In the Mood

The spirit of today’s political turmoil captured in an old cartoon by Canadian cartoonist Dave Whamond.


74 thoughts on “In the Mood”

  1. runner-up ‘toon also by whamond capturing the ever-continual state of the democratic party

    Dave Whamond cartoon | Cartoons |

  2. Patd

    You outdid yourself this morning with the intro.  Herding cats is my all time favorite advertisements and the cartoons are definitely keepers.

    Thanks for all your hard work.


  3. Bink on a roll last night with posts #100, 101, 102. Excellent points, lots to ponder, agree completely. 

  4. This time the battle will be entirely at the ballot box. Don’t vote for an actor and especially don’t vote for a bad actor.

  5. Jack, the problems with the portion of the ruling that declares that a President has “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no  immunity for unofficial acts.” are numerous.  

    Oops, hit Post too soon.

    … The biggest issue I believe has been created by the opinion is that there is no avenue of review open to either the judicial or congressional branches of government for official acts of the president. It is as if the Court has said that every official act enjoys the same level of absolute immunity from review that the pardon power has.

    There is considerable uncertainty about what, if any, limits still exist for those acts ostensibly falling under the first clause of the three. That is a problem because of an evidentiary ruling made in the decision that a court cannot take motive or intention into account when faced with a possible criminal act that before yesterday would be prosecutable. Motive and intention are central elements to almost every crime committed, so making a case for any crime committed during a President’s time in office (e.g. murder carried out at a President’s direction) is virtually impossible now. That has not been the case in the past. Relatively recent examples that stand out are Vince Foster, Hillary’s emails, Nixon’s tapes – all of which were investigated but did not result in charges. A second problem is that with respect to the presumption articulated in the second clause, that is a burden shifting mechanism that places the burden on the prosecution to refute any official acts claim, which may or may not be possible from an evidentiary standpoint because of executive privilege. A third problem is that there is no clarity about where the lines exist between official and unofficial acts.

    But perhaps the biggest issues raised in the opinion are the absolute immunity for executive conversations between the President and the Attorney General. As I understand the ruling, there is no review of any directions given to the attorney general and Justice Department actions as a result thereof. That is arguably also the case for direction to the military to act when the President, in his sole discretion, takes an action as Commander in Chief. The potential scenarios are frightening.

  6. Roberts’ ruling directly contradicts the impeachment clause which expressly states a PotUS can be “convicted of” (and therefore capable of committing) “high CRIMES, BRIBERY, TREASON, and misdemeanors

    Why else would an impeachment clause be in there? For a bunch of “originalists” today’s court-jesters are not thinking inside the box. 

  7. NYT: Ruling Opens Door to Airing of Evidence

    NYT: “if Judge Chutkan sticks to her practice of dealing quickly with procedural matters and is able to schedule the hearing for September or October, it could lead to something extraordinary: a mini-trial of sorts unfolding in the nation’s capital in what could be the homestretch of the presidential campaign. It could look a lot like a full-on trial of Mr. Trump, lacking only a jury to render a verdict.”
    “A hearing could easily take weeks. And it could result in testimony not only from Mr. Pence and his advisers, but also from a cast of characters including lawyers and campaign aides who were part of the fake elector scheme, and state officials who were subject to arm-twisting by Mr. Trump.”


  8. We ALL got skin in this game.  

    Orange Lurch would rather rule in hell (under Putin, of course) than serve in heaven, to borrow a line or two.

  9. Well… Professor Laurence Tribe was alarmed by the immunity ruling…  that’s good enough for me.
    Jamie… as both of us being long time cat owners… we know the truth to that cartoon!

  10. I don’t know what course Mr Biden must chart, (that’s way above my pay grade) as long as he fully realizes the extent of the war we’re in—with maga and thereby with the Russian.

  11. Ivy, I don’t believe the ruling limits Congress’ power under the Impeachment Clause.  The President is subject to impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but is immune from prosecution for those offenses by DOJ (and potentially states prosecution) if committed while he is in office.  

  12. Renee, I’m keeping an eye out for Laurence’s assessment of the opinion.  I’ll post it if I notice it – please do the same.

  13. Pogo, thanks. It sounds increasingly like separating the fly shit from the pepper territory. 🪰

  14. reuben Scott
    Billionaires own the media, so all we are seeing and hearing is billionaires propaganda. It’s just that simple

  15. Here’s Laurence Tribe on the opinion at Media Matters.

    This is a devastating blow to our system of government. In fact, probably the most eloquent and elaborate dissent, which I haven’t seen quoted in the press much, is that of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said that it is a five-alarm fire for self-government under democracy. And the reason is that the court was really flying the flag of the Constitution upside down. It was suggesting that just because an act is official, that it is something a president can do but that others can’t do, that creates a cloak of immunity. That’s upside down. It is worse to use the cloak of presidential authority to commit ordinary crimes for which the rest of us would go to jail than it is to do things that are purely personal.

    For all practical purposes, this is absolute immunity. It’s dangerous and it means we have to be even more careful never to elect a president who would think, let alone say, he wants to be a dictator on day one.

    ANDREA MITCHELL (HOST): Professor Tribe, could a president take a bribe with impunity, with immunity?

    TRIBE: Sure looks like it. Unless he is impeached and convicted for bribery, the fact that the bribe is for the exercise of one of his core powers, like a pardon, creates a cloud that might make the president immune. The difficulty is, as Andrew Weissman and as Marcus have carefully elaborated, not only are these acts immune, but the court held by another majority, 5 to 4, not 6 to 3, over the partial dissent of Justice Barrett, who is establishing a degree of independence.

    It held by a vote of 5 to 4 you can’t even use evidence of the way the president’s core powers have been used. So if, for example, a bribe is offered for the president to exercise a core power like the pardon. You might be able to show that money passed hands, but you can’t introduce evidence of that — of the pardon that ultimately resulted because that is one of the president’s core powers. It makes no sense. And the two dissents, one by Justice Sotomayor and one by Justice Jackson, really ripped to shred the threadbare, I’m afraid to say, almost sophomoric, and foolish arguments by the chief justice of the United States, fantasizing that even though all presidents in our past have assumed that they would be subject to criminal prosecution even for misconduct that was a crime in interacting with their own Justice Department — after all, that’s what Nixon did and that’s why he needed a pardon.

    And with Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC.

    Far be it from me to question Professor Tribe’s take on the opinion.

  16. Very surprising move. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has agreed to postponement of Trump sentencing in light of Trump’s lawyers arguing the SCOTUS immunity decision entitles them to dismissal of the conviction

  17. Dems to introduce amendment to reverse Supreme Court immunity ruling.

    Anything that gets Democratic voters focused on Supreme Court in the presidential campaign is helpful. With Dobbs and everything else it seems like they get it more than ever.

    Btw, I wonder if Thomas and Alito realize first thing Trump would do is force them out (like he did to Anthony Kennedy) so that he can replace them with younger versions of them.


  18. Getting us started in the morning like a Rooster welcoming the new day. Much appreciated!

    Also like cooking on the Iron Chef…you never know what’s the secret ingredient until it’s revealed. 

  19. And here’s Pr. Tribe’s guest essay in NYT.

    On Monday the Supreme Court dispensed with the rule of law by effectively depriving the American people of crucial information we should have had before the November election.
    The question before the justices in Trump v. United States: Was Donald Trump immune from prosecution for the crimes the special counsel Jack Smith accused him of committing while president?
    The answer should have been obvious: No, presidents cannot commit crimes aimed at obstructing the peaceful transfer of power without facing consequences. Indeed, to my knowledge, no court has ever held that a president could be criminally immune under any circumstances.
    Instead of delivering that judgment many months ago and allowing the trial to proceed, the justices have given Mr. Trump the gift of delay piled upon delay. By taking nearly 10 weeks to deliberate before returning the case to the district court — and by sending it back not even for immediate trial but for preliminary determinations that could trigger yet another round of appeals — they have extinguished any realistic hope of getting a verdict in the Jan. 6 case before November. American voters will enter ballot booths to choose between Donald Trump and President Biden without knowing whether Mr. Trump is guilty of the crimes with which a grand jury of his fellow citizens charged him.
    This decision may seem like a reflection of a rogue conservative majority that can, in time, be changed. But it is a sign of a much deeper problem — one that, when the time is ripe, will require constitutional reforms to solve and perhaps even a new branch of government.
    Although the opinion features a high-minded disclaimer that the court is not granting Mr. Trump or any future president complete immunity, the practical effect of this decision is presumptive immunity for all future presidents and complete immunity by delay for Mr. Trump.
    This prospect was not lost on Mr. Trump. He repeatedly obtained delays to avoid trial, turning the legal machinery of the court system against itself to buy what he needed most: time — time to distract, delay and spin his own version of the story as he sought to find a way to make these devastating charges disappear. If he becomes president again, he could have his new attorney general fire Mr. Smith and deep-six the entire prosecution.
    Regardless of whether you think Mr. Trump would have been acquitted or convicted in a trial, immunity by running out the clock is justice delayed and thus justice denied.
    So how did our legal system get tripped up by his persistent delay strategy? And why does it have such perilous ramifications for the rule of law?
    The Constitution’s framers erected a structure they hoped would ensure, as far as humanly possible, that no person, including a president, would be above the law. But they also designed the prosecutorial arm of government — which now includes the attorney general and the special counsels — to be dependent on the president. As centuries passed, this has created serious problems.
    To repair the profound and growing problem of presidential unaccountability, we must dare to design a separate branch of government, outside the existing three, charged with investigating and prosecuting violations of federal criminal laws.
    The process of amending the Constitution is long and cumbersome and could take years. Although it requires no involvement by the president, it can happen only after our constitutional republic puts Trumpism behind it. But a decisive victory over the MAGA movement, either now or in the years ahead, could provide the political energy needed to make structural change possible, persuading a future supermajority in Congress to advance an amendment to repair the dangers embedded in our constitutional structure before it is too late.
    Precedent exists for a prosecutorial arm separate from the presidency. In other nations and more than 40 states, the chief executive has no power to remove the head of the government’s prosecutorial authority. In a majority of those states, voters elect attorneys general who are independent of the governor. That would be one route for selecting an independent federal prosecutor to head the fourth branch. Another would retain appointment of the chief federal prosecutor by the president but ensure that official’s independence by preventing removal without good cause.
    To be sure, there are risks. There’s no perfect system of government that individuals with insatiable thirst for dominance cannot corrupt or subvert. In the one I envision, an individual motivated less by justice than by greed for power could come to wield the immense authority of the federal prosecutor. What would prevent that person from going rogue? Courts? Congress? The people?
    The answer is all of the above.
    By creating a fourth branch less powerful than the presidency and subject to checks and balances — both from the judiciary, with its power of judicial review, and from the legislature, with its power of the purse — we can fortify our system from the kinds of abuse we have sadly witnessed in our times and are likely to see repeated and amplified because of Monday’s anti-democratic decision.

    Think he’s not concerned?

  20. wonder if Thomas and Alito realize first thing Trump would do is force them out 

    They’re counting on it and so are their wives. 

  21. Poobah, maybe you can explain to me how paying hush money to a porn star to keep her quiet during the campaign for president could be an official act – pretend I’m 5.

  22. Any Dem can beat Trump. GOP has the wrong nominee. All are within or close to margin of error.

    CNN Post-debate Poll  

    Trump 49% 

    Biden 43%   


    Trump 47%

    Harris 45%


    Trump 48%

    Newsom 43%


    Trump 47%

    Buttigieg 43%


    Trump 47%

    Whitmer 42%

  23. CNN? The ones who gave us that debate?
    Oh yes, lets delve into this nice platter of media sewage.  

    Should we speculate on what CNN’s AGENDA might be? I guess we could just examine that “debate”, huh……

    CNN: Oh, hey…..look at this you guys…..ALL the Democrats could beat him hands down, right? Right?
    Please check out the top dog at CNN and try to imagine what agenda he might be pushing.
    Or maybe,,,just maybe….look at that stump Chris Licht town hall and that Firehose of LIES cnn called a debate.

    CNN is just more Fox. Got any Fox polls to put up?

  24. This is not hard. If you fuck with Biden you’re going to SPLIT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  History shows that the Split Democrats NEVER win.  Yes, Obama won after the schism but it was OBAMA, after having led all the way.
    I just can’t understand this Push to Lose.
    And this time—we lose it all.
    Joe is fighting the billionaires, he’s fighting CNN, the NYT, Fox, he’s fighting Russia. They’re all out there arrayed against him.

    It’s fucking time to have his back.

  25. We ALL got skin in this game.

    Any ordinary citizen who’s lost a loved one by unaddressed gun violence, opioids, bullying and suicide, border crossings, or botched covid response has skin in this game. If you add in the military “suckers and losers,” you’ve got a lot of skinned people.

  26. Biden now talking live about climate change. Always a good wedge against Trump’s anti-science ignorance.

    But another prompter speech not really what he needs to be doing right now. Still hasn’t done anything unscripted since debate. Maybe he’ll take some questions at this event.

  27. First and so far only elected Dem off the reservation.

    Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas (Austin) calls on Biden to withdraw.

    “Too much is at stake to risk a Trump victory. President Biden saved our democracy by delivering us from Trump in 2020. He must not deliver us to Trump in 2024.”

  28. ABC’s @GStephanopoulos has landed the first post-debate interview with Biden. It’s happening on Friday. First clip will be released Friday night; “the extended interview will air Sunday, July 7, on ‘This Week with George Stephanopoulos’ and @GMA on Monday, July 8,” ABC says.

  29. POTUS Joe needs a televised town hall.
    I sure don’t need it.  Any sane person doesn’t need it.  But he needs to do it for some folks. 
    Gotta drive a ways to vote but will only vote in the general this year, as I’m afraid to affiliate with a party at this point.  In Texas, you could choose which ballot you wanted when you went to vote and you tapped a screen so nobody there knew.   Here, they want to know your political proclivities now.  Considering the situation, I don’t feel safe. 

  30. ‘You Are Complicit’: Historian Gets Mad At CNN, Media For Helping Trump By Highlighting Biden’s Debate Showing (

    Historian Allan Lichtman on Monday criticized CNN and the media by claiming the media helped former President Donald Trump’s election prospects by only focusing on President Joe Biden after his poor debate performance on Thursday.
    Biden, during the debate, talked with a raspy voice and trailed off while speaking, leading to worries regarding his age and fitness for another presidential term. Lichtman on “CNN News Central” said CNN and the media are playing a role “in Donald Trump gaslighting his way to the presidency and threatening our democracy” by disregarding the former president through paying more attention to Biden’s debate performance than Trump’s.
    “I love you guys in the media, but I have to say you are complicit in Donald Trump lying and conning his way to the presidency,” Lichtman said. “All the attention has been on Biden’s faltering debate. But Donald Trump’s debate was vastly worse. It was based entirely on lies. More than 30 significant lies. That’s one lie for about every one minute and 20 and 30 seconds. He threatened our democracy by saying he wouldn’t accept necessarily the results of a fair election.”
    “He said he would seek retribution. Why wasn’t that the headline? Why wasn’t that the greatest concern from the debate rather than all the focus on Joe Biden?” he continued. “There’s an old saying: ‘It’s not just the evil people who wreak havoc on the world. It’s the good people who don’t do enough to stop them.’ And the media right now is complicit in Donald Trump gaslighting his way to the presidency and threatening our democracy.”

  31. repeating for emphasis from a guy who has science on his side.  at least he’s been correct 9 out of the last 10 elections:

    “I love you guys in the media, but I have to say you are complicit in Donald Trump lying and conning his way to the presidency,” Lichtman said. “All the attention has been on Biden’s faltering debate. But Donald Trump’s debate was vastly worse. It was based entirely on lies. More than 30 significant lies. That’s one lie for about every one minute and 20 and 30 seconds. He threatened our democracy by saying he wouldn’t accept necessarily the results of a fair election.”</p>

    … he continued. “There’s an old saying: ‘It’s not just the evil people who wreak havoc on the world. It’s the good people who don’t do enough to stop them.’ And the media right now is complicit in Donald Trump gaslighting his way to the presidency and threatening our democracy.”

  32. David Dayan
    From me: Setting aside everything else, campaign finance laws dictate that the only Democrats who can seamlessly use the hundreds of millions of $$ currently raised for the election are Joe Biden & Kamala Harris. Anyone else would start from scratch

    At most, Biden could give $3,300 directly to a new candidate. His campaign account had $91 million at the end of May and raised $33 million more since last Thursday.
    Kamala could use all of it. Another candidate would have to re-raise it. https

  33. Think it’s time to stop framing it as a “king,” too.

    Charles III  (or his dearly departed  mum) is not what we’re looking at if tRUMPsky (or any Republican) were to win.  

    All hands in deck for Biden/Harris 2024.

  34. its too late, and only getting later by the minute
    i was waiting for the post-debate polls to assess the damage and all indicators suggest it’s minimal

    Kamala would have to head a replacement ticket, for a variety of reasons, finances certainly being one, her being the incumbent VP another, her having received tens of millions of votes already as a VP candidate…

    Can confirm she looks Presidential in black 👍

  35. The guy who’s predicted 9 out of 10 elections…..which one did he miss?

    It appears, after a cursory search, that hr missed Bush v Gore, but I’m not sure about that.
    (He didn’t miss)

  36. the one you suspect

    the “1 out if 10” is actually 2016, due to some qualifications and modifications that he uses to warrant getting booked as “the man who accurately predicted 9 of the last 10” elections's%20predictions%20from%201984,%2Dsquared%20value%20of%2070.56%25.

    he makes good points, regardless.

    “Man with 80% record” doesn’t have the same ring to it, 80% is still a good record, though

  37. Despite the full court press by certain pundits and talking heads (I never bother with the magat think), I am still a Joe voter.  I don’t care a rat patooie if he retires the week after inauguration day.

  38. Yep, dropping out after the inauguration is actuall a pretty good plan.  

    First black woman pres without firing a shot.  (Or splitting the party)


    “Taraji P. Henson made Project 2025 the talk of the BET Awards”

    “Show up and show out when it’s time to vote, because it’s not just about the presidential election, you guys. It’s time for us to play chess, not checkers. It’s about making decisions that will affect us as human beings. Our careers, our next generations to come. Did you know that it is now a crime to be homeless? Pay attention. It’s not a secret: Look it up. They are attacking our most vulnerable citizens. The Project 2025 plan is not a game. Look it up!” -TPH

    “Henson went on to reference Project 2025’s proposals to require mandatory national service, which could include compulsory military service and has many people concerned about the reinstitution of the draft. She also talked about the potential for the next president to seat three Supreme Court justices.”

    “The plan, which includes everything from rolling back civil rights legislation to restricting contraception and abortion access, would effectively place the United States under authoritarian Christian nationalist rule and purge people from the government if they’re seen as disloyal to Trump. And despite all its horrors, recent reports suggest many people still don’t know about the plan.”

    “During the show, she appeared in an ad with Vice President Kamala Harris, in which the two Howard University alums discussed the election and the civil rights at stake.”

    This is what we need!

  40. never bother with the magat think

    Blue, yesterday I inadvertently saw some screen shots on a magger tv. They were working overtime to slime the vice president. They must be scared.

  41. Stay the course with Biden/Harris, and campaign against Project 2025.   If POTUS Joe wants to retire before the end of his next term, that’s his choice.  What’s up with Pelosi? She’s usually seeing/playing the long game.   Still doing it? 

    I can tell you what would terrify MAGAts, though. Michelle Obama. They are still worried that she’s going to be the candidate.

  42. All of us Olbermann listeners know that the NYT has a vendetta against Biden for not being granted a sit-down with him, everything you’re linking from them lately, Mr. C, jibes with Olbermann’s assertions

    Lol, they need 4 people to
    compose a hit-piece

  43. NYT?
    Why don’t we just start putting up Fox articles and be done with it?
    NYT needs to just fuck the hell right off.

  44. “People who have spent time with President Biden over the last few months or…”
    Yoo-hoo, all you people who have spent time with…etc 

    Anyone remember Judith Miller?

  45. I agree with Pelosi: “Is this an episode or is this a condition?”

    We need some assurance this or worse won’t happen again. But apparently he’s not doing anything unscripted until Friday with Stephanopoulos.

  46. If Joe were to step down from the candidacy, he would need to step down from the presidency. Give Kamala the incumbency. It’s all or nothing.

    I’m not saying I think he should. I want him to stay in it to win it.

  47. Finally.Let’s roll …

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House announced Tuesday that President Joe Biden will meet with congressional leaders and Democratic governors, sit for a network TV interview and hold a press conference in the coming days, a blitz designed to push back against growing pressure for the 81-year-old president to step aside in the 2024 race

  48. Wait, what, the explanation is Sleepy Joe?

    I wasn’t very smart. I decided to travel around the world a couple times, going through I don’t know how many time zones — for real I think it 15 time zones… I didn’t listen to my staff. And then I came back and nearly fell asleep on stage.“
    Washington Post


  49. when Regan debated Mondale he took a detour on the Pacific Coast highway and yet he did get a second term.   Goopers are the world’s biggest hypocrites 

Leave a Reply