One thing you have to say about The Former Guy is that he’s old, but not too old to learn from his past mistakes. Mistakes like throwing his personal lawyer under the bus while he was just doing the bidding of his client.

When Michael Cohen’s antics while acting at the behest of Don the Con to get elected President finally caught up with him in 2018, The Don was nowhere to be found. In fact, he was too busy throwing his lawyer under a bus to notice that his former toady lawyer was extremely put off by his indifference.

“I never directed Michael Cohen to break the law,” [TFG] said in a tweet. “He was a lawyer and he is supposed to know the law. It is called “advice of counsel,” and a lawyer has great liability if a mistake is made. That is why they get paid.”

Indeed. That is why they get paid.

Unfortunately for Bronzer Boy, he discovered too late that there is getting paid, and then there is getting paid. And TFG got paid back in spades for abandoning his lawyer to a stay in Otisville Federal Prison.

After serving his sentence, Cohen sang like a canary to anyone who would listen to him, and there were lots of listeners. That ultimately got TFG tried and convicted of 34 felonies as well as having embarrassing open court testimony about his encounter with a pornographic actor while his wife was home nursing his newborn baby boy.

This will help us all understand why TFG is paying $103,840 out of his “Save America PAC” to Tully Bailey LLC, the law firm defending his other former personal lawyer, Boris Epshteyn.

Epshteyn, also known as CC6 in Jack Smith’s new filing, has pleaded not guilty to nine felony charges in Arizona for the “fake Electors scheme.” But this time TFG is standing steadfastly with his personal lawyer with his PAC’s checkbook in hand. Because this time bus-throwing-under is not an option.

Epshteyn, like Cohen, knows where the bodies are buried.

I apologize for the delay this morning. I was off the grid this week, camping in the beautiful dark skies Oregon State Park called Cottonwood Canyon, just 80 miles southeast of us. We contemplated the universe on new moon clear nights with no wind (unusual for this place), identifying and observing constellations, planets, satellites, shooting stars and multiple B737s. Now back to reality and catching up on the week. Enjoy!

As with everyone else who recalls election antics from one year to the next, I’ve been waiting for the October Surprise (or surprises, who knows?) that should be rearing its head right about now.

It didn’t take long, it seems. About one minute into October, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) called a strike at all of the ports that they have workers. All major ports on the East and the Gulf Coast are affected.

It is not news that an October port strike would be to the detriment of a sitting administration and a boon to the political party challenging them. The fact that the Biden Administration is the most pro-union government in decades – and arguably, ever, makes the move to strike just now more than a little suspicious.

Cap that with this newly circulated photo of the ILA president, Harold Daggett, 78, shaking hands with the first former president with 13 felony convictions (or any felony convictions, for that matter).
The photo was taken a while ago but has suddenly resurfaced all over the internet – and now here.

That, along with tales of two former trials in which the union president was connected to the Mafia.

That, along with tales of Daggett owning a luxurious 7100 square foot mansion, a 76-foot yacht and drives a Bentley.

And his salaries. Don’t forget his salaries.

So what is the deal here? Why slip a knife in the back of a pro-union party? The union supported Joe Biden in 2020 with their endorsement, and the ILA PAC has contributed $115,000 to Democrats out of a total of $120,000 to all parties just this year.

Right now, there are more questions than answers, but I’ll bet there’s a great story out there begging to be told.

Addendum: As you can read in the comments the strike was just called off until January 15th.  It reminds me of Rule 76 of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: “Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.”

When I look back at the Veep Debate, there are only two things that stood out for me. Well, three, really. The third was that Vance and Walz agreed with each other on more than one occasion. The agreeing just got to be annoying.

Can’t we all just disagree?

One other thing on JD was not on any of my bingo cards.

From the debate transcript:

“JDV: Margaret. The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact check, and since you’re fact checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on. So there’s an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years.”

“MB: Thank you, Senator.”

Two things come to mind.

1. JD objected when he intimated that the Springfield Haitians were in the country illegally, and the moderators clarified that the Haitians were not undocumented workers. He thought it unfair that the truth got out after all he did to besmirch his fellow Ohioans.

2. The word salad that followed was such a “deep in the weeds” explanation of the Haitian’s status that I’m sure he lost his supporters’ trains of thought. It reminded me of something we Democrats are prone to do from time to time.

The other one, also a JD production, is aptly summarized by a meme posted by the MSNBC control room in their post debate deliberations.

For those under 40, the photo on the left is from the Dramatic Prairie Dog video clip that expressed sudden surprise. On the right, that is JD being suddenly surprised that the 800 pound gorilla in the room was mentioned: January 6th.

All of that debate prep and no one showed ol’ JD how to react when asked whether the 2020 election was stolen. One thing. He only had to do one thing when asked “Did [Trump] lose the 2020 election?”

Caught in the headlights.

JD parried with a “whatabout” and Walz lunged for the kill with “That is a damning non answer.”

Touché, Coach.

I’ve been thinking about yesterday’s AI experiment, maybe a little more than I thought I would. I was struck with how easy it was for the algorithm to support Harris, given the extra detailed information that I provided. It would seem reasonable that “alternative facts” provided in the extra details from a Trump supporter would deliver to us a pro-Trump essay. So I asked a Trump supporter that I know (yes, I know a few that I still talk to) to provide three facts they know about Harris, and three that they know about Trump. Then I submitted them to the very same algorithm that I used yesterday. Here are those extra details:

Trump is trying to save America
Harris wants open borders
Trump cannot be bought
Harris supports abortion rights
Trump wants to secure the border
Harris flips on her opinions

Everything else I submitted was identical to what I provided yesterday. After about half the time that was previously noticed, the essay below was generated (again, italics are for effect).

In the upcoming presidential election, the choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump presents voters with starkly different visions for the future of America. Trump is positioning himself as the savior of the nation, promising to secure the border and protect American interests. Harris, on the other hand, advocates for open borders and supports abortion rights.

One of Trump’s key strengths is his reputation for being unbuyable. He has long touted himself as a self-made billionaire who cannot be influenced by lobbyists or special interests. In contrast, Harris has faced criticism for changing her position on key issues, showing a lack of consistency that may raise doubts about her sincerity.

When it comes to immigration policy, Trump’s focus on securing the border resonates with many Americans who are concerned about national security. Harris’s support for open borders, however, raises questions about her commitment to protecting American sovereignty.

On the issue of abortion, Harris’s stance aligns with liberal values, advocating for a woman’s right to choose. Trump, on the other hand, supports restrictions on abortion and has voiced his opposition to late-term procedures.

In conclusion, the choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump represents a clear contrast in ideologies. Trump’s promises to save America and secure the border appeal to those who prioritize national security, while Harris’s support for open borders and abortion rights may resonate well with liberal voters. It is up to the American people to carefully consider these competing visions and make an informed decision at the ballot box.

See what they did there? Mr. AI didn’t pick a side this time even though both essays were designed to be persuasive. Why is that? The only thing I can come up with it that some of the extra details are more opinion than fact, and a check with internet content that did not agree with the “alternative facts” altered the persuasive aim from voting for one candidate over another to an exhortation to Americans to “consider competing opinions” when voting.

Or as TFG would say: “It’s all rigged!”

I’ve been reading about the advent of AI technology for a while now, and I’ll bet that Salon customers are equally curious about what is all the hubub and ado about this matter. So, I launched a small investigation. I found several websites that will construct written essays when given some prompts and selected one for a test.

At this site, I provided the following information:
Subject: Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump
Grade level: Undergraduate
Type of essay: Persuasive
Length: 1 page (250 words)

I entered the following “extra details”:
– Trump is a convicted Felon
– Harris is a former prosecutor
– Trump is in cognitive decline
– Harris is a former US senator
– Trump botched the COVID pandemic
– Harris supports women’s rights

Then, 20 seconds after pressing the “Generate” button, I got my AI-written essay which I provide below for your information, amusement, and, shall I say it, astonishment (In italics for effect).

In the upcoming election, the choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is clear. Trump, a convicted Felon, has a tainted past filled with legal troubles. On the other hand, Harris, a former prosecutor has dedicated her career to upholding the law and seeking justice.

Additionally, Trump’s cognitive decline is becoming more evident, raising concerns about his ability to effectively lead the country. Harris, as a former US senator, has demonstrated her intelligence and sound judgment, making her a strong and capable candidate for the presidency.

Furthermore, Trump’s handling of the COVID pandemic has been widely criticized as a failure. His lack of leadership and misinformation have cost countless lives. Harris, on the other hand, supports women’s rights and has a clear plan to address the ongoing pandemic and rebuild the economy.

In conclusion, the choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is a choice between a qualified and experienced leader and a convicted felon in cognitive decline. Harris has the skills, values, and determination to lead our country with integrity and compassion. It is time for change and Harris is the candidate to bring about that change. Vote for progress. Vote for Kamala Harris

They also have a button to press to make the essay “folksier” but that seems to be a work-in-progress because the result has the look and feel of an assembly instruction manual written by a person who took an ESL class once.

I was particularly struck by how the algorithm took the prompts and put them in context with other information that could be gleaned from other internet news sources.

It extrapolated.

I’m just glad I don’t get paid for doing this. Move over, blacksmiths and barrel makers. And I wouldn’t want to be a high school English teacher right about now.