The Republican Party of Orange County (OCGOP) put out the following statement on Thursday, March 30:
Statement on the Indictment of President Trump
Orange County, CA. Hon. Fred M. Whitaker, Chairman of the Republican Party of Orange County, released the following statement on the indictment of President Trump:
“Since 2016 radical Democrats have been obsessed with dragging the country into their personal vendetta with President Trump.
“We’ve seen this episode time and time again. No matter how many times Democrats fail, they continue to shop for a crime and a jury that will convict. Now they’ve found a county District Attorney who refuses to convict violent criminals but is more than happy to indict the former President for a supposed campaign finance violation.
“The radical Democrats’ weaponization of law enforcement against their political opponents is destroying our country. They cannot be trusted with power. In 2024 we must make sure they never hold it again.”
###
That last part is funny – Fred Whitaker is gonna make sure Democrats NEVER HOLD POWER AGAIN. It reminds me of the two things that come up first when you Google “Fred Whitaker OC Republicans” – a letter from rightwinger Deborah Pauly demanding “Feckless Fred” resign because of all this decade’s Republican defeats and Democrat victories; and a Change.Org petition from rightwinger Brian Burley demanding the same thing. Maybe Trump’s indictment will finally give Fred some success? But I don’t see how, OC hates Trump.
It’s really a generic and unimaginative statement, probably identical to a thousand other local Parties’ statements. It is inconceivable that Trump is guilty of anything, and even if he were, any attempt to hold him accountable must be a “personal vendetta” that “radical Democrats” are “obsessed” with “dragging the country into,” thus “destroying” it. Also, what were the times we “radical Democrats FAILED” in holding him accountable? All I can think of is the two times that SENATE REPUBLICANS refused to IMPEACH him, first for extorting Ukraine and then for inciting an insurrection – REALLY LOW POINTS in American history. (The Senate Republicans’ refusal I mean.)
Fred earns ONE GOP brownie point for using the word “weaponization.” Don’t you wonder who decides, and how the decision is so quickly propagated, that all of a sudden every Republican in the country is gonna use the same weird-ass word in every statement? I remember when Jack Smith got named to look after Trump matters for the DOJ, and Trump called him a “fully weaponized prosecutor.” That cracked me up – I pictured Jack as Robo-Cop. What does this shit even mean? Of COURSE there are consequences to breaking the law, and if you’re a poor fucking lawbreaking SNOWFLAKE, then consequences ARE gonna feel like a weapon!
Aside from that, sure, go ahead and paint us as tough and scary. After all, we ARE the Daddy Party these days.
Fred LOSES a GOP brownie point for failing to utter the magic word SOROS. What was Fred thinking, not invoking the Satanic name of this era’s Emmanuel Goldstein? Is Fred just too genteel for this job after all? Did he flinch at the innate anti-Semitism of blaming all evil on this one wealthy Jew? Or the absolute falsehood of claiming Alvin Bragg is “Soros-funded?” That’s not stopping anyone else! Fred should spend more time with his old friend Matt Cunningham, who’s been Soros-ing like there’s no tomorrow on HIS blogs.
It’s looking like ALL Republicans, those who’ve been big Trump supporters and those who haven’t, are defending the Ochre Abomination from this indictment with the same lame talking points, and the folks on TV who are considered smart have been concluding that “This shows Trump still runs the Party, that the GOP is still the Party of Trump.” I say, well yeah, partly, but that’s kind of secondary. Primarily, all Republicans, in the same sort of groupthink that made them all suddenly say “weaponization,” have decided this is the best way to attack the Democratic Party – as overbearing tyrants who are gonna come after YOUR porn-star hush-money next!
Well, have at it, chumps.
BUT
We are underselling the Beauty and
Historic Import of this Moment.
When I considered how to end this piece, how to tie it up with a serious thought that’s not exactly what all the smart people on TV are saying, LO – I felt a patriotic stirring in my heart. ¡SERIO! This is a new fucking chapter in the American Revolution, as surely as the Civil War and Civil Rights were. George Washington refused to be King, and insisted on elections. Still, up until last week, every President had been treated as a King in some big ways – including NEVER having to face the consequences of their crimes. Think about it, guys and girls. THIS IS A BIG FUCKING DEAL.
Cameras are only dangerous to The Orange One when he can’t control the narrative. Everyone wants to see him plead not guilty in open court even his supporters. And, for republicans to complain about weaponization of prosecutorial bodies is proposterous. Lock them up! Lock them up! Lock them up!
What happened to “elections have consequences.” Republicans get their just desserts served really fricking cold.
You miss the beauty of this moment Vern. 34 felonies, now that is badass. Trump could have a Rapp album or be the last Republican Mayor of Anaheim.
I couldn’t help to notice to similarity between Melahatrat and the Orange One.
Election/political practices violation. Melahatrat first. Then chump.
Charge related to bribe being framed as “legal fees”. This event happened almost contemporaneously.
Only difference, the Orange one got caught doing it all in same transaction or occurrence.
Melahatrat’s bad acts happened separately at different times – SB/OC planned parenthood cash coverup and then Irvinestan.
American historical numerology.
4/4 MLK assassination; Trump indictment.
55 years apart to the day.
Also…
President William Henry Harrisson becomes first U.S. President to die in office.
President Lincoln greeted by crowd including slaves when visiting former Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia.
US forces liberate Nazi concentration camp.
World Trade Center officially dedicated.
Hank Aaron ties Babe Ruth. (Baseball bat tie in)
There is a lot to unpack there.
Queue James Brown “Livong in America” and imagine Don King dancing with the American flag.
https://youtu.be/c5BL4RNFr58
I (along with most people) can’t wait to see the more serious crimes get charged – Jan 6, documents, Georgia intimidation.
Still it is fun to say ‘porn star hush money’ a few times a day.
Whitaker is like one of those cartoon characters in mid-air. Too stupid to fall. For a while.
Republicanism is effectively dead, replaced by fascism. Good luck selling that, Freddie.
Well one could reasonably argue local Republicans are infiltrating the DPOC. Divide and conquer.
Hence, Farrah being the only “Democrat” featured in Hanna’s “Ladies First” piece.
That reminds me, I was gonna try to work in a “Hanna and her sisters” joke, but none occurred to me, and then I didn’t want to pick on the “cub reporter” TOO much.
Journalists are not sacred cows, Vern. They pick and choose who to lionize or tarnish too just like the rest of
us.
She – cub reporter – should have thick skin. If not, you’ll be doing her a favour. Either she is cut out for her trade or she isn’t. Or, she’ll claim she is the victim of Islamophobia.
Mind you her introductory article for the OC rag was this. So, it does appear – right out the gate – that she has a political agenda and is biased.
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/10/30/muslims-are-fast-becoming-a-powerful-voting-bloc-in-orange-county/
Just a moment here. Eric’s commentary has just crossed the line into blatant bigotry, I’m marking it with this explanation and denunciation — and Vern and I will discuss OFF-line what we should do about it going forward.
Eric has contended in the past that he is not bigoted against Muslims — but is merely antagonistic to anyone (largely but not exclusively Muslims) who is opposed to Armenia and its claims and/or supportive of Armenia’s enemies. The latter include not just Azerbaijan, but Turkey, Pakistan, and their allies, including Israel (and Jews by extension).
But here we have Eric attacking an OC Register reporter for a story discussing the rise of Muslim participation in elections, both as voters and as candidates in cities including Irvine, Anaheim, and Fullerton. It notes Farrah Khan’s electoral success — which, unlike her party loyalty, is not debatable — and quotes an Iranian woman who voted her with misgivings.
So which is it, Eric? Are you against positive coverage of Muslims, or against any article that even mentions Farrah Khan in a less than hostile way? And you really think that writing such an article evinces bias?
I’m not sure where the line is about giving a forum to someone who is conducting a flimsy campaign of “playing the refs” so as to push them to attack Muslims, or at least Khan and those who treat her with insufficient hostility, but I think that Eric has gotten close enough to that line to smell it.
It may in light of other coverage for which she is responsible as a reporter or contributor. I said it “appears” as in one could perceive.
Mark Arax got squeezed out of LA Times over an article about the Armenian Genocide because Armenians weren’t allowed to write about such things.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php/?story_fbid=859140518609262&id=100035399666724
There is definitely a history of bias in newsrooms, to extrapolate to journalists with agendas is not that far-fetched. Except maybe for you oh myopic Booby one.
Look at the Rags coverage of Khan’s anti-Armenian bias. Scant at best. No coverage. The mayor of the 10th largest city in the state calls an Armenian American lawyer from her city an Islamophobe after the he links her to a notorious Turkish denier of the Armenian Genocide. And no coverage. Puhleeze.
I am not the racist in this equation.
You wrote “So, it does appear – right out the gate – that she has a political agenda and is biased.”
If your only meant “one can perceive,” then that means almost nothing — because if the “one perceiving” is you, you can perceive bias simply from someone failing to cover issues from a monomaniacally pro-Armenian perspective.
Khan is openly pro-Turkey and (so far as I know) pro-Pakistan, to which she’s entitled given her own heritage. That does not immediately translate to “anti-Armenian bias” — and to the extent that you’re the Armenian lawyer whom she called an “Islamophobe” — you’ve given her a lot of ammunition for that description in this comments section alone.
You also have an amazing sense of grandeur. (I won’t say “delusions” because I’m not a clinical psychologist.) You think that her calling you an Islamophone after you linked her to the Turkish genocide-denier merits coverage anywhere? I might grant the point if her target — who speaks of himself in the third person above — was not so (in my opinion) aggressive, obsessed, foul, and — yup! — racist towards Muslims in general.
“No coverage. Puhleeze”? What planet are you from? You’re not the huge story you imagine yourself to be. Mostly, you hurt your own cause.
The use of third person was to generalise the event.
Yeah. I think an elected official calling a court officer a racist in a public hearing as retalliation is newsworthy.
For those who don’t know, “court officer” in this particular instance just means “lawyer.”
When the “court officer” in question is as devoted to bashing a wide swath of persons as you are, one would have to be quite off base — though I’m not in a position to diagnose narcissism, delusion, sociopathy, or any other problem — to consider it “newsworthy.”
Take a break, “court officer.”
Soros … you may quote me.
We’ll wait for a credible source.
And wait. And wait…