Surrender, Donald! - The Unmasking of a Con Artist

“The U.S. of The Wizard of Oz is not so far from the U.S. of today. The supposedly great man living in Trump Tower—I mean Emerald City—turns out to be a con artist, a bloviating coward who relies on selfaggrandizement and empty shows of power to cow the people ... . And the central reveal about the hollowness, cynicism, opportunism, egotism and fakery of our leaders is chillingly apt.” —The Guardian, 2018 The viral meme “Surrender, Donald” soon followed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement on September 24 that a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump would be initiated. She said, in part: “The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” adding that he “must be held accountable—no one is above the law” and that his enlisting a foreign power to smear political rival former vice president Joe Biden was a “betrayal of his oath of office,

betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

President Trump’s July 25th phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the heart of the betrayal comes as little surprise to most detractors, however, and even seems characteristic of this surreal leader’s behavior. The MAGA hat wearers appear unphased by it along with widely used diminishing descriptions like “con artist” wielded even by Senator Marco Rubio and other Republicans. Google “Donald Trump con artist” and nearly 48 million articles appear. That amount is over 75 percent of the number of people who voted for the former “reality-television” personality in the November 2016 presidential election. While many of us believed him to be a con artist from the outset, the big reveal to his remaining supporters has not yet happened. Will there be an “ashy pall of disillusionment and disgust following the unmasking of the false savior,” as journalist Bidisha wrote of the Wizard of Oz in her 2018 piece for The Guardian?

That moment would be welcome to the majority of our community, given that President Trump is no “friend of Dorothy” in all respects. (The catch phrase originated decades ago because The Wizard of Oz star Judy Garland was, and to many still is, a gay icon.) GLAAD and other nonprofits

ETZY.COM - SARAH RENZI SANDERS-RENZISANDERSART

have been tracking the President’s attacks and derogatory statements concerning the LGBTQ community. Check GLAAD’s out here: https://bit.ly/2tr4vJc

ACT UP demonstration in front of Trump Tower in New York on October 31, 1989

“Surrender, Donald” couldn’t then be any timelier during this Halloween month with the film Judy in national release and the recently launched impeachment inquiry dominating the news. If only we could click our heels three times and find out that the Trump presidency was an orange-hued technicolor nightmare populated by characters more bizarre, irrational, and destructive than fictional villains.

impeached and removed President Trump would pave the way for a President Pence, this small but mighty caucus put nation before party, and duty before politics, to make for a vastly growing majority vote to proceed as warranted.

Andrea Shorter

Let’s not get too far ahead by speculating and shot calling the turn of events leading to a now very likely impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. First of all, thank you to each and every one of the eight openly LGBTQ House congressional members who signed on to hold this corrupt president accountable by agreeing that an official impeachment inquiry is due. Amidst widespread angst that an

Yes, if Trump is impeached and removed as president, Vice President Mike Pence would succeed him as president by constitutional decree. It’s a stomach-turning proposition. Yet, that’s the order of things, right? Unless, of course, Pence’s alleged complicit involvement in aspects of the President’s—clear throat— revealed “alleged” high crimes, misdemeanors, and treasonous scheme to strong-arm and extort the newly elected novice and already literally embattled Ukrainian president into digging up or fabricating dirt on a former U.S. vice president—Joe Biden, the still top-tier front runner-ish Democratic opponent, chief representative of all things Obama-era, and consistently polled 2020 election winner over Trump—also urges investigation towards and ending in his impeachment, and removal from office.

What did the Vice President know? And when did he know it? What did he know of the developing schemes by the President and company to again enlist foreign intervention into U.S. elections before and/or after his curiously and suddenly cancelled trip to the Ukraine in May by the President’s order, apparently as part of the effort to intimidate Ukrainian officials into “playing ball” and eventually complying with Trump’s requests for favors thought to benefit his campaign for re-election—and attempting to exonerate Russia from its interference in the 2016 presidential elections—all while holding up congressionally approved $390 million military aid to Ukraine to defend and protect its sovereign and stricken statehood against aggressive Russian encroachment? REDBUBBLE.COM

Under the developing circumstances, it might not prove too far-fetched that even the most remote notion that Vice President Pence would succeed as president might also be short-circuited should his suspected involvement in Trump’s most egregious abuses of presidential powers be revealed, such as the solicitation of foreign interference in U.S. elections, and the

cover-up of evidence by abusing the classification system to hide transcriptions of the President’s call(s) to Ukrainian President Zelensky.

Again, not to get too far ahead of the now official impeachment inquiry afoot to oust arguably the worst and most dangerous president in U.S. history, but boy, wouldn’t it be grand if anti-LGBTQ Pence was also put out of commission as well? These are some of the darkest, serious times for our nation. No matter one’s partisan persuasion, impeachment proceedings are not to be taken lightly under any circumstance. Still, one can hardly remain without some remote hope that the alleged involvement, awareness, and complicit-ness of this particular vice president will prove apt cause for his ouster as well. After all, he appears complicit and in praise of all of the horrors visited upon us by Trump. So, why not these latest revealed offenses? There are clearly bigger fish to fry, but I do wonder what Pence thinks about Trump’s defensive remarks before a post U.N. Conference event for diplomats and career government workers: “I want to know who’s the person, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close

(continued on page 26)

Gary M. Kramer

As Judy Garland, in the last year of her life, Renée Zellweger gives a knockout performance in Judy, an uneven biopic that focuses on her London concerts six months before her death.

is special because of her voice. The voice is “her gift” and it “gives people dreams.” When Judy gives her first performance at the Talk of the Town cabaret in London—a show-stopping rendition of “By Myself”—Judy shows the power of that voice. (Zellweger did all of her own singing and is even releasing an album of Garland covers in conjunction with the film.)

But while she can be incandescent on stage, Garland is a mess off stage. The film’s first half hour has her fighting her ex-husband Sid Luft (Rufus Sewell) for custody of their kids, being homeless—she is denied her hotel room for being in arrears on payment—and remains unemployed because of her reputation for being both unreliable and uninsurable. She takes the opportunity to perform in London as a way of earning income to get her kids back and her career back on track. Judy, which was written by Tom Edge, who adapted Peter Quilter’s play End of the Rainbow, wisely focuses on this period of her life, and that provides the opportunity to illuminate her psychological state. Garland’s loneliness is beautifully depicted in shots of her alone in her dressing room after a performance, or fit

fully trying to sleep in a kingsized hotel bed. Goold creates distinct visual styles for the on stage, off stage, and backstage, as well as the flashback scenes that show Garland as a youth on the MGM lot.

The episodes from her youth — she defiantly takes a bite out of a hamburger or goes swimming when she is not supposed to—reveal aspects of her life that echo in her later years. Even if these scenes illustrate how Garland was beaten down as a child, and account for her difficulties as an adult, they show a fearless Garland, not someone fragile or vulnerable. It feels like a misstep, perhaps. Moreover, while these episodes emphasize Garland’s struggle with diet pills, her food issues, and her sleeping problems, they seem to be included for the benefit of those viewers who don’t know Garland’s troubled history. Better are scenes of 47-year-old Garland’s anxiety, as when she expresses her all-too-real concern, “What if I can’t do it again?” after a successful opening night. Garland’s lack of selfesteem is a theme throughout Judy, and one of the film’s most touching sequences has Garland meeting two fans, Stan (Daniel Cerqueira) and Dan (Andy Nyman), by the stage door after a (continued on page 27) Renée Zellweger stars as Judy Garland in Judy LD ENTERTAINMENT

By Ann Rostow

Dreaming with Jim Comey I dreamed that Mel and I were in my college dorm room with Jim Comey and we all wound up tak- ing a nap because we were so very tired. There was something inti- mate about our relationship with the former FBI director—as if we had been through a battle together, and perhaps had another one ahead of us. It was my first impeachment dream, but not the last, I think. And indeed, all of these characters belong in a surreal world. The luna- tic President, raving about civil war and collapsing markets. The stonefaced Stephen Miller. The sly Mike Pence. The ponderous Attorney General and oily Secretary of State; heavy aging steakhouse men not quite as accomplished as they think that they should be. The manic clown lawyer, flashing from laugh- ter to scowl, who at one point roped in the unconvincing husband and wife legal team of Joe Digenova and Victoria Toensing, planning to take them to Ukraine to represent “whis- tle blowers.” Perhaps Boris and Natasha were prepared to dish the dirt on Moose and Squirrel. Quite honestly, I wonder if I might wake up a second time and find myself back in the innocent days post-Mueller, when official miscon- duct involved obstructing justice, but was protected by a convoluted interpretation of a Justice Depart- ment policy on whether or not you can indict a sitting president. Those were the days when impeachment was seen as a political charade, dis- tracting from the forward-look- ing Democratic message. Even Mel and I, faithful politics addicts, grew weary of hearing Rachel provide the backstory on Oleg Deripaska yet again, and started switching over to NCIS reruns. Now we’re back, glued to the TV like small children on a cartoon binge. Can anyone predict the developments ahead? No, but it’s sort of like watching those wilder- ness documentaries where a few members of the grazing herd are just starting to prick up their lit- tle heads and we can see a predator cheetah or two crouching silently in the high ground. Something’s about to happen and it’s not going to be pretty, folks. We may root for the gazelle on Nat- Geo, but I’m counting on the House cats to take down their prey. How the Senate reacts will depend on public opinion and the scope of the President’s misdeeds. But unlike the Clinton case, when the defendant was highly popular and guilty of lying about a sexcapade, we know that Trump is roundly disliked and accused of serious misconduct; vio- lating his oath of office, horse trad- ing with taxpayer money and browbeating a country that depends on our goodwill to further his own deranged conspiracies. A deci- sion in Trump’s favor will domi- nate the legacies of all Senators who cast such a vote, dimming whatever highlights once favored these oth- erwise successful politicians, and those who recognize this dilemma will think twice about doing so. Watch Out for Falling Blocks Meanwhile, back in GLBT world, an historic moment has arrived. It is time for oral arguments in our three hugely important Supreme Court

lawsuits. Two hours are set aside for lawyers on both sides of two main arguments on the morning of Octo- ber 8. (Two of the three cases are combined into a single legal issue.) Both arguments revolve around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal statute that out- laws discrimination in the work- place on the basis of race, sex, and other factors. Those other factors don’t include sexual orientation or gender identity, but over time, many courts have interpreted the ban on sex discrimination to pro- tect members of the GLBT commu- nity against workplace bias as well. On the 8th, the Court will first con- sider two cases that ask whether sexual orientation falls under the “sex” category, and in the second argument, consider a third case on whether transgender status is like- wise protected under federal law. Some might say that we have lit- tle to lose, since we are not techni- cally included in the Civil Rights Act to begin with. But that attitude ignores the weight of court prece- dent, which has been piling up on our side of the legal seesaw to the point that we have nearly managed to include ourselves in Title VII just by winning case after case after case in lower courts. High Court rulings have also been useful. For example, it was Antonin Scalia who wrote the opinion for a unan- imous Court that same-sex harass- ment in the workplace violated Title VII’s ban on sex discrimina- tion as long as it was based on sex. A few years before that, the justices ruled that Title VII’s sex protec- tions meant that an employer could not impose gender stereotypes on his workers. That, of course, came in the case of the Price Waterhouse superstar, Ann Hopkins, denied partnership because of her mascu- line style. These and other helpful prece- dents have been the building blocks of our legal progress surrounding Title VII. I believe that I can mix the metaphors of seesaw and build- ing blocks because we can use the building blocks to weigh down the seesaw, leaving us riding high on the other side, the “saw” if you will, with the blocks on the “see.” Or should it be the other way around? Unfortunately, this kind of prog- ress, built up over years, can be erased in a single decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, knocking the building blocks off of the “see” with the back of its hand, sending us and the “saw” crashing to the hard ground. Ouch! I have no idea why I can’t be more serious right now about this mas- sively important legal issue. As I’ve repeatedly ranted in the past, a High Court ruling that deliberately leaves gays and transpeople outside of the protections of our nation’s most powerful civil rights law would be a tremendous step backwards. Without a prompt reaction from a Democratic House and Senate and a Democratic administration, by enacting the Equality Act in early 2021, our community could effec- tively lose a couple of decades of progress. Courts, increasingly conserva- tive thanks to the fast pace of the Trump/McConnell judgeship con- veyor belt, would be free to point