Why not? Anything involving a head of state and sex must surely attract attention...
But even before the war, interest in the Epstein Files tended to ebb and flow, getting most attention after each document dump and subsequent naming, before flickering out.
If anyone interested in or concerned about American politics hasn't seen this week's highlights of Jack Smith's amazing testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, check them out.
What's more amazing is the name-calling engaged in by Repugnican senators who can't even get their facts straight. What would it take to get a Repugnican to say, "Yes, it appears that he did commit some serious crimes, and we can only blame ourselves for not holding him accountable when we had the chance to do so"?
Mr. Smith said under oath that his investigation into the 2020 election and aftermath clearly showed beyond reasonable doubt that Tr*mp committed real and heinous crimes against the country, and that two separate Grand Juries agreed. Republicans just lower their eyes, or shrug, or stammer to redirect and attack him (Smith) personally.
It was painfully obvious that the entire Republican/MAGA machine thought they had Jack Smith dead to rights on perjury and collusion, using a NBA basketball game and his staffers' texts as evidence, but it backfired. Spectacularly.
Mr. Smith said under oath that his investigation into the 2020 election and aftermath clearly showed beyond reasonable doubt that Tr*mp committed real and heinous crimes against the country, and that two separate Grand Juries agreed. Republicans just lower their eyes, or shrug, or stammer to redirect and attack him (Smith) personally.
It was painfully obvious that the entire Republican/MAGA machine thought they had Jack Smith dead to rights on perjury and collusion, using a NBA basketball game and his staffers' texts as evidence, but it backfired. Spectacularly.
What intrigues me about this is that I've operated under the assumption that pretty much all congressional Republicans know who and what Trump is and that he's guilty as sin, so must know that they haven't got shit on Smith. Yet they seemed genuinely flumoxed when their play fell apart. Have they really huffed their own farts so much they think Trump's innocent?
Mr. Smith said under oath that his investigation into the 2020 election and aftermath clearly showed beyond reasonable doubt that Tr*mp committed real and heinous crimes against the country, and that two separate Grand Juries agreed. Republicans just lower their eyes, or shrug, or stammer to redirect and attack him (Smith) personally.
It was painfully obvious that the entire Republican/MAGA machine thought they had Jack Smith dead to rights on perjury and collusion, using a NBA basketball game and his staffers' texts as evidence, but it backfired. Spectacularly.
What intrigues me about this is that I've operated under the assumption that pretty much all congressional Republicans know who and what Trump is and that he's guilty as sin, so must know that they haven't got shit on Smith. Yet they seemed genuinely flumoxed when their play fell apart. Have they really huffed their own farts so much they think Trump's innocent?
I suspect this is playing in tandem with recent warnings from some Republicans that "If the Democrats win in November, they'll put Trump in prison!"
The specific wording I recall now actually used the phrase "...put Trump in prison" as its finale, which is a risky construction, 'cuz it prompts Democrats and pissed-off swing voters to reply with something like "Sounds good to me!". But it's presumably aimed at the MAGA faithful, as a dystopian prediction about what'll happen to their hero if they don't turn out to vote.
Mr. Smith said under oath that his investigation into the 2020 election and aftermath clearly showed beyond reasonable doubt that Tr*mp committed real and heinous crimes against the country, and that two separate Grand Juries agreed. Republicans just lower their eyes, or shrug, or stammer to redirect and attack him (Smith) personally.
It was painfully obvious that the entire Republican/MAGA machine thought they had Jack Smith dead to rights on perjury and collusion, using a NBA basketball game and his staffers' texts as evidence, but it backfired. Spectacularly.
What intrigues me about this is that I've operated under the assumption that pretty much all congressional Republicans know who and what Trump is and that he's guilty as sin, so must know that they haven't got shit on Smith. Yet they seemed genuinely flumoxed when their play fell apart. Have they really huffed their own farts so much they think Trump's innocent?
They still know Trump is guilty; at least most of them do, I suspect. I think it’s more that they thought they had found something they could use to discredit Smith, which would have allowed them to say “See, Smith is dishonest and Trump is being treated unfairly.”
The play that fell apart is the play that would have enabled their smokescreen.
I am hoping that the Democrats will win the majority of the Senate, but they likely will not get a super majority. Perhaps, though, the loss of the Senate will break the hold Trump has on the Republican party, and there will be enough Republicans to finally side with the Democrats to convict Trump of the impeachment articles the Democratic-led House will vote on shortly after they take power.
JFK made some bloopers but once assassinated was just about canonised as was the ( former protege of Sen Joe McCarthy) RFK senior.
Sorry, I don't see what my age has to do with anything. I just pointed out that the US has had two Catholic presidents, not one. I didn't say anything about future Catholic presidents - a president from a Latino background seems highly likely to happen fairly soon just based on demographics. I think a Latino man is likely to become president before a woman does.
Biden has stage 4 cancer, re-election is vanishingly unlikely if he would even want the job again.
You weren’t around when JFK & RFK were bumped off: I was. You’ve never seen anything like the carry-on by both Catholics and everyone else. Poor old Biden’s advanced cancer is neither here nor there as regards martyrdom.
As for a male Latino candidate; well bring him on!
The current talent ( FWIW) looks very WASP of the XY persuasion…
Sorry, I don't see what my age has to do with anything. I just pointed out that the US has had two Catholic presidents, not one. I didn't say anything about future Catholic presidents . . . .
I think @Sojourner was talking about martyrs, not RC presidents per se.
I think anti-Catholicism is pretty much a dead political force in the USA, even on the right. JD Vance was a Catholic by the time he ran for veep in 2024, and I doubt it cost the ticket very many votes at all.
Yeah, you have some fundy dead-enders who yell about Coney Barrett's RCism when she joins a decision they don't like, and Hegseth's Reconstructionist pastor likely hates Catholics. But it's not influencing the way any significant blocs of voters behave.
(And before someone brings up "But look how much they hate Pope Leo!!", yes, but they hate him because he's made a few statements against Trump. Not because he's Catholic.)
Where you CAN still see quite a bit of sectarianism on the far-right is in stuff like the post-Kirk TPUSA fratricide, with eg. Candace Owens accusing Erika Kirk of hiding Charlie's body to cover up the supposed fact that he converted to Catholicism before he was assassinated. But this is what the kids call a terminally on-line phenomenon, and in any case, CO seems to have at least as strong a following as the other side does.
You weren’t around when JFK & RFK were bumped off: I was. You’ve never seen anything like the carry-on by both Catholics and everyone else. Poor old Biden’s advanced cancer is neither here nor there as regards martyrdom.
As for a male Latino candidate; well bring him on!
The current talent ( FWIW) looks very WASP of the XY persuasion…
You weren’t around when JFK & RFK were bumped off: I was. You’ve never seen anything like the carry-on by both Catholics and everyone else. Poor old Biden’s advanced cancer is neither here nor there as regards martyrdom.
As for a male Latino candidate; well bring him on!
The current talent ( FWIW) looks very WASP of the XY persuasion…
You weren’t around when JFK & RFK were bumped off: I was. You’ve never seen anything like the carry-on by both Catholics and everyone else. Poor old Biden’s advanced cancer is neither here nor there as regards martyrdom.
As for a male Latino candidate; well bring him on!
The current talent ( FWIW) looks very WASP of the XY persuasion…
Thanks for clarifying, Nick. Thought I’d made myself clear but who listens to mere Antipodeans ( even old ducks like meself)?
Being Australian has nothing to do with anything, your comment was just not clear at all. I was only commenting on the number of RC presidents, not the issue of martyrdom.
Thanks for clarifying, Nick. Thought I’d made myself clear but who listens to mere Antipodeans ( even old ducks like meself)?
Being Australian has nothing to do with anything, your comment was just not clear at all. I was only commenting on the number of RC presidents, not the issue of martyrdom.
There's a mostly full transcript of Time's latest interview with Trump. I post it not because it's a particularly good interview - it's not - but because of the number of tangents he takes along the way:
I think anti-Catholicism is pretty much a dead political force in the USA, even on the right. JD Vance was a Catholic by the time he ran for veep in 2024, and I doubt it cost the ticket very many votes at all.
Yeah, you have some fundy dead-enders who yell about Coney Barrett's RCism when she joins a decision they don't like, and Hegseth's Reconstructionist pastor likely hates Catholics. But it's not influencing the way any significant blocs of voters behave.
(And before someone brings up "But look how much they hate Pope Leo!!", yes, but they hate him because he's made a few statements against Trump. Not because he's Catholic.)
I'll be interested to see if or when the right-wing Catholic/evangelical/LDS alliance falls apart. In the US those groups historically despise each other, but since the late 70s they've had enough common interests (specifically Dead Horse issues) to cooperate on political projects.
Now that religiosity and church membership are declining quickly here, I wonder if they're less likely to split from each other - they need the numbers.
I'll be interested to see if or when the right-wing Catholic/evangelical/LDS alliance falls apart. In the US those groups historically despise each other, but since the late 70s they've had enough common interests (specifically Dead Horse issues) to cooperate on political projects.
It's worth pointing out that this was not accidental. Right wing leaders set out to create wedge issues that would push evangelicals to the right and were aided by conservative Catholic bishops, and Mormon leaders saw an opportunity to pass themselves off as Christian by aligning with the evangelicals.
I'll be interested to see if or when the right-wing Catholic/evangelical/LDS alliance falls apart. In the US those groups historically despise each other, but since the late 70s they've had enough common interests (specifically Dead Horse issues) to cooperate on political projects.
It's worth pointing out that this was not accidental. Right wing leaders set out to create wedge issues that would push evangelicals to the right and were aided by conservative Catholic bishops, and Mormon leaders saw an opportunity to pass themselves off as Christian by aligning with the evangelicals.
A lot of it is centred on abortion. While conservative Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons agree on a lot of social "dead horse" issues generally speaking this is the one they most agree on wanting to use the State to enforce.
I think anti-Catholicism is pretty much a dead political force in the USA, even on the right. JD Vance was a Catholic by the time he ran for veep in 2024, and I doubt it cost the ticket very many votes at all.
Yeah, you have some fundy dead-enders who yell about Coney Barrett's RCism when she joins a decision they don't like, and Hegseth's Reconstructionist pastor likely hates Catholics. But it's not influencing the way any significant blocs of voters behave.
(And before someone brings up "But look how much they hate Pope Leo!!", yes, but they hate him because he's made a few statements against Trump. Not because he's Catholic.)
I'll be interested to see if or when the right-wing Catholic/evangelical/LDS alliance falls apart. In the US those groups historically despise each other, but since the late 70s they've had enough common interests (specifically Dead Horse issues) to cooperate on political projects.
Now that religiosity and church membership are declining quickly here, I wonder if they're less likely to split from each other - they need the numbers.
I think it would have to get to a point where the Religious Right, as a single entity, attains the same sorta sociopolitical hegemony that the Communist Party in the USSR had attained by the 1930s, and then they might have the luxury of turning against one another in a sectarian re-run of Stalin vs. Trotsky. But I don't really see that as a plausible scenario.
I'll be interested to see if or when the right-wing Catholic/evangelical/LDS alliance falls apart. In the US those groups historically despise each other, but since the late 70s they've had enough common interests (specifically Dead Horse issues) to cooperate on political projects.
It's worth pointing out that this was not accidental. Right wing leaders set out to create wedge issues that would push evangelicals to the right and were aided by conservative Catholic bishops, and Mormon leaders saw an opportunity to pass themselves off as Christian by aligning with the evangelicals.
I found out a few years ago that when Reagan first ran directly for president in 1980, his team made a deliberate effort to downplay his Irish heritage, to the point of complaining when someone at the Irish embassy made a statement pointing it out. By 1984, of course, he had switched to quite openly embracing an Irish persona, and commentators were talking about it as if it had been part of his political identity forever.
I would speculate the 1980 stance was connected to a fear that some of the conservative protestants the GOP was trying to lure over from Carter would associate Irishness with Catholicism, whereas by '84 the operatives concluded that the dangers of old-school anti-popery were outweighed by the advantages of bringing Catholics into the coalition.
I think anti-Catholicism is pretty much a dead political force in the USA, even on the right. JD Vance was a Catholic by the time he ran for veep in 2024, and I doubt it cost the ticket very many votes at all.
Yeah, you have some fundy dead-enders who yell about Coney Barrett's RCism when she joins a decision they don't like, and Hegseth's Reconstructionist pastor likely hates Catholics. But it's not influencing the way any significant blocs of voters behave.
(And before someone brings up "But look how much they hate Pope Leo!!", yes, but they hate him because he's made a few statements against Trump. Not because he's Catholic.)
I'll be interested to see if or when the right-wing Catholic/evangelical/LDS alliance falls apart. In the US those groups historically despise each other, but since the late 70s they've had enough common interests (specifically Dead Horse issues) to cooperate on political projects.
Now that religiosity and church membership are declining quickly here, I wonder if they're less likely to split from each other - they need the numbers.
Only about 40% of Utah is actually Mormon, but the state is still run like a theocracy. There are a LOT of Mormons in the higher military ranks and in the US government, especially in the three-letter orgs - I realise this sounds a bit conspiratorial, but it's actually simply because Mormons are particularly less prone to be a problem for security clearances due to general "clean living" and are also particularly good at obeying authority. Obviously lots of religious groups fit that bill (I believe that SDA adherents are also overrepresented for those reasons), Mormons just tend to score particularly highly.
Right wing leaders set out to create wedge issues that would push evangelicals to the right and were aided by conservative Catholic bishops, and Mormon leaders saw an opportunity to pass themselves off as Christian by aligning with the evangelicals.
A lot of it is centred on abortion. While conservative Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons agree on a lot of social "dead horse" issues generally speaking this is the one they most agree on wanting to use the State to enforce.
According to Fred Clark evangelical opposition to abortion post-dates the formation of the religious right coalition. Acceptance of abortion and contraception used to be one of the ways evangelicals differentiated themselves from those Catholics. Cue Monty Python's Meaning of Life Protestant sketch.
Right wing leaders set out to create wedge issues that would push evangelicals to the right and were aided by conservative Catholic bishops, and Mormon leaders saw an opportunity to pass themselves off as Christian by aligning with the evangelicals.
A lot of it is centred on abortion. While conservative Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons agree on a lot of social "dead horse" issues generally speaking this is the one they most agree on wanting to use the State to enforce.
According to Fred Clark evangelical opposition to abortion post-dates the formation of the religious right coalition. Acceptance of abortion and contraception used to be one of the ways evangelicals differentiated themselves from those Catholics. Cue Monty Python's Meaning of Life Protestant sketch.
I'm aware of that - I was thinking of the current rather than historical dynamic.
If anyone interested in or concerned about American politics hasn't seen this week's highlights of Jack Smith's amazing testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, check them out.
Apparently, contra Klobuchar, the snafu there was not the similarity in the teams' respective names(Hawks vs. Hawkeyes), but in the assumption that if Smith was attending a basketball game, it must've been NBA, rather than a women's college match. Schmitt's aides found out via the text messages that he was at a basketball game on that particular date, and checked which NBA games had the mentioned starting time, and Atlanta was the only one.
In fairness, if someone told me that a given American had attended a basketball game, I'd likely assume NBA as well. But, of course, I'm not responsible for prepping my boss to deliver thundering revelations on national TV. Seems the aide in question was due for a transfer to the White House, but that's on hold now.
Some had postulated that crushing Jack Smith was imbecile Schmidt's opening move toward becoming JD Vance's running mate in 2028.
Overall, I think it'll mostly end up being a break-even, since anyone still breathlessly preoccupied with circa-2020 corruption on either side is probably a diehard supporter of one or other of the two parties.
But yeah. It's still not a really good thing to have that bad of a public fuck-up on your resumé.
EDIT: Sorry. 2024 for the alleged meeting, so more recent. Still think it's a pretty niche concern at this particular point.
Comments
But even before the war, interest in the Epstein Files tended to ebb and flow, getting most attention after each document dump and subsequent naming, before flickering out.
Yes, I can see that the mid-term elections are Trump's biggest worry at the moment.
It was painfully obvious that the entire Republican/MAGA machine thought they had Jack Smith dead to rights on perjury and collusion, using a NBA basketball game and his staffers' texts as evidence, but it backfired. Spectacularly.
What intrigues me about this is that I've operated under the assumption that pretty much all congressional Republicans know who and what Trump is and that he's guilty as sin, so must know that they haven't got shit on Smith. Yet they seemed genuinely flumoxed when their play fell apart. Have they really huffed their own farts so much they think Trump's innocent?
I suspect this is playing in tandem with recent warnings from some Republicans that "If the Democrats win in November, they'll put Trump in prison!"
The specific wording I recall now actually used the phrase "...put Trump in prison" as its finale, which is a risky construction, 'cuz it prompts Democrats and pissed-off swing voters to reply with something like "Sounds good to me!". But it's presumably aimed at the MAGA faithful, as a dystopian prediction about what'll happen to their hero if they don't turn out to vote.
The play that fell apart is the play that would have enabled their smokescreen.
Good point, well made. It's not their own farts they're huffing.
Well duh - a Catholic or a Black woman??? Can't be having that!
Everyone loves a martyr…
Huh? They've had two - Biden in 2020.
Biden ain’t dead yet.
JFK made some bloopers but once assassinated was just about canonised as was the ( former protege of Sen Joe McCarthy) RFK senior.
Sorry, I don't see what my age has to do with anything. I just pointed out that the US has had two Catholic presidents, not one. I didn't say anything about future Catholic presidents - a president from a Latino background seems highly likely to happen fairly soon just based on demographics. I think a Latino man is likely to become president before a woman does.
Biden has stage 4 cancer, re-election is vanishingly unlikely if he would even want the job again.
And your point is?
As for a male Latino candidate; well bring him on!
The current talent ( FWIW) looks very WASP of the XY persuasion…
Yeah, you have some fundy dead-enders who yell about Coney Barrett's RCism when she joins a decision they don't like, and Hegseth's Reconstructionist pastor likely hates Catholics. But it's not influencing the way any significant blocs of voters behave.
(And before someone brings up "But look how much they hate Pope Leo!!", yes, but they hate him because he's made a few statements against Trump. Not because he's Catholic.)
Rubio, the attorney general , is Catholic.
Being Australian has nothing to do with anything, your comment was just not clear at all. I was only commenting on the number of RC presidents, not the issue of martyrdom.
Provided Trump does not declare a state of National Emergency and set the election aside. Wars can be very convenient.
Sigh… have it your own way
If I were a believer, I’d pray for you & the State.
Neither of these comments is reasonable or helpful. God doesn't dispatch people, and the rest is drivel.
https://time.com/article/2026/10/01/donald-trump-2026-interview-transcript/
I'll be interested to see if or when the right-wing Catholic/evangelical/LDS alliance falls apart. In the US those groups historically despise each other, but since the late 70s they've had enough common interests (specifically Dead Horse issues) to cooperate on political projects.
Now that religiosity and church membership are declining quickly here, I wonder if they're less likely to split from each other - they need the numbers.
It's worth pointing out that this was not accidental. Right wing leaders set out to create wedge issues that would push evangelicals to the right and were aided by conservative Catholic bishops, and Mormon leaders saw an opportunity to pass themselves off as Christian by aligning with the evangelicals.
A lot of it is centred on abortion. While conservative Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons agree on a lot of social "dead horse" issues generally speaking this is the one they most agree on wanting to use the State to enforce.
I think it would have to get to a point where the Religious Right, as a single entity, attains the same sorta sociopolitical hegemony that the Communist Party in the USSR had attained by the 1930s, and then they might have the luxury of turning against one another in a sectarian re-run of Stalin vs. Trotsky. But I don't really see that as a plausible scenario.
I found out a few years ago that when Reagan first ran directly for president in 1980, his team made a deliberate effort to downplay his Irish heritage, to the point of complaining when someone at the Irish embassy made a statement pointing it out. By 1984, of course, he had switched to quite openly embracing an Irish persona, and commentators were talking about it as if it had been part of his political identity forever.
I would speculate the 1980 stance was connected to a fear that some of the conservative protestants the GOP was trying to lure over from Carter would associate Irishness with Catholicism, whereas by '84 the operatives concluded that the dangers of old-school anti-popery were outweighed by the advantages of bringing Catholics into the coalition.
Only about 40% of Utah is actually Mormon, but the state is still run like a theocracy. There are a LOT of Mormons in the higher military ranks and in the US government, especially in the three-letter orgs - I realise this sounds a bit conspiratorial, but it's actually simply because Mormons are particularly less prone to be a problem for security clearances due to general "clean living" and are also particularly good at obeying authority. Obviously lots of religious groups fit that bill (I believe that SDA adherents are also overrepresented for those reasons), Mormons just tend to score particularly highly.
I'm aware of that - I was thinking of the current rather than historical dynamic.
Apparently, contra Klobuchar, the snafu there was not the similarity in the teams' respective names(Hawks vs. Hawkeyes), but in the assumption that if Smith was attending a basketball game, it must've been NBA, rather than a women's college match. Schmitt's aides found out via the text messages that he was at a basketball game on that particular date, and checked which NBA games had the mentioned starting time, and Atlanta was the only one.
In fairness, if someone told me that a given American had attended a basketball game, I'd likely assume NBA as well. But, of course, I'm not responsible for prepping my boss to deliver thundering revelations on national TV. Seems the aide in question was due for a transfer to the White House, but that's on hold now.
Overall, I think it'll mostly end up being a break-even, since anyone still breathlessly preoccupied with circa-2020 corruption on either side is probably a diehard supporter of one or other of the two parties.
But yeah. It's still not a really good thing to have that bad of a public fuck-up on your resumé.
EDIT: Sorry. 2024 for the alleged meeting, so more recent. Still think it's a pretty niche concern at this particular point.