…it’s…a weird time to be alive

…maybe they all are…but…not having direct personal experience of any past lives or other natty advantages…I may be having trouble maintaining my sense of perspective this morning…I mean…when don’t we have more chores than we can keep up with?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/12/revealed-the-1200-big-methane-leaks-from-waste-dumps-trashing-the-planet

…should probably get on that

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/12/great-lakes-average-ice-cover

…been meaning to do something about that for a while, too

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/12/two-us-oil-and-gas-super-majors-endeavor-diamondback-energy-merge-in-26bn-deal

…wait…hold on…that’s not helping…could you quit exacerbating shit for a fucking minute?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/12/litigation-terrorism-how-corporations-are-winning-billions-from-governments

…I’ll take that as a “fuck you, no – lemme throw some gas on the fire”

Inside tech billionaires’ push to reshape San Francisco politics: ‘a hostile takeover’ [Guardian]

…ugh…it’s enough to make you come over all nostalgic for the times when cleaving a motherfucker in twain with something big, sharp & heavy was a recognized “legitimate” method of social & political advancement & saying things that made people want to lop bits off you made you have to spend a lot of time wearing more steel than you get in a car these days…that sort of thing did make it hard to pretend to be one of the peasants, too

I suppose it was almost inevitable. Nearly every Conservative MP has their own show on GB News, so it was only a matter of time before it was Rishi Sunak’s turn. The prime minister is going to have a free diary after the next election. Perhaps he could do a weekly phone-in show from California. Though the £100,000 he might get for it probably won’t be nearly enough to make ends meet. He paid five times more than that in tax last year.

For Rishi’s Big Break on GB News, we got an hour-long Q&A on the People’s Forum – a lucky audience of undecided voters selected by the polling company Survation.

“Rishi here,” he gurned in trailers screened throughout the day. “Ask me anything.” Though hopefully not about tax. Sunak didn’t seem that keen to explain why he paid a lower tax rate than most of the rest of the country.

…most of us would be bad on tv…but…when it’s just one way in which you’re demonstrably bad at your job…feels like that might be more telling

Presenter Stephen Dixon opened the show with a brief welcome and then handed over to Rish!, who proceeded to make his opening remarks with his back to the camera. Not the greatest 60 seconds of television.

It’s been a tough few years, Sunak began. Covid. Ukraine. Curiously he didn’t also think to mention Brexit or the Liz Truss budget. Or 14 years of Conservative incompetence. Sunak is getting very forgetful these days.

Rish! then moved on to his five priorities. Sorry, your priorities. Yet again, he has merely been doing us all a favour. Mumble, mumble, mumble. So as we could all see – well, we might have done if we had been able to hear properly – he was actually delivering on all five of his priorities.

Everything was working perfectly. We had never had it so good. “I can offer change,” he concluded. Let’s run through this again. You can offer change from yourself and your government. That’s very big of you.

…nah, bruv…that ain’t it, tho

Now Rish! got all down with the people. Keepin’ it real for GB News. He started dropping his consonants and introducing glottal stops into his sentences. “Stoppin’ the li-ull boats.” Rishi. The Millionaire of the People. The authen-ic voice of yoof. It was sad. Pathetic even. Tryin desperately to fi’ in.

Then he had nothing to say. Other than Rwanda would be a deterrent. He didn’t seem to grasp the difference between sending Albanians to Albania and Afghan refugees to Rwanda. He even tried to blame Labour for stopping him. This is a man who takes no responsibility for his own legislation failing to comply with international law.
[…]
Robin wanted to know what the Conservatives could offer people who were LGBT. Rish! looked horrified. Why should he offer them anything? He was fed up with being inclusive. Hell, what was the country coming to these days. You couldn’t even make a trans joke in front of the mother of a murdered trans teenager without the Labour thought police being on your case.
[…]
And that was just about it. An hour that had passed quite quickly. If totally pointlessly. Because we hadn’t learned any more about Rish! than we already knew. That he’s just not very good at this sort of thing. He can’t connect with people. He lives in a parallel world to the rest of us.

Whatever the questions, he gives the same boilerplate answers. He doesn’t believe what he’s saying, so why should we? He’s merely going through the motions. Someone should have a word. For his sanity as well as ours. It’s going to be a long eight months. Not all of us are going to get out of it alive.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/12/rishi-uses-his-big-break-on-gb-news-to-remind-us-he-cant-connect-with-people

…shame we don’t get to vote on the list…sorry…that was uncalled for…no…wait…it wasn’t really…but it’s not polite to speak ill of one’s betters

Republican Party elites have become so practiced at deflecting even Mr. Trump’s most outrageous statements that they quickly batted this one away. Mr. Trump, the party’s likely presidential nominee, had claimed at a Saturday rally in South Carolina that he once threatened a NATO government to meet its financial commitments — or else he would encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to that country.

In a phone interview on Sunday, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina seemed surprised to even be asked about Mr. Trump’s remark.

“Give me a break — I mean, it’s Trump,” Mr. Graham said. “All I can say is while Trump was president nobody invaded anybody. I think the point here is to, in his way, to get people to pay.”

…brief aside…that is…literally…not how the shit in question works…the US treasury is not the bank of fucking NATO…other members do not stump up their cash like union dues & only get a rep if they’re up to date…for a start there’s budgets & appropriations & stuff that need a bunch of lead time while the value of the percentage target is calculated retrospectively since it’s a proportion of GDP…but…it’s getting to be a fascinating line they’re choosing to toe on this

Mr. Trump’s comments from the rally stage were not part of his teleprompter remarks, according to a person close to him who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. But the remark — a new version of a story he has been telling for years — quickly inflamed in Europe what were already severe doubts about Mr. Trump’s commitment to NATO’s collective-defense provision. That provision, known as Article 5, states that an armed attack on any member “shall be considered an attack against them all.”

Mr. Trump has been using his power over the G.O.P. to try to kill recent bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill to send Ukraine more weapons and vital resources for its fight against Russia. Ukraine is not a NATO member, but helping Ukraine preserve its independence has become the alliance’s defining mission since President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia began his military invasion in February 2022. And where Mr. Trump might land on a commitment to Ukraine has, for the international community and foreign-policy experts, become something of a stand-in for how he will approach NATO, America’s most important military alliance, in any potential second term.

Officials from smaller and more vulnerable NATO countries are especially worried because Mr. Trump has already suggested that it’s not in America’s national interest to get in a war with Russia to defend a tiny nation like, say, Montenegro.

…not a big one…like the one in his totally not made up story about how the big country cried when he called them delinquent…which he never does when people call him that…which they do…lot of people saying it…always have been

The international reaction to Mr. Trump’s Saturday remarks included a rare public rebuke from Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general. Mr. Stoltenberg said that “any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk.”

…for reference…that’s “all of our security” as in “actually the whole world however you look at it”

Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, among the most hawkish Republicans on national defense, suggested European nations in the alliance needed to do more to sustain their own defenses against Russian incursions.

“NATO countries that don’t spend enough on defense, like Germany, are already encouraging Russian aggression and President Trump is simply ringing the warning bell,” Mr. Cotton said in an interview. “Strength, not weakness, deters aggression. Russia invaded Ukraine twice under Barack Obama and Joe Biden, but not under Donald Trump.”

…go spin on a gin, mr cotton…germany is “encouraging Russian aggression”…do you not hear yourself the way you don’t hear the pinheaded peacocking performative proselytizing knobgoblin you seem to have forgotten tried to run this shakedown ON FUCKING UKRAINE YOU BITCH-ASS FUCKING CRETINOUS HYPOCRITE…it’d be funny if it wasn’t so butt-clenchingly fucking terrifying in its corollaries

Several former national security and foreign policy officials in the Trump administration declined to speak about the anecdote that Mr. Trump told about threatening a NATO member nation’s head of state with encouraging Russian aggression. But they said they recalled no such meeting actually taking place.

Mr. Trump is fond of outright falsehoods in relaying stories to make himself look like a tough negotiator. His former national security adviser John Bolton, who has warned that Mr. Trump would withdraw the U.S. from NATO in a second term, said he had never heard Mr. Trump threaten another country’s leader that he would encourage a Russian invasion.

Another former official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid inflaming Mr. Trump, delicately described the tale as “hyperbole.” Still another former official — H.R. McMaster, Mr. Trump’s second national security adviser and a retired Army lieutenant general — gave a one-word assessment of Mr. Trump’s comments: “Irresponsible.”
[…]
Mr. Trump has been focused in private conversations about treating foreign aid as loans, something he has posted about on social media, as Senate Republicans tried again on Sunday to pass an aid package, after Mr. Trump helped tank their earlier efforts. But the Russia comment appeared to catch most on his team by surprise.

Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Mr. Trump’s campaign, when asked to explain the former president’s statements — including whether it was an invitation for new aggression from Russia — did not directly address the question.

…bet your ass he didn’t…which…not entirely incidentally…or innocently…they fucking are, by the way

NATO countries’ spending on their own defense grew during the Trump administration [as a result, by the way, of some shit that was kicked off a good couple of years before dipshitticus dotards-r-us flopsweated his ass into the oval] but it has expanded by an even larger amount during the Biden administration, after Russia invaded Ukraine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/us/politics/trump-nato-republicans.html

…&…maybe the fact maggie split the byline with jonathan swan

…will induce our dog-collared colleague to forgive my transgression in having polluted the atmosphere with a quote from something with her name on it…but…either way

Still, the conversation had telling moments, not least because Judge Sutton is the author of two books on the role states should play in making constitutional law. Hours earlier, Justice Kagan had, by contrast, scoffed at the idea that Colorado should be able to decide whether Mr. Trump could remain on the primary ballot there.

“The question that you have to confront,” she told a lawyer for voters challenging Mr. Trump’s eligibility, “is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” adding: “This question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again is, you know — just say it — it sounds awfully national to me.”
[…]
Judge Sutton, whose books bear the subtitles “States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation” and “States and the Making of American Constitutional Law,” pursued the question of state power in a general way. He noted that Justice Louis D. Brandeis, whose seat Justice Kagan occupies, had been a proponent of letting states experiment with different approaches.

“Do you think there’s still a role for the states to play, or do you think it’s just ‘that was then and this is now,’ and things are really quite a bit different?” he asked.

Justice Kagan, as is her habit, turned the question around, asking what the judge thought. He responded, “It’s pretty dangerous to nationalize things too quickly, whether through legislation or court decisions.”

Asked for her own views, she said: “You know, we had an argument about this this morning. I’m a little fearful of going further.” She did allow that there is a role for states “from time to time, and then the question is what times.”

…how about…I dunno…THIS FUCKING TIME RIGHT HERE?

She was more forthcoming on less topical but no less urgent subjects like respect for precedent and the value of consensus.

When the law “flip-flops” after changes in personnel, she said, “it doesn’t really look like law anymore. It kind of looks like a form of politics.”

“And I think that that’s especially important for this Supreme Court at this time,” she said. “That law should not look like a form of politics where just because the composition of the court changes a whole batch of legal rules change with it.”

…really? …do tell…that almost sounds like a familiar line of reasoning

“What was once a right is no longer a right because the court is different,” she said. “I think that that’s very damaging to the court, very damaging to society.”

…uh huh…uh huh…like…voting or reproductive healthcare, say…we’re picking up what you’re laying down, lady

“It’s easy to kind of get on the court and think, ‘Well, what were they thinking? And that’s just got to be wrong. And my perspective is better. And so I’m going to do things my way.’”

The better view, she said, is that “there’s a kind of wisdom of the ages.”

“If a lot of different judges have seen something differently, you should, you know, ask yourself and then ask yourself again, are you so sure that you have it right? Maybe all those people who thought something different — maybe they were right.”

There was much to be learned, she said, from the long stretch after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in 2016 when the court had just eight members.

“It forces compromise where you don’t think compromise is possible,” she said. “It actually felt as though it forced us to have a conversation that was useful and valuable.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/us/kagan-trump-colorado.html

…so…you’re saying it would be…better…if…there was smaller court…with an even number of justices…& if 8 was good…surely 6 would be even better & give us a “balanced” one while we at it…cool, cool, cool, cool…we on it…lemme check the list to see who didn’t make the cut…gonna look bad stringing clarence up, tho…gotta think about the optics…bret’s fair game though…sorry…forgot myself for a minute there

As an expert on memory, I can assure you that everyone forgets. In fact, most of the details of our lives — the people we meet, the things we do and the places we go — will inevitably be reduced to memories that capture only a small fraction of those experiences.
[…]
There is forgetting and there is Forgetting. If you’re over the age of 40, you’ve most likely experienced the frustration of trying to grasp hold of that slippery word hovering on the tip of your tongue. Colloquially, this might be described as ‘forgetting,’ but most memory scientists would call this “retrieval failure,” meaning that the memory is there, but we just can’t pull it up when we need it. On the other hand, Forgetting (with a capital F) is when a memory is seemingly lost or gone altogether. Inattentively conflating the names of the leaders of two countries would fall in the first category, whereas being unable to remember that you had ever met the president of Egypt would fall into the latter.
[…]
Over the course of typical aging, we see changes in the functioning of the prefrontal cortex, a brain area that plays a starring role in many of our day-to-day memory successes and failures. These changes mean that, as we get older, we tend to be more distractible and often struggle to pull up the word or name we’re looking for. Remembering events takes longer and it requires more effort, and we can’t catch errors as quickly as we used to. This translates to a lot more forgetting, and a little more Forgetting.

Many of the special counsel’s observations about Mr. Biden’s memory seem to fall in the category of forgetting, meaning that they are more indicative of a problem with finding the right information from memory than actual Forgetting. Calling up the date that an event occurred, like the last year of Mr. Biden’s vice presidency or the year of his son’s death, is a complex measure of memory. Remembering that an event took place is different than being able to put a date on when it happened, the latter of which is more challenging with increased age. The president very likely has many memories of both periods of his life, even though he could not immediately pull up the date in the stressful (and more immediately pressing) context of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel.
[…]
Mr. Biden is the same age as Harrison Ford, Paul McCartney and Martin Scorsese. He’s also a bit younger than Jane Fonda (86) and a lot younger than Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett (93). All these individuals are considered to be at the top of their professions, and yet I would not be surprised if they are more forgetful and absent-minded than when they were younger. In other words, an individual’s age does not say anything definitive about their cognitive status or where it will head in the near future.

I can’t speak to the cognitive status of any of the presidential candidates, but I can say that, rather than focusing on candidates’ ages per se, we should consider whether they have the capabilities to do the job. Public perception of a person’s cognitive state is often determined by superficial factors, such as physical presence, confidence, and verbal fluency, but these aren’t necessarily relevant to one’s capacity to make consequential decisions about the fate of this country. Memory is surely relevant, but other characteristics, such as knowledge of the relevant facts and emotion regulation — both of which are relatively preserved and might even improve with age — are likely to be of equal or greater importance.

Ultimately, we are due for a national conversation about what we should expect in terms of the cognitive and emotional health of our leaders.

And that should be informed by science, not politics.

I’m a Neuroscientist. We’re Thinking About Biden’s Memory and Age in the Wrong Way. [NYT]

…funny how many scientists say that sort of thing… the lawyers…fuggedaboudit

Former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he was immune from being prosecuted for any crimes he committed while trying to stay in office after losing the 2020 election was always a long shot. But in an opinion on Tuesday eviscerating his assertion, three federal appeals court judges portrayed his position as not only wrong on the law but also repellent.
[…]
The 57-page opinion was issued on behalf of all three members of a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They included two Democratic appointees and, significantly, Judge Karen L. Henderson, a Republican appointee who had sided with Mr. Trump in several earlier legal disputes.
[…]
On the one hand, the ruling unanimously answered each question put forward by Mr. Trump’s defense team, affirming a similar ruling by the trial judge overseeing the criminal case, Tanya S. Chutkan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. It was far from clear whether a majority of Supreme Court justices would find anything to disagree with in its conclusions.

Still, Mr. Trump’s claim of total immunity introduces a momentous legal issue the Supreme Court has never considered — no former president has ever been charged with crimes before, so there is no direct precedent. Normally, the justices might see it as appropriate to weigh in, too, even if it were merely to affirm an appeals court’s handiwork.

But an intervention by the court — especially one that would uphold the result — could risk being seen as a political act. Taking up the case would further delay Mr. Trump’s trial, which Judge Chutkan had pushed back from its March 4 date as the immunity appeal dragged on.

…could? …fucking “could”? …talk about your pussyfooting about

The appeals court appeared to acknowledge this tack by discouraging Mr. Trump from asking the full appeals court to intervene, which would have allowed him to drag out proceedings even further. It said Judge Chutkan could resume trial preparations next Tuesday unless Mr. Trump had asked the Supreme Court to halt proceedings by then. It would take the votes of five of the nine justices to issue such an order.

Like Judge Chutkan, the panel also decided the substance of the immunity question in a way that forecloses the need for additional fact-finding or analysis about some of the questions underlying his immunity claim: specifically, whether his efforts to subvert the election were official actions he took in his capacity as the president or personal actions he took in his capacity as a presidential candidate.

While casting doubt on whether Mr. Trump’s actions were official, the panel said it made no difference because former presidents have no immunity from criminal prosecution either way.

…uh…”whether his efforts to subvert the election were official actions”…kinda…presupposes we’re stipulating that he took actions to subvert the election…like…we’re not even disputing that part…right?

“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel wrote. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.”

The panel then marched through each of Mr. Trump’s arguments, repudiating every one in turn. 

…&…lemme tell ya…it wasn’t even difficult…they came up to them…these big strong arguments…& they said “will you protect us” & the judges were all “fuck no, yo’ ass gotta pay”…& there was much wailing & gnashing of teeth & rending of garments…sackcloth & ashes may have made an appearance, even…only kidding…these lawyers couldn’t find penitence in a fucking dictionary

Second, Mr. Trump had argued that there is a public interest reason for presidents to be immune from prosecution: Society will be better off if presidents do not fear future charges, which could chill their exercise of their constitutional functions. Finding otherwise, a lawyer for Mr. Trump had warned, would open the floodgates to any number of legal challenges against former presidents.

But the panel expressed doubt that the prospect of later criminal charges would inhibit presidents. For one, while the Supreme Court has disallowed civil lawsuits against presidents over their official actions, the panel noted that there are far greater limitations to bringing criminal charges, so “the risk that former presidents will be unduly harassed by meritless federal criminal prosecutions appears slight.”

The panel added that there was no disadvantage to dissuading presidents from breaking the law. It observed, “The prospect of federal criminal liability might serve as a structural benefit to deter possible abuses of power and criminal behavior.”
[…]
The panel also emphasized that both the public and the executive branch have a countervailing interest in holding people accountable for violating criminal law. That is especially true, it added, of this particular case, where Mr. Trump is accused of subverting the will of voters to stay in office.

“Former President Trump’s alleged conduct conflicts with his constitutional mandate to enforce the laws governing the process of electing the new president,” the three judges wrote. The criminal charges against him, if proven true, amount to “an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government,” they added.

…don’t forget “but my boys gave me a get out of jail free card, so it doesn’t count – suck it”

The panel strongly repudiated that argument, saying his “interpretation runs counter to the text, structure and purpose of the impeachment judgment clause.” The impeachment and criminal justice systems operate on separate tracks with separate purposes, they wrote.

That interpretation, the judges also wrote, implausibly implies that all civil officers, not just presidents, are immune from prosecution over official crimes unless they are first convicted in a Senate impeachment trial. In any case, that would “leave a president free to commit all manner of crimes with impunity, so long as he is not impeached and convicted.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/us/politics/trump-immunity-election-case-ruling.html

…the sorriest of asses even tried for “ya missed me & I call double jeopardy”…& they shot his shit down on that, too…because it was weak-ass as it …so…naturally

Former President Donald J. Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to pause an appeals court’s ruling rejecting his claim that he is absolutely immune from criminal charges based on his attempts to subvert the 2020 election.

Unless the justices issue a stay while they consider whether to hear his promised appeal, proceedings in the criminal trial, which have been on hold, will resume.
[…]
“This is a stunning breach of precedent and historical norms,” Mr. Trump’s application said. “In 234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. Nor should they be.”

…& in all that time…none of the fuckers ever pulled as much shit for the guy in charge of russia, neither…what’s your point, dumb-ass?

Mr. Trump’s filing asked the justices to restore that interim option, saying they should pause the panel’s decision while he asks the full appeals court to rehear its decision “in the ordinary course before seeking (if necessary) this court’s review.” If the Supreme Court grants that request, it will slow matters down considerably.
[…]
The Supreme Court has already had one encounter with the case, turning away an unusual request in December from Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting Mr. Trump. Mr. Smith had asked the justices to bypass the appeals court and decide the immunity issue themselves without delay.

…see…they could have jumped us past here back when it could have put march back on the docket…but…that didn’t suit their prevailing opinion

The justices rejected the request without comment or noted dissent, apparently content to let the appeals court have the first crack at the case. The question now is whether the Supreme Court will want the last word.

It has several options. It could deny a stay, which would restart the trial. It could deny a petition seeking review, which would effectively reject Mr. Trump’s immunity argument and let the appeals court’s ruling stand.

It could hear his appeal on a fast track, as it is doing in a separate case on Mr. Trump’s eligibility to hold office. Or it could hear the case on the usual schedule, which would most likely delay any trial past the election.

In Monday’s filing, Mr. Trump’s lawyers asked for an extended delay. “Conducting a months long criminal trial of President Trump at the height of election season,” it said, “will radically disrupt President Trump’s ability to campaign against President Biden — which appears to be the whole point of the special counsel’s persistent demands for expedition.”
[…]
As for the “a hypothetical president corruptly ordering the assassination of political rivals through ‘SEAL Team 6,’” the application said, referring to a question during the appellate argument, “the panel fretted about lurid hypotheticals that have never occurred in 234 years of history, almost certainly never will occur and would virtually certainly result in impeachment and Senate conviction (thus authorizing criminal prosecution) if they did occur.”

The filing added, “Such hypotheticals provide fodder for histrionic media coverage, but they are a poor substitute for legal and historical analysis.”

…your honors…to quote renowned legal genius missy elliot…let me work it…I put my thang down, flip it & reverse it…by which I mean…the whole point of my request for a delay is that it otherwise makes it hard for me to campaign against a man a lot of people wouldn’t vote for if his opponent wasn’t conspicuously guilty of trying to turn the republic into a russian puppet regime so I can stop having to pawn shit to pay lawyers…& anyway…they let ray-gun get away with the whole iran-contra thing so it’s just not faiiiiiiiiiiiiiir…waaah….gimme my fucking cookie, already…& a fresh diaper…someone seems to have filled this one with low-grade horse-shit…& there’s a funny taste in my mouth…I need a diet coke, stat

…how many times in 234 years did the capitol get over-run by a posse of useful idiots while some organized ones tried to over-throw themselves an insurrection party…sorry…can’t seem to hear you all of a sudden

Mr. Trump’s application warned of pernicious consequences for later presidents if Mr. Trump’s claim to immunity was rejected.

“If the prosecution of a president is upheld, such prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in destructive cycles of recrimination,” the filing said, adding, “Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the presidency as we know it will cease to exist.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity.html

…nice little democracy youse gots yourselves, there…be a shame if something…happend to it…dangerous times we’re living in…lot o’ shady people out there…you wanna watch out…capisce?

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

https://www.usa.gov/inauguration

…the man picked out a bible…put his hand on it & said the words in front of god & everybody…&…didn’t get smote…not saying there is no god…but that was one ineffable whiff of an at bat, you gotta admit

…anyway…funny thing

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.^[1] It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.^[2] However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution.^[3]

…there’s an actual supremacy clause in the actual constitution…not the “are you white? if no, refer to the preceding question” sort…the one that says there is no higher or weightier constitutional responsibility than upholding treaties made under its authority…hmmm…whatever…put a pin in that

In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law, but when federal law conflicts with the Constitution that law is null and void. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that “Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them.”^[3] A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, only when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.^[4] No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole U.S. political structure.^[5][6]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

…uh huh…but…hang about

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Historical Background on Treason | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov

…so

Over the weekend, Putin and Donald Trump seem to have come to public agreement that, if elected in November, Trump would help Putin pursue Greater Russia.

In his session with Tucker Carlson, after all, Putin corrected the propagandist, informing him that, no, he didn’t invade Ukraine because of concerns about NATO expansion, but because he considers Ukraine — and much of Eastern Europe — part of Greater Russia. He subjected Tucker to a half hour lesson in his, Putin’s, mythology about Russia.
[…]
And then, within a day, Trump told a fabricated story that served to promise that not only wouldn’t he honor America’s commitment to defend NATO states, but would instead encourage Russia to do “whatever they hell they want.”

https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/02/12/call-and-response-putin-is-demanding-greater-russia/

…see…maybe I’m just simple-minded…but…that sounds like “adhering” to what…if the story were true…would explicitly be an enemy…what with NATO’s article 5 being one of them treaties the ol’ supremacy clause says get top billing in the hierarchy of preservation, protection & defence of the constitution he lip-synched to one cold january day…& all them congress critters & MAGA boosters out there shilling for the asshole…they look a little treason-y , too

…but…sure…it’s gonna take an army of lawyers, multiple courts, a couple rainforests’ worth of column inches & upwards of 6 months to figure out the “nuance” of this shit…so…where were we with that world war we been brewing?

…fuck…can you even imagine how shit would look if people actually got what they deserve?

…say what you like about free publicity…but I sure am familiar with a lot more of the lady’s tunes than I was before she started her professional sporting career & got into politics?