial? Would the deportations be only of student visa holders, or would it include green card holders?

This campaign pledge — this threat — is not only unworkable; it’s ludicrous. But it’s a powerful bit of propaganda. It ties together Trump’s message of nativism and xenophobia with one of his fixations: an iron-fist approach to protests that challenge his beliefs or interests.

Trump understands, intuitively, the power of crowds, and views it as a pressing threat when aligned against him.

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has said Trump was furious about the protests in the summer of 2020, after the murder of George Floyd. In his memoir, Esper wrote that in one meeting, Trump asked, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” According to Esper, Trump believed that the protests made the country — and him — look weak.

Trump has a thirst for authoritarianism because he conflates suppression with strength. In a 1990, interview with Playboy, Trump said this about the Chinese government’s response to the Tiananmen Square protests: “They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak.”

It’s hard not to conclude that Trump relishes the idea of doing the same.

But what Trump seems to see as a weakness is actually one of America’s strengths, the First Amendment. It protects not only freedom of speech but also the freedom to peaceably assemble.

The First Amendment also protects the freedom of the press, which has been under constant assault from Trump. Not only have his incessant references to the news media as the “enemy of the people” helped to poison public sentiment about the trustworthiness of basic facts; he has long expressed a desire to erode press freedoms in the country in general.

During his 2016, campaign, he promised to “open up our libel laws” to allow news organizations to be more easily sued if they write what he deems “purposely negative and horrible and false articles.” There is already an avenue for litigation for false reporting, but it is the subjective “negative” and “horrible” designations that should set off alarms.

In many ways, Trump is at war with the Constitution itself.

In 2022, just weeks after announcing his current campaign, he took to social media, continuing his lie that the 2020, election had been stolen, writing: “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

In fact, one of the founders’ greatest fears was a populist demagogue.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote to George Washington in 1792, just a few years after the Constitution was ratified, “the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the country is by flattering the prejudices of the people and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion and bring on civil commotion.”

That is a rather prophetic description of the rise of Trump and the precarious point at which the nation now finds itself.

And if Trump is re-elected, some of his allies are already planning to indulge and institutionalize his authoritarian inklings. Much of what they have planned involves reshaping the executive branch and exploiting regulatory power.

But it would be unwise to think that Trump would limit himself in this way. With an obsequious Congress — which he would have if it is controlled by Republicans — he could also, potentially, enact laws that undermine the Constitution. We’ve seen this before.

In 1798, fearing a possible war with France, a Federalist Party-controlled Congress passed a series of laws known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, permitting the president to deport “aliens” and allowing the arrest, imprisonment and deportation of citizens of an enemy country during wartime. The Sedition Act made it illegal to “print, utter or publish … any false, scandalous and malicious writing” about the government.

As the National Archives explains: “The laws were directed against Democratic-Republicans, the party typically favored by new citizens. The only journalists prosecuted under the Sedition Act were editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers.”

The Sedition Act is no longer on the books, but it is now widely considered to have been unconstitutional. It’s alarming to see so many Americans shrug when a former president floats a similar idea.

As Benjamin Franklin printed in his newspaper, a half-century before our Constitution was written and adopted: “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins.”

That appears to be Trump’s (stated❗) ambition.💥

Evangelical Christians must hear what Stormy Daniels has to say about Donald Trump

Hypocritical Evangelicals and Trump are still confounding.

Echo opinion published in the Charleston Gazette-Maine in West Virginia by Hoppy Kercheval:

In fact, the testimony by former porn actress Stormy Daniels in the Donald Trump hush money trial (in Manhattan) got me thinking for the umpteenth time 😠about Evangelical Christians and Trump, given Trump’s perverse behavior.

Hypocritical Republicans preach about their Christian values but ignore Donald Trump's philandering behavior.  Speaker Mike Johnson alert!

Daniels testified in detail about her alleged one-night stand (Trump denies the affair) with Trump in a hotel room in 2006, just months after Trump’s wife, Melania, gave birth to their son. It’s just one of Trump’s reported infidelities. In a separate case last year, Trump was found liable for sexually abusing a woman.

Trump infamously claimed in the Access Hollywood video that “when you’re a star, you can do anything” [to women]. Grab them by the p----.”

Earlier this year, he started hocking Bibles to raise money. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer, wrote in his book that Trump, after meeting with prominent evangelicals in 2016, said, “Can you believe that bulls---? Can you believe people believe that bulls---?”

Yet, even after those instances and more, most Evangelicals stand with the former president.

A Pew Research Poll released in March found that 67% of white Evangelical Protestants have a favorable view of Trump. That must hold true in West Virginia, where at least 40% of residents say they are Evangelicals and Trump won by 40 (wrongminded❗) points in the past two elections.

How is it that deeply religious people can support someone whose actions are so antithetical to their beliefs? 

Tim Alberta, a journalist, author of the book “The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory,” son of an Evangelical preacher and a practicing Christian himself, says many Evangelicals who support Trump see him as a mercenary. (❓- say more❗😧)

“[Christians believe] they are under siege, that Christianity is under attack in this country, in the culture [from] the Godless left,” he said, in an interview with CNN. “Desperate times call for desperate measures. If you believe the barbarians are at the gate, you might just be willing to turn to a barbarian to do your fighting for you.”

Brad Sherman, an Evangelical Republican state legislator in Iowa, said of Trump in an NPR (National Public Radio) interview back before the Iowa Caucus, “He’s brash; he’s a fighter. That’s who we need right now in the political arena, in the environment that exists. You gotta be tough.” (Maine Writer- Ahhhh❓ 😦Whatever happened to... "Blessed are the peacemakers for they will inherit the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 5:9)

Another Evangelical, Shelley Buhrow, told NPR, “Have you read the Bible? Many people in the Bible were married multiple times and they didn’t always do the perfect thing.”

This attitude is a dramatic shift from a few short years ago. Republicans, conservatives and Evangelicals were critical of Bill Clinton because he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and lied about it. Back then, character mattered.

James Dobson, one of the leaders of the Christian right, said at the time, that he was “alarmed [at] the willingness of my fellow citizens to rationalize the President’s behavior even after they suspect, and later knew, that he was lying. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without character.”

Evangelist Franklin Graham, in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal following the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, wrote, “If he [Clinton] will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those to whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American people?”

But that feels like such a long time ago now.

James Dobson, one of the leaders of the Christian right, said at the time that he was “alarmed [at] the willingness of my fellow citizens to rationalize the President’s perverse behaviors, even after they suspect, and later knew, that he was lying. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without character.”

Evangelist Franklin Graham, in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal following the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, wrote, “If he [Clinton] will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those to whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American people?” But that feels like such a long time ago now.

Perhaps, Evangelicals see Trump as the modern-day version of King David, who united the tribes of Israel. He had many wives and concubines. He sent Uriah, one of his generals, to die in battle so he could have his way with Bathsheba.

Nevertheless, David did eventually confess, repent and was humbled. Maybe that is what Evangelicals are waiting for from Trump. 😳😢If Trump's past irrevent behavior is any indication, I wouldn’t count on it💢💥❗

Antisemitism fell flat on Duke University graduation thanks to uplifting Seinlanguage

Echo broken clock essay!  I seldom echo the New York Post but, in my opinion, this report by Kirsten Fleming is spot on. 

Jerry Seinfeld actually had a great message for Duke University graduation protesters — too bad they missed it ❗

In the bizarro world of 2024, college commencements — at least the ones that haven’t been canceled — Jerry Seinfeld, a man who riffs on breakfast cereal and Superman, is too controversial for some thin-skinned graduates of Duke University, in Durham North Carolina.

Maine Writer - IMO flagrant antisemitism and Jerry Seinfeld handled the moment with professional style.

On Sunday, a small group walked out, screaming, “Free Palestine,” as the comedian was introduced as commencement speaker.

Why? We’re left with only one conclusion: because Seinfeld, 70, is Jewish and — gasp — visited Israel to meet with families of victims taken hostage by Hamas on October 7th.

Seinfeld is zealously apolitical in his stand-up.

He didn’t jog onto the stage wearing an Israeli flag draped around his shoulders or use “Hatikvah,“ the country’s national anthem, as his walk-up music.

He wasn’t there to act as a proxy for Netanyahu, or to deliver a blistering defense of Zionism or an argument against divestment.

Nonetheless, some 30 or students couldn’t stand to hear an American Jew deliver a commencement address. And thought they’d really make a statement by being disruptive (thereby collectively usurping hoops villain Christian Laettner as the most detested Duke graduate of all time).

But an encouraging thing happened: The sensible crowd booed the protestors and chanted “Jer-ry! Jer-ry!” as he received an honorary degree and delivered universal pearls of wisdom in his native tongue of Seinlanguage😃.

He poked fun at AI and he praised bees. More importantly, he urged the young graduates to laugh and joke, including at stuff that might be too hot for HR or your uptight identitarian friends.

“The slightly uncomfortable feeling of awkward humor is OK. It’s not something you need to fix,” Seinfeld told the crowd.

Hooray for irreverence❗

“Humor is the most powerful, most survival essential quality you will ever have or need to navigate through the human experience,” he said.

For a man who created a show about nothing, Seinfeld gave a speech about a lot of meaningful principles.

Too bad the most self-serious members of the audience walked out before they could hear his advice.

They and their comrades — LARPing as social justice warlords in North Face tents — are absurdity in action.

At Princeton, protesters participated in hunger strike relays, passing the baton to the next heat of performative fasters. At Columbia, they ripped up their diplomas on stage. Across the nation, they’re boldly wearing N95 masks while assuming the identity of revolutionaries.

In a simpler era, this level of farce could have been fodder for his sitcom. It’s downright “Seinfeld”ian.

The comedian, who is reportedly a billionaire, also took on the thorny issue of privilege, a concept that intersectionalists have decided is an original sin. White privilege, rich privilege, cis privilege, yada yada yada.

“I would like to take a moment to defend it … I say, use your privilege,” Seinfeld added.

To applause, he dropped this blistering truth: “My point is, we are embarrassed about things we should be proud of and proud of things we should be embarrassed about.”

Broken clock award to journalist Kirsten Fleming for being right at least once a day!

Broken clock award here for author Kirsten Fleming: Indeed, imagine the privilege of having Seinfeld as your commencement speaker — but, because of his faith and not being a 100% match on your ideological bingo card, he must be rejected, jeered and interrupted.

Purity tests are not your friend in the real world.

Oh, the places you will not go. The walk-out approach will not bode well for future employment — an endeavor that, many times, requires people to work alongside and meet team goals with people who see the world differently.

This group of would-be agitators also lost a chance to witness a great American creative take the time to both uplift and gently humble them. He offered a vision of shared humanity forged through drollery- whimisically amusing.

To quote the man’s sitcom alter ego: “That’s a shame.”

Campus Palestine protestors are wrong minded. They must protest the slaughter of Israli innocents on October 7th invasion

Where were the protests?

Echo opinion letter published in The Morning Call, in Allentown, Pennsylvania:

Dear editor:  I must have missed the protests when Israeli women were being raped and murdered and babies were being slaughtered in Israel. 

I must have missed the protests when battered Israeli hostages were being driven through the streets of Gaza and the hostage takers were cheered by the Palestinians. 

I must have missed the protests about women being treated like chattel in many Middle Eastern countries. 

And finally I must have missed the protests when a young, free-spirited Iranian girl was gunned down because she appeared on TikTok. 

Yes, what’s happening in Gaza is depressing and heartbreaking. What about Hamas’s role here? They use these folks as human shields. They were offered extremely generous cease fire deals. Have they accepted it? No, they want chaos. They thrive on it. You want to protest? It’s your right. But maybe you should direct your ire where it belongs and end the disgusting antisemitic attacks and place blame where it belongs.

From Jim Gregory in Lansford, Pennsylvania

Donald Trump is the only candidate in American presidential history who campaigns from a Manhattan courtroom

Echo opinion letter published in The Morning Call newspaper in Allentown Pennsylvnia:

“Four indictments is astounding,” says Rick McKee, the former Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle cartoonist who draws for the Cagle Cartoons syndicate.

A dangerous second Trump presidency will be based on revenge.

Dear editor:  A presidency based on revenge— that’s what former guy Donald Trump is signaling if (God forbid❗) he wins. His need for power has grown since he first contemplated running for office. His first term as president was a practice run. For him, this 2024, election is not for love of country, but to fulfill an insatiable appetite for control. Trump already demonstrated that control when he “encouraged” Republicans to reject an immigration bill that contained most of what the House Republicans demanded. The bill never received a vote. One person should not be permitted to wield such power over our Congress, Supreme Court, Department of Justice or the military. Trump can achieve this absolute power only if it is given to him by the citizens. A person with that kind of power is usually considered a dictator.

From Edward Richards in  South Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania

Donald Trump is not presidential while he wastes time grumbling sitting in a 1941 built criminal court

Echo Opinion by Dana Milbank published in The Washinton Post
Trump might not go to jail, but this trial is a close second.

People wait to enter the courtroom after the lunch break in former president Donald Trump's hush money trial in New York on Tuesday. (Mary Altaffer/AP)

“Yes, your honor,” Defense Attorney Blanche replied.😊😁

NEW YORK (Manhattan)— My friend and former colleague Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare, has provided indispensable legal analysis during Donald Trump’s hush money trial. But his most important insight into the trial is the need for cushioning.

When I arrived at the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse early Monday morning for a few days of Trump trial tourism, I found Wittes in line holding not one but two pillows: an orthopedic doughnut to sit on and a padded, wraparound lap desk. If I didn’t do the same, he warned, “you’ll come away with injuries.”

He was vindicated within an hour of my arrival in the courthouse.

The courthouse, completed in 1941, apparently has not been updated much since then, nor even maintained. Its seats are hard, wooden pews with curved backs that accentuate the customary journalist slouch as we hunch over our laptops.

Posters warning of asbestos abatement 😵😲😱hang in the lobby. The bathrooms have malfunctioning taps, missing toilet paper holders and what looks like years of grime on the floor. The courtrooms have almost no electrical power or internet connectivity, forcing those covering the Trump trial to lug backpacks full of enormous batteries, cables and hotspots. Temperatures fluctuate madly (a source of much irritation to the defendant). The hallways are dark and green, and the fluorescent-lit courtrooms have names such as “Part 59” and “Part 75.” The elevators groan and creak; on the 15th floor, where the Trump trial is held, two of us had to manually push an elevator’s doors closed to get the carriage moving down to the lobby.

Mar-a-Lago it isn’t. This place, built on the site of a 19th-century prison and gallows complex called “the Tombs,” may be as close as Trump gets to prison — and it’s a reasonable facsimile. Attendees get colored “hall passes” that allow them to go to the restroom. Dozens of police guards bark orders (“We’re locking it down!”) and impose byzantine rules: No eating in the rooms, and no loitering in the halls unless you are eating. Multiple layers of security make it so difficult to reenter the building that reporters pack their lunches and eat on benches, or any other space they can claim, on unused floors of the building.

Those wishing to attend the proceedings start to line up around 6 a.m. for the 9:30 a.m. trial, in the middle of a media bivouac of satellite trucks, stand-up platforms and acres of police barriers. 

Those admitted to the courtroom (one reporter per outlet) and the overflow room (where video and audio are piped in) can’t watch Trump’s rants in the hallway, just steps away, and those in the “pool” to watch Trump’s rants can’t watch the trial.

Still, there are small pleasures: On the TV screens in the overflow room, right under the video feed of Trump at the defense table, is a chyron displaying the words “New York County Supreme Criminal.”

I expected to spend much of my year covering Trump this way, watching his trials in New York, D.C., Georgia and Florida. But suddenly, this trial — the least important of the four — looks like it will be the only one to get underway before the election.

Meanwhile in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee and a thorough Trump partisan, postponed indefinitely his trial in the classified documents case. In Georgia on Wednesday, an appeals court agreed to hear an appeal from Trump that will almost certainly block the racketeering trial there from occurring this year. 

A Trump-friendly majority on the Supreme Court signaled that it would handle Trump’s sweeping immunity claims in such a way that will likely postpone his trial i

In the January 6, 2021, case until after the election.

For a candidate who moans nonstop about a “rigged” justice system, it looks more as though the deck is stacked in his favor. 

Yet, Trump may be sorry when his time in court comes to an end in a couple of weeks. He will no longer be able to claim that his obligations in court keep him from the campaign trail (he tends to play golf on his days away from the trial anyway), and he won’t be able to complain about how he’s being persecuted by prosecutors and judges.

In the hush money trial, he’s practically begging to be jailed for contempt of court. Justice Juan Merchan, finding Trump in contempt for a 10th time on Monday for violating a gag order preventing Trump from attacking witnesses, pleaded: “Mr. Trump, it’s important to understand that the last thing I want to do is to put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president, as well. There are many reasons why incarceration is truly a last resort for me.”

Yet 48 hours later, before Stormy Daniels’s testimony, Trump toyed with the judge some more. He posted and then deleted a message on his Truth Social platform about the “CROOKED” judge “threatening me with JAIL,” while also claiming the judge left “no time for lawyers to prepare” for Daniels. (Her name had been on the witness list for months❗)

I came to New York expecting to see Trump doze off during his trial. Instead, I was struggling to stay awake myself.

Prosecutors don’t announce the order of witnesses, as a precaution to keep Trump from attacking them. 

So after waiting for three hours Monday morning to secure a seat, I learned that I was in for a day of accounting testimony — important to the case, but deadly tedious.

• “Is this another MDS voucher?”
• “What’s the voucher number?”
• “What account is this coming from?”
• “And the invoice amount?”
• “Is there a check number on the stub?”
• “What is it?”

Over, and over, and over again. The only relief Monday was provided by Trump’s lawyers, who complained about everything, no matter how picayune, and without regard to whether their complaint had any truth. Trump lawyer Todd Blanche complained at length that the defense had not been provided with the name of one of the witnesses; her name was on the list of witnesses publicly disclosed during jury selection. Blanche argued that having the witness recalled to provide additional testimony would prejudice the jury against the defense. The testimony in question? The witness was going to read three of Trump’s tweets.

In the courtroom that morning, Trump’s lawyers tried to delay the day’s proceedings so they could raise more objections to the judge; outside the courtroom in the afternoon, Trump complained that the trial was taking too long.

But Tuesday brought blessed relief from the tedium. A witness from the publisher of “Trump: How to Get Rich” testified.

• “What’s depicted in the cover photo?”
• Donald J. Trump.”
• “And what’s the largest word on the cover?”
• “And what percentage of the cover is the word ‘Trump’?”
• “It looks about roughly 30 percent to me.”
• The prosecutor then had the witness read passages from the book, such as: “For many years I’ve said that if someone screws you, screw them back. When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously and as violently as you can.”
• In cross examination, Blanche tried to suggest Trump’s “ghostwriter” was behind such sentiments — and moments later denied to the judge that he had done any such thing.

Then came the storm.

The content of Daniels’s testimony wasn’t new — she had written or said most of it before — but hearing the prurient account in open court, with Trump at the defense table, was still stunning. It stunned Trump, for the judge had to admonish him, through his lawyers, for “cursing audibly.”

• “Mr. Blanche, did you speak to your client?” Judge Merchan asked after a break?
• “Yes, your honor,” Blanche replied.

After watching Daniels testify on Tuesday, I abandoned my trial tourism. When Daniels returned to the stand for continued cross-examination Thursday morning, I “watched” it through the eyes of my Post colleagues (who report the action in live updates) and those of Lawfare’s Tyler McBrien (who live-tweets so fast it’s like a transcript). The attacks on the adult-film star were ferocious, but Daniels didn’t lose her poise.

Trump lawyer Susan Necheles invoked Daniels’s 2018 “Make America Horny Again” tour, and she displayed the products Daniels has sold, including a “Stormy, Saint of Indictments” candle. “That was you selling your merchandise, right?” Necheles asked.

“That is me doing my job,” answered Daniels, who noted that her own crass commercializing was “not unlike Mr. Trump.”

Necheles, who asserted that Daniels has “a lot of experience making phony stories about sex appear to be real,” asked her: “And now you have a story you have been telling about having sex with President Trump; right?”

Replied Daniels: “And if that story was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better.”

Necheles was skeptical that Daniels, after acting in “over 200 porn movies,” would really become lightheaded, as Daniels claimed, after seeing Trump on a bed in a T-shirt and boxer shorts.

“Yes,” Daniels rejoined. “When you are not expecting a man twice your age to be in their underwear.”

The Trump lawyer asked Daniels if she knew what was in the indictment against Trump.

“There was a lot of indictments,” Daniels responded, to laughter.

Necheles mentioned a Daniels tweet saying she was “the best person to flush the orange turd down,” then asked: “You said you were going to ‘flush’ President Trump?”

“I didn’t say ‘President Trump,’” Daniels shot back. “It says ‘orange turd.’ So, if that’s what’s interpreted by you …”

There was more laughter in the courtroom. Or so I’m told. By this time, I was sitting at home in an ergonomic office chair with plenty of memory foam.

Maine Writer: And the moral of this echo essay is this.....the former guy in boxer shorty is a creepy old man. Ugh!😝

Donald Trump's failed oath of office but is dangerous and wants to try again

(By the way- Stormy Daniels unfavorably compares Trump to ‘real men’ after hush-money trial testimony!)

This echo essay was published in the Storm Lake Times-Pilot newspaper, in Iowa. 

The Donald Trump's fake oath of office:.....Because some voters will believe anything I tell them, no questions asked, I, Donald Trump…

• …promised voters “Mexico will pay for” my wall. (But you did — and swallowed all my promises hook-line-sinker.)
• …told voters I’d “completed” that wall. (I didn’t — not even close. Most of our 1,900-mile border is still unwalled.)
• …insisted I’d release my taxes. (I then did all I could to keep them hidden. Ah, the old “Bait ‘n’ Switch.” Classic!)
• …told voters early Covid was “totally under control” on my watch. (It wasn’t. It soon killed over 1,000,000 of us).
• …claimed crime was at “record” levels with Obama. (It wasn’t — but falsely smearing Obama boosted my image).
• …promised voters I wouldn’t “have time to play golf” in office. (I found time to golf — lots and lots and lots of golf).
• …accused mail-in voting of being rife with “fraud.” (But it isn’t. In fact, I’ve voted by mail myself, more than once).…
• trashed Hillary Clinton, Biden and others for sloppy secrets-handling. (But I freely took box after box to Florida).
• …attacked the very idea of “defund the police.” (But then I urged my party to “defund” the FBI and even the DOJ).
• …vowed to staff my team with “only the best people.” (But I didn’t. I prefer the corrupt and the easily corruptible)
• ...claimed my poll numbers topped Lincoln’s. (So scientific, tech-driven polling didn’t exist then. Details, details).
• …promised to “drain the swamp.” (Instead, I just restocked D.C. with my own dishonest, cagey swamp-cronies).
• …said I didn’t know about a Stormy Daniels payout. (But I did. I even signed a check reimbursing my lawyer for it).
• …decried “fake news.” (But by “fake,” I mean “uncomplimentary.” I love “fake news” if it’s a pro-Trump rave).
• …blasted judges for “bias.” (But by “biased,” I mean “free-thinking.” I admire any judge with a pro-Trump agenda).
• …scared ailing voters into thinking Biden would end pre-existing illness protection. (It wasn’t true – but so what?)
• …claimed January 6 rioters were “hugging and kissing” Capitol police. (“Shoot him with his own gun!” = words of love).
• …boasted I’d brought crisis/death numbers from opioids “way down.” (Actually, they were up. Again — so what?)
• …labeled people who “Take the Fifth” as crooked. (But I’ve used it myself — again and again and again and again).
• …said too much vote-handling time enables “cheating.” (But if it’ll enable me, drag out those recounts for months).
• …bashed Biden relatives for “cashing in” on influence. (But Jared’s Saudi deal, Ivanka’s China trademarks? Fine).
• …denounced opportunists who profit off the “Trump” name. (But I’ll use a Bible as a “prop” in a staged photo-op).
• …accused Dems of “phony” tales of refugee despair. (But I “play-act” hugs/kisses on a U.S. flag for a P.R. stunt).
• …said a Capitol door-crasher was shot “for no reason.” (Now, if she’d crawled through my door, to harm me…)
• …claimed Jan. 6 rioters were “hugging and kissing” Capitol police. (“Shoot him with his own gun!” = words of love).
• 
• …treated “Lock her up!”/“Lock ‘em up! as good fun. (But “lock Trump up?” No, my crimes must go unpunished).
• …bragged that I have “much more” money “than I’ll ever need.” (Yet, I chase nonstop donations from the gullible poor).
• …assured roughnecks I’d “pay the legal fees.” (But I won’t. In fact, I want them to give me money to pay for mine).
• …said I’d pivot and “become so presidential” you’d be amazed. (I never pivoted. I just behaved worse than ever).

And that’s just some of the deceptive and disingenuous promises, claims and boasts Donald Trump has made in recent years. How many more deliberate falsehoods could we add here? Dozens? Scores? Hundreds? Even if “evangelical” voters can somehow overlook all of Trump’s mean-spirited insults and name-calling, should they be actively supporting this level of insincerity and deceit? Would they ever tolerate this much blatant dishonesty in any other politician?

Trump never criticized the "hang Mike Pence" chant

• I swore an oath to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution…(…but then proposed we “terminate” that Constitution to declare me President)!
• I repeatedly promised I’d “rebuild the infrastructure of our country”…(but Infrastructure Week always fizzled. I just left it all to Biden to tackle)!
• I decried befriending the white supremacists who hang on my every word…(but then alerted them to “stand back and stand by” until further instructions!)

…and so on… and so on… and so on… and so on…

“Religious” voters argue that backing this man can somehow “save the soul” of America. But is his spiteful fury bringing out the best in us — or just making us angrier, crueler, harsher, meaner? Can we trust the promises he makes, the claims he asserts, the “wins” he takes credit for — or is he just pushing falsehood and rage and grievance? “Evangelicals” say none of that matters. But shouldn’t it?

From Brad Trom in Blooming Prairie, Minnesota