Senate page     Dec. 19

Senate map
Previous | Next

New polls:  
Dem pickups: PA
GOP pickups: (None)

The Select Committee Will Hold Its Last Hearing Today

For Trump haters, today is going to be an early Christmas. Or maybe an early Festivus, since it will most certainly feature an airing of grievances. The Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 coup attempt will hold its final public meeting at 1 p.m. EST. It is expected that the Committee will summarize its findings and then vote on referring various people to the DoJ for criminal prosecution. One recommendation widely expected is asking the DoJ to indict Donald Trump for obstructing an official proceeding of Congress. Another is to ask the DoJ to indict Trump for conspiracy to defraud the United States. The Committee does not have the power to indict Trump or anyone else. All it can do is ask the DoJ to do it and provide the DoJ with mountains of evidence explaining why it should do so and material to use in any trial against him.

Trump probably won't be the only target. The Committee may also recommend criminal proceedings for Mark Meadows and possibly others. It may also recommend that some of Trump's lawyers be disbarred.

A somewhat sticky point is dealing with five Republican members of the House who defied subpoenas. These are Reps. Andy Biggs (AZ), Mo Brooks (AL), Jim Jordan (OH), Kevin McCarthy (CA), and Scott Perry (PA). The Committee could try to censure them or refer them to the (toothless) House Ethics Committee. The ultimate penalty would be to refer them to the DoJ for prosecution. They did violate federal law, but having one party recommending that members of the other party be prosecuted would not further friendly relations within the House. But maybe at this point the Democrats don't care about that.

The Committee has three teams at work finalizing the report. The gold team is looking at Trump and Republican members of Congress. The red team is looking at the people who organized the Jan. 6 rally. The purple team is looking at the extremist groups that stormed the Capitol. Their work will be published in an eight-chapter report to be released no later than Wednesday. The executive summary alone is expected to run 100 pages. The full report could run to 1,000 pages. Full transcripts will be released within 2 weeks. By putting everything on the website of the Government Publishing Office, the new Republican-controlled House won't be able to make it go away.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who led the first impeachment of Trump and was a prosecutor before he ran for Congress, yesterday said on CNN's "State of the Union": "Viewing it as a former prosecutor, I think there's sufficient evidence to charge the [former] president. If you look at Donald Trump's acts and you match them up against the statute, it's a pretty good match." But when pressed, he refused to say whether the Committee was going to recommend that Trump be indicted.

The legal impact of the report is zero. Special Counsel Jack Smith is already on the case. He doesn't need to be told what he is supposed to do. He knows that already. That said, the 1,000 pages of detail and thousands of transcripts could help him make his decisions. At the very least, it will save him a lot of work not having to reinterview people the Committee has already interviewed. All he has to do is read all the transcripts.

The political impact is something else again. This will be the biggest news story of the day, maybe the week, maybe the year. Even bigger than the World Cup final (congratulations, Argentina!). It will be hard to miss, even for people who are not tuned into politics. The main impact will not be on Trump's core supporters. He will call it fake news and they will all believe it. However, he has some supporters who haven't swallowed all the Kool-Aid. They just don't like Democrats. But if the coverage is damaging enough, some of them may decide they have had enough and start looking for a new hero, possibly Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). Recent polls have shown that something like 37% of voters want Trump to run in 2024. If that were to drop to, say, 30%, it could hurt him badly. You don't generally win elections with 30% of the voters in your corner.

House Republicans know this is not going to be pretty. So they have produced their own 100+ page counter report. It is not known yet what will be in it, but it will be released this week. The authors are Republican Reps. Jim Jordan (OH), Jim Banks (IN), Rodney Davis (IL), Kelly Armstrong (ND), and Troy Nehls (TX). Conceivably it could try to say the Jan. 6 riot was no big deal and in any case, spontaneous and not carefully coordinated by Trump and his team. Who knows?

What is really important is how the right-wing media play the story. It is too big to hide under the bed. They will have to deal with it. They could attack it as being horribly biased (even though two of the panel members are conservative Republicans). They could attack the witnesses as being biased. But the report will have so much detail, that knocking a dozen witnesses as biased won't really change much. Some right-wing outlets are already wavering on Trump (see below). If more of them jump ship, that could be fatal to him. And if he is actually indicted and convicted, the trickle of deserters could become a flood. (V)

The Gang of Five Is Making McCarthy's Life Miserable

The speaker of the House is elected by majority vote of the entire House. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has had a lifelong dream of becoming speaker. For him, it is now or never—and he prefers now. The Democrats are never going to vote for a weak leader who is in Donald Trump's pocket and who hates bipartisanship, so McCarthy has to round up 218 votes from his soon-to-be 222-member caucus. Here's the math: 222 - 218 = 4. That means if five members of his caucus refused to vote for him, he doesn't have enough votes since every Democrat will vote for their new leader, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).

Enter the Gang of Five. Usually it is the Senate that is full of gangs, but now it is the House Republicans. Five MAGA Republicans have formed a bloc and pledged to all vote the same way, to prevent McCarthy from picking them off one a time with offers of committee chairmanships and the like. Without realizing it, they have formed a union in order to stand up to management. The union members are Reps. Andy Biggs (AZ), Bob Good (VA), Matt Gaetz (FL), Ralph Norman (OK), and Matt Rosendale (MT). Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is not a member because McCarthy already picked her off by promising to reinstate the committee memberships she lost for antisemitism and for supporting violence earlier this year.

Four of the members are 100% never-Kevin, no matter what he concedes (although in politics, "never" means "unless we get what we want"). Norman left a small bit of wiggle room open, but Biggs says the gang is actually more than five, it's just that the others don't want to stick their necks out yet.

Some of the hidden "I don't like Kevin but I can be won over with the right concessions" members include members like Freedom Caucus chairman Scott Perry (R-PA) and probably FC members Dan Bishop (R-NC) Andrew Clyde (R-GA), Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Chip Roy (R-TX). One concession they want is a reinstatement of the rule about vacating the chair. If reinstated, any one member can call for a floor vote to remove the speaker from office. That used to be the rule, but current speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) got rid of it when she took over. This is the rule that doomed former speakers John Bohner and Paul Ryan. McCarthy really doesn't want the rule back, but if he holds firm, he probably will lose another 5-10 votes as well.

Oh wait, the Freedom Caucus members have more on their Christmas list. They also want rules that:

Interestingly enough, the Democrats are fine with all these items.

McCarthy's problem is that if he gives the Freedom Caucus whatever it wants, this could touch off a revolt among the moderate Republicans. About a dozen Republicans sit in districts that Joe Biden won. If they vote for rules dictated by the Freedom Caucus, their Democratic opponent in 2024 will make them out to be puppets of Greene (probably illustrated by green puppets—and definitely not Kermit the Frog).

Thus, McCarthy has to placate both the hardliners and the moderates. He doesn't have the required skills for that. He once threatened to remove some moderates from their committee memberships if they didn't obey him, and one of them said: "You don't get to 218 by kicking people off the island." The politics of counting noses right now aside, those districts will be in play in 2024. Doing things that anger the voters there could threaten the Republicans' tiny majority in 2024 and perhaps being back a (tiny) Democratic majority in Jan. 2025. McCarthy knows that, but he doesn't think long-term. He wants 218 votes on Jan. 3, 2023, and will say anything, promise anything, and do anything to get there, the February 2023 votes be damned, let alone what might happen on Nov. 2024.

For example, the House needs to pass a budget by next week or the government will shut down just before Christmas. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) knows that if the government shuts down, nobody (except maybe hardcore Fox viewers) will blame Joe Biden. They will blame the Republicans. So McConnell is trying to get a budget passed. He's doing his best to include in it items he wants and exclude items he doesn't want, but this is normal negotiation. He absolutely does not want a shutdown. For behaving in a way good for the country and also good for his party, McCarthy has criticized McConnell. Retiring Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) said: "He's running for speaker, he's supposed to say that." What he meant was that the Freedom Caucus has McCarthy by the [insert body part here] and is just tossing him around.

McCarthy got a bit of help yesterday when Donald Trump explicitly asked the MAGA holdouts to stop it and support McCarthy. Whether that sways any of them remains to be seen, though.

One of the reasons McCarthy is strongly against reinstating the rule about the motion to vacate is that getting to 218 isn't just for Jan. 3, 2023, and then it is smooth sailing. Far from it. Every time he wants to pass a bill, he has to get to 218 all over again. Now, he could just concede that no bills will be passed in the upcoming session of Congress and focus entirely on Hunter Biden's laptop, but he really can't. If the debt limit is not raised next week, then it will come up in 2023. There may be appropriations bills and other must-pass bills next year. In some cases, he can count on 213 Democratic votes so he needs only to corral five Republicans, but then he will be perceived as the puppet of Jeffries. As soon as that happens, here comes the motion to vacate the chair. McCarthy's goal was actually to run the House, not just add an entry to his C.V. "Was speaker of the House from Jan. 3, 2023 until May 31, 2023."

McCarthy's situation is summed up by this cartoon by by Roll Call's R.J. Matson:

Cartoon with McCarthy getting an empty Christmas stocking

In short, McCarthy's political skills are being sorely tested by an impossible situation. Bohner and Ryan couldn't handle it and they are far better politicians than McCarthy is. (V)

Trump Allies Bash His NFT Grift

On Friday, we noted that Donald Trump has issued a set of digital trading cards (NFTs) that the rubes—sorry, investors—could buy for the low, low price of $99. How did it go? Fantastic! The complete collection of 44,000 cards sold out the first day, netting Trump (personally) over $4 million, assuming whoever made the "cards" was content to settle for $500,000 for a few days of design work. Actually, there were 45,000 cards; Trump kept 1,000 for himself since they are so beautiful. The cards are now available on the secondary market for $200, so anyone who bought a card for $99 and then flipped it for $200 made $101. And the smart investor who bought 10 or 100 cards made 10x or 100x more. So Trump created money for himself and some of his fans out of thin air. Wow!

Are Republicans of all stripes now finally seeing what a brilliant businessman he is? Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk also made a lot of money, but they had to produce actual products and services and that took quite a bit of time. Gates and Musk are now busy giving much of it away—albeit in somewhat different ways—but that is a different story.

Meanwhile, some of Trump's high-profile fans are not impressed. In fact, they are furious. Steve Bannon said of Trump's announcement: "I can't watch it again, make it stop." Radio host and Trump supporter John Cardillo said the whole thing was "beyond wrong," while noting the collapse of FTX. Michael Flynn said: "Whoever advised him on that, I'd fire him them immediately." Former White House advisers Sebastian Gorka and Steve Cortes were not amused. Gorka said: "Whoever wrote that pitch should be fired and should never be involved in any part of Trump's 2024 campaign." Cortes called for firing everyone at Mar-a-Lago, not just those involved in the NFT business. And they weren't the only ones. Maybe they didn't buy any of the cards and thus missed out on the quick profit and are jealous. They need to learn to move faster.

The Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post, which has become increasingly critical of Trump of late, ran an editorial headlined: "Don't give any money to con artist Trump." The first two paragraphs read:

When Donald Trump teased a "major announcement" Wednesday, the MAGA boards went crazy with speculation. He's going to be the next speaker of the House! He's enlisted Ron DeSantis to be his vice presidential candidate! He's finally found that voter fraud he's been promising for two years!

But no, it was a digital card collection of Trump dressed up like a superhero. In other words, another money grab.

Now take that in. A right-wing publication owned by Rupert Murdoch ran an editorial calling Trump a con artist. Needless to say, the editors of the Post had to have Murdoch's approval to run that. Criticizing Trump like that without approval from the top would be grounds for being fired instantly. So the Post is getting increasingly aggressive in going after Trump. The big question is this is some kind of trial balloon Murdoch is floating, or it is for real? If the latter, surely Fox will follow sooner or later and jump on the DeSantis bandwagon before too long. What will happen to Trump's base if the Fox hosts trash him every night and follow that up by announcing daily that DeSantis is the new leader of the Republican Party?

The money from the trading cards didn't go to Trump's campaign. There was a note on the site saying that "NFT INT LLC holds the copyright to all content." Further it says: "NFT INT LLC is not owned, managed or controlled by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization, CIC Digital LLC or any of their respective principals or affiliates." English translation: If the value of these things drops to zero shortly, please don't sue any of the above as it is not our fault."

One other thing. Where did the base images come from? In most cases, the designer just scoured the Internet for suitable base images and then Photoshopped Trump's head onto the base image. For example, Matthew Sheffield discovered that the base image for this card was taken from Shutterstock:

Trump trading card of him as an Air Force pilot and base image of an Air Force pilot's suit'

If the designer didn't pay Shutterstock the licensing fee, Trump is likely to get a call (and bill) from Shutterstock shortly. Any halfway decent Photoshop user can remove the Shutterstock logos and put in a different background and Trump's head in less than an hour. Other images were taken from amazon.com and various online stores. Not very classy, but for $99, you didn't expect the Mona Lisa, did you? (V)

Biden Will Go Digital in 2024

While we are on the subject of things digital, Joe Biden's campaign team has come to the conclusion that increasingly few people get their political news from national television or newspapers, so they are looking for other (mostly digital) ways to reach voters. That is slightly complicated because Twitter is completely toxic and some othe popular apps, including WhatsApp and TikTok, do not accept political ads. So how to get through to voters who aren't paying attention?

A key insight is that many people spend much of their time on phone-based apps. So that's where Biden's team wants to go. One of their approaches will be to get influencers in various communities to pitch Biden, however gently. In many cases these communities will be nonpolitical. It could be simple, such as a fitness influencer wearing a Biden button while talking about diet. Subtle, but it shows someone respected in some community who supports Biden. And this could be very cheap. How much would it cost to get an influencer who likes Biden to use a Biden mug or have a Biden poster in the background? Maybe a couple of hundred dollars? That doesn't buy much TV time, and yet might have a big impact since it wouldn't be perceived as campaign advertising but as a subtle statement by the respected influencer. And, of course, an influencer could be paid to produce content appropriate to the forum. A wellness influencer could praise Biden's ideas on health care without straying too far from home.

Another strategy is to get previous donors to help. Sending them messages and asking them to forward the messages to all their contacts could be very effective since these messages will not be eaten by spam filters. This approach was heavily used by the campaign of Sen.-elect John Fetterman (D-PA), who had local celebrities, like Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi, make short videos mocking Mehmet Oz for running for office in Pennsylvania when he actually lived in New Jersey. The videos were clever and went viral. Biden's team wants to use that approach heavily. Another Fetterman idea that Biden wants to use is to allow supporters to edit and upload their own video clips that mock or damage one's opponent. The Senator-elect's site, fettermemes.com, shows how this works. If Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis get into a p**sing match next year, there will be a huge amount of raw material the Biden campaign could post to allow supporters to download and edit into punchy little clips good for sharing. Digital apps to help coordinate volunteers are also on the agenda. New approaches to social media are being worked on; for example, Facebook groups or Fantasy Football text-message chains are other ways to reach voters.

But Biden isn't going to forget television completely, just refocus on how to use it. His team has discovered is that people still watch the local news, so there will be a much bigger effort to get attention on local news broadcasts. Paid advertising is one way and can be extremely well targeted. If you want to hit urban Republicans in a swing state, KSAZ-TV is the Fox affiliate in Phoenix. That kind of microtargeting is much cheaper than running national ads. Also, having some important administration official show up in a key market and talk to some local group is likely to make the local news there.

In short, Biden's focus is not going to be running 30-second ads on national television, but much more digital, getting supporters to spread the word, and using existing communities of various types and local media. (V)

North Carolina Supreme Court Strikes Down Voter ID Law

Numerous state legislatures have been busy for years passing laws designed to make voting more difficult. But once in a while, some court says: "Nope." Such is the case in North Carolina. On Friday, the state Supreme Court struck down a voter-ID law. The Court said it was racially motivated and expressly designed to minimize the political power of Black voters.

The Court upheld the ruling of three-judge panel in an 89-page ruling that included the statement: "The provisions enacted ... were formulated with an impermissible intent to discriminate against African-American voters in violation of the North Carolina Constitution."

At issue was S.B. 824, which required every voter to present one of only a few forms of photo ID in order to vote. While many voters have at least one form, in practice the law had a greater impact on Black voters since a larger percentage of Black voters do not have a driver's license, a U.S. passport, or any of the other allowed forms of identification. The justices said that although requiring photo ID is neutral on its face, in practice it is discriminatory and the legislators knew that when they passed it.

How did the law come to pass? Well, the Republican-dominated legislature passed the ID law in 2018 but Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC) vetoed it. Then the Republicans overrode his veto.

So voting is safe in North Carolina? Yeah, until January. Then the 4-3 Democratic majority on the Supreme Court will flip to 5-2 Republican. The state legislature might just then pass a new law, slightly different from the old one, and hope the new one passes muster with the new state Supreme Court. In fact, Michael Whatley, chairman of the state Republican Party, was enthusiastic about trying again as soon as the new Court is in place.

This is not the first time the current North Carolina Supreme Court has opposed the Republican-controlled legislature's attempts to pass laws intended for partisan gain. In Harper v. Hall, the Court struck down a gerrymandered state Senate district map that strongly favored the Republicans. Once the new Court is in place, expect all kinds of shenanigans from the legislature in an attempt to gain partisan advantage. However, the state Republicans are one vote short of the number they need to override the governor's veto in the state House. If all the Democrats in the state House stick together, Cooper will be able to veto bills he doesn't like and kill them. This will force the Republicans to negotiate with him. If one Democrat votes with the Republicans on any bill, however, the legislature will be able to override gubernatorial vetoes. In the state Senate, the Republicans have the votes to override vetoes. (V)

House Passes a Bill to Have Puerto Rico Vote on Statehood

The issue of statehood for Puerto Rico has come up many times in the past. Many Democrats support it because they expect the Island to elect two Democrats to the Senate. That is not obvious, however, since the current nonvoting delegate from Puerto Rico in the House, Jennifer González-Colon caucuses with the Republicans (although most of the previous delegates have indeed been Democrats). Until now, nothing has moved forward.

Now it has come up again and some progress has been made. The House just passed a bill calling for Puerto Rico to hold a vote, specifically a binding plebiscite in Nov. 2023. There are to be three choices: (1) statehood, (2) independence, and (3) sovereignty in association with the U.S. The third category would put Puerto Rico in the same category as the Marshall Islands, which is an independent nation that has treaties with the U.S. governing diplomatic, military, and economic relations. The bill does not have an option to continue as a commonwealth, as Puerto Rico now is.

It should be noted that Puerto Ricans are currently U.S. citizens and have been for over 100 years. Any Puerto Rican who wants to come to America can just buy a ticket from San Juan to Orlando, where there are many Puerto Ricans. If you don't mind flying at 4 a.m., Frontier Airlines will sell you a one-way ticket for $64. No passport is required. Flying from San Juan to Orlando is no different than flying from, say, LaGuardia to Orlando, except it is $11 more expensive.

However, there is a small catch here. To become law and set up the plebiscite, the Senate has to approve the bill. Senate Republicans do not want Puerto Rico to become a state (although they probably actually favor it becoming an independent nation, along with dozens of others in the Caribbean). However, one issue is that the U.S. has military bases on the island, and a treaty would be needed to keep them. The U.S. has military bases in many countries, so that is not an insurmountable obstacle.

Consequently, the Republicans will filibuster the bill when it hits the Senate and it won't pass. If it did pass, Joe Biden has said he would sign it.

Nevertheless, the exercise is not pointless. It shows that this bill can pass the House. Next time the Democrats have the trifecta it will come up again—and again. Some day the filibuster will probably bite the dust and then it will pass. But for now, Puerto Rico's status will not change. (V)

House Democrats Introduce Bill to Bar Trump Based on 14th Amendment

While we are on the subject of legislation, 40 House Democrats have introduced a bill that would bar Donald Trump from holding any federal office based on the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 3 of the Amendment bars from officeholding anyone who previously took an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in an insurrection against it. The law would make it clear that Trump did in fact engage in such an insurrection and thus be barred from running for president.

The bill probably won't pass the House, and has no chance to pass the Senate, but it does bring publicity to the Fourteenth Amendment and might encourage outside groups to sue in various states to bar Trump. Remember, there is no national election for president. There are 51 separate elections for presidential electors and the secretaries of state and/or the courts decide who is eligible to be on the ballot in each state or in D.C. By publicizing the Amendment, the sponsors are hoping for lawsuits to keep Trump off the ballot in some states. It is not a totally nutty idea, since the wording on the Amendment is quite clear. The main factual issue is whether the former president engaged in an insurrection. Once the Select Committee releases its report, later this week, plaintiffs may well have quite a bit of evidence that he did and is thus constitutionally disqualified. It is certainly possible that one or more state Supreme Courts could rule that Trump is indeed disqualified. Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court might not work since the Court might not want that hot potato and could say that each state has to decide for itself who qualifies for its ballot. (V)

Democrats Will Hold a Firehouse Primary in VA-04 Tomorrow

Democratic representative Donald McEachin (D-VA) died of cancer on Nov. 28. The Constitution requires House vacancies to be filled by a special election. The district covers much of Richmond, is heavily Black, and is D+16. Consequently, no Republican normally has a chance there (but see below). Nevertheless, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) is playing politics with the special election. Here's the backstory.

State law requires the parties to run their own primaries. These are often called firehouse primaries because they typically held in firehouses. The state is not involved as they are for normal primaries. Youngkin announced the special election date just a week ago. It will be held on Feb. 21, 2023. He could have scheduled it in March, but chose not to. Is that because he was concerned about the good people of VA-04 not being represented in Congress for a few months? Not in the slightest. He knew that the timeline is set by state law and requires each party to file its candidates 60 days before the special election. That is by 5 p.m. on Dec. 23, 2022. In other words, this Friday. So his choice gave each party only a week to run the primary and pick its candidates. The Republicans don't care and will find some sacrificial lamb without much thought going into it.

But for the Democrats, getting candidates to collect the required 150 signatures to file, organize the primary, and tell voters to show up—all in a week—is a huge challenge. Youngkin is smiling, as he always does. He is aware that the best-known local Black Democratic politician in the district, other than McEachin, is state Sen. Jennifer McClellan. Does he like McClellan and want her to win? Probably no on the first part, definitely yes on the second part. Currently, Democrats hold a 21-19 majority in the state Senate and if McClellan leaves the state Senate for the U.S. House, it will be 20D, 19R, which gives him a greater chance of getting things through the state Senate until there is a special election to replace her. If a Republican wins the special election, Democrats won't control it anymore.

McClellan indeed filed to run for Congress. But so did Del. Lamont Bagby (D) and also Joe Morrissey (was I, now D). Bagby is Black and McEachin's closest protégé, but McClellan has the support of the all the Northern Virginia U.S. representatives. The Democrats were afraid that McClellan and Bagby would split the vote and allow Morrissey to win with a small plurality. Nobody wanted that.

Why not? Well, Morrissey is white and a pro-life Catholic. He is a lawyer who has punched people in the courtroom and who has been disbarred twice. He was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (a receptionist at his law firm) although he did marry her later. He went to jail for that but was elected to the state House as an independent while in jail. See why the Democrats are not keen on having him as their candidate? He could conceivably actually lose to an unknown Republican, even in a D+16 district.

Bagby sized up the situation and decided to drop out and endorse McClellan, so the primary is McClellan vs. Morrissey. McClellan is the favorite. And Youngkin's nasty little trick may not work, as Bagby is likely to run for McClellan's state Senate seat if she is elected to the U.S. House. Thanks to his taking one for the team, Bagby will undoubtedly have the full support of McClellan and the entire Virginia Democratic Party in his attempt to get a promotion from the House of Delegates to the state Senate sometime next year. If Bagby wins, then it is back to 21-19 and Democrats aren't going to forget this bit of trickery on Youngkin's part. Politics is sometimes complicated and you can't tell the players without a program. (V)

A December to Rhymember, Part XI: The Return of the Man of Steal

We begin this week as we ended last week, with some Donald Trump NFT verse. To start, a haiku from M.C. in Newton, MA:

MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT
Ex-prez in NFT biz
Legal bills mounting

And something a bit lengthier, from N.C. in Gibsons, BC, Canada:

There once was a man called the "Man of Steal"
Who ranted and prattled in a wearying spiel

His claims all lacked evidence, bad lawyers and stuff
He never convinced a real Judge enough

To reverse his big loss that was based on a lie
When he cried "it was stolen, I was cheated, denied!"

To install him back on his gold plated throne
He recruited the misfits who were dumb and were prone

To believe what he said, though devoid of all fact
To attack our great Capitol, insurrection beat back

Now his life is all lawsuits, fleecing rubes of their loot
Selling NFT hero cards, their importance is moot

How far he has fallen, it's so hard to care
Fading off to irrelevance, or a jail cell somewhere?

And we'll close with a limerick from M.S. in Sterling, NY:

Trump's a huckster, a con and a fraud
Crappy steaks, schools and vodka did he laud
The NFTs make me cringe
It's bad taste on a binge
He'll be gone only when he's covered by sod.

More verse that dumps on Trump tomorrow? Who knows? Here is the place to send submissions. (Z)


Previous | Next


Back to the main page