Trump has been ranting lately, most notably in his debate with Kamala Harris, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Missouri are “eating the dogs, the people who came in, they’re eating the cats.” This most recent of Trump’s immigration fables turns out to be balderdash, of course. And, as usual, MAGA enthusiasts have fallen for it, disbelieving the reports exonerating Haitians, apparently dismissing JD Vance’s admission that he, who first reported this imaginary story, had made it all up, unapologetically.
In any event, an enterprising group of Tik Tok users employed AI to discover that Trump had plagiarized his comment about the Haitian-dog-cat controversy directly from one of Adolf Hitler’s speeches. He too was vexed by immigration, especially from Haiti whose citizens yearned for peaceful and bountiful lives in Nazi Germany, and of course, for the wiener schnitzel and beer. Below is the sordid proof of Trump’s plagiarism:
Whether Trump will face disciplinary action, or criminal indictment for his flagrant infringement of Adolf Hitler’s copyright is the question of the day. He certainly has violated Hitler’s rights to ownership of his own words. Plagiarism, as defined, can be considered a violation of copyright law if it infringes on the original author’s copyright, patent, or trademark. In this case, the copyright owner can sue the plagiarist in federal court.
Adolf Hitler. age 135, with his lawyers in Brasília.
Also, in some cases, plagiarism can be considered a felony under state or federal law. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he/she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail. The value of Trump’s use of Hitler’s words could be determined to be in excess of $2,500 as it has brought him value due to the absolute delight that MAGA supporters drew from attack on immigrants (the Springfield Haitians, by the way, are in the United States legally). Also, Trump continues to use the phrase at the drop of a hat.
Whether this event will draw Adolf Hitler out of retirement in Brazil to bring suit, or to make a criminal complaint remains to be seen. He has been understandably reclusive for the past 79 years. It will be interesting to see, because it isn’t wise to aggravate Adolf Hitler. My money’s on Hitler.
Trump’s Truth Social post following his very bad day started out well enough. If one was hoping for some jib to humanization, his first phrases hinted at something we’ve never witnessed before from his postings, a sense of the moment and a call for sincere unification: “As we move forward in Uniting our Nation after the horrific events on Saturday, this dismissal of the Lawless Indictment in Florida should be just the first step, followed quickly by . . .” He apparently exhausted himself with the effort:
As we move forward in Uniting our Nation after the horrific events on Saturday, this dismissal of the Lawless Indictment in Florida should be just the first step, followed quickly by the dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts — The January 6th Hoax in Washington, D.C., the Manhattan D.A.’s Zombie Case, the New York A.G. Scam, Fake Claims about a woman I never met (a decades old photo in a line with her then husband does not count), and the Georgia “Perfect” Phone Call charges. The Democrat Justice Department coordinated ALL of these Political Attacks, which are an Election Interference conspiracy against Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME. Let us come together to END all Weaponization of our Justice System, and Make America Great Again!
@realDonaldTrump Donald Trump Truth Social 10:41 AM EST 07/15/24
We should not be surprised. He’s a singularity, an irresistible force, immune from everyday – decent – emotions. It would’ve been an apt time to follow up on his opening unification theme, but we learned that he’s immovable as he jumped immediately and immodestly from “move forward in Uniting our Nation” to hisidea of unification. His sense of national unification is self-referential only. His list of unifying prerequisites is entirely so, for example, his usual list, “dismissal of the Lawless Indictment in Florida should be just the first step, followed quickly by the dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts — The January 6th Hoax in Washington, D.C.” and on and on. Being shot apparently doesn’t move him to self-examination, no sitting humbly before death. How empty must he be?
In a stunning irony, at the end of his cris de coeur he wrote, “Let us come together to END all Weaponization of our Justice System.” Yet, there is no mention of the weaponization of our society, and at a moment when he must still have felt the sting of the gunshot and the sensed the whizz of the bullet from one of those very real weapons. The only weaponization he cares about, deeply, is the judicial weapon aimed at himself in a land where accountability is still – if only barely – holding on.
As another installment in our vital coverage of Donald Trump’s seasonal Truth Social messages to the nation, we fast forward from Christmas to New Year’s eve. Apparently, he’s a bit exhausted from it all as his December 31 message lacks some of the rabid energy of his Christmas greetings.
As comparatively timid as his New Year’s eve greeting was, it still is chock full of whining and insults:
“As the New Year fast approaches, I would like to wish an early New Year’s salutation to Crooked Joe Biden and his group of Radical Left Misfits & Thugs on their never ending attempt to DESTROY OUR NATION through Lawfare, Invasion, and Rigging Elections. They are now scrambling to sign up as many of those millions of people they are illegally allowing into sour Country, in order that they will be ready to VOTE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2024.”
I don’t know about you but I’m looking forward to his Valentine’s Day greeting!
Two weeks ago I wrote here that on December 5th Speaker of the House Mike Johnson had arguably committed the federal crime of obstruction of justice when he announced that the security videos of January 6, 2021 would be tampered with before releasing them to the public. As he said that day: “As you know, we have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ, and to have other concerns and problems.[emphasis added] This appears to have violated 18 U.S.Code § 1501 §§ (c) which forbids alteration of, for example, videotapes with “the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.”
What is it I deny doing, again?
Since my posting on the matter, Johnson’s Chief of Staff for Communications Raj Shah issued this essentially dishonest “clarification”, or in political jargon, a craven walk-back: “Faces are to be blurred from public viewing room footage to prevent all forms of retaliation against private citizens from any non-governmental actors. The Department of Justice already has access to raw footage from January 6, 2021.” This is a distinction without a difference because blurring faces may, in fact, hide the identity of a January 6th insurrectionists from viewers of the tapes who might be able to disclose their identities to law enforcement actors who are still investigating the attack. Arguably, this “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so . . .”
Mike Johnson’s Eyes Blur When Reading Federal Laws
Johnson and cohorts, however, may have violated another federal criminal statute:
18 U.S.Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.
His blurred faces caper, as he admitted above, was specifically designed to “hinder or prevent . . . apprehension, trial or punishment . . .”
Breaking News: MAGA World Shocked That Laws Still Exist!
Of course, neither of these laws will cause Johnson, and perhaps others, to be perp walked. DOJ will not touch this for obvious reasons. It’s unfortunate, though, that they will never even investigate just a tiny bit as a shot across MAGA’s row boat bow, a warning. The vast majority of MAGA folks, don’t truly recognize a primary fact: the laws of the United States still exist, they could look them up. Despite their self-congratulatory posture as permanent revolutionaries, they have not yet succeeded in bringing their own government to its knees, the government that their legislators swear to support and defend:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
So, Speaker Johnson and other MAGAs, like it or not, have to live in a world where laws still exist and cannot simply be created on the fly, for whatever purpose suits them. There’s a war to win first. And that’s a bit more difficult than merely believing you’ve already won.
Despite contrary rumors, there are many arguably important issues being discussed in Congress. No one, however, is interested, and the media universe is reeling from lost viewership. Said one CBS V.P., “Messy and reality-based matters like budgets and foreign policy have cratered Congress’s popularity and the country is bored. Folks have turned to books and outdoor activities!” Network advertising revenue has fallen steeply “ever since they starting talking about things that involve arithmetic, like budgets.”
Frightening. Yet, a flash of public interest followed from Congresswoman Lauren Boebert’s recent Bettlejuice caper. A studio V.P. observed, “There we have avant garde, boobs flying out of a tres chic Latvian cocktail dress, in a public place with video footage! That’s programming!” Indeed, networks cashed in on the minute-by-minute coverage: overnight polls showed Congress’s popularity doubling from 2% to 4% and media viewership increased 125%.
From his mouth to John Fetterman’s ears.
Apparently, Pennsylvania’s Senator John Fetterman’s was listening. He, like Boebert and Margery Taylor Greene in the House, is the Senate’s fashionista in residence, although often criticized for his comfortable attire. However, once again pushing his stylistic choices on a frightened Senate, he showed up for work two days ago, post Boebert, in an artfully disarranged ensemble of shorty pajamas, trendy Carhartt sweatshirt, and spiffy black Nike’s, sans socks. Once criticized, now lionized.
Bikini . . . . .
Senator . . . . . .
Reacting quickly to the sea change, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer removed the overly formal “suit and tie” dress code. “Now, anything and everything is allowable. This new dress code will provide the American people the incentive to restore the public’s attention and simultaneously help the media reclaim its audience. I say to senators, get out your booty shorts!” And some appear poised to do so, notably, Maine Senator Susan Collins. Within moments of Schumer’s dress code announcement, she sought out reporters to give notice of her excitement, “I plan to wear a bikini tomorrow to the Senate floor.” Perhaps John Fetterman will be her escort . . .
Rep. Lauren Boebert has had enough of people interrupting her when she exercises her constitutional rights. And after recently being escorted out of a Denver performance of the musical “Beetlejuice” for “disruptive behavior” she’s doing something about it. Introduced this morning, the Unleash Lauren Boebert Act (ULBA) was accompanied by a spokesperson’s explanation:
Lauren Boebert attends the musical “Oklahoma!”
“Congresswoman Lauren Boebert today introduces legislation to enforce her constitutional rights. The abrupt and illegal way that she was escorted out of a Bettlejuice musical performance has shocked the nation. Let’s review the reason for this unconstitutional outrage. She and her date were simply enjoying the musical in the same way we all do: by vaping, singing along with the music, clapping in rhythm, and energetically dancing while showing her appreciation of the cast by shouting ‘Whoop! Whoop!! Whoop!!!’ When she happily attempted to join the cast onstage, security thugs directed her to leave the theater. Not wanting to cause a disturbance she and her date quietly complied.
The Unleash Lauren Boebert Act, or ULBA, will forevermore enforce Ms. Boebert’s right to happiness, as set out in the Declaration of Independence. In addition, it reinforces her first amendment right to free speech and dance, however lewd, loud, and inappropriate according to freedom hating communists. Freedom means freedom, especially since no physical injuries were inflicted on members of the audience. This legislation will allow the congresswoman to behave in a way that she believes leads to her happiness. This includes all federal, state, or community theaters for any performance where she is present including memorial services, grade school plays, church performances, and State of the Union speeches. Violations will include fines and considerable jail time. Ms. Boebert demands that the mealy mouthed Speaker of the House move this to a vote without delay, or else. Mr. Speaker, unleash Lauren Boebert! Thank you. I will take no questions, absolutely none.”
Today, ProPublica revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas enjoyed more than 38 vacations and accepted many other unethical gifts over the past 30 years, all gratis and unreported. In effect, he’s a one man travel agency. ProPublica wrote:
“At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.”
Recently, we highlighted Justice Sam Alito’s free Alaskan fishing trip provided by billionaire Paul Singer. According to ProPublica’s initial expose of April 2023, Thomas accepted dozens of more expensive offers of “hospitality” from billionaire Harlan Crow than what we know thus far about Alito who characterized the trip as nonreportable “hospitality.”
Today’s ProPublica report extends further, and Thomas apparently is the Chief Justice for Hospitality of our highest court. These new revelations have restoked the fires of criticism, some calling for penalties like IRS audits and impeachment.
“Perfectly suited for the job, indeed.”
Here at They Will Say ANYTHING! we discovered that Justice Thomas may now be aware that his silent noncooperation is a double edged sword. He has, it appears, confounded his critics by stating bluntly his advantage of life tenure; his position within a coequal branch of government; his absolute need for frequent vacations which he cannot afford; his political “read” on the long odds of a successful impeachment; and, finally, his general damned cussedness. He’s been a tough competitor. . . until, perhaps, these new ProPublica revelations. After all, his protective sword has two edges, one to defend, one to injure himself via overconfidence. Even he, lolling in entitlement, may think that this time he may sooner or later be looking for another job.
Our reporter, Matt Shultz, spoke today with a member of the Judicial Conference, Chief Judge Jonathon Simpson, of the D.C. Circuit to discuss today’s ProPublica bombshell report. The Judicial Conference is the Judiciary’s entity that “considers administrative and policy issues affecting the federal court system . . .”
Shultz filed this report of his interview of Judge Simpson at the Capitol Building restaurant The Disgruntled Toad:
Matt Shultz (MS): Welcome to the Disgruntled Toad, Judge Simpson! Have you been drinking, or is it me?
Judge Simpson (JS): I believe, Matt, that it is you based upon the fact that you are sitting on the floor.
MS: The Toad serves a powerful Vengeful Donkey . . . But let’s get on with this. Apologies, but I can’t get off the floor . . . But let’s get on with this . . . The topic is Justice Clarence Thomas. Anything to say?
JS: Indeed. Indeed. Justice Thomas has a luxurious lifestyle, certainly, And that is not unethical unless he lives his self-styled lifestyle based upon, for example, accepting and not reporting the donor’s hospitality. It is true here, with us, I contend, and I shall report this fine dinner of the Toad Burger.
MS: I thought this was Dutch treat . . .
JS: Indeed, you did, and I appreciate your hospitality.
MS: OK, OK . . . but no dessert and no Toad tee shirt! Shall we get on with this?
JS: I thought we were ‘getting on with this. Indeed. Are you any closer to being able to get off the floor and into a chair?
MS: OK. I’ll jump right in. The way I see it, Judge Thomas is in a supersized bag of [curse word]! This is the second time in a few months he’s been caught shimmying himself into rank and ugly hospitality! Just like I’m the donor of this dinner. You’re shimmying!
JS: Not accurate. You called me and did not inform me of your intent to cause me to make any contribution monetarily.
Was It Worth the Extra Dessert and Tee Shirt?
MS: I don’t understand your legalese, but I resent it anyway. Look, let’s get on with this. So what do you think about Judge Thomas’s hospitality grift? Do you think he’s in a state of meltdown? Would you pay for his dinner here? Like the dozens of billionaires who hospitalitied him for 30 years. These are people who might have court matters before the Supreme Court! He himself has barely noticed the anger of the American people! How would you punish this behavior?
JS: Regrettably, I agree that the Justice is tormented by, as you say, the “American people.” I wish I could do something to assuage his mind. Indeed.
MS: So that’s it? Let’s cry real tears for a grifter?
JS: I am simply remaining neutral and balanced so that in the end I do not truly voice or opine any judgement at all. I, too, must remain fair and balanced.
MS: Well, I presently have no notes on this interview in-name-only. But answer me this? If Judge Thomas is ultimately ousted or successfully impeached, and then definitely hospitality starved, would you offer him a job?
JS: I would but your insistence on no dessert has led to a state of low blood sugar . . . . and would my words be off the record?
MS: OK, dessert’s on me, as always happens on interviews with lawyers . . . oh, and doctors. Would you offer Judge Thomas a job . . . or an internship at the Judicial Conference? Oh, but at They Will Say ANYTHING! we don’t do ‘off the record.” If I throw in a second dessert . . . and a Disgruntled Toad tee shirt?
“Your Hospitality Causes Me to Weep”
We know why this man is laughing . . .
JS: Indeed. Your hospitality causes me to weep. So, yes, of course I would offer, then, former Justice Thomas a highly significant job. And that is something he has extraordinary experience over more than 30 years, and “off the record,’ I have already had a very satisfactory conversation with Justice Thomas. He is extraordinarily in a ‘Yes’ state of mind. The judicial system has for years not offered many services for judges who seek hospitality, or to realize their vacation dreams. Therefore, as the head of a new department at the Judicial Conference this, then, former justice would, I believe, accept the title Chief of Hospitality and Judicial Travel Agent.
JM: So rather than correcting the problems visited on the court’s reputation, your plan is to allow Clarence Thomas to regularize hospitality grift for the entire federal judiciary.
JS: Indeed. And Clarence has great strength in coordinating complex donor hospitality offers to sitting judges. Taking such coordinating activities off the tired shoulders of judges, both male and female, by the way, would free them up to do more judging. It’s as you say, ‘a no brainer!” A good relationship with hospitality is owed to federal judges, and Clarence would create a streamlined automated matching service that will, indeed, create a happy judiciary. And no court, obviously, would declare this activity unconstitutional.
MS: You know, that is an enticing job. I wish I were a grifting Supreme Court justice . . .
JS: Indeed, my good man, indeed! Was that off the record information not well worth the extra dessert and tee shirts?
MS: Tee shirt, singular, not plural! Meaning one!! Dammit!
“Let’s bring Clarence and Ginny next time, they love rustic!”
In 2008 Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito accepted a last minute invite for a fishing trip to Alaska offered by billionaire hedge fund maven and major GOP donor Paul Singer. It included, gratis, transportation on Singer’s private jet, lodging, meals, and, perhaps, rod, reel, and bait. In the end, he got caught by his own bait. ProPublica discovered that Alito failed to report any of this as a gift that, of course, might just tempt him to smile upon any cases brought before the court that involve Singer’s interests. In effect, Paul Singer landed a 200 pound Supreme Court justice for a price estimated a $100,000; the only surprise here is that he wasn’t able to squeeze in Clarence and Ginny Thomas.
Alito, in a rush to overshadow ProPublica, wrote, for the Wall Street Journal, what amounted to a whining legal and ethical defense almost before the ProPublica story broke. Alito made the usual excuses: I don’t have to report what was nothing other than hospitality; the trip wasn’t really all that luxurious, it was “rustic,” at best and served only “family-style meals,” and wine under the cost of $1,000 per bottle; and, in short, you can all go to hell.
This journal caught up with Alito at the Disgruntled Toad, a new restaurant within the Capitol rotunda. He’d agreed to sit down for lunch with us (and on us) if we’d agree in writing that our offer was simple hospitality and thus unreportable. Our reporter, Bart Shultz, of course agreed, and Alito ordered a steak the size of a small Alaska town; items to take home, including tee shirts; and a bottle of $999 wine, none of which this journal could afford, but we figured we’re judgment proof. Thereby the interview began.
“You lookin’ at me? That’s not very hospitable, and I know hospitable!”
Alito: “Let me start this interview off the record by asking why the hell do you care what I did with some fishing buddies 16 years ago?” [Note: We don’t do “off the record.”]
Shultz: “Well it’s a matter of great concern to our country and there’s no bigger story than you right now. Also, it’s a story worth a thousand dollar lunch, if you get my meaning.”
Alito: “Yeah, I get it you, you obnoxious enemy of the people; no interview, no hospitality.”
Shultz: “Would you do the same thing today if Singer offered you a fishing trip to Alaska?”
Alito: “Wow. You dive right in, don’t you? Of course I would accept, in a New York minute. He’s a very hospitable man. I’m a very hospitable man. Also, I don’t have to report gifts that are hospitable. One reason is, I didn’t catch any sunfish in 2008, the water was too cold. But now that some say the sea is warming I’d like to catch a bunch of sunfish. Good eating, great sushi, and I can sell sunfish in Japan where it’s a delicacy.”
Shultz: “Many legal scholars, though, assert that your Alaska trip was not hospitality; it was pure and simple a reportable gift. Also, they assert that you ought to have recused yourself from any cases that implicated any of Paul Singer’s interests.”
“If you ever need some hospitality. . . . .”
Alito: “No, no, no. Over the years I’ve accepted a lot of hospitality from a bevy of persons wealthy enough to offer a Supreme Court Justice such hospitality. I would not accept hospitality from persons who were of modest means. Perhaps I’d be hospitable enough to give them an autograph. Would you call that a reportable gift? Should they report my autograph to the IRS as income?”
Shultz: “Sir, so you admit that you regularly accept what you broadly define as hospitality? And you maintain that you do not have to recuse yourself from cases that involve those hospitable persons?”
Alito: “Now you’re catching on. If I had to recuse, why, I’d have to recuse myself from a preponderance of cases now before the court! There would be no reason for me to sit on the court.”
Shultz: “Many are saying that right now; some calling for your impeachment. What about that? Moreover, what about the obvious ethical improprieties of your actions?”
“Are we going to need a team of lawyers?”
Alito: “Law is something, young man, that you are required to do or not to do. Ethics is not law, just a suggestion that taking what might be bribes in some circumstances might be appropriate for certain persons. Ethics is enforced by self policing. Look at Sotomayor. She was gifted numerous times with large amounts, by weight, of bagels. Not those supermarket bagels, but the substantially heavier boutique bagels infused with caviar and truffles and gold which are highly prized by many, including federal employees who do not have the wherewithal monetarily to purchase them from toney bagel shops.”
Shultz: “Justice Sotomayor refused the bagels!”
Alito: “So she indicated, however, how does one refuse lox and bagels? I’m skeptical. As for me, my mouth is watering.”
Shultz: “Well, sir, I believe you misread the temper of the times. Ethics, for whatever reasons, is having its day. Senator Dick Durbin of the Judiciary Committee said the other day, ‘We wouldn’t tolerate this from a city council member or an alderman.'”
Alito: “Dick Durbin is subject to a vote in 2026. On the other hand, I am a member of the life tenured profession. Good luck impeaching me. I can count votes, and I’m not seeing that as a viable option. So, until that changes I’m open for hospitality.”
