Skip to content

Month: September 2022

Climate change deniers at the very top

Oh dear god

🌎🔥 Today I asked World Bank president @DavidMalpassWBG if he believed in the scientific consensus that the man made burning of fossil fuels is rapidly and dangerously warming the planet.

“I’m not a scientist,” he said.

Here’s a thread about the remarkable exchange.

The context: Under Malpass, who was appointed by Trump, the World Bank has come under intense criticism – from the UN, Biden admin, experts – for failing to act urgently enough on climate.

For example, the Bank is still funding fossil fuel projects.

Then this morning at our @nytclimate event, former VP @algore said of Malpass:

“We need to get a new head of the World Bank. This is ridiculous to have a climate denier as the head of the World Bank.”

I said as much and offered Malpass the opportunity to respond to Gore.

He filibustered for a few minutes, talking about the Bank’s climate work.

Then I asked him again to directly respond to Gore and answer my question.

“So very odd,” Malpass said. “I’ve never met him.”

I tried again.

“Let me just be as clear as I can,” I said. “Do you accept the scientific consensus that the man-made burning of fossil fuels is rapidly and dangerously warming the planet?”

By this point the mood was tense and the crowd was chirping…

He tried filibustering again.

“Will you answer the question?” I said.

“We have a mission of a World Bank that’s powerful, Malpass said.

“Will you answer the question?” I said.

By this point the crowd was jeering and some people were calling out “Answer the question!”

Finally Malpass said: “I don’t even know – I’m not a scientist and that is not a question so – Al Gore can put, I don’t know why it stays on the stage. What we need to do is move forward with impactful projects.”

Malpass went on to talk about the Bank’s climate work.

But if anyone was looking for the president of the World Bank to acknowledge the scientific consensus on climate change, keep looking.

Originally tweeted by David Gelles (@dgelles) on September 20, 2022.

WTF????? Is every last Trump appointee a cretin?

Cheating like nobody’s ever cheated before, legally

MAGA is just getting warmed up

Vote suppression is not the gravest threat to democracy, argues Michelle Cottle of the New York Times editorial board. It’s just the easiest to explain. And it doesn’t always produce the results people predict.

Tuesday was National Voter Registration Day. Coincidentally, it was the day the Trusted Elections Tour stopped through Asheville. A bipartisan panel addressed voters’ concerns about ballot security . No, ballot-counting machines here are not connected to the internet. There are checks at multiple steps along the way to prevent anyone unauthorized from hacking the machines or altering results. Virtually the entire state of North Carolina votes on paper ballots. The machines just speed up the counting and are more accurate than human counts anyway. Everything is checked and rechecked from vote totals to absentee ballot validation.

I can vouch for that. Try to screw with the election process or intimidate voters at the precinct level in my county and the response comes via 911.

“This is not a political process,” said Western Carolina University political science professor Chris Cooper. “This is an administrative process with political results.”

Or it is supposed to be. It depends who the administrators are.

“So let’s not let the GOP off the hook here,” says Cottle about suppression tactics in a Times video report. “This mission to erect barriers is anti-democratic. These laws are appalling and, frankly, racist.”

“But this is what should really take you off and scare the holy living shit out of you,” she continues. “It has less to do with controlling who can vote and everything to do with who decides which votes actually count.”

Republicans are working to install an army of election workers who will document supposed irregularities (voter fraud) and throw a wrench in the works at the precinct level.

Johnny Harris and Cottle describe the MAGA attempt to rig the system so far down into the plumbing that it goes unnoticed. Novice election workers are being recruited and primed to challenge voters and to officially document those challenges to build a paper trail (“evidence”) better than what Rudy Giuliani assembled from rando kooks in 2020. Next time, they hope they’ll be more successful challenging election results in court.

But let me remind you again how that approach really works:

When Erich von Daniken’s “Chariots of the Gods?” was a best-seller (speaking of pyramids), Johnny Carson asked a NASA astronaut what he thought of von Daniken’s theories about aliens influencing human history. After a pause, the astronaut replied that when von Daniken looks around the world and sees something he doesn’t understand, he attributes it to aliens. And since there’s a lot in this world von Daniken doesn’t understand, he finds them everywhere.

Watching Brother Giuliani’s traveling Republican salvation show last year, it was clear most of his Trump-fawning witnesses to “massive fraud” applied von Däniken’s approach to the 2020 election. Whenever they saw an election process they did not understand, they attributed it to voter fraud. And since there was a lot about election processes they didn’t understand, they saw fraud everywhere.

Now the GOP is systematizing that. The precinct strategy is only one piece of the rigging strategy. Take time to view the Times report (26 min.).

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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

Autocrats of the world unite

They’re not even red in the face about it

Republican delegation meets with Russian officials in Moscow, 2018.

Remember before the Brown decision when Democrats were the racist party of Jim Crow? And some long after were still “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”? Yup, bad times. The Cold War was hot. McCarthyism was a thing. Birchers were active in the 1950s and 60s, too, and warned fluoridation was a communist plot. Better red than dead, replied some liberals. Righties branded them commies and pinkoes, unAmerican, subversives. As Archie and Edith sang, at least you knew who you were then.

The Civil Rights movement and Johnson’s Great Society changed that. The major parties’ roles substantially inverted. The solid Democratic South turned deeply red. The Party of Lincoln devolved into the anti-democracy Party of Trump. The sort of people who once warned about commies in woodpiles pose with Russian agents at NRA conferences, reveal state secrets to Russians inside the Oval Office, and meet with Russian officials in Moscow over the Fourth of July. A few decades ago, the optics of that would have made Republicans’ skins jump off their bodies and run away.

Should Republicans retake control of Congress in 2022, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent, they will hold up additional aid to Ukraine’s defenders and let Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s invaders take the country:

As of now, Senate Republicans appear supportive of the Biden administration’s most recent request, for $12 billion to be added to a continuing resolution funding the government through September. But if Republicans were to win the House (let alone the Senate), that could change everything.

“I think there’s a real risk that the continuing resolution will be the last time we supply funding to Ukraine,” Murphy said, noting that this is more of a threat in the House, because its members are more beholden to Trump.

Trump himself has been all over the place on the topic. Sometimes he attacks the idea of sending aid. Other times he takes credit for sending aid that Ukraine has used successfully against Russia. But his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin seems undimmed.

“Trump always talks out of both sides of his mouth,” Murphy said. “But his lieutenants in charge of disseminating the message online are kicking the crap out of Ukraine aid.”

Defense News backs up Murphy’s concerns, reporting that “The House’s No. 2 and 3 Republican leaders — Minority Whip Steve Scalise and conference chair Elise Stefanik — wouldn’t commit to their conference keeping the aid flowing should Republicans take control of the House in January, even though they both cast votes in favor of Ukraine aid in the past.”

The GOP’s growing MAGA wing stands with their Putin fanboy, the former president:

Much GOP rhetoric on this is couched in fiscal terms, saying we shouldn’t spend so much on Ukraine when needs are unmet at home. Traditional conservative groups such as Heritage Action for America have urged Republicans to vote against Ukraine aid packages, and 57 Republicans in the House voted no in May on a $40 billion aid package.

But some of the most direct pledges to cut off aid come from far-right Trumpists such as Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who are forthright about their sympathies. As Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) once said, “Ukraine is not our ally. Russia is not our enemy.”

Fox News’ top anchor, Tucker Carlson, is shilling for Russia.

All this raises the question of whether the Trumpist nationalist takeover of much of the GOP will create a kind of expanded Putinist axis in the House. As political scientist Francis Fukuyama recently noted, Western democracies are seeing the development of domestic political movements that sync up globally with what you might call a growing right wing authoritarian Internationale.

This Internationale, as Fukuyama observed, is aligned to one degree or another with leaders such as Viktor Orban in Hungary, Éric Zemmour and Marine Le Pen in France and Putin in Russia. And of course there’s Trump.

There was a time in this country when conservatives frowned on that sort of thing. Before demographic change threatened their grip on power and to hold onto it they sold their souls to an amoral con man.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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

The special master ain’t buying it

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too”

It wasn’t a good day for the Trump team:

A federal judge on Tuesday expressed skepticism about an attempt by former President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers to once again skirt the issue of whether Mr. Trump had declassified some of the highly sensitive records seized from his Florida estate by the F.B.I. last month.

The statements by the judge, Raymond J. Dearie, who is acting as a special master reviewing the seized materials, were an early indication that he may not be entirely sympathetic to the former president’s attempts to bog down his evaluation with time-consuming questions over the classification status of some of the documents.

Days after the extraordinary search of Mr. Trump’s estate, Mar-a-Lago, the former president made public statements claiming that he had in fact declassified some of the seized records, suggesting that the Justice Department had no case against him for illegally retaining sensitive government material. But neither he nor his lawyers have ever made those same assertions in court — or in court papers — where they could face penalties for lying.

Instead, they have danced a fine line between suggesting that, as president, Mr. Trump had the authority to declassify the documents, while remaining silent on the issue of what he actually did — or did not do. At the same time, Mr. Trump’s lawyers have pursued another line of argument, telling Judge Dearie that he should not simply take the Justice Department’s word that some of the seized records are classified, as prosecutors claim.

At his first hearing as special master, Judge Dearie seemed to cut through this confusing web, telling Mr. Trump’s lawyers in direct terms that he was likely to deem the documents classified — unless they offered evidence to the contrary.

That prompted one of the lawyers, James Trusty, to say that Mr. Trump’s legal team might in the future offer that sort of evidence — in witness statements, for example — but that to do so now would telegraph its legal strategy to the government.

While Judge Dearie was open to the notion that Mr. Trump’s lawyers might at some point mount a declassification defense, he seemed displeased that they were casting doubt on the government’s assertions about the classification status of the documents without backing up their claims with evidence.

“My view is, you can’t have your cake and eat it too,” Judge Dearie said.

They kept saying that they might need to use the de-classification issue in case of an indictment so they didn’t want to give away their strategy. This might make sense if their client hadn’t stolen super top secret documents which is making a lot of people very nervous. He is, after all, notoriously loose lipped and also corrupt and now desperate.

He wants his lawyers to see the classified documents so they can leak lies about them suggesting that they weren’t really important and had no impact on national security. This has to be their main goal. After all, this case isn’t really about classified documents. It’s about the Espionage Act and obstruction, neither of which turns on whether the docs are classified or not. They think they can finesse the latter because he already did it in the Mueller case. They figure they won’t be prosecuted for a disagreement on a “storage issue.” But those classified documents show him being reckless and irresponsible at the least — and committing espionage at its worst. We don’t know what Trump knows about them but the lawyers clearly don’t know what’s in them either. And I’m fairly confident they don’t trust Trump on this issue if he says there’s nothing to worry about.

Dearie said revealing the documents to the lawyers would not just turn on whether they were classified or not. Seeing them would turn on a “need to know” basis — even he might not need to know in order to resolve the issues the Trump lawyers have raised. It will be interesting to see what he meant by that. We should know fairly soon he doesn’t seem inclined to dawdle on this case. Stay tuned.

Revenge politics

It hurts when your friends turn on you

Manchin haz a sad:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) condemned what he described as “revenge politics” as many Republicans have resisted his efforts to speed up the approval process for energy projects. 

“It’s like the revenge politics, basically revenge towards one person: me. And I’m thinking, ‘this is not about me,’ ” he told reporters on Tuesday.

“I’m hearing that the Republican leadership is upset and they’re saying ‘we’re not going to give a victory to Joe Manchin’ — Joe Manchin’s not looking for a victory,” he added. “We’ve got a good piece of legislation that’s extremely balanced and I think it’ll prove itself in time. The bottom line is, how much suffering and how much pain do you want to inflict on the American people for the time.”

Republicans, along with Manchin, have long complained that the approval process for energy and infrastructure projects — known as permitting — has been too lengthy and stalled important projects. 

When he agreed to pass the Democrats’ climate and tax bill, Manchin struck a deal with Democratic leadership to also pass permitting reforms. 

But, as he has tried to push a package of changes through, Manchin has met Republican obstacles, as some members feel slighted over the West Virginia Democrat’s passage of the climate bill. 

Republicans have felt spurned after Manchin announced his support for the Democratic bill hours after a bipartisan chips and science bill passed the Senate. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had previously threatened that bill’s passage if Democrats pursued their bill. 

How shocking that Republicans would wreak revenge on Manchin for failing to destroy the Democratic agenda. Who does he think he is?

Some liberals are balking at the Manchin deal too, but because they say this is skirting some environmental regulations. But the Republicans are just out for Manchin’s blood. And his feelings are hurt.

DeSantis’s coyotes may be in trouble

And who knows? Maybe he is too.

There was supposed to be another cutsie stunt flight from San Antonio to Delaware where Biden lives. The last I heard the flight was canceled at the last minute. Perhaps this is why.

Josh Marshall is a sleuth and loves to investigate stuff like this. Here are his thoughts on the DeSantis trafficking stunt. Such an interesting take. Just what the hell went on with this anyway?

I’ve said a few times that the consistent testimony of all those Venezuelan migrants describes an operation that is simply not a government operation, not an operation managed by government employees: people with business cards with only a first name, fabricated government brochures, contract quotas, all the rest. Governments and government workers can act with horrible callousness and brutality. But they do so in certain formal and bureaucratic ways. These were clearly not government employees. And on this there are actually some clues in DeSantis’ public statements.

As we’ve noted, one of the abiding mysteries is the most obvious one: why was Florida transporting migrants from Texas to Massachusetts? When pressed on this point DeSantis has argued that he’s simply being proactive, preempting migrants who might go to Florida while they’re still in Texas. Let’s set aside for the moment whether that actually makes any sense. Let’s focus on this comment from Friday because his explaining has some clues about who ran this operation.

“So they’ve been in Texas, identifying people that are trying to come to Florida, and then offering them free transportation to sanctuary jurisdictions … We have people on the ground (in Texas) — and it’s pretty consistent: about 40% mentioned Florida — and so what we’re trying to do is profile who do you think is going to try to get to Florida. So that’s how you’re doing it. They’re not told that they’re going to stay in Florida. They’re told that their ultimate destination, in this case, was what was up in Massachusetts and with Martha’s Vineyard.”

So, according to DeSantis, Florida has “people” in Texas who are essentially polling migrants to see the percentage who want to come to Florida. Who are these “people”? DeSantis has refused to say. Based on their investigations, DeSantis’ “people” are then profiling migrants to decide who is likely to try to get to Florida and then jump in to offer them transportation to other places. Who? How many? Are these state employees? Where does the money for this come from?

During the same event, when asked about whether the migrants were deceived, DeSantis dropped another clue: “The folks that are contracted, not only do they give him a release form to sign, they actually give them a packet, and in that packet included a map of Martha’s Vineyard.”

Now we’re getting somewhere: “The folks that are contracted.” So they’re not government employees. The Florida legislature appropriated $12 million for transporting migrants out of Florida to blue states and cities. The appropriation said explicitly that it had to be removing immigrants from Florida — not from Texas. If you go by DeSantis’s statements his administration has contracted with private individuals, an organization or organizations in Texas to survey and surveil what we might call Florida-curious migrants in Texas. They are then paid to coax them on to planes destined to places like Martha’s Vineyard. This is almost certainly where “Perla” comes from. According to DeSantis, the state of Florida contracted with her or her organization to do this work in Texas. A private individual? A political organization? Who knows? But that’s certainly worth finding out.

DeSantis’s eventual defense might be that he or the state of Florida didn’t tell these contractors to lie to the immigrants or prepare fabricated government brochures. They did that on their own. And that’s actually quite possible. But that’s the kind of thing that happens when you hire randos or anti-immigration activists to fill migrant quotas for plane flights.

Now let’s look at a different point.

The fact that the state of Florida is doing this work in Texas strongly suggests that this is not so much Florida hiring contractors to do work for the state of Florida as funding people who were perhaps already doing it or interested in doing it.

Why do I say this? Consider this.

The idea that Florida is trying to interdict Florida-curious migrants while they’re in Texas is absurd on its face. These transports are not meant to meaningfully reduce the number of asylum-seeking migrants in a particular state. A million migrants have been allowed into the country while awaiting asylum hearings since January 2021. If you’re chartering two jets to take 40 at a time to Massachusetts you’re going to be chartering quite a few jets before you make a dent in that number. This is true even for states like Texas which have been busing migrants at scale. The governors in question have actually been pretty clear about this. The buses and plans are meant to illustrate the migration pressure on border states and put pressure onto President Biden. Since that’s the aim, the idea you’d be hunting for Florida-curious migrants in Texas to ship them off before they go to Florida doesn’t really add up. Can it really be true that there aren’t a few dozen migrants in Florida waiting on asylum hearings?

Again, none of that makes sense. And that’s a clue.

Late Update: To follow up in the points above, DeSantis appeared last night on Hannity and referred to “the vendor that is doing this for Florida.”

That unctuous creep….

The New Abolitionists

Men who are working to end all abortion, in all cases

I’m posting this very long article in its entirety but it’s really important. CNN did a deep investigation into the new anti-abortion movement to ban abortion in all cases —- even the life of the mother. They also see abortion as homicide and think women should be prosecuted for having one. This is where the logic of their arguments inevitably leads.

A businessman turned state representative from rural Oil City, Louisiana, and a Baptist pastor banded together earlier this year on a radical mission.

They were adamant that a woman who receives an abortion should receive the same criminal consequences as one who drowns her baby.

Under a bill they promoted, pregnant people could face murder charges even if they were raped or doctors determined the procedure was needed to save their own life. Doctors who attempted to help patients conceive through in-vitro fertilization, a fertility treatment used by millions of Americans, could also be locked up for destroying embryos, and certain contraception such as Plan B would be banned.

“The taking of a life is murder, and it is illegal,” state Rep. Danny McCormick told a committee of state lawmakers who considered the bill in May, right after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked.

“No compromises, no more waiting,” Brian Gunter, the pastor who suggested McCormick be the one to introduce the legislation, told the committee.

Louisiana State Rep. Danny McCormick, pastor Brian Gunter and attorney Bradley PiercePhoto by: right to left

Only four people spoke against the bill during the committee meeting— all women. They pleaded with the lawmakers to grasp the gravity of the proposed restrictions, which went farther than any state abortion law currently on the books, and warned of unintended consequences.

“We need to take a deep breath,” said Melissa Flournoy, a former state representative who runs the progressive advocacy group 10,000 Women Louisiana. She said the bill would only punish women and that there wasn’t enough responsibility being placed on men.

But in the end, only one man and one woman, an Independent and a Democrat, voted against it in committee. Seven men on the committee, all Republicans, voted in favor of the bill, moving it one step closer to becoming law.

Men at the helm

A faction of self-proclaimed “abolitionists” are seeking to make abortion laws more restrictive and the consequences of having the procedure more punitive than ever before.

Emboldened by the overturning of Roe v. Wade, they say they will not be satisfied until fetuses are given the same protections as all US citizens — meaning that if abortion is illegal, then criminal statutes should be applied accordingly. While major national anti-abortion groups say they do not support criminalizing women, the idea is gaining traction with certain conservative lawmakers. And the activists and politicians leading the charge are nearly always men, CNN found.

This year, three male lawmakers from Indiana attempted to wipe out existing abortion regulations and change the state’s criminal statutes to apply at the time of fertilization. In Texas, five male lawmakers authored a bill last year that would have made getting an abortion punishable by the death penalty if it had gone into law. A state representative in Arizona introduced legislation that included homicide charges — saying in a Facebook video that anyone who undergoes an abortion deserves to “spend some time” in the Arizona “penal system.” And a male Kansas lawmaker proposed a bill that would amend the state’s constitution to allow abortion laws to pass without an exception for the life of the mother.

While most in the anti-abortion movement believe that human life begins at conception, “abolitionists” are particularly uncompromising in how they act on their beliefs — comparing abortion to the Holocaust and using inflammatory terms such as “slaughter” and “murder” to describe a medical procedure that most Americans believe should be legal in all or most cases.

Arizona state Rep. Walt Blackman said those who receive abortions deserve to “spend some time” in the state’s “penal system.”

Bradley Pierce, the attorney who helped draft the Louisiana bill, said his organization has been involved with many of the “abolition” bills that have been introduced in more than a dozen states. All of this proposed legislation would make it possible for women seeking abortions to face criminal charges.

An overwhelming majority of Americans said in a Pew Research Center poll they don’t believe men should have a greater say on abortion policy, but that is what is happening. Experts told CNN that the male dominance fits within the anti-abortion movement’s current framing as being focused on “fetal personhood” and “fetal rights” as opposed to maternal rights.

Eric Swank, an Arizona State University professor who has studied gender differences in anti-abortion activists, said his research found that while men aren’t necessarily more likely to consider themselves to be “pro-life” than women, they “are more willing to take the adamant stance of no abortion under any conditions.”

The most restrictive bills, which don’t include explicit “life of the mother” exceptions and would charge those who receive abortions with homicide, have failed to make it to the full vote needed for passage. But others that prohibit abortions even in cases of rape and incest have taken hold in around a dozen states, including Missouri, Alabama and Tennessee, according to Guttmacher Institute.

Those laws, CNN found, were also overwhelmingly passed into law by male legislators. While female Republicans almost always voted in favor of the legislation, gender imbalances within state legislatures, as well as the fact that female lawmakers were more likely to be Democrats, fueled the voting gap. And male Democratic lawmakers were far more likely than female Democrats to cross the aisle to vote in favor of the abortion bans, according to CNN’s analysis.

The Texas Heartbeat Act, for example, outlawed nearly all abortions in the state when it criminalized the procedure as soon as a heartbeat could be detected — as early as six weeks of pregnancy. While men made up nearly three quarters of the 177 lawmakers who voted, nearly 90% of those who voted in favor of the bill were men.

Well, sure. They know best. And they know that women need to be guided by their superior knowledge of pregnancy and childbirth and all the moral questions that go with it.

But this is the one that gets to me. I’ve written before about the “right to life” types who extol women who refuse to get abortions even when they know it will kill them. It’s a whole sub-genre of anti-choice literature. It is, of course, any woman’s choice, but these people make it quite clear they believe there is no choice:

Encouraging ‘sacrificial behavior’

Scott Herndon, a bearded Idaho man and father of eight, once believed abortion was an issue that should be discussed “between a woman and her physician.”

He remembers watching the classic 80s movie, “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” and being relatively ambivalent about the fact that one of the characters received an abortion. He didn’t become a Christian until 1996, the same year he drove his pregnant girlfriend along the streets of San Francisco on his motorcycle. The pregnancy was unexpected, but that life development, along with a newfound religious practice, led Herndon to spend a lot of thinking about “the miraculous nature of life.” Over the years he began to feel compelled to get involved with the anti-abortion movement.

His daughter is now 25, and he and his wife went on to have seven more children. A longtime member of the Idaho Republicans, he told CNN he decided to run for state Senate this year with a mission of fighting government encroachment. Herndon, who touts his competitive shooting experience in high school and college, is a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms and strongly opposes vaccine mandates. He describes himself as a “true family-values conservative,” noting that his sons help him with his home-building business while his five daughters live on the family farm, milking cows, and raising chickens and pigs.

One of his longterm goals if elected, he said, is to abolish abortion in the state.

“Success depends on changing hearts and minds,” he said. “I liken the effort to Martin Luther King Jr.’s civil rights movement for desegregation and equal treatment of African Americans.”

This comparison is one that abortion rights activists take serious issue with. “Let’s be clear: appropriating the word ‘abolition’ is particularly contemptuous,” a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Federation of America said in a statement to CNN. “That word is a symbol of freedom and this group wants to put people behind bars for exercising their right to bodily autonomy.”

Abortion rights demonstrators gathered outside the US Supreme Court after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Herndon, however, says women should embrace their instinctual “sacrificial behavior.”

“If a mother is in a life raft with a child and there’s only enough food and water to save one, I’m guessing most mothers would not throw their child overboard and drown them,” he said in an interview with CNN when asked about medical circumstances where a doctor may deem an abortion necessary to save a woman’s life, such as a cancer diagnosis that requires aggressive treatment.

As part of their efforts to abolish abortion, which is generally defined as the termination of a pregnancy, Herndon and others in the anti-abortion movement are attempting to redefine the term to the “intentional killing” of a fetus.

That way, they claim, the lives of mothers could still be saved as long as doctors make an equal attempt to save the fetus.

Gunter, meanwhile, said he disagrees with the medical establishment and does not believe abortion is ever medically necessary.

Doctors point to a variety of medical situations where an abortion may be needed to protect a pregnant person’s life.

Medical and legal experts told CNN this is a dangerous and inaccurate claim, saying there are plenty of situations that could result in women dying or being put through unnecessary bodily harm if explicit exceptions for the health and life of the mother are not included in the laws regulating abortion.

Louise King, a gynecologic surgeon and professor at Harvard Medical School, said the claims are “disingenuous at best and intentional dissemination of misinformation at worst” and questioned why they “can’t simply trust medical professionals to do their job.”

“Most of these ‘arguments’ are attempts to impose a minority religious view on the majority of our citizens,” she said. “This is not a matter of belief or opinion. This is a highly inappropriate way to use our legislative system.”

An immediate abortion may be needed if a pregnant person’s water breaks before 20 weeks, King said, or when patients have pre-existing conditions that could lead to heart or liver failure or they need aggressive treatment for a disease like cancer that would severely harm — if not destroy — the fetus. An “equal attempt to save the fetus” would require putting the life of the pregnant person at risk,” she said, adding that it is also not the well established standard of care.

Doctors also note that abortion bans take away a patient’s ability to make decisions about their own health and pregnancy, sometimes forcing them to endure pregnancies and deliveries of fetuses that will not survive.

Stories like this are already making headlines as laws become increasingly restrictive. In some cases, doctors are already afraid to perform abortions in cases where a mother’s health is at risk, even with so called “life of the mother” exceptions in place. In Texas, one woman learned that her baby had heart, lung, brain, kidney and genetic defects and would either be stillborn or die within minutes of birth. At the same time, doctors warned her that carrying the baby to term threatened her own life, but she says she was still refused an abortion by doctors who said it could run afoul of the state’s strict six-week abortion ban. She ultimately drove 10 hours to a New Mexico abortion clinic to undergo the procedure. “I’m still so angry and hurt about it that I can hardly see straight,” she wrote on Facebook the next day.

Another Texas woman spoke out about being forced to carry her dead fetus for weeks after suffering a miscarriage. In Louisiana, a woman carrying a fetus without a skull was reportedly not allowed to get an abortion, while another was reportedly denied an abortion and instead forced into hours of labor when her water broke at 16 weeks, long before the fetus was viable.

Idaho State Senate candidate Scott Herndon supports a total abortion ban in the state.

Herndon agreed that the health of the pregnant woman should be considered, but he worries that the medical community automatically prioritizes the mother’s life and does not treat the fetus as a person until birth, saying this needs to change. And he said that while locking up women is not his objective, it only makes sense for homicide charges to apply to a woman who chooses to undergo an abortion if fetuses are given equal protections under the law.

As chair of his county’s Republican Party, he attended the Idaho Republican convention in July and proposed an official change to the party platform in support of an amendment to the state constitution that would “strengthen” the rights of fetuses.

After it easily passed the vote, a fellow Republican delegate took the floor with a proposal that was not met with the same support. She wanted to make sure an exception was included in the party platform for abortions needed for a woman’s physical and mental health, Herndon recounted.

A heated debate ensued, with Herndon describing the proposal as not carefully crafted and unnecessary. The proposal was ultimately rejected by a margin of nearly 3 to 1, according to news reports. The Idaho Republican Party did not respond to requests for comment.

Please go to page 2 for the rest:

Sure, the world respected us …

Trump and the Middle East

According to the new Glasser and Baker book, Trump’s relationships in the Middle East were just … oy:

The book details how normalization deals were made possible thanks to personal relationships Kushner forged with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and then-crown prince and de facto leader of the United Arab Emirates Mohammad bin Zayed. The two met with Kushner in 2016 at the suggestion of Tom Barrack, a Lebanese American investor who is now under indictment for illegal foreign lobbying.

Even some Republicans were disturbed by the degree to which non-government officials could influence foreign policy in the Trump White House, according to Baker and Glasser. They write that former Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, who was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was “dazzled” when he was called to Trump Tower in New York to interview for secretary of state and found Trump conferring with GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson.

Adelson, who was the largest single donor for Trump in the presidential election, demanded that Trump announce the relocation of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on the first day of his presidency, Corker recalled in an interview with the authors. “Trump was eager to oblige,” said the former Republican senator, who later learned that Trump “had to be talked out of literally announcing the embassy move in the first hours of the presidency.”

A year later, weeks after his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Trump offered Jordanian King Abdullah II control of the West Bank, the book reveals. “Abdullah, we have got a great deal for you,” Trump reportedly told the king in a quick phone call while he was meeting with then-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2018. “We are going to give you the West Bank.” Trump then hung up the phone, the authors write. 

The Palestinian Authority had cut off ties with the Trump administration after the embassy relocation was announced in December 2017. A phone call between Trump and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas abruptly ended after a long rant on the day before Trump made the decision public.   

“I thought I was having a heart attack,” Abdullah told an American friend in 2018.  “I couldn’t breathe. I was bent doubled-over.” Taking possession of the occupied Palestinian territories would have led to the collapse of the Hashemite monarchy. 

He was going to give him the West Bank? What the hell?

And it appears that it was Trump who was “in love” with old Vlad. Vlad was not impressed:

The authors report that Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared “unimpressed” with Trump’s popularity in Israel after the former president bragged during a 2019 meeting about the Israeli government’s intention to build a new settlement in the Golan Heights and call it “Trump Heights” in honor of his decision to recognize Israel’s control over the Golan.

“Maybe they should just name Israel after you, Donald,” Putin told Trump in the conversation that took place during the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, their first one-on-one meeting since the release of the Mueller report on the Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Putin was also popular in Israel at the time, maintaining close ties with then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

“For all of Trump’s schoolboy crush on Putin, aides could not help noticing that it did not appear reciprocated,” Baker and Glasser write. “He gave the impression to American aides watching their interaction that he couldn’t care less about winning Trump over.”

Well,he didn’t need to win him over, did he? Trump clearly loved him even more than he loved Kim Jong Un. And was willing to do whatever he wanted to see it reciprocated.

We are so lucky we survived this moron.

By the way, Trump pal Tom Barrack went on trial this week:

The trial of Thomas J. Barrack Jr., an informal adviser to former President Donald J. Trump accused of acting as an unregistered agent of the United Arab Emirates, could shed light on how foreign governments jockeyed for access to the Trump administration — efforts that may have created lucrative opportunities for businessmen close to the White House.

Jury selection for the trial, which is expected to last into October, began Monday in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn. Prosecutors have accused Mr. Barrack — a Los Angeles-based private-equity investor — of using his sway with Mr. Trump to advance the interests of the Emiratis and of serving as a secret back channel for communications without disclosing his efforts to the attorney general, as the government contends he should have.

While Mr. Barrack served the Emirati government, prosecutors say, he was also seeking money from the rulers for investment funds, including one that would support projects to boost Mr. Trump’s agenda and benefit from his policies.

In 2019, prosecutors say, Mr. Barrack repeatedly lied to the F.B.I. about his activities.

Imagine that …

When you really can’t stand your ex

Ex-President, that is

I’ve been saying that Trump is the gift that keeps on giving for Democratic electoral hopes for quite some time. If he had shut his pie hole for a few months he probably would have helped bot the GOP and his own standing. But he can’t do that:

The revived political hopes of Democrats heading into the midterm election are due, in no small part, to this fundamental political reality: Donald Trump is very, very unpopular.

While Trump never really left the political stage — thanks to his ongoing attempts to dispute the 2020 election — his profile has increased as of late in the wake of the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago home that turned up classified documents from when he left the White House in 2021.

That is a very bad thing for Republicans. While Trump remains extremely popular among the Republican base, he is decidedly unpopular among the general electorate.

The latest NBC News poll tells the story. Just 34% of registered voters nationally said they had a positive view of Trump, while 54% said they had a negative view. But even those topline numbers gloss over how unpopular the former President actually is. While 1 in 5 voters said they felt “very positive” about him, almost half (46%) said they felt “very negative” — a massive disparity. (By comparison, 42% of voters viewed President Joe Biden positively, while 47% viewed him negatively.)

And NBC’s results are far from the only poll showing that reality for Republicans. A Quinnipiac University poll from August echoed the NBC results, with 34% of registered voters viewing Trump favorably and 57% viewing him unfavorably.

What’s interesting about those numbers is that they are largely unchanged from where Trump stood with the public when he left office. For example, a Gallup poll conducted in January 2021 showed that 34% of Americans approved of Trump’s job performance, while 62% disapproved. (The poll was in the field during the January 6 riot at the US Capitol.)

Usually, presidents’ poll numbers begin to improve once they leave office — as people tend to remember the good things about their tenure and forget the bad stuff as time passes. That hasn’t happened for Trump, for two big reasons:

1) He’s never really stepped off the national stage.

2) January 6 was such a cataclysm that people haven’t forgotten it.

Given Trump’s poor polling numbers, the best thing for his party — if he was concerned, first and foremost, about his party — would be for him to lay low over the next seven weeks. That would give Republicans their best possible chance to frame the midterms as a pure referendum on Biden and the Democrats who control the House and Senate, rather than a choice between Biden and Trump.

Trump’s approval rating is as low as it was on January 7th. That’s pretty amazing. If it wasn’t such a horrible train wreck for the country and the world I might even enjoy the cage match that’s coming between Trump and his cult and the rest of the GOP field. With those approval numbers it’s almost inevitable that he will garner some primary opponents.

Update:

The share of Republicans who choose loyalty to former President Donald Trump over the Republican Party has dropped to its lowest level since the NBC News poll began asking about it, according to new numbers from the survey.

Just 33% of registered Republican voters in the new poll view themselves more a “supporter of Donald Trump” over the Republican Party. By comparison, 58% say they view themselves as a “supporter of the Republican Party.” Just 3% say both and 4% say neither.

Keep in mind that that 33% has veto power over the GOP. They are probably stuck with him whether they like it or not. That doesn’t mean ambitious GOPers won’t try to usurp him anyway.

Trump in a corner

Still gaming the system

The investigation into Donald Trump’s theft of government documents may yet evade his attempts to stall it indefinitely (or at least until Republicans retake the House), but that’s not certain. It’s Maggie Haberman, but here’s what’s news:

A onetime White House lawyer under President Donald J. Trump warned him late last year that Mr. Trump could face legal liability if he did not return government materials he had taken with him when he left office, three people familiar with the matter said.

The lawyer, Eric Herschmann, sought to impress upon Mr. Trump the seriousness of the issue and the potential for investigations and legal exposure if he did not return the documents, particularly any classified material, the people said.

The account of the conversation is the latest evidence that Mr. Trump had been informed of the legal perils of holding onto material that is now at the heart of a Justice Department criminal investigation into his handling of the documents and the possibility that he or his aides engaged in obstruction.

In January, not long after the discussion with Mr. Herschmann, Mr. Trump turned over to the National Archives 15 boxes of material he had taken with him from the White House. Those boxes turned out to contain 184 classified documents, the Justice Department has said.

It’s not likely the DOJ would indict Trump over the documents he gave back. Trump kept others, as the ubiquitous photo from the FBI’s August search of Mar-a-Lago demonstrates. Since then, he’s tried to delay with his insistence on a special master (Raymond Dearie) to settle what needs no settling: executive privilege (he has not claimed) does not extend to seized national defense information (NDI) documents that by definition are not his. Nevertheless, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon acceded to Trump’s demand. Trump’s team refuses to itemize documents he does claim and which he allegedly declassified.

Marcy Wheeler tweets:

People are, universally, misunderstanding why Trump refuses to tell Dearie what docs he declassified.

If they provided a list of, say, 3 docs he declassified, it would be a confession that he willfully retained 100 classified docs. 

It’s not so much they’re afraid to lie.

It’s that they need to sustain uncertainty about declassification until such time that someone — Cannon, presumably, can say, “well stupid idea, but not unreasonable for you to leave with the crown jewels.” 

The only way to stave off indictment is to make it harder for prosecutors to convince a jury (the jury gets to decide these things, not Aileen Cannon, not even Avril Haines) that these docs are NDI.

The only way to do that is to sustain uncertainty. 

One other thing to keep in mind: As I laid out here, Cannon edited the boilerplate Special Master language to give herself authority to fire Dearie for reasons OTHER than it’s taking too long. emptywheel.net/2022/09/16/ail…

Aileen Cannon’s Special Master Is Designed to Preempt Decisions Reserved for a Jury – emptywheel A number of details about Judge Aileen Cannon’s plans for a Special Master provide ways to pre-empt decisions a jury in a Trump trial would make.https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/09/16/aileen-cannons-special-master-is-designed-to-preempt-decisions-reserved-for-a-jury/

If Dearie thinks Cannon might fire him merely for being a good-faith jurist (she would!), then by forcing these issues out in the public early on, it nevertheless serves the purpose of revealing the game. 

And so it’s not so much we’ll get BRIEFING about where the 41(g) challenge should be.

It’ll become clear early in the process that such issues of law are not the point and were never the point. 

It’s infuriating to watch Trump game the legal system so shamelessly. But that is his game. He’s played it for decades.

Trump’s lawyers are not making arguments about law,” Wheeler adds. “Trump’s goal here is to sustain the conflict until such time as Jim Jordan can save him, and the two of them can resume their frontal assault on rule of law again.”

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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