Skip to content

Month: August 2022

Sausage making

It’s not pretty but it got the job done

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed the House yesterday and we hardly noticed because Donald Trump was revealed doing something traitorous again. But it’s a really bit deal and hopefully the nation will be aware when it is signed next week.

Here’s the tick-tock of the final days of unexpected negotiations:

After the collapse of Build Back Better, the left was torn over how to proceed. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, began to give up hope that Manchin would get on board, and started to refocus her attention on executive actions. Rep. Ro Khanna of California, however, stayed in touch with Manchin.

Beginning in January, the two spoke about twice a month. Khanna’s message to Manchin was simple: As long as you agree to at least $300 billion in climate funding, the House will be with you.

“I told him, Senator Manchin, as long as that number is big and it’s inclusive of electric vehicles and solar and wind — as long as that’s there I can work with the groups and we can get the progressives,” Khanna said in an interview.

Most Democrats thought the prospects for any kind of deal were long dead. But on July 14, with the August congressional recess fast approaching, Manchin gave Schumer an ultimatum: Pass two key health care provisions right now, or punt the issue to September to try to broaden the package with climate and tax policies. 

If they waited, there was a strong possibility nothing would get done. Acting now would at least give Democrats a win on lowering prescription drug prices and extending Affordable Care Act subsidies — no small feat — before the November midterms. Schumer briefed Biden, his old Senate colleague, who agreed they needed to take the bird in the hand. The president issued a statement that Friday urging Democrats to quickly pass it.

When the following Monday rolled around, Manchin’s staff approached Schumer’s staff with a new proposal: Manchin might agree to pass a broader package in August, not September. The offer was very close to where Schumer and Manchin had left things — less taxes but still a good program on climate.

Schumer and his aides were shocked by Manchin’s reversal. The gears were now in motion for a bigger deal. 

Manchin and Schumer privately met that Monday afternoon in the basement of the Capitol — out of view of their Senate colleagues and nosy reporters — to flesh out the details. The conference room had no windows but featured a mural of the U.S. Capitol. Schumer had never been in the room before.

“What a beautiful office. Is it mine?” Schumer said. In fact, it was one of the many rooms and spaces in the building that the majority leader controlled.

The two senators agreed on a timeline — to pass the bill before the Senate’s summer recess began in the first week of August — but they didn’t nail down the policy details. They shook hands and agreed that their staff members would keep working.

Although Manchin tested positive for Covid-19 on July 24, their talks continued virtually and by phone, with Schumer relying on his secret weapon: his outdated flip phone.

“This is my secret to success,” he would later say.

We have a deal?

By the early afternoon of July 27, Schumer and Manchin hopped on what would be a pivotal video conference. Their staff had just resolved a last-minute Joint Committee on Taxation issue, and they had agreed on a top-line figure for energy.

The Zoom ended with a deal and a “virtual handshake” on a roughly $700 billion package. It called for $370 billion in climate and energy investments; allowed Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices for the first time; extended Obamacare subsidies for three years; included $80 billion to beef up IRS enforcement; and added tax changes, including a 15% minimum tax for big corporations.

On top of that, it would cut the deficit by more than $300 billion. Manchin named it the Inflation Reduction Act — a nod to what he said was the number one issue facing American families.

Manchin and Schumer spent the rest of the day briefing both the White House and other Hill leaders. At 3:50 p.m., Schumer made the short walk to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office and met one-on-one with Pelosi for about 20 minutes. Schumer briefed White House officials, who in turn called Manchin to offer their support. 

At about 4:40 p.m., Manchin issued his statement announcing the deal, sending Capitol Hill, K Street and the rest of Washington into a frenzy. In the middle of her weekly “Crescendo” meeting with the leaders of all the party’s caucuses, a staff member quietly slipped Pelosi a note: Manchin had just announced the deal. The speaker immediately shared the news with participants in the room, including Jayapal and Rep. Suzan DelBene, chair of the New Democrat Coalition.

In the House, progressives, who had hurled insults at Manchin all year, rejoiced at the news, while also prodding reporters for specific details about the critical climate component. “You lifted up my spirits,” Rep. Jamaal Bowman, a progressive from New York, told a reporter when informed about the deal.

Jayapal, skeptical at first, watched Manchin embrace and sell the package on the air, surprised and impressed by his commitment. “I’m very glad that we are now totally unified,” the Washington Democrat said in an interview. “I’ve watched him on TV defending the bill, and I think he’s doing a great job.”

To Manchin, it was obvious he had to fully embrace the bill. No half measures. “He knows it will be hung around his neck if he runs again in 2024. So he knew he had to sell it,” said a person familiar with Manchin’s thinking. “He owns this deal.”

Staff members for Schumer and Manchin worked together to release a joint statement at 5:30 p.m., formally announcing the details of the agreement. The leader then spent the rest of the evening briefing Senate Democrats and key House members, as well as numerous environmental groups, to win their support.

“Our strategy was to give people space,” said one senior Democratic aide.

[…]

Spotlight shifts to Sinema

With Manchin on board, the spotlight turned to the other enigmatic Democrat, Sinema. For a week, she played a game of cat and mouse with the press, refusing to say whether she would back the deal. She also didn’t make it easy for Manchin, who was trying to find time to talk with her about the package.

Manchin found her during a vote series when Sinema was presiding in the Senate president’s chair. He climbed up onto the dais, sporting a mask and gray suit, and spoke with her for about 15 minutes.

For the better part of a year, Sinema had made her red lines very clear with Schumer, Manchin and other colleagues. She had consistently opposed closing the carried interest loophole, which lets private equity managers pay a much lower tax rate on their earnings than most people do on ordinary income. It later came out at her insistence. 

“Senator Sinema said she would not vote for the bill, not even move to proceed unless we took it out,” Schumer told reporters last week. “So we had no choice.”

Sinema was incredulous that Democrats’ historic climate bill didn’t include any drought prevention money for drought- and wildfire-prone places like her home state of Arizona. She would have to resolve that issue later with help from Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Michael Bennet of Colorado, and other Western-state Democrats.

A crucial day

Aug. 4, a Thursday, was a crucial day: Schumer wanted to announce that all 50 of his Democrats were on board ahead of a possible weekend session; Sinema was the lone holdout. But her attention was divided. That afternoon, she was a blur of activity, standing in the well of the Senate floor, whipping Republicans to support the confirmation of Arizona attorney Roopali Desai, her good friend whom Biden had nominated for the powerful 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.   

She’s often regarded as one of Republicans’ favorite Democrats in the upper chamber — she did deals on infrastructure and guns with the GOP this cycle — so it was here that she was going to burn some of her political capital. When she saw Sen. Cynthia Lummis, a staunch conservative Republican, vote no on Desai, Sinema jumped in and asked if Lummis would reconsider her vote.

“This woman is a very dear friend; she is not an ideologue. She will be a very dedicated, smart judge,” Sinema told Lummis, the Wyoming Republican recalled to NBC News. Lummis expressed concern about the liberal 9th Circuit, but Sinema’s personal appeal ultimately won her over.

“Senator Sinema vouched for this woman, so I changed my vote,” Lummis said.

Moments later, Sinema, 46, a triathlete and iron woman competitor, sprinted out the doors of the Capitol yelling: “Has anyone seen Mitt?” She found Sen. Mitt Romney and escorted the Utah Republican back onto the Senate floor, and he too voted yes for Desai. Desai was confirmed 67-29, with 19 Republicans voting yes.  

But Republicans would not be happy about what Sinema was doing out of view of reporters and photographers. That afternoon and evening, she was holed up in her tiny, windowless hideaway office, in the bowels of the Senate. A man unknown to most of Washington but well-known to Sinema was shuttling in and out of the room. It was Gerry Petrella, Schumer’s policy director, and they were hammering out the final details of a deal to win her vote.

She trusted him. They had worked closely together on paring back Biden’s original $3.5 trillion Build Back Better package, and he was there when she and Republicans did a deal on a $1 trillion infrastructure bill.

As she and Petrella made good progress, Schumer summoned Sinema to his office to iron out the final details and seal the deal. 

About 7 p.m. Sinema arrived. They met for about 30 minutes and sealed the deal with a handshake. The carried interest provision was out, and she would get billions in drought resiliency funding. She wanted $5 billion for the West; Manchin would only agree to $4 billion.

“They don’t have droughts in West Virginia,” quipped one Democratic senator.

To make up revenue loss from the elimination of carried interest, Schumer went with a 1% excise tax on stock buybacks. Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado said he had suggested that idea, long on Sinema’s radar, to Sens. Schumer, Bennet and Mark Warner of Virginia during a meeting in Schumer’s office earlier in the week. 

The deal was done. 

A random sample of right wing media

… in the wake of the Mar-a-lago search and seizure

(The original photo of Epstein and Maxwell is here.)

I could go on. But suffice to say that they are scrambling to explain how Trump ended up with all those sensitive documents in his possession and refused to give them back.

Here’s CNN’s Daniel Dale with a rundown of the lies, excuses and obfuscations:

In response to the FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s home in Florida on Monday, Trump and his allies in Congress and right-wing media have returned to his preferred strategy for communicating in a crisis: say a whole bunch of nonsense in rapid succession.

From his battles against impeachment to his effort to limit the political fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump has attempted to flood the zone with such a quantity and variety of lies, conspiracy theories and distractions that Americans will tune out, turn away or cease to know what is true and not. And he has regularly been joined by a large cast of eager defenders.

Baseless conspiracy theories about the search

Using his familiar just-asking-questions style of promoting conspiracy theories, Trump posted on his social media platform on Wednesday a suggestion that the FBI could have planted evidence. His legal team had already been suggesting the same thing. One Trump lawyer, Alina Habba, said on Fox on Tuesday: “I’m concerned that they may have planted something; you know, at this point, who knows?”

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky echoed this question on Wednesday, wondering on Fox how we know “they won’t put things into those boxes to entrap him.” Fox host Jesse Watters had gone further on Tuesday, saying the FBI was “probably” planting evidence, and Paul’s campaign had adopted the “probably” by Friday.

There is just zero basis for any of this.

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida offered up a different baseless conspiracy theory about federal malfeasance, saying on Fox on Tuesday that he didn’t think they were looking for documents at all but were probably using that as an “excuse” to root around Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence for “whatever they could find.” Rubio’s comments were at least more plausible than the hogwash offered up Tuesday by Anna Perez, a host for right-wing media outlet Real America’s Voice, who uttered a QAnon-style monologue, falsely claiming the search was a conspiracy to prevent Trump from carrying out a (nonexistent) plan to expose criminals serving in government.

More deception

Another Real America’s Voice host, right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, claimed Thursday that the FBI “occupied Trump’s home — a military occupation.” Though it’s odd to describe the execution of a search warrant as an “occupation” of any kind, it’s flat false to claim the military was involved in this search.

The former President’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump delivered an impressive variety of claptrap in a single sentence, saying on Fox on Tuesday that the searchers were “a bunch of people unannounced breaking into your home like this and taking whatever they want for themselves.” A source told CNN that the FBI gave the Secret Service about an hour’s advance notice of the search and that the Secret Service met up with the FBI agents as they arrived and ensured they had uninhibited access. And a search warrant does not allow searchers to take “whatever they want,” certainly not “for themselves”; the Department of Justice asked a court to unseal a document listing what was taken, and Trump consented.

Republican Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House minority whip, went on Fox on Thursday and said that “it concerns everybody if you see some agents go rogue.” There is no sign that any agent went rogue. Even Trump-friendly Fox host Steve Doocy challenged Scalise, noting that agents were simply executing a search warrant. Scalise then invoked an inaccurate report that Attorney General Merrick Garland hadn’t known about the search, falsely saying Garland himself had said he hadn’t known about it. (Later on Thursday, Garland said he personally approved the decision to seek the search warrant.)

Whataboutism about Democrats

As usual, Trump and his defenders tried some whataboutism — pointing a finger, dishonestly, toward prominent Democrats.

Trump baselessly suggested former President Barack Obama had mishandled presidential records after leaving office by, Trump claimed, keeping more than 30 million documents, many of them classified, and taking them to Chicago. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issued a Friday statement explaining it has “exclusive legal and physical custody” of the Obama-era records, that NARA itself moved about 30 million pages of unclassified records to one of its own facilities in the Chicago area, that the classified Obama-era records are maintained in a separate NARA facility near Washington, and that “former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration.”

Trump and some of his media defenders went back to his old chestnut about how former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been permitted to “acid wash” emails, a fabrication loosely based on the fact that an email-deletion software program happens to be called BleachBit; Fox’s Watters was especially literal, falsely claiming Tuesday that Clinton had “poured acid” on emails.

Trump also suggested that there was something suspicious about the fact that, he said, his lawyers had not been allowed to witness the search, posting on his social media platform on Wednesday: “Why did they STRONGLY insist on having nobody watching them, everybody out?” But there is nothing unusual about this; lawyers don’t have a right to be in the room to monitor a search.

For good measure, Trump lawyer Christina Bobb threw in a transparently false claim about Trump’s popularity. She said on Right Side Broadcasting Network on Tuesday that the Department of Justice was trying to find an easy way to prosecute “the most popular president, and probably the most famous president, in American history.”

By the way, here is an explanation of the declassification process:

What’s someone stripped of committee assignments to do?

Draft articles of impeachment, of course

Marjorie Taylor Greene wants to earn her congressional paycheck.

Axios:

Driving the news: Greene has called on Garland to be impeached “for endangering, compromising and undermining the justice system of the United States by facilitating the persecution” of President Biden’s political rival, Trump, according to the drafted articles she shared in a Twitter post.

    • Garland did not “faithfully” execute the office of the attorney general’s promise to “preserve, protect and defend” the United States Constitution, she wrote in the articles.
    • Greene’s office and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to Axios’ request for comment.

Because else what is left to say about MTG?

And besides, isn’t Garland already in Gitmo with Anthony Fauci?

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

Flooding the zone with shit

It’s been flying thick and fast this week

“The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” — Steve Bannon to Michael Lewis

“The more we learn about the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago, the sillier — and more sinister — the overcaffeinated Republican defenses of former president Donald Trump look,” writes Max Boot. Trump announced the search himself as an extra-legal siege, a partisan hit job to stop him from running for president in 2024. Trump’s followers did what they do best: follow.

Trump’s attorney on site had a copy of the search warrant and the inventory of what the FBI had collected. A responsible adult might have released them to tamp down any potential for wild rumors. Instead, Trump and his cult followed Steve Bannon’s advice and flooded the zone with shit. Alleging this. Dismissing that. Whatabouting Democrats. Blaming aides. Throwing out disinformation. Anything to minimize the fact Trump had absconded with boxes of public documents, some of them classified and compartmentalized above top secret. At least one Trumpist resorted to violence based on the shit. He paid with his life.

Boot inventories a few of the reaction[arie]s:

His followers — which means pretty much the whole of the Republican Party — took up the cry based on no more information than that. Fox News host Mark Levin called the search “the worst attack on this republic in modern history, period.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) called it “corrupt & an abuse of power.” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) compared the FBI to “the Gestapo.” Not to be outdone, former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Whackadoodle) said the FBI was the “American Stasi,” and compared its agents to wolves “who want to eat you.” “Today is war,” declared Steven Crowder, a podcaster with a YouTube audience of 5.6 million people. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) tweeted “DEFUND THE FBI!” Former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon, among many others, suggested that the FBI and the Justice Department (“essentially lawless criminal organizations”) might have planted evidence.

Only now, as Paul Harvey used to say, are we hearing the rest of the story — and what has been reported so far bears no relation to the persecution fantasies of Trump and his cult followers. On Thursday evening, The Post reported that FBI agents were searching for highly classified documents relating to nuclear weapons and signals intelligence — two of the most sensitive areas in the entire U.S. government. Months ago, Trump received a subpoena for documents, and the Justice Department was not convinced that he had complied with it.

Brian Tyler Cohen summarizes just some of the shit being flung.

The National Archives and Records Administration felt obliged by Friday to knock down as baseless Trump’s allegation that Barack Obama illegally took “33 million pages of documents, much of them classified,” with him to Chicago. Bullshit, of course, but Trumpists will believe anything he says. Because as one rallygoer said, he’s never told a lie.

On Friday, the Florida court released the warrant and inventory that revealed just what crimes the FBI told the court Trump may have committed. Notably (New York Times):

The first law, Section 793 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, is better known as the Espionage Act. It criminalizes the unauthorized retention or disclosure of information related to national defense that could be used to harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary. Each offense can carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

Not only is releasing national security secrets to foreign adversaries criminal, but merely mishandling such documents as to put them at risk of discloure. “Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida residence on Monday,” the Washington Post reported on Thursday.

The second, Section 1519, is an obstruction law that is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a broad set of reforms enacted by Congress in 2002 after financial scandals at firms like Enron, Arthur Andersen and WorldCom.

Section 1519 sets a penalty of up to 20 years in prison per offense for the act of destroying or concealing documents or records “with the intent to impede, obstruct or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter” within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies.

[…]

The third law that investigators cite in the warrant, Section 2071, criminalizes the theft or destruction of government documents. It makes it a crime, punishable in part by up to three years in prison per offense, for anyone with custody of any record or document from federal court or public office to willfully and unlawfully conceal, remove, mutilate, falsify or destroy it.

The inventory of what the FBI collected on Monday includes “Various classified/TS/SCI documents” (top secret/sensitive compartmentalized information), “Miscellaneous Secret Documents” (multiple sets), “Miscellaneous Top Secret Documents” (multiple sets), and “Miscellaneous Confidential Documents” (multiple sets). Donald has been a bad boy.

Boot adds:

This new information turns the Trump narrative — that he is being treated worse than anyone ever in all of U.S. history — on its head. Imagine what would have happened to a lower-level government employee who was suspected of taking highly classified documents without authorization. I very much doubt that the FBI would have dealt with such a person as gently as they dealt with Trump. Anyone else caught with top-secret documents — and suspected of obstructing justice and violating the Espionage Act — would probably be in federal custody by now. Reality Winner, a former National Security Agency contractor, was sentenced to more than five years in prison for leaking documents relating to Russian interference in the 2016 election a whole lot less sensitive than the ones Trump is suspected of taking.

Facts won’t stop MAGA from flinging shit in their master’s defense. They’ve been too well trained.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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

Forget that “declassification” excuse

So, the FBI warrant shows that Trump is being investigated for possible violation of three separate laws. The NY Times’ Charlie Savage writes:

The search warrant for Trump’s residence cited three criminal laws, all from Title 18 of the United States Code. Section 793, better known as the Espionage Act, which covers the unlawful retention of defense-related information that could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary; Section 1519, which covers destroying or concealing documents to obstruct government investigations or administrative proceedings; and Section 2071, which covers the unlawful removal of government records. 

He adds this amazing kicker:

Notably, none of those laws turn on whether information was deemed to be unclassified.

That kind of blows the “I declassified it in my mind” defense they’ve all been building. Not that he had a leg to stand on even then. Declassification requires that a president follows certain protocols. But if Savage is right it doesn’t matter either way.

A thinkable outcome

A Dem victory is an option

Nate Silver re-evaluates the CW on the midterms:

In 2020, we took pains to emphasize that, although he was a significant underdog in our forecast, former President Donald Trump could absolutely win reelection. Frankly, I’m not sure we’ve taken the same care this year when it comes to Democrats and the U.S. House. Their chances to hold the House started out in the Trump-in-2020 vicinity when we launched our forecast — 13 percent — and now they’ve risen to 20 percent amidst an improving political environment for Democrats.

It’s still not terribly likely Democrats win control of the House. But it also means that a GOP takeover is far from a foregone conclusion. So let’s talk about that 20 percent chance.

Democrats started out with 222 House seats following the 2020 election, four more than the number required for a majority. According to our model, there’s a seven percent chance that Democrats wind up with fewer than 222 seats after November, but still enough seats to maintain a narrow majority. Meanwhile, there’s a 13 percent chance that they actually gain seats.1 Those numbers combined give them their 20 percent chances.

Time for a quick historical gut-check. In 19 midterm elections since World War II, the president’s party lost fewer than five seats in the House once, in 1962. And they gained seats twice, in 1998 and 2002. That means three out of 19 times the president’s party would have a successful enough midterm to keep the House, or 16 percent of the time. That squares pretty well with our model’s 20 percent estimate. Of course, the closer we get to the election, the more we can rely on data specific to this year — but it’s good that we’re somewhere in the ballpark.

But what about the exceptions when the president’s party had a good midterm? Did they have anything in common and moreover, is there anything they can tell us about this midterm cycle? Let’s take them one by one.

Democrats’ strong performance in the 1962 midterms under former President John F. Kennedy — they lost only four House seats and gained three Senate seats — is often attributed to the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis, which happened in late October, 1962. The Cuban missile crisis might be overlooked by Americans who came of age after the Cold War, but Kennedy himself thought that there was about a one-in-three chance that it would end in a nuclear war, so its resolution was one of the more pivotal moments of the 20th Century.

There are reasonably clear parallels between 1962 and 2002, when there was a huge rally-around-the-flag effect following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and former President George W. Bush’s Republicans actually increased their House majority. 

The 1998 midterm, however, wasn’t precipitated by a threat to American security. Instead, there were special political circumstances: The House launched an impeachment inquiry into then-President Bill Clinton in October 1998 in what would later become the first impeachment trial against a president since 1868.2

And if we go back to midterm elections before the end of WWII, the last time the president’s party gained seats in the House at the midterms was in 1934, in what historians interpret as a show of support for former President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal program following the Great Depression.

In short, all these elections featured some sort of special circumstance: the Great Depression, the Cuban missile crisis, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the first impeachment of a president in 130 years. But such a definition is inherently fuzzy as you can potentially retrofit almost any political or news development to constitute a “special circumstance,” in the same way that almost every election gets called “the most important election of our lifetimes.”

Take the 2010 midterms, for example. A Democratic president with an ambitious agenda had been elected two years earlier following a global financial crisis. But unlike in 1934, former President Barack Obama’s Democrats didn’t gain seats in the House. Instead they lost 63, the steepest defeat for any party at the midterms since 1938.

Or consider the 1990 midterms. Former President George H.W. Bush was already fairly popular, but there was a further rally-around-the-flag effect following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, sending his approval ratings into the mid-70s amidst before slipping back into the 50s by November. Still, that might seem to qualify as a special circumstance. Yet, Bush’s Republicans lost seats in the House. Then again, they lost fewer seats than usual (eight seats) along with just one Senate seat, so maybe that counts as a partial validation of our theory.

In any event, if Democrats do keep the House, I don’t think historians will have any trouble giving 2022 the special circumstances asterisk, like they do now for 1998 and 2002. But what is the special circumstance?

It might be noted that the 2022 election is taking place amidst the still-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which is unquestionably one of the most important events in every American’s lifetime given the widespread death and disruption to daily life. With that said, most people have stopped caring about COVID-19; only 1 percent of Americans regarded it as the most important issue facing the country when asked about it by Gallup in June. Perhaps if the delta and omicron variants had never come along, Democrats could have campaigned on some miraculous return to normal. Instead, the return has been bumpy, epidemiologically, economically and otherwise. So that’s not the special circumstance I’m referring to, although the pandemic may have hard-to-measure knock-off effects on politics and society.

Nor is the special circumstance an international or security crisis, although there are some conflicts that could boil over by November — that’s part of the intrinsic uncertainty in an election forecast. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine isn’t having any obvious effect on the U.S. midterms for now, but if there were use of nuclear weapons or any direct American or NATO military engagement, that could change. Meanwhile, Chinese-U.S. tensions over Taiwan are also rising following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit there.

Instead, I’m keeping my eye on the potential for a special political circumstance, more like what we saw in 1998, like when the public responded to increasing Republican partisanship and their efforts to impeach Clinton.

Republicans swept to power in Congress in 1994 on an unusually substantive platform including the “Contract with America,” and even achieved a number of policy successes with the centrist, triangulating Clinton. So for them to turn around and make the 1998 midterms about Clinton’s personal conduct was probably a mistake. Although the Monica Lewinsky scandal seems almost quaint by current standards, the impeachment trial and other investigations into Clinton, reflected a significant escalation of partisanship under then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one that has continued through today.

Of course, partisanship alone doesn’t guarantee an electoral backlash. Near-universal Republican opposition to Obama’s agenda didn’t hurt them at all in the midterms in 2010. Instead, what differentiated 1998 is that Republicans were on the attack and not merely trying to block Democrats from getting their own agenda implemented. Relative to the standards of 1998, impeachment was a dramatic step and one that allowed Clinton to gain significant public sympathy.

This time, Republicans are exercising power not through the Congress but through the courts: most importantly, through the decision by a 6-3 majority of Republican-appointed judges on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Immediately after the court overturned Roe, Democrats began to gain ground on the generic congressional ballot, which asks voters which party they’d support in an election, and it’s now translated into some electoral successes, too. In Kansas last week, voters overwhelmingly rejected a ballot initiative that would have allowed the legislature to restrict abortion in the state amid very high turnout. And in Minnesota this week, Republicans won a special election in the 1st Congressional District by only 4 percentage points, a district that Trump won by 10 points in 2020. Likewise, on June 28, just a few days after Roe was overturned, Republicans won a special election in Nebraska’s 1st District by only 5 points in a district that Trump carried by 15 points.

It’s not just the courts, either. Republicans are also aggressively exercising power through state governments, especially on abortiongay and transgender rights and education policy. And although voters don’t regard Jan. 6 as an event as important as Sept. 11 — public opinion about it is also much more polarized — it’s a reminder that Republicans can also potentially seek to achieve power through extralegal means.

If nothing else, Democratic voters have no shortage of motivation to turn out: Many feel as though their basic rights are being threatened, something a party’s voters ordinarily aren’t concerned about when it controls both the presidency and Congress. The “enthusiasm gap” often accounts for much of the presidential party’s disadvantage at the midterms, but it’s not clear it exists this year after Roe was overturned.

He goes on to point out that Republicans are still likely to win the House for all the usual reasons.

But the circumstances of these midterms are also potentially unusual, with high uncertainty, and that’s why Democrats keeping the House is a thinkable outcome.

It’s a weird time. Anything can happen.

Florida swing voters don’t like what they see

“Just because he was president doesn’t mean he should get a pass,”

Is there a little flop sweat building in the Sunshine State?

Florida swing voters in our latest Engagious/Schlesinger focus groups said the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago was justified — and that it would be a “serious crime” if former President Trump did take classified documents from the White House.

Why it matters: Trump’s GOP allies are almost universally echoing his unsubstantiated claims of law enforcement overreach or politicization. The aggressive rhetoric may be boosting Trump’s base support and fundraising, but it’s not cutting through for this mix of Democrats, independents and Republicans who once backed him.

Details: Eleven of 12 participants said it was appropriate for the FBI to execute a signed search warrant at the home of the former president — and that it would be a serious crime to take documents from the White House in an unauthorized fashion even if that person previously held the office.

None said they would support Trump if he ran again.

How it works: Engagious/Schlesinger conducted two online focus groups on Tuesday night with 12 Floridians who voted for Trump in 2016 then Joe Biden in 2020.

One is now registered as a Republican, four as independents and seven as Democrats.

While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events.

What they’re saying: “Just because he was president doesn’t mean he should get a pass,” said Sharelle H., 35. “I feel like he should be made an example of because he’s human and a citizen just like all of us.”

Lilly L., 36, said the FBI “must have had a really good reason to go inside his home” and “wouldn’t do that out of the blue.”

Chris W., 49, said when it comes to Trump’s handling of sensitive documents, “He has a kind of cavalier attitude with things like that. … I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a stash of a bunch of files. … I don’t trust the guy.”

Luis H., 37, said he thinks Trump was “hiding stuff about Jan. 6.”

Flashback: In July, 10 of 14 Wisconsin swing voters said Trump should be prosecuted for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and role in the attack on the Capitol; 10 of 13 Arizona swing voters said the same in June.

“In supporting the FBI raid, these Florida swing voters resemble the overwhelming majority of Trump-to-Biden voters we interviewed in Arizona in June and Wisconsin in July who want to see Trump prosecuted for Jan. 6,” said Rich Thau, president of Engagious and moderator of the focus groups. 

The big picture: These focus group participants weren’t just sour on Trump. Nearly all said they’d prefer Democrat Charlie Crist to incumbent Ron DeSantis in this year’s governor’s race and none said they wanted DeSantis to be the next president.

Many took issue with DeSantis’ stances on social issues, including the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill and abortion restrictions.

Uhm:

Survey results released by Progress Florida and Florida Watch show 47% of registered voters intend to vote for DeSantis for re-election, while 44% intend to vote for U.S. Rep. Charlie Crist. DeSantis leads Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, 49%-43%. (After initially reporting that DeSantis was up five points versus a generic Democratic, Florida Politics asked for more detail on the head-to-head match-ups and we were provided those details.)

The Democratic nominee will be chosen in an Aug. 23 Primary.

Pollsters Geoff Puryear and Annika Ramnath both say there’s no shaking the fact DeSantis holds an edge “but by less than many would expect.”

and…

A national group supporting pro abortion rights candidates released a poll showing Democratic U.S. Rep. Val Demings and Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio tied in Florida’s 2022 U.S. Senate contest.

The poll, done by Change Research, a Democratic polling firm out of California, finds both candidates drew 46% in a survey of likely Florida voters, with 7% saying they are unsure and 2% saying they would not vote.

The poll was shared exclusively with Florida Politics.

Demings is the anticipated Democratic challenger in the November General Election. She first must win the Aug. 23 Democratic Primary Election against several nominal opponents.

It’s the second consecutive poll commissioned by partisans that characterizes the General Election race as essentially tied. A poll released earlier this week by Progress Florida and Florida Watch, two progressive groups, had Rubio and Demings both at 45%.

These are progressive polls although there’s no reason to believe they are purposefully biased. But they may explain why DeSantis and Rubio are pushing the Trump button so hard. It’s closer than anyone expected.

Loose lips Trump

Why the government is panicked by Trump absconding with Top Secret documents

Let’s not forget what an incredible intelligence risk Donald Trump was while he was president:

After four years of President Donald J. Trump’s raging against his intelligence services, posting classified information to Twitter and announcing that he took the word of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia over that of his own spies, perhaps the least surprising thing he did during his final days in office was ship boxes of sensitive material from the White House to his oceanside palace in Florida.

The F.B.I. search of Mar-a-Lago on Monday was a dramatic coda to years of tumult between Mr. Trump and American intelligence and law enforcement agencies. From Mr. Trump’s frequent rants against a “deep state” bent on undermining his presidency to his cavalier attitude toward highly classified information that he viewed as his personal property and would occasionally use to advance his political agenda, the relationship between the keepers of American secrets and the erratic president they served was the most poisoned of the modern era.

Mr. Trump’s behavior led to such mistrust within intelligence agencies that officials who gave him classified briefings occasionally erred on the side of withholding some sensitive details from him.

It has long been common practice for the C.I.A. not to provide presidents with some of the most sensitive information, such as the names of the agency’s human sources. But Douglas London, who served as a top C.I.A. counterterrorism official during the Trump administration, said that officials were even more cautious about what information they provided Mr. Trump because some saw the president himself as a security risk.

“We certainly took into account ‘what damage could he do if he blurts this out?’” said Mr. London, who wrote a book about his time in the agency called “The Recruiter.”

During an Oval Office meeting with top Russian officials just months into his presidency, Mr. Trump revealed highly classified information about an Islamic State plot that the government of Israel had provided to the United States, which put Israeli sources at risk and angered American intelligence officials. Months later, the C.I.A. decided to pull a highly placed Kremlin agent it had cultivated over years out of Moscow, in part out of concerns that the Trump White House was a leaky ship.

In August 2019, Mr. Trump received a briefing about an explosion at a space launch facility in Iran. He was so taken by a classified satellite photo of the explosion that he wanted to post it on Twitter immediately. Aides pushed back, saying that making the high resolution photo public could give adversaries insight into America’s sophisticated surveillance capabilities.

He posted the photo anyway, adding a message that the United States had no role in the explosion but wished Iran “best wishes and good luck” in discovering what caused it. As he told one American official about his decision: “I have declassification authority. I can do anything I want.”

Two years earlier, Mr. Trump used Twitter to defend himself against media reports that he had ended a C.I.A. program to arm Syrian rebels — effectively disclosing a classified program to what were then his more than 33 million Twitter followers.

If there is not one origin story that explains Mr. Trump’s antipathy toward spy agencies, the 2017 American intelligence assessment about the Kremlin’s efforts to sabotage the 2016 presidential election — and Russia’s preference for Mr. Trump — played perhaps the biggest role. Mr. Trump saw the document as an insult, written by his “deep state” enemies to challenge the legitimacy of his election and his presidency.

Mr. Trump’s efforts to undermine the assessment became a motif in the early years of his presidency, culminating in a July 2018 summit in Helsinki with Mr. Putin. During a joint news conference, Mr. Putin denied that Russia had any role in election sabotage, and Mr. Trump came to his defense. “They think it’s Russia,” Mr. Trump said, speaking of American intelligence officials and adding, “I don’t see any reason it would be.”

Mr. Trump often took aim at intelligence officials for public statements he thought undermined his foreign policy goals. In January 2019, top officials testified to Congress that the Islamic State remained a persistent threat, that North Korea would still pursue nuclear weapons and that Iran showed no signs of actively trying to build a bomb — essentially contradicting things the president had said publicly. Mr. Trump lashed out, saying on Twitter that “The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong!”

“Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!” he wrote.

Mr. Trump was hardly the first American president to view his own intelligence services as enemy territory. In 1973, Richard M. Nixon fired Richard Helms, his spy chief, after he refused to go along with the Watergate cover-up, and installed James Schlesinger in the job with the mission of bringing the C.I.A. in line.

Speaking with a group of senior analysts on his first day, Mr. Schlesinger made a lewd comment about what the C.I.A. had been doing to Mr. Nixon, and demanded that it stop.

Chris Whipple, an author who cites the Schlesinger anecdote in his book “The Spymasters,” said there is a long history of tension between presidents and their intelligence chiefs, but that “Trump really was in a league of his own in thinking the C.I.A. and the agencies were out to get him.”

The exact nature of the documents that Mr. Trump left the White House with remains a mystery, and some former officials said that Mr. Trump generally was not given paper copies of classified reports. This had less to do with security concerns than with the way Mr. Trump preferred to get his security briefings. Unlike some of his predecessors, who would read and digest voluminous intelligence reports each day, Mr. Trump generally received oral briefings.

But for those charged with protecting secrets, there may have been no bigger challenge than the seaside resort where Mr. Trump spent so much of his time as president — and where so many boxes of classified material were stored after he left office. Besides its members, Mar-a-Lago is also open to members’ guests, who would often interact with Mr. Trump during his frequent trips to the club. Security professionals saw this arrangement as ripe to be exploited by a foreign spy service eager for access to the epicenter of American power.

One night during his first weeks in office, Mr. Trump was at Mar-a-Lago hosting Shinzo Abe, the Japanese prime minister, when North Korea test-fired a ballistic missile in the direction of Japan that landed in the sea.

Almost immediately, at least one Mar-a-Lago patron posted photos on social media of Mr. Trump and Mr. Abe coordinating their response over dinner in the resort’s dining room. Photos showed White House aides huddled over their laptops and Mr. Trump speaking on his cellphone.

The patron also published a photo of himself standing next to a person he described as Mr. Trump’s military aide who carries the nuclear “football” — the briefcase that contains codes for launching nuclear weapons.

Just two world leaders responding to a major security crisis — live for the members of Mr. Trump’s resort to watch in real time.

He truly believed that illegally sharing classified information was a perk to be used to impress people. He did it repeatedly.

Biden Rebound?

Can it be?

Tom wrote about the DNC being suddenly “frisky” earlier. Here’s more on the good news, from Jonathan Chait:

A month ago, Joe Biden’s presidency was on the brink of failure. His legislative agenda was moribund, the economy was teetering on the precipice of recession, and Democrats were speculating in the press about who else they could nominate for president in 2024. Biden, like Jimmy Carter, seemed destined to be remembered as a president overwhelmed by economic crosscurrents and a Democratic Congress he could not productively lead.

The situation has changed with astonishing speed. Biden has salvaged his domestic-policy agenda, his party’s base has snapped out of its torpor, and the economy is showing signs it just might pull through. And while not all these developments are his own doing, nor do they completely extinguish the political danger he faces, they all redound to his benefit. In the span of a few weeks, Biden’s presidency is back from the dead and looking something close to triumphant.

The event that triggered the turnaround was the decision by five Republican Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. In so doing, the Court’s right wing disregarded the advice of its more cautious chief justice, John Roberts, who reportedly tried in vain to steer his colleagues toward an incrementalist strategy that would avoid a backlash.

Roberts’s fears have been vindicated. One reason midterm elections almost always punish the president’s party is that the public has an instinct to curtail the powers of those in power. The Dobbs decision inverted that calculation, creating a context in which Republicans were responsible for dramatic social change and Democrats could stand for the restoration of the status quo.

The altered political landscape has been reflected in polls showing the public moving back toward a preference for Democratic control of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections. It was reflected even more strongly in a series of surprising votes. A special election in a Nebraska House district in June that had voted for Donald Trump by 15 points went to a Republican by less than half that margin. In August, a special election in Minnesota, in a district that Trump won by ten points, went Republican by just four. Usually, special elections, held outside the normal November election time, give exaggerated strength to the out-party, whose partisans have more motivation to turn out. Instead, it was Democrats who overperformed.

An even more surprising event occurred between those two elections. In early August, Kansas held a statewide referendum to repeal the personal-autonomy clause in its Constitution and thus enable strict limits on abortion, if not its outright abolition. Republicans favored a midsummer vote on the assumption it would be dominated by anti-abortion activists, and polls projected a close race. Instead, the pro-choice side prevailed by nearly 20 points.

The Kansas shock was followed by a second thunderbolt: Senator Joe Manchin, last seen shoveling dirt onto Biden’s domestic agenda, suddenly announced his support for a robust combination of economic reforms. The Manchin-crafted plan, while falling well short of the full-scale welfare-state expansion Biden had originally hoped to enact, had the advantage of confining its ambitions to the most popular elements of Biden’s vision: higher taxes on corporations; allowing Medicare to bargain down the cost of prescription drugs and pass savings on to the consumer; giving the IRS resources to provide better customer service to average taxpayers and catch wealthy tax cheats; expanding subsidies for Obamacare; and subsidizing the green energy transition while allowing more fossil-fuel production in the short run.

What these proposals may lack in transformative sweep they make up for in campaign-ad appeal. Indeed, other than warning preposterously that Biden was planning to unleash an army of IRS agents on his political enemies, Republicans have hardly bothered to attack Biden’s signature bill at all. They may be crazy, but they can read polls.

What could matter more than the content of the Inflation Reduction Act is the transformed narrative surrounding his presidency. Signing a domestic legacy bill won’t make Biden any younger or better at reading from a teleprompter, but it will make Democrats less freaked out about how old he looks and sounds and will reduce the stream of news stories about his frailty to a slow trickle.

There is no easy way to measure the connection between the tone of the news coverage about a president and how his party fares at the ballot box. Still, there’s a reason every president cares intently about it. And the media narrative around Biden’s presidency has turned sharply from failure to success.

While he hasn’t fulfilled every campaign promise, Biden’s most outlandish-sounding promise has actually come to pass: He has revived bipartisan lawmaking. He has signed a spate of laws enjoying support from both parties, many of which have slipped under the radar: a gun-safety measure, health care for veterans, a $280 billion bill funding scientific research and semiconductor production, reform of the Postal Service, more than half a trillion dollars in funding for infrastructure, and a national holiday for Juneteenth. Congress may not be done: A reform of the Electoral Count Act (the horribly written 1887 law setting out the procedure for certifying the Electoral College vote) and a law codifying marriage equality both stand a strong chance of enactment.

Several of Biden’s accomplishments are measures his predecessor promised but failed to take. Donald Trump vowed to get Congress to pass a giant infrastructure bill, to let Medicare “negotiate like crazy” on prescription drugs, and to withdraw from Afghanistan. Biden did all these things instead.

Biden likewise co-opted the one defensible, substantive element of Trump’s political appeal: his promise to revive American manufacturing. Other than imposing tariffs, which aided a handful of favored industries at the expense of disfavored ones, Trump did almost nothing to bring back the dying industrial towns he claimed he would save. Through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Chips and Science Act, and the hundreds of billions of dollars in energy funding, Biden has actually enacted an ambitious program to move the manufacturing supply chain onshore.

The success of this strategy will take years to measure, and there’s no telling yet whether Biden will gain any political benefit from it. (Only a small minority of voters know the infrastructure act even happened.) But there is no question that the scale of Biden’s actions to encourage blue-collar jobs dwarfs anything undertaken by Trump. Perhaps this success would be more evident if Biden stopped comparing himself to FDR and started comparing himself to the president he defeated.

Biden’s biggest problem, inflation, is one he can do the least about. But here, too, the gods have begun at last to smile on him. The most recent economic reports showed faster-than-expected job growth and lower-than-expected inflation. He may yet escape Carter’s fate.

Other than the economy, Biden’s greatest handicap is that Trump’s crudest campaign taunt, “Sleepy Joe,” was beginning to look broadly accurate. But the conclusion that the economy and Congress were too difficult for Biden to handle was premature. Just as Biden’s presidential campaign burst to life after pundits (including this one) had already delivered the last rites, so too has his presidency roared suddenly back. He is sleepy no more.

I’m not sure the American people are aware of any of this but it’s important to do the right thing even when it isn’t immediately politically advantageous. And who knows? Maybe some people will see that the Democrats actually govern and will reward the Democrats in November.