Skip to content

Month: May 2023

Dark Brandon has a sense of humor

Enjoy

Steve Benen fills in the background:

If this subject sounds at all familiar, it’s not your imagination. In October 2019, while campaigning in Iowa, Biden was asked whether he might follow Gerald Ford’s example in pardoning Richard Nixon after Watergate, at a time when the Republican still faced possible prosecution. Biden said he would choose a different course.

“It wouldn’t unite the country,” Biden said, adding, “I think President Ford, God love him, he’s a good guy, I knew him pretty well. I think if he had to do it over again, he wouldn’t have done it.”

The topic returned to the fore in May 2020, when Biden joined Stacey Abrams for a virtual town hall-style event on MSNBC, and a voter, referencing the Ford/Nixon example, asked Biden whether he’d publicly commit to a more hands-off approach and leave such matters in the hands of prosecutors.

“Absolutely, yes,” the future president replied. “I commit.”

Of course, in 2019 and 2020, the prospect of Trump being indicted was entirely hypothetical. The Republican had not yet tried to overturn his election defeat, for example, and he hadn’t yet refused to return classified materials he improperly took to his glorified country club in Florida.

But in 2023, the question has become highly relevant. The former president has already been indicted once, and no one in either party would be especially surprised if more charges soon follow. Biden wouldn’t be able to pardon his predecessor in response to state charges — in New York and Georgia, for example — but the incumbent president would at least have the authority to intervene in the event of federal indictments.

Biden, however, has said he has no intention of doing so, and the fact that he literally laughed off a question about this yesterday suggested he hasn’t changed his mind.

It’s a safe bet the public would see plenty of commentary about how nice it would be for Biden to be magnanimous in the spirit of bipartisan comity, but by all appearances, if Trump is looking to his successor for a get-out-of-jail-free card, he should keep his expectations low.

I’m pretty sure Biden will pardon Trump when hell freezes over. But I’m also sure that DeSantis will do it and probably any other Republican as well, even the “good ones.” To bind up the nation’s wounds, dontcha know.

Did McCarthy renege on a backroom deal with the MAGA caucus?

Buckle up

From what I’ve read, the Rules Committee is considered the Speaker’s Committee. It is stacked with members of the speaker’s party and is considered to be a rubber stamp for anything he or she wants to bring to the floor. This is the case regardless of party. So this little mess is unusual:

Rep. Chip Roy accused House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Monday of cutting a deal that could complicate negotiators’ efforts to pass a bill to raise the US debt ceiling this week.

But McCarthy’s allies quickly refuted the Texas Republican, underscoring the tension ahead of a key meeting of the House Rules Committee on Tuesday – and putting new pressure on a conservative holdout, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who has yet to take a position on the plan.

Roy contended that McCarthy cut a hand-shake deal in January that all nine Republicans on the powerful panel must agree to move any legislation forward, otherwise bills could not be considered by the full House for majority approval. That would essentially doom the debt ceiling bill since Roy – who sits on the panel – and another conservative committee member are trying to stop the bill from advancing.

“A reminder that during Speaker negotiations to build the coalition, that it was explicit both that nothing would pass Rules Committee without AT LEAST 7 GOP votes – AND that the Committee would not allow reporting out rules without unanimous Republican votes,” Roy tweeted.

Senior GOP sources acknowledged that there was an agreement for seven Republican committee members to agree to move forward in order to advance a bill to the floor, but they flatly dispute that there was a deal for all nine to sign off for legislation to advance.

“I have not heard that before. If those conversations took place, the rest of the conference was unaware of them,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota. “And frankly, I doubt them.”

The dispute is significant because Roy sits on the committee – which is divided between nine Republicans and four Democrats – as does GOP Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina. Both men have emerged as leading foes of the bipartisan debt limit bill to avoid a June 5 default, arguing it does little to rein in government spending.

A third conservative who sits on the panel – Massie – has been mum about how he plans to handle the rule vote in committee. McCarthy agreed to name all three men to the panel as part of the promises he made during his hard-fought speaker’s victory – all to give more power to conservatives on committees, including on Rules, which is typically stacked with the speaker’s closest allies.

If Massie were to join Roy and Norman and vote against the rule at Tuesday’s meeting, he could effectively stall the measure in committee.

But in January, Massie told CNN he was reluctant to vote against rules to stop bills in their tracks.

“I would be reluctant to try to use the rules committee to achieve a legislative outcome, particularly if it doesn’t represent a large majority of our caucus,” Massie said at the time. “So I don’t ever intend to use my position on there to like, hold somebody hostage – or hold legislation hostage.”

Democrats on the committee may also vote for the rule, sources told CNN, and that would ensure it has the votes to advance to the floor. But if Massie were to oppose the rule, only six Republicans would be in favor of it, complicating McCarthy’s efforts to bring the plan to the floor since he previously agreed to only take up bills with the backing of seven committee Republicans.

Massie’s office declined to comment on how he may vote on Tuesday, and neither Roy nor the speaker’s office responded to requests for comments on the Texan’s assertion.

But Republicans close to McCarthy refuted the notion that bills could only advance with unanimous GOP support in the committee.

“I’m a rules guy,” Johnson said. “And when I checked, there wasn’t a rule that something has to come out of Rules Committee unanimously. Now Chip is a rules guy too. So I think he’s going to understand that, that this is a majoritarian institution, and that ultimately, we’re going to serve Americans the best way that the majority of us know how – that’s going to be to pass this bill.”

Other McCarthy allies agreed.

“I don’t know what Speaker McCarthy agreed to, but that has not been something that any of us were familiar with,” Rep. Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma said. “I think that comment was that it had to be unanimous to come out of the Rules Committee to go to the floor is the tweet that I read. And I think that is inaccurate, at best, but I don’t know because I wasn’t in the room. I don’t know how you would have something like that functionally work.”

Massie has now said that he will vote the bill out so that seems secure for the moment. But it doesn’t account for the handshake deal Roy and his allies say McCarthy made to require that all Republicans vote any bills out of the Committee.


I think there’s going to be a motion to vacate. These wingnuts are working themselves up into a frenzy. And McCarthy doesn’t have much room to maneuver. The question is whether they raise it before or after the vote.

There’s a lot of angst in the caucus. Here’s the allegedly “normal” Republican, much beloved by the whole Village press:


Stay tuned.

They think Trump’s a winner because he told them he is

The polls are all going in the wrong direction for DeSantis:

Nearly half (45%) of Republican voters – including those who lean toward the GOP – say Trump is definitely the strongest candidate to beat President Joe Biden in 2024, and another 18% think he is probably the strongest candidate. Just one-third of GOP voters say another Republican would definitely (13%) or probably (19%) be a stronger candidate than Trump.

Among voters who name Trump as their top-of-mind preference for the GOP presidential nomination, 74% say he is definitely the strongest candidate the party can put up against Biden and 21% say he probably is. Among those who express support for another candidate or have no choice at this stage, nearly 4 in 10 still feel Trump is either definitely (23%) or probably (16%) the strongest nominee the GOP can field. Only 22% of this group says the strongest Republican contender would definitely be someone other than Trump and 33% say it would probably be another candidate.

“If your main argument to Republican voters is that Trump wouldn’t be the party’s strongest nominee, you’ve got a heck of a challenge ahead of you,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.  “There’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem with assessing electability. As we found in our polling during the 2020 Democratic primaries, if voters back a candidate based on issues or character they also tend to feel that candidate is the most electable. However, this still underscores the larger point in this poll. If your message to voters who support Trump is he cannot win, you are going to hit a brick wall. Even if you eat into the group who thinks he is only ‘probably’ the strongest candidate, you may still not capture enough of the Republican electorate to overcome Trump’s hardcore base support.”

 When asked without any prompting whom they would like to see as the Republican nominee for president in 2024, 43% of GOP-aligned and leaning voters name Trump. This is similar to his 41% support level in March and up from prior polls (33% in February and 26% last December). DeSantis is named by just 19%, which marks a steady decline from 39% in December (including 33% in February and 27% in March). No other candidate breaks out of the single-digits as a top-of-mind preference for GOP voters, which has been the case since Monmouth started polling the 2024 contest late last year. Even in a hypothetical 4-person contest with named candidates, Trump (56%) and DeSantis (25%) command the lion’s share of support. The other specified candidates in this scenario, former Vice President Mike Pence and former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, each muster just 7% support.

In a hypothetical head-to-head contest between just the top two contenders, 56% of GOP voters would choose Trump for the party’s nomination and 35% would pick DeSantis. Back in February, DeSantis (53%) had more support than Trump (40%). That shifted to an evenly divided contest in March (47% Trump and 46% DeSantis). Currently, Trump now holds an advantage in practically every Republican voting bloc, with the noticeable exception of college graduates. Three months ago, DeSantis led among major demographic groups within the party.

Trump convinced them that he actually won 2020 in a landslide. Why wouldn’t they think he’s the most likely to win again? And since the cowardly clown car that’s running against him won’t say any different they have no reason to question their logic. It’s pathetic.

Ooops

Looks like Trump misled his lawyer. Again.

Trump told Corcoran not to look in his office:

Donald Trump’s lawyer tasked with searching for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after the justice department issued a subpoena told associates that he was waved off from searching the former president’s office, where the FBI later found the most sensitive materials anywhere on the property.

The lawyer, Evan Corcoran, recounted that several Trump aides had told him to search the storage room because that was where all the materials that had been brought from the White House at the end of Trump’s presidency ended up being deposited.

Corcoran found 38 classified documents in the storage room. He then asked whether he should search anywhere else but was steered away, he told associates. Corcoran never searched Trump’s office and told prosecutors that the 38 papers were the extent of the material at Mar-a-Lago.

The assertion that there were no classified documents in Trump’s office or elsewhere proved to be wrong when the FBI retrieved 101 classified documents months afterwards, including from the office, which was found to be where the most highly classified documents had been located.

Corcoran’s previously unreported account, as relayed to the Guardian by two people familiar with the matter, suggests he was materially misled as the special counsel Jack Smith examines whether his incomplete search was actually a ploy by Trump to retain classified documents.

It was not clear who waved off Corcoran from searching elsewhere at Mar-a-Lago – whether it was Trump himself or Trump employees who advised him to look for classified documents in the storage room, according to an account of his testimony to the grand jury.

Corcoran did not respond to a request for comment.

A Trump spokesperson said: “This is completely false and rooted in pure fantasy. The real story is the illegal weaponization of the justice department and their witch-hunts targeted to influence an election in order to try and prevent President Trump from returning to the White House.”

The criminal investigation, which appears to be nearing its end, has recently focused on why the subpoena was not complied with, including whether Trump might have arranged for boxes of classified documents to be moved out of the storage room so he could retain them.

In particular, prosecutors have examined why Trump ordered his valet, Walt Nauta, to move certain boxes out of the storage room before and after the subpoena was issued – as Nauta later told the justice department – and crucially where the boxes might have been taken.

The movement of boxes has taken on added significance for prosecutors after they saw on surveillance tapes that boxes were returned to the storage room on 2 June 2022, the day before the justice department travelled to Mar-a-Lago to collect what Corcoran had found, the Washington Post reported.

It was also not clear when Corcoran was waved off from searching other parts of Mar-a-Lago; it could be notable if it came before the boxes were brought back to the storage room, as it would raise questions as to whether he was held off while classified documents were moved back.

The Guardian has previously reported that prosecutors determined Trump and Nauta knew when and where Corcoran intended to search because Corcoran needed Nauta to unlock the storage room, according to Corcoran’s roughly 50 pages of notes that were turned over to the grand jury in the case.

Corcoran also memorialized how he told Trump he could not retain any classified documents at Mar-a-Lago when Trump asked what he was allowed to keep, as well as when he took breaks during the search by walking out to the pool deck nearby, and therefore leaving the storage room unattended.

This is such a big no-no, clearly obstruction. Whether anyone will hold Trump responsible is yet to be decided but if this is true there is no doubt. None.

“People showed up who were not in anyone’s models”

Wisconsin Democrats shifted their strategy

Still image from Moneyball (2011).

The Little White Schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin is where Whigs, Free Soilers and Democrats met in 1854 to form the anti-slavery Republican Party. After its recent relocation, it’s been delisted by the National Register of Historic Places. Politico’s David Siders reports that it “now sits across from a vape shop, near a car dealership, a Culver’s restaurant and a sewage treatment plant.”

Hope this next makes you laugh out loud too.

In the wake of his party’s faltering in the spring elections, Timothy Bachleitner, chair of the Fond du Lac County, Wisc. GOP commented, “It kind of looks like a circus show now,” he said. “You might as well put the world’s largest yarn ball next to it, or cheese curd.”

Politico wonders if the April election of liberal Milwaukee County judge Janet Protasiewicz over conservative former state Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly “by a whopping 11 percentage points” suggests Wisconsin’s slide to the right has halted:

In the aftermath, even Republicans here are acknowledging that the state has now shifted leftward, and abortion has a lot to do with that. The end of Roe v. Wade last year effectively reinstated Wisconsin’s 19th-century abortion ban, which is already being challenged — and those challenges will likely be decided by the state Supreme Court. That’s why Protasiewicz campaigned heavily on protecting abortion rights, and the election turned almost entirely on the issue. Turnout was staggering. In 2015, in a similar spring election, a liberal state Supreme Court justice won reelection in a contest in which about 813,000 people voted. This year, the total number of voters who cast ballots in the Supreme Court race more than doubled to top 1.8 million.

Abortion drove that turnout. But in a 2023 spring election in which abortion was the marquee issue. That won’t be as true in 2024.

Still, at a Lincoln Day Dinner in Merrillan, Wis., a couple on their way in told Siders, “the Republican Party is dead.” Recovery will take a long time. “Republicans,” Chris Faeth said, “need to solve this abortion issue.”

“We got our butts kicked,” Rohn Bishop, Bachleitner’s predecessor as chair of the Fond du Lac County GOP and, now, mayor of the small city of Waupun, told me. “What the Republican base demands and what independent voters will accept are growing further apart.”

Bishop and I were eating lunch in a bar. The only way forward for the GOP in Wisconsin, joked a man drinking Jack and Coke beside us, might be to “kill the millennials.”

Those who read “Are progressives fighting the wrong war?” from yesterday will see why the WisDems’ nimbleness jumped out at me:

Up until just weeks before the April election, the state party had been operating on a traditional, lower turnout model — focusing its outreach on the most reliable voters likely to cast ballots in an off-year election. But volunteers kept running into something unexpected when they knocked on doors: Many times, when they encountered someone who wasn’t on their list, they learned those people were planning to vote, too. As a result, the party shifted its strategy, broadening its targets to contact more than a million potential voters as opposed to hundreds of thousands of them.

By Election Day, [state Democratic Party chair Ben] Wikler said, “Hundreds of thousands of people showed up who were not in anyone’s models, who had never voted in the spring election.”

Yes, turnout was heavy in Dane County, home to the University of Wisconsin. But in suburban Milwaukee counties, Republicans turned out for Kelly, only with smaller margins, Siders notes.

When I asked Wikler what surprised him the most about the election, he said it was how lopsided the victory was, but also that abortion was so salient not only in Democratic-leaning areas of the state, but in redder, rural areas, too. He referred to an internal Democratic poll conducted after the election, shared with me later by a Democratic operative in the state, that showed abortion, while slightly more resonant an issue for voters in the Democratic-leaning media markets around Madison, Milwaukee and Eau Claire/La Crosse, was the main vote driver for Protasiewicz in every market in the state. It was an issue that wasn’t just working for Democrats in big cities, but in rural areas, too.

Abortion, Wikler said, was an issue that “blotted out the sun.” And it isn’t going anywhere.

The GOP brand is damaged, says Billie Johnson, GOP chair in Wisconsin’s 2nd Congressional District.

By the demise of Roe, yes, but by more than that. By Trumpism, by creeping fascism in Florida, by daily gun violence, and perhaps by the general lunacy of the party’s leadership.

“The myth that citizens can out-organize voter suppression is not just wrong, it is dangerous,” writes Democracy Docket’s Marc Elias. “It turns voter suppression and the fight against it into a question of campaign tactics rather than the illegal and immoral deprivation of constitutional rights.”

Constitutional point taken. But what happened in Wisconsin in April suggests that adjusting Democrats’ over-worn campaign tactics to take advantage of the moment also plays a role. Wikler is the kind of Democrat not chained to the way Democrats have always done things because they are comfortable and familiar. Climbing out of that rut is what it will take going forward, along with the court battles Elias wages so successfully, to offset the impacts of gerrymandering and voter suppression and to push back the antidemocracy reactionaries.

The game has changed. Adapt or die.

Germane to our times

Army Talks fact sheet

Once again, Heather Cox Richardson’s Letters from an American offers up a historical reference germane to our times that, as the saying goes, rhymes (as does the adjective). So I’m dropping her comments in full right here:

Beginning in 1943, the War Department published a series of pamphlets for U.S. Army personnel in the European theater of World War II. Titled Army Talks, the series was designed “to help [the personnel] become better-informed men and women and therefore better soldiers.”

On March 24, 1945, the topic for the week was “FASCISM!”

“You are away from home, separated from your families, no longer at a civilian job or at school and many of you are risking your very lives,” the pamphlet explained, “because of a thing called fascism.” But, the publication asked, what is fascism? “Fascism is not the easiest thing to identify and analyze,” it said, “nor, once in power, is it easy to destroy. It is important for our future and that of the world that as many of us as possible understand the causes and practices of fascism, in order to combat it.”

Fascism, the U.S. government document explained, “is government by the few and for the few. The objective is seizure and control of the economic, political, social, and cultural life of the state.” “The people run democratic governments, but fascist governments run the people.”

“The basic principles of democracy stand in the way of their desires; hence—democracy must go! Anyone who is not a member of their inner gang has to do what he’s told. They permit no civil liberties, no equality before the law.” “Fascism treats women as mere breeders. ‘Children, kitchen, and the church,’ was the Nazi slogan for women,” the pamphlet said.

Fascists “make their own rules and change them when they choose…. They maintain themselves in power by use of force combined with propaganda based on primitive ideas of ‘blood’ and ‘race,’ by skillful manipulation of fear and hate, and by false promise of security. The propaganda glorifies war and insists it is smart and ‘realistic’ to be pitiless and violent.”

Fascists understood that “the fundamental principle of democracy—faith in the common sense of the common people—was the direct opposite of the fascist principle of rule by the elite few,” it explained, “[s]o they fought democracy…. They played political, religious, social, and economic groups against each other and seized power while these groups struggled.”

Americans should not be fooled into thinking that fascism could not come to America, the pamphlet warned; after all, “[w]e once laughed Hitler off as a harmless little clown with a funny mustache.” And indeed, the U.S. had experienced “sorry instances of mob sadism, lynchings, vigilantism, terror, and suppression of civil liberties. We have had our hooded gangs, Black Legions, Silver Shirts, and racial and religious bigots. All of them, in the name of Americanism, have used undemocratic methods and doctrines which…can be properly identified as ‘fascist.’”

The War Department thought it was important for Americans to understand the tactics fascists would use to take power in the United States. They would try to gain power “under the guise of ‘super-patriotism’ and ‘super-Americanism.’” And they would use three techniques:

First, they would pit religious, racial, and economic groups against one another to break down national unity. Part of that effort to divide and conquer would be a “well-planned ‘hate campaign’ against minority races, religions, and other groups.”

Second, they would deny any need for international cooperation, because that would fly in the face of their insistence that their supporters were better than everyone else. “In place of international cooperation, the fascists seek to substitute a perverted sort of ultra-nationalism which tells their people that they are the only people in the world who count. With this goes hatred and suspicion toward the people of all other nations.”

Third, fascists would insist that “the world has but two choices—either fascism or communism, and they label as ‘communists’ everyone who refuses to support them.”

It is “vitally important” to learn to spot native fascists, the government said, “even though they adopt names and slogans with popular appeal, drape themselves with the American flag, and attempt to carry out their program in the name of the democracy they are trying to destroy.”

The only way to stop the rise of fascism in the United States, the document said, “is by making our democracy work and by actively cooperating to preserve world peace and security.” In the midst of the insecurity of the modern world, the hatred at the root of fascism “fulfills a triple mission.” By dividing people, it weakens democracy. “By getting men to hate rather than to think,” it prevents them “from seeking the real cause and a democratic solution to the problem.” By falsely promising prosperity, it lures people to embrace its security.

“Fascism thrives on indifference and ignorance,” it warned. Freedom requires “being alert and on guard against the infringement not only of our own freedom but the freedom of every American. If we permit discrimination, prejudice, or hate to rob anyone of his democratic rights, our own freedom and all democracy is threatened.” And if “we want to make certain that fascism does not come to America, we must make certain that it does not thrive anywhere in the world.”

Seventy-eight years after the publication of “FASCISM!” with its program for recognizing that political system and stopping it from taking over the United States, President Joe Biden today at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, honored those who gave their lives fighting to preserve democracy. “On this day, we come together again to reflect, to remember, but above all, to recommit to the future our fallen heroes fought for, …a future grounded in freedom, democracy, equality, tolerance, opportunity, and…justice.”

“[T]he truest memorial to their lives,” the president said, is to act “every day to ensure that our democracy endures, our Constitution endures, and the soul of our nation and our decency endures.”

Notes:

https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/serial?id=armytalks

War Department, “Army Talk 64: FASCISM!” March 24, 1945, at https://archive.org/details/ArmyTalkOrientationFactSheet64-Fascism/mode/2up

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/05/29/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-155th-national-memorial-day-observance/

This is what the Trump Cult hears every day

That goes beyond flattery. It’s rhetorical fluffing.

It’s hard to believe he isn’t joking. But he isn’t. I don’t know if Levin has been gargling lead infused water all his life or if this is sheer opportunism. But even Tucker Carlson doesn’t go this far. It’s frightening.

And, by the way, Trump hears this too. And he believes it as much as his followers do.

What about Trump’s mental status?

The news media is always pounding on the fact that polls say that people think Biden is too old and mentally decrepit to run for another term. (His apparent ability to close a deal with the batshit House GOP without giving away the store argues otherwise but …) I have always wondered why they don’t ask the same question about Trump. He’ll be 77 in a couple of months and there’s plenty of evidence that he’s the one not playing with a full deck:

As it turns out people are just as concerned about Trump’s brain function as Biden’s — and they have much greater concerns about Trump’s character:

A Fox News poll found that 56% of Americans do not believe former President Donald Trump has the “mental soundness” to be president.

A survey conducted by the conservative outlet gave Trump a 33-point lead over Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL).

The survey also compared President Joe Biden’s character to Trump.

Biden had a 9-point advantage over Trump regarding honesty and an 8-point lead for empathy. 11% fewer people also believe that Biden is corrupt.

When it came to mental soundness, 56% said that Trump should not be president. As for Biden, 60% of those Fox News polled agreed he did not have the mental soundness to do the job.

Let’s face it, they’re both too old. But if that’s what’s on the menu, I’d pick the honest old guy any day. If there’s anything to the idea that people get more YOLO when they get old, then you really don’t want a geriatric criminal who figures he’s got nothing to lose running the country.

She’s not wrong

… about truth and democracy anyway

Liz Cheney says they told her to lie if she wanted to keep her seat. Of course they did:

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) told Colorado College graduates in a commencement speech Sunday the U.S. “cannot remain a free nation if we abandon the truth,” as she took aim at fellow Republicans and former President Trump.

“My fellow Republicans wanted me to lie. They wanted me to say the 2020 election was stolen, the attack of Jan. 6th wasn’t a big deal, and Donald Trump wasn’t dangerous,” said the former vice chair of the Jan. 6 panel that investigated the Capitol riot, who hasn’t ruled out running for president in the 2024.

“I had to choose between lying and losing my position in House leadership,” continued Cheney, who was ousted as the No. 3 House Republican after she called out Trump’s false election claims.

“As I spoke to my colleagues on my last morning as chair of the Republican conference, I told them that if they wanted a leader who would lie, they should choose someone else,” added the 1988 Colorado College graduate.

“No party, no nation, no people can defend and perpetuate a constitutional republic if they accept leaders who have gone to war with the rule of law, with the democratic process, with the peaceful transfer of power, with the Constitution itself.”

Good words and I agree with her. And right now, there must be a popular front to fight these forces so we have no choice but to make common cause with those who join the battle.

But Liz Cheney has no political home. Her record of far right conservatism leaves her with nowhere to go if she rejects Trump and MAGA because there is no difference now. And for years, people like Liz with their antediluvian worldview are what made them possible. Trump just put the fun back in fascism.

So I agree with the kids who did this too:

While most applauded Cheney’s commencement speech, about half of the 450 graduates turned their chairs so they showed their backs to the now-University of Virginia professor in protest against her voting history on issues including LGBTQ+ rights, per The Gazette.

Her history on LGBTQ+ rights is particularly odious since her sister is gay.