33 Comments

Thank you for this and for removing the paywall. We need to understand how the system really works if we have any hope of changing it so it works for the people and not just the oligarchs. It's nearly impossible to work, raise a family, afford the news, and have time to read the news. Since the Bush v Gore decision I felt the court had become political, and was sure of it with Citizens United. This evidence can give people the confidence to speak up. I recently found an article in the Atlantic from March 5, 2018, "'Corporations Are People' Is Built on an Incredible 19-Century Lie" that I was only able to read because my husband gave me a gift of the subscription. Subscriptions are luxuries and are the reason the population of working people are uniformed and gullible to liars who promise everything but deliver nothing. I am copying this incredible report for my own information as I intend to do a deeper dive. I am shocked that this information has not been more available.

Expand full comment

In 2000 it was common knowledge that Ginny Thomas was on the Bush transition team and two of Scalia's sons worked for law firms that were representing Bush and the Republican Party.

Thom has documented that 19th Century lie several times. Whereas the court did not rule that corporations are "persons" under the 14th Amendment, a headnote mistakenly did. https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Company#The_famous_headnote

This is an example of the kinds of errors that should be fixed as new evidence comes to light.

Expand full comment

Now I’m convinced: expand the court!

Expand full comment

I found this:

https://youtu.be/199QNdSg8ls?si=EqaPianXlRTiG269

The idea that corporations are people was promoted by corporate owners after the civil war but wasn't law until 1976 according to Thom Hartmann in the 30 minute long interview.

Expand full comment

So how is this not still slight of hand or "slippery sloping" to give corporations the status and rights of people? Is the Atlantic article incorrect?

I regret not having found and followed Thom Hartmann years ago.

Expand full comment

If I paid for every streaming service, every website, of interest, that had a paywall, or allowed every ad or cookie, I would have no money for savings, and have no privacy. I can image what those less financially settled, would have to do, choose between subscriptions or food.

Expand full comment

Yesterday I published a copy of the US Civil Rights Commission report on Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000. I can substantiate Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff.

I knew O'Connor and Rehnquist. When I was in law school Rehnquist taught a seminar I attended -- probably just before Nixon picked him as an associate justice. I remember that he would not answer questions. Later I learned that my colleague Don Jarvis had been a classmate of both Rehnquist and O'Connor at Stanford law school. In fact Rehnquist was first in the class, Don was No. 2 and O'Connor was number 3.

In the 90's I met Don for a meeting in DC and we decided to visit the Supreme Court, holding oral argument. We were just speculators and had to wait to get seats. We were ushered into the gallery while a debate was ongoing, when O'Connor said out loud to Rehnquist, "Look, there's Don!"

A few years later, at a reception, before the 2000 election, I told her that Don was retiring. "Everyone's retiring," she told me. "I'd retire but I don't want to be replaced by a Democrat."

Expand full comment

Spectators.

The last time I saw O'Connor was also the last time I saw Scalia -- the 50th Anniversary of ACUS, at a reception at the Supreme Court. She had degenerated...

In 2010 at the ABA Convention in Toronto. O'Connor ran into my wife and my sister in law when shopping. At the judicial reception she was supposed to sit at the head table, but sat with us, talking about clothes and horses......

Expand full comment

The O'Connors were one of the premier legal families in Phoenix. I worked at a competing lawfirm to her husband with two of the other legacy lawyers in Phoenix so would only see her husband at state bar conventions on occasion.

Expand full comment

In 1988 or 89 I worked as a nursing assistant at a hospital in MD. A member of Doctors Without Borders admitted an Afghan rebel who was "very close" to Osama bin Laden for specialized surgery. This rebel, known to have unusual views, told me that G.W.Bush would become president but only after becoming Governor of Texas. And when that happened "America, we have a big surprise for you." He was determined to tell anyone who would listen but we were warned not to encourage him This, of course, is purely anecdotal & uncoroborated but I assure you it really happened. I have been grieving for my country ever since & have acid reflux that started with the 2000 election.

Expand full comment

Osama was a scion of a wealthy and influential Saudi family. The bin Ladens were investors in Dubya's failed ventures into oil and gave him money to buy the Texas Rangers

House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties is a 2004 book by Craig Unger that explores the relationship between the Saudi Royal Family and the Bush extended political family. Unger asserts that the groundwork for today's terrorist movements and the modern wars that have sprung up about them was unintentionally laid more than 30 years ago with a series of business deals between the ruling Saudis and the powerful Bush family. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bush,_House_of_Saud

That wikipedia article has been sanitized by Republican/right wing editors. As a former wikipedia editor I know how it works, behind the scenes.

Anyone can edit wikipedia, you just need reliable secondary sources. I've tried to edit pages on Reagan and Bush, to show their documented treason and my edits were reverted by right wingers.

If you have edited long enough you know how to manipulate policies and guidelines and if you call out a bigot/liar you will get banned. There is also a "cadre" of volunteers that associate, and attend conferences. It doesn't take much to ingratiate yourself with the in crowd, and if you dispute or are disputed. The in crowd of volunteers will back their friends.

Those who join and have a screen name, have options, like a Watch List, where people with an interest in a subject, get notified when their is a change, and if they don't like the change, they swoop in and revert it, if you revert the revert, then you will be called out for starting a revert war.

You should see the war going on over Trump, his profile page is so long it has to be broken up and Trump humpers pile on, expert at playing the policy and guidelines game, they will wear you out, but don't dare call them out, for who and what they are, there are Republican and even sympathisers among the volunteers who manage disputes.

To see what is really going on, when you load a wiki page, click the tab labeled talk, on the left hand side, that is where the real meat is, and you can see the partisanship of involved editors.

I had a go round with a person who was a puritan descendant, and when I posted an edit that the Mayflower stopped in Massachusetts Bay, to make beer, as they ran out of potable water, their destination as actually the Hudson Bay, he went ballistic,even though the only safe drink in that time was a fermented drink with alcohol.

He also insisted on calling them all pilgrims. When there were only 32 radicals, among the 102 puritans on the Mayflower, those 32 were called Brownists,The Brownists, also known as Saints among themselves and Separatists by outsiders,[1] were a group of English Dissenters or early Separatists from the Church of England. They were named after Robert Browne, who was born at Tolethorpe Hall in Rutland, England, in the 1550s. The term "Brownist" was what outsiders used to describe them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownists and again wikipedia lies, it says that the majority of the separatists on the Mayflower were Brownists, when in fact only 32 were and 32 out of 102 is not a majority.

The Brownists are the "fathers" of the radical Christian movements, and infected America with the Great Awakening of the 18th and 19th Centuries, with their hellfire and damnation tent revivals.

They didn't call themselves Pilgrims, they referred to themselves as saints, and the word pilgrim only appeared with the Journal of William Bradford. But he was Governor of Mass.

Bradfords Journal was returned to Mass in 1897

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/bradfords-manuscript-of-plimoth-plantation

Bradford was the colonial Governor of Mass from 1621 to 1633, his predecessor John Carver died (1620 to 1621)

I checked the Encyclopedia Brittanica for William Bradford and it, as usual, lies or being generous mistates or lies by omission https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Bradford-Plymouth-colony-governor

Expand full comment

Back to Bush. " Evidence of Saudi government support for the 9/11 hijacking is “very disturbing,” and “the real question is whether it was sanctioned at the royal-family level or beneath that, and whether these leads were followed through.” Covered up by GWB. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages

"Osama Basnan, also befriended Hazmi and Mihdhar. As it happened, Basnan’s wife was receiving charitable gifts from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa. The payments—as much as seventy-three thousand dollars over a period of three years—were supposed to fund the treatment of a medical condition that Basnan’s wife suffered from. According to pleadings in the lawsuit against the Saudis, some of that money went to support the hijackers in San Diego. The F.B.I. has not found any evidence that the money got into the hands of the hijackers, however, and the 9/11 Commission found no links to the royal family."

Barbara Bush apologized for 9/11 - to Princess Haifa.

Expand full comment

Very suspicious that Georgia waved the restriction on flying within ConUS after 9/11, for the bin Laden and Saudi family

Not sure that I trust the FBI, either, it is conservative, and who knows many are radical. We know there is a contingent of Trump Humpers in the FBI,, DOJ,not just those Trump embedded with Schedule F, but institutionally the FBI is conservative.

Director of FBI answers to Attorney General, and Dubya's AG was John Ashcroft.

I don't trust the AG, not now not then. So naturally they didn't find any evidence.

But you know me, the eternal skeptic.

Expand full comment

Richard Clarke "authorized" the Bin Laden family flight. I heard him say it to Congress when he was apologizing for his entire role in 9/11. He told us about early interactions with Rice and how he couldn't get proper meetings going, etc.. This is from GOOGLE: "Another point of attack was Clarke's role in allowing members of the bin Laden family to fly to Saudi Arabia on September 20, 2001. According to Clarke's statements to the 9/11 Commission, a request was relayed to Clarke from the Saudi embassy to allow the members of the bin Laden family living in the U.S. to fly home." There is more on Mr. Clarke's WIKI page and in his book "Against All Enemies".

Expand full comment

Do you really think Richard Clarke had the position and authority? Or was he taking heat for Dubya, just like Trumps sycophants take heat for Trump?

As Harry Truman said, the buck stops here (the Resolute desk).

Clarke was, under Clinton, the Chief Counter Terrorism advisor, on the National Security Advisor council

He no more had he authority and ability to let the bin Ladens escape, than I do.

By taking the heat, he kept the heat off his boss, with no big consequences. If the heat fell on Bush, he would never have been re elected, much less press on with his phony wars.

0.3333

Expand full comment

Yes, I do think he did. When the shit hit the fan, they all turned to him---the bunch of damn amateurs were clueless. He had been trying his best to bring the lazy, arrogant newbies up to speed.

I was an MP in Germany, experienced terrorism first hand and had been keeping up with it 15 years before 9/11. I felt it was likely Bin Laden the minute I saw it. I also had the sense a few years later that Clarke was the ONLY White House insider we could trust and WANTED to be honest about what happened there. As for protecting any of them, he expressed they are incompetent, said he was disgusted with them, and has never defended their actions or should I say their inaction.

Expand full comment

So was Bob Graham.

Expand full comment

Laughs, you made me Google Bob Graham. Graham served 10 years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which he chaired during and after 9/11 and the run-up to the Iraq war. He led the joint congressional investigation into 9/11. As chair of the Intelligence Committee, Graham opposed the War in Iraq and was one of the 23 senators to vote against President George W. Bush's request for authorization of the use of military force. After meeting with military leaders in February 2002 and requesting and reviewing a National Intelligence Estimate, he said he "felt we were being manipulated and that the result was going to distract us from where our real enemies were". He continued to oppose the Iraq War, saying in 2008: "I'm afraid I never wavered from my belief that this was a distraction that was going to come to a bad end in Iraq and an even worse end in Afghanistan".[9]

In 2004, Graham published Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia and the Failure of America's War on Terror. In September 2008 the book was released in paperback with a new preface and postscript.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham

I should have remembered him as I have his book and read it, but is in a cardboard box in my garage and has been there since I moved back in 2019.

Expand full comment

My heart literally began pounding in my throat as I read Thom's recap of the 2000 election debacle. It is so angering and enervating to see intelligent people, both past and present, who are, nonetheless, as clueless about the possible unintended consequences of their misguided, unjust actions and decisions as they are powerful, involved in decision making that will determine the fate of millions. I wish the people on the right (mostly, by far) who so fanatically and mindlessly cling to power when they have it and who so zealously and ruthlessly pursue it when they don't, were equally passionate about using the power they wield or want for the good of us all.

Expand full comment

If only Thom would get national attention reporting the facts, and of course, with Heather Cox Richardson. I've been educated by Thom since 2004 and Heather the last two years. If only I could remember all the details so it is nice to have updated info. Thanks

If only we the people got straight talk and analysis from lamestreet media.

Expand full comment

"80,775 wrote in Gore’s name while punching the hole for Gore. Katherine Harris decided that these were 'spoiled' ballots because they were both punched and written upon and ordered that none of them should be counted."

GORE: I just need you to find 80,775 votes ...

Expand full comment

Prescott Bush was a fascist and his son and grandson became POTUS. Go figure.

Expand full comment

Thom--You have put a light on the realities of the 2000 election.

I was working in the UK when the Bush v. Gore decision came out. It made no sense, at least from the perspective of my Yale-trained constitutional law professor, and all that we had learned about equal protection. I was truly unable to explain to my British team members that the U.S. could really conduct elections. Now, of course, I could explain what really happened.

Expand full comment

"[I]t’s almost inconceivable Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will be able to round up the ten needed Republican votes."

So in a manner of speaking, as few as TEN Americans, (the number of Congresspersons needed to break a filibuster,) have held back, currently hold back, and can continue to hold back any types of progress on voting rights, gun reform, abortion rights, etc. Can America EVER see a Democratic 60 majority Senate, or are we stuck in this doom loop for eternity?

Expand full comment

This, is outrageous about all the Republicans who were basically on the take. There, needs to be a changes made on the Supreme Court looking at this type of history. Blocking Black peoples vote. We are so still here. We are it!

Expand full comment

We really should have broke America up into two groups. Let the southerners have a dictatorship. Dictators steal the mass as wealth and resources, and use their children as slaves and soldiers. Where as a democracy is ran by the people and owned by the people to serve the people. Which would work great if the billionaires were kept out of buying the government. I don't want to lose my social security to some dictator because of some Confederates who never earned enough money to have any social security.

Expand full comment

Of all the "unequal protection" in the world at the time, these five jurists decided to protect Bush and Cheney, not the voters' right to be heard. Laughable. Zero. Integrity.

Republicans blocking the investigation of the SCOTUS sugar daddies will backfire. It just puts them back in the news showing their support of corruption. If they let the damn process proceed, it would still be in the news but just the bad actors would be tarnished. This way it looks like they are part of it, and indeed they are.

And speaking of the company you keep, thanks for that CNN article on Speaker Johnson's promotion of “The Revivalist Manifesto, How Patriots Can Win the Next American Era” (horrible title). Scott McKay's book came out LAST YEAR and apparently Mike holds him in high regard. Nope, no integrity here either, but I'll keep hoping and watching.

Expand full comment

"Democrats are far more focused on and motivated by the desire to get things done for the American people than to investigate the possible crimes of previous administrations."

TRUMP: "... and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution."

Expand full comment

True, but that is not enough to win the election. Republicans know how to activate the Lizard Brain, the amygdala and that has won them election victories, until abortion was on the table, and that 2nd cousin of Elvis ,a Democrat, who ran for governor in Mississippi, fucked up, because he too is "proudly anti abortion, and he lost districts which wen overwhelmingly for Biden in 2020.

That one issue, abortion, has activated the amygdala of women, even Republican, and males who side with women.

Do you see Democrats on the offense? I don't, not even when Trump is threatening revenge, retaliation, get rid of Social Security and Medicare, which will affect much of his stupid base.

If Dems don't pull their heads of their arse and go on the offense, get off the defense about the economy. This will be our last real election. And it is an uphill battle with all of the voter negation, suppression, interference and violence by Trump humpers.

Expand full comment