February 21, 2024

Wednesday, February 21, 2024. Annette’s News Roundup.

I think the Roundup makes people feel not so alone.

To read an article excerpted in this Roundup, click on its blue title. Each “blue” article is hyperlinked so you can read the whole article.

Please feel free to share.

Invite at least one other person to subscribe today! https://buttondown.email/AnnettesNewsRoundup

____________________________________________

Joe is always busy.

Biden's colossal cash advantage.

President Biden's re-election team now has $130 million in the bank, while the Republican National Committee has little cash and Donald Trump's team is spending tens of millions on legal bills.

Why it matters: Despite Democratic angst over the president's poor polling, the Biden campaign announced Tuesday morning that it raised $42 million in January — adding to his vast fundraising advantage over Trump and the RNC.

Why it matters: Despite Democratic angst over the president's poor polling, the Biden campaign announced Tuesday morning that it raised $42 million in January — adding to his vast fundraising advantage over Trump and the RNC.

• The RNC started the year with over $8 million in cash on hand and Trump's campaign had $33 million on hand. Neither has released their fundraising totals for January.

• Biden, the DNC, and other affiliated committees continued to rake in contributions while his Republican rivals still attack each other — and Trump's legal challenges show no signs of going away.

• By the numbers: In January, some 422,000 different donors made 502,000 contributions to Biden's reelection effort, the campaign said.

  • In total, the campaign has received contributions from 1.1 million donors.

  • Since Biden launched his reelection campaign, approximately 97% of all their donations have been under $200.

  • Along the way, the campaign added more than 1 million emails to its mailing list.(Axios).

____________________________________________

Kamala is always busy.

____________________________________________

The fake case against Hunter and Joe Biden becomes more and more complicated.

The Ex-FBI Informant charged with lying about Biden’s had Russian intelligence contacts, prosecutors say.

LAS VEGAS (AP) — A former FBI informant charged with making up a multimillion-dollar bribery scheme involving President Joe Biden, his son Hunter and a Ukrainian energy company had contacts with Russian intelligence-affiliated officials, prosecutors said Tuesday.

Prosecutors revealed the alleged contact as they urged a judge in Las Vegas to keep Alexander Smirnov behind bars while he awaits trial. But U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel Albregts allowed Smirnov to be released from custody on electronic GPS monitoring.

He is accused of falsely telling his FBI handler that executives with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid Hunter and Joe Biden $5 million each around 2015 — a claim that became central to the Republican impeachment inquiry in Congress.

Smirnov, 43, hid his face and did not speak to reporters Tuesday night when he walked out of the courthouse with his lawyers and girlfriend at his side. He wore a GPS monitor on his left ankle and had changed into street clothes and out of the yellow jail garb he had worn in court.

Defense attorney David Chesnoff said he looks forward to defending Smirnov at trial.

According to prosecutors, Smirnov admitted in an interview after his arrest last week that “officials associated with Russian intelligence were involved in passing a story” about Hunter Biden. They said Smirnov’s contacts with Russian officials were recent and extensive, and said Smirnov had planned to meet with one official during an upcoming overseas trip.

The White House didn’t immediately comment Tuesday.

Prosecutors said Smirnov, who holds dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship, falsely reported to the FBI in June 2020 that executives associated with Burisma paid millions of dollars to Hunter and Joe Biden in 2015 or 2016.

But Smirnov had only routine business dealings with the company starting in 2017 and made the bribery allegations after he “expressed bias” against Joe Biden while he was a presidential candidate, according to prosecutors.

He is charged with making a false statement and creating a false and fictitious record. The charges were filed in Los Angeles, where he lived for 16 years before relocating to Las Vegas two years ago.

Smirnov’s claims have played a major part in the Republican effort in Congress to investigate the president and his family, and helped spark what is now a House impeachment inquiry into Biden. Democrats called for an end to the probe after the Smirnov indictment came down last week, while Republicans distanced the inquiry from his claims and said they would continue to “follow the facts.”

Hunter Biden is expected to give a deposition next week.

The Burisma allegations became a flashpoint in Congress as Republicans pursuing investigations of President Biden and his family demanded the FBI release the unredacted form documenting the allegations. They acknowledged they couldn’t confirm if the allegations were true. (Associated Press)

____________________________________________

The owner of Tesla, Space X and X is a bad, bad man.

Russia-Ukraine latest: X suspends Navalny wife's account - as Moscow puts brother on wanted list

The widow of Alexei Navalny, Yulia Navalnaya, has had her X account restored after it was briefly suspended for unknown reasons. Meanwhile, his brother has been put on Russia's wanted list. Listen to a Daily podcast special on the Russian opposition after Navalny's death as you scroll. (Sky News).

____________________________________________

More Trump updates.

Still wondering about what the Trump Fraud case means?

Below, a simple but correct description.👇

You may have heard that Trump wandered off the campaign trail on Saturday to sell Trump sneakers.

Philadelphia. #SneakerCon

First he was booed. Then this happened.

Touch 👇 to watch.

In Philly, Trump sold 1000 limited edition sneakers at $399 a pair… gross $399,000. He would need to sell a million pairs of these to pay his $354 million New York fraud fine plus the $100,000,000 in interest that has already accrued.

But there is a licensee involved who made the sneakers who likely takes 50-70% of the gross, so Trump made somewhere between $119,700 to $199,500 on this deal. He also has to pay taxes on these earnings.

Why did Trump bother to sell these sneakers?

Man, he really is broke.

Trump was also greeted at Trump Tower sometime over the weekend.

Touch to watch. 👇

Now we should boo and share this on your social media. 👇 Watch Trump declare he will create Detention Camps for Latinos.

Are you having trouble distinguishing Trump from Navalny?

You are just like Trump!

Wondering what happens if Trump can’t pay the $354 million civil fraud fine plus interest* he owes?

https://x.com/meidastouch/status/1760092457503695230?s=61&t=I_Od53CbnPTsbLcD0baXP

*Daily News -Every morning Donald Trump wakes up, he now owes another $87,500 in interest on nearly half a billion dollars in fines.

____________________________________________

What is happening at the Supreme Court?

Justice Alito Renews Criticism of Landmark Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage.

In a statement, the justice raised concerns that those with “traditional religious views” would be “‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Tuesday renewed his criticisms of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision recognizing the right to same-sex marriage, saying that people who oppose homosexuality risk being unfairly “labeled as bigots and treated as such.”

The justice included his warning in a five-page statementexplaining why the court had rejected a request to hear a Missouri case about people removed from a jury after voicing religious objections to gay relationships. The case, Justice Alito wrote, “exemplifies the danger” from the court’s 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges.

The ruling, he added, shows how “Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.”

The statement appeared to offer a glimpse into Justice Alito’s continued discontent with Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the court, by a 5-to-4 vote, guaranteed a right to same-sex marriage, a long-sought victory in the gay rights movement.

In the years since, Justice Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, who both dissented from the 2015 decision, have appeared to urge the court to reconsider the ruling. The court, they have contended, invented a right not based in the text of the Constitution and said it had cast “people of good will as bigots.”

Only two members of the court who ruled in favor of Obergefell remain on the bench — Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The court has since transformed under the presidency of Donald J. Trump with the addition of three conservative justices who have solidified a conservative supermajority.

The case at issue on Tuesday, Missouri Department of Corrections v. Jean Finney, No. 23-203, involved a dispute over the dismissal of jurors who voiced religious concerns about gay relationships during jury selection in an employment discrimination case.

Jean Finney, an employee of the Missouri Department of Corrections, claimed that after beginning a same-sex relationship with a co-worker’s former spouse, that co-worker made Ms. Finney’s job intolerable. The colleague spread rumors about her, sent demeaning messages and withheld information she needed to complete her work duties, Ms. Finney said. Ms. Finney sued the Department of Corrections, accusing the department of being responsible for the co-worker’s actions.

During jury selection, Ms. Finney’s lawyer questioned potential jurors about their religious beliefs about sexuality. Among the questions: “How many of you went to a religious organization growing up where it was taught that people that are homosexuals shouldn’t have the same rights as everyone else because it was a sin with what they did?”

The trial lawyer moved to strike certain jurors on the basis of his questions, according to the legal brief filed by the Department of Corrections. The brief took issue with the trial lawyer’s tack, saying that it essentially endorsed the idea that “a person with traditional religious beliefs should never sit on a jury when a party has been in a same-sex relationship because when a prospective juror believes as a religious matter ‘that is a sin, there’s no way to rehabilitate.’”

The lawyer for the Department of Corrections objected, saying that such a request edged into religious discrimination.

The trial judge granted Ms. Finney’s lawyer’s request to strike the jurors, and the jury sided with Ms. Finney, prompting the Department of Corrections to ask for a new trial.

The Department of Corrections asserted that by excluding the jurors who voiced their religious beliefs, the trial judge had violated the 14th Amendment.

After the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the verdict and the state Supreme Court declined to review the case, the Office of the Missouri Attorney General asked the United States Supreme Court to take up the case.

Even as Justice Alito wrote that he reluctantly agreed that the court should not take up the case, he said he remained troubled by the issue.

“I am concerned that the lower court’s reasoning may spread and may be a foretaste of things to come,” he wrote. (New York Times).

____________________________________________

One repercussion of the fall of Roe v. Wade.

Alabama's top court rules IVF embryos are children.

Alabama Supreme Court rules IVF embryos are children
Alabama's Supreme Court threw a new wrinkle into the post-Roe reproductive health landscape, ruling late last week that frozen embryos created through in vitro fertilization are children under state law.

Why it matters: How states define unborn human beings could determine access to assisted reproductive care and has big implications for IVF clinics, which could be held liable for discarding surplus embryos.

Details: The 7-2 ruling was in response to two wrongful death suits brought against a Mobile fertility clinic in 2021 after a patient allegedly broke into a freezer, removed stored human embryos and then dropped them.

• The clinic argued plaintiffs lacked standing as parents because the embryos had not been transferred to a uterus, and a circuit court agreed.

• But the state's highest court on Friday held that an 1872 wrongful death law and an amendment to the state constitution made no such distinction and that the lawsuit could proceed.

What they're saying: "It is not the role of this court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy," Justice Jay Mitchell wrote for the majority.

• "That is especially true where, as here, the people of this state have adopted a constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding 'unborn life' from legal protection."

• In a dissent, Justice Greg Cook wrote the majority opinion "almost certainly ends the creation of frozen embryos through in-vitro fertilization in Alabama."

The court's finding will have "devastating consequences" for the 1 in 6 people who experience infertility and who need IVF to build a family, said Barb Collura, president and CEO of Resolve: The National Infertility Association.

• Among the unanswered questions is how the ruling affects families who currently have embryos stored at the state's five fertility clinics, she said.

• In a brief to the court last year, the Medical Association of the State of Alabama warned that siding with the plaintiffs would mean increased exposure to wrongful death lawsuits that "at best" would substantially increase IVF costs.

• "More ominously, the increased risk of legal exposure might result in Alabama's fertility clinics shutting down and fertility specialists moving to other states to practice fertility medicine," the group wrote.

• In some instances, states with strict anti-abortion laws have sought to tamp down concerns that IVF treatments would be affected.

• Mitchell's majority opinion states arguments about the effect on IVF "belong before the legislature," rather than the courts.

• "Judges are required to conform our rulings 'to the expressions of the legislature, to the letter of the statute,' and to the constitution, 'without indulging a speculation, either upon the impolicy, or the hardship, of the law,'" he wrote.

Our thought bubble: The ruling illustrates how the overturning of Roe v. Wade can subsume other areas of reproductive health, by, among other things, giving states final say over such questions as what defines a person.

While legislatures can revise and clarify policies to reflect medical advances, it falls to courts to interpret the scope of existing state laws. (Axios)

____________________________________________

Ukraine Aid.

____________________________________________

I Stand with Mary Trump.

To me, both-sides-ism offends me, whether from the New York Times or Jon Stewart.

Jon Stewart Takes A Shot at Me

Here's why he missed. by Mary L. Trump.

On national television: Jon Stewart took a swing at my criticism of him… and MISSED. Here’s the story, and what we can do about it. Read on:👇

I’ve been to some wonderful places in my life, but this weekend I found myself somewhere I never expected to be — living rent-free in comedian Jon Stewart’s head.

Stewart was back for his second show on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, and apparently felt the need to respond to my very real concerns over his dangerous both-sides-ism last week, when he equated President Biden and Donald.

I criticized him for erroneously elevating my uncle by claiming, “We’re not suggesting neither man is vibrant, productive, or even capable.” Any honest, objective person knows this is completely false — Donald is neither productive nor capable, while, President Biden is both of those to an impressive degree. According to Merriam-Webster, vibrant means “pulsating with life, vigor, or activity.” I’ll leave it to you to decide whom that more accurately describes.

This is the kind of false both-sides-isms I was calling out. I find it dangerous, coming from an incredibly influential public figure, because it leads to voter apathy, which is unacceptable in an election year when the candidate leading one side threatens to eliminate our democracy and the candidate leading the other seeks to strengthen it. My take was overwhelmingly supported by you, The Good in Us community, which is apparently how Stewart heard about it in the first place!

Instead of directly responding to the criticisms from me and others, Stewart did something else entirely:

What Jon Stewart said last night

In his response, Stewart joked about the backlash he received from Democrats:

“I just think it’s better to deal head on with what’s an apparent issue to people. I mean, we’re just talking here.”

That’s when Stewart referred to my statement that “not only is Stewart’s ‘both sides are the same’ rhetoric not funny, it’s a potential disaster for democracy.”

“It was one fucking show!” Stewart exclaimed. “It was 20 minutes. But I guess, as the famous saying goes, ‘democracy dies in discussion.’”

“But look,” Stewart added with a Southern accent, “I have sinned against you. I’m sorry,” before he insinuated the pushback was propaganda.

In other words, instead of engaging with my actual critique, he set up a straw man. He didn’t defend his false equivalency — he pretended my objection to his comment was that he had made a comment at all.

Besides, Jon Stewart is not just a comedian trying to nail his tight ten at the Comedy Cellar on open mic night. By his own design, he puts himself out to be a serious player and influencer in American politics.

What Jon Stewart got wrong… and right

I never said Stewart shouldn’t be free to express his opinions. But while I believe that all artists, including comedians, should be able to say whatever they want, that doesn’t mean that they’re exempt from criticism.

Here’s what he got wrong:

1. Mischaracterization

I, and many people, who reacted to his comments, were not saying we should avoid mentioning President Biden’s advanced age. I’m not even saying we need to withhold criticism of President Biden in general.

I had an issue with his false premise Biden and Donald can be equated in any way —beyond the fact that they’re both old. The truth is critical right now, when so much is at stake.

We saw what happened when Donald was normalized by the media and people like Jimmy Fallon in 2016. It creates a false narrative that normalizes Donald, the people who support him, and the decision to vote for him.

Yes, President Biden is 81, but he is kind, he is compassionate, he is intelligent, he has a remarkable team, he believes in basic human decency and human rights, and he has been a remarkably effective president. He’s also not a threat to our democracy.

And here’s something President Biden did:

He supported taking care of veterans who were exposed to burn pits by signing the legislation championed by Jon Stewart — the same legislation Republicans were determined to block.

Donald, on the other hand, is a rapist, a fraud, and currently indicted for many extremely serious crimes against our nation. The two sides are NOT the same - and implying they are is never funny.

I stand by what I said: it’s dangerous to democracy.

2. Timing

Stewart said his original segment was only “20 minutes,” as if that somehow mitigates the fact that his message, dressed up as a joke or not, reached millions of viewers.

But it’s not just 20 minutes. He’s been doing some version of this for at least 14 years. (Check out the “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear,” a DC event that gathered hundreds of thousands of Americans to demand more both-sides-ism.)

3. Criticism-free Comedy

Another implication was that I couldn’t take a joke, which is just lazy, because my criticism engaged with the part of his monologue that was, according to Stewart, a statement of fact.

I believe as much as anybody that we need comedy; we need free speech; we need trenchant, funny criticism. I thought Stewart’s roasting of Tucker Carlson over his fawning interview with Putin was spot on.

The role of comedy, the line between comedy and political advocacy influence are incredibly important topics, and I’ll be holding a round-table with comedians in the next week or two to discuss all of it.

We don’t live in an era where pretending both sides are the same is good for America. We need more thoughtful criticism and comedy from people with the kind of platform Jon Stewart has, that takes into account what’s really at stake —democracy in the United States, democracy abroad, and the fate of the planet.

But one thing is certain:

Stand up and respond

If Jon Stewart insists on ignoring criticisms of his tendency towards false equivalence, getting the truth out is up to people like you and me.

“The more help I get from you, the more people I can reach with the truth.” I’ve said this before, but now I have proof:

Not only did my comments appear on Breaking Points, The View, and in several articles around the world, but they were featured on The Daily Show itself. That only happened because YOU helped me do this. 👊

I’m fulfilling my promise to do whatever I can to counteract the gaslighting of America by the corporate media. (Substack, Mary Trump).

____________________________________________