Trump says he knows nothing about Project 2025. And the Heritage Foundation which is responsible for it has denied that Trump knows anything about it.
Hookay…
"what digby sez..."
Digby's Hullabaloo Posts
If you feel as if American politics have taken yet another deep dive into the Trump show maelstrom, you aren’t alone. This past week has been a chaotic whirlwind of lies, false accusations, lurid scandals and even a foiled assassination plot. Even the sleaziest reality show wouldn’t have had the nerve to script something like this.
The assassination plot that capped off the week took place on Sunday at Trump’s Palm Beach golf club where the Secret Service reportedly spotted a man with a rifle in the bushes at one of the holes and shot at him, setting off a chase which concluded in his arrest. It’s still early, but a cursory look at his background appears to show the man’s politics were all over the place from voting for Trump to giving donations to Democrats then begging Nikki Haley to team up with Vivek Ramaswamy to compete for the presidential nomination. He was, at one time at least, attempting to be involved with trying to recruit foreign volunteers to fight in Ukraine but nobody took him seriously.
And he was, naturally, a serious gun nut who’d been charged with crimes going back 20 years, many of them involving firearms so it figures that the Secret Service reportedly found an AK-47 and a scope at the scene. As far as we can tell, this is yet another case of an armed-to-the-teeth, mentally ill man bent on violence.
Democrats across the board, including President Biden and Harris, condemned the attempt and called for calm but it makes no difference. The Republicans are on a tear right now, hurtling off in different directions in the wake of Trump’s disastrous debate performance and it’s unlikely they’re going to dial it back.
Trump’s bizarre contention in the debate that Haitian immigrants are “eating the dogs and eating the cats” in Springfield Ohio has morphed into a full-blown panic resulting in bomb threats, school and hospital closings and terror among the Haitian community in that town. Despite the Governor of Ohio and local leaders and business owners making it clear that none of these grisly accusations are true and that, in fact, the immigrants are hard-working, taxpaying contributors to the economic resurgence of the town after years of decay, they are not backing down.
When asked about the bomb threats, Trump said he didn’t know about them and them and continued to demean and degrade the immigrants going so far as to say they would be among the first he deports if he wins the presidency. They are legally in the country but apparently that will no longer be an impediment. They’re even beginning to use the word “remigration” which is defined as:
a far-right and Identitarian political concept referring to the forced or promoted return of non-ethnically European immigrants, often including their descendants who were born in Europe, back to their place of racial origin, typically with no regard for their citizenship
We know how he feels about those “sh*thole” countries. He was railing against them during his presidency. Now we are seeing him gin up threats against legal immigrants who hail from them.
Sen. JD Vance, the VP nominee, made the rounds of the Sunday shows and doubled down on the calumny. When confronted by CNN’s Dana bash with the fact that the accusations about eating cats and dogs were lies, Vance admitted it, explaining that they have to lie about these things to get the media to focus on their narrative:
I agree that Trump probably doesn’t know that what he’s saying is a lie. He said he heard it on television, presumably Fox News, so in his mind it may be a fact. And he doubles down on everything anyway because MAGA means never having to say you’re sorry. But Vance knows better. Unfortunately, he doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut and he often gives away the game as he did there.
It came to my attention that there is an actual political strategy known as “the dead cat strategy, also known as deadcatting,” if you can believe that. It was coined by none other than former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson when he was the mayor of London:
There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout, “Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!” In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.
According to The Bulwark’s Marc Caputo, the Trump campaign is very happy with this Haitian immigration story. He says they believe that if the media is talking about immigration (even if it’s a lie) they are winning because it’s their strongest issue in polling. I would imagine that’s true to some degree. But that’s not the only reason. They don’t want the media rehashing that dismal debate performance and they really don’t want it talking about Trump’s rumored paramour Laura Loomer, which has caused a rift in the GOP coalition.
Using an actual “dead cat” is more than a little bit on the nose but I have no doubt that at least some of them are aware of the concept. JD Vance surely is. Even after the bomb threats started he tweeted out to his MAGA followers: “In short, don’t let the crybabies in the media dissuade you, fellow patriots. Keep the cat memes flowing.”
They are clearly trying to distract from their campaign’s shortcomings, with Trump even posting one of the silliest, most juvenile posts he’s ever written to try to get a new controversy going. On Sunday he blurted out: “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT.” (Maybe he let his 6 year old grandson play with his phone but I doubt it.) Vance’s admission that they “create stories” along with his obstreperous appearances on the Sunday shows overshadowed it, lucky for him, and then another lunatic, gun nut gave him the ultimate gift of thwarted martyrdom and overwhelmed everything else.
I wish we could say that this would also mean that the Haitian immigrants who live in Springfield, Ohio will be able to go back to their lives and put these horrible lies and accusations behind them. But earlier on Sunday, Trump’s campaign said that he plans to visit there “very soon.” They aren’t going to let this go, at least until they find a new outrage with which entertain their supporters and distract from the fact that Trump is deteriorating more every day and JD Vance isn’t ready for prime time. We just have to fervently hope that nobody gets hurt before they move on to the next shiny object.
Alexandra Petri take note
.jpg){kind=link}
The Ink this morning one-ups Washington Post satirist Alexandra Petri in reflecting on the “Unity Statement.” You know the ones, the pro forma statements Democratic politicians make in response to mass shootings or, in today’s news, an attempted assassination. Certain stylistic conventions must be followed:
First, the statement maker’s spouse’s name should be included prominently somewhere: “Becky and I were sad to hear…” “Corey and I were deeply shaken by the news…” “Charlie and I join together…” The inclusion of the spouse is important here because it signals that this is a special kind of statement. More Christmas card vibes than political statement vibes. The normal rules are suspended. There will be no jabs here, no stridency, maybe not even any truth.
Second, the Unity Statement must deplore effects without naming or shaming their causes. Now is not the time for blaming someone for their role in contributing to what has finally now come around to imperil them, too. The Unity Statement thereby defies physics with its conception of uncaused effects; it defies botany in its vision of reaping with no connection whatever to sowing.
Third, a Democratic Unity Statement must mention temperature. Specifically, it should suggest that the temperature has risen too high. Though it may be Republicans who are overwhelmingly responsible for raising the temperature, planetarily and politically, in a respectable Unity Statement, this cannot be said. Instead, it should be argued that the temperature be lowered. Who knows how it got raised, and who really cares? And the Democratic statement maker must immediately volunteer to participate in the lowering of what they may have had no part in raising.
Fourth, the Unity Statement must, duh!, call for unity. Oh, and it must be unilateral unity. “Unity,” unmodified, is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the quality or state of not being multiple,” even “a condition of harmony.” The issuer of the Unity Statement knows that this ain’t gonna happen nationally. What the well-meaning Democratic leader means when they call for unity is that they want you, their followers, the people who would actually listen to a Democrat’s words, to engage in some unity making all by yourself. Reach out to an uncle you cut out of your life just because he made the honest mistake of degrading your very being at Thanksgiving; bake brownies for a neighbor whose only sin is flying a Trump flag — plus the Aryan Nations tattoos. Go do some unity — and don’t wait for anyone else to join you. Dance like no one’s watching, they say. Do unity like the other side isn’t ever going to do it also.
Is it any wonder the public perceives Democrats as measly-mouthed while the bomb-throwers are seen as strong leaders? And how does the unity statement reinforce that?
For one, because these events, as a Kamala Harris meme reflects, have context, context which Unity Statements elide. They offer a salve without relieving ongoing injury. They soothe symptoms without addressing root causes.
It is possible to believe that shooting leaders we don’t like is absolutely, incontrovertibly out of bounds and — and — that this event has a history and a context. It didn’t just fall out of a coconut tree. It is possible to wish a man a speedy recovery and to insist on the urgency of doing every peaceful thing humanly possible to prevent him from driving the country even further down this road to where what happened to him — even though it never should have — becomes unexceptional.
Newton realized that apples don’t fall to Earth by themselves. Actions have causes.
As I Was Saying….
Another apparent assassination attempt against Donald Trump occurred Sunday. A keen-eyed Secret Service agent spotted a rifle barrel poking through the perimeter fence of Trump’s West Palm Beach, Fla. golf club and opened fire. The gunman, 58, fled in his car and was captured alive miles away. The suspect has a criminal history and a “quixotic past.” Scrambled eggs where his brain should be, by multiple accounts.
Trump is safe. Prominent political figures expressed their relief and condemned political violence. Again. We’ll know more about the guy in due course. He’s “all over the map.”
Ironically, I wrote hours earlier that “Between now and Jan. 20 anything might happen.” A wrong turn in Sarajevo touched off WWI. Events like this assassination attempt, J.D. Vance and Trump stoking hate against immigrants, and more devious political shenanigans from MAGA Republicans before and after the election are what I had in mind. Political tensions were already running high.
People like Elon Musk mean to dial them up to 11. Tucker Carlson thinks demonizing nonwhite immigrants is “so great!”
Trump is melting down like that cake left out in the rain. He blasted “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT” on Truth Social yesterday because she endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris and urged Swifties to register and vote. What sane candidate does that? Trump has surely seen the polls indicating his chances of winning the presidency and staying out of jail are slipping away. He’s panicked and lashing out. He’s not even trying to win. Trump will burn the place down if he does not, and take as many of his enemies with him as possible.
God knows what comes next. Strap in. It’s going to get bumpy.
Jamelle Bouie and (Adam Serwer) have some choice words about JD Vance and his crusade against Haitian immigrants:
In his speech accepting the Republican nomination for vice president, Vance rejected a creedal notion of American identity. America, he said, “is not just an idea. It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future. It is, in short, a nation.” He went on to add that America is a “homeland” and that “people will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their home.”
To some overly credulous commentators, this was nothing more than respect for place and a call to assimilate. But as Adam Serwer observes in The Atlantic, Vance’s argument was more radical than it appeared at first glance.
To say that Americans are willing to fight for their plot of land is to say that they are like every other group of people that has ever existed and that exists now. It is to say that there is nothing particularly special about America or American ideals at all. But the ideals that have animated the American project have exercised such a powerful appeal around the world precisely because they speak to more universal aspirations.
To reject creedal nationalism, Serwer says, is to embrace, in its stead, a blood-and-soil nationalism that hold some Americans as more American than others. It is to say that there are some people who, on account of their origins or those of their parents and grandparents, cannot be full and equal members of the national community.
In waging rhetorical war on the Haitian immigrants of Springfield, Ohio, Vance has clarified the meaning of his convention speech. It does not matter, to Vance, that these Haitian newcomers came here legally, under the Temporary Protected Status program. It does not matter that they filled a valuable need. It does not matter that they reversed a slow collapse that has already sapped the life from so many former industrial towns. It does not matter that they work hard and seem eager, by all accounts, to establish themselves as productive members of the community.
What matters to Vance is who they are, where they come from and what they look like. They don’t belong to this soil, he might say, and therefore they don’t belong. Right now, the most Vance can do to wage this war is use his words. I shudder to think what might be possible if he had the authority of the state to wield as well.
We might as well melt the Statue of Liberty into Trump commemorative coins and let him sell them for a thousand dollars apiece. The ideals (often unfulfilled) that animated Americans since the founding are dead if th4ese guys win.
I don’t think there is any doubt what Vance and his tech-bro mentors have in mind. They aren’t trying to hide it.
Update:
The NY Times originally had this accurate headline on this story:
Apparently, they succumbed to pressure from the right to change it to this milquetoast headline:
It might be a little bit too sophisticated for most MAGAs but maybe it could reach a few?
Trump’s girlfriend put this out just yesterday:
Her foul insults are what he loves about her. You know it’s what he says in private.
She is saying in public what he wishes he could say.
He’s very excited to see her.
LL: We love you!
Trump: Oh! Laura!
LL: I love you!
Trump: *blows kiss*
LL: I love you president Trump
LL: Amazing speech! I loved it!
Trump: There’s never been one like it
LL: I will never give up on you!
Trump: How did you like that?
LL: Amazing! You’re amazing!
Trump: Call me tomorrow. Call me, *blows another kiss*
LL: Amazing! Best president ever
Have you ever seen Trump blow a kiss to a “supporter” before? Twice?
He’s the driving force behind all the Trump decisions last term
Any thoughts anyone ever had that Chief Justice John Roberts was the moderate consensus builder on the court should be thrown right into the rubbish bin. According to a new shocking NY Times expose, it is Roberts who pushed the three big decisions protecting Trump from accountability for his crimes.
It’s long but I urge you to read the whole thing. Here is a gift link.
An excerpt:
Last February, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sent his eight Supreme Court colleagues a confidential memo that radiated frustration and certainty.
Former President Donald J. Trump, seeking to retake the White House, had made a bold, last-ditch appeal to the justices. He wanted them to block his fast-approaching criminal trial on charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election, arguing that he was protected by presidential immunity. Whatever move the court made could have lasting consequences for the next election, the scope of presidential power and the court’s own battered reputation.
The chief justice’s Feb. 22 memo, jump-starting the justices’ formal discussion on whether to hear the case, offered a scathing critique of a lower-court decision and a startling preview of how the high court would later rule, according to several people from the court who saw the document.
The chief justice tore into the appellate court opinion greenlighting Mr. Trump’s trial, calling it inadequate and poorly reasoned. On one key point, he complained, the lower court judges “failed to grapple with the most difficult questions altogether.” He wrote not only that the Supreme Court should take the case — which would stall the trial — but also how the justices should decide it
“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently” from the appeals court, he wrote. In other words: grant Mr. Trump greater protection from prosecution.
In a momentous trio of Jan. 6-related cases last term, the court found itself more entangled in presidential politics than at any time since the 2000 election, even as it was contending with its own controversies related to that day. The chief justice responded by deploying his authority to steer rulings that benefited Mr. Trump, according to a New York Times examination that uncovered extensive new information about the court’s decision making.
The Times got access to “private memos, documentation of the proceedings and interviews with court insiders, both conservative and liberal” who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in all three cases including the unsigned order that forbade Colorado from removing Trump from the ballot. And apparently he gave took the majority opinion in Fischer (the one that said prosecutors couldn’t bring obstruction charges against some of the J6 insurrectionists) to from Alito after it was reported that his wingnut wife Martha Ann had been flying an upside down flag after January 6th. My God. (Oops, I misread that part originally. It’s still weird.)
And Roberts insisted, over the objections of even some of the conservatives, that the immunity case be held before the election, siding with the liberals. But once he got the vote he basically told the liberals to pound sand, There would be no compromise with them to try to form a consensus which partially explains the level of anger in Sotomayor’s dissent.
He seems to be a tad delusional:
In his writings on the immunity case, the chief justice seemed confident that his arguments would soar above politics, persuade the public, and stand the test of time. His opinion cited “enduring principles,” quoted Alexander Hamilton’s endorsement of a vigorous presidency, and asserted it would be a mistake to dwell too much on Mr. Trump’s actions. “In a case like this one, focusing on ‘transient results’ may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic,” he wrote. “Our perspective must be more farsighted.”
But the public response to the decision, announced in July on the final day of the term, was nothing like what his lofty phrases seemed to anticipate.
WTF??? He really thought that heinous opinion would persuade the public? Good lord, these people are in a more secure bubble than even the most delirious Fox News viewer.
Despite the chief justice’s reputation as a methodical craftsman, many experts, both conservative and liberal, say he produced a disjointed, tough-to-interpret opinion.
“It’s a strange, sprawling opinion,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk to the chief justice. “It’s hard to tell what exactly it is trying to do.”
Others said the ruling was untethered from the law. “It’s certainly not really tied to the Constitution,” said Stephen R. McAllister, a law professor at University of Kansas and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.
But inside the court, some members of the majority had complimented the chief justice even as they requested changes. Two days after the chief justice circulated his first draft in June, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh responded to what he called an “extraordinary opinion.”In a final flourish, he wrote, “Thank you again for your exceptional work.” Soon afterward, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch added another superlative: “I join Brett in thanking you for your remarkable work.”
Sounds like a Trump cabinet meeting.
Read the whole thing, It’s clear that the Chief and his five wingnuts are just going for it. It’s worse than we thought.
Could it be true that the sour economic mood might be lifting a little bit?
I have long suspected that the negative opinion polls on the economy at least somewhat reflected people’s discomfort with Biden’s age and the fact that we are still struggling with Trumpism. With Biden out and Harris having a lot of energy and looking positive, I’m not surprised to see those numbers turning around a bit.
Keep in mind that Republicans will not change so there won’t be a “Morning in America” reaction. Those days are gone. But there might finally be a long overdue lifting of the economic gloom.