147 replies
  2. SteveBev says:

    Shit. Fuck. Ken Delanian

    Marje shit fucks Moses Johnson.

    Parnas shit fucked Barr over the Firtash et al circle jerk executive privilege

  3. Fiendish Thingy says:

    Marcy, I hope you will be posting your take on Judge Cannon’s crazy jury instructions ruling soon.

    • bmaz says:

      Well, it is a bit unusual, because jury instructions are usually done at, or very near to, the time of trial. That said, not sure this is a bad thing because it offers a look into where Cannon would go at the time of trial as to jury instructions on this issue.

        • bmaz says:

          Earl, didn’t you know that under the reign of Rayne, sports, much less Formula One, are no longer a proper subject at this blog. Not F1, not even the Super Bowl.

          • Rayne says:

            Point to where you saw me tell Earl his comment wasn’t permitted in this thread. I won’t hold my breath waiting, though.

            • montysep says:

              Rayne’s dignified and strong responses to the serial abuser continue. These attacks seem more desperate and pathetic in the face of that. Please end this relationship. Walk away. Be the model.

              This routine abuse is not fit for a website as intelligent as what Marcy has produced. A genuine work of art based on tireless effort combined with the nearest thing to a photographic memory.

      • PJB2point0 says:

        Are there any double jeopardy consequences to Judge Cannon’s invitation to Trump to reassert his Espionage Act motion to dismiss at the time of jury instructions, given the jury is already impaneled? I mean, if she decided to grant it then, is there no recourse on those counts?

  4. xyxyxyxy says:

    Weisel… who?
    Not weise enough to stay out of jail to protect a fuckshit or is it shitfuck?
    “Many of the primary reactions on the electric Twitter machine to Bouton’s death was some variation of Seattle Pilots manager Joe Schultz’s philosophical pondering—“shitfuck” or, alternatively, “fuckshit.””
    Example, “Schultz said we weren’t in shape and that we were making physical mistakes that we wouldn’t if we were—in shape, I mean. (I’m not sure I understood that.) But then he obviously felt he’d hurt our feelings and tried to take it all back. “Shitfuck,” he said, using one of his favorite words (“fuckshit” is the other). “Shitfuck. We’ve got a damned good ballclub here. We’re going to win some games.””

    • Henry the Horse says:

      Ball Four? Shitfuck, that’s one of the funniest books EVER!!! Fuckshit, let’s keep pounding that Budweier boys.

      And Dr. Wheeler you are the BEST EVER at what you do, keep winding those threads, I have a feeling there may be enough thread here for a Guinness World Record.

      • RipNoLonger says:

        Great Balls of Threads! While the repugs are constructing Gordian Knots that can be unraveled with a single pull at the right place.

      • xyxyxyxy says:

        Yes, lots of humor, but also a lot not.
        Greenies, Mantle drunk – which eventually led to liver failure and controversial transplant.

  5. Upisdown says:

    Once upon a time in America there was an order of valiant crusaders known as “investigative journalists”. They would be dispatched from newsroom kingdoms to hunt and expose corruption. Sadly, their ranks are all but extinct, save for a few such as Marcy Wheeler.

    That is why we have the mostly unreported saga of a president, his personal lawyer, the US Attorney General, the FBI, members of Congress, and a well-placed reporter working with elements from Russia to push a totally bogus, but never-ending, narrative against one political opponent and his family.

    In times gone by, the evidence from Lev Parnas would launch a quest for truth from all corners of the media globe. Now it appears to be the Knights of Empty Wheel alone to answer the call. What happened to our journalistic Camelot? Is the one brief shining moment really gone?

  6. harpie says:

    I’m glad I was able to listen to the whole show today,
    but if anyone wants to zero in on a certain topic:

    [0:00] RONNA to NBC
    [4:00] Government funding /continuing resolution
    [8:50] PARNAS
    [15:14] IMPEACHMENT CLOWN CAR
    [20:45] Bragg TRUMP indictment; SDNY [delayed discovery]
    [28: 25] ew: Was it Lara TRUMP? Some moron was like “Are you better off now than four years ago?”
    [35:25] DOCUMENTS case / CANNON / David LAT’s report on CANNON clerks
    [43:05] George CONWAY’s opinion
    [44:55] WILLIS / GA case
    [46:11] SMIRNOV [already-debunked “Burisma” photo]
    [??:??] CONGRESS / disfunction
    [51:10] MANAFORT
    [56:25] HABERMAN / TRUMP propaganda / XITTER [1:01:55]

  7. originalK says:

    So here I am, at the point where I have a working knowledge of all that EW and Ms. Sandler covered. Not sure whether to be happy or sad about that. I did appreciate NS including the video of Swalwell and the Biden ad, which I had not seen.

    Elise Stefanik, contestant for Trump VP, is the first I remember of the “are you better off today” coverage, as captured by Acyn. I guess she was quoting Ronald Reagan in post super-Tuesday comments. I think how the news cycle works is that she gets called out on it, and then republicans double-down, and then we get no coverage at all of what happened in 2020, because it is “divisive” or, worse, gives oxygen to the disinformation dumpster fire.

    (Interestingly, I did a news search, eventually finding USAT coverage that Trump had asked “Were you better off five years ago or are you better off today?” in a New Hampshire stump speech, in mid-December.)

    Because it would tie so much together, I wish there was more research and information on why an Elise Stefanik (and all the other VP contestants), Aileen Cannon (and all the other Trump appointed judges, including on the Supreme Court), Comer/Jordan/Jason Smith, Trump attorneys and accountants, and people who hire undocumented workers (republicans with golf clubs, for starters) – why do they want to put it all out there for a guy that, if it wasn’t for their machinations, is such a loser? (And conversely, why do the rest of us work so hard to protect Trump supporters from these guys & themselves?)

    I am ready to place a bet Trump will be proclaimed winner on Monday, though, and be able to pay his NYS appeal bond – that at the very last minute the “Digital World Acquisition Corporation” merger will net him billions – for a social networking site with .023% of the users of twitter and less than $5 million in revenue on more than $50 million in spending. (From wikipedia: “A November 2023 DWAC financial disclosure indicated TMTG had generated losses such that management had “substantial doubt” about its ability to pay its bills, and the company’s accounting firm had “substantial doubt” about TMTG’s ability to remain in business.”) I’ll be watching to see how it becomes liquid. If so, it’ll be yet another example of fraud by Trump, enabled by bankers, lawyers, and accountants, dismissed by regulators and talking heads, and cheered by a bunch of people who say the country’s most pressing problem is a particular set of young(er) people who work jobs they don’t want, too often for wages that no one should.

    P.S. I’ll be happy if I’m wrong!

    • Rayne says:

      Concision is your friend. At 449 words your comment could easily be pared by 150 words. Please remember many readers use mobile devices with smaller displays.

      • originalK says:

        I was shocked when I saw it posted – and it only got longer with editing. I apologize. I’ll place my bet with myself & put a dollar amount to support the site whether I win or lose Monday.

      • SotekPrime says:

        Have you ever actually tried reading comments on a mobile device? At least for me, a long top-level comment is far easier to scroll past than even a one-sentence comment once it gets to the fifth level of nesting, at which point it gets pushed so far to the right that it renders a single character per line. (And at the sixth or later level of nesting, it does so completely off the screen so it’s actually impossible to read, instead of merely effectively unreadable.)

          • dopefish says:

            Makes no difference on an iPhone. I gave up trying to read comments at this site on a phone.

            Concise comments should still be the norm though: they are easier to read.

        • Pick2orPass says:

          I find it helps to (well, if using an oldish android, with Firefox) use the Desktop Site toggle option, in the 3-dot menu at the top. Everything turns tiny but one can see all of the forum, and scroll and zoom the conversations and individual posts. And rotating does make a big difference then

      • Narpington says:

        As one of those who uses a mobile device with a smaller display (a phone), can I echo SotekPrime’s comment and ask again for you to adjust the nesting of comments? By the fifth reply I’m left with a column width of 3 chars in portrait mode.

        Merely reducing the indentation to 2 or 3 chars would help, as would a horizontal scroll bar.

        • Rayne says:

          This has been on the list, thanks. You can see, though, why it is essential comments are concise given the threaded conversation ziggurat.

          Optimum comment length as a rule of thumb across the internet is 100 words max.

          • bmaz says:

            100 words? Really? Funny, I have never ever heard that before. Though, to be fair, pretty much all of my blog experience over the last 20+ years is here and the predecessor TNH, not “across the internet”.

            • Rayne says:

              First, I’ve worked in online community management and moderation since 1996. I am not a neophyte to this.

              Second, the 100-word rule of thumb isn’t something I pulled out of thin air for the first time here — I’ve mentioned it numerous times. I can’t help the fact you don’t recall this, nor can I help the fact you’ve never rebutted this until *now* as part of your ongoing reflexive hostility aimed at me.

              Thirdly, you have had your share of comments here scolding community members for excessively long comments (Example). Your particular bugaboo is the lack of paragraph breaks in overlong comments, but that’s okay because it’s a you thing and not a me thing.

              • bmaz says:

                No, it is a “you thing”. You have proven yourself an attacking piker. You have relentlessly shit on me since you gained the semblance of a window to do so. You have flown your true colors. Lol, you have been on the internet for a long time. Booyah.

                I have been right here for 20+ years, but, please, do tell about you vast experience going back to 1996 in other places.

                • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

                  I think you were both in on it, bmaz, honestly, because 100 words came up as a rule of thumb where you were both tag-teaming some long-ass shit of mine with disapproval about two years ago. I have a flash-bulb memory of it lol.

                  • bmaz says:

                    That is a lie. I busted people for over long rambling bullshit. I NEVER adopted a 100 word standard. Never. If you were too verbose, that is on you, not any arbitrary standard by me. Don’t lie is a standard I have always approved of though.

                    • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

                      Memories are tricky, but you were both in absolute agreement. It’s in the archives but it went like this. I remember it like yesterday.

                      Rayne: This is too long.

                      bmaz: Jesus Christ. I want to take a shit in this guy’s head. wetzel, you are contributing nothing.

                      Rayne: Things are getting out of hand around here. If you are going to keep commenting. ‘wetzel’, you are in the “100 word box”. If you deviate I will not let your comment through until some unknown distant date.

                      bmaz: Yes. 100 words is a good limit for you, wetzel.

                • Cargill2 says:

                  The past participle of “shit” is normally “shat”, as in “have relentlessly shat”, although in some circumstances, “shitted” works as well. HTH!

          • Narpington says:

            “You can see, though, why it is essential comments are concise given the threaded conversation ziggurat.”

            Well no I can’t, because there is *no connection* between the two; the indent is the same for a comment of 2 words or 2000, and comments disappear off the rh margin regardless of length.

              • HikaakiH says:

                My experience with several android devices is as per Narpington’s description. I recall you mentioned that you hold Apple stock (when excoriating them for missing the opportunity to gazump Elon’s Twitter purchase). Does your experience include non-Apple devices/OS’s?

    • SteveBev says:

      Isn’t there an issue as to whether the lock-up clause on shares created in the merger will be waived? Otherwise Trump’s shares will be non-tradable and thus be illiquid for ~ 6 months. And if they become tradable, the availability of such a huge volume or shares will substantially depress the stock price.

      • originalK says:

        Yes, that’s my understanding, too. I don’t think he or his backers care; it’s all about plausibility, a veneer of legal and financial legitimacy, and claiming a win. If you look at the beginning stages of the scheme (DWAC in 2021) they’ve pumped up the price previously, and any criticism can be deflected by pointing to the overvaluation of social media generally and meme stocks specifically. BTW, I appreciated and read your link to the curbed.com reporting on his real estate holdings, and am observing today’s commentary about them (and the reported challenges of wringing cash from them) with interest.

        • SteveBev says:

          Re Curbed link : in fairness it was Rayne who first posted it.

          I merely reposted it because xyxyxyxy couldn’t find it.

          I had the “bright idea” of précis-ing the essential detail imaging that the summary was a useful digest –

          – but as Rayne correctly pointed out, such a summary is problematic in terms of fair use, potentially depriving the author of click through to the cited article, and was of a length and format which perhaps was unhelpful to readers of this site. Fair points all.

          I hope my contributions are helpful, and not problematic to moderation which is a necessary and desirable feature of this site — but both of hopes remain a work in progress

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            You can also find the link at the end of a previous post, with comments. Of the fourteen NYC properties discussed in the Curbed.com article, only three are of high current value: the two ground leases, at 40 Wall St and Niketown, and the commercial and retail space at Trump Tower, which includes his infamous triplex apartment. Of the rest, he manages the property, owns a few units in it, or no longer has an interest in it.

            That makes the two properties in Westchester County more important, and must increase the NYAG’s interest in MAL and the Doral. The NY properties alone may not yield $468 million and counting, after costs of collection and prior lienholders are paid.

            https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/03/20/judge-mark-scarsi-orders-briefing-on-whether-david-weiss-is-david-weiss/

            https://www.curbed.com/article/trump-lawsuit-real-estate-nyc-letitia-james.html

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Trump has a 30% stake in 1290 Avenue of the Americas, which could be valuable. But he is restricted from selling his interest for another twenty years, which considerably lowers its current market value.

            • fatvegan000 says:

              I know this is mean, but I hope James takes Mar-a-lago – but only if it means Trump has to move out forthwith.

              Could this happen?

              • SteveBev says:

                I too wonder what Mar-a-Lago, subject to all its perpetual easments, and without hidden classified documents would bring at a fire-sale!

                • Rayne says:

                  If I’m not mistaken that’s the second time Forbes has made that mistake regarding 40 Wall ownership wrt real estate. Trump may own a business resident there but it shouldn’t be conflated with the real estate.

                • earlofhuntingdon says:

                  It’s almost as if the Trump signage once frequently seen in Manhattan was intended to make even journalists mistake advertising for wealth, ownership, and income.

                  • SteveBev says:

                    Doesn’t the TrumpOrg own the leasehold? IE TO purchased the leasehold in 1995, and if it was from the previous leaseholder it was for the term of years remaining on their leasehold, or if from the fee simple owner for the term of years they were willing to grant (or a combination of the two).
                    So I believe leaseholds are granted typically up to 99 years or sometimes for as much as 120 years. Hence tho TO have to pay the annual ground rent ( which is shortly due for review in 2025 ie after 30 years) the leasehold itself is still a valuable asset. Obviously that depreciates over time as the end of the term of years approaches, but the capital value of the leasehold may have increased by improvements and any increase in rental values and income the building generates.
                    Part of the case of the AG is the TO manipulated the capital value of their leasehold interest by inflating it.

                    In English law leasehold is very definitely a form of ownership of title to real property. The conception appears to be different in NY / US law. But nevertheless it is still a capital asset.

                  • earlofhuntingdon says:

                    Trump bought a 99-yr leasehold interest in the ground underneath this property from its German owner. I believe that was in the mid-1990s. It has decades to run. He does not manage or own the building. He gets ground rent. I believe it’s worth in the neighborhood of $200 million, minus the debt Trump apparently has on it.

                    Yes, “Trump” is shorthand. Like every other large investor, he owns his major assets through controlled legal entities. Handily, the most important of those are also co-defendants in the case before Judge Engoron.

                    • earlofhuntingdon says:

                      That is, Trump pays the German owner of the ground an annual fee for his leasehold interest, and collects annual rent from the building owner(s).

                      Roughly speaking, the difference between those two revenue streams, multiplied by the number of years remaining on his lease, and discounted to present value, would approximate the present market value of his leasehold interest.

                    • SteveBev says:

                      Oh I wasn’t quibbling the use of Trump, and I didn’t intend to seem to correct you on such a footling point. I apologise for appearing so rude.

                      It was more the conception of ground lease/ leasehold which is I think perhaps apt to confuse (perhaps I am mistaken about that too, and all the readers here are well versed in this aspect of property law)

                  • earlofhuntingdon says:

                    That said, I only know the basics. NYC real estate law is complex, virtually sui generis, owing to the intensity of its land use.

            • RitaRita says:

              Assuming Trump does not come up with the bond and the court doesn’t give him more time to come up with a reduced bond, then AG James will have to decide whether to be aggressive in collection with the possibility of forcing him to file Chapter 11 or be more circumspect until all appeals are done. The easiest and lowest risk is to file judgement liens everywhere. This prevents him from liening up property and puts pressure on Trump to enter into settlement negotiations. If NY loses on appeal, aggressive judgment collection will backfire.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Yes, the Truth Social public offering is problematic for several reasons. The deal still has to go through, and the stock restrictions have to be lifted. Even if both things happen, Trump will have a hard time turning his shares into cash.

        The stock is speculative, it has no trading history, no fundamental asset value, and it’s dependent on Trump’s personality, his campaign, and his own postings for its value. Its current market valuation is a fantasy; it may not stay high long enough to materially help Trump. In part, that means no one but a sugar daddy would take it as collateral.

        As a publicly listed company, the company and trading in its shares would be regulated by the SEC. As the controlling shareholder of a listed company, Trump would be subject to stock trading restrictions, if he is aware of insider information. Those are two things Trump has no experience with and no existing network to help him navigate the rules. He hates restrictions and usually ignores them. But violating insider trading rules is a felony: the civil penalties and prison time can be substantial.

        So Trump can’t just dump enough stock to pay his two judgments. Apart from the rules, it would tank the stock price. Time is not Donald Trump’s friend.

        • Cargill2 says:

          And I have read in a few places, that when the sale block on Trump is lifted in six months, he is only allowed to sell 1% of his remaining holding per quarter, presumably to avoid a price crash. Would take him an awful long time to realise any serious money.

          • bmaz says:

            Link doesn’t go through for me; however, what could cause a court to do that? There is either a supersedeas bond standard or there is not. Oh well….

            • SteveBev says:

              Yeah sorry about the link – I subsequently posted a link to a tweet which has a working link. The original link must have offended the algorithm or something

            • SteveBev says:

              The judgment is not supported by a reasoned explanation.

              It appears that the Appellate Division simply took the original disgorgement sum $354m (excluding interest) divided by 2 and rounded down to reach the $175m sum they alighted upon.

              Unless they imagined that ~$145m was an appropriate starting point, and ~120% bond would result in a bond sum of $175m

              The reality is probably they just plucked figures from the air.

              • earlofhuntingdon says:

                Yep, no reasoning at all. Thankfully, the decision did not stay appointment of the compliance director or enhancing the authority of the monitor.

              • dopefish says:

                Trump claimed on Friday that he had “ALMOST FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS IN CASH” in a Truth Social post. [ABC News article, there were many others]

                Since Trump would never lie about such a thing (ha ha), surely he will have no trouble putting up this reduced-size $175 million bond.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            Yep, bond reduced to $175 million, and he has another ten days to get it.

            The court had discretion to do that, but Trump offered no compelling legal argument for it, other than, “It will ruin me.” I suppose it reduces the odds the Court of Appeals will eventually take the case or decide in Trump’s favor. And it placates the sotto voce concerns of real billionaire developers in Manhattan, who would find the forced sale of a major property unwelcome.

            This will still be a major test of Trump’s claims of being a wealthy genius. Absent a sugar daddy, he may not be able to pay for and secure a bond even in the lower amount. I don’t think any single property in NYC is worth that – after paying down the mortgage and costs of sale. The Truth Social thingy isn’t likely to generate anywhere near that much within ten days.

            The delay does give the NYAG ten more days to plan her enforcement strategy. Conveniently, Trump is now obligated to run his efforts to obtain a bond – in advance – through the independent monitor. Sad.

            https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/25/trump-fraud-bond-deadline

            • bmaz says:

              “Trump offered no compelling legal argument for it, other than, “It will ruin me.”

              No, he really did not. Am not sure an state level appeals court would have upset the presumptive full supersedeas bond amount.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Kremlinologists will wonder whether the Appellate Division’s willingness to lower the appeals bond to less than a third of the original amount indicates how it might rule on the underlying appeal.

              • bmaz says:

                Yes, think that is the right question. If it were a remittitur motion, but it was not. Pretty interesting landing spot at this moment.

                • HikaakiH says:

                  (This might be a little late to get your attention, and might not warrant it in any event.)
                  Bmaz, I know these are different things (civil vs. criminal) in different places (NYS vs. DC and elsewhere) but is this ‘special treatment’ of Trump something like his bail conditions for his criminal charges being different to any other person facing similar charges because no other defendant has a Secret Service detail with them all the time? In this case there is the existence and powers of the financial monitor which might provide the Appeals Court enough assurance of adequate finance in the event that the judgment is upheld. Perhaps another case of Trump getting treated unlike any other person because there isn’t any other person situated like Trump.
                  [Edit: On re-reading this, if the monitor provided sufficient comfort that Trump’s assets would be available to satisfy the judgment following the appeal, what is the point of any amount for the bond?]

                  • earlofhuntingdon says:

                    That position would amount to credulous reliance on an independent monitor, who has no decision-making authority over the Trump businesses.

                    The full bond requirement is meant to keep the non-appealing party whole during what is often a two-year appeals process. It insulates the winner from the ups and downs of the economy and the loser’s business. A $175 million bond doesn’t do that; neither does a monitor.

                    The full bond requirement is also meant to reduce the odds a defendant will appeal just to delay payment. A $175 million bond doesn’t promote that interest either.

                    The lower amount indicates that the Appellate Division thinks the award was too high, but it avoided saying why. That’s a gap it should have avoided.

                    • bmaz says:

                      Yeah, what Earl said. The court may technically have the power to do what it has, but there ought be fleshed out reasoning and basis. There was not particularly.

                      And for whoever asked, “appellate term” is just an appellate court, just one of the goofy nomenclature things in NY state courts.

                    • earlofhuntingdon says:

                      Yea, the names for NY courts are peculiar. The Appellate Term is an appellate court largely for the plethora of city and county lower courts in Metro NY and Long Island. It’s not the Appellate Division, which handles larger or more important cases from the Supreme Court.

                    • bmaz says:

                      Earl, I had yet another innocuous comment disappear, for whatever reason. I did conflate “Term” with “Division”. Too much Law and Order over the last couple of decades.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              A lot of commentators are screaming about special treatment, as they should. Your house would be on the block if you owed the AG $175,000 and you had only $10,000 in cash. So, it’s a strong indicator these judges think the award was too high.

              Trump, of course, claims he’ll promptly provide the bond. Prompt meaning before the ten days run out; he never pays early. That still leaves from where will the money or collateral come.

              That amount is probably more then the net value of his biggest NYC property. And he doesn’t want to sell anything. He hasn’t ruled out that the money will come from abroad, which means a mystery donor, whose money would come through a cutout.

              • earlofhuntingdon says:

                It’s laughable – and will come as a surprise to his mortgage holders and probably the monitor and the NYAG – that Trump claims he “has no debt” or “little debt” on his best properties.

                Trump is a relentless, unrepentant liar – which is the basis for the NYAG’s suit against him in the first place.

      • earthworm says:

        Looks to me, as a total flatlander, that the expectation of a major cash windfall is being created, which will then cover for an actual infusion of $$$ from “elsewhere.”

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          With Judge Engoron’s monitor overseeing the Trump legal entities, not to mention SEC disclosure requirements Trump would have to contend with, he won’t be able to hide at least the first layer of his sugar daddy very long.

          • Rwood0808 says:

            Question for you on that EOH.

            Does the monitor have access to every aspect of his holdings? I’m looking at the golf courses here specifically. As Rayne has said here many times those need to be shut down and then autopsied for what many assume is massive money laundering. This would also have the bonus of cutting off a prime source of illegal funding into trumps pocket. Money he needs desperately at this point. Yes, it’ll take months to complete the fire sale, but when would the books would be open for scrutiny? I’m sure LJ has a few forensic accountants standing by that she can deploy.

            Can this seizure of assets process lead to additional charges?

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              The monitor and compliance director are independent observers. Their power is in recording, analyzing, and reporting to Judge Engoron. That does take away the secrecy Trump has relied upon to build his persona and act illegally. But neither has any executive authority over the Trump legal entities. Responsibility for executive decisions remains with the Trumps.

              Engoron’s most recent order, however, enhances the monitor’s powers to review financial information – specifically including all steps taken to secure an appeals bond, past or present.

              Beyond that, her focus is on a) compliance with GAAP; b) the movement of material amounts of money or assets; and c) any purported changes in the number and organization of Trump’s legal entities in and outside of NY state. Apart from keeping tabs on Trump’s assets and where they are located, her job is to reduce the odds that Trump operates his companies illegally.

              • Rwood0808 says:

                Thanks for that.

                I’ve seen quite a few definitions of “monitor”, most claiming to cover only what is happening at present. If the monitor can now dig into past transactions I would have to describe that as interesting reading to say the least.

                trump and his spawn have to be a bit nervous about this. Is the monitor required to turn over anything they find that could be labeled “criminal”?

                • earlofhuntingdon says:

                  She can dig into the details and past efforts regarding the appeals bond Trump obtained in the E. Jean Carroll case.

                  More generally, all financial and accounting assessments are reviewing the past. But her new powers give her authority to review more stuff before it happens. She also has authority to request from Judge Engoron greater powers, if it will enable her to better carry our her responsibilities as monitor.

                  The monitor’s principal job is to report to Judge Engoron about anything material that relates to the Trump legal entities’ compliance with applicable law, which includes their failure to comply.

                  • earlofhuntingdon says:

                    That order was discussed above, @ 1.37 pm, with a link to the order. You could have also found a link on several other sites. Citing Faux Noise is poor form.

  8. matt fischer says:

    Marcy, at about 47:08, you said “…we don’t know who the fourth person in the photo is…”

    PolitiFact reported:

    The fourth man in the photo that Trump tweeted is Ralph Pascucci, founder of Netrex Capital Markets LLC, a New York investment banking firm. He is also a principal of Sebonack Golf Club in Southampton, N.Y., where the Bidens spent a week in August 2014.

  9. Soundgood2 says:

    I hate to have to correct you as you are usually so good at avoiding easy mistakes, the Rona McDaniel hiring was a rumor that has been denied by NBC. She is going to be on MTP but has not been hired as a consultant. Also, Weiselman? It’s Weiselberg! LOL

    • Matt___B says:

      What a cynical strategy. She fits right in with the ethos of conservative-leaning corporate broadcast TV (NBC) but is a poor fit for their nominally-less-conservative brand (MSNBC)? Guess you have to be at least a never-Trumper to be a GOP regular on MSNBC: Michael Steele, David Jolly (GOP-renouncer), Charlie Sykes, Tim Miller, Matthew Dowd, Jennifer Rubin, Carlos Curbelo, Elyse Jordan, Susan del Percio, Stuart Stevens, etc. etc.

      What is Ronna going to become on NBC? Their new mascot for both-sides reporting? Hard to fathom the mind of a network executive who makes decisions like these…

      Mehdi Hasan decided to leave MSNBC rather than be marginalized and started his own (what else?) substack, and is trying to launch his own independent media organization, named “Zeteo”, btw.

      • Rayne says:

        There’s something going on at NBC, probably a reflexive reaction to the rightward shift of CNN after the WB-Discovery merger. So stupid to move right leaving an underserved market toward the left.

        But I suspect it’s not just a reflexive move underway but the desire for access — does NBC think by hiring Ronna they might increase reach to both the more moderate Trump-y GOP and her uncle Mitt’s faction, especially the Mormon GOP?

        • Matt___B says:

          Those are interesting questions to ask. I think it depends on what kind of on-air persona Ronna will adopt (or be encouraged to adopt). Since she failed to be 100% loyal to Trump at the RNC (and 90% loyalty simply wasn’t good enough), what stance could she adopt that would be attractive to the “moderate Trumpy GOP”? Is she going to pull a Nikki Haley and act convincingly more independent of the cult now? Uncle Mitt is probably too radical even for her, seeing as how Unk MItt supported impeachment the first time around.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            I think we already know what kind of personality Ronna McDaniel is. Hence, the criticism of her hiring.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      As far as I know, the feckless, bothsideser-at-any-cost, Chuck Todd, remains in charge of the political coverage at NBC/MSNBC. He would seem to be where the buck stops.

      • Rayne says:

        If there’s anything NBC could do to improve its political coverage for both broadcast and cable, it’d be ditching Todd. /choir-preaching.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I agree, but it now seems that Todd is criticizing the hire, see link below. He’s criticizing the “bosses,” which seems to include NBC CEO, Jeff Shell, who’s been trying to “balance” coverage with hard right hires since joining the company in 2020.

          • Rayne says:

            Yeah, I see the chatter about his on-air criticism. Todd’s still not addressing the fact McDaniel is a possible accessory if not a co-conspirator to January 6.

            Also unmentioned about McDaniel: did she know Trump had COVID when he faced Biden in the last debate? Did she fail to take care to notify the White House about the possible risk? She was pressuring Trump to continue the debate in spite of Trump testing positive before the date, thereby putting Biden at risk.

            https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-denies-positive-covid-test-days-first-presidential-debate-n1285158 <<-- Yeah, NBC, hello? https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4106070-rnc-chief-itd-be-a-mistake-for-trump-to-skip-debate/

            What kind of shit would McDaniel pull for ratings on NBC?

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Nice reminder. The contributor jobs at places like NBC are apparently paid high six and seven figures, so McDaniel would have an incentive to retain the gig.

              • theartistvvv says:

                I can’t find it now but I read earlier today (CNN?) that her contract is 300K.

                Me, I wouldn’t value her “work” at $.03.

            • BobBobCon says:

              I doubt she or the execs at NBC-Universal have a clue about improving ratings.

              Hacks can’t do anything but hack, and the weak sauce they offer keeps failing to bring in right wing viewers and just drives away serious viewers.

              Networks keep hiring people like Megyn Kelly and Mick Mulvaney, and what happens is they never dare to say anything meaningful because they can’t grow spines they never had. The execs never learn, though.

      • phred says:

        I don’t think it’s Chuck Todd. This excerpt from WSJ (via Crooks & Liars, https://crooksandliars.com/2024/03/msnbc-exec-says-no-plans-put-ex-rnc-chair) says the political chief is Carrie Budoff Brown:

        “Rashida Jones, the cable network’s president, has been seeking to address internal backlash in the wake of an internal Friday announcement by NBC News regarding McDaniel’s hiring as an on-air contributor. In that internal memo, the political chief, Carrie Budoff Brown, said McDaniel would contribute “across all NBC News platforms,” causing turmoil among several of the network’s on-air hosts and staffers…”

  11. lastoneawake says:

    This is off-topic, but Molly White at Mastodon has written

    ” . . . a quick Chrome extension to download all PDFs on CourtListener when there are multiple attachments to one docket entry.”

    She’s at
    @[email protected]

    and the script is on github.

    If Marcy is interested I can provide the github address (I didn’t here, in case this was against link-posting protocols. But Molly has already posted it on her site.)

  13. David F. Snyder says:

    Marcy, have you read this article in NYT titled “inside Garland’s Effort to Prosecute Trump”? https://www .nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/politics/trump-jan-6-merrick-garland.html
    Seems like these reporters (and Schiff) fail to recognize the role of the J6 committee in slowing the pace of the investigation. Still, there’s some useful info I haven’t read elsewhere.

  14. Bay State Librul says:

    Per KO, Todd has only five months left on his contract, so it’s quite easy for Todd to diss.
    Maddow and others should tender their resignations in disgust over both-sidism bull shit.

    • Kope a Pia says:

      I think that suggesting that the prime time lineup should quit in protest is not an effective response or likely to happen. That would just leave room for MSNBC’s ubiquitous conservative never Trumper’s to move into those program slots. Other than suggesting complaints to the network or on social media I don’t have an answer. I get it, having to stomach a Trump sycophant spewing lies on NBC is upsetting.

    • timbozone says:

      Why? Their boss at MSNBC has said McDaniel won’t be appearing on MSNBC. Not only that but it appears that NBC has separated MSNBC from inside coverage of any Presidential debates if NBC hosts. Those are the rumors and statements over the past 24 hours is my understanding.

  15. Soundgood2 says:

    The utter stupidity of the move by NBC to hire McDaniel at a time when they have definitively pulled ahead of CNN in ratings thanks to their stupidity is hard to fathom. CNN was slowly recouping its recent loss of viewers to MSNBC and now is handed angry MSNBC viewers on a silver platter. It almost looks like that NBC is sabotaging MSNBC.

    • Ithaqua0 says:

      Apparently, she won’t be on MSNBC, so there is that. NBC is just sabotaging itself. But people do make stupid decisions… believing that McDaniel had a following that would tune in to NBC to watch her seems… remarkably out of touch. I think her ratings will be high for the first few shows as independents and (some) liberals tune in to see what she’s like, and then, when the novelty has worn off, they will go through the floor.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Unless someone higher up makes MSNBC change its mind, and is willing to pay the price to make it so. Senior executives are not much in favor of criticism from the lower ranks. They tend to react to it the way GM – or Starbucks – would react if an automotive plant manager in the non-union South agreed to let his workers unionize.

  16. Nessnessess says:

    I think the primary reason they hired her was that it would create buzz. The concept has an appeal to the show biz instinct for buzz and sensation. This base reason is easily spiffed up and justified as “diversity.” Comparisons to Psaki are superficially sound enough (and maybe not so superficially, in principle) to help moot the question thus advancing the normalization of the fuckery.

    I hope her appearances can somehow be used to expose her in ways that make news and help show the lies and duplicity of her former mates among the MAGAs. Make her answer for shit.

  17. bmaz says:

    What’s it going to be Rayne? You going to put every comment I ever make in moderation or your proverbial “bin”? I guess that is what loyalty earns you on this blog.

    [You have been told your attacks on moderation are going into the bin just as any other commenter’s attacks on moderation will be binned. This ^ comment should likewise be binned but I’m leaving it up as a reminder to you and other commenters. Your vituperative comments aimed at other commenters are not assured publication, either. /~Rayne]

Comments are closed.