Jeff Danziger lives in New York City. He is represented by CWS Syndicate and the Washington Post Writers Group. He is the recipient of the Herblock Prize and the Thomas Nast (Landau) Prize. He served in the US Army in Vietnam and was awarded the Bronze Star and the Air Medal. He has published eleven books of cartoons and one novel. Visit him at DanzigerCartoons.com.
Start your day with National Memo Newsletter
The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning
Reprinted with permission from AlterNet
Multiple bombshell revelations involving former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows have come to light over the last couple of days.
Shortly after reports began circulating about his decision to cooperate with the House Select Committee overseeing the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, The Guardian's Martin Pengelly dropped another damning account from Meadows that includes details about Trump's presidency. Pengelly's latest report is derived from accounts detailed in the advance copy of Mark Meadows' forthcoming book, titled The Chief’s Chief.
Back in 2020, the former president actually tested positive for COVID-19 prior to his first debate against President Joe Biden, according to Meadows.
"Donald Trump tested positive for Covid-19 three days before his first debate against Joe Biden, the former president’s fourth and last chief of staff has revealed in a new book," The Guardian reported. "Nonetheless, the stunning revelation of an unreported positive test follows a year of speculation about whether Trump, then 74 years old, had the potentially deadly virus when he faced Biden, 77, in Cleveland on 29 September – and what danger that might have presented."
Politico Playbook co-author and CNN contributor Rachel Bade is raising questions about the timing of the report considering Meadows' upcoming hearing with the House committee.
"Look, there are going to be a lot of questions about intentional deception here," Bade said. "The White House was very, obviously, desperate to make it look like Trump didn't have Covid."
Bade also wonders whether or not there will be any level of accountability for any of what has been made public.
She added, "They were willing to do anything to keep him on the trail. So putting the lives of Gold Star Families and the future president on the line there was something he was clearly willing to risk. My question is what sort of accountability will we see on this?"
- Waukesha billboard warns Trump rally will be superspreader event ›
- Billboard calls Trump's Iowa rally a 'COVID superspreader' event ›
- Trump rallies led to 700 COVID-19 deaths, study says - Los Angeles ... ›
- Trump's superspreader event in D.C. will kill Americans ›
- The Rose Garden superspreader convocation was a 'never event ... ›
- Was Donald Trump's White House watch party a super-spreader ... ›
- Coronavirus: Trump campaign rallies led to 30,000 cases, Stanford ... ›
- White House hosted Covid 'superspreader' event, says Dr Fauci ... ›
Reprinted with permission from AlterNet
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and examining the constitutionality of Mississippi’s highly restrictive abortion law. Abortion rights defenders fear that the case will result in Roe v. Wade being overturned. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, speaking on Wednesday, was highly critical of the Mississippi law’s supporters — expressing concerns that the Supreme Court will be viewed as overly politicized.
Justices appointed by Republican presidents now have a 6-3 majority on the High Court, and Sotomayor is among the three justices appointed by Democratic presidents. The Court moved even more to the right in 2020 when liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Donald Trump appointee. The two other right-wing justices Trump appointed during his presidency are Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Sotomayor, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, pointed to the fact that the new case is driven by political expediency and as the culmination of a carefully crafted agenda, rather than being the result of a particularly pertinent legal question or a new set of circumstances.
“Now, the sponsors of this bill, the House bill, in Mississippi said: We’re doing it because we have new justices," she explained. "The newest ban that Mississippi has put in place, the six-week ban, the Senate sponsor said: 'We’re doing it because we have new justices on the Supreme Court.' Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible.”
Sotomayor says the sponsors of Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban said "we're doing it because we have new justices." \n\nShe asks: "Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?"pic.twitter.com/T2MmA56ddf— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1638372172
- Sotomayor says justices follow rule of law, not partisan politics ... ›
- Supreme Court justices Sotomayor and Kagan say partisanship ... ›
- At Harvard Law, Sotomayor suggests judges cooperate more ... ›
- Supreme Court's Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor: Avoid partisan ... ›
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor: 'There is going to be a lot of ... ›