Skip to content

Month: December 2021

Things that go BOOM!

M2E2 with a quick change barrel and tripod via Wikipedia.

Meanwhile at North Carolina’s Camp Lejune, explosives have gone missing (Associated Press):

The Marine Corps demolition specialist was worried — about America, and about the civil war he feared would follow the presidential election.

And so, block by block, he stole 13 pounds (6 kilograms) of C4 plastic explosives from the training ranges of Camp Lejeune.

“The riots, talk about seizing guns, I saw this country moving towards a scary unknown future,” the sergeant would later write, in a seven-page statement to military investigators. “I had one thing on my mind and one thing only, I am protecting my family and my constitutional rights.”

His crime might have gone undetected, but authorities caught a lucky break in 2018 as they investigated yet another theft from Lejeune, the massive base on coastal North Carolina. In that other case, explosives ended up in the hands of some high school kids.

These are not isolated cases. Hundreds — and possibly thousands — of armor-piercing grenades, hundreds of pounds of plastic explosives, as well as land mines and rockets have been stolen from or lost by the U.S. armed forces over the past decade, according to an ongoing Associated Press investigation into the military’s failure to secure all its weapons of war. Still more explosives were reported missing and later recovered.

In some cases, troops falsified records and covered up the misappropriated weapons or failed to secure them in the first place.

The AP’s AWOL Weapons investigation has shown that poor accountability and insider thefts have led to the loss of more than 2,000 military firearms since 2010. Some guns were used in civilian crimes, found on felons or sold to a street gang.

In response, Congress is set to require that the military give lawmakers detailed loss and theft reports every year.

One thing those reforms won’t do: Make it harder to steal explosives such as C4.

No serial numbers on the Play-Doh-like material. Tracking is by the honor system some like the demolition specialist find easy to dishonor.

The Air Force, Navy and Marines all reported lost munitions, with the U.S. Army explaining that losses constitute “a small fraction of a percent.” When less than less than 10 pounds of C4 goes missing, it might not be reported.

With right-wing extremists itching for civil war, knowing that “a small fraction of a percent” of explosives are going missing in the hands of men such as Sgt. Travis Glosser is not exactly comforting:

During the summer of 2016, Glosser feared Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump in the presidential election, and society might disintegrate. So he began accumulating leftovers until he had what he described as “a respectable amount” of C4 — 10 blocks, weighing nearly 13 pounds (6 kilograms).

“I mean, you know how crazy the world is nowadays,” Glosser told an NCIS agent in June 2018, when he surrendered. “So it’s like well, you know, I’ve also got that just in case if the world does start coming to an end or anything crazy like that, I could protect me and my family.”

After Trump won, he carefully buried the explosives just beyond the tree line in the backyard of his home off Camp Lejeune. They remained there until, more than a year later, word began circulating that Krasovec was in trouble and there would be an inventory review.

There was a gun nut who was legend around offices I worked in for his mishandling of firearms. His nickname was right out of “Dukes of Hazzard.” He’d shot himself in the leg practicing his quick-draw. The garage where he stored his reloading supplies caught fire. The fire department stood back and watched it burn as canister after canister of gunpowder exploded. Per one tale, he had an M2 Browning .50 caliber machine from a crate that had “fallen off a train.”

Per a rumor I heard decades ago, they stored tactical nukes at Ft. Bragg not far from Camp Lejune. Sleep tight.

Duck and cover, America

How often do people threaten to shoot strangers over parking spaces in Europe? Prompting the question is this item from the Houston Chronicle on the arrest of a Corpus Christi woman:

Rossie Dennis, 60, was arrested for on a warrant for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, the Corpus Christi Police Department reported on Facebook. 

Dennis was arrested for an incident that occurred around noon on November 24, according to the CCPD post. Screenshots of a video were posted on Reddit saying the incident occurred at an H-E-B in the Annaville neighborhood in Corpus Christi. 

CCPD says when they arrived at the parking lot they were told that Dennis pointed the gun at the victims and threatened to shoot them over a parking space. It’s not clear how many people were in the vehicle, but the Reddit post claims it was a woman and a six-month-old child.

An exasperated E.J. Dionne ponders the fuidity of the meaning of “pro-life” in light of recent events (Washington Post):

On Tuesday, four high school students — ages 14, 16 and 17 — were fatally shot in Oxford, Mich., by a 15-year-old classmate firing a 9mm pistol with 15-round magazines.

Less than 24 hours later, a Supreme Court majority that seems on the verge of weakening the nation’s gun laws heard arguments in a case that could lead to tougher restrictions on abortion.

Please tell me: What can the words “pro-life” possibly mean when the same people who want to constrain abortion are eager to make it easier for Americans to obtain and carry deadly weapons?

There were no reports of guns found among the 33 protesters arrested for blocking the street near the Supreme Court Wednesday morning. Statistically, among the hundreds of protesters in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and those against, some own firearms.

The Post’s Dana Milbank found the anti-abortion/pro-life protesters “louder and full of rage.” A group took turns invading the space reserved for the pro-Roe protest

… and took turns drowning out the speakers there with a pole-mounted bullhorn at ear-shattering volume:

“Maybe some of you should have been aborted, you wicked, nasty disgusting, ungodly — I don’t even want to call you women! You are bloodthirsty animals!”

“This is what happens when you allow women to emasculate men! God hates you!”

“In the name of Jesus Christ, shut your vile, sick mouth!”

They heckled a Black speaker: “Go to Chicago! Black-on-Black killing is off the charts! … You don’t mind taking the White man’s dollar when he wants to kill babies!”

[…]

“You deserve capital punishment! … You deserve what’s coming to you! … You’re a vile, anti-God, anti-Christ sicko!”

It’s not hard to imagine some of them armed and equally exorcised over a supermarket parking space.

Dionne continues:

How is it “pro-life” for a nation to accept school shootings as a routine part of our daily news feeds? Can it possibly be “pro-life” to pretend that because no law will ever end all such shootings, it’s not worth trying to pass anything that might at least make them less likely?

We take for granted a conservative ideology rooted not in intellectual consistency but in the politics of culture wars that hold abortion rights as an abomination but gun rights as inviolable. And we wonder why the shootings continue.

Heaven forbid the U.S. should be more like Europe (or Australia, gun-toting Rep. Madison Cawthorn suggests) where mass shootings, school shootings, shootings at all are a rarity, not an everyday occurrence. No, freedom-loving patriots need their guns and to carry them everywhere to protect themselves (and their parking spaces) from the vilest, wickedest, nastiest, ungodliest sickos on the face of the Earth: other Americans.

Rather than restrict access to firearms (an abomination), schools now teach children how to barricade their classrooms, cover the windows, line up along the wall, and arm themselves with whatever is at hand to throw at any active shooter who enters. Rather than tolerate reasonable restrictions on firearms (an abomination, remember), we’ll propose arming teachers so they can shoot their students.

Dionne concludes:

Here’s what we’re facing: conservative jurists ready to expand states’ rights when it comes to limiting or banning abortion but equally prepared to block states from enacting gun laws aimed at protecting the right of their people to live beyond their teenage years.

I cannot touch Dahlia Lithwick’s contempt for the court’s conservative majority. Lithwick welcomes conservatives dropping all pretense about overturning Roe v. Wade. The gaslighting soon will be over:

There will be no more fake solicitude for women making difficult choices, no more pretense that pregnant people really just need better medical advice, and no more phony concerns about “abortion mills” that threaten maternal health. There is truly something to be said for putting an end to decades of false consciousness around the real endgame here, which was to take away a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy—rape, incest, abuse, maternal health no longer being a material factor. At least now we might soon be able to call it what it is.

Read her commentary for yourselves and weep for the insane asylum this country has become, a place where guns have rights and women do not. The betting line is that the Roberts court means to force women back into the second-class place God intended. This, even as conservatives armed to shoot their neighbors scream about saving the unborn and cry tyranny over mask-wearing and vaccine mandates. Until Covid chokes off their last breaths.

Oh Fergawdsake

Sen. Susan Collins, the moderate Republican from Maine, favors passing legislation to enshrine the protections of Roe v. Wade into law, her office said Wednesday.

“Senator Collins supports the right to an abortion and believes that the protections in the Roe and Casey decisions should be passed into law. She has had some conversations with her colleagues about this and is open to further discussions,” a spokeswoman, Annie Clark, said in an email.

The remarks came hours after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a major case that experts believe could lead to the undoing of the landmark 1973 ruling and its precedents that protect a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy.

But Collins opposes the House-passed Women’s Health Protection Act, which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has promised will get a vote in the Senate.

She favors a more limited version.

“Unfortunately, the House Democrats’ bill goes far beyond codifying Roe and Casey. For example, their legislation would severely weaken protections afforded to health care providers who refuse to perform abortions on religious or moral grounds,” Clark said.

Of course she favors a “more limited version.” That’s her brand.

Meanwhile, she is as full of it as ever:

Even if the Senate finds a majority of votes to codify abortion rights, such a bill would be subject to the 60-vote rule. There aren’t 50 Senate votes to weaken the filibuster, nor are there 60 votes to enshrine abortion protections into law.

This is on her. She knows it. But what’s the difference? She’s chosen to stay in today’s radical Republican party and it paid off handsomely for her in the last election. And she knows that there is no possibility the Senate is going to ratify Roe any time soon. It’s all good in Collinsworld.

Murderous politics

I almost can’t believe this. It’s almost like an over-the-top movie script in which a political party has been taken over by evil aliens from another planet. But it’s just the Republican Party, living its best life:

Conservatives on both sides of the Capitol are privately plotting to force a government shutdown Friday in an effort to defund the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate on the private sector, multiple GOP sources told Playbook.

Capitalizing on a last-minute scramble to fund the government, a group of Senate conservatives is planning to object to quick consideration of a stopgap measure to extend funding into early 2022 unless Democratic leaders agree to deny money to enforce the mandate. Because of the tight schedule — and Senate rules that require unanimous consent to move quickly — the senators believe they’ll be able to drag out the process well past midnight Friday, when funding officially expires.

“I’m sure we would all like to simplify the process for resolving the CR, but I can’t facilitate that without addressing the vaccine mandates,” Sen. MIKE LEE (R-Utah) told Playbook in a statement. “Given that federal courts across the country have raised serious issues with these mandates, it’s not unreasonable for my Democratic colleagues to delay enforcement of the mandates for at least the length of the continuing resolution.”

It is unclear how many Senate conservatives are publicly willing to follow through on the shutdown threat. But 15 signed a letter spearheaded by Sen. ROGER MARSHALL (R-Kan.) in early November vowing to “use all means at our disposal” — including invoking Senate procedures to gum up the works — to block passage of a continuing resolution that doesn’t stop implementation of a vaccine mandate. Technically, all they need is one senator to object in order to push past Friday’s midnight deadline, and several are already discussing this issue.

THE GROUP HAS BACKUP FROM THE HOUSE: In a meeting Tuesday night, the House Freedom Caucus voted to pressure Minority Leader KEVIN MCCARTHY to take a harder line on the so-called continuing resolution unless Democrats strip out funding to enforce the mandate, according to sources familiar with what happened. Last time the House passed a funding stopgap, 34 House Republicans backed the bill and GOP leaders did not whip against it. But the group plans to demand that GOP lawmakers stand firm in supporting their Senate colleagues.

“There is leverage immediately in the Senate, and we think that House Republicans ought to be backing up any number of Senate Republicans … to use all procedural tools to deny the continuing resolution passage Friday night — unless they restrict use of those funds for vaccine mandates,” Rep. CHIP ROY (R-Texas),a Freedom Caucus member, told Playbook.

LET’S PLAY THIS OUT: The strategy,if it holds, means the government will likely shut down for several days — even if appropriators strike a bipartisan agreement to extend funding by the end of today. A Senate Democratic leadership staffer told Playbook that without an agreement to truncate the timeline, the Senate would need at least five days to process the continuing resolution. That would mean a brief shutdown ending Sunday at the earliest, but possibly dragging into next week if a deal isn’t reached today.

The reason for the delay: The Senate can’t begin the process of voting until the CR passes the House — and the House can’t pass the CR until a deal is agreed to.

Senate Majority Leader CHUCK SCHUMER appeared to nod to the possibility of trouble Tuesday, seeking to preemptively blame the GOP in case something goes awry. “To avoid a needless shutdown, Republicans will have to cooperate and approve the government funding legislation without delay,” he told reporters. “If Republicans choose obstruction, there will be a shutdown entirely because of their own dysfunction.”

MCCONNELL DOWNPLAYS SHUTDOWN THREAT: Senate Minority Leader MITCH McCONNELL predicted Tuesday that “we won’t shut down,” arguing that “nobody should be concerned about a government shutdown.” The Kentucky Republican — who has never been a fan of shutdown tactics — could try to make the case to conservatives that such a move would backfire on their cause. The issue came up at the Senate GOP lunch Tuesday, we’re told, and is expected to dominate another Republican lunch meeting today being run by Lee’s conservative Senate Steering Committee.

Since Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress, some conservatives think that they can get Democrats to cave out of fear of being blamed. Other Republicans acknowledged to us that this is probably wishful thinking, especially because the party making the demands in past shutdowns shouldered the bulk of the blowback.

The effort comes as health officials have warned that the new Omicron Covid-19 variant could be highly contagious and dangerous to Americans. Democrats will no doubt argue that Republicans are playing with fire when it comes to shuttering government services, especially in the face of the potential new risks of Omicron. But from a political standpoint, Republicans believe polls will move in their direction in opposition to mandates — not only among the GOP base but with independents as well.

MORE FRONTS IN THE VACCINE WARS: Even if McConnell convinces his members to abandon a shutdown showdown,the fight over President JOE BIDEN’s vaccine mandates on Capitol Hill is not going away. As early as next week, Sen. MIKE BRAUN (R-Ind.) plans to force a vote to disapprove and nullify Biden’s vaccine mandate through a process called the Congressional Review Act. He already has all 50 Republicans lined up to back the issue, and they’re hoping to flip one moderate Democrat.

If they do, the issue would then go to the House for a vote, where Senate Republicans hope they can pressure some front-liners in tough districts to back their cause, which would force Biden to veto the matter and own an issue they think is toxic once again.

In the House, Roy is also pushing GOP leadership to try to use the National Defense Authorization Act to address the matter as well, an effort our Olivia Beavers scooped Tuesday. Since more than 30 House Democrats opposed the chamber’s first vote on the NDAA, Democrats will almost certainly need GOP assistance to help clear the final bill through the chamber in the coming days. The House GOP could refuse to cooperate until the vaccine mandates are scrapped, he said.

Meanwhile, wingnut federal judges are ruling against the employer mandates even those specifically for health care workers:

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday to halt the start of President Biden’s national vaccine mandate for health care workers, which had been set to begin next week.

The injunction, written by Judge Terry A. Doughty, effectively expanded a separate order issued on Monday by a federal court in Missouri. The earlier one had applied only to 10 states that joined in a lawsuit against the president’s decision to require all health workers in hospitals and nursing homes to receive at least their first shot by Dec. 6 and to be fully vaccinated by Jan. 4.

“There is no question that mandating a vaccine to 10.3 million health care workers is something that should be done by Congress, not a government agency,” Judge Doughty, of U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, wrote. He added: “It is not clear that even an act of Congress mandating a vaccine would be constitutional.”

The judge, who was nominated to the court by former President Donald J. Trump, also wrote that the plaintiffs had an “interest in protecting its citizens from being required to submit to vaccinations” and to prevent the loss of jobs and tax revenue that may result from the mandate.

He said he was concerned about the mandates causing staffing shortages in health care facilities as the unvaccinated quit their jobs in order to avoid potecting themselves and others.

I guess he wants to make sure there isn’t any patient shortage either.

This twitter thread says it all:

In 1904 Justice Harlan wrote: “Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

The @GOP has turned the court into an exercise of politics by other means, unaccountable and simply willing to do what their political masters, large donors would have them do.

Vaccine mandates have stood the test of time again and again.

From 1904 again:

“For nearly a century, most of the members of the medical profession have regarded vaccination, repeated after intervals, as a preventive of smallpox that, while they have recognized the possibility of injury to an individual from carelessness in the performance of it, or even, in a conceivable case, without carelessness they generally have considered the risk of such an injury too small to be seriously weighed as against the benefits coming from the discreet and proper use of the preventive.”

Originally tweeted by Gregg Gonsalves (@gregggonsalves) on December 1, 2021.

Roe is in deep trouble

We may very well be about to join the nations in red on that map which either ban abortion completely or only allow it to save the life of the mother.

The arguments in today’s Mississippi abortion case pretty much sealed the deal. Roe as we have known it is dead. And there’s an excellent chance that it will be dead altogether:

The right to an abortion in the United States appeared to be on shaky ground as a divided Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the fate of Roe v. Wade, the court’s 1973 decision that legalized abortion in the United States.

At issue in Wednesday’s case — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — was a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. Until now, all the court’s abortion decisions have upheld Roe’s central framework — that women have a constitutional right to an abortion in the first two trimesters of pregnancy, when a fetus is unable to survive outside the womb, roughly between 22 and 24 weeks. But Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to reverse all of its prior abortion decisions and to return the abortion question to the states.

The court’s three newest justices, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, appeared to signal they are ready to side with Mississippi — but it wasn’t immediately clear if all of them would strike down Roe, as the state of Mississippi had asked.

Summarizing Mississippi’s argument, Justice Kavanaugh said: “They say the Constitution doesn’t give us the authority, we should leave it to the states and we should be scrupulously neutral.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow conservative, focused on the argument of fetal viability.

“Why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line? Viability, it seems to me, doesn’t have anything to do with choice, but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?” he asked Julie Rikelman, who represented the abortion clinic bringing the case.

Rikelman replied: “If the court were to move the line substantially backwards and 15 weeks is 9 weeks before viability, your honor, it may need to reconsider the rules around regulations because if it’s cutting the time period to obtain an abortion roughly in half, then those barriers are going to be much more important.”

The court’s liberals suggested overturning Roe would make the court appear political.

“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart.

Kavanaugh and Barrett seemed downright eager:

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the morning was how little Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett concealed their desire to overrule Roe. While Chief Justice John Roberts fruitlessly sought out a compromise, Kavanaugh and Barrett showed their cards: Both justices believe the court has an obligation to let states (or Congress) decide the abortion question. Neither showed any appetite for incremental steps or half-measures. They are eager to greenlight complete bans on all forms of abortion at every stage of pregnancy. And they are ready to do it now.

Remember this?

I’m sure she’s very concerned.

Trump could have killed Joe Biden

Mark Meadows’ new book says tht Trump tested positive for COVID three days before he met Biden for the debate. Evidently, he had another test that was negative and he didn’t bother to get tested again. Recall that the debate organizers required a COVID test but said everyone was “on the honor system.” As if Donald Trump knows the meaning of that word.

According to Mark Meadows, Trump tested positive for Covid on 9/26. On 9/27 he held event w/military families. Here’s what the Post said about it: “At Trump’s insistence, few were wearing masks…He wasn’t worried about others getting sick, but he did fret about his own vulnerability”

Trump then went on Hannity and suggested military families were responsible for the Covid outbreak in the White House. Remember that according to Meadows, he tested positive the day before he was around them.

It’s worth revisiting some of what Trump was saying about Covid between 9/26 and 10/1 in light of the revelation he tested positive on 9/26. Comments such as this:

And this

Originally tweeted by Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) on December 1, 2021.

Here’s the story:

Donald Trump tested positive for Covid-19 three days before his first debate against Joe Biden, the former president’s fourth and last chief of staff has revealed in a new book.

Meadows says Trump’s positive result on 26 September was a shock to a White House which had just staged a triumphant Rose Garden ceremony for the supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett – an occasion now widely considered to have been a Covid super-spreader event.

Despite the president looking “a little tired” and suspecting a “slight cold”, Meadows says he was “content” that Trump travelled that evening to a rally in Middletown, Pennsylvania.

But as Marine One lifted off, Meadows writes, the White House doctor called.

“Stop the president from leaving,” Meadows says Sean Conley told him. “He just tested positive for Covid.”

It wasn’t possible to stop Trump but when he called from Air Force One, his chief of staff gave him the news.

“Mr President,” Meadows said, “I’ve got some bad news. You’ve tested positive for Covid-19.”

Trump’s reply, the devout Christian writes, “rhyme[d] with ‘Oh spit, you’ve gotta be trucking lidding me’”.

Meadows writes of his surprise that such a “massive germaphobe” could have contracted Covid, given precautions including “buckets of hand sanitiser” and “hardly [seeing] anyone who ha[d]n’t been rigorously tested”.

Meadows says the positive test had been done with an old model kit. He told Trump the test would be repeated with “the Binax system, and that we were hoping the first test was a false positive”.

After “a brief but tense wait”, Meadows called back with news of the negative test. He could “almost hear the collective ‘Thank God’ that echoed through the cabin”, he writes.

Meadows says Trump took that call as “full permission to press on as if nothing had happened”. His chief of staff, however, “instructed everyone in his immediate circle to treat him as if he was positive” throughout the Pennsylvania trip.

“I didn’t want to take any unnecessary risks,” Meadows writes, “but I also didn’t want to alarm the public if there was nothing to worry about – which according to the new, much more accurate test, there was not.”

Meadows writes that audience members at the rally “would never have known that anything was amiss”.

The public, however, was not told of the president’s tests.

On Sunday 27 September, the first day between the tests and the debate, Meadows says Trump did little – except playing golf in Virginia and staging an event for military families at which he “spoke about the value of sacrifice”.Advertisement

Trump later said he might have been infected at that event, thanks to people “within an inch of my face sometimes, they want to hug me and they want to kiss me. And they do. And frankly, I’m not telling them to back up.”

In his book, Meadows does not mention that Trump also held a press conference indoors, in the White House briefing room, the same day.

On Monday 28 September, Trump staged an event at which he talked with business leaders and looked inside “the cab of a new truck”. He also held a Rose Garden press conference “on the work we had all been doing to combat Covid-19”.

“Somewhat ironically, considering his circumstances”, Meadows writes, Trump spoke about a new testing strategy “supposed to give quicker, more accurate readings about whether someone was positive or not.”

The White House had still not told the public Trump tested positive and then negative two days before.

On debate day, 29 September, Meadows says, Trump looked slightly better – “emphasis on the word slightly”.

Trump gave a furious and controversial performance, continually hectoring Biden to the point the Democrat pleaded: “Will you shut up, man? This is so unpresidential.”Advertisement

The host, Chris Wallace of Fox News, later said Trump was not tested before the debate because he arrived late. Organisers, Wallace said, relied on the honor system.

The White House had not said Trump had tested positive and negative three days before.

Three days later, on 2 October, Trump announced by tweet that he and his wife, Melania Trump, were positive.

That evening, Meadows helped Trump make his way to hospital. During his stay, Meadows helped orchestrate stunts meant to show the president was in good health. Trump recovered, but it has been reported that his case of Covid was much more serious than the White House ever let on.

We all suspected it. Now it’s been confirmed.

He could have killed Joe Biden and I think we are all justified in wondering if that’s exactly what he was trying to do.

Reckonings

The last few weeks we have seen the media work itself into something of a frenzy in an attempt to force a “reckoning” on the matter of the Steele Dossier, the opposition research document prepared by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele about then-candidate Donald Trump. I’m sure I don’t need to go into detail about that chapter in the Trump era. You’d have to have been in a coma not to have heard more about it than you ever cared to. Suffice to say that it was the source of the rumor about the infamous “pee tape” which offered many a late night comedian an uproarious punchline.

It’s hard to know exactly what precipitated this sudden desire to have the media don a hair shirt over their coverage of the dossier, but it seems to stem from a recent ABC interview with Steele and the recent indictments of a handful of people by Special Prosecutor John Durham for lying to the FBI about it. Durham’s inquiry into what Trump called “the oranges of the investigation” has been going on for years now with very little to show for it and according to those who have followed the cases closely, like journalist Marcy Wheeler, there is every reason to believe that the probe will end up being a dud.

Nonetheless, there has been quite a back and forth among news organizations over whether they were too credulous in reporting the dossier and if it was ethical to publish it in the first place. Overlooking the mountain of evidence that had nothing at all to do with the dossier and the bizarre behavior by Trump both before and during his presidency when it came to Russia, the result of all this “reckoning” is that suddenly there seems to be some belief even in mainstream quarters that the whole Russia scandal was overblown and perhaps not worth the resources and time put into reporting it.

Naturally, no one is more pleased by this than Donald Trump:

No doubt there was some histrionic coverage of the Steele Dossier. But the truth is that virtually every news outlet that reported it made clear that it was unsubstantiated and no one reported that it was the only reason for the Russia investigation. Trump and his campaign’s suspicious behavior was more than enough to set off alarms all over the world.

Trump had been seeking to do business in Russia for years and was found to have lied throughout the campaign about that, saying that he knew Vladimir Putin, that he didn’t know him, that they were “stablemates,” that he couldn’t comment because it would betray Putin’s confidence all the while heaping over-the-top praise on the Russian leader. During the course of the Russia investigation, it was revealed that Trump had elaborate plans for Trump Tower Moscow, which he had assigned to none other than his personal lawyer and his daughter Ivanka. He lied repeatedly about this too, even in one of the presidential debates in the fall of 2016.

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller and his team found that they could not prove a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in regards to the interference in the 2016 election and the hacking of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He indicted a bunch of people, including Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for passing campaign data to a Russian operative associated with an oligarch to whom he owed a lot of money. There were strange fringe players all over that campaign including the famous “coffee boy” George Papadopoulos who were also indicted by Mueller and confirmed by the bipartisan Intelligence Committee report to have been the one who actually tripped the investigation by the FBI. His loose lips to an Australian diplomat about Russian activities on behalf of Trump happened months before anyone had heard of Christopher Steele’s dossier.

The Senate’s report made clear that the dossier was not the source of the government investigation. The Mueller Report did not rely upon it in any way. It was a side-show, at best, which had zero bearing on the findings of those two huge investigations which concluded that the Trump campaign’s suspicious activities, including the numerous overt attempts to cover up and obstruct justice, were more than enough to justify the investigations that plagued him throughout his term.

All of these things and much more actually happened, including meetings overseas in which Donald Trump openly sided with Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence agencies. It wasn’t just some made-up scandal. We had a president who was either so corrupt, so reckless or so vulnerable to blackmail that he spent his entire term essentially justifying the suspicions about his relationship with the Russian government with his bizarre behavior.

One of the most damning charges against the Trump campaign (which also had nothing to do with the Steele Dossier) was reported by the New York Times in July of 2017, revealing that Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had met with a Russian attorney who was offering dirt on Hillary Clinton on behalf of the Russian government. According to the Senate intelligence report, the Russian government saw that as a signal that they were willing to play ball, particularly when Trump explicitly asked Russia to release Clinton’s emails in a public press conference shortly afterward. That very night there was an attempt to hack the Clinton campaign and within a month, a cache of emails was released by Wikileaks on the eve of the Democratic National Convention.

In a somewhat surprising decision, on Tuesday a federal appeals court reversed a lower court ruling that kept certain redactions in the Mueller Report in place pertaining to Donald Trump Jr’s involvement in the investigation and the Mueller team’s reasoning for not charging him and others with campaign finance violations. The government’s insistence on keeping that under wraps was absurd since much of the information was already public and its reasoning that it would cause “reputational or stigmatizing harm” made no sense. (They will not unredact the parts which explain why Mueller chose not to charge for false statements which really would be interesting, unfortunately.) The decision won’t offer any new revelations but at least it strikes a small blow for transparency.

As he has his whole life, Trump has escaped direct accountability for any of it. I doubt the Russia investigations had anything to do with his loss in 2020 and Mueller’s decision not to say directly that Trump obstructed justice because it might harm his reputation (while also making it clear that he could be prosecuted for that crime after leaving office) was tragically naive. But that is no reason for the media to signal its even-handedness by flagellating itself over the Steele Dossier and help Trump persuade even more people that the Russia scandal was nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. It was not. And one can’t help but wonder if it might be more fruitful for the media to have a little “reckoning” over their “but her emails” coverage during the 2016 campaign, a truly egregious error in judgment that led to the nightmare that followed. At the moment there is every reason to believe that could easily happen again. 

Salon

SCOTUS is streaming

Going live early this morning. Buckle up (Washington Post):

The Supreme Court on Wednesday is taking up the most serious challenge in decades to the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade in 1973. The Mississippi law at issue bans most abortions after 15 weeks into pregnancy and has not taken effect because lower courts said it violated Roe and the subsequent decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which said states may not ban abortion before viability, usually between 22 and 24 weeks.

Mississippi has only one abortion clinic in the state, and one of its doctors sued, saying the ban imposes an undue burden on the right to abortion. Mississippi told the court that allowing the 2018 law to stand would “scuttle a half-century of precedent.” The state says the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion and that the court’s precedents are “grievously wrong, unworkable, damaging and outmoded.”

Listen to oral arguments live here (started at 10 ET): https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

There seems to be quite a crowd gathered in D.C. One of my friends traveled from Florida to be there.

Trouble ahead, trouble behind

Dave Neiwert has reported on the fringe of the fringe-right since before his early Orcinus days. He grew up in the Pacific Northwest, home to the Aryan Nations, and has reported on the Patriot movement, the Proud Boys, Sovereign Citizens, and assorted other neo-Nazis and militiamen in Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump (Verso Press, Fall 2017), And Hell Followed With Her: Crossing the Dark Side of the American Border (NationBooks, March 2013), The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right (PoliPoint Press, May 2009), and more. Neiwert has also written for the Southern Poverty Law Center covering the violent, fringe-right.

It’s annoying that Dave is not invited more often to tell cable news viewers how serious a threat these armed ex-soldiers, cops, and soldier wannabes are. Then again, cable executives don’t really want to frighten their viewers.

Salon’s Chauncey DeVega asked Neiwert to comment on the ripple effects of the Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal. The judge omitted from the trial evidence that the militia Rittenhouse “joined up with in Kenosha was a boogaloo outfit, and these guys believe they are getting ready for a civil war.” Jurors never heard that. So the American public did not either:

These right-wing extremists have waiting for a chance to start shooting “leftists” and “communists” and “liberals” and Black Lives Matter, antifa or other groups they target as the “enemy”. These right-wing extremists do not see a difference between Joe Biden and antifa. For the right-wing extremists, any and all of these individuals and groups are all the same, something evil. The unifying and most important thing is a yearning for civil war.

Here Neiwert references the “When do we get to use the guns?”audience question at a recent Charlie Kirk event in Idaho.

This desire for a civil war and other political violence is not just coming from the open white nationalists and neo-Nazis and racists. It is also coming from what I would call the “Patriot” right. These are the Trumpians — the people who believe that the 2020 election was stolen, the people who believe COVID is a Chinese hoax.

This isn’t an unusual conversation in these circles. Unfortunately, not enough people are paying attention to what is happening among these people. They are all polishing their guns and getting ready.

The verdict is confirmation that they were right all along. The Rittenhouse verdict has given them permission to do what they’ve been craving to do for a long time. The situation is going to become very fraught, very soon. Any time there is a protest, I believe there are going to be guns out. It is going to be dangerous.

The left often caricatures the typical militia member as a “potbellied oaf who runs around and spouts all sorts of nonsense,” Neiwert explains. The image has some truth behind it. But behind the oafs are leaders with training and skills, some ex-military, others serving and retired law enforcement.

Like Donald Trump, many militia leaders are scam artists, but they are also true believers,
These are the folks who are out there radicalizing a large segment of the population. It is my opinion that people who live in cities have a really hard time understanding just how deep and widespread the “Patriot” and “constitutionalist” militia beliefs have become out there in rural America. Such thinking is deep and widespread.

All of these years, we’ve been getting interviews with Trump voters in rural cafés. We’re way overdue for some stories talking about the liberal Biden voters who are trying to survive in these red rural areas where the hostility is just incredibly intense. There we see these huge, modified pickup trucks flying giant flags that say, “Fuck Biden.” That’s what the reality is for people in rural America right now.

A guy I knew had once belonged to a biker gang. Asked why, he explained that he was never into fighting. But he liked the idea that bikers intimidated people and enjoyed the idea that as a biker he intimidated people. While many militia blowhards are motivated by the same impulses, Neiwert warns they are not the ones to worry about:

Let’s be clear. Many of these people are one, incompetent, and two, totally incapable of ever pulling off what they’re talking about doing. Moreover, such people are cowards who mostly like to bluster and threaten and intimidate, but when push comes to shove they are going to shrivel up and do nothing.

But the reality is also that there is a percentage of those people out there who are armed and who are competent, who have military training in many cases and sometimes law enforcement training. These more serious ones are also capable of handling deadly weapons. Those people are the real threat. When they feel that they have been pushed too far they are going to respond.

What triggers that and what they will do is anyone’s guess. My hope is that as bloodbaths go, it will be a small one. Those are a daily event in the U.S.A. Like the weather report.

“I believe the American people need to be ready for mass civil violence, particularly whenever there is any kind of protest,” Neiwert warns.

There is much more at Salon.