Main page    Feb. 20

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

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

The Royal Formerly Known as Prince Has Been Arrested

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was until recently Prince Andrew, was arrested by British police yesterday, on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

The misconduct in question is not sexual, it should be noted. It is probable that there was some of that from Mountbatten-Windsor, but it's apparently hard to prove. What he's being popped for is allegedly sharing privileged financial information with Jeffrey Epstein, back in 2009 and 2010. At that time, Mountbatten-Windsor was Britain's special envoy for international trade, so he most certainly was privy to all sorts of stuff that was not available to the general public. If he traded that information for money, or for sexual favors, or for nothing it all, it would be very bad.

Arresting members of the royal family is not something the Brits do very often, to put it mildly. The last time it happened was nearly 400 years ago (1647), when Charles I was placed under arrest on the orders of Parliament. That ended with Charles losing his head. That's not likely to be Mountbatten-Windsor's fate, since the U.K. doesn't have capital punishment anymore (and since, even when it did, it stopped using beheading as a method of execution back in 1747). However, a stint in prison, and maybe even life in prison, is on the table.

Mountbatten-Windsor is the latest person to be ensnared in the fallout from the latest Epstein files release, and to have suffered, or to be facing, serious consequences as a result. Here are some others (and this is FAR from a comprehensive list):

There is one rather glaring omission from the list, a fellow whose name is all over the Epstein files, and who has yet to suffer so much as a scratch because of them. That fellow was flying on his airplane yesterday and, addressing the press about Mountbatten-Windsor's arrest, had this to say: "It's very sad. I think it's so bad for the royal family. It's very sad. It's a very sad thing. To me, it's a very sad thing." He added that he has an "expert" opinion on this particular subject, because he's in the files too, and yet he's been "totally exonerated."

Donald Trump, of course, has told some real whoppers in his time, but you'd have to look long and hard to find a bigger whopper than that one. The Department of Justice has been very obviously protecting their boss/master/lord, both by withholding some files and by grossly over-redacting others. And yet, the President is very, very far from having been "totally exonerated." It's actually considerably more correct to say he's been "totally implicated." As in "completely," "fully," "wholly," "entirely" and "beyond all reasonable doubt."

We actually thought this was as good a time as any to step back a small bit, and to give an overview of our sense as to where things stand. We'll start by saying that we think there are really three distinct "levels" of guilt that are possible here. The first of those, and least serious, is "Trump knew what Epstein was up to, and yet accepted it and they remained friends, even after Epstein was in serious legal trouble."

We have absolutely no doubt that Trump has, at very least, this level of guilt. Start with the now-infamous Epstein 50th birthday card, and work from there; as The New York Times reported, the publicly available files reference Trump/his family/his businesses over 38,000 times. There are, in other words, mountains of evidence that Trump was well aware of his good buddy's proclivities, and that he had no issue whatsoever with them. In fact, it's clear that Epstein's crimes were something the two men bonded over. It is also clear, beyond all doubt, that Trump lied about the date that his friendship with Epstein ended. The relationship continued years beyond that date, and years beyond Epstein's becoming a convicted felon, and there's some indication it lasted at least until Trump became a serious presidential candidate. Maybe even up to, and beyond, Trump's election in 2016.

The second, considerably more serious, level of guilt, is if Trump himself was a "client" of Epstein's, and had people procured for him. If Trump knew and looked the other way, that's sleazy, but probably not illegal. However, if Trump became a part of the whole arrangement, now we move into the realm of criminality, because at the very least, being a john is against the law.

There is plenty of evidence Trump was indeed a john, starting with witness and police reports that appear all over the Epstein files, even with the withholdings and the redactions, along with court and public testimony from victims. We also know Trump has absolutely no issue with paying for sexual partners. And we know that Trump views access to any woman he wants, any time he wants, as his birthright as a wealthy person. Is it really conceivable that a walking id like him would be close friends with the nation's most notorious procurer, and yet would not take advantage of those procurement services? Not to us, it isn't.

The third, and most serious, level of guilt is if Trump not only partook of Epstein's service, but committed felony-level offenses while doing so. Paying for sex is a crime, but it's not going to put you away for years or decades. But rape, forcible or statutory, certainly is. Assault certainly is. Murder certainly is. Trafficking women certainly is. All have been alleged against Trump, either within the files, or without, or both.

We've been confident about Trump's "level one" and "level two" guilt for some time now. And with everything that's come out in the last month or so, we're now confident in his "level three" guilt, as well. To start with, there is some really, really brutal stuff about Trump in the latest tranche of documents. Stuff that pretty clearly was not supposed to see the light of day because it was on the DoJ website, then disappeared, and then reappeared after an outcry (apparently, at least SOME people in the White House understand the Streisand Effect).

It is true that much of the material was preliminary reports to law enforcement, and that anyone can say pretty much anything they want to a police officer or FBI agent, and the officer/agent has to memorialize that. But there are so many women, and sometimes girls, making claims against Trump in the publicly available Epstein files (and lord knows what's in the stuff that's been held back). Then add in what's known for other reasons. "Grab 'em by the pu**y." Ivana Trump's claim that Donald raped her. The de facto finding that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll. His undisputed habit of visiting the dressing rooms of the beauty pageants he owned in order to leer at the teenage contestants. Because the consequences of making such reports, even if they are true, can be brutal for the women/girls who make them, they are rarely lies. And it's beyond credulity to believe that Trump could possibly be the subject of so many falsehoods, over so many years.

And then, add in what we know of Trump. He has little or no moral compass. He is also extremely careless and does not bother himself with details. If he was provided an underage victim by Epstein, can we really imagine Trump would bother to check and make sure the girl was of legal age? Or that he would care if he found out she wasn't? He's lived his whole life believing that rules and laws are for losers and suckers, not rich people like him. Indeed, not only do we believe he would not be bothered if he found out the target of his sexual desire was underage, we imagine it would likely be a plus. It would make him feel young and virile, and would also serve as affirmation that he's above the rules. Indeed, Trump's view that the rules are not for him was the point he was making with the whole "grab 'em" monologue:

You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pu**y. You can do anything.

If someone thinks like that, would they really say, "You can do anything. Well, unless the girl is not of age, of course"? Doubtful. Highly, highly, highly doubtful.

In short, we are now entirely confident that Trump committed sexual (and possibly other) crimes that are felonious in nature. This would also explain why he and his underlings are working so very hard to try to shield him as much as they can. But even if we limit ourselves to what is publicly known/available, we think there's evidence enough to convict in a court of law. Undoubtedly, the case would get even stronger if the full set of files was released, with the redactions done properly, instead of partisan-ly. The only questions that we think remain unresolved, when it comes to Trump-Epstein, are: (1) Did Epstein have video/audio kompromat on Trump and, if so, what was it? and (2) Was Trump helping run Epstein's shakedown schemes?

It is true that the Epstein situation has faded from the headlines many times, but it keeps coming back. Clearly, it has legs, and is not going away anytime soon. Meanwhile, it is also clear that Trump is very, very, very exposed. Will he one day pay an actual price for his misdeeds, and join the list above? We just don't know. However, we will say that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was feeling pretty good about things, and feeling like he might just have dodged most of the bullets, right up until a bunch of bobbies showed up to arrest him yesterday. So, Trump shouldn't be sleeping TOO soundly these days. (Z & A)

TrumpWatch: Palm Beach International Airport Will Apparently Be Renamed

The Florida legislature, which is about as productive as the U.S. Congress, had passed only five bills this session, before yesterday. However, the members do understand the importance of prioritizing, particularly when it comes to highly critical matters that simply cannot wait. And so yesterday, they ran the total to six, overwhelmingly passing a bill that seeks to rename Palm Beach International Airport as the Donald J. Trump International Airport. The vote was 81-30 in the state House, and 25-11 in the state Senate. It was effectively a party-line vote, excepting a handful of members in each chamber who were absent.

There are two remaining steps before the name change becomes official, which is why we had to put a qualifier in the headline. The first is that Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) has to sign the bill. He has said he will do so and, even if he doesn't, the Republicans in the legislature have enough votes to override a veto. The second is that the FAA has to approve the name change. This is the same FAA that is led by the Trump-appointed Bryan Bedford, who answers to the Trump-appointed Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy. Readers presumably don't need us to figure out the odds that these two bootlickers Trump underlings will be delighted to sign off on the proposed change.

(Z) had dinner with a politically dialed-in friend last night, and the friend took the view that all of this slapping-Trump's-name-on-things is especially bad for him and the Republicans, because it's simple, and easy to understand, and is so transparently arrogant and yet desperate. We agree that whatever good this does in terms of Trump's ego, it is going to do harm, politically. Maybe if the administration had stopped with the Trump Institute for Peace, there wouldn't be much of a story. But then the Kennedy Center, and now the airport, and the proposed Trump arch, and maybe a bridge, and maybe a tunnel, and all these other things? How can people NOT notice?

There are two additional things about the airport situation that could also prove politically damaging. First, there's a lot of signage at an airport (along with other things, like stationery, and ID badges, and computer templates, etc.) that has to be updated in the event of a name change. It's not clear how much money it will take, but the sponsor of the airport-renaming legislation thinks $5.5 million should do it. However many millions it is, every Democrat in Florida will be saying things like, "Yes, I think we can all agree that renaming an airport in honor of a sitting president is more important than, say, having enough money to pay for health care for people."

The other issue is that the Trump Organization has filed paperwork for a trademark on the rights to the name "Donald J. Trump International Airport." The official explanation is that Trump just wants to prevent any abusive uses of his name. We find this a bit hard to swallow, since the Reagan, Kennedy, and Clinton families, among others, did not feel the need to file for trademark protection when airports were named after those presidents. The Trumps also say they have no intention of profiting off the trademark. We don't really believe that, either, but more importantly, we don't think most voters will believe it.

The U.S. can name its airports whatever it wants, but changing the airport code requires approval from IATA. If IATA does sign off, then instead of flying into PBI, you'll be able to fly into DJT. Regardless of the airport code, here's a tip: The best restaurants in the airport are apparently found in the sh**hole countries terminal. (Z)

Humor Hath Charms: I Stopped Calling the Toilet "John" and Named It "Jim" Instead

And here it is, the third (potential) new feature we have introduced this week. Is that just a coincidence? Not exactly, although the underlying dynamic is probably not exactly what you think. We have a bunch of things on the back burner right now that we really need to get to. And if we don't start getting to them, they will become more and more stale. We started the "getting on top of things" process with the new features, because we felt the three dot journalism concept (huge, overwhelmingly positive feedback, by the way), needed to get up and running ASAP. The other two concepts, which otherwise could have waited a bit longer, came along for the ride.

As the headline implies, the focus of this feature, if we keep it, will be political humor of various types. We have (tentatively) commenced with this concept for two reasons. The first is that we get a lot of material of this sort, and we don't often have a great way to fit it in. The second is that everyone can use a laugh once in a while, especially right now.

We envision a broad swath of content, reflecting various types of political humor, both contemporary and historical. For example, we've been sitting on a collection of Donald Trump "award" memes like this one:

Daniel LaRusso and Trump holding a large trophy; the caption is 'CONGRATULATIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP! 1984 ALL VALLEY KARATE CHAMPION!'

As we understand it, Trump locked down the victory by having Pam Bondi sweep his opponent's knee, thus rendering that opponent unable to continue.

Sometimes, we'll go with one-liner-type humor, particularly if the joke is associated with a particular political figure, past or present. For example, here's one of Ronald Reagan's favorites:

Fidel Castro had just started one of his long, boring speeches when an older man in the crowd was heard yelling, "Peanuts! Popcorn! Cracker Jack!"

Castro paused for a moment, glared at the crowd, but then continued his speech. Moments later, that same voice yelled, "Peanuts! Popcorn! Cracker Jack!"

That did it. The incensed Castro screamed out, "The next person I hear say that, I will personally kick his ass all the way to Miami Beach!"

Immediately, the whole crowd shouted, "Peanuts! Popcorn! Cracker Jack!"

One of these days, if this feature lives on, we'll do a whole entry on Reagan's communist/Soviet humor. Oh, and if readers are not familiar with the (admittedly, not political) one-liner from the headline of this item, the punchline is: "I feel much better being able to tell people I go to the Jim every morning, without fail."

There are lots of other things we could include—anecdotes, contemporary and historical political cartoons, reader-generated responses to a prompt, possibly a game or two, re-visits of classic political humor on TV (say, SNL sketches, or famous moments from The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour), reviews/commentaries of classic political films/farces (say, Dr. Strangelove). That means some entries would be history lessons more than ha-ha funny, but we think that would still be interesting to readers, and might give some context to modern-day political humor.

Two other notes of explanation. First, we're only launching this on Friday because it was a busy week. We already have two regular features on Friday, and don't need to have a third. The weekly humor feature would run some other day of the week, very possibly Mondays. Second, some targets work better than others when it comes to political humor, and the party in power pretty much always gets to spend the lion's share of the time as the butt of the joke. So, it is way more likely that if we move forward with this, and there are 50 entries in the next 50 weeks, the Trump administration will be under the microscope far more often than, say, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will be. That's just the nature of the beast.

Now, we want to launch this feature with some actual content, not just explainers and examples. We thought hard about what to use for Entry #1, and we decided we wanted some reader-driven content out of the gate. So, we're going with something we've actually been sitting on for a few months. As readers might recall, we posted this picture of J.D. Vance back in September:

Vance holding his thumb and forefinger two inches apart

We knew what the dominant theme of the answers would be (it ended up being a little over two-thirds of them). If you have the browser skills, you can look and see what we named the photo. Anyhow, here's a Letterman-style rundown of our 10 favorite answers, including several on that theme:

  1. S.S. in West Hollywood, CA: We can confirm the President is a grower and not a shower.

  2. S.T. in Philadelphia, PA: The client list on Bondi's desk is THIS thick.

  3. M.S. in Westport, CT: Sen. John Thune (R-SD) looks on as J.D. Vance confuses "Speaker Johnson" with "the Speaker's Johnson."

  4. G.H. in Tacoma, WA: This is how the Pope answered when I asked him about my chances of getting into heaven.

  5. Anonymous in NC: How do I know, with such precision? Trump borrowed my sofa.

  6. O.B. in Los Angeles, CA: You have to understand that, for President Trump, immigration is a teeny weenie problem.

  7. M.P. in Leasburg, MO: We are THIS close to invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment!

  8. J.B. in Chicago, IL: The three of us and the President compared sizes this morning. This was Sen. Thune's winning entry.

  9. B.M. in Oakland, CA: By executive order, from now on, this is 8 inches.

  10. Anonymous in CA: Not pictured: Pete Hegseth doing pushups to tire out the voice in his head telling him he's gay.

That's pretty much the long and short of it.

If you care to let us know: (1) If you like this feature idea or not and want to see it continue and/or (2) What we should name the feature—we just used "Humor Hath Charms" as a placeholder—if we do continue it and/or (3) something you might like to see us cover in this space, please send a message to comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The Southside, aka Al Capone's Cocktail

A Southside, which is still sold in Chicago as "Al Capone's Cocktail" or "Al's Favorite," has two parts gin, one part lime juice, sugar syrup and mint leaves. That sounds dangerously close to a mojito to us, but what do we know? Chicagoans also think they invented beef sandwiches, while Philadelphians and Angelenos both disagree. There is no disputing, on the other hand, that brownies were invented in the Windy City (for the enjoyment of attendees at the 1893 World's Fair—at least, the ones who did not get killed by the serial killer who was running around). However, the more "modern" type of brownie (as it were) was invented, as you might guess, in San Francisco.

For last week's theme, we gave two hints. The first was: "Bottoms Up!" The second: "If you're still working on the headline theme, we'll tell you that the staff mathematician approved heartily of this week's choice." And here is the solution, courtesy of reader G.B. in Utrecht, The Netherlands:

The theme of this week seems to be terms used in/for cocktails and drinks in general.

We intended "Jack" for the last one, but "Gas" is clearly valid, as well. "Bottoms up!" is, of course, a classic toast, while the staff mathematician is, of course, a classic drunk. The headline of this item adds "Cocktail" to the theme.

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

  1. J.J. in Johnstown, PA
  2. T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts
  3. G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN
  4. M.J, in Oakdale, MN
  5. E.W. in Skaneateles, NY
  6. R.S. in Landing, NJ
  7. R.E. in Birmingham, AL
  8. N.H. in London, England, UK
  9. R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY
  10. D.E. in Ann Arbor, MI
  11. G.M. in Gaithersburg, MD
  12. K.H. in Albuquerque, NM
  13. S.J.V. in New York City, NY
  14. M.B. in Denver, CO
  15. D.M. in Lexington, NC
  16. J.S. in Huntington Station, NY
  17. D.D. in Bucks County, PA
  18. K.R. in Austin, TX
  19. M.M. in Dunellen, NJ
  20. T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT
  21. G.M. in Arlington, VA
  22. J.N. in Zionsville, IN
  23. P.H. in Buffalo Grove, IL
  24. M.K. in Long Branch, NJ
  25. R.D. in Cheshire, CT
  26. D.S. in Layton, UT
  27. R.W. in Bensenville, IL
  28. M.T. in Simpsonville, SC
  29. A.G. in Plano, TX
  30. J.D. in Indianapolis, IN
  1. S.K. in Ardmore, PA
  2. M.W. in Altea, Spain
  3. K.M. in Ypsilanti, MI
  4. E.S. in Providence, RI
  5. J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY
  6. S.R. in Sammamish, WA
  7. D.G. in Wood-Ridge, NJ
  8. J.F. in Fayetteville, NC
  9. K.F. in Berea, KY
  10. M.S. in Canton, NY
  11. M.A. in Park Ridge, IL
  12. G.W. in Avon, CT
  13. Z.K. in Albany, NY
  14. S.L. in Glendora, CA
  15. T.K. in Manchester, MO
  16. M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO
  17. B.D. in Hood River, OR
  18. P.H. in Bozeman, MT
  19. E.B. in Bloomington, IL
  20. M.K. in Seattle, WA
  21. M.L. in West Hartford, CT
  22. B.P. in Salt Lake City, UT
  23. T.A. in Apex, NC
  24. E.H. in Miamisburg, OH
  25. R.C. in Eagleville, PA
  26. K.J. in Paw Paw, MI
  27. P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ
  28. P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL
  29. M.C. in Falls Church, VA
  30. B.U. in St. Louis, MO

The 60th correct response was received at 6:09 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the category People and Places. The first headline is not part of it, as we don't want to make a game out of sexual predation. For a hint, we'll guess that the musician Morrissey would probably have a pretty easy time with this one.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "February 20 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: I Wouldn't Know Him from Adam

A little over a month ago, we wrote the first part of our ongoing series "Minneapolis Is Apparently the Hill that The White House Wants to Die On." That will definitely be back next week, for at least a couple of entries, and it definitely has at least six or seven entries to go. In that item, we included this paragraph:

DHS has also launched a website headlined "ARRESTED: WORST OF THE WORST." It contains profiles of people who have been arrested by ICE. It's not clear exactly what timeframe the collection covers, but it's 1,238 pages at 12 profiles per page, working out to roughly 14,850 profiles (the last page does not have the full 12). This does not seem to be the "worst of the worst" arrested by ICE, it appears to be EVERYONE arrested by ICE. The highlighted individuals' offenses are listed, and among the crimes/alleged crimes that apparently rank a person among the "WORST OF THE WORST" are "Marijuana," "Unauthorized Use of Vehicle," "Perjury," and "Fraud."

Readers also wrote in that weekend to heap further scorn on the site.

It turns out that we were all correct to look askance at the whole thing. The number of profiles eventually grew to 25,000, which clearly indicates that something screwy was going on, since even the "new and improved" brownshirt ICE is not going to be able to arrest 10,000 people in a little over a month. The list of "crimes" also expanded, to include things as trivial as speeding and jaywalking. If those things make you "the worst of the worst," then you folks should be ashamed of reading a site written by (Z).

This obvious propaganda effort became so comically bad that CNN eventually launched an investigation. And they found exactly what you think they found. In essence, DHS just collected data on every brown-skinned prisoner who has crossed paths with law enforcement in the last decade or so. It didn't matter if those folks were actually arrested by ICE, or even by one of the other DHS agencies. It didn't matter if those folks were convicted. Obviously, it also didn't matter what crime (or, in many cases, misdemeanor) a person was charged with—any offense made a person one of "the worst of the worst." And DHS's data entry was terrible, such that many photos and names were matched with the wrong crimes. If you were accused of jaywalking and marijuana possession, and DHS put up a website saying you'd been arrested for raping a 12-year-old, do you think you might have a case for defamation? We bet there are a lot of lawyers out there willing to give it a try.

When called out on the utter fiasco of a website, DHS admitted that there were issues, and they were the fault of a "glitch." Hm, that's an odd way to spell "Kristi Noem." A spokesperson said that the website will be "fixed," but really, who cares? The site was ridiculous on its face, and now it's been proven to be a work of (racist) fiction. Nobody can possibly take it seriously anymore, excepting people who already believed the U.S. is being overrun by teeming hordes of brown immigrants. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Jumpin' Jack Flash, It Was a Gas, Gas, Gas (Redux)

When we ran a remembrance of staff dachshund Flash last week, we really did not intend to have a sequel. However, we got a wonderful outpouring of support from readers, which was much appreciated. Some of those messages had thoughts and wisdom we thought was worth sharing, particularly for those readers who have pets, and even more particularly for those readers who have also lost pets recently (and we heard from several). So, here goes:

(Z) and Otto thank everyone who wrote in—this is just a small sampling of the very large number of very kind messages. The thought that maybe Flash is having fun right now with other Electoral-Vote.com dogs (and cats?) is a very nice one. Oh, and we hope we did not violate any confidences in sharing these condolences.

Also, we had quite a number of readers who expressed an interest in making a contribution in Flash's memory. (Z) and (A) and a couple of readers discussed this, and thought carefully about it, and would ask that anyone who wishes to do so consider Pet Haven of Minnesota's Community Response Program, which is helping with the pets of families who have been displaced or otherwise impacted by ICE operations in Minnesota. We believe that, unlike many other fundraising operations, a one-time donation here will not subject you to a lifetime of fundraising appeals. That's what we were told, at least—fingers crossed. And since Flash got a pick-me-up when HE was displaced by Bob's passing, it seems appropriate to pay it forward to other pets who have been displaced through no fault of their own, and no fault of their humans.

Again, many thanks from (Z) and Otto, and have a good weekend, all! (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones