Skip to content

Month: July 2022

Invasion of the democracy snatchers

When did it become acceptable to oppose democracy?

Still image from Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978).

Conservative pedants have long insisted, “America is not a democracy! It’s a republic!” (Republicans prefer the sound of the latter for some reason.) The distinction, while there is one, is about as meaningful as, “That’s not a vehicle! It’s an automobile!”

The impulse behind the assertion is, of course, that many of our countrymen who proclaim their love of the Constitution, really hate all its references to voting, what with free and fair elections leaving room for their team to lose. Soon enough, the Roberts Supreme Court will argue that since the word “democracy” appears nowhere in the document, democracy is not “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.”

Marc Elias writes at Democracy Docket, When Did It Become Acceptable To Oppose Democracy? :

In our two-party system, it is common for there to be sharp divides on the big issues of the day. But increasingly, the parties differ on the basic foundations of our democracy — from one person, one vote to free and fair elections to the peaceful transfer of power. I was struck that a recent article in the Washington Post referred to me and others focused on the right to vote as “democracy advocates” without any trace of concern or irony. It is true that I am an advocate for democracy. But I am left asking, when did it become acceptable to oppose democracy?

Since President Biden gave that [Philadelphia] speech, Congress has considered several bills aimed at protecting the right to vote and preventing election subversion. Each one of them has been opposed by Republicans. Not just some Republicans, but literally every single Republican in Congress. In 2006, the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was passed 98-0 in the Senate and overwhelmingly in the House. It was even signed into law by a Republican president.  

Now, when it comes to the attack on our electoral process, Republicans do not pretend to care. Stories about the disenfranchisement of voters or plans to subvert election results do not even garner Republicans’ platitudes. The degradation of American democracy does not even warrant their cynical thoughts and prayers.

You might think that the mounting evidence showing that the Jan. 6 insurrection was part of a broader and ongoing effort to undermine democracy would cause Republicans to question whether there is a need to do more to protect it. But preventing election subversion is at odds with the GOP’s electoral strategy and so far, Republican loyalty to the party’s electoral prospects has outstripped loyalty to the country’s future.

Shoring up our democracy will require holding accountable those who so recently sought to overthrow it for an autocrat-friendly would-be king. But legal accountability for the guilty is not enough. In state after state where Republicans control the legislatures, we see laws enacted that make it more difficult to register and cast ballots. Plus, 2020 election deniers (and theocrats) are running for or appointed to positions of election oversight where they will have thumbs prepositioned on the scales. Left unchecked, the pods will suck the life from the republic, leaving behind an empty husk.

Being informed is only the start, Elias writes:

Take to your own town square to be an active participant in the defense of democracy. For some that will mean posting on social media, for others it will mean talking to friends, family, customers and clients. Do not avoid the hard conversations; seek them out.

And, by the way, spend more time campaigning for Democrats than complaining about the flag-waving enemies of democracy. Don’t sleep through the snatching.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us.

Hiding in plain sight

“We decree that we take back and permanently control positions of influence and leadership”

This Christian nationalist ceremony would be even creepier backed by ominous music and Gregorian chanting. But it’s plenty creepy on its own.

Find a pdf of the Watchman Decree here. It begins:

WHEREAS
• we, the Church, are God’s governing Body on the earth
• we have been given legal power from heaven and now exercise our authority
• we are God’s ambassadors and spokespeople over the earth
• through the power of God, we are the world influencers
• because of our covenant with God, we are equipped and delegated by Him to destroy every attempted advance of the enemy,

There is much more, of course. Four minutes’ worth of decreeing and declaring, including a reference to Seven Mountains Dominionism. We’ve been following this movement here for over a decade.

I cannot find attendance numbers for FlashPoint LIVE in the Atlanta area this month, but this is not an insignificant movement. They fill stadiums.

And they fill elected offices. Here in North Carolina, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson recites from the Christian nationalist gospel. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is fluent in it. E.C. Sykes was Executive Director of Faith and Religious Liberty for Ted Cruz for President and member of the Council for National Policy, “a little-known club of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country” and listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He returned to North Carolina after 20 years and ran unsuccessfully in 2020 for secretary of state against incumbent Democrat Elaine Marshall. He is running for state senate in 2022.

Watch your backs where you are. This theocratic movement is hiding in plain sight.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us.

People forget what Trump did in the early hours of the day after the election

A reminder

Watch it all if you have the time. I recall watching it live on the west coast and my head exploding. I would imagine that some of you in other time zones (or who had a healthy desire to get a good night’s sleep) didn’t see it.

It’s really something. He declared victory before the votes were counted and said he was going to the Supreme Court:

There is NO evidence of fraud

Prominent conservative lawyers went to the trouble of examining in detail at all the lawsuits that were filed in 2020 to see if there was any truth to the assertions that there was massive voter fraud. Guess what?

It was obvious, of course. But it’s important that these conservatives did this work because Republicans all over the country are pretending that there was massive fraud in order to restrict voting going forward and give themselves an advantage. These attempts are going to end up in court and this sort of evidence will be important:

A group of conservatives, including prominent lawyers and retired federal judges, issued a 72-page report on Thursday categorically rebutting each of the claims made in court by former President Donald Trump and his supporters over the 2020 election results.

The report, “LOST, NOT STOLEN: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election,” looked at more than 60 court cases Trump and his supporters filed and lost in six key battleground states. It reached the “unequivocal” conclusion that the former Republican president’s claims were unsupportable — which Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security as well as election officials nationwide debunked days after the 2020 election.

The report was released as the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol has been holding public hearings that have connected Trump’s involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election to the attack that disrupted Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory. Trump is considering an early 2024 presidential run announcement, CNN has previously reported.

“There is absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election on the magnitude necessary to shift the result in any state, let alone the nation as a whole. In fact, there was no fraud that changed the outcome in even a single precinct,” the report says.

The report is signed by retired federal appeals court judges Thomas B. Griffith, J. Michael Luttig and Michael W. McConnell, former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, former US Sens. John Danforth and Gordon H. Smith, longtime Republican election lawyer Benjamin L. Ginsberg and veteran Republican congressional chief of staff David Hoppe. Several of them are longtime Trump critics.

“Even now, twenty months after the election, a period in which Trump’s supporters have been energetically scouring every nook and cranny for proof that the election was stolen, they come up empty. Claims are made, trumpeted in sympathetic media, and accepted as truthful by many patriotic Americans. But on objective examination they have fallen short, every time,” the report says.

The report warns that it’s “wrong, and bad for our country, for people to propagate baseless claims that President Biden’s election was not legitimate.”

It delved into a detailed examination of each case brought by Trump and his supporters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump and his backers alleged fraud, irregularities and procedural deficiencies in their challenges in court.

Trump and his allies lost nearly all the more than 60 cases they brought challenging the 2020 election results, the report noted. Twenty were dismissed before a hearing on the merits, 14 were dropped by Trump and his supporters, and 30 included a hearing on the merits, it found.

The group of conservatives argued that Trump and his supporters had “an obligation to recognize that the election debate was over.”

“Questions of election legality must be resolved dispassionately in courts of law, not through rallies and demonstrations—and most emphatically, not by applying political pressure and threats to induce Congress to ignore its constitutional duty and the electoral outcome for which the people voted, and which the legal processes of the affected states had examined and confirmed,” the report says.

We know that he was planning to do this if he lost the election regardless of the facts at hand. He could have lost by a million votes in every state and he still would have done it. But for the few people left on the GOP side who are still in touch with reality, some of whom may be in the judiciary, these facts may have some persuasive power.

The Righteous Anger of a decent American

Just watch this

In case you still think they are even human, get a load of this:

Jim Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who authored the model legislation in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, told POLITICO on Thursday that his law only provides exceptions when the pregnant person’s life is in danger.

“She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday.

The Indiana Attorney General is now trying to charge the doctor who performed the abortion with a crime, investigating whether she filed some paperwork within a 3 day window.

Meanwhile, here are some others trying to dance on the head of a pin, pretending that their “life begins at conception” and “fetal personhood” position don’t lead inexorably to that little girl being forced to give birth to her rapists child:

Catherine Glenn Foster, the president and CEO of Americans United for Life, was responding to questions from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) about whether she thinks a 10-year-old girl would or should “choose” to have a baby. After some back and forth, during which Foster refused to answer the question, she came up with a response.

“I believe it would probably impact her life, and so, therefore, it would fall under any exception and would not be an abortion,” said Foster.

“Wait,” replied Swalwell, puzzled. “It would not be an abortion if a 10-year-old with her parents made the decision not to have a baby that was the result of a rape?”

“If a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape and it was threatening her life, then that’s not an abortion,” Foster said. “So it would not fall under any abortion restriction in our nation.”

Right. It would impact her life so it would not be an abortion. Would that apply to anyone whose life would be “impacted” by giving birth? Would it not be an abortion for them as well? Big, if true.

Here’s another example:

Tell that to the women who will be lying in an emergency room with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy while the doctors wonder whether they are authorized to treat her. Virtually every woman who has ever had the procedure has “abortion” on her medical record. That’s what it’s called.

“Fetal personhood” is going to pass in some states and it’s going lead to people with ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, IVF procedures and more being forced into the wingnut legal maw on this issue which the testimony above shows is not even slightly coherent or capable of answering. The logic of their position only leads one way.

During the 2016 election campaign a lot of people on both the left and the center right insisted that those of us who were freaking out about the open Supreme Court seat and the possibility of Roe being overturned were being hysterical. We were not, This day was coming from the minute Trump won and now it’s here. It’s going to be a nightmare unfolding every day. This poor little 10 year old girl will not be the last casualty of this intensely cruel regime about which anti-abortion leaders demand they must “understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child.” It’s misogynist fundamentalism.

There’s more to know about the extremists

Cipollone’s testimony upended that last hearing

If the last hearing seemed a bit disjointed with half the hearing about the crazy meeting with the Kraken lady, the QAnon General and the Overstock guy and the rest devoted to the extremists, it’s because the late Cipollone testimony had to be added at the last minute so they left out some of the extremist stuff:

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol scrambled to add new testimony from White House counsel Pat Cipollone to its latest hearing on Tuesday, and in the process bumped aside evidence about former President Trump’s ties to violent extremist groups.

Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) acknowledged the shift on Wednesday, saying the panel wanted to highlight testimony from a hard-won witness after Cipollone sat down for a formal deposition on Friday under subpoena. Left on the cutting room floor was evidence tying some of Trump’s closest allies to some of the prominent right-wing groups on the front lines of the Capitol insurrection.

“It was in the original script, but we pulled some back just because of the timing,” Thompson said in response to a question from The Hill about ties between Trump World and groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.

“The Cipollone deposition was important. And obviously, it’s just a choice we had to make.”

Cipollone delivered a damaging assessment of Trump’s final weeks in office, confirming that he and other legal advisers had determined Trump had lost the election, exhausted his avenues to contest the result and should have conceded defeat instead of pressing his vice president, Mike Pence, to block the electoral count.

But the last-minute adjustment to feature Cipollone came at a cost, leaving unexplored some of the very ties the committee had previously revealed — and promised to explore in greater depth — between Trump and the extremists. 

Left unmentioned, for instance, was a Jan. 5 request from Trump to have chief of staff Mark Meadows contact two informal advisors, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, who both used extremist groups as security details. 

The panel also excluded any mention of the so-called war room at the Willard Hotel near the White House, where leading Trump allies — including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani — had huddled to devise strategy ahead of Jan. 6. At least one member of an extremist group, the 1st Amendment Praetorian, was reportedly among them.

Yet the extremist groups played a relatively minor role in Tuesday’s hearing, when the panel leaned on Cipollone’s fresh testimony to demonstrate a broader idea: that Trump drove the effort to overturn the election in defiance of his own White House counsel. 

To advance that idea, the select committee cobbled together seemingly disparate themes: an “unhinged” meeting at the White House; secretive plans to make Trump’s call to march to the Capitol appear unexpected; and analysis of a tweet that mobilized extremist groups to show up armed in Washington on Jan. 6.

But the undercurrent was the committee’s push to show Trump’s willing engagement each step of the way, even as they fell short of expectations that they might establish a more direct link between the White House and violent extremists. Some outside legal experts noticed the void.

“I think the committee advanced the ball in terms of providing some new information, but it’s very clear that there are gaps in what their investigation has found with regard to potential conspiracy or Trump’s direct links to the militia groups and other extremists,” said Ryan Goodman, co-director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law.

I don’t know why they couldn’t have gone on a bit longer. I think we could handle it. But apparently they are planning for more hearings going into the fall so maybe they’ll fill in that gap. It’s also possible that they think/know that the DOJ is coming at that through their January 6th seditious conspiracy cases. Either way, I hope the government doesn’t completely drop the ball on that one. Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon and others in that group were on the horn with Trump in the days leading up to the 6th and they were in contact with the violent extremists. They can’t just drop that ball.

“Nothing compares to getting things done that you can’t do from any other position other than president.”

By “getting things done” he means wreaking revenge on his enemies.

Olivia Nuzzi spoke with Trump. Of course he’s running:

Donald Trump was impeached twice, lost the 2020 election by 7,052,770 votes, is entangled in investigations by federal prosecutors (over the Capitol insurrection and over the mishandling of classified White House documents and over election interference) and the District of Columbia attorney general (over financial fraud at the Presidential Inaugural Committee) and the Manhattan district attorney (over financial fraud at the Trump Organization) and the New York State attorney general (over financial fraud at the Trump Organization) and the Westchester County district attorney (over financial fraud at the Trump Organization) and the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney (over criminal election interference in Georgia) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (over rules violations in plans to take his social-media company public through a SPAC) and the House Select Committee on January 6 (whose hearings are the runaway TV-ratings hit of the summer), yet on Monday, July 11, he was in a fantastic mood.

It was a beautiful day in Bedminster, New Jersey, where the former president maintains a golf club and private estate to which he decamps when the Palm Beach humidity and the habits of snowbirds shut down Mar-a-Lago for the Mother’s Day–to–Labor Day summer season, and it had been a beautiful weekend, too, one he said affirmed the choice he had made about his own future, the future of the Republican Party, and — whether he wins this time or if he loses as sorely as before — the future of the American experiment.

At a rally in Alaska on Saturday, he told me by phone, his fans were adoring. “More love,” in his words, “than I’ve ever had before.” His voice was humming with excitement. He was still in awe. After all of this time, after so many rallies, so many crowds, so many winding speeches and chants of “Lock her up” and “USA” and “Build the wall” and the familiar sounds of “Tiny Dancer” and “Memory” (from Cats) and “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” and “YMCA” and that goofy little dance and the delusion and the fervor so great that it built up to an attack on the Capitol and the democratic process at the center of the Republic itself, the novelty of this had not faded.

As a technical matter, the Anchorage event was on behalf of Sarah Palin and Kelly Tshibaka, Trump-endorsed candidates for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, respectively, but like all such endeavors, it was for its star a means of discerning through a vibe check what traditional polls could not so reliably or completely tell him. And what it told him this time, he said, is that his voters — a portion of the electorate that he insists amounts to a majority of the country, though it does not — want to, and will, bring him back to power.

“Look,” Trump said, “I feel very confident that, if I decide to run, I’ll win.”

I fixated on If I decide. Trump is less a politician than a live-action mythological creature, and so punditry and all of the standard forms of analyses tend to fail. What would factor into such a decision for such an unusual person? “Well, in my own mind, I’ve already made that decision, so nothing factors in anymore. In my own mind, I’ve already made that decision,” he said.

He wouldn’t disclose what he’d decided. Not at first. But then he couldn’t help himself. “I would say my big decision will be whether I go before or after,” he said. “You understand what that means?” His tone was conspiratorial. Was he referring to the midterm elections? He repeated after me: “Midterms.” Suddenly, he relaxed, as though my speaking the word had somehow set it free for discussion. “Do I go before or after? That will be my big decision,” he said.

He was thinking aloud now. “I just think that there are certain assets to before,” he said. “Let people know. I think a lot of people would not even run if I did that because, if you look at the polls, they don’t even register. Most of these people. And I think that you would actually have a backlash against them if they ran. People want me to run.”

I never had a moment’s doubt. I always figured that unless he was dead or in jail he would run no matter what.

He insists he cares little about the other Republicans people may want to run and denies that he even considers Ron DeSantis a rival. “I don’t feel that,” he said, “I endorsed Ron, he was at 3, and as soon as I endorsed him, he went to first place, he was not gonna win, then —” I stopped him. The question was about the 2024 presidential primary, I said. “Yeah, no, I meant when he ran for governor, as you know, he was running and then he came to me for an endorsement because he was not, you know, he was at 3 percent.” With his blessing, Trump said, “the race was over, and I think Ron knows that better than anybody. We have a good relationship, and, uhh, there may be some others soon, but that’s okay.” He cited a recent poll that had him beating DeSantis by a margin of 58 percent to 10 percent. (Never content, Trump had overstated things slightly: DeSantis was at 16, not 10. In the averages, meanwhile, he beats DeSantis 53 to 21 and Biden 43 to 41.)

He’s mad…

The new campaign is going to be lit:

Trump left the White House and returned to Mar-a-Lago with a few junior aides and even fewer longtime advisers, and since then, the list of loyalists who have not betrayed or been betrayed by him has dwindled further.

“The circle’s very small,” a current Trump adviser said. “Obviously, a lot of these Cabinet officials and others who have been going out there” — going out there meaning going public in opposition to Trump or his version of the election and his effort to cling to power — “they are blacklisted or cast out.”

The org chart for the pre-campaign is a Jackson Pollock of people hovering nearby or maneuvering in secret or making trips to Bedminster or launching into the ether the notion that they might do this or that job when the time comes. “Everybody does their own thing,” the adviser said.

“Susie’s at the top of it, and she’s with him constantly,” the adviser continued — as in Susie Wiles, a Florida operative who had worked to elect DeSantis to the governorship only for him to turn around and engineer her firing from the 2020 Trump campaign with an accusation that she was a leaker. As Trump soured on DeSantis, he welcomed Wiles back as the CEO of his political-action committee, Save America, and to some, it seems a safe bet that she will be functionally in charge of what comes next. Then there’s what the adviser called “the Stepien-Clark cabal,” as in Bill Stepien, the manager of the 2020 campaign in its final stretch, and Justin Clark, one of Trump’s attorneys who served as Stepien’s deputy. And “Bossie’s around,” as in David, the right-wing activist and Citizens United chairman turned 2016 deputy campaign manager. “He comes and goes,” said the adviser. Plus, “Stephen Miller’s around — not tight-knit circle, but he’s there. Jason Miller, same thing.” Mike Pence’s former scheduler now schedules the former president. And “Margo — she’s definitely around constantly,” as in Margo Martin, a White House press aide who moved to Florida to function officially as Trump’s post-presidential deputy communications director and less officially as his Girl Friday, fetching miniature bottles of Diet Coke and printouts of polling and articles for him to hand to guests. “It’s Trumpworld, man,” the current adviser said. “It’ll be done the way we do everything else. It’ll be very last minute; it’ll be a surprise. We’ll cowboy it like 2016.”

It was a similar set of circumstances that careerist politicos cited as justification to enlist with Trump in 2016 and staff his administration. If they weren’t there, they said at the time, only the worst people encouraging his worst impulses and executing his worst ideas and giving him even worse ideas would be there. Of course, those people were mostly gone by January 6. “The quality is going to be even worse, if that’s imaginable,” the former Trump adviser said. “It’s bad. It’s, like, next level. It’s just one too many times of screwing people that were loyal. I definitely think people are done, like the closest of the close.”

Trump is obviously very bugged by the books people have written and the January 6th testimony. So he lies and say that the only books that are selling are the positive ones and trashes the witnesses:

“I watched the un-select committee” — his term of art for the January 6 hearings — “as an example, and I watched, with people that I hardly even know how they got on there. They make up stories, they pretend,” Trump continued. “I call them the pretend witnesses.”

Had he tried to grab the steering wheel when the Secret Service prevented him from following his supporters as they marched to the Capitol after his speech on the Ellipse? “Not at all. No, not at all, not at all, no, that’s all fake news,” he said. But the mention of Cassidy Hutchinson, the former aide who made the allegation, hit a nerve. “Cassidy? Cassidy’s been totally discredited!” he said. “You know what? If Cassidy was in a room, I wouldn’t even know who she is. Cassidy has been totally discredited about her story with the Secret Service, about her story with throwing food at a wall. She’s been totally discredited.” (Others have, in fact, confirmed key aspects of her testimony.) He never threw a plate at a wall in the White House? “Never. Never. Not my thing. And I never did it anywhere else, either,” he said, “And I never did what she said with the Secret Service. She went too far. Look, they’re made up stories. She made up these stories. They’re lies. And most people understand that. I think she’s a sick person.”

Although he had just claimed he was so unfamiliar with Hutchinson that he could not identify her on sight, he then offered a psychological motive for her behavior. “You know, I’ll tell you,” he said, “She wanted desperately to come with us to Florida. And what happened is we’re all set to do that. And then the other women and girls complained that they didn’t want her. They came to my office — I didn’t know who she was very much — but they didn’t want her.” He said that her testimony — “these horrible, fake stories” — was a form of payback, because if any of it had really happened, she would have come forward “at the time.” I sent Trump’s comments to Alyssa Farah Griffin, who resigned from the White House in the postelection, pre-insurrection period, and who helped Hutchinson hire a new lawyer (to replace her Trump-issued lawyer) and connected her with Representative Liz Cheney to arrange her explosive testimony. “So, real talk: he’s definitely off,” Farah Griffin said. “And if he wasn’t the former leader of the free world and didn’t try to do a coup, I’d almost feel bad for him.” (Hutchinson declined to comment.)

I love how he says the “other women and girls” complained about her. A pig to the end.

Nuzzi asks him about Ivanka’s testimony and he is clearly uncomfortable. I think it’s probably because he would love to trash her too — in fact, he did trash her on Truth Social — but he knows it would look bad even for him. (He is a sociopath so I don’t think he has any real feelings, even for her.)

Abruptly, Trump changed the subject in the most Trumpian of ways. “Did you see Alaska, and did you see Las Vegas? I’ll tell ya, the enthusiasm and the crowds are bigger than they’ve ever been,” he said. “The enthusiasm is greater than it’s ever been.” It does not seem a wholly conscious choice when he does this but like a feature that activates when he is nervous or uncomfortable and zaps him, like magic, into command as The Donald again, which is maybe why he is unable to resist doing it even when doing it could only make things worse.

On January 6th:

When I asked if the insurrection had embarrassed him, he disputed the premise that it was committed on his behalf. “They did it on their own behalf,” he said. He disputed, too, that the insurrectionists were armed. “I don’t think one person in the Capitol had a weapon, not one weapon,” he said. And he disputed my characterization of a swarm of MAGA hats charging the Capitol. “And other hats. And other hats. Not just MAGA hats. Other hats,” he said. “There were a lot of people there that a lot of other people don’t want to talk about, but they’re also one of the largest crowds I’ve ever spoken to, when I made the speech — peacefully, it should be known as peacefully and patriotically — but when I made the speech, it was one of the largest crowds I’ve ever spoken to.” He threw in a distinction between his crowd, which he said did not go to the Capitol, and the insurrectionists. “Nobody ever talks about that,” he said, but he didn’t want to talk about it much, either. He returned to the point of all of this: “I don’t think I’ve ever spoken in front of a larger crowd.”

He’s worried, which is why he wants to announce. He knows that there is more protection for him if he’s an announced candidate.

For Trump, there has always been safety in performing for an audience. Amid the investigations on approach to 2024, that might mean something more literal. “A lot of people are saying, ‘You’ve got to announce so you’re protected. It’s a witch hunt, they’re trying to do this to you again. You’ve got to do it before the grand jury meets with Lindsey Graham in the Georgia case,’” the former adviser said. The Fulton County DA issued Graham a subpoena for his testimony regarding two phone calls he placed to the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, amid Trump’s campaign to pressure him to find more votes and overturn the results of the election. Graham filed to “quash the subpoena,” he said Wednesday, but the former adviser said that, in private, everyone is spooked. “Grand juries leak. It’s not like you could say, ‘Well, he’s got six months before they make a decision about prosecuting him in Fulton County. That’s a criminal case. That’s the big thing he’s worried about because of the tape.” This person described Graham’s constant presence around Trump as a form of soft pressure. “Graham feels like if you just let him do what he wants, then it doesn’t happen out of the blue in the dead of night. The takeaway was he’s not gonna last five months without announcing.”

Trump swears that shielding himself from prosecution is not among his reasons for running for president because he is not at any risk of being prosecuted. “Well, I did nothing wrong, so I don’t see that,” he said, “I did absolutely nothing wrong. I had a perfect phone call in Georgia, so I’m not concerned with it.” He was also not concerned with inquiries by Tish James, he said, referring to her as “a racist attorney general in New York.”

His feral instinct tells him that the Justice Department is playing it safe now for fear of being political, he knows how much more reluctant they will be once he’s on the campaign trail.

He was looking forward while everybody else was looking back. Presumably, I said, he wouldn’t be asking his former vice-president to join his 2024 campaign? “Presumably, as you said … Nobody ever voted for a vice-president,” he said. “I’m not bored. I’m very busy with everything actually. Amazingly busy.” But, he admitted, “nothing compares to getting things done that you can’t do from any other position other than president. I made America great again, and I may have to do it again.”

Feel the magic …

Nothing to see here …

This is fine

It’s happening everywhere:

Wildfires blazed across the Iberian Peninsula and half of Portugal has been placed on an extreme weather alert as a searing heat wave oppressed Western Europe on Thursday.

Meanwhile, continuous dry weather has also contributed to Sardinia’s worst locust invasion in three decades.

The heat wave caused temperatures in Spain and Portugal to soar to 113 degrees Fahrenheit on Wednesday, nearing record levels. The hottest day ever to be recorded for Portugal was 117 degrees Fahrenheit in 2003.

Over 20 wildfires burned in Portugal and Spain, and around half of Portugal was placed under a red, or extreme, weather alert. Meanwhile, Spain’s meteorological agency warned Thursday is expected to be the hottest day in the current wave.

Thousands of firefighters across Portugal, Spain and southern France fought to control the flames this week, which have destroyed thousands of acres of land and forced thousands to be evacuated from their homes.

More than 3,000 hectares (7,413 acres) have been destroyed in Leiria, Portugal, just north of Lisbon as of Wednesday, where 900 firefighters were combating three active blazes, according to Reuters. Some 2,841 firefighters were on the ground in Portugal as a whole.

Antonio Ramalheiro, a retiree, blamed inadequate forest management in addition to the heat wave for the wildfires.

“It is scary when the fire comes,” the 62-year-old told Reuters. “If it reaches the house, it is a disgrace … you lose everything.”

In Gironde department, in France’s southwest, more than 2,700 hectares (6,672 acres) of terrain have been ravaged. On Wednesday, during the eve of Bastille Day, France’s national day, all fireworks were forbidden in towns and villages close to forests until Monday.

In the west of Spain, between Extremadura and Salamanca, more than 5,000 hectares (12,355 acres) were lost as a wildfire fueled by the rise in temperatures and strong winds continues. Highways were closed and 12 firefighter land units continue their efforts to control the fire. 

According to ABC News, a Spanish newspaper, the Ministry of Environment recognized that the fire was acquiring “an extremely virulent behavior, with very extreme propagation speeds.”

The extreme heat has also derailed vacation plans at the height of the summer tourist season, causing more than 6,500 people to be evacuated from campgrounds and villages in Bordeaux, Gironde’s capital.

Officials have warned that people need to become accustomed to dealing with these kinds of weather extreme events.

European Union officials last week issued a warning that climate change was behind the extremely dry and hot summer on the continent, telling countries to brace for wildfires, drought and other climate-related disasters.

“Heat waves will become more and more frequent, and we do need to prepare not only in terms of how we do policies, but also in terms of how we teach people how to deal with these kinds of events,” Portuguese Home Affairs Secretary Patricia Gaspar said.

Along with the weather, the insect population has also been wreaking havoc on the Italian island of Sardinia.

Locusts have destroyed land equal to around 2% to 3% of Sardinia, while the ongoing infestation is expected to affect up to 60,000 hectares (148,263) of crop this year, with alfalfa and dried fodder among the worst-hit output.

Italy is suffering its worst drought in 70 years, with extreme heat last week causing a chunk of a glacier to fall and kill six people.

It’s not just Europe:

A heat wave is sweeping through China, with residents resorting to air raid shelters and public fountains to stay cool, as 84 cities across the country on Wednesday issued their highest-level red alert warnings.

A red alert means temperatures are expected to reach over 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) in the coming 24 hours, according to the national Meteorological Administration.

This isn’t going to get any better on its own no matter how much right wingers want to pretend it will.

Impressionable child

Trump defenders: He is incapable of telling right from wrong

It seems Charles Blow had a reaction similar to mine when Rep. Liz Cheney said of the immediate past president during Tuesday’s Jan. 6 committee hearing, “President Trump is a 76-year-old man. He is not an impressionable child. Just like everyone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions and his own choices.”

“Impressionable child” is one reading of Trump defenders’ latest strategy for helping him escape accountability for the attmpted coup on Jan. 6.

“Now, the argument seems to be that President Trump was manipulated by others outside the administration, that he was persuaded to ignore his closest advisers and that he was incapable of telling right from wrong,” Cheney said.

Blow writes:

Basically, Trump lied about the election because he was lied to about the election.

But, as Cheney pointed out, Trump actively chose the counsel of “the crazies” over that of authorities, and therefore cannot, or at least should not, “escape responsibility by being willfully blind.”

Willful blindness is a self-imposed ignorance, but as Thomas Jefferson put it: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse, in any country. If it were, the laws would lose their effect because it can always be pretended.”

If Trump is a pro at anything, it is pretending. He is a brat, but he’s not a child.

Blow contrasts Trump’s offenses with the case of Black activist Pamela Moses, sentenced to six years and a day in prison for registering to vote on bad advice while still on felony probation.

Blow observes:

People without power, particularly minorities and those unable to pay expensive lawyers, are trapped in a ruthless and unyielding system, while the rich and powerful encounter an entirely different system, one cautious to the point of cowardice.

Earlier this year, Moses’ conviction was thrown out because a judge ruled that the Tennessee Department of Correction had withheld evidence, and the prosecutor dropped all criminal charges against her.

Still, by the time the ordeal was over, Moses had spent 82 days in custody, time she couldn’t get back, and she is now permanently barred from registering to vote or voting in the state.

Our two-tiered justice system (Jamelle Bouie elaborates elsewhere) is not a reflection of liberal democracy, but rather the design of members of an elite, southern, slave-holding planter class. It is a definitionally conservative system that, as Frank Wilhoit suggested, protects but does not bind them, yet binds but does not protect those considered their inferiors. It exists as a variation on “The king can do no wrong.”

Thus, says Blow:

The way we target people for punishment in this country is rarely about a pursuit of justice and fairness; it simply reflects the reality that the vise squeezes hardest at the points of least resistance.

The fact that Trump has thus far faced few legal repercussions for his many transgressions eats away at people’s faith.

Trump’s history to date and that of unindicted bankers who crashed the economy in 2008 demonstrate that inequity as clearly as Trump’s personal attempt at witness tampering demonstrates his mens rea. There is nothing innocent about him.

Correction: Started with the Charles Blow citation, but still had Jamelle Bouie on the brain from my previous post. Screwed up the references. (h/t AP).

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us.

Then they came for the women….

The fringe right adds to Martin Niemöller’s list

Michigan state Senator Mallory McMorrow reacted to how the Dobbs decision eliminating the right to an abortion will impact women. She testified Wednesday before the House Oversight and Reform Committee, telling the members that while still legal in Michigan, abortion access is under legal threat there after Dobbs. A Republican challenge to a court injunction threatens to reactivate a 1931 Michigan law banning abortion with no exceptions.

Women don’t matter

“We are telling them what the impact of Dobbs is. They won’t listen because [women] don’t matter… if you are in half of the population that can give birth, you don’t matter to these people,” McMorrow told MSNBC’s Joy Reid.

If the raped Ohio 10-year-old who had to cross state lines to obtain an abortion in Indiana offers proof, House Republicans’ questioning was further proof. The health, safety, and freedom of women to exercise power, personal or political, or autonomy in health decisions, is not conservatives’ concern. And that attitude, as Justice Alito might say, is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

When the New York Times published its 1619 Project essays online, the headline on Jamelle Bouie’s contribution read:

America holds onto an undemocratic assumption from its founding: that some people deserve more power than others.

Bouie’s essay proposes that the Republican Party’s radicalization in the wake of the election of the first Black president follows in the American tradition of closely circumscribing who wields political power here and who does not. The 1619 Project focuses on how enslaving Black people shaped this country’s culture, policies and politics, then and now. Recall, however, that at the founding non-whites in general and all women were excluded from power.

Bouie writes:

There is a homegrown ideology of reaction in the United States, inextricably tied to our system of slavery. And while the racial content of that ideology has attenuated over time, the basic framework remains: fear of rival political majorities; of demographic “replacement”; of a government that threatens privilege and hierarchy.

Then they came for the women

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority and Republican-controlled state legislatures are, as the white Redemption movement did following Reconstruction, working to roll back the hard-won rights of the “undeserving.” This is the new nullification in the 21st century. It includes not only nonwhites, but now all women as well.

Scholars Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson noted that Tea Party members worry that “Tea Party resistance to giving more to categories of people deemed undeserving is more than just an argument about taxes and spending.” It is “a heartfelt cry about where they fear ‘their country’ may be headed.” That is, more political power for Others means less power for them and less control.

Republicans since the Obama administration in state after state and from coast to coast have worked tirelessly to restrict political power for anyone not aligned with Republicans. Now with Dobbs, that effort includes women. President Trump, Bouie adds, “has repeatedly and falsely denounced Clinton’s popular-vote victory as illegitimate, the product of fraud and illegal voting.” Any elections Republicans do not win are by their definition illegitimate, as are Americans who reject the conservative world view. The only ones who count are “real Americans.”

Bouie writes:

The larger implication is clear enough: A majority made up of liberals and people of color isn’t a real majority. And the solution is clear, too: to write those people out of the polity, to use every available tool to weaken their influence on American politics. The recent attempt to place a citizenship question on the census was an important part of this effort. By asking for this information, the administration would suppress the number of immigrant respondents, worsening their representation in the House and the Electoral College, reweighting power to the white, rural areas that back the president and the Republican Party.

When Bouie wrote that, the class of undesirables targeted for disenfranchisement by Republicans was primarily liberals and people of color. With the Dobbs decision, women have joined the list. William Greider once wrote that movement conservatives’ goal was “to roll back the twentieth century.” Now, with a conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court, theocratic reactionaries have expanded the targeted time frame to include the nineteenth. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes said last night straight into the camera, “They want a world in which that child would be forced to carry her rapist’s baby.” A world in which white men again rule supreme.

Were he alive today, Martin Niemöller might include, “Then they came for the women.”

You don’t matter to these people.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us.