The Nashville-based, four-time Grammy award-winning Kings of Leon released their ninth studio album, "Can We Please Have Fun," in May, and it surged into the top ten on U.S. charts last month. A song from that album, "Nowhere to Run," is our song choice today. Enjoy.
The Malignant Loser, who will say anything to get elected and to stay out of prison, has apparently ordered his minions at the Republican Nazional National Committee to soften platform language and to keep a pair of anti-choice zealots from the party's platform committee. According to Politico:
"Two hardline anti-abortion delegates to next week’s GOP platform committee have been stripped of their positions, according to several members of the Republican National Committee, underscoring a broader fear among evangelicals and other social conservatives that the party is poised to moderate its stance on abortion at the direction of former President Donald Trump.
The Trump campaign’s efforts to block the two South Carolina delegates from the platform committee and replace them with loyalists is described in several affidavits as “interference from paid RNC staff … to circumvent the will of the delegation.”
The shakeup, which has not been previously reported, comes as anti-abortion groups petition Trump, his campaign advisers and members of the RNC not to make significant changes to the party’s platform on abortion." (our emphasis)
The Malignant Loser knows that the issue of a woman's right to her reproductive freedom is a new third rail in general elections, and his embrace of taking down Roe v. Wade is a constant theme -- and problem -- of his.
Of course the far-right Bible thumpers are part of a cult of personality, not of faith or principle. The Malignant Loser's the least religious of any modern President, and has reportedly mocked his religious followers behind their backs. He's violated more of the Ten Commandments than he's followed, but for the Christofascists, it's all about a deal with the devil to gain power and get regulations and legislation passed to remove the church / state separation. While party platforms are mostly symbolic, this episode reinforces the fear the Malignant Loser has for the anti-choice issue and the contempt he has for his "flock."
Rachel Maddow gives her assessment of the illegitimate Republican Supreme Court's Trump immunity decision, and just how radical, dangerous, and tyranny- enabling it is. Americans must not allow the presidency to be in the hands of the Malignant Loser, especially with the immunity provided by this "death squad ruling." That's the imperative we face in November.
(click on images to enlarge)
(Bill Bramhall, New York Daily News)
(Matt Davies, Newsday)
(Nick Anderson, Reform Austin News, TX)
(Chris Britt, Creators.com)
(John Deering, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)
(Walt Handelsman, The Times-Picayune, New Orleans)
(Lalo Alcaraz, LA Weekly)
(John Cole, The Philadelphia Inquirer)
(Pedro Molina, Counterpoint)
(Gary Markstein, Creators.com)
(Rob Rogers, Tinyview.com)
(Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press)
(Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
"Sixty years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law one of the
most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in history — the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibited discrimination on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That day, our Nation
moved closer to our North Star, the founding ideal of America: We are
all created equal and deserve to be treated equally throughout our
lives. We have never fully lived up to that idea, but we have never
walked away from it either. On this anniversary, we promise we will not
walk away from it now..." -- President Biden, in a Proclamation on the 60th Anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We (Democrats) won't walk away from it, but white nationalist MAGAt Republicans and their "jurists" are goosestepping away from it as fast as they can.
(Photo: President Johnson shaking Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, hand at the signing ceremony, July 2, 1964 / Getty Images)
More on the appalling Trump v. United States ruling --
Trump v. United States will be overruled someday. I agree with @rbhubbell that it’s “destined to be remembered as a mark of shame for the Roberts Court just as Dred Scott tarnishes Chief Justice Taney’s legacy to this day.” Hasten the day by voting against this Court in November
— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) July 2, 2024
It can never again be said that in America “no man is above the law.” The Supreme Court held today that the President of the United States — and the former president in particular — is above the law, and the only person in America who is above the law.
— @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) July 1, 2024
What's most notable to me in this decision is how much of it seems to come from a realization that if your team's going to have a President who's a big time criminal he's going to need some big time immunity.
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) July 1, 2024
Today's Court opinion is a disaster for democracy.
— Ian Bassin 🇺🇦 (@ianbassin) July 1, 2024
But while Trump won the legal battle, he may lose the political war.
The Court has now said a man who muses about being a "dictator" can assassinate rivals and launch coups with immunity.
Voters are not going to like that.
“There is nothing fearmongering, unrealistic or extreme about those worries. They concern a reality that is right before the justices’ eyes. They have chosen to ignore it,”
— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) July 2, 2024
Litman:After the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, can Donald Trump still be tried? https://t.co/FPtDZlHqH5
What if Biden used his official powers to have the IRS, FBI, and DOJ investigate the Supreme Court justices to find out every penny they’ve ever taken from anyone, ever?
— Tristan Snell (@TristanSnell) July 2, 2024
Enforcing corruption laws is under his authority. And you can’t question his motive at all.
Figures Republicans don't just want a king. They want the worst king.
— L O L G O P (@LOLGOP) July 2, 2024
On the New York effing Times watch --
If anyone can point me to a comparable New York Times subhead shoe-horning in a statement that "Donald Trump, under scrutiny since his conviction on 34 felony counts, was not arrested for any new crimes today" I'd sure be appreciative. pic.twitter.com/wyriSFjhUf
— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) July 2, 2024
Those careless Russian smokers --
⚡️A large fire broke out in Russia's Kursk Oblast on July 2, said acting Governor Alexei Smirnov.https://t.co/ZNsFaAWFiL
— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) July 2, 2024
Please tell us --
— Poorly Translated Shirts (@translatedtees) June 30, 2024
Feeling emboldened by the far-right Republican-dominated Supreme Court's outrageous immunity ruling, the Malignant Loser is seeking to have the 34 felony, "hush money" conviction overturned by a Manhattan court. The convicted felon is expected to be sentenced on July 11.* From the CNN report:
"Donald Trump’s legal team filed a letter Monday seeking to challenge the former president’s conviction in his New York criminal hush money trial based on the US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, a source told CNN.
Just hours after the high court ruling, Trump’s lawyer filed a letter with Judge Juan Merchan seeking permission to file a motion to challenge the verdict, the source said. If the judge allows Trump to file the motion it could delay Trump’s sentencing – set for next week – to allow the parties to brief the issue.
The longshot bid to challenge Trump’s New York conviction follows the Supreme Court decision that presidents have an absolute immunity from prosecution for core official acts. It comes as the 2024 Republican presumptive presidential nominee seeks to avoid other pre-election trials in the three most significant criminal prosecutions he faces.
In the letter, Trump’s legal team cited the Supreme Court’s decision and suggested postponing his sentencing next week, a source familiar with the effort told CNN." (our emphasis)
Most of the criminal actions taken by the Malignant Loser in that case were before he was inaugurated, so it's nearly impossible to see how they would fit under his "core official acts" as President just on the basis of time. But he's not constrained by any notions of legality or of law and order. This is just the beginning of what we can expect from him after yesterday's immunity ruling by the six Republican partisans in black robes.
*UPDATE: It appears the Malignant Loser's sentencing will indeed be delayed to allow time for his motion to dismiss to be argued. Hush money for silence from a porn star you had sex with -- clearly a "core official act!"
We recently passed the two- year anniversary of the Dobbs decision, where the illegitimate Republican Supreme Court overturned 50 years of precedent in deciding women no longer had a Constitutional right to an abortion. In its recent decisions, they did, however decide who does have rights:
Student loan agencies (Biden v. Nebraska)
By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the Biden administration overstepped its authority last year when it announced that it would cancel up to $400 billion in student loans. The Biden administration had said that as many as 43 million Americans would have benefitted from the loan forgiveness program; almost half of those borrowers would have had all of their student loans forgiven.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in Biden v. Nebraska, characterizing the decision as a straightforward interpretation of federal law.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson...
People wanting to have and use machine guns (Garland v. Cargill)
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a rule that banned bump stocks, issued by the Trump administration after a 2017 mass shooting at a concert in Las Vegas. By a vote of 6-3, the justices rejected the federal government’s argument that rifles equipped with bump stocks are machine guns, which are generally prohibited under federal law. In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s conservative justices emphasized that Congress could have enacted a law that banned all weapons capable of high rates of fire, but it did not – and so the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives was wrong to interpret the federal ban on machine guns to extend to bump stocks...
People wanting to bribe state and local officials (Snyder v. United States)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a federal anti-bribery law does not make it a crime for state and local officials to accept a gratuity for acts that they have already taken. Writing for a six-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that state and local governments already regulate gifts to officials, and so the federal law “does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities.”...
Polluters (Ohio v. EPA)
The Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily blocked a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce air pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities in 23 states. By a vote of 5-4, the justices granted a request from three states, as well as several companies and trade associations affected by the rule, to put the rule on hold while a challenge to it continues in a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, whose mother Anne Burford McGill served as the head of the EPA during the Reagan administration, wrote for the majority...
Fraudsters (SEC v. Jarkesy)
The court ruled on Thursday that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s routine practice of imposing fines in its administrative proceedings, used to penalize securities fraud, violates the Seventh Amendment “right of trial by jury” in all “suits at common law.” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a 6-3 majority in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy that the SEC cannot continue to handle this cases in house without a jury. The decision will have a far-reaching impact on dozens of federal administrative agencies that use similar processes.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. Reading from the bench on Thursday, Sotomayor called the majority’s decision “a devastating blow to the manner in which our government functions.”...
"Drown government in a bathtub" radicals (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo)
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs.
By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave rise to the doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. But in a 35-page ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices rejected that doctrine, calling it “fundamentally misguided.”
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”...
Insurrectionist and convicted felon candidate Trump (Trump v. Anderson)
Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates, the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot.
Judgment: Reversed in a per curiam opinion on March 4, 2024. Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgement. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Then, of course, the cherry on top of the dung heap, Trump v. United States, where the six Republican partisans dropped any pretense of judicial restraint or neutrality and joined the fascist Trump on-going coup plot, deciding the buffoon has the right to immunity for crimes as long as he defined them as "official acts."
This radical, dishonorable Court and its ultra-reactionary decisions will be on the ballot in November. Then (fingers crossed) it's time for an overhaul, one as radical as the six Republican partisans who've decided who has rights and who doesn't.
President Biden commented late yesterday on the illegitimate Republican Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision in Trump v. United States that "almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do." With the decision, unreasonably delayed to the last day of the Court's session, the six Republican partisans in robes made clear their intention to aid and abet the Malignant Loser's fascist coup, initiated after the 2020 election and continuing to this day.
(click to enlarge)
Mentally disturbed derelict-impersonator Steve "Loose Cannon" Bannon reported to the Danbury Federal Prison today to begin serving a too-short prison sentence of four months for contempt of Congress when he refused to cooperate in their January 6 coup investigation. Bannon's absurd, last ditch appeal to the right-wing Supreme Court to stay out of prison failed last week. Some details from CNN:
"Steve Bannon, a former Donald Trump White House strategist, is set to report to a federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut, on Monday to begin a four-month sentence for defying a congressional subpoena. [snip]
The MAGA media firebrand was keeping a busy schedule in the days before his prison sentence. He tried, unsuccessfully, to convince Trump to skip the CNN presidential debate last week. He continued to host his far-right podcast where he has vowed to get revenge on his political enemies and imprison the current leadership of the Justice Department.
And he welcomed several mainstream media reporters to join him during his broadcasts, all while peddling his narrative of political martyrdom.
'I’m going to be more powerful in prison than I am now,' Bannon said last week.
His public persona has been one of indifference — unbothered and unafraid of his time at the federal facility.
'I’m not going to be sitting there going, ‘Oh, woe is me,’ Bannon told CNN.
Sources close to Bannon painted a different picture, describing a man vacillating between denial that he would be spared a prison term and apprehension about what life behind bars would entail." (our emphasis)
The first thing we'd suggest to the prison management is that they delouse the creep and shave his beard and head to avoid giving other prisoners his little crawling friends. A soap-on-a-rope would be a thoughtful thing for those awkward communal prison showers. Finally, Federal prison rules forbid conducting a business (pod casting, etc.), access to the internet, sending e-mails with attachments, and restricted phone use to 15 minute intervals. With his big nasty mouth on ice for four months, Bannon may want to take up crochet to pass the time.
(Photo illustration by Elizabeth Brockway / The Daily Beast / Reuters)
Illegitimate Republican SCOTUS's gift to Trump --
Our democracy has been gravely wounded
— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) July 1, 2024
The Trump immunity decision says: a president CAN VIOLATE THE CRIMINAL LAW if he acts within his broadly defined “constitutional authority”
Absurd and dangerous
There is no basis in the Constitution for this Court constructed…
This is a big part of why the ruling is a bigger win for Trump than many of us had been expecting. It’s not just which acts will be immune; it’s how this will hamstring efforts to prosecute even those acts for which there *isn’t* immunity. That’s why Barrett concurs only in part. https://t.co/SwIofaiBqs
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) July 1, 2024
Justice Sotomayor's dissent is one of the most terrified and terrifying pieces of judicial writing I've ever encountered—she lists the criminal acts that presidents can now take with immunity and says "the president is now a king above the law." https://t.co/ovLYlcsF4s pic.twitter.com/6mx4nP0SHE
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) July 1, 2024
Bottom line: This case is not going to trial any time soon. There is the possibility of additional appeals as Judge Chutkan makes some of the decisions about official versus private conduct, etc. It's a mess. https://t.co/MraXDiZfMN
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) July 1, 2024
... and Biden? --
Biden's next act with his new presidential immunity:
— Tristan Snell (@TristanSnell) July 1, 2024
Create 4 new seats on the Supreme Court, by executive order.
He can add a binding ethics code as well. And a special counsel to investigate corruption on SCOTUS while he's at it.
"Should I stay or should I go" --
What Biden owes his country if he stays in after the debate disaster. Every decision he makes from now on, including whether he stays in the race, must prove he means what he says about the grave danger Trump poses to our democracy.
— EJ Dionne (@EJDionne) June 30, 2024
My column, free access https://t.co/aSF50myuUB
I am finishing my second battleground state poll post-debate and both surveys show the same thing: the debate had no effect on the vote choice. The election was extremely close and competitive before the debate, and it is still extremely close and competitive today.
— Geoff Garin (@geoffgarin) June 29, 2024
Election Predictor Shuts Down Concerns On Biden Debate Performance: 'Zero' Impact https://t.co/CJmvuSmTm2
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) July 1, 2024
NEW: President Biden’s family gathered at Camp David to urge his re-election bid to continue
— Jonathan Lemire (@JonLemire) June 30, 2024
But after the disastrous showing in Atlanta, they have ratcheted up their criticisms of Biden’s staff over debate preparations https://t.co/sM8nJTfuug
A party that's won the popular vote once since 1988 is running a convicted felon for president? And it's the other guys who are in trouble?
— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) June 30, 2024
Trump's casual racism (more here) --
We have a question for former President Trump: What is a “Black job?” #CNNDebate pic.twitter.com/uYrTYxFaYV
— The Atlanta Voice (@theatlantavoice) June 28, 2024
me realizing the job market hasn’t been hiring because we weren’t applying to black jobs
— 🦥’ (@slothtitss) June 28, 2024
pic.twitter.com/4BzGcbBo69
This is what I do at my “Black Job” Trump! pic.twitter.com/5sQYYKLM2J
— Bennie G. Thompson (@BennieGThompson) June 28, 2024
The illegitimate Republican Supreme Court has ruled (pdf) on convicted felon Malignant Loser's claim of absolute presidential immunity. As widely anticipated, the Republicans- in- robes allowed for "presumptive immunity" for broadly defined (by a President) "official" acts while in office. It punts back to Judge Chutkan the determination of what acts outlined in the Special Counsel's indictment were "official" or "unofficial," while essentially hamstringing the determination of such acts:
"Certain allegations--such as those involving Trump's discussions with the Acting Attorney General--are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President's official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations--such as those involving Trump's interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public--present more difficult questions." [snip]
"... On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial..." (our emphasis)
So, mission accomplished, and then some. The Malignant Loser gets even more than what he may have expected, but most of all, a delay (at the very least) in his election interference trial. Now, we wait to see if Special Counsel Smith can conduct a mini- trial laying out permissible evidence of the Malignant Loser's involvement in the fake electors scheme, and his pressuring of State officials to "find" votes for him.
More analysis at SCOTUSblog.
UPDATE: As one might expect, corrupt crackpot Justice Clarence Thomas goes far afield in his concurrence, questioning the legitimacy of the Special Counsel.
UPDATE II: Justice Sotomayor summarizes the effect of the Republicans- in- robes holding at the beginning of her dissent (p. 68):
"Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."
"Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. [snip]
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.With fear for our democracy, I dissent." (our emphasis)
More commentary later in our Tweets/ Xeets of the Day.
The quirk of elections is that they tend to be swung by the public voting against, rather than for, a party. The sentiment is often either to kick one party out of power and give another a chance, or to re-elect the incumbents for fear of the alternative. In 2019, voters stuck with the devil they knew. This time, polls suggest that the Conservatives will be dumped from office. Their removal cannot come a moment too soon.
The Tories don’t deserve to win. After 14 years in power, they are a shambles. The original sin was austerity. But the precipitating crisis of this government was when voters were told that leaving the EU with the thinnest of deals would be good for them. Nothing could have been further from the truth. From the Pandora’s box of Brexit flew the furies of conspiracy, dishonesty, government abuse and executive overreach. It has been five years of unremitting cruelty and chaos. Starved public services and a miserly welfare state have seen life become poorer, nastier, more brutish and shorter. The right’s obsession with putting the state at the service of the market is destroying councils and universities, and spewing sewage into rivers.
The country has been exhausted by constant drama and is thoroughly disconnected from Westminster. Britain has had five prime ministers in eight years. The Conservatives can blame no one but themselves for their handling of the pandemic: incompetence, rule-breaking and cronyism bred political distrust and a shift towards populist rightwing politics. Liz Truss’s mercifully short premiership destroyed her party’s reputation for economic competence. With such a record, the Tories could stand unopposed and still come second...
Fourteen years of Tory buffoonery (Boris Johnson) and incompetence (David Cameron, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak) will come to an end this week. If only we were so lucky in ridding ourselves of the right- wingers here. Meanwhile, across the Channel...
Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) party has taken the lead in the first round of France’s parliamentary elections on Sunday, initial projections showed, taking it closer to the gates of power than ever before.
After unusually high turnout, the RN bloc won with 34% of the vote, while left-wing New Popular Front (NFP) coalition came second with 28.1% and President Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble alliance slumped to a dismal third with 20.3%, according to initial estimates by Ipsos.
While the RN appears on track to win the most seats in the National Assembly, it may fall short of the 289 seats required for an absolute majority, suggesting France may be heading for a hung parliament and more political uncertainty.
Projections show that, after the second round of voting next Sunday, the RN would win between 230 and 280 seats in the 577-seat lower house – a staggering rise from its count of 88 in the outgoing parliament. The NFP was projected to secure between 125 and 165 seats, with Ensemble trailing with between 70 and 100 seats.
The election, which Macron called after his party was battered by the RN in European Parliament elections earlier this month, could leave him to see out the remaining three years of his presidential term in an awkward partnership with a prime minister from an opposition party...
As the United Kingdom looks poised to take a major turn to the left on July 4, France appears to be lurching to the far- right, no doubt to the delight of Le Pen's benefactor, war criminal Vladimir Putin. Pending results from the second runoff round of voting, a coalition of the center and left may still bar the party of fascist Le Pen from ultimate power, if they work cooperatively to consolidate candidacies.
President Joe Biden is expected to discuss the future of his re-election campaign with family at Camp David, Maryland, on Sunday, following a nationally televised debate Thursday that left many fellow Democrats worried about his ability to beat former President Donald Trump in November, according to five people familiar with the matter.
Biden’s trip was planned before Thursday’s debate. He and first lady Jill Biden are scheduled to join their children and grandchildren there late Saturday. [snip]
“The decision-makers are two people — it’s the president and his wife,” one of the sources familiar with the discussions said, adding: “Anyone who doesn’t understand how deeply personal and familial this decision will be isn’t knowledgeable about the situation.”
This account of a president and his party in crisis just a little more than four months before an election they say will determine the fate of democracy is drawn from interviews with more than a dozen Democratic officials, operatives, aides and donors. All of them spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to describe matters as sensitive as whether a sitting president might give up his re-election bid and how he could be replaced on the ballot.
Despite delivering a rousing speech at a rally in North Carolina on Friday that calmed some of his allies, Biden was described by one person familiar with his mood as humiliated, devoid of confidence and painfully aware that the physical images of him at the debate — eyes staring into the distance, mouth agape — will live beyond his presidency, along with a performance that at times was meandering, incoherent and difficult to hear.
“It’s a mess,” this person said...
To coin a phrase, "No shit, Sherlock!"
