Donald Trump uses law enforcement for a hypocritcal photo-op during visit to police officer's wake

The problem(s) with Trump (tRumpti-Dumpty!) pitching himself as a law enforcement ally: Although he called deceased veterans "losers and suckers", Donald Trump desperately wants to be seen as an ally to law enforcement. The suspected felon's record makes his pitch demonstrably ridiculous. An echo opinon published on the Rachel Maddow blog by Steve Benen. 

Donald Trump finds himself in a precarious situation continuously fighting allegations of wrongdoing while defended by Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Ivanka and Jared. (KYO Gallery)

NEW YORK CITY Officer 👮Jonathan Diller* (our condolences 😔😢) was gunned down during a traffic stop. The 31-year-old officer leaves behind a wife and 1-year-old son.

Diller’s wake was held yesterday on Long Island, and Donald Trump thought it’d be a good idea to attend. The New York Times reported:

Afterward, as rain poured down outside, Trump said the officer’s death was a horrible tragedy and, as he often does on the campaign trail, broadly called for a crackdown on violent crime without mentioning specific policies. “The only thing we can say is maybe something is going to be learned,” Mr. Trump said. “We’ve got to toughen it up. We’ve got to strengthen it up.”

The report added that before the former president spoke to reporters, “a line of police officers, some uniformed and some in tactical gear, were deliberately posed behind him.”

It was a familiar sight: “The former president often takes pictures with the police who accompany his motorcade on the campaign trail, and his aides regularly share videos of the interactions on social media to highlight the officers’ support.”

None of this is especially subtle. The presumptive Republican nominee wants to be seen as “tough on crime” and a “strong” ally of law enforcement. His partisan allies are eager to feed the narrative: House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (Ohio State's child abuse cover-up, i.e. "Gym-Jim Jordan), a Trump acolyte, declared via social media yesterday, “No one Backs The Blue more than President Trump.”

As a matter of election-year politics, the message makes sense. As a matter of reality, this is demonstrably ridiculous.

For now, let’s not dwell on the irony of seeing a man currently facing dozens of criminal counts push a “tough on crime” message, though it’s likely Trump was the only accused felon at yesterday’s wake.

Let’s instead consider the Republican’s record. (hypocrite~❗)

• While in the White House, Trump repeatedly lashed out at those he described as “dirty cops,” as part of a larger offensive against federal law enforcement.
• Trump also attacked law enforcement with conspiracy theories, condemned common law-enforcement tools, undermined the judicial system by abusing his pardon powers, and urged law enforcement to enforce his political vendettas and help Republicans win elections. 
• Indeed, the then-president (former guy!) made it painfully clear during his tenure that he saw law enforcement as a political weapon he can wield at his convenience.
• After his 2020, defeat, Trump’s posture toward law enforcement managed to get worse, as he condemned law enforcement “fascists” and equated the FBI with “the Gestapo.”
• Perhaps most notable of all is Trump and January 6. The former president hasn’t just promised day-one pardons for insurrectionists, many of whom violently clashed with police officers, he’s also facing civil suits from officers who sustained injuries during the riot the Republican instigated.
• As recently as November, Trump also appeared to express support for prosecuting members of the Capitol police. 
• Months earlier, the presumptive GOP nominee also lashed out at the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt as a “thug” and a “coward” who deserves to be vilified.

To see Donald Trump as some kind of ally to law enforcement is to look past everything we know about Donald Trump.

*Governor Hochul Directs Flags to Half-Staff to Honor Fallen NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller:  “New Yorkers are in mourning over the loss of Officer Jonathan Diller, a heroic young man who dedicated his life to public safety and serving the people,” Governor Hochul said.

Why does Michael Flynn continue to receive a military pension? He is a traitor!

The questions Michael Flynn refused to answer come into focus
“General Flynn, do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States?” It wasn't a trick question, but Michael Flynn wouldn't answer it.

Echo essay by Steve Benen published in the MaddowBlog

When it comes to understanding what transpired on January 6, 2021, there are few potential witnesses more knowledgeable than Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s disgraced former White House national security adviser.

As we’ve discussed, Flynn (a retired US Army Lt. General!), for example, attended a December 2020, meeting in the Oval Office in which participants discussed declaring a national emergency as part of a scheme to keep Trump in power despite his defeat. The retired general also reportedly raised the prospect of deploying U.S. troops, seizing voting machines, and declaring martial law as part of an apparent coup attempt.


Yesterday, however, Flynn’s importance grew. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Donald Trump instructed Mark Meadows, his then-chief of staff, to contact both Roger Stone and Flynn on Jan. 5, and Meadows followed those instructions.

What did they discuss? For now, only the participants know for sure.

That traitor Michael Flynn collects a military pension!

Given all of this, it’s not surprising that January 6 investigators subpoenaed Flynn, but as we learned in March, he refused to cooperate, repeatedly pleading the Fifth. What we did not know, however, is what questions led Flynn to express concerns about self-incrimination. New York magazine summarized: During the hearing, the January 6 panel played a clip from former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn’s deposition in which he paused for one minute and 36 seconds when asked if he felt the violence on January 6, was justified, then repeatedly pleaded the Fifth.

In a hearing filled with memorable moments, this stood out. Rep. Liz Cheney, the Republican vice chair of the bipartisan panel, (daughter of former Vice-President Dick Cheney!) was shown asking Flynn, via online conferencing, asking, “General Flynn, do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified?” After a 106-second delay in which Flynn conferred with counsel, the retired general wouldn’t answer. “Do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified morally?” Cheney asked. “Take the Fifth,” Flynn replied.

“Do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified legally?” Cheney asked. “Fifth,” Flynn replied.

“General Flynn, do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?” Cheney asked. “The Fifth,” he responded.

Remember, we’re talking about a retired three-star general who served as the White House national security adviser in 2017. Asked whether he believes in the peaceful transition of power in the United States, Flynn apparently felt that his answer might be used against him.

Does this picture look familiar?  Michael Flynn at dinner with Vladimir Putin.

As jarring as this was, let’s also not forget that as far as his former boss is concerned, Flynn may yet be welcomed back into public service. In April 2020, during his re-election campaign, Trump told reporters that he was open to bringing Flynn back in a second term. Asked specifically if he might invite Flynn into his administration, the then-president replied, “I would certainly consider it, yeah. I would. I think he’s a fine man.”

Two weeks later, then-Vice President Mike Pence added that he, too, would be on board with bringing Flynn back into government.

Several months later, Flynn was the beneficiary of one of Trump’s most brazenly corrupt pardons.

It was against this backdrop that he soon after sat down with the January 6 committee and pleaded the Fifth rather than share his opinion about the peaceful transition of power.

Ted Cruz hypocrisy disquafies him from running for President of the United States

Of course, American must absolutely help Texas! 

Americans have a moral and civic responsibility to aid the devastated flood stricken Texans to rebuild their communities, that were recently devastated by flash floods. Sadly, dozens of innocent people lost their lives in the rising bayou waters brought on by torrential rains.

Nevertheless, helping Texas to receive federal help during disaster and recovery operations, following the state's devastating May floods, needs support from the US Congress. Incredulously, Texas Senator Cruz was not among those who supported help for 2012 Hurricane Sandy victims in New Jersey. But now  he wants federal money to help Texas.

Therefore, this message is addressed to Senator Cruz.  

Dear Senator Cruz.  

Maybe you don't know this. Texans are Americans. 

Of course,we all support disaster relief, supported by federal tax money, to help the recent flood victims and property owners to recover from unexpected floods.  

As a matter of fact, Texans are Americans, just like the citizens who live in New Jersey. Do you know that?

As you know, when Hurricane Sandy devastated the East Coast in 2012, you incredulously opposed disaster relief, paid for by the Federal Government, to help the people who lost life and property, as a result of the devastating coastal flooding.  

In my opinion, speaking to you as an American citizen with a US passport....you must recall your unqualified candidacy to run for US President.  Unless you can demonstrate your allegiance to the United States of America, you are clearly unqualified to even consider running for the office.  (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for whom it stands, one nation under God indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all.)

It's irresponsible of you to oppose New Jersey's need for federal disaster aid, while supporting the same for your worthy Texas citizens.  

I'm calling on you to withdraw your candidacy for the presidency.

MSNBC reports

Ted Cruz adopts a new posture on disaster aid
By Steve Benen

Texas torrential rain this week caused deadly flooding, affecting communities across much of the state. 

According to NBC News’ “at least 23 people died in flooding across the state this week.”

Given the disaster, it’s hardly surprising to see members of Texas’ congressional delegation speaking up in support of federal disaster relief. 

“There are a series of federal statutory thresholds that have to be satisfied. Initially, it appears those thresholds are likely to be satisfied by the magnitude of the damage we’re seeing,” Cruz said while touring the flooding in Wimberley, Texas, according to Texas television station KSAT.

“Democrats and Republicans in the congressional delegation will stand as one in support of the federal government meeting its statutory obligations to provide the relief to help the Texans who are hurting.”

This is, of course, exactly what one expects of a senator after his state is confronted with a crisis. Indeed, note the senator’s specific phrase: “statutory obligations.” For Cruz, it’s not even optional – Americans have a duty under the law to come to Texas’ aid.

But, Cruz took a very different posture in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, when he opposed federal disaster relief.

“This bill is symptomatic of a larger problem in Washington – an addiction to spending money we do not have,” the Texas Republican said at the time. 

“The United States Senate should not be in the business of exploiting victims of natural disasters to fund pork projects that further expand our debt.”

He made no references to “statutory obligations” at the time.

If this seems like a familiar dynamic, it’s probably because it’s far more common than it should be.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), for example, voted against emergency aid to Hurricane Sandy victims, arguing at the time that he didn’t “think Arkansas needs to bail out the Northeast.” But last July, Cotton was quick to seek federal aid for Arkansas when it suffered severe flooding.

And in Colorado, every Republican in the state’s congressional delegation voted against post-Sandy relief, and then every Republican in the state’s congressional delegation wanted emergency funding for their own state in September 2013.

Update: Brian Philips, a senior communications aide to Sen. Cruz, has since said the senator’s opposition to post-Sandy aide was based on what Cruz saw as “pork” in the bill, not opposition to federal assistance itself. Cruz eventually called the federal response “appropriate.” (Oh paaaleeeze.....Cruz never gave a second of sympathy to the needs of New Jersey people who were suffering during Hurricane Sandy....)