Nomadic Politics

One Nation's Reckoning: The True Story of the Uphill March from Weimar

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 16:40:00 +0300

by Nomad

In April 1945, just five miles from Buchenwald, the citizens of Weimar insisted they “knew nothing.” General George S. Patton decided they would see everything.

After World War II, U.S. occupation authorities quickly saw that many Germans were denying or downplaying what had happened under Nazism. To address this, they took control of newspapers, radio, and film through the Allied Control Council. Nazi media was shut down, and new, supervised outlets were created. These were used to show clear evidence of crimes, including footage from concentration camps, so people could see what had really happened.

Another major effort was “reeducation,” led by the Office of Military Government, United States. Schools were changed: textbooks were rewritten, and teachers were retrained. Students were taught about democracy and about events like the Holocaust in a factual way..

Cultural programming also played a role: films such as Death Mills were shown to German audiences, often compulsorily, depicting the liberation of concentration camps. The aim was not only to inform but to break through denial by making the evidence undeniable and immediate

The U.S. also used trials to fight denial. The Nuremberg Trials gathered a large amount of evidence and testimony about Nazi crimes and made it public. At the same time, denazification programs tried to remove former Nazi members from positions of power. This showed that individuals, not just the system, were responsible.

The video tells the story of one town being held accountable.

Even with these efforts, many Germans resisted or avoided accepting responsibility. Some claimed the evidence was exaggerated, while others focused on their own suffering during the war. As the Cold War began, the U.S. shifted its focus toward rebuilding Germany, and some of these programs became less strict. Still, the early actions helped establish the facts and laid the foundation for a more honest reckoning in later years.

Cato Institute Study: 30 Years of Immigration Saved America $14.5 Trillion in Deficits

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 13:21:00 +0300

by Nomad

A recent Cato Institute study (published February 2026 by David J. Bier and colleagues) delivers a striking message: Over the past three decades (1994–2023), immigrants—both legal and undocumented—have been a major fiscal asset to the United States, not a burden.

The Cato Institute is a well-known American think tank that promotes libertarian ideas. Because of its heavy focus on free-market economics and funding ties to conservative donors (like the Koch family) it is generally thought of as a right-wing organization.

However, they consider themselves libertarian in their policy positions, typically advocating diminished government intervention in domestic, social, and economic policies and decreased military and political intervention worldwide.

That's the reason why this study raised a few eyebrows.

The researchers built on the respected National Academies of Sciences model, analyzing real historical data from federal, state, and local budgets across those 30 years. They tracked taxes paid versus benefits received (including welfare, education, healthcare, pensions, and more), and factored in savings from reduced government borrowing.

The Headline Numbers

Immigrants generated a cumulative fiscal surplus of $14.5 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2024 dollars). This breaks down to $10.6 trillion in direct net gains (taxes paid minus benefits received) plus $3.9 trillion saved on interest payments because the government borrowed less.

Every single year from 1994 to 2023, immigrants paid more in taxes than they consumed in government benefits—and the positive gap grew over time, hitting a record high in 2023 (around $878 billion that year alone).

Without immigrants, U.S. public debt (all levels of government) would stand at roughly 205% of GDP—nearly double the actual 2023 level. That threshold is often cited as a point where debt could spiral into a full-blown crisis.

Immigrants cut overall U.S. budget deficits by about one-third (33%) in real terms over the period.

Who Contributed—and How Much?

The positive impact held across groups, challenging many common assumptions:

College-educated immigrants drove the largest share: roughly $11.7 trillion in debt reduction.

Non-college-educated / low-skilled immigrants (including high-school dropouts) still delivered a net positive: $2.8 trillion in reduced debt. No educational category was a net negative.

Noncitizens (including undocumented immigrants) accounted for $6.3 trillion of the total savings. Undocumented immigrants alone reduced deficits by at least $1.7 trillion.

Even when including the second generation (mostly U.S.-born children of immigrants, who are still young and not yet full taxpayers), the fiscal effect remained positive every year.

Why Do Immigrants End Up Being Net Contributors?

Several structural factors make the difference:

Immigrants arrive at working age (average around 25), so they enter the workforce quickly, have high employment rates, and pay substantial taxes—often more per person than their population share would suggest.

They use fewer costly benefits:
- Lower access to old-age entitlements like Social Security and Medicare (due to arrival timing, status restrictions, or fewer government pensions).
- About half the per-person education spending (they enroll fewer K-12 years on average).
- Average or below-average use of needs-based programs (welfare, Medicaid, food assistance, etc.), despite higher poverty rates in some cases—largely because undocumented status blocks eligibility.
Pure public goods (like military spending) don't rise much with extra people, so adding productive workers improves the overall balance.

This isn't just theory—the study uses conservative assumptions and focuses strictly on direct fiscal flows (not broader economic growth from immigration, which would make the numbers even more positive).

Bottom Line for Policy

The data flips the script on decades of claims that immigrants "drain" resources or drive deficits. Instead, they've subsidized the U.S. government, helping keep debt manageable and averting worse fiscal trouble. As Bier and team put it: "Immigrants are subsidizing the U.S. government."

If you're worried about long-term budget sustainability, the evidence suggests restricting immigration isn't the answer—cutting spending (especially on high-cost entitlement programs) while maintaining or expanding productive immigration flows could be far more effective.

No word about taxing the super-rich from the Cato Institute, of course. The Tax Policy Center (TPC), another think tank based in Washington, has estimated that a proposed wealth tax could raise $6.8 trillion in additional net revenue over the next decade, an average of $680 billion annually.

This 30-year historical look provides one of the clearest, data-driven pictures yet: immigration, as it has actually occurred, has been a powerful fiscal stabilizer for America.

Asking AI: Can the US President Sue His Own Justice Department? A Legal Oddity Explained

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Tue, 3 Feb 2026 15:32:00 +0300

by Nomad.

The New York Times reported in October of 2025:

President Trump is demanding that the Justice Department pay him about $230 million in compensation for the federal investigations into him, according to people familiar with the matter, who added that any settlement might ultimately be approved by senior department officials who defended him or those in his orbit.

So I asked DeepSeek - a research-oriented AI- a simple question: Can a sitting president sue his own Justice Department and if that's possible, can he settle out of court?

Here is its response:

It sounds like the plot of a political thriller: a sitting U.S. President files a lawsuit against his own Justice Department. Could it actually happen? And if it did, could they just settle the case quietly out of court?
The short, surprising answer is yes, it’s legally possible—but it would be a constitutional and political earthquake. Let's unpack this fascinating legal oddity.

The "Yes, But..." on the Lawsuit

At the most basic level, the President is a citizen. If a government agency injures a citizen, that citizen can sue. The Justice Department doesn't have a magical shield. For instance, if a President believed the DOJ unlawfully searched his purely private, non-official property, he might have the legal standing to file a case.

The mechanism would likely be under laws like the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which allows citizens to challenge government actions that are "arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion."

Here’s where it gets incredibly strange: The President is the head of the Executive Branch. The Department of Justice is a premier agency within that branch. The Attorney General reports to the President.
So, a lawsuit becomes:

The President (as a private plaintiff) vs. The United States (represented by the DOJ, which reports to the President).

Legally, the case caption might read "United States v. United States." The President would be both the top boss of the agency he's suing and the person complaining about it. The conflict of interest is immediate and profound. Who gives instructions to the government's defense lawyers? Their ultimate client is the man suing them.

The "Yes, But..." on a Settlement

Could they settle out of court? Again, in theory, yes. The vast majority of civil lawsuits end in settlement.

But the practical and constitutional problems are immense:

Who Approves the Deal? Any settlement with the U.S. government must be signed off by government lawyers and officials. Those officials work for the President. He would be, in effect, approving both sides of the agreement. This looks less like a legal resolution and more like a unilateral order dressed up as a court settlement.

What’s Being Settled? If the lawsuit aims to stop or limit a criminal investigation (especially one into the President or close associates), a settlement would be seen as the President using the judiciary to control a core executive function. This clashes with his constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Intense Scrutiny: A federal judge would be highly skeptical of such a settlement. Judges can reject deals they deem unfair or collusive, especially when they involve the public interest or Treasury funds. Congress would instantly launch oversight hearings, and the move could be cited as an article of impeachment for abuse of power.

The Real-World Barriers

History shows us why this is a "what if" scenario. No sitting President has ever directly sued the Justice Department. When Presidents have faced legal action, it's usually as a defendant (e.g., Nixon during Watergate) or as a private citizen after leaving office.

The courts have doctrines to avoid getting entangled in intra-branch political fights. They might dismiss such a lawsuit, stating the President lacks a proper legal injury or that the dispute is a political question for Congress to handle through oversight or impeachment.

The Bottom Line

So, can it be done? Legally, the path exists, but it's fraught with monumental conflicts.

Could they settle? Technically, yes, but it would be politically explosive and constitutionally dubious.

The ultimate takeaway is that our system relies on more than just written law. Custom, political consequence, and separation of powers act as powerful guardrails. A President taking this step wouldn't just be filing a lawsuit—he'd be igniting a chain reaction of legal challenges, congressional investigations, and a severe crisis of public confidence.

It's the political equivalent of pressing a big red button: possible in theory, but with consequences so severe that it serves as its own most powerful deterrent.

* * * *

And the Justice Department isn't Trump's only target for grift and revenge. Three days ago, red button pusher-in-chief said he was ready to go after other agencies.

Vetting the Enforcers: How ICE Decides Who Wields the Badge

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 13:42:00 +0300

by Nomad

“They didn’t ask very many questions.” Independent journalist and U.S. military veteran Laura Jedeed recounts how she was hired as a deportation officer by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a six-minute interview at a job fair in Texas, despite never signing any paperwork, not having completed a background check, likely failing a drug test, and publicly sharing her opposition to the Trump administration and its anti-immigrant crackdown.

“It seems like the answer to the question, 'Who are they hiring?' is: They don’t know.”

(Courtesy of Democracy NOW!)

The Voice of the Enemy: Unpacking the Story of "Lord Haw-Haw"

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Tue, 6 Jan 2026 21:34:00 +0300

by Nomad

During the dark early days of World War II, as Nazi Germany's forces swept across Europe, a peculiar and sinister voice crackled across the radio airwaves into British homes.

It was a voice dripping with mockery, condescension, and false camaraderie, delivering Nazi propaganda in an affected, upper-class British accent. The British public dubbed its owner "Lord Haw-Haw." This figure became one of the most infamous traitors in modern history, but his story is more complex than the simple caricature of a turncoat.

Who Was "Lord Haw-Haw"?

The nickname "Lord Haw-Haw" was first applied by British journalist Jonah Barrington of the Daily Express to describe the bizarre, drawling voice on German propaganda broadcasts. The public soon used it as a blanket term for several English-speaking announcers. However, the man who would become irrevocably linked with the persona was William Joyce.

Joyce (1906-1946) was an American-born fascist of Irish Catholic descent who grew up in Ireland and England. Radicalized early, he joined the British Union of Fascists (BUF) under Oswald Mosley in the 1930s, becoming a virulent and violent speaker. Mosley was a British politician who rose to fame during the 1920s and 1930s when, disillusioned with mainstream politics, he turned to fascism. As a result of his oratory skills, Joyce was promoted in 1934 to be the BUF's Director of Propaganda, and later appointed deputy leader.

In public, Joyce described Mosley as 'the greatest Englishman I have ever known,' yet privately, he criticized 'The Bleeder' for being insufficiently antisemitic and radical. He lamented, 'Mosley was hopeless. He was the worst leader of what should have been the best cause in the world.'

Matters came to a head in the spring of 1937 when Mosley dismissed Joyce, who promptly established the National Socialist League. With its blatantly antisemitic and pro-Nazi programme, it attracted only a tiny membership.

On 24 August 1939, with the crisis over German claims on Danzig and the Polish Corridor threatening war, Joyce renewed his passport and he and his second wife, Margaret, set out for Berlin. He had good reason to flee. His ramble-rousing had put a target on his back and he feared internment as a security risk at the war's outbreak. Arriving in Germany just days before the invasion of Poland, he decided that he wanted to play 'a clear and definite part' in the war.

That opportunity came on 18 September 1939 when Joyce received a contract as a newsreader at the Reichsrundfunk (German Radio Corporation), a week after making his first broadcast.

The Broadcasts: Content and Impact

Joyce's program, Germany Calling, was broadcast on the Reichsrundfunk (state radio) network. His signature opening, "Germany calling, Germany calling," became instantly recognizable. The broadcasts mixed:

Military News: Often accurate, detailed reports of Allied losses (like sunken ships or downed planes), gleaned from German military intelligence, designed to demoralize listeners.
Mockery and Ridicule: Sneering critiques of the British government, military leadership, and the royal family.
Appeals to Class Resentment: Efforts to pit the "common man" against the "plutocratic" British ruling class.
Psychological Warfare: Suggestions of German invincibility and the futility of resistance.

While the British government initially feared the broadcasts' impact, studies (including the BBC's own Listener Research) showed their primary effect was not mass demoralization but morbid fascination.

People tuned in more for curiosity and entertainment than for belief. The Ministry of Information even subtly encouraged listening, as the broadcasts' obvious lies and pomposity often bolstered British resolve.

As a BBC article notes:

His style was to entertain while undermining his British audience's morale by spreading doubt through semi-plausible rumours, exaggeration and ridicule. In one broadcast, he talked of "panic and confusion… hourly gaining ground" in Britain. "The only wonder is that the people of this doomed island took so long to realise the nature of the positions into which their politicians had led them," he said.

Several reasons were put forward to explain this large audience. Fifty-eight per cent of those questioned listened 'because his version of the news is so fantastic that it is funny.'

A Canadian listener writing to London Calling on 25 November 1939 said 'Whenever we are short of entertainment, we tune in to that comedian. We often wonder whether he knows what a lot of laughter he causes'. A large percentage tuned in 'because so many other people listen to him and talk about it'. A bricklayer's labourer told one of Mass Observation’s reporters: 'There's a feeling you can't turn off. You've got to listen to him' (Mass Observation’s US).

Nevertheless, they sowed a seed of anxiety, making some wonder, "How do they know that?"

The public fascination quickly disappeared when the war began in earnest. As the UK War Museum notes:

For the first eight months of the Second World War, with relative inaction on the battlefronts, Lord Haw Haw had enjoyed an audience sometimes reaching over 50% of the British listening public. Despite rival claimants such as 'Tokyo Rose' and 'Axis Sally,' many would agree with journalist William L. Shirer, who wrote in his End of Berlin Diary that Lord Haw Haw 'had been the war's outstanding radio traitor'.

After the Battle of Britain and the invasion of Russia, Joyce’s broadcasts lost more and more listeners in Britain – but he still remained the number one broadcaster in Berlin and his anti-semitism never faded in its virulence – continuing to blame the war on “Jewish International Finance.”

For his efforts, Joyce continued to live a comfortable life in Berlin and in September 1944 was awarded the Cross of War Merit 1st Class with a certificate signed by Adolf Hitler. As the war worsened, he began to drink heavily and his marriage became a joke with both his wife and he having numerous affairs.

Capture, Trial, and Execution

American radio correspondent Harry W Flannery, encountering Joyce in Berlin during the winter of 1940, noted in his Assignment to Berlin::

'His first broadcasts had been witty, but as he remained in Germany, he had begun to sour. He had lost his sense of humour and with it, I believe, what influence he might have had'.

Lord Haw-Haw's final broadcast was on 30 April 1945, the day of Hitler's suicide. With the Nazi regime crumbling, this broadcast was little more than a drunken, incoherent rant. As Allied forces continued to advance into Germany, Joyce and his wife planned to flee to Sweden before travelling on to neutral Ireland. They only made it as far as the Baltic port of Flensburg, near Germany's border with Denmark.

Not long after Germany surrendered, he was captured by British forces near the Danish border. Notably, he was shot while reaching for his identification papers, and the arresting officer was a Jewish German émigré serving in the British army.

His trial in London was a legal landmark. Joyce was charged with high treason. His defense argued that as an American citizen (and thus a British alien), he owed no allegiance to the Crown.

The prosecution successfully contended that his possession of a British passport (obtained fraudulently in 1933) at the time he fled to Germany granted him state protection and, therefore, a duty of allegiance. This technicality sealed his fate.

The verdict was not without controversy.

Joyce was convicted of high treason for having "adhered to the King's enemies" by broadcasting on their behalf between 18 September 1939 and 2 July 1940, the date when his British passport expired and he became a German citizen.

Despite several legal appeals, the verdict was the same. William Joyce was hanged at Wandsworth Prison on 3 January 1946. He was buried on prison grounds in an unmarked grave.

Joyce remains the last person executed for treason in the United Kingdom.

A Lasting Legacy

The story of Lord Haw-Haw is a cautionary tale about the power of media in wartime, the nature of treason, and the dark allure of ideological extremism. Where is the fine line between false news reporting and premeditated propaganda? Does the freedom of the press cover news reports calculated to demoralize the public?

William Joyce was a man who, consumed by hatred for democracy and seduced by fascism, betrayed the country he lived in to serve a monstrous regime. His legacy endures not for the strength of his propaganda, but as a stark symbol of betrayal, and a fascinating, grim footnote in the history of psychological warfare.

His final, reported words on the gallows—"In death, as in life, I defy the Jews who caused this last war. I thank God for allowing me five and a half years to pursue His work. I have done my duty."—stand as a chilling reminder of the unrepentant fanaticism that defined his life and doomed him.

Lord Haw-Haw's story is less a direct map to any single modern figure and more a primer on the timeless techniques of destabilization propaganda. It shows how the tools of mocking the elite, posing as a truth-teller, exploiting grievance, and using intimate media can be weaponized to undermine public faith in democracy itself.

The ultimate parallel is in the objective: to convince an audience that their own nation's system is so irredeemably corrupt that its collapse—or its overthrow by a radical, strongman alternative—is not only justified but necessary. In that goal, the ghost of William Joyce still very much haunts the airwaves.

Light on the Porch: A Nomadic Politics Exclusive Music Video

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Wed, 24 Dec 2025 20:08:00 +0300

by Nomad

I hope you are having a wonderful holiday.

May your Christmas be filled with warmth, laughter and the comfort of being surrounded by love. I am so grateful for our friendship and I hope the season brings you peace, joy and beautiful moments that remain with you into the new year.

As a special gift to all my friends on this blog, my friend Deniz produced this music video. With the assistance of AI, he single-handedly created the music, lyrics and visuals. Tell us what you think.

Take care of yourself and be strong in these exhausting times.

A Musical Sanity Break: Together We Rise

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Tue, 5 Aug 2025 18:25:00 +0300

by Nomad

Due to health problems, I have been unable to maintain this blog as I would have liked or as you deserve. Please accept my most sincere apologies. Thanks for your patience.

My dearest friend, Deniz, made this song -with the help of AI- especially for my nomads.Deniz also made the video for this music. The subject is, of course, my adopted hometown, Izmir, formerly Smyrna.

I hope you find it a pleasant diversion.

Something Stronger, Something Better: A Quote from Albert Camus

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 22:40:00 +0300

by Nomad

The French philosopher, author, and playwright, Albert Camus was one of the most influential thinkers of the post-World War era. He was the recipient of the 1957 Nobel Prize in Literature at the age of 44, the second-youngest recipient in history. His works include The Stranger, The Plague, The Myth of Sisyphus, The Fall and The Rebel.

One of the key themes that he explored in his works was the coexistence of love and hate as a part of the human condition. How are we to survive in a world gripped - and nearly destroyed - by intractable hate? Can we find the means to cope?

In the quote below, Camus suggests that even in the midst of hatred and adversity, we may still find an “invincible love” within ourselves. But it will require both perseverance and inner strength. Camus emphasizes that one can find an "invincible smile," "invincible calm," and "invincible summer" within. This speaks to his belief in the resilience and fortitude of the human spirit.

One source gives us this detail about his death.

In 1960, Albert Camus, French author, philosopher and journalist, died in an automobile accident at age 46. In his coat pocket lay an unused train ticket. Camus had intense Motorphobia (fear of automobiles), and thus avoided riding in cars as much as possible. Instead, he took trains everywhere, as much as he could. He had planned to travel by train with his wife and children, but at the last minute accepted his publisher’s request to travel with him by car. And so it goes.

Season's Greetings from Nomadic Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Tue, 24 Dec 2024 17:06:00 +0300

by Nomad

Here's a special holiday song for all my Nomads.

Thanks so much for making this community what it is- a safe harbor in stormy seas.

A Thanksgiving Message

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Thu, 28 Nov 2024 11:00:00 +0300

by Nomad

As we gather around our tables this Thanksgiving, we are reminded that hope is a light that shines brightest in our darkest moments. In a world that often seems challenging and uncertain, gratitude becomes our most powerful anchor.

It's the stabilizing influence in our lives.

We find strength not by ignoring our difficulties but by acknowledging them. At the same time, we must choose to appreciate the enduring beauty that surrounds us.

As Mary Angelou once said:

"Be present in all things and be thankful for all things."

This Thanksgiving, let us draw comfort from the love of family, the kindness of friends, the warmth of this small Nomadic community. These are the small blessings that grace our everyday lives.

In the words of Helen Keller:

"Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. Nothing can be done without hope and confidence."

Today, we should choose gratitude over despair. Today we must choose hope over desperation. And in doing this, we can transform our perspective and find resilience.

Even though I have more misgivings than Thanksgivings this year, I want to offer this humble reminder. Even in troubled times, the human spirit remains unbreakable and there is always, always a reason for hope.

I wish you all a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Decision Time: LIVE Coverage of Election Night 2024

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:04:00 +0300

by Nomad

Election Day has finally arrived.

If you choose to believe the polls, Decomcratic Vice-President Kamala Harris and former Republican president Donald Trump have been running neck-and-neck for weeks.

Given that annoying fact, media outlets may have to wait before calling the winner. (Translate that as high anxiety this evening.)

The first polls close at 18:00 EST and the last polling station will close its doors at 01:00 EST. Watch LIVE here with your Nomadic friends as the results begin coming in.

Keep your fingers crossed and take lots of deep breaths.

LIVE: Tim Walz and JD Vance Spar at the 2024 Vice-Presidential Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Tue, 1 Oct 2024 12:52:00 +0300

by Nomad

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Sen. JD Vance of Ohio are meeting Tuesday for their first and only scheduled vice presidential debate.

Walz, who is Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, and Vance, who is on the Republican ticket with former President Donald Trump, will make the case for their respective candidates five weeks before Election Day.

In the leadup to November, they have been crisscrossing the country to introduce themselves to voters, focusing mostly on the handful of battleground states that will determine the outcome.

After a series of political blunders, Sen.Vance heads to this debate less popular among voters than his Democratic rival. None too surprising given the "pet eating" fabrication targeting the Haitian immigrants which Vance promoted even after it was found to be a dangerous xenophobic lie.

According to a new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research:

Negative feelings about Vance are considerably more widespread than positive opinions. About half of registered voters have a somewhat or very unfavorable view of Vance, up from about 4 in 10 in late July, while around one-quarter have a somewhat or very favorable view of him, and a similar share don’t know enough to say.
Walz, by contrast, is better liked. About 3 in 10 voters have a negative view of Walz, while about 4 in 10 have a positive opinion and about 3 in 10 don’t know enough to say.

The broadcast begins on Tuesday, Oct.1 at 9 p.m. ET. and is expected to last 90 minutes. The debate will be moderated by "CBS Evening News" anchor and managing editor Norah O'Donnell and "Face the Nation" moderator and chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan.

NOTE: According to an announcement on Friday, the debate moderators will not conduct any fact-checking and there will be no audience in the studio. Click here for a complete list of the debate rules.

Watch live right here at Nomadic Politics.

LIVE: Harris and Trump Face Off At US Presidential Debate 2024 In Philadelphia

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:28:00 +0300

by Nomad

Republican ex-president Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris meet for the first time on Tuesday night in their only scheduled debate of the U.S. presidential campaign, a key moment in a close-fought contest. The nationally-televised debate takes place just eight weeks before the Nov. 5 election, and days before early voting will start in some states.

The rules for tonight's debate mean each candidate’s microphone is only turned on when it is their turn to speak, there is no studio audience and the candidates aren’t allowed to talk to their staff during breaks or bring any notes with them. Both candidates are provided with only a pen and pad and a bottle of water.

Watch live right here at Nomadic Politics. The broadcast begins at 9 p.m. ET

Netflix: The Antisocial Network: Memes to Mayhem

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:52:00 +0300

by Nomad

If you've ever asked yourself how on earth we could have gotten ourselves in such a pathetic political situation, Netflix currently has a documentary you might find interesting.

“The Antisocial Network: Memes to Mayhem” charts the downward spiral from 4Chan to QAnon, from Rickrolling memes to the January Capitol insurrection, and from the vigilante Anonymous band of hackers to the Donald Trump brand of treason.

This connect-the-dots exercise suggests a highjacking of something that began as a rather silly and juvenile timewaster and morphed into an authoritarian political movement whose members would believe literally anything and follow its leaders any place.

That (at least, according to the documentary creators) all began with 4Chan.

Launched by Christopher "moot" Poole in October 2003, the site hosts boards dedicated to a wide variety of topics, from video games and television to literature, cooking, weapons, music, history, anime, fitness, politics, and sports, among others. Registration is not available and users typically post anonymously.

While members felt that online anonymity offered free expression, others outside that community saw it as a tool for an autocratic ideology.

As one member of the 4Chan notes:

“All of us who had built the culture started seeing our work being used by people we literally despised…”

Alas, only in hindsight.
Yet, those of us who were paying attention, those who recalled the history of the 20th century watched it play out like a shabby remake of a stomach-turning melodrama.

Here's the trailer for this documentary. Give it a watch if you have Netflix

Time to Welcome in the New Year!

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Sun, 31 Dec 2023 13:14:00 +0300

by Nomad

Once again we find ourselves at the end of another year. So long, 2023, and have mercy on us, 2024. Here's wishing good tidings for all my blog friends.

What's been the most important event in 2023 in your opinion?

So, what are your predictions for the new year? Impress us with your powers of prognostication.

It seems a little obvious that the new year will be fraught with tempests and tumult. Are you more optimistic or pessimistic about the near future?

To ease us into the coming year, here's some timeless music from the masters.

Merry Christmas From Nomadic Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Sat, 23 Dec 2023 19:18:00 +0300

by Nomad

I just wanted to wish you all a very merry Christmas. What better way to celebrate the holidays than relaxing music.

Donald Trump Expected to Testify Under Oath in NY Fraud Case

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Sun, 5 Nov 2023 17:59:00 +0300

by Nomad

Co-defendants in the New York civil fraud case Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump testified in court last week. By all accounts, the testimonies proved to be an existential disaster for the Trump empire.

Their defense- such as it was- was that the accountants were the true villains and that the Trump executives had no role in mispresenting the actual value of the corporate properties.

Donald Trump Jr. claimed under oath that he didn’t draft the financial statements, and when he certified them as a trustee, he relied on the Trump Organization accounting and legal teams that he said assured him they were accurate to sign.

Poor naive child.

Eric similarly testified that he relied on outside accountants and lawyers to check financial documents. In other words, he was the real victim of fraud.

One small problem with that defense soon became apparent. The documentation clearly rebuts the "we were shocked- shocked- to find fraud going on" legal defense.

As The Guardian reported on Friday:

Prosecutors presented evidence that showed Eric Trump had signed off on documents that estimated the value of trophy properties such as the Trump Seven Springs estate north of New York City and the Trump National Doral golf club in Florida.

Eric was then forced to backtrack on earlier statements after email and phone records showed him discussing these records. In response, estranged black sheep Mary Trump said it "sounds like perjury is on today's menu."

Here's how MSNBC reported the story on Friday evening:

If anything, next week will be even more explosive. Especially if former President and pathological liar Donald Trump takes the stand. Since Judge Arthur Engoron has already found that Mr. Trump and his two sons engaged in "persistent fraud" Trump's testimony can only make matters worse for the defense.

On the steps of the courthouse on Friday, Eric Trump said that father remains defiant against the "political witch hunt."

"I know he’s very fired up to be here and he thinks this is one of the most incredible injustices he’s ever seen, and it truly is."

The only remaining question in this fraud case is whether New York Attorney General, Letitia James, will open a criminal case against the Trumps and whether perjury charges will be filed against the family.

Here's MSNBC 's take on what we can expect when Trump testifies.

Indictment Number Four: Trump Charged in Georgia Election Interference Case

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:14:00 +0300

by Nomad

In a significant development, an Atlanta-based grand jury has handed down indictments against Donald Trump and 18 additional individuals, encompassing state charges linked to their unsuccessful attempts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Marking a historic moment, the 41-count indictment, revealed on Monday, 14 August, represents the fourth instance of criminal charges being levied against Donald Trump. The indictment also included an additional 30 unindicted co-conspirators in addition to the charged defendants.

Read the 41-count, 98-page indictment here.

As outlined by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis during a press briefing on Monday, all 19 co-defendants are required to present themselves for surrender no later than noon on August 25. This announcement follows the public release of the indictment.

Here's that press conference.

According to the indictment, Trump and others “knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome” of the election, And those charged “unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in a criminal enterprise” after Trump lost the election in Georgia.

"That conspiracy contained a common plan and purpose to commit two or more acts of racketeering activity in Fulton County, Georgia, elsewhere in the State of Georgia, and in other states.”

Along with the 13 counts, the indictment includes a charge of violating Georgia's RICO Act, or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.
Since 1970, this legislation has been a useful tool in the prosecution of the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count.

Former President Donald Trump Indicted for 2020 Election Interference

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Wed, 2 Aug 2023 13:37:00 +0300

by Nomad

On Tuesday, August 1, a federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia handed down an indictment against former President Donald Trump.

The indictment alleges his involvement in a conspiracy to manipulate the 2020 election results in favor of President Joe Biden. This conspiracy is said to encompass the events of January 6, 2021, commonly called an insurrection, which a prosecutor characterized as an extraordinary attack on the democratic process.

As the indictment was unveiled, special counsel Jack Smith remarked, "The foundation of this assault was constructed upon falsehoods - falsehoods propagated by the accused."

According to MSNBC:

The first charge alleges a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. “by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election,” according to the Justice Department.

The second details “a conspiracy to impede” the Jan. 6, 2021, congressional proceeding where the election results were certified.

The third was “a conspiracy against the right to vote and to have that vote counted,” said DOJ in a statement.

As USAToday notes:

The indictment details multiple strategies Trump and his allies employed in an attempt to overturn his election loss.
One of the methods Trump used in a bid to steal the election involves a “fake elector” scheme to overturn President Joe Biden’s victories in key battleground states.
Trump also deliberately deceived his supporters and directed them to march to the Capitol in an effort to pressure former Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers to reject the certification of electors, the indictment alleges.
Six co-conspirators are referenced in the indictment but are unnamed. Among those co-conspirators is Jeffrey Clark, a high-ranking Justice Department official in the Trump administration.

Now grappling with his third legal case, Donald Trump has vehemently denied any wrongdoing. He has decried the indictment as a deliberate effort to derail his aspirations for a 2024 presidential run.

"Why didn’t they do this 2.5 years ago?" Trump posted on his Truth Social account. "Why did they wait so long? Because they wanted to put it right in the middle of my campaign. Prosecutorial Misconduct!"

Former President Donald Trump is set to make his initial court appearance tomorrow at E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, situated within close proximity—barely two miles—from the White House.

This historic case will be presided over by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee. That detail must be extremely upsetting for Trump and his team of beleaguered lawyers. After all, this won't be the first time Chutkan and Trump's attorneys have tangled.

In the autumn of 2021, the judge ruled that the House Jan. 6 select committee should be granted authorization to delve into extensive archives of documents from Trump's tenure in the White House.

"Presidents," she wrote, "are not kings."

A fitting epitaph for Trump if ever there was one.

History: Ex-President Trump Indicted on 37 Counts in Classified Documents Case

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Fri, 9 Jun 2023 12:22:00 +0300

by Nomad

In a significant turn of events, former President Donald Trump has made history as the first former president to be indicted on thirty-seven counts in the special counsel's classified documents probe.

In addition to the 31 counts of mishandling of documents, there are charges of obstruction of justice, destruction or falsification of records, conspiracy, and false statements.

Trump's attorney Jim Trusty had confirmed that he would appear in court Tuesday but, notably, would not say which attorneys will be present with the former president that day.

Trusty disclosed that Trump is also facing a charge under the Espionage Act.

This act addresses espionage-related offenses and aims to protect national security by punishing those who disclose or transmit classified information without authorization.

This multifaceted inquiry delves into a range of crucial matters, shedding light on the actions and consequences surrounding the classified documents and their aftermath.

Things are finally coming together, it seems. Bad news for Mr. Trump but good news for the rule of law.

Update:

LIVE from Outside of Miami Federal Court House, before Trump's arraignment.

LIVE: Ex-President Trump Formally Arraigned in Manhattan Criminal Court

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Tue, 4 Apr 2023 17:16:00 +0300

by Nomad

Today- 4 April 2023- former president and 2024 presidential candidate Donald Trump is scheduled to make a court appearance in New York City where he will be arraigned on numerous charges linked to payments made to conceal information - an event that marks the first instance in U.S. history where an ex-president will face criminal charges.

As CNN noted:

The indictment returned last week by a grand jury against Trump is also expected to be unsealed Tuesday, providing the public – and Trump’s legal team – with the first details about the specific charges he will face.

The processing will include an appearance before Judge Juan Merchan, whom Trump has already ridiculed in various remarks on his Truth Social platform. Trump will be fingerprinted and the special charges will be revealed. In all, this processing will likely be brief, 20 to 30 minutes long. In addition, Judge Merchan yesterday ruled that TV cameras will not be allowed in the courtroom during the trial.

Watch the events live right here on Nomadic Politics. It has all the makings of an unprecedented circus.

About Time: Former President Trump Indicted by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Fri, 31 Mar 2023 05:35:00 +0300

by Nomad

Donald Trump's comeuppance has definitely been a long time coming. As Jeff Wise, writing for New York Magazine points out:

His entire life, after all, is one long testament to the power of getting away with things, a master class in criminality without consequences, even before he added presidentiality and all its privileges to his arsenal of defenses.
As he himself once said, “When you’re a star, they let you do it.” But for all his advantages and all his enablers, including loyalists in the Justice Department and the federal judiciary, Trump now faces a level of legal risk unlike anything in his notoriously checkered past — and well beyond anything faced by any previous president leaving office.

According to legal experts, today's indictment could be just the beginning of a series of court battles for Trump in the coming months. This case in particular deals with the payment of "hush money" to a porn star and his attempt to hide those expenses, but it may not be the strongest case against him. It's also important to note that an arrest doesn't necessarily mean a conviction.

Still, the Manhattan DA's office and grand jury have carefully examined the evidence and heard witness testimony. Whatever the investigation found must be pretty darned compelling. It has led state prosecutors and the current district attorney, Alvin Bragg, to believe that the case against Trump is credible.

The focus of the case, Bragg said on MSNBC’s “PoliticsNation" was “on the evidence and the law.”

“We follow the facts. It doesn’t matter what party you are, it doesn’t matter your background. What did you do? And what does the law say?”

For a man like Trump, who has- until today- led a life free of any accountability whatsoever, those are unfamiliar and frightening concepts.

Sanity Sunday Musical Break- Cellist Patrick Dexter

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Sun, 29 Jan 2023 15:14:00 +0300

by Nomad

Irish Cellist Patrick Dexter provides us with some music for a relaxing Sunday. In the videos, he plays from his cottage in the West Irish hills with his dog nearby.

According to his website:

In 2020, as countries around the world began to lock down, Patrick began playing music from his cottage and sharing it online. Since then his performances have been viewed millions of times and his music became a needed comfort for countless numbers of people all over the world.

The Dublin-born musician's fame has since spread far and wide.

Patrick has performed on CNN, BBC, ITV, Sky News, Global News Canada, RTÉ, Virgin Media, TG4. In April 2022 his debut album Solace reached No. 15 in the Billboard US and Canada album charts for classical-crossover albums making Patrick the highest-selling independent artist in the genre and asserting his place as one of the world’s top cello players.

Here are seven songs- some familiar and some traditional Irish ballads that you may not have heard. I hope you enjoy them and that the music soothes your nerves.

Have a wonderful Sunday.

LIVE: Chaos in Congress as Republicans Struggle to Select a House Speaker

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Wed, 4 Jan 2023 13:11:00 +0300

by Nomad

Chaos reigned in the US Congress on Tuesday as the Republicans struggled to select a House Speaker. Yesterday, in what should have been a day of pomp and triumph for the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, turned out to be a historic embarrassment. The presumed nominee, Kevin McCarthy, failed - three times - to find enough votes to become Speaker.
Until yesterday, the selection was considered a no-brainer, a mere formality. However, McCarthy appears to have grossly underestimated the opposition within his own party.

Despite making numerous compromises to the extremist wing of his party, McCarthy came up short. To add to the public humiliation for McCarthy, the third vote even saw the leader of the House Democratic Caucus and the Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, receive more votes than McCarthy. By tradition and precedent, no other business can be done until the House picks its leader. That means the new Congress cannot be sworn in until this is somehow resolved.

Ultimately the House was forced to adjourn Tuesday without selecting a new speaker. Behind closed doors, McCarthy must somehow appease the rebellious faction of his own party while, at the same time, not conceding too much which could isolate the more moderate members. That, says the political analysts, may not even be possible.

Tuesday's vote failure marked the first time in 100 years that the House speaker vote went to multiple ballots and only the eighth time in US history that a speaker had not been chosen in three attempts. As CNN points out:

There is no playbook for what the chamber will do if the speaker isn’t elected on the first ballot. The 1923 vote was decided on the ninth ballot, where they kept voting until a speaker was decided. The 1869 speaker vote lasted through 60 ballots over two months.

Watch LIVE at Nomadic Politics as the House returns to the Capitol to resume this three-way political tug-of-war. Coverage begins a 12 pm EST.

DAY 3

Wishing You All A Happy New Year in 2023

noreply@blogger.com (Nomad) — Sat, 31 Dec 2022 21:19:00 +0300

by Nomad

With the new year on the horizon, I wish that you embrace it with an open heart and go forward with faith, hope, and courage. Who knows what the coming year will bring us, but together we are strong enough to cope with whatever happens.

Happy New Year, my friends.