Month: August 2022

It’s been 50 years

Call me naive or call me a boomer, but I still remember fondly the space race. I’ve been binging “For All Mankind,” the alternate space history series on Apple TV. We’d have made it to Mars by now.

A piece I wrote for Crooks and Liars in 2013 speaks to where the country seemed headed in the early 1960s before the backlash to the Civil Rights movement gave us the Powell memo, movement conservatism, neoliberal economics and austerians:

Beside Route 66 and elsewhere, Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System – the vast system of roads most of us take for granted – was taking shape from border to border and from coast to coast. It was a national project worthy of a great nation. The country was on the move.

Astronaut Alan Shepard was a national hero. Our parents wanted us to go to college. Our president wanted us to go. Our country wanted us to go. Getting an education was not just a key to a future better than our parents’. It was a patriotic duty. Not just something you could do for you, but what you could do for your country.

America was going to the moon by the end of the decade. We needed scientists and engineers and new technologies. Between the G.I. Bill and government-backed student loans, America was making it more affordable than ever to get an education. It was good for you. It was good for your community. It was good for all of U.S.

Then austerians decided America could no longer afford Americans. We decided that education for its own sake was frivolous, that tax cuts pay for themselves, and that anything (besides the military) that the government paid for was a crime against capitalism and needed to be privatized. Including public education.

Now, after all these decades, the U.S. is going back to the moon with the Artemis I mission:

(CNN) For the first time in 50 years, a spacecraft is preparing to launch on a journey to the moon.

The uncrewed Artemis I mission, including the Space Launch System Rocket and Orion spacecraft, is targeting liftoff on August 29 between 8:33 a.m. ET and 10:33 a.m. ET from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Although there is no human crew aboard the mission, it’s the first step of the Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the moon and eventually land them on Mars.

The Orion spacecraft will enter a distant retrograde orbit of the moon and travel 40,000 miles beyond it, going further than any spacecraft intended to carry humans. Crews will ride aboard Artemis II on a similar trajectory in 2024, and the first woman and the next man to land on the moon are slated to arrive at the lunar south pole in late 2025 on the Artemis III mission.

NASA has learned that space is almost as popular as dinosaurs, and it means to make the most of its spotlight. It’s making the launch a show:

Appearances by celebrities like Jack Black, Chris Evans and Keke Palmer and performances of “The Star-Spangled Banner” by Josh Groban and Herbie Hancock and “America the Beautiful” by The Philadelphia Orchestra and cellist Yo-Yo Ma are also part of the program.

Ho-kay. I’ll be watching.

Artemis I in numbers. More here.

Morning view of @NASA_SLS and @NASA_Orion today on Launch Pad 39B. Stay tuned for ongoing coverage of the Artemis I launch.
Photo: NASA/Sean Cannon pic.twitter.com/EOctme5NiP

— NASA's Exploration Ground Systems (@NASAGroundSys) August 28, 2022

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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

Standing for freedom not merely its symbols

“Where the hell is the Democratic party?” Howard Dean asked. “You’ve got to stand for something if you want to win.” His party had just taken a beating in the 2014 midterm elections:

“The Republican message was, ‘We’re not Obama.’ No substance whatsoever,” Dean said. But after rhetorically asking himself the message from Democrats, Dean answered sarcastically “Oh, well, we’re really not either.”

Democrats realized last week that they are President Joe Biden. Biden realized he is too.

There is a new spring in Democrats’ steps. They exhibit growing confidence they can minimize the losses Obama saw in 2010 and 2014:

After months of gloomy predictions, Democrats are investing anew in flipping Republican seats. They are also directing more money to protect a roster of their own endangered incumbents — a list party officials said noticeably shrank since the spring. And they are trying to frame contests around abortion rights, putting Republicans on the defensive for strict opposition to the procedure in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

Leading a phonebank call with abortion, one volunteer reported, yields the shortest conversations ever: “I’ll be there with my family. Thank you.”

Stand for something

The assault on reproductive freedom is as much about freedom as it is about women’s reproduction. “Your right to choose is on the ballot this year,” Biden told rallygoers in Rockville, Maryland last week. But more still.

“The Social Security you paid for from the time you had a job is on the ballot.” 

“The safety of your kids from gun violence is on the ballot.”

“And it’s not hyperbole, the very survival of our planet is on the ballot.” 

“Your right to vote is on the ballot. Even the democracy. “

Biden closed saying:

We’re at a serious moment in our nation’s history.  The MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security, they’re a threat to our very democracy.  They refuse to accept the will of the people.  They embrace — embrace — political violence.  They don’t believe in democracy.

This is why, in this moment, those of you who love this country — Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans — we must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving America than the MAGA Republicans are to destroying America. 

Are you ready to fight for these things now? 

Democrats need to take back the word freedom that’s been appropriated by nihilists wrapped in red, white and blue and preening as self-anointed patriots itching for a second civil war.

It is perhaps ironic that I mentioned last week a high school friend who said that, raised a good Baptist, “We couldn’t cuss in the house. Except you could say ‘damn Yankee,’ because that’s just what they were.” Biden called out MAGA Republicans for what they were, “semi-fascists” threatening the union. Last week, Democrats quit pulling punches.

“You’ve got to stand for something if you want to win.”

Heather Cox Richardson sets Biden’s defense of the union in historical context:

A spokesperson for the Republican National Committee called the comment “despicable,” although Republicans have called Democrats “socialists” now for so long it passes as normal discourse. Just this week, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) called Democrats “radical left-wing lunatics, laptop liberals, and Marxist misfits.”

Biden’s calling out of today’s radical Republicans mirrors the moment on June 21, 1856, when Representative Anson Burlingame of Massachusetts, a member of the newly formed Republican Party, stood up in Congress to announce that northerners were willing to take to the battlefield to defend their way of life against the southerners who were trying to destroy it. Less than a month before, Burlingame’s Massachusetts colleague Senator Charles Sumner had been brutally beaten by a southern representative for disparaging slavery, and Burlingame was sick and tired of buying sectional peace by letting southerners abuse the North. Enough, he said, was enough. The North was superior to the South in its morality, loyalty to the government, fidelity to the Constitution, and economy, and northerners were willing to defend their system, if necessary, with guns.

Burlingame’s “Defense of Massachusetts” speech marked the first time a prominent northerner had offered to fight to defend the northern way of life. Previously, southerners had been the ones threatening war and demanding concessions from the North to preserve the peace. He was willing to accept a battle, Burlingame explained, because what was at stake was the future of the nation. His speech invited a challenge to a duel.

Southerners championed their region as the one that had correctly developed the society envisioned by the Founders. In the South, a few very wealthy men controlled government and society, enslaving their neighbors. This system, its apologists asserted, was the highest form of human civilization. They opposed any attempt to restrict its spread. The South was superior to the North, enslavers insisted; it alone was patriotic, honored the Constitution, and understood economic growth. In the interests of union, northerners repeatedly ceded ground to enslavers and left their claim to superiority unchallenged.

At long last, the attack on Sumner inspired Burlingame to speak up for the North. The southern system was not superior, he thundered; it had dragged the nation backward. Slavery kept workers ignorant and godless while the northern system of freedom lifted workers up with schools and churches. Slavery feared innovation; freedom encouraged workers to try new ideas. Slavery kept the South mired in the past; freedom welcomed the modern world and pushed Americans into a new, thriving economy. And finally, when Sumner had spoken up against the tyranny of slavery, a southerner had clubbed him almost to death on the floor of the Senate.

Was ignorance, economic stagnation, and violence the true American system?

For his part, Burlingame preferred to throw his lot with education, morality, economic growth, and respect for government.

Burlingame had deliberately provoked the lawmaker who had beaten Sumner, Preston Brooks of South Carolina, and unable to resist any provocation, Brooks had challenged Burlingame to a duel. Brooks assumed all Yankees were cowards and figured that Burlingame would decline in embarrassment. But instead, Burlingame accepted with enthusiasm, choosing rifles as the dueling weapons. Burlingame, it turned out, was an expert marksman.

Burlingame also chose to duel in Canada, giving Brooks the opportunity to back out on the grounds that he felt unsafe traveling through the North after his beating of Sumner made him a hated man. The negotiations for the duel went on for months, but the duel never took place. Instead, Brooks, known as “Bully” Brooks, lost face as a man who was unwilling to risk his safety to avenge his honor, while Burlingame showed that northerners were eager to fight.

Forgotten now, Burlingame’s speech was once widely considered one of the most important speeches in American history. It marked the moment when northerners shocked southerners by calling them out for what they were, and northerners rallied to Burlingame’s call.

Humorist Sarah Vowel writes, “the United States in 2022 feels more 1850 to me than 1861.” She isn’t far off.

Democrats this time are the ones running on freedom and on preserving the union from open rebellion. Minority Republicans are running on their fealty to Donald Trump. Yeah, that guy.

Bring it on.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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

Here comes “My Son Hunter”

It’s Saturday Night at the Movies. Feel the magic:

the producers of the breitbart-backed movie about hunter biden apparently dropped a full trailer on truth social last night, and it is really something. pic.twitter.com/16aFQ0jYy0

— hannah gais (@hannahgais) August 26, 2022

WTF is wrong with these people? This obsession with Hunter Biden is just weird. They did this bizarre stuff against the Clintons too but at least they were actually powerful people. This poor guy is just a fucked up dude with a drug problem who took advantage of his famous father’s name like hundreds of others have done — including, uhm, the entire Trump clan!

The Daily Beast’s Justin Baragona quipped that they inadvertently made “The Rise of Dark Brandon.” Lol.

Of course he did

Charlie Savage at the NY Times:

When the Justice Department proposed redactions to the affidavit underlying the warrant used to search former President Donald J. Trump’s residence, prosecutors made clear that they feared the former president and his allies might take any opportunity to intimidate witnesses or otherwise illegally obstruct their investigation.

“The government has well-founded concerns that steps may be taken to frustrate or otherwise interfere with this investigation if facts in the affidavit were prematurely disclosed,” prosecutors said in the brief.

The 38-page affidavit, released on Friday, asserted that there was “probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at” Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago compound, indicating that prosecutors had evidence suggesting efforts to impede the recovery of government documents.

Since the release of the search warrant, which listed three criminal laws as the foundation of the investigation, one — the Espionage Act — has received the most attention. Discussion has largely focused on the spectacle of the F.B.I. finding documents marked as highly classified and Mr. Trump’s questionable claims that he had declassified everything held at his residence.

But by some measures, the crime of obstruction is as, or even more, serious a threat to Mr. Trump or his close associates. The version investigators are using, known as Section 1519, is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a broad set of reforms enacted in 2002 after financial scandals at companies like Enron, Arthur Andersen and WorldCom.

The heavily redacted affidavit provides new details of the government’s efforts to retrieve and secure the material in Mr. Trump’s possession, highlighting how prosecutors may be pursuing a theory that the former president, his aides or both might have illegally obstructed an effort of well over a year to recover sensitive documents that do not belong to him.

To convict someone of obstruction, prosecutors need to prove two things: that a defendant knowingly concealed or destroyed documents, and that he did so to impede the official work of any federal agency or department. Section 1519’s maximum penalty is 20 years in prison, which is twice as long as the penalty under the Espionage Act.

Julie O’Sullivan, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in white-collar crime, said the emerging timeline of the government’s repeatedly stymied attempts to retrieve all the documents, coupled with claims by Mr. Trump that he did nothing wrong because he had declassified all the documents in his possession, presented significant legal peril for him.

“He is making a mistake in believing that it matters whether it’s top secret or not,” she said. “He is essentially conceding that he knew he had them.” If so, she added, then not giving them back was “obstructing the return of these documents.”

The cloud of potential obstruction carries echoes of the Russia investigation led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. That inquiry ended up being as much about how Mr. Trump had sought to impede his work as it was about scrutinizing Russia’s efforts to manipulate the 2016 election and the nature of myriad Russian links to people associated with Mr. Trump’s campaign.

The release on Aug. 26 of a partly redacted affidavit used by the Justice Department to justify its search of former President Donald J. Trump’s Florida residence included information that provides greater insight into the ongoing investigation into how he handled documents he took with him from the White House. Here are the key takeaways:

The government tried to retrieve the documents for more than a year. The affidavit showed that the National Archives asked Mr. Trump as early as May 2021 for files that needed to be returned. In January, the archives were able to collect 15 boxes of documents. The affidavit included a letter from May 2022 showing that Trump’s lawyers knew that he might be in possession of classified materials and that the Justice Department was investigating the matter.

The material included highly classified documents. The F.B.I. said it had examined the 15 boxes Mr. Trump had returned to the National Archives in January and that all but one of them contained documents that were marked classified. The markings suggested that some documents could compromise human intelligence sources and that others were derived from national security surveillance.

Prosecutors are concerned about obstruction and witness intimidation. To obtain the search warrant, the Justice Department had to lay out possible crimes to a judge, and obstruction of justice was among them. In a supporting document, the Justice Department said it had “well-founded concerns that steps may be taken to frustrate or otherwise interfere with this investigation if facts in the affidavit were prematurely disclosed.”

The man is a notorious witness tamperer and obstructionist. We’ve watched him do it in real time over and over again. Maybe hacks like William Barr think that a (Republican) president can’t obstruct justice because (Republican) presidents are basically kings for four years, but he isn’t president anymore. He’s just some disgruntled fired government employee who stole sensitive government documents and refused when the government asked for them back. The fact that he wants to be president again shouldn’t shield him from the consequences this time.

News accounts attributed to people familiar with the matter have said he did know he had the documents and discussed whether he ought to return them with various advisers, including at one point declaring, “They’re mine.” But because the affidavit is redacted, it is not clear what court-admissible evidence investigators have gathered in this area.

Against that backdrop, Ms. O’Sullivan noted that most of the interactions between the government and Mr. Trump’s camp went through his lawyers. She said if Mr. Trump were charged with obstruction, his only defense would be to say he did not know what was still at Mar-a-Lago and that his lawyers and aides handling the documents matter had messed up or misled him.

“He would probably look to throw his lawyers under the bus and deny that he had the requisite knowledge that he was concealing them with the intent to obstruct the return of the documents,” she said. “That is what we don’t know yet because of the affidavit redactions — whether the Department of Justice has proof that he did know that they were still concealing documents on an ongoing basis.”

I’m trying very hard not to get excited about the midterms. That almost always spells doom and I’d rather not be cast into despair in another November, thank you very much. Let’s just say that if the Republicans win I’m going to say to myself, “thank goodness we have a Democrat in the White House who can veto the horrors they are going to inflict.” That’s about the best I can do.

However, I don’t want to step on anyone’s enthusiasm. There is good reason for hope that the Dems will hold the Senate and even the House is suddenly looking like it’s not out of the question.

Here’s Joe Trippi, writing for the Lincoln Project. He’s been optimistic for months which, at first, I found sort of inexplicable but now has some evidence to back him up. This is not an ordinary year:

I really do believe we have reasons for optimism. The Senate continues to look better. We have work to do with state gubernatorial races but we can win them. And even the House – yes, the House – is in play. 

What momentum? Don’t just take my word for it. Look at the numbers. Dave Wasserman at the Cook Report points out results from Congressional special elections from the start of June. The commentary is mine:

CA22
2020 Election: Trump +5
6/7/22 Special Election: R +24
My take: Redistricting makes this an outlier.

TX34
2020 Election: Biden +4
6/14/22 Special Election: R +5
My take: This was not the wipeout many predicted with Biden’s approval ratings where they are – first sign of true decoupling.

– Dobbs Decision handed down on 6/24/22 –

NE01
2020 Election: Trump +11
6/28/22 Special Election: R+5
Red alert if you’re predicting a red wave… outperforming Trump by 6 in a very red district is a great sign.

MN01
2020 Election: Trump +10
8/9/22 Special Election: R+4
My take: 6 points better than Trump. Rinse and repeat.

NY19
2020 Election: Biden +2
8/23/22 Special Election:  D+2
My take: This one’s it. This is the bellwether. Biden won by 1.5 and it looks like we will win it by close to 3.

NY23
2020 Election: Trump +11
8/23/22 Special Election: R+7
My take: Likely going to be 6 or so – in a very red district.

Here’s why Cook and others continue revising their “red wave” predictions more to a “red mirage” — in every special election since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Dem enthusiasm and turnout is off the charts. And the results are proving it. Even Nate Silver, whose model at 538 is also largely results-based, said just how important NY19 could prove to be:  

“A 2020-type performance is not a particularly high bar to clear for Dems, who had a meh year in races for Congress. But it would be enough for them to be clear favorites in the Senate, and maybe add a seat or two. And the House would be at least a toss-up, probably lean D”

That’s exactly what happened in New York. And here’s something else you may not know: There are 222 districts bluer than NY19. We need to hold 218 to hold the House.

I want to make one more point because it is an important one. Nate Silver got at this in a Twitter thread this week that is worth diving into. But he points out just how problematic Trump is even though he brings up turnout: “Trump attracts lots of low-propensity voters… that’s helpful in presidential years, but they may not vote much otherwise. And he creates lots of problems for the GOP, including a party that has somewhat given up on trying to win the center of the electorate.”

NY19 was critical for this reason. The Republican candidate was not MTG or Boebert. But voters saw that if he won, he’d be enabling them and the Jim Jordans of the House to go full on ultra-MAGA crazy. In a lot of ways, the ultra-MAGA candidates are poisoning even the other candidates who may be trying to hide it or mask how out there they are. We saw this in 2010 on a smaller scale. But now it’s out there and impossible to hide. It takes a while to sink in. But the ultra-MAGA poison might be the drag on the GOP that wins us this November.

There’s a long way to go. But — just looking at the numbers, I’d rather be us than them.

His last point is important and I think he’s right. Republicans can pretend to “moderate”now but everyone knows what being a Republican means today. It’s the party of Marjorie Taylor Green and Donald Trump. If you are running with that R after your name you are on that team. They can’t hide that.

No f-ing way, dude

After all he did to prop up Trump he has some nerve:

Former Attorney General William Barr attacked Donald Trump and his Republican supporters for again “pandering to outrage,” this time over the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago.

Barr was pressed Thursday by journalist Bari Weiss on her podcast “Honestly” on why Republicans should trust the legitimacy of the FBI search in the wake of Trump’s attacks on the operation to retrieve government documents.

An irritated Barr responded: “Something I’m pretty tired of from the right is the constant pandering to outrage and people’s frustrations. And picking and picking and picking at that sore without trying to channel those feelings in a constructive direction.”

Barr said it’s “premature” to reach a conclusion about the Aug. 8 FBI search of Trump’s resort and residence. Agents turned up 27 boxes of material, including 11 packets of classified material, including some top secret information. Under the Presidential Records Act, all of the documents should have been turned over to the National Archives at the end of Trump’s term.

Barr conceded it’s “hard to explain” why Trump would have held on to the official documents.

He characterized vicious attacks on the FBI by Trump and his supporters as “over the top.”

FBI Director Christopher Wray, who was appointed by the former president, is not going to “wake up and say, you know, ’How do I throw the FBI’s weight around to interfere in the political process? Just the opposite. I think he’s very cautious about that,” Barr told Weiss.

Barr said he’s particularly “irritated” at the “whole episode” because it “strengthens [President Joe] Biden and hurts the Republican Party going into the midterms because the focus once again returns to President Trump and his persona and his modus operandi rather than the pocketbook issues” of the campaigns.

Barr also attacked Trump’s constant drive to divide Americans over every issue.

“The problem with Trump is that it’s all about running just the base election, whip up your base, get your base all upset, get them outraged and turn them out at the polls,” Barr said.

“That’s a prescription for continued hostility within the country, and demoralization of the country and an impasse in the country,” he added, which Barr also accused “both sides” of creating.

Barr called Trump his “own worst enemy,” who’s responsible for provoking much of “venom” directed at him.

Barr said when he joined the administration, he hoped Trump would rise to the office of the presidency. “He didn’t,” he added.

But Trump has managed to turn much of the party into a personality cult, Barr indicated.

“This pursuit of a personal agenda and personal power is weakening the Republican Party,” Barr said. “You don’t make America great again by making people madder and madder and madder.”

Please. Barr knew what he was. He was in his cabinet. He helped him. He was instrumental in keeping Trump from being held accountable for his crimes from 2016 and the Mueller investigation and the first impeachment. This is one guy who can never rehab his reputation.

Here’s more from Barr:

[W]hile Barr has opened up a good deal about his time in the Trump administration, there’s one leading awkward moment that stands out, he told journalist Bari Weiss on her podcast, “Honestly,” during an extensive interview. 

“The president was bellowing at a number of his Cabinet secretaries and especially the military guys, the DoD secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and calling all of us f-cking losers at the top of his lungs,” Barr said. 

Barr appears to be talking about the incident on June 1, 2020, when the Cabinet was debating what to do about protesters across the US who filled the streets after Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd.

The details of that meeting were first laid out in “A Sacred Oath,” a book by former Defense Secretary Mark Esper. 

Barr backed Trump to the hilt on that and was the driving force behind bringing in federal troops. He was in favor of using the Insurrection Act. What a piece of work.

Barr’s answer about his most awkward moment came during the “lightning round” Weiss has at the end of her interviews, where guests have to quickly answer a series of quickly fired questions. Barr’s book, “One Damn Thing After Another,” recounted the incident as well. 

Barr, who also served as attorney general under former President George H.W. Bush, was critical of Trump throughout much of the “Honestly” podcast, saying he opposed the way Trump attacked people who didn’t agree with him, as well as his leadership style.

“One would think that an executive would have a better idea how to operate with people and manage people, and he’s a poor manager of people,” Barr said of Trump, who was a real estate mogul with no government experience when he became president. 

Barr also said he regretted that Trump was closed to taking advice from the people close to him. He referred to the 2016 election, when the “Access Hollywood” video leaked in which Trump said women would let him “do anything” to them, including grabbing them between the legs. 

Barr said Trump “behaved himself for a few weeks and he just squeezed through” to win the presidency, referring to how Trump won the electoral vote against Hillary Clinton but lost the popular vote by 3 million people. 

“This time he felt he knew better than everybody else,” Barr said of Trump’s leadership as president. “And so he didn’t follow anybody’s advice.” 

He literally uses Trump’s asinine response to the Access Hollywood scandal — apparently believing the comments themselves were just fine — as his expectation that Trump could “grow into the presidency.” Talk about bad judgment.

DeSantis’ latest move reeks of Jim Crow

His arrests of 20 former prisoners for vote fraud, surrounded by police, as if he’s some kind of Banana Republic despot is one of his worst moves yet:

 Several people who were arrested last week as part of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ voter fraud crackdown were notified by official government entities they were eligible to vote, according to court documents and interviews.

The defendants told authorities they had no intention of committing voter fraud, according to affidavits, and in some cases were baffled by their arrests because counties had sent them voter registration cards and approved them to vote.

The defendants were vilified by the governor during a high profile press conference last week, where DeSantis announced the arrest of 20 people — convicted murderers and sex offenders — who allegedly cast votes in the 2020 election when they weren’t eligible to. The defendants, because of their convictions, weren’t permitted to vote.

DeSantis highlighted their arrests to show his new $1.1 million election security office, created during the 2022 legislative session, was paying off and rooting out bad actors looking to commit voter fraud. Such fraud has become a top tier issue for Republicans across the country, including DeSantis, who has championed a series of election reform bills, including the creation of a first-of-its kind election investigations unit housed under Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody.

In the days since the announcement, however, several of those arrested have told media outlets or authorities that they had no idea they were not eligible to vote. In court documents filed in five counties, most say at least one official government body — in most cases a local election supervisor — incorrectly indicated to them they could vote, including allowing them to register and sending them voter cards in the mail.

Court records show that many who were swept up by authorities have little education or financial resources and are now back in the state’s criminal justice system. Florida Department of Law Enforcement special agents interviewed the defendants over a few days in early August before arresting them last Thursday.

Peter Washington, a 59-year-old Black man from Orlando, who served 10 years in prison related to sexual battery conviction, told a Florida Department of Law Enforcement special agent that prison officials informed him he could vote. At the time, he was taking classes to transition back into society as his release date from prison approached. He received no indication from the Orange County Supervisor of Elections office that he was not eligible to vote.

le and voted “Washington received a voter registration form in the mail, filled it out and mailed it back to the Orange County Supervisor of Elections Office,” read an affidavit filed by authorities in Orange County court. “The Orange County Supervisor of Elections mailed him a voter card.”

The article goes on to show several others, all Black,who were rousted from their homes and arrested over this bullshit voter fraud nonsense after having been led to believe they were eligible to vote. This is just a gross show of white power in a place that has a long history of such shows. DeSantis is a monster who is showing America exactly what he will do if he’s ever given the massive power of the presidency. He’s no clown. He is a true blue fascist.

Would you entrust your personal security to this man?

Following up on my post below, here is the front page of today’s New York Times. Among the concerns U.S. intelligence officials had concerning Donald Trump’s unauthorized retention of government documents is that they might compromise the safety of U.S. human intelligence sources — spies:

Mr. Trump and his defenders have claimed he declassified the material he took to Mar-a-Lago. But documents retrieved from him in January included some marked “HCS,” for Human Intelligence Control System. Such documents have material that could possibly identify C.I.A. informants, meaning a general, sweeping declassification of them would have been, at best, misguided.

“HCS information is tightly controlled because disclosure could jeopardize the life of the human source,” said John B. Bellinger III, a former legal adviser to the National Security Council in the George W. Bush administration. “It would be reckless to declassify an HCS document without checking with the agency that collected the information to ensure that there would be no damage if the information were disclosed.”

C.I.A. espionage operations inside numerous hostile countries have been compromised in recent years when the governments of those countries have arrested, jailed and even killed the agency’s sources.

Last year, a top-secret memo sent to every C.I.A. station around the world warned about troubling numbers of informants being captured or killed, a stark reminder of how important human source networks are to the basic functions of the spy agency.

It is premature to connect official documents Trump took to Florida in January 2021 to the C.I.A. memo from the end of September that year. But one of the reasons federal authorities are so eager to get back the stolen documents is to assess “what might have been compromised,” Glenn S. Gerstell, the former general counsel of the National Security Agency, told the Times.

Until more about the nature of the documents is publicly known it is impossible to tell what, if any damage was done. But former officials stressed that counterintelligence experts often will take measures to protect sources or change collection methods if they believe a classified document could have been viewed by people not authorized to see it.

“It is a principle of counterintelligence that when you believe a code or classified material has been possibly compromised you have to assume the worst,” Mr. Gerstell said. “It is a powerful reason to know what is in the documents and who had access.”

Everything Trump touches dies, says Never Trumper Rick Wilson. Authorities worry that might apply literally to people Trump never met.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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

Would you entrust National Defense Information to this man?

Let’s get one thing straight. The classification of the documents Donald Trump had in his possession at Mar-a-Lago is not why he risks federal criminal charges. Bottom line, it’s that Citizen Trump had them at all. Secondly, that he was not keeping documents he stole safely secured.

Trump cultists are busily well-uh, well-uh, rope-a-doping about Trump’s alleged declassifying everything he took from the White House. That’s a red herring and they know it. The affidavit behind the F.B.I. search of his property (the PREMISES in the affidavit) lays that out clearly.

The documents Trump took “appear to contain” National Defense Information (NDI) covered under the Espionage Act (section 793(e), more below). After reviewing the first batch of documents reclaimed from Mar-a-Lago earlier this year, the F.B.I. told federal magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart they had evidence Trump had still more he had not given up. They requested a search warrant.

The New York Times elaborates:

The F.B.I. lays out what it had already “established” before the search. Mr. Trump was improperly keeping “national defense information” — an apparent violation of the Espionage Act. And the F.B.I. believed there was a good reason to believe that additional documents were at Mar-a-Lago that would be subject to that and two other laws cited in the application: laws against concealing official records and against concealing documents as part of an effort to obstruct an official government agency effort. The scope of what the government thinks Mr. Trump was obstructing remains unclear, but at a minimum, it would seem to be the attempt by the National Archives — later joined by the Justice Department — to do its job by taking custody of public records.

In a later unredacted footnote, the F.B.I. explains why classification is not the issue:

The Times again adds context:

The affidavit notes that classification status does not matter for purposes of the Espionage Act. That law criminalizes the unauthorized retention of closely held defense-related information that could aid a foreign adversary or harm the United States. It was enacted before the classification system existed and does not refer to classification status.

Marcy Wheeler this morning points to a couple more criminal statutes at issue regarding storage of such documents:

An important detail from Trump's affidavit.

I predicted weeks ago that it would include language about 32 C.F.R. Parts 2001 and 2003. It was an easy (& correct) prediction. That language is pretty standard in 18 USC 793 search affidavits. Here's the reghttps://t.co/zJdE4w4bOu

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) August 27, 2022

So what do they emphasize here?

1) The rules for Secret and Top Secret information.
2) The KIND of secure container they can be stored in (not a golf resort bomb shelter or a hotel safe).
3) That they need to be monitored regularly.

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) August 27, 2022

At least one witness told the F.B.I. that Trump retained more federal documents after giving up those first 15 boxes. Surveillance video the F.B.I. obtained from Mar-a-Lago showed more boxes being moved from Trump’s insecure storage room as well as boxes being relocated to different containers (New York Times, emphasis mine):

On Aug. 8, investigators found additional material, presidential records and classified documents in the basement area, as well as in a container on the floor of Mr. Trump’s closet in his office, a former dressing room in the bridal suite above the club’s ballroom.

The closet had a hotel-style safe, but it did not contain the materials investigators sought, and was too small to hold the documents he had, according to several people familiar with the events.

We do not know what was in those documents on the floor of Trump’s office. But especially if they contained NDI (Citizen Trump was not authorized to possess), he was in violation of rules governing secure storage for such information. He also faces possible obstruction charges for not returning everything after multiple requests.

Don’t be distracted. The affidavit contains a May 25 letter from Trump attorney Evan Corcoran which argues (in what appears to this non-lawyer to be pretzel logic) that statutes regarding unauthorized removal or retention of classified documents or material do not apply to the President. Expect this to be a Trumpist talking point.

First, Trump is no longer president. Second, Corcoran “didn’t consider the Espionage Act. He was thinking only of classified information,” Wheeler tweeted. Classification is not the issue. Corcoran’s not citing the three laws the F.B.I. cited as the basis for its investigation.

As the Washington Post notes:

Trump was also warned before he even left the White House that taking any official documents with him, let alone national secrets, was illegal under the Presidential Records Act. And even Trump’s attorneys agreed that the former president needed to give the documents back, report Dawsey and Alemany, citing the National Archives’ conversations with Trump’s lawyers.

Wheeler lays out the legal risks Trump faces:

Key to holding Donald J. Trump accountable for the theft of classified documents will not be, as it is in most cases, reference to the multiple Non-Disclosure Agreements that cleared people have to sign (for the reasons the WaPo laid out). Instead, it would be to show that the President Records Act required Trump to return every Presidential Record, classified or not, and that because he did not have clearance after he was no longer President nor (according to Joe Biden) a need to know, he could not retain any NDI. Given the atrocious conditions under which he kept this stuff at Mar-a-Lago and his refusal to fix that, the guidelines on retaining classified information (which are cited in the affidavit) would also be key.

Wheeler lays out questions prosecutors would ask a jury to answer here, adding:

Multiple witnesses have testified that FPOTUS responded to consultations about the importance of returning NDI information by insisting they were, “Mine!”

“Mine!” is not going to fly. Assuming the DOJ brings charges and can find an impartial jury and assuming Trump does not “shuffle off this mortal coil” first.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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

Tiger cubs!

Since opening its doors in 1978, the Minnesota Zoo has been a champion of tiger conservation – supporting efforts in the wild and playing a prominent role in the Association of Zoos and Aquariums Amur tiger Species Survival Plan (SSP).

On Mother’s Day, May 8, 2022, four Amur tiger cubs were born at the Minnesota Zoo under the watchful eye of the Zoo’s Animal Care and Health teams. Sadly, one cub did not survive, which is not uncommon in litters this size; however, the other three cubs quickly and successfully bonded with their mother, Sundari, or Dari for short.

“These cubs represent a major, positive step forward in our efforts to support the global population of Amur tigers,” said Minnesota Zoo Director John Frawley. “Having three thriving cubs, and a mother who is successfully raising them, is a true testament to the care and dedication provided by our incredible team of zookeepers and veterinary staff.”

At about 15 weeks old, the three Amur tiger cubs born at the Minnesota Zoo have been playing and exploring each day in their Tiger Lair habitat – and now they have new names to celebrate!

Over the past week, the Zoo asked the community to help name one of the male cubs, with staff and other Zoo stakeholders helping name the other two cubs. More than 20,000 votes came in from the public!

The winning name, selected by The Minnesota Zoo community, is Vostok! Names selected for the other two cubs are Yana (female) and Brosno (male).

When looking at naming options for animals at the Zoo, officials try to choose names that are representative of the region and culture of the species’ native habitat in the wild. Amur tigers are native to eastern Asia, where their range mostly consists of temperate forests along the Amur River. The three selected names relate back to geography and bodies of water – Vostok and Brosno reference lakes and Yana references a river.

Courtesy of Minnesota Zoo, ZooBorns has compiled four informative “Tiger Chats” chronicling the cubs’ development from the perspectives of keepers, vets and zoologists.

Zookeeper Jess tells us about the care keepers have been providing to Dari and the cubs behind the scenes.

Click over to Zooborns for more adorable pictures. There are a ton of them. Squeeee!