By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a CNN interview, the CDC’s Daskalakis stated that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has never been briefed by a CDC expert on measles, COVID-19, or influenza. Daskalakis confirmed that the CDC, considered a world leader in public health, has offered briefings that Kennedy has not accepted, leading to speculation about the sources of Kennedy’s information. This revelation adds to growing criticism regarding Kennedy’s health expertise, particularly as the American Public Health Association condemned his actions and anti-vaccine views.
Read the original article here
Judge Tosses D.C. Case From Trump Prosecutor—Calls It Total Garbage: Let’s unpack this, shall we? It seems a judge in D.C. has thrown out a case brought by a prosecutor associated with Trump, and the judge didn’t mince words, calling it “total garbage.” The language used here is, frankly, striking, and it suggests the judge found the case to be entirely without merit. It’s not just a matter of disagreeing with the arguments; it’s a complete dismissal.
This situation speaks volumes about the quality, or rather, the lack thereof, of some of the legal work being done by those associated with the former president. There’s a sense that the cases are being rushed, perhaps more focused on making a statement than actually building a solid legal foundation. When cases get tossed, it’s a clear indication that the evidence, the arguments, or both, simply aren’t up to snuff. This pattern seems to be more common with Trump’s team, leading to questions about their competence and the overall strategy. It seems like a lot of the cases being brought forward are flimsy, with circumstantial evidence at best.
It is noted that Trump’s track record of losing cases is telling, indicating a potential lack of legal prowess within his team. The fact that these cases are failing raises questions about the motives behind them. Are they designed to harass opponents? Are they merely a show for the base? Whatever the reason, losing in court is not a good look, and it’s certainly not helping the cause. There is this sense that it’s all about flooding the zone with a constant barrage of questionable claims. It appears the main goal is to damage the court system’s credibility in the eyes of Trump’s supporters, which sets the stage for a potential dismantling of the modern court system.
It seems like some of the people involved may lack a real understanding of the law, while others might be too afraid to speak out against the “Oz” behind these efforts. They waste time, resources, and clog up the system, distracting from real issues. It’s easy to look at this and feel like the country’s reputation is being damaged on the world stage, and it also means that no allies will be willing to trust the US in the future. The idea of weaponized incompetence is also gaining traction, suggesting that the aim isn’t to win but to damage the system itself. Project 2025, in this context, gets mentioned, implying a long-term plan to reshape the country, with damage to America’s financial state, environment, and international relationships.
The discussion also brings up the role of media figures like Jeanine Pirro and the perception of them as part of a particular ideological framework. She’s mentioned as an example of someone who embodies the negative consequences and failures of Trump’s legal endeavors. The implication here is that this type of rhetoric and approach contributes to the problems. It seems that there is an underlying fear that if these individuals gain enough power, they will begin to ignore due process and create a system where people can be kidnapped and detained without due cause.
The topic of “Nazis” is broached, with the idea that some on the conservative side are engaging in actions reminiscent of those of the Nazis. This is about being a bit more transparent and acknowledging certain practices. There’s a sense that, as long as these groups continue to deny these things, their supporters will be more willing to support the behavior. There’s a concern that those in power are not seeking legal outcomes, but rather a chance to push their own agendas.
The idea of lying is a constant theme. The core argument seems to be that these people are constantly lying, but the point of the lies is to confuse and exhaust those who oppose them. There’s this sense that the strategy is to deny accusations, then further deny those denials, causing enough mental fatigue that it’s harder for people to resist the rhetoric. The claim is that the lies are not intended to deceive, but to erode trust in the system itself, allowing them to take further steps towards their agenda.
It’s also noted that there may be political advisors who were only appointed because they expressed support for Trump, and who lack legal training. The discussion of nationalism emerges, with warnings against how nationalism in Germany contributed to the rise of the Nazi Party. There is a discussion on how the term “socialism” is also being misconstrued, and how American leaders seem to be doing the same. It seems the core point here is the need to understand the words we use and the history they contain.