Skip to content

Month: May 2021

All those legal fees are “a pain in the ass”

The world’s worst legal client is upset. Sad!

As two separate investigations into the Trump Organization heat up, a series of subpoenas issued by the New York attorney general and the Manhattan district attorney shows how prosecutors are probing one particular land deal.

The subpoenas, which have not been publicly released until now, have been issued during the past 18 months to three towns just north of New York City.

Investigators asked for a trove of documents related to Donald Trump’s failed attempts to develop a luxury golf course on a 212-acre, forested estate that spans across those three towns and includes several mansions. The requested documents and subsequent court filings show that investigators are examining whether The Trump Organization inflated the value of the property for a charitable tax write-off.

The Daily Beast has learned the state Attorney General’s Office issued a round of subpoenas in November 2019. Investigators demanded copies of “zoning, property planning, or other building and construction permissions” sought by Trump’s firm for the property, Seven Springs LLC. At question is the dense forest that surrounds a towering, 60-room, century-old, sandstone chateau that includes three pools, carriage houses, and is imposing enough to justify its own forecourt and fountain.

Think: Bruce Wayne. (There’s even a massive suspected bat population on the grounds of the estate.)

When locals fought Trump’s building plans, Trump decided to give away his land rights to a conservation group—allowing him to take a hefty $21.1 million tax deduction in 2015, according to a filing made by investigators last August.

But the pivotal question remains: Was the gifted land really worth that much if nothing was built on it?

The towns of Bedford, New Castle, and North Castle handed over dozens of documents, according to records The Daily Beast obtained.

At that time in late 2019, the AG’s office had already issued a subpoena seeking records and communications to see if The Trump Organization and its officers committed bank fraud—again, essentially a case concerning lying about asset values. Nearly a year later, the team would acknowledge in court filings that it hadn’t yet “reached a determination” whether it had found “violations of any applicable laws.”

Meanwhile, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. was busy trying to get then-President Trump’s tax returns in order to examine his “hush money” payments to the porn star Stormy Daniels. As that investigation expanded into a criminal probe of Trump’s property valuations in cities across the country, that office also sent subpoenas for the Seven Springs conservation deal to the same three towns in December 2020.

Except this time, investigators demanded a much larger collection of records. They asked for items like planning board meeting minutes, which would help show whether Trump ever really stood a chance at building on the land, and they sought records dating back more than 15 years in some cases—items that one clerk said should have been destroyed.

Another town clerk said that, as recently as two months ago, DA investigators were still picking up boxes of documents and loading them onto a truck.

The Daily Beast received a copy of the DA’s more recent subpoenas to BedfordNew Castle, and North Castle, as well as the documents they turned over.

Those subpoenas, tied to a 2018 case called “Investigation into the Business and Affairs of John Doe,” demanded copies of a dozen different types of records, as well as “appraisals, engineering reports, and environmental impact statements.”

Where those two separate probes overlap, their efforts have now merged.

Ever since news of a grand jury broke, Trump reacted in his standard, bitter fury. He publicly denounced the New York investigations as politically motivated, and he claimed they were trying to harm his potential 2024 presidential run.

In the past few days, lawyers and other advisers close to the twice-impeached former president have personally reassured Trump they do not believe New York prosecutors will ever actually indict him, according to two people familiar with the situation.

“I told him that he has nothing to worry about,” one of these advisers said.

Still, Trump’s attorneys have already discussed possible legal maneuvers in the event that the ex-president is eventually indicted as a result of these probes. According to a person with direct knowledge of the conversations, Trump’s lawyers would argue, for instance, that the investigation was tainted due to James’ openly “partisan” rhetoric about Trump’s alleged criminality and her remarks about Trump being an “illegitimate” president.

Former Manhattan assistant district attorney Alissa Marque Heydari, who now runs the academic Institute for Innovation in Prosecution, sounded more hopeful.

“Using the grand jury to focus on the acts of the most powerful will help restore trust in the criminal justice system,” she said. “Too often, those tools are brought to bear on the last powerful in our society. But the investigations of the AG and DA buck this norm.”

But one source of Trump’s palpable anger with the New York investigations isn’t the possible legal peril; it’s the ballooning financial cost to him and his business empire.

The ex-president has recently complained repeatedly about how he feels the investigators could drag this out for years, and that the hefty legal bills are becoming “such a pain in the ass,” one of these sources recounted.

Indeed, a motion delivered by Trump’s lawyers earlier this month alleged that a lawsuit filed against him by the NAACP over the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was “frivolous,” and stated that the Democratic plaintiffs and their lawyers “should be ordered to pay President Trump’s fees and costs.”

Last week, the AG’s office confirmed that its civil case had recently become a criminal one. Attorney General Letitia James later revealed that two of her prosecutors have been deputized to work alongside the Manhattan DA’s team. And on Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that the DA has already convened a grand jury to make the historic decision of whether or not to indict Trump and others involved.

“It’s relatively rare to partner up to this extent on an investigation together,” said Tess Cohen, a criminal defense lawyer who presented cases before grand juries for years when she was at the Special Narcotics Prosecutor’s Office in New York City.

Given the circumstances, Cohen said it’s likely that both prosecution teams are now presenting to the same grand jury, which is an even rarer development that could indicate a few things. Either one investigation team has access to a key cooperating witness that the other side needs, or the unprecedented act of targeting a former president is such a political minefield that bringing two government offices together strengthens their case.

Neither office would confirm the existence of a sitting grand jury, as such proceedings are secret by state law, nor would they provide comment for this story.

Another reason to team up might be differences in jurisdiction, said Dan Feldman, a law professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice who worked at the AG’s office for six years until 2005. Feldman, who as a state legislator also wrote New York’s mob-busting anti-racketeering law, said the AG’s office also has greater ability to use that against the many entities and players in the Trump world on this deal.

“Because the AG has the organized crime task force, they are particularly well-equipped to pursue an Organized Crime Control Act indictment because they have the expertise, the background, and statewide jurisdiction,” he said.

The attorney general has the ability to prosecute crimes that occurred outside of Manhattan. Although The Trump Organization and its Seven Springs LLC subsidiary are based in New York City, the property being appraised is in Westchester County and any meddling in that deal may have occurred outside the city.

Trump’s second son, Eric Trump, hired the real estate firm Cushman & Wakefield in June 2015 to appraise the property, according to material gathered by the AG’s office. That firm determined that the property was worth $56.5 million as of December 1, 2015, just days before Trump gave away development rights on a huge chunk of that land.

When Trump did sign the agreement, he turned over rights to the North American Land Trust. The conservation easement, as it’s called, bestows power on this nonprofit to protect the 158 acres of red oaks, sugar maples, and huckleberry bushes. An environmental assessment in the document says “it is likely that the Conservation Area provides critical habitat for some of the rarest bat species of the region,” like the little brown bat.

One person involved in that conservation deal told The Daily Beast they were questioned by the AG’s office more than two years ago about the land’s value and how it was appraised. The person said they had not spoken to investigators since or been brought before any current grand jury as a witness. The AG’s office would not confirm their account.

Another person who was ordered to turn over documents was Charles Martabano, the land-use attorney who represented Seven Springs and tried to develop the property. State investigators used a subpoena to obtain hundreds of pages of emails, although he successfully kept many of them from prosecutors by declaring them attorney-client privilege.

“From his point of view, there is absolutely, positively nothing inappropriate here,” said Martabano’s attorney, George J. Calcagnini.

One town clerk, who turned over documents to investigators, lambasted the investigation as a waste of time and said the town shouldn’t have kept the documents long enough to turn over to investigators.

“They’re not going to find what they’re looking for,” she said.

These people don’t know what they are looking for. It’s entirely possible that they have documents these folks know nothing about or are looking for some kind of pattern.

And, by the way, his lawyers don’t know what they’re looking for either …

Honor the #COVID19 dead, by prosecuting their killer @spockosbrain

A man protests Donald Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic on 23 April.  Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Why is no one trying to prosecute DJT for deaths that can be directly tied to actions he took that led to people getting infected and dying from COVID19?

I’ve listed a number of reasons below and what is interesting to me is how often people on the left accept the reasons prosecution won’t happen. There are also many who think that prosecution isn’t a reasonable action to be pursued. 

I hear: “It’s a waste of time, energy and political capital. He’ll weasel out of it. His base doesn’t care.” Then finally I hear the grim acceptance of failure, “What’s the point? He’ll never serve a day in jail.”

So here’s a list of just some of these reasons there is no prosecution followed by “What if I could meet this objection?” For each of these reasons I have a specific case in mind that would meet the objection, but i’m not including a link. I know each answer will lead to other objections, but I want people to image that someone could provide an ANSWER to those objections rather than stopping at the objection.

Because he didn’t break any laws.
— What if we showed he did?

Because no state AG wants to prosecute him.
— What if we had one who would?

Because it’s too hard to find a direct one to one link from his actions to sickness & death.
— What if we had a specific case of injury/death to show?

Because the pandemic is “an act of God” not an act of a man.
—What if we can prove that the virus would not have spread but for his actions?

40 Percent of U.S. COVID Deaths Could Have Been Averted If It Weren’t for Trump

The Lancet, February 10, 2021

Because he’ll blame others.
—What if we can show he ordered others to break the law?

Because we have no hard evidence.
—What if we have audio recordings and multiple witnesses? 
(Carol Leonnig’s been reporting on this for her book Zero Fail and has talked to multiple witnesses. Video link)


These are all real questions that can explain why things might not move forward on a prosecution. That actually might be cases that ARE in progress, if so, I’d like to help them succeed. However, when I bring up the idea of prosecuting Trump for COVID people bring up all sorts of things that don’t really matter, but people think they do. Sadly they do have an impact, they stop us from pursuing cases. Such as:

 “He’ll call it a witch hunt.”
So? Let him.

“His base doesn’t care.”
So? They aren’t the ones prosecuting him

Why no prosecution? 

Because we just want to forget about all this and put it behind us.

–What if we show UNLESS we prosecute him–and those who carried out his actions–it is never behind us? 

Because it would set a precedent for going after other Presidents for actions that led to deaths.
–What if we show that his actions are specifically different in intent than actions taken by other Presidents? 

Because Republican politicians will block any investigation/ prosecution.
–What if the investigation / prosecution doesn’t NEED Republicans to approve? 

Because it just doesn’t matter. Prosecuting Trump won’t bring the dead back to life. 
–What if we show it DOES matter? Especially to the families of the people who died. They want someone to be held responsible for the actions that led to the deaths

Because it’s better to focus on the future and not look backward.
–What if we show that if there are no consequences for people whose actions lead to death, they will do it again in the future?

We can’t make things better in the future if we don’t stop people from taking the actions that led to death in the past.

This is not a think piece. This is a think, take action, analyse the result, take a different action piece

When I led brainstorming sessions for new ideas and programs I would end them with. “These are GREAT IDEAS! Now let’s talk about all the reason they WON’T happen and think about ways to make them happen.”

This was a crucial step that revealed roadblocks people weren’t even aware existed that needed to be addressed.

“If we want Mary to do X she won’t be able to do Y, which is critical.”
Can we get help for Mary?
“We don’t have staff.”
If I got you money for staff could that work?
“Yes, but I’ll believe it when I see it.”

To make the X program happen we had to fix the bottlenecks and roadblocks thrown up on the way to our goal. That’s the same with prosecuting Trump for COVID deaths.

I want to learn how to build a case that will lead to prosecution. Maybe someone is doing this already but it’s stalled. Let’s figure out what they need. Money, political support, publicity or evidence? Then we can find and remove the roadblocks.

Damn you! Damn you all to hell! Photo remix by Spocko

40% of the people who died from COVID19 would be alive today if it weren’t for the actions of Donald J. Trump. (Lancet Public policy and health in the Trump era Feb. 10, 2021)

Memorial Day is Monday. I’ll remember the people who died from COVID, then I’ll figure out how to help prosecute Trump.

A raindrop falls

Climate change means fierce summer storms frequently overwhelm drainage systems designed for a different era. That means more frequent flooding and the damage that comes with it. It won’t be confined to the coasts or to the paths of hurricanes.

It rained all night. One of the gutters overflowed. A downspout was stopped. A few minutes on a ladder in the rain sent the water back on its journey to the sea.

The Eastern Continental Divide is about 25 mi. south of here and about 15 mi. to the east. Meaning, rain that falls here travels to Illinois before heading “Straight down the Mississippi River / To the Gulf of Mexico.” Rain that falls a bit east takes a shorter route to the sea and meets the Atlantic between Georgetown and Charleston, S.C.

From my inbox, this nifty tool for visualizing where the rain that fall on you finds its way to the sea — that portion which does not evaporate or end up temporarily bound in aquifers, or in plants or other living things, naturally.

(h/t Barry)

No commission for you!

For the record.

A couple of reactions this morning to Senate Republicans’ refusal to approve a Jan. 6th Commission.

https://twitter.com/stuartpstevens/status/1398486343798472706?s=20

Karen Tumulty in the Washington Post says give Sen. Mitch “Cravenly” McConnell credit for candor for admitting why he will not allow formation of a Jan. 6th commission:

In pressing Senate Republicans to kill the idea of an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump, McConnell did not bother to disguise the fact that he was making a cravenly political calculation.

Anything that looks back to the final ugly spasms of the Trump presidency,as opposed to pressing the case against the current occupant of the White House and his party, would hurt the Republicans’ chances for gaining back control of Congress, McConnell acknowledged to reporters on Tuesday.

That was another way of saying that he would prefer that voters not be reminded of Trump’s own culpability for inciting his supporters to smash their way into the Capitol two weeks before he was due to be evicted from the White House— and for doing little to stop a rampaging mob that Trump subsequently described as “very special” people.

Tumulty repeats the PRRI polling you have already seen. Fifteen percent of Americans and 28 percent of Republicans agree “things have gotten so off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” Trumpublicans in the Senate see no to reverse that. Trump didn’t.

Longtime Democratic influencer Donna Brazile tweeted, “The problem isn’t that Republicans don’t want to know what happened. The problem is that they know exactly what happened. So they don’t want anyone else to know.”

David Graham at The Atlantic remarks on how the anti-majoritarian filibuster has become normalized. Nothing about a Jan. 6 commission is a violation of a minority’s rights, yet “Political observers have become so inured to the topsy-turvy expectation that a supermajority is required for any moderately controversial legislation that it feels normal when popular legislation with a majority of votes in favor fails.”

Democracy is less of a rule than a guideline in the U.S. Senate.

https://twitter.com/grudging1/status/1398597678053814273?s=20

“Outrage is as weak as straw,” tweeted Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent in response. “Why won’t more Democrats say straight out that Republicans are implicated in the crime and are covering it up?”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Ak.) tried appealing to McConnell’s conscience as though he has one. She found yet again he has not sprouted a conscience since the last time someone tried to appeal to it. (Is our senators learning?)

“The Democratic Party is now literally the party of democracy,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told Sargent. “You can’t shame the shameless. At a certain point it just increases the glamour of their sinister enterprise.”

Sargent recommends Democrats abadon hope of trying to shame Republicans into doing the right thing and investigate Jan. 6th themselves by alternate means, perhaps a select committee in the House:

At this point, the only way anything will be done about all this is if Democrats do so on their own. This would entail moving forward with sweeping democracy reforms and, possibly, revising the Electoral Count Act to deal with the elector-sabotage threat.

Yes, the holdup is largely about Sen. Joe Manchin III’s (D-W.Va.) opposition to ending the filibuster. But as Ron Brownstein demonstrates, it’s not clear whether President Biden takes the macro-threat seriously, which would entail making serious appeals to Manchin and putting real muscle behind reform.

It’s time to give up on the theater of shaming Republicans. Instead, all this should be understood as a challenge that Democrats must rise to meet, if it is to be met at all.

“We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth,” Lincoln told Congress on December 1, 1862, almost two years into the Civil War. The Party of Lincoln today has lost all interest in preserving that hope.

Yes, the filibuster is racist

Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan

A short history of the filibuster by historian Kevin Kruse:

Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1874

Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1875

Filibuster against a pension for a black official, 1906

Filibuster against confirmation of a black official, 1909Filibuster against anti-lynching bill, 1921

Filibuster against anti-lynching bill, 1922

Filibuster against anti-lynching bill, 1925

Filibuster against anti-lynching bill, 1938

Filibuster against bill targeting racial discrimination in employment, 1945

Filibuster against Truman’s civil rights proposals, 1948Filibuster against Truman’s civil rights proposals, 1949

Filibuster against Truman’s civil rights proposals, 1950

Filibuster against measures to fight housing discrimination, 1954

Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1957

Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1962

Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1963

Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1964

Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1966

Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1968

Filibuster against bill targeting employment discrimination, 1972

Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1976

Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1976Filibuster against extension of Voting Rights Act, 1982

Filibuster against creation of MLK Day federal holiday, 1983

Filibuster against civil rights bill, 1984

As this thread blows up, I should stress this isn’t remotely an exhaustive list — I did it quickly and I didn’t repeat years in which there were multiple filibusters on different civil rights issues. But it should still give a sense of the “racial history” in the filibuster. 

Going To Hell In a Handbasket

Talking about Hell and Israel Folau – Reflections

Talk about doubleplus stupid ideas:

 A new Bible that includes the U.S. Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance is generating controversy before it has even hit the market.

The “God Bless the USA Bible” is expected to go on sale in September, in time to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to a Nashville-based marketer who will distribute the book.

It has already prompted cries of blasphemy and concerns that the book will promote Christian nationalism, the idea that America is and should remain a Christian nation.

The Bible will also include lyrics from singer Lee Greenwood’s hit song “God Bless the USA,” which topped pop charts after Sept. 11, 2001.

Aside from the obvious bad idea — what the fuck is the Constitution and the Pledge doing in a Bible??? And that godawful song???— there’s this. We’re talking Revelation 22:18, dear friends! And since, as we allllllll know, the Bible has to be taken literally — every single word of it — the publishers of this abomination are perpetrating an act of obscene blasphemy:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.

The worst idea anyone in this country has come up with since January 6.

(Ok, that’s hyperbole, but for a reason.)

Emperor Joe Manchin gets schooled

If the Democratic plan was to let Joe Manchin try to get his good buddies in the GOP to come around and “work together” to achieve bipartisan goals, today’s lesson in reality was pretty harsh:

The vote on the Jan. 6 commission wasn’t just a disappointment for Joe Manchin, it was a vote that shattered his vision for governance.

As Senate Republicans prepared to kill the bipartisan plan for a Jan. 6 commission, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) was seen on the chamber floor having a tense conversation with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It was obvious to those who saw the discussion that the conservative Democrat was not pleased.

That was understandable. This fight, more than any other in recent memory, put Manchin’s entire political worldview to the test — and it lost.

After the vote, the West Virginian expressed his disappointment to reporters.

“Mitch McConnell makes it extremely difficult,” Manchin said. “The commission is something this country needs. There’s no excuse. It’s just pure raw politics. And that’s just so, so disheartening. It really, really is disheartening. I never thought I’d see it up close and personal that politics could trump our country. And I’m going to fight to save this country.”

The senator never explicitly acknowledged the dynamic, but for Manchin, the debate over the commission was not simply a legislative fight; it was a case study for a style of governing.

Indeed, the pieces were in place for Manchin to prove that his approach worked. Most Democrats and Republicans agreed that there was an insurrectionist attack on our seat of government. The parties also agreed on the need for an examination. There were bipartisan negotiations, concessions from both sides, and an eventual compromise agreement.

If Manchin were literally writing a script as to how political disputes should be resolved, it would look exactly like this.

As recently as late last week, the senator assured reporters there was a “very, very good chance” the Senate would pass the bipartisan proposal, adding that he hoped there were at least “10 good, solid patriots” among Senate Republicans.

Manchin didn’t just want to believe this, he needed to believe this. If Republicans rejected a bipartisan compromise, prioritizing politics and electoral strategies over country, then his entire vision of how Congress can operate would be shattered.

We don’t need to change the Senate’s filibuster rules, Manchin tells us, we simply need well-intentioned officials to sit down, talk, listen, compromise, and reach responsible agreements.

It’s an idea with hypothetical appeal. But in practice, a clear majority of Senate Republicans just told the conservative Democrat that his model doesn’t work. The parties reached a consensus, and GOP leaders decided they didn’t much care.

So what now, Joe? Are you finally convinced that the so-called “good people” in the GOP are few and far between? That Mitch McConnell is not an honest broker and will everything in his power to defeat you and every other Democrat?

Let’s hope so. But we’ll see.

They’ll keep counting until they “find” the votes they need

Oh look. They’re doing it again.

The Arizona Senate, apparently not satisfied with one recount, is close to signing a deal for its second review of Maricopa County’s 2020 general election ballots.

The effort would expand the ongoing audit and is expected to use a new and largely untested technology.

This second recount of all 2.1 million ballots would be done electronically, running the original digital images of ballots through a program that would count all votes cast for every race on the ballot. This is a different approach from the ongoing recount, which is being done by hand.

Senate Republican leaders are negotiating with Citizens Oversight, a California-based election transparency nonprofit, according to Senate liaison Ken Bennett.

Adding a second count is important for comparison purposes, Bennett said. The cost of such a deal is unknown at this point.

Actually, this will be the 4th recount, I believe. They recounted twice before the Republicans initiated their circus act and now they’ve destroyed the integrity of the ballots and tainted them beyond all recognition, even requiring the state to buy new voting machines since the wingnut yahoos have potentially wrecked them.

And now they are exporting this absurdity to other states. TPM reports:

Fueled by a shambolic election recount in Arizona, the audit-bug is spreading, and, with it, the fantastical belief that President Trump’s 2020 electoral defeat could still be reversed.

The Arizona exercise — ostensibly labeled an “audit,” though its procedures are questionable at best — was ordered by the state’s Republican Senate. It has been plagued with conspiracy theoriesincompetency and dissent from within the state GOP. But it has also given Trump’s supporters hope that validating his false claims of mass fraud just takes a little more digging. In battleground states across the country, MAGA diehards are making increasingly loud demands for another round of review of the 2020 results, though the contest was dubbed by election experts and Trump’s own administration as a historically secure election.

Trump has cheered on the reinvigorated recount effort and lied about what it’s shown so far, including in a statement Monday about an audit in New Hampshire.

“Why aren’t Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republicans doing anything about what went on in the 2020 Election? How can the Democrats be allowed to get away with this?” Trump said. “It will go down as the Crime of the Century! Other States like Arizona, Georgia (where a Judge just granted a motion to unseal and inspect ballots from the 2020 Election), Michigan, Pennsylvania, and more to follow.”

The Arizona “audit” has attracted national scrutiny and plenty of mockery. The hand count of Maricopa County’s 2.1 million ballots is being led by a cyber consultant who assisted in Trump’s allies’ 2020 reversal crusade.

But tune into the far-right Trump-aligned media sphere, and you see a different story. One America News Network — which is exclusively livestreaming the audit — has floated the expectation that the auditors are about to find mass fraud, while its correspondents have promoted a private fundraising campaign to help foot the bill for the recount.

Arizona Senate President Karan Fann nonetheless defended the cozy relationship her audit has had with the conspiracy theory-loving outlet

“Are you saying that OAN is not a credible news source?” Fann asked CNN, when grilled about the extensive access the platform has received.

But it’s not just OAN: Audit-mania has been a fixation of all corners of MAGA-media, as it has hyped up the possibility that such recounts will soon pop up in other states that Trump lost.

Steve Bannon, who’s hosted some of the activists involved in Arizona’s recount on his podcast, has also questioned Republican candidates for Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate race about whether they support an audit there.

“We need a full forensic audit in all the states where we had issues,” Jeff Bartos, one of the GOP candidates, told Bannon Friday. “And Pennsylvania certainly had issues.”

His opponent in the Senate primary, Sean Parnell, had brought far fetched lawsuits challenging the 2020 results and also told Bannon this week he supported a Pennsylvania audit. 

Far-right outlets have also distorted the expectations of a legitimate review underway of a state legislative race in a small New Hampshire town, where discrepancies arose between the initial tabulation and a recount. The presidential race isn’t even being examined in the New Hampshire audit. The auditors have rejected claims of mass fraud, and instead are leaning towards a theory that the tabulation issue arose because of folds in the paper that created creases specifically over the part of the ballot with the state legislative race.

So of course, Gateway Pundit, another audit-obsessed fringe-right outlet, is now claiming that the auditors — all nationally known election experts — cannot be trusted. 

We can yuck it up all we want about “Cyber Ninjas” and “bamboo in the ballots” but they are going to get the last laugh if this becomes an institutionalized partisan exercise and Republicans become increasingly convinced that Democrats cannot not legitimately ever win elections. Don’t think they won’t. They are very stupid.

Election subversion is the new strategy

The NY Times’ Nate Cohn posted this twitter thread in response to Ron Brownstein’s latest in the Atlantic about HR1 and HR4 the two big voting rights bills that are coming up in the Senate:

Based on this @RonBrownstein piece, it seems the Biden admin’s lack of emphasis on HR1/HR4 reflects their evaluation–and in my view, an accurate evaluation–of the relative threats democracy and Democrats.

According to the article, Biden administration appears to believe that the GOP voter suppression laws, however odious, don’t really pose a meaningful threat to democracy or Democrats.

It does appear to take the threat of election subversion–like refusal to certify–seriously

One missed connection here is that HR1/HR4 doesn’t do much to address to election subversion. These are reform bills; they just weren’t conceived to secure the fundamentals of democracy, and the politics around these bills might be quite a bit different if they were.

Another thing missing is gerrymandering. Unlike, say, limiting mail voting, gerrymandering more fundamentally threatens to lower-case ‘d’ democratic values while hurting Ds quite a bit.

Yet, the word appears once in the article, as it’s been overshadowed by the access debate

I’ve seen nothing that’s really deliberately focused on this stuff (though there are a few provisions in HR1 that incidentally address a few subversion issues, fwiw)

https://twitter.com/hurricanexyz31/status/1397951693770346499?s=20

Originally tweeted by Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) on May 27, 2021.

That last question is a good one. What is to be done about this open usurpation of democracy Republicans are plotting in the swing states? I have no doubt that even if Democrats are able to win landslides, the results will not be accepted and the Republicans in power will overturn the results. I feel pretty confident that the Republicans in congress would back them up and refuse to certify the 2024 presidential election if it doesn’t return a win for them, no matter what the actual results might be.

The GOP correctly perceives that the doors are closing for any legal means to fight these electoral atrocities and they are betting that Democrats will either respond with violence and precipitate a welcome crack down or they will take to the streets with massive protests that end up being as impotent as they usually are. They have fully adopted the “waddayagonnadoaboutit” attitude of Donald Trump.

The Brownstein article is super interesting and spot on. It’s not that the odious vote suppression efforts aren’t a threat because they are. They are blatantly racist, immoral attempts to marginalize voters of color and young voters in order to tilt the scales in favor of older, white Republicans. It’s horrifically unfair that Democrats have to work ten times harder to overcome these partisan hurdles, especially considering the structural hurdles of the undemocratic Senate, partisan gerrymandering and the electoral college, and the Democrats need to pass their voting rights bills so that they can mitigate these unfair hurdles at last a little bit.

But the idea that partisan legislatures and handpicked Republican officials can actually reverse election results is unprecedented and is the most dangerous assault on democracy that we’ve seen in America. It’s the kind of thing you see in dictatorships and juntas around the world.

What’s to be done about this? I don’t know but I think just pretending it isn’t happening is probably not the best idea.