Month: May 2022

He was at the center of the coup and people are talking

Politico reports:

Donald Trump’s top election-subversion wingmen have stonewalled the Jan. 6 select committee for months, but investigators have found a reliable workaround: their deputies and assistants.

Time and again, the panel has managed to pierce the secrecy of Trump’s inner circle by turning to the aides entrusted with carrying out logistics for their bosses, according to interviews with lawmakers and newly public committee records.

Some of the select panel’s most crucial information has come from Trumpworld staffers, who were often in the room or briefed on sensitive meetings, even if they weren’t central players themselves. It’s a classic investigative strategy that’s paid dividends for select committee investigators, many of whom are seasoned former federal prosecutors.

“We are definitely taking advantage of the fact that most senior-level people in Washington depend on a lot of young associates and subordinates to get anything done,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the select committee. “A lot of these people still have their ethics intact and don’t want to squander the rest of their careers for other people’s mistakes and corruption.”

Aides like Cassidy Hutchinson, a close adviser to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Ken Klukowski, who advised former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, have helped the select committee fill in gaps about Trump’s private meetings, calls and efforts to overturn the 2020 election that investigators could otherwise only obtain from the principal players themselves.

These interviews have given committee members confidence that they’ll be able to tell the full story of Trump’s attempt to stop the transition of power — even though central figures like Clark, Meadows, outside adviser Steve Bannon and attorney John Eastman have declined to provide substantive testimony.

While appearances by Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner drew headlines in recent weeks, select committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said the panel has spent much of its energy lately on figures who are not “household” names but “had knowledge and information about what went on leading up to January 6. And we appreciate them for coming forward with it.”

As Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) put it, “the beauty of emails and meetings is that not many of them are principal to principal. Many of them include staff.”

In addition to providing evidence of what Trump’s key allies were doing in the weeks before Jan. 6, lesser-known aides have also helped the select committee reconstruct a minute-by-minute account of what occurred in the White House on the day of the riot, while a pro-Trump mob ransacked the Capitol. Even in instances where those staffers weren’t providing direct testimony about their own bosses, they were witnesses to important encounters and caught glimpses of Trump or overheard other communications that have proven valuable.

For example, some aides have told the panel who they saw in and around the Oval Office that day and divulged specific times Meadows was making phone calls or had retreated to his private office — details that have helped the committee establish new lines of inquiry.

Hutchinson’s testimony offered granular details about numerous meetings and phone calls that Meadows convened to discuss options for preventing Joe Biden from taking office. She identified a long list of Republican members of Congress who participated in those meetings — several of whom have themselves refused to cooperate with the investigation.

In addition, Hutchinson described pushback from the White House counsel’s office to legal theories pushed by lawmakers and Trump allies on how to thwart election results, and she was able to identify when many key figures met with Trump himself.

“Almost all, if not all, meetings Mr. Trump had, I had insight on,” Hutchinson told the committee.

In excerpts of her testimony released by the committee, Hutchinson also described Meadows’ post-election trip to Georgia, where he met with aides to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger amid Trump’s effort to pressure the state to reverse his defeat. Plus, she described Meadows’ movements on Jan. 6 — from his early efforts to contact Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Rudy Giuliani to his time with Trump.

“When I had gotten to the West Wing, he was in the Oval dining room,” Hutchinson said of Trump.

“How do you know that?” committee investigator Dan George asked in her February interview.

“Because I heard it announced on my radio which announces the president’s logistical movements,” Hutchinson replied.

And she’s not the only one who provided information about Meadows’ actions that day. The committee has previously released an excerpt of testimony from Ben Williamson, a longtime Meadows aide who followed him from Capitol Hill to the White House. During that interview, the excerpt shows, investigators sought to piece together when the White House was aware of the violence at the Capitol.

“I just wondered, Mr. Williamson, do you remember seeing bike racks being breached?” Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the panel’s vice chair, asked Williamson during a January interview.

“Yes, on the TV, correct, congresswoman,” Williamson replied, adding that he talked to Meadows after that breach.

Cooperation from Meadows’ aides has also changed the select committee’s posture in its legal battle to force the former chief of staff to testify. Doug Letter, the House’s top lawyer, told a judge in federal court last week that the cooperation from Meadows’ associates had helped the Jan. 6 panel dramatically narrow its remaining questions.

“We know so much more than we did then,” Letter said during a hearing on Meadows’ lawsuit to block the select committee’s subpoena for testimony and documents.

These people always think the staff is not only loyal but stupid and they don’t really understand what’s going on. They are almost always wrong. They know everything and often a lot more than their bosses — they talk to each other.

This piece in the Washington Post about Meadows’ part in the coup is simply devastating. If you have a chance to read the whole thing, I highly recommend it. The man is not very bright and he got caught up in something that was way above his abilities to process:

Meadows granted those peddling theories about a stolen election direct access to the Oval Office and personally connected some with the president, according to congressional reports and interviews with former White House officials. He pressed the Justice Department to investigate spurious and debunked claims, including a bizarre theory that an Italian operation changed votes in the United States — an allegation a top Justice official called “pure insanity,” according to email correspondence released by congressional investigators. He also pushed the Justice Department, unsuccessfully, to try to invalidate the election results in six states through federal court action.

Now Meadows’s actions are at the center of probes by both the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack and the Justice Department, which is examining whether to press contempt-of-Congress charges against him and is conducting its own inquiry into the events surrounding the insurrection. North Carolina officials, meanwhile, are looking into whether Meadows himself potentially committed voter fraud by registering to vote in 2020 at a mobile home he reportedly never stayed in.

“Meadows was someone obviously central to the operations of the Trump White House and deeply implicated in Trump’s specific attempts to strip Biden of his electoral college victory after the election,” Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the Jan. 6 committee,said in a statement to The Post. “He was above all a loyal servant to Donald Trump regardless of the dictates of the law and the Constitution.”Advertisement

A Trump spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.

Some former White House officials also say Meadows bears responsibilityfor enabling Trump’s destructive push to stay in power.

“Anybody who participated in telling the president, ‘We can take this back,’ has a role in all of this,” said former press secretary Stephanie Grisham in an interview. “He was allowing people to come into the White House who had this false information. … He was participating in these meetings that were causing the president to really believe in voter fraud.”

Meadows could not be reached for comment. In an April 30 speech urging Christians to vote, Meadows sounded emotional as he referenced his wife, Debra, in the audienceand said “God is humbling us.” He did not mention the investigation of his actions.

I have to wonder if he’s heard from Dear Leader lately. I’d guess not.

This one is very frightening

I could easily imagine this woman being me when I was her age.Getting the third degree after having a miscarriage is just outrageous. How can we live with this?

Three weeks ago, I had a miscarriage. I was six weeks pregnant. I live in Texas, a state that has effectively banned abortions.

A thread about what it is to cease to be pregnant in a state where abortions are banned:

I went to the doctor because I had a lot of pain in my lower back and pelvis, and had been nauseous for weeks. A blood test confirmed I was pregnant – until that point, I didn’t know.

Getting pregnant is one of my worst fears. I have nightmares about being pregnant, about being forced to have something grow inside me, and having to tear myself apart to bring it into the world.

The doctor brought me in to do an ultrasound, and confirmed that I had been pregnant, and wasn’t any longer. I’d miscarried, and that was where the pain and blood was coming from.

The doctor asked me about pregnancy, going into consolation mode. They asked me if I’d been trying to get pregnant, if I’d been pregnant before. I told them I had been pregnant, once before.

“How many kids?” they asked
“None,” I answered.
“Miscarriage?” they asked.
“Abortion,” I answered.
And the conversation shifted dramatically.

I’d had an abortion when I was 19. Upon hearing that, this doctor in Texas rattled through a list of drugs, asking if I’d taken any of them in the last six weeks. They asked about my activities, what I’d been doing, if I’d intentionally injured myself.

Intentionally or not, it felt like I’d become a suspect in the death of something I didn’t know existed.

Eventually, it stopped. They were satisfied that I hadn’t known I was pregnant and induced an illegal abortion in Texas. I left, though not without the fear that because I’d gone for medical help, I’d now be reported, per Texas law.

Because if I’d known I was pregnant, I wouldn’t have gone. Miscarriages are already being prosecuted in the US. 1200 people have been arrested since 2005 for not carrying a pregnancy to term.

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2021/10/21/when-a-miscarriage-becomes-a-jail-sentence/

At least one person in Texas has already been prosecuted for a miscarriage since Texas passed #SB8 (though charges have been dropped):

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/prosecutor-drop-charges-against-texas-woman-over-her-abortion-2022-04-10/

10 – 15% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. 40% of fertile people will experience a miscarriage at some point. Miscarriages are incredibly common.

https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-017-1620-1

When we criminalise abortion – as Texas has done, and as half the US is now poised to do – we implicitly criminalise miscarriages too. Any pregnancy that doesn’t end in a live birth becomes suspect. What did they do to cause this? How did they kill their baby?

People stop going to get help when there is a risk they will go to jail for it. That is how people die. When you criminalise abortion, you criminalise every person able to get pregnant, and you put everything about them under scrutiny. They stop being human, and just become uteri

Texas is a harbinger. This is where half of the states in the US are going. This experience, this interrogation, repeated over and over, as the blame for a pregnancy ending falls on the person who may not have even known they were pregnant.

I think about if I answered the doctor’s questions correctly, if I convinced them I didn’t cause it intentionally, if my past decision was enough to condemn me in the eyes of the state of Texas.

There have been hundreds of others who weren’t so lucky. With #RoeVWade being overturned, there will be thousands more. People who did nothing wrong, but who the law wants to find at fault for not being the perfect “vessel.”

Healthcare is a human right. Privacy is a human right. Abortion is health care and privacy, and it is a human right. No person’s life should ever be sacrificed for a pregnancy.

Originally tweeted by Janneke Parrish (@JannekeParrish) on May 9, 2022.

Don’t think this isn’t happening because it is. Doctors and nurses shouldn’t have to ask (or shouldn’t be willing to ask) patients who have miscarried about their habits after the miscarriage is over and their health is secure. If they were concerned about the patient going forward they would just tell them that a miscarriage could be caused by by many different things, perhaps including drug use. They certainly wouldn’t ask if the patient had intentionally injured herself without any evidence.

It’s clear what they were doing — they were covering their backs in case some yahoo decided to “turn them in” for aiding a patient’s self-induced abortion. Maybe they have to. But the whole thing is disgusting.

Trump seems to have made quite an effort to find out.

Trump insulted his former Defense Secretary Mark Esper last night calling him so “weak and ineffective I had to run the military myself.” Apparently, it never occurs to him that he insults himself every time he says his chosen adviser and cabinet officials are inept losers. What does it say about his management abilities?

AUG 2015 – “I’m going to surround myself with only the best and most serious people. Top of the line professionals.”

REX TILLERSON – “Dumb as a rock.”

JOHN KELLY – “No temperament” “He got eaten alive” “Unable to handle the pressure of the job.”

ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI – “Highly unstable nut job” “A fool” “Abused staff.”

MARK ESPER – “Weak and totally ineffective.” “A lightweight.”

REINCE PREIBUS – “Weak” “A disgrace”

JEFF SESSIONS – “Weak and ineffective” “Dumb southerner” “Mentally retarded” “Disgraceful” “Scared stiff” “Idiot” “Mr Magoo”

STEVE BANNON – “Sloppy Steve cried when he got fired and begged for his job. Now sloppy Steve has been dumped like a dog.”

JIM MATTIS – “world’s most Overrated General.”

BILL BARR – “Never had the energy or the competence to do the job.” “Slow and boring.”

TOM PRINCE – “Disappointing” “I’m not happy.”

MICK MULVANEY – “F*cked it all up.”

JOHN BOLTON – “Washed up” “Disgruntled boring old fool” “Never had a clue.” “Dope” “Liar”

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN – “Too short” “Didn’t look the part” “Not tough enough.”

MICHAEL COHEN – “not very smart”

BILL BARR – a coward, “afraid of being impeached”

OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN – ” a crazed, crying lowlife” “a dog”

GARY COHN – “I could tell you stories about him like you wouldn’t believe”

WILBUR ROSS – “past his prime”

DAN COATS – “Mister Rogers” “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!”

Some of those originally tweeted by Ron Filipkowski. I added a few. And I’m sure there are more. Why don’t his cult followers notice this? Does it not occur to them at all that maybe the problem is him, not them?

Are they crazy? (Don’t answer that …)

From former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s new book:

On Friday, Aug. 16, 2019 — just three weeks after the Senate confirmed me as secretary of Defense — the national security team met with President Donald Trump at his Bedminster, N.J., golf club. Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney was already on-site, along with CIA Director Gina Haspel and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, when Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I arrived. It was a little strange driving onto the club grounds in black Suburbans and exiting the cars in dark suits and uniforms while Bedminster members of all ages frolicked in the nearby pool and foursomes golfed on the other side of the clubhouse. National security adviser John Bolton arrived a little after us. He had come aboard Air Force Two with Vice President Mike Pence.

John and I quickly said hello, and he pulled me aside to ask quietly, “When did you find out about this meeting?”

“Yesterday,” I said.

He paused, told me that he had “just found out this morning about it,” and said that State was trying to “cut the NSC out of the process.” He then quickly asked my views of State’s proposed deal to end the Afghanistan war, which was the ostensible subject of the meeting.

The meeting began a little after 3:00 p.m. in a security “tent” erected inside a large, empty wing of a club building to protect us from electronic eavesdropping. The tent was no longer than two picnic tables in length, with just enough room on the sides for people to walk by and grab their seats.

The president arrived in good spirits, dressed in a white shirt, blue sport coat and slacks, and took his seat at the end of the narrow table, nearest the entrance. After Trump greeted everyone, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo kicked off the discussion by outlining Afghanistan envoy Zalmay Khalilzad’s efforts to conclude a deal with the Taliban over the previous months and then hitting the key points of the agreement. The secretary of State was realistic about the proposal and presented a sober assessment of its prospects, adding that it was “not a perfect deal” and he “did not trust the Taliban.”

I looked across the table at Bolton furiously taking notes on a large legal pad. When the conversation turned to me, I told the president that the DoD supported the plan, contingent on a conditions-based approach. I also added in my two cents about not trusting the Taliban, but thought the deal was “good enough” to give peace a chance. “We can always hit pause if the conditions aren’t being met,” I added. Dunford agreed.

It was clear that Bolton opposed the agreement. He cited specific concerns about the May 2021 departure date for U.S. forces, especially the fact that no residual “counterterrorism capability” would remain in-country if implemented as written.

We didn’t stay on topic long at any point during the meeting. Trump started bouncing from issue to issue, getting more and more fired up as he ranted about corruption in Afghanistan, President Ashraf Ghani’s alleged mansion in Dubai and, inevitably, his complaints about my predecessor, Jim Mattis. He then leaped around the world like a bullfrog jumping from lily pad to lily pad. The president disapprovingly asked why we were putting more troops in Poland, asking, “Do we really want a Fort Trump there?” He already agreed to both, Bolton reminded him. The president complained there were too many U.S. troops in Europe and that “NATO is ripping us off.”

This triggered the president’s Germany soundtrack, which was mostly about Chancellor Angela Merkel and how Berlin was “not paying its fair share” when it came to defense. He told the story about his first meeting with Merkel, and how she asked, “What are you going to do about Ukraine?” regarding U.S. military and financial support. To which he quickly responded, as he told it, “What are you going to do about Ukraine?” In his view, Germany was “closer to Ukraine than we are,” and it’s a “big buffer” for the Germans against Russia. “They should be paying Ukraine more than anyone,” he proclaimed.

I would hear this monologue several more times during my tenure. In the weeks that followed, in fact, I pressed Trump on several occasions to approve the $250 million in security assistance that Congress had appropriated for Ukraine, and was joined at times by Bolton and/or Pompeo. None of us could figure out what was driving the president’s resistance. I would try every argument and strategy I could muster. When he complained about corruption in Ukraine, I told him, “I agree,” but pointed out that “they are making progress,” and that “tackling corruption is a priority for [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy.” I said to the president, “Denying him the aid would only undermine Zelenskyy’s efforts to do what you want — clean the place up.”

When he questioned, “Why are we even giving them this stuff [security assistance] in the first place,” I ran through a series of arguments that failed time and time again: deterrence of Russian aggression; showing Moscow our commitment to our partners; and aiding a democracy under siege. I then pivoted to the fact that “Congress appropriated the funding, and we don’t really have a choice” to not release it. “It is the law, Mr. President,” I said bluntly. With his arms folded in front of him as he leaned forward into his desk, he was silent. He didn’t seem to care.

But in the Afghanistan meeting now, the president was wound up, sitting in his chair, arms alternating between outstretched at his side as he spoke, and folded across his chest as he finished a point. He also kept looking up and down the table to read people’s reactions. His volume pitched between high and higher.

I had only been on the job for a few weeks now, so this was my first encounter with Trump in this mode; it wouldn’t be my last. Some of the things he was proposing were outlandish — such as a “complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea” or the pullback of all military and diplomatic personnel from Africa. “Shut down the embassies in Africa,” he often said, “and bring our people [U.S. diplomats] home.” None of this was in our nation’s interests, and as I calmly responded with facts, data and arguments, I saw some irritation in him — I was the “new guy” pushing back. I knew right then and there that this job would be far more challenging than I had anticipated, to say the least.

The meeting that Friday afternoon in Bedminster ended a little before 5:00 p.m. without a hard decision. Trump seemed to be leaning toward supporting the agreement, but only if he could pitch it as a “wonderful deal.” This, of course, was in contrast with his earlier comments. Now, he was somehow going to will the “bad deal” into a “wonderful deal.” Near the end of our meeting, Trump said he wanted any public statement we might release about the peace deal to say that the U.S. would be at “zero [troops] in October” 2020, just before the election. Nov. 3, 2020, was the lens through which he viewed the agreement. It was an important takeaway for me.

The team that had met at Bedminster had a follow-up session in the Situation Room on Friday, Aug. 30, with Pence, Bolton and Khalilzad all calling in from abroad this time. The discussion largely picked up where we left off in New Jersey. The principals still held their same positions. Pompeo outlined to the president the final plan as it was at that point, which was mostly unchanged from the version briefed weeks earlier, and he recommended we “move forward” on it, as imperfect as it was. Trump listened closely. The president looked at the large screen and asked Bolton, who was in Warsaw, “Would you sign it, John?” Trump knew Bolton drew the hardest line on the proposed agreement. “I would not,” John responded. He ticked off the reasons, but gave some ground by telling Trump he “can support going down to 8,600 troops and then wait” for the Afghan elections. We “can decide what to do next after that,” he added.

Bolton made clear we couldn’t trust the Taliban and cited his concerns about the lack of an enforcement mechanism. He made several good points, many the same as my policy team. I, too, was fine with going down to 8,600 and pausing. Gen. Scott Miller was reducing the number of troops in-country anyway. I acknowledged Bolton’s position but restated my view that we pursue the deal “provided that further reductions in U.S. forces were conditions based,” and that we stick to that approach. Without it, we would squander the leverage that a continued U.S. military presence and the threat of force gave us.

Trump then caught everyone by surprise by declaring, “I want to meet with the Taliban” here in Washington. We all sat there stunned for a moment, carefully looking around at one another, and then at him to see if the president was serious. He was. Trump asked Pence what he thought, to which the vice president rightly cautioned that we give the idea more thought. Trump then said he wanted to meet with Ghani too, proposing separate meetings in D.C. with him and the Taliban leadership. “So, we can meet with the Taliban but not congressional leadership?” I thought disgustedly.

Ever the showman, Trump believed this would bring great focus to the matter at hand and, though this was never said, cast him as an extraordinary diplomat and businessman who could close any deal. None of us liked this idea. As the president went around the room, we each tried to dissuade him in different ways. I recommended against it, reminding him that “the Taliban have the blood of American service members on their hands, not to mention their role in the death of nearly three thousand civilians killed on our own soil on 9/11.” It was not appropriate for the president of the United States to meet with them, I added, and said, “It will not go over well with the troops and their families.” It didn’t sit well with me at all. Bolton broke the serious tone of the room when the president asked what he thought. I knew John long enough to anticipate his view — no way — but he surprised us with a wisecrack about making sure any Taliban who visit the White House first walk through “the world’s most powerful magnetometer.”

The president then transitioned to a quick discussion about how to craft the message about his proposed meeting with Ghani and the Taliban, which he had put out should be moved to Camp David. Trump would often look up into the air, chin raised, as he searched for the right words, then drop his head, and say, “How about … ‘The president has agreed to a meeting,’” and then, “Wait, wait, … let’s say ‘he’s looking forward to the meeting.’” Pence and he went back and forth a couple of times, the vice president in his even tone trying to steer Trump in a better direction with suggestions phrased as questions, such as “Would you meet with President Ghani first?”

I couldn’t believe this was happening. We were actually going to sit down with the Taliban at the president’s historic Maryland retreat, like old friends? There was no way Dunford and I could join him. The Taliban had killed and wounded more than 20,000 U.S. service members in Afghanistan since 2001, and that’s just counting the physical wounds of war. Not only couldn’t I personally do it, it would be terrible for any secretary of Defense or chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be sipping tea with these terrorists, especially while we still had troops in a combat zone. It would be breaking faith with them, their families and our veterans. It was not lost on many of us, either, that the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks was coming up in a week or so. This idea was terrible in so many ways.

On Thursday, Sept. 5, a car bomb killed a dozen people in Kabul, including an American service member. Trump was furious the Taliban would do this as he planned a meeting with them at Camp David in a few days to finalize the peace deal. In a series of tweets, he both announced the meetings had been planned for the upcoming Sunday and then canceled them, stating that if the Taliban “cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway.” With that, not only was Camp David off but so too were the talks. It also relieved me of a difficult, early decision about what I’d do if faced with the order to join him and the Taliban at Camp David. But there would be other such days. Many others.

If this country lets Trump anywhere near the White House again, we are going to regret it. This man is both stupid and dangerous and we are very lucky we got out of his four years alive.

Here’s that lunatic’s measured response:

For a country that supposedly worships “life” we sure have a funny way of showing it

The Republicans are trying to convince Americans that forcing women to bear children against their will is no big deal because they’ll be providing all kinds of services to help them go through an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth. They especially want to help all those victims of rape and incest be able to give their siblings or rapists children up for adoption which is very thoughtful of them.

But people don’t talk much about the risks of going through pregnancy and childbirth and it’s more risky in the US than anywhere in the advanced world.

The level of pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. is a national tragedy.

We are basically alone in the developed world in the elevated level and rising rate of maternity deaths.

Here’s the latest from the CDC.

The maternal mortality rate is especially high for older mothers and non-white mothers.

But whereas maternal mortality is declining in most rich countries, it’s rising here for almost all demographics.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020/maternal-mortality-rates-2020.htm

Compared to other rich countries, the U.S. has an unusual scarcity of perinatal care:

– fewer physicians, midwives, and OBGYNs per capita than most OECD countries
– more un-insured mothers + inequality
– no federal paid parental leave

Here’s why America has so few doctors and why we need an Abundance Agenda for care

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/why-does-the-us-make-it-so-hard-to-be-a-doctor/622065/

Originally tweeted by Derek Thompson (@DKThomp) on May 9, 2022.

Pardon me if I’m a little bit skeptical that Republicans around the country are going to do anything more than enable a bunch of right wing fanatics to force women into accepting religious proselytizing and pressure in return for inadequate “services” to help them through their pregnancy. It’s doubtful any of this will come with money for health care and I think we know exactly how they feel about child support. They just refused to extend the Child Tax Credit that lifted half of America’s poor children out of poverty. They didn’t think the Affordable Care Act should provide maternity benefits because men shouldn’t have to pay for services they don’t use:

WOW. The #GOP’s reason to object to insurance covering prenatal care? “Why should men pay for it?” Watch: #Trumpcare #ProtectOurCare pic.twitter.com/Q55nG1Un8j

— Reproductive Freedom for All (@reproforall) March 9, 2017

They are shameful liars in every way. But this grotesque insistence that they will make it easier for women to bear unwanted children now that they’ve had their rights stripped away is one of the most cynical yet. They’ve never shown the slightest interest in helping families and they never will.

Democrats should make the Republicans own every last one of their draconian proposals

As much as the National Republican Senatorial Committee would like Republicans to stay away from the abortion issue except to insist they are compassionate and caring about life, it isn’t really working. That line is hardly a natural fit for a party that had a collective hysterical tantrum against Barack Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act and proposes taxing the poor anyway. They are the “Fuck Your Feelings” party, after all, not the empathy and mercy crowd.

There is little hope of eliding the consequences of their decades-long crusade to send women back to back-alley butchers. Nonetheless, they are haplessly trying to pretend that they are truly committed to helping all the people who will be forced to give birth against their will once the right to abortion is overturned. It’s not credible:

Mississippi Gov. Reeves just said, "We must prove that being pro-life is not just about anti-abortion… we want to continue to focus on ensuring that those expected mothers have the resources that they need."

Mississippi has the highest infant mortality rate in the country.

— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) May 8, 2022

According to the National Women’s Law Center, Mississippi has the highest poverty rate for women in the nation, one of the highest uninsurance rates for women in the nation and ranks last in the country for women’s and children’s health outcomes. If they revere life so much, why have they been punishing the poor women and children in their state who chose not to get abortions for the past 50 years?

Reeves wasn’t the only governor to make this disingenuous claim. So called moderate Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas also said he thinks they should increase services for women who are in “difficult circumstances” with their pregnancies.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson last year signed a bill banning abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. Pressed on that by ABC, he says his "heart goes out" to women who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. pic.twitter.com/5Jn3torkfx

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 8, 2022

Hutchinson signed that bill willingly and he’s not the only one. In fact, as Stephanie Kirchgaessner  of the Guardian reported last week, since 2019, when Republican leader Kevin McCarthy said that removing exemptions for rape and incest simply went too far, “at least 11 US states – including Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas and Texas – have passed legislation that bans abortion without any such exceptions.” The idea has taken off like wildfire:

Where Republicans once believed that absolute bans were unpalatable and “toxic” with voters, the party’s legislators have now adopted the language once promoted by the most extreme anti-abortion activists in the country who say any such exceptions are “prejudice against children conceived in rape and incest”.

According to the Guardian, this rapid change in attitude is attributed to the work of an anti-abortion group called Students for Life of America (SFLA), another astroturf production sponsored by big money GOP donors and co-chaired by Leonard Leo, the far right, Federalist Society leader who shepherded Donald Trump’s three arch-conservative, anti-abortion Justices to the Supreme Court. They seem to be very serious about their work and very good at getting it done.

And as much as they insist that they aren’t coming for contraception — they’re coming for contraception. SFLA’s executive director, Kristan Hawkins, has said that in her ideal world the pill and IUDs would be “illegal”. She’s certainly not the only conservative with those views although according to the official talking points they are supposed to lie about it and insist they have no intention of banning contraception.

Here’s Governor Reeves again, clearly uncomfortable with the topic:

Jake Tapper, after noting that Louisiana and other states are looking at possibly criminalizing IUDs: "I’m not making this up… But just to be clear, you have no intention of seeking to ban IUDs or Plan B?"

Tate Reeves: "That is not what we are focused on at this time." pic.twitter.com/YeKipDLFsU

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) May 8, 2022

Others are not so reticent:

NEW: Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters (R) just said if elected he will vote against judges unless they commit to overturning the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision which ended laws that banned contraception. The case helped establish the basic right to privacy.

— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) May 8, 2022

Masters claims he just wants Griswold overturned, not that he wants to ban contraception. Ok. And he had a hissy fit about it.

Here’s a somewhat chilling video with a very calm and almost robotic Iowa State Rep. Brent Crane discussing state interference in women’s most intimate decisions and bodily functions as if he’s talking about a bond issue for the local water district. He blandly admits that his caucus would certainly consider banning Plan B and IUDs. The good news is that he says the caucus isn’t currently talking about prosecuting women for crossing state lines to obtain abortions or trying women who get abortions for murder — yet.

And for those suggesting that any talk of criminalizing miscarriage is just more left wing hysteria, they would do well to inform themselves of the incidents that have already happened around the country. Mother Jones reported a horrific story about one Oklahoma woman who was convicted of manslaughter for having a miscarriage. In fact, there have been more than 70 cases of women being prosecuted for pregnancy related “crimes” in the state since 2007. If various “personhood” laws recognizing equal rights of the fetus are passed you can expect to see more of this.

They are talking about this stuff and more all over the country. Governors and state houses are already passing draconian laws, testing novel new legal theories and pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable even two years ago. Yet Republicans have been all over social media and cable news over the last week insisting that Democrats are being overwrought in their reaction, that they aren’t going to see much change in the status quo and everyone just needs to calm down. But as you can see, the status quo is changing very, very quickly.

Even before the leak we knew that anti-abortion activists and members of congress were working together on a nationwide ban on abortion. How that would work legally is anyone’s guess, but let’s just say these anti-abortion crusaders aren’t going to rest on their laurels. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told USA Today that it’s possible a national ban will be proposed but he insisted that there will be no carve out of the filibuster “on any subject.” (That’s a joke — he carved out the filibuster to put three ultra-orthodox wingnuts on the Supreme Court so his word isn’t exactly gold on that subject. If McConnell thinks it will shore up his power he will do it without blinking an eye.) For right now he’s having it both ways. As usual.

Senate Majority Leader Schumer will be putting up a show vote this week on the Women’s Health Protection Act which would codify Roe v Wade. It has been passed by the House but was shot down in the Senate last February, 46-48 with six senators not voting. It is unlikely to pass this time and is subject to the filibuster anyway. Senators Sinema and Manchin have already said they would not vote to lift the filibuster to pass it so that’s that.

Schumer says this will illustrate for the American people where the Republicans stand. The thing is, everyone already knows where these Republicans stand on Roe v Wade. They haven’t been keeping that a secret. But do we know where they stand on the prosecution of women for their pregnancy losses? On banning Plan B and IUDs? On exemptions for rape and incest? On spending the kind of money it would take to ensure that poor women and their children have the support some of them are promising? Where are the Republicans on religious exemptions such as those claimed by some Jewish organizations who say that banning abortion violates their first amendment rights? How about proposals such as the one by GOP Pennsylvania candidate for Governor Doug Mastriano, who would not only deny exemptions for rape and incest but also the health of the woman. Are they for that?

If you want show votes to really expose what the right is proposing, then make these members of congress vote on the specifics of what’s at stake. If nothing else it will divide the Republicans, many of whom, even in the Senate, are anti-abortion fanatics who will vote for some of these things and it will tie the others up in knots.

These aren’t hypothetical ideas anymore.

They are actually happening all over the country and as soon as Roe is overturned they will expand at a record pace. The problem is, the country doesn’t know about it. The Democrats need to tell them and one way to do that is to have a big debate on all these fiendish proposals and phony promises in the US House and Senate.

Salon

You must be this patient to win this fight

The conservative jury is still out on whether the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade in June. Slate’s Jordan Weissmann notes the irony in a how a court stacked with conservatives has stacked the deck against a majority of Americans.

“The court now ready to decree that women’s reproductive rights should be decided democratically has also disempowered voters by allowing states to continue gerrymandering, while also gutting the protections of the Voting Rights Act. How convenient,” Weismann writes.

Should the Alito wing prevail, the obstacles to Democrats restoring women’s legal autonomy over their own bodies are daunting. Yes, voting is important, Weissmann says, restating the obvious. But Democrats “must also make it clear to pro-choice voters that they need to prepare for a long march if they want to restore abortion rights.” Not election cycles. Years. Perhaps decades.

Digby regularly reminds readers that shamelessness is conservatives’ superpower. But it is not their only one. Relentlessness is another. Studies suggest that the liberal mind is much more open to novelty. It also means we are too undisciplined to repeat progressive messaging enough for it to take root in the public mind even when on rare occasion the left actually hits on a half-decent message. We’d rather show off our creativity.

Should Roe fail, we face a long slog. Relentlessness is what will make our America great again. Learning relentlessness will be a challenge.

The decades-long fight for women’s suffrage is one model. So is the civil rights movement. Those people, people with less privilege than those in political power, only won those fights with grit and tenacity after long years of struggle. The rest of us, progressives included, are accustomed to quick fixes and instant gratification. Get over yourselves. Buy a good pair of marching shoes and clear your weekends.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

Can you fit five justices and a flux capacitor in a DeLorean?

Who knew when Marsellus Wallace said, “I’ma get medieval on your ass,” in the 1990s he was invoking the past and predicting the future?

Saturday Night Live took on Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked opinion overturning Roe v. Wade over the weekend. Alito went back to 13th century England to justify his views. Why not SNL to mock them?

Where this court majority is headed, however, is no joke. Jennifer Rubin contemplates the Inquisition-like methods that might be necessary to enforce the state bans on abortion the Supreme Court could unleash when it issues its final opinion in June.

To prosecute a woman for having an illegal abortion, what will due process look like under the court’s theocratic ruling? Rubin writes:

Consider what it would take to “prove” a woman had an illegal abortion. Would a search warrant be issued for her phone and computer to see what doctors and health-care providers she sought out? Would housekeepers, relatives and friends be interrogated as to her menstrual cycle?

It’s not clear whether states would respect doctor-patient confidentiality (an abortion ban seems to imply that is a thing of the past). Does everyone from the office assistant to the doctor get grilled about the woman’s gynecological history? Maybe security cameras at offices will be reviewed to see when and if she went in and out of a health-care provider. Are we to subpoena insurance records, travel records, bank records?

Rebecca Traister captured the witch-burning mood of the 2016 Republican National Convention mob after Chris Christie held a mock trial for Hillary Clinton and the crowd screamed  “guilty!” and “lock her up.” 

Since Goody Rodham was placed in the water and thence did float & was observed conversing with a tall man in the woods, is she not GUILTY?

— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) July 20, 2016

Three Donald Trump court appointments later, here we are. With states enabling cash rewards for townspeople who can make their accusations against any woman stand up in court, Rubin warns, “the Fourth Amendment goes out the window entirely; ‘private’ bounty hunters are not restricted by the amendment at all.”

Moreover, given the impossibility of policing all pregnancies and running down every accusation, the discretion put in the hands of individual prosecutors will be enormous; it is an invitation for selective prosecution. (Do we really think the rich, White daughter of a prominent businessperson will be hauled into court?) Some prosecutors will play Inspector Javert, harassing and menacing women; others will choose to look the other way, making further mockery of a law meant to chill conduct but not to be enforced.

Ultimately, we wind up with a society of snitches, suspicion and distrust. When the Texas bounty bill was first passed, Robin Fretwell Wilson of the University of Illinois law school wrote: “The encouragement of ‘voluntary espionage’ between neighbors hints at forms of totalitarianism that most Americans would publicly rail against.” She continued, “North Korea utilizes citizens as spies to inform the government of anti-government behavior of their fellow citizens. While the penalty there is certainly much greater — potential public execution ­— the underlying mechanism is the same, promoting fear and mistrust among neighbors.”

Promoting fear and mistrust among neighbors to drive its paranoid cultists to the polls is the only agenda Republicans have left. Since the earliest days of Rush Limbaugh’s radio tenure and Fox News, stoking resentment is the party’s principle mechanism for holding power. Performative democracy is a nosegay for a party committed only to maintaining its grip on power by any means necessary. As it withers, majority rule too will be tossed aside with constitutional protections. One can argue it already has been.

This is your “land of the free” on Trump-fueled theocracy.

(h/t IW)

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

Uhm. Happy Mother’s Day, I guess …

And Republicans are the ones who practice it

Here’s yet another example:

GOP ward leaders voted to oust one of their own Saturday, hours after an Inquirer story highlighted his role in diverting dozens of mail ballots for Republican voters in South Philadelphia to a P.O. box under his control, raising concerns of a potential “ballot harvesting” scheme.

Up until Saturday, Billy Lanzilotti, 23, had led the 39th Ward — a section of deep South Philadelphia, east of Broad Street and south of Mifflin Street.

Most of the mail ballots that he had sent to a P.O. box registered to his Republican Registration Coalition PAC were for voters in the neighboring 26th Ward, where he was also seeking to become ward leader under Republican City Committee rules that allow members to hold that position in multiple wards at a time.

But many of the affected voters told The Inquirer they had no idea why their ballots were being sent to Lanzilotti instead of their home addresses. Some maintained they had never even applied to vote by mail.

On Saturday, Lanzilotti’s fellow GOP ward leaders described the situation as troubling at a time when Republican lawmakers and candidates have attacked mail voting and falsely portrayed it as rife with abuse by their Democrat rivals.

Ya think? I don’t have the bandwidth to go hunting down all the examples we’ve seen this year of Republican voter fraud. But it’s substantial and it’s way more common that Democratic voter fraud. I find that interesting, don’t you?