Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Good luck with that

My post on Sunday referenced Ross Douthat’s flop-sweaty warning that President Biden should stop campaigning as if he is ahead. But credit the Washington Post Editorial Board’s warning, at least to Democrats in Congress, that while hoping for the best they should plan for the worst.

“Though the emergency powers that the Insurrection Act confers are inherently susceptible to abuse, presidents’ respect for democratic values and constitutional norms has by and large prevented that,” the Board begins. There’s still time to make some tweaks to the Act before January 2025.

Golly jeepers, who might they be referencing between the lines? Just so we’re clear:

Having gone unused since 1992, the Insurrection Act is perhaps obscure to the public today. It deserves more attention, given that there could be a second term for former president Donald Trump, who not only lacks respect for democratic norms but also actively encouraged a mob to descend on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The law grants a president the power to “take such measures as he considers necessary” to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” It does not define those terms. Nor does it require the president to get permission from state leaders. While the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally restricts the use of the armed forces in domestic law enforcement, there’s an exception for other acts of Congress, which would cover the Insurrection Act.

Mr. Trump’s associates have reportedly drafted plans to invoke the law on his first day in office, to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations. A partnership of right-wing think tanks, dubbed Project 2025, has drawn up executive orders to do so. Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who is one of the unnamed co-conspirators in Mr. Trump’s indictment in the federal election interference case, is leading this work. Mr. Trump has openly expressed regret for not using the Insurrection Act during the rioting that followed Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, bowing to governors who asked him not to send federal troops. “The next time, I’m not waiting,” he said at a November rally.

If we were playing Clue, Jeffrey Clark … in The Heritage Foundation … with the Insurrection Act might be a winning guess. He and John Eastman helped Trump very nearly murder the government on Jan. 6.

A group of national security and legal specialists assembled by the American Law Institute proposed amendments to the Act over a year ago. Specifically (in addition to cleaning up outdated language), that the president cannot invoke the Act unless there is violence that “overwhelms the capacity of federal, state, and local authorities to protect public safety and security.” Troop deployments “would “should not exceed 30 days absent renewed congressional authorization,” but would receive fast-track renewal. The president would have to provide Congress with written justification for invoking the Act within 24 hours “along with a summary of consultations with state authorities.” Also, no provision for judicial review. The Supreme Court has already signaled it would grant the president “significant deference.” Habeas corpus would remain in place.

The Republican-controlled House is unlikely to take up a reform bill before the end of the year, but perhaps there’s an opening for bipartisanship. The best vehicle would be an amendment to the must-pass national defense reauthorization bill, as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.) have discussed. It would be wise to modernize this law even if there were no chance of Mr. Trump’s election. Since there is a chance, it seems essential.

Not that the Act should not be modernized, but count me skeptical. What damage might Dictator On Day One do in 30 days? Written justification within 24 hours? What could Congress do if the president simply flouts the requirement? The Board is urging Congress to pass a law to rein in a man who believes he’s untouchable by law and who has survived 70 decades largely unaccountable to it.

The Board believes amending the Insurrection Act is still worth the effort.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.

Kevin Drum tells everyone to buck up. Life in these United States really isn’t more miserable than it’s ever been. He posted a video of Congressman Jamal Bowman saying:

Young people are TIRED. They’re tired of growing up with forever wars, with no healthcare, with crumbling infrastructure. Young people have every right to demand better from their leaders. It’s their job to.

Kevin responds:

Just stop it. Joe Biden ended the Afghanistan war and cut American drone strikes nearly to zero. The US is not currently fighting any major wars and in 2022, for the first time in decades, reported no civilian deaths due to US combat.

Health insurance coverage has steadily increased among the young for the past decade:

And infrastructure is not “crumbling” by any stretch of rhetoric. Even the always dour American Society of Civil Engineers says as much: its most recent report gives US infrastructure its highest grade in more than a quarter of a century.¹ Spending on infrastructure has increased by a quarter since 2000:

There is a relentless drumbeat of claims on both sides of the aisle that America is falling apart at the seams and _________ has it worse than ever in living memory. But it’s just not true. Wages are high for every demographic group you can name; life satisfaction is steady; unemployment is low; drug abuse overall is down; our educational system is good; poverty is declining; we have more entrepreneurs than any country in the world by a wide margin; democracy is alive and well; our economy is the envy of the world; social welfare spending is generous; and a future of driverless cars, artificial intelligence, medical revolutions, and abundant energy is practically on our doorsteps. Even our demographic problems are about the least bad of any advanced economy—thanks, in part, to our supposed problem of too much illegal immigration.

Everyone has personal problems. Every country has national problems. The fact that we have problems is completely normal. But honestly, our problems right now are about as mild as they’ve been in our entire history.

¹Their 2021 report gave infrastructure a grade of C-. By ACSE standards this is roughly an A+.

He’s right that it isn’t just young people by any stretch. I had an exchange with the grocery checker at my local Ralphs about how everything’s gone to hell in a hand basket and how her grandmother had it better back in the 30s when a dollar went so much further. For real.

I blame Trump. His never ending moaning and wailing permeates our entire culture and now everyone’s doing it.

And here I am whining about the whining. You can ‘t escape it.

(Note the time he posted that. )

Trump did say it, of course:

Do you think states should monitor women’s pregnancies so they can know if they’ve gotten an abortion after the ban?

Trump: I think they might do that. Again, you’ll have to speak to the individual states. Look, Roe v. Wade was all about bringing it back to the states. And that was a legal, as well as possibly in the hearts of some, in the minds of some, a moral decision. But it was largely a legal decision. Every legal scholar, Democrat, Republican, and other wanted that issue back at the states. You know, Roe v. Wade was always considered very bad law. Very bad. It was a very bad issue from a legal standpoint. People were amazed it lasted as long as it did. And what I was able to do is through the choice of some very good people who frankly were very courageous, the justices it turned out to be you know, the Republican—

States will decide if they’re comfortable or not— 

Trump: Yeah the states— 

Prosecuting women for getting abortions after the ban. But are you comfortable with it? 

Trump: The states are going to say. It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions. And by the way, Texas is going to be different than Ohio. And Ohio is going to be different than Michigan. I see what’s happening.

President Trump, we’re here in Florida. You’re a resident of Florida.

Trump: Yeah. 

How do you plan to vote in the state’s abortion referendum this November that would overturn DeSantis’s six-week ban?

Trump: Well, I said I thought six weeks is too severe. 

You did. 

Trump: You know, I’ve said that previously.

Yes.

Trump: I think it was a semi-controversial statement when I made it, and it’s become less and less controversial with time. I think Ron was hurt very badly when he did this because the people—even conservative women in Florida thought it was—

Well this referendum would undo that. Are you gonna vote for it in November? 

Trump: Well, it’ll give something else. I don’t tell you what I’m gonna vote for. I only tell you the state’s gonna make a determination. 

He really seems to believe that “states’ rights” (which he apparently just discovered) is going to be the magic bullet and that by repeating it over and over and over again it will eventually be accepted by enough people to get him elected again. Maybe he’s right. He does seem to have a talent for brainwashing certain gullible people simply through repetition no matter how absurd. We’ll have to see if this one works for him. But I think it’s clear that he’s worried about it.

By the way, just 6 hours later he was up and posting hysterically again:

I wish I could understand why so many people are entranced by this weepy, whiny, bratty man-boy and believe he’s a world historical alpha male. It just goes to show you that PT Barnum was right,

Legal beagle Ryan Goodman points out that the actual trial transcript shows Hope Hicks’ final testimony is actually worse than was reported. He wrote on twitter:

Trump not only communicates “it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election.” Trump also links it to Cohen hush money: “had Michael not made that payment.”

I think you can see why she burst into tears a minute later. This revelation is damaging to Trump’s defense and she knew it. Hicks admits that Trump was worried about the election and backs up Cohen’s contention that Trump knew what the money was for before he reimbursed him.

What’s the significance of that? Trump’s defense lawyer’s opening statement featured this:

Apparently he didn’t know about this civil case (Daniels was trying to get released from her non-disclosure agreement) in which Trump and Cohen both admitted that Trump had reimbursed Cohen for the hush money.

I guess they might try to blame the lawyer in that case but he’s not the kind of guy you want to mess with.*

Andrew Weissman writes on twitter:

Why Hicks is such a devastating witness against Trump:

1. Hicks makes clear Trump knew of the Cohen payoff scheme to Daniels.
2. Even if you believe his statement to her that he only learned after the fact.
3. Her testimony sinks Trump’s defense since he is on record in a civil case admitting that he reimbursed Cohen the $130,000.
4. Hicks establishes that Trump knew that money was for Daniel’s silence- not for the claimed legal fees for ongoing legal work by Cohen. 

Hicks suggests that #2 was a lie by Trump to her (because she testified that Cohen was not a charitable kind of guy who would keep his good deed to himself), but it does not matter- even if the jury believes Trump only knew later, he knew PRIOR to making all the reimbursement payments to Cohen. 

And Hicks’ crying on the stand makes it that much clearer that she does not want to be implicating her former boss– the DA is making the case, as the J6C did, through Trump loyalists. 

He elaborated in this essay on MSNBC:

Here was Hicks, taking her oath with solemnity, filling an apparent hole in the DA’s case: that Trump knew about this payoff (as David Pecker made clear, Trump knew about the payoff to Karen McDougal). That is key, because Trump thereafter reimbursed Cohen for the hush money payments, personally signing the reimbursement checks. Hicks’ testimony makes plain Trump did so knowing that they were not payments for legal fees. And for that reason, the jury need not decide whether Trump knew of the scheme at the time (as Hicks strongly intimated) or only learned of it later (as he claimed to Hicks), since in either scenario, Trump knew of the scheme prior to making the reimbursements.

Not that corroboration of Hicks’ testimony is needed, but it exists in a particularly damning form: Trump’s own admission in a civil case in California brought by Stormy Daniels. In that lawsuit, Trump admitted he reimbursed Michael Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels. Trump’s admission — made with his co-defendant, Cohen — is here, and the California court recognized these statements as admissions. (Trump of course has pleaded not guilty and denied the affairs with McDougal and Daniels.

This is the crux of the case. Did Trump falsify his business records to hide the fact that he had interfered with the election in 2016? Yes, yes he did.

*Charles Harder was the guy who once came after this blog for posting something that Lawrence O’Donnell said on MSNBC. I took it down because I don’t have the kind of money it takes to fight something like that. O’Donnell retracted what he said as well. Harder’s also the lawyer who destroyed Gawker media in the Hulk Hogan matter. I’ve often wondere why we haven’t seen him in Trump’s legal coterie since that period.

Yes, we know to take polling with a grain of salt right now. But the media went nuts over that outlier CNN poll showing Trump ahead six points. Crickets for these two legit polls in the past week.

ABC/Ipsos today:

Old vs young, rural vs urban, college vs non-college, Democrat vs Republican the usual (although the inverted old vs young is a little weird but I’d guess it’s Gaza.)

However, there are some interesting observations. RFK pulls more from Trump which is the second poll that shows that. Self-identified moderates are for Biden, which is good, and the battleground is definitely still in the suburbs.

About those swing states? It’s a tie:

And it’s a 46-45% race in the seven expected swing states, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Some other issues:

Support for abortion rights remains widespread: Americans by 66-32% oppose the U.S. Supreme Court decision that did away with the constitutional right to abortion and by essentially the same margin say their own state should allow access to abortion in all or most cases.

Biden’s executive orders to forgive student loan debt get a mixed to negative reception: 42% say he’s doing too much in this regard, 22% too little and 34% the right amount. Among those younger than 40, 30% say he’s doing too much to forgive these loans; this jumps to 53% of those age 50 and older.

Thirty-nine percent call it highly important to them whom Biden picks as his running mate; 35% say the same for Trump. Overall, 54% say Biden should replace Kamala Harris as his choice for vice president; among Democrats, however, 76% say he should keep Harris. It’s about the same among Biden supporters.

Eighty percent call undocumented immigration a problem nationally, including 54% who call it a major problem. Locally, in their own community, many fewer call it a problem, 46%, or a major problem, 22%. It’s seen as a problem locally, and a major problem nationally, particularly by Republicans and conservatives.

Passage of a $61 billion aid package for Ukraine did not substantially impact attitudes on the subject. Thirty-nine percent of Americans say the United States is doing too much to help Ukraine, up 5 points from January but about the same as it was last fall. Twenty percent say the United States is doing too little; 39%, the right amount — both essentially unchanged.

It’s so interesting how those of us who follow all this stuff closely think these issues are going to land and then see how they actually do. It turns out that we pundit types are often wrong. Imagine that…

This NPR/Marist poll has similar results:

That poll showed Biden ahead among registered voters. (I guess they didn’t break down likely voters but it;s fair to say that it would show Biden even farther ahead if they did.)

These are legitimate polls by major media organizations that don’t seem to have gotten much attention, probably because they show Biden ahead of Trump and the media just doesn’t seem to believe them. I wouldn’t be alarmed if it weren’t for the fact that they seem to be much more inclined to promote the polls showing the opposite.

The race is very tight six months out. That’s frightening. But it’s not the kiss of death by any means. It’s just going to be trench warfare all the way to election day. So buckle up.

Kristi Noem went on Face the Nation and poured gasoline on her dumpster fire of a political career this morning:

Via The Daily Beast:

At one point in the book, titled No Going Back, Noem recalled meeting North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, claiming he “underestimated” her. However, experts have called into question whether such a meeting could have ever taken place.

“Did you meet Kim Jong Un?” Brennan directly asked the governor, who avoided answering the question and instead said she’s “met with many, many world leaders” and has “made some edits” to the book.

“I’ve met with many, many world leaders and traveled around the world,” Noem said. “I think I’ve talked extensively in this book about my time serving in Congress, my time as governor, before governor, some of the travels that I’ve had. I’m not going to talk about my specific meetings with world leaders. I’m just not going to do it.”

Her blatant refusal to say whether she actually met with the dictator contradicts her admission that the anecdote should not have been included in the book—a point Noem repeatedly noted during the interview. She never explained why she is pulling the story from the final version, however.

Brennan tried to offer Noem alternative explanations, including whether she might have instead met with South Korea’s leader, but Noem refused to clarify her actual reality.

The governor also claimed she went to North Korea via the Korean Demilitarized zone.

She is a sick cookie:

And here’s the coup de grâce which I hadn’t heard before. She ended the book by saying that she wanted to shoot Biden’s dog. I’m not kidding.

Luckily, she seems to be out of the running for VP because of this. of course you never know. These flagrant lies may endear her more to Donald Trump, just as she hoped.

Update:

Hakeem Jeffries on the stakes

This is correct. And it happens slowly at first and then all at once.

If Trump wins, he will not care about getting re-elected because he will ensure that there is an “emergency” that requires the suspension of elections and his high court will back him up. He will die in office one way or another. But the far right agenda that underlies the right wing legal agenda will remain in place and they have shown that they’re willing to radically disassemble all 20th century progress (actually 19th century progress too) in pursuit of their revolutionary desire to ensure that wealth and white, male privilege remain the dominant force in American culture and politics.

If Trump wins another term there is no doubt that Thomas and Alito will retire and will be replaced with the likes of Josh Hawley and JD Vance and will secure the thousand year reich.

The right doesn’t

“When the state says to a woman that you cannot have an abortion after six weeks, what the state is doing is seizing that woman’s womb for its own purposes,” said Carlos Lacasa. “That’s scary to me.”

Lacasa is a Cuban American from South Florida, and a former Republican state representative. “Freedom-loving” Cuban Americans are keenly aware of Fidel Castro’s curtailing of freedom for Cubans and remain on high alert for state encroachments on it. That includes the freedom “to possess a firearm, even with a high-capacity magazine, or … to choose whether or not to be vaccinated in the case of a pandemic.” And to restrict a woman’s access to abortion.

Lacasa backs the referendum on Florida’s November ballot to reverse the state’s ban on abortion after six weeks. It went into effect May 1 (Politico):

The fate of a November referendum to reverse the six-week ban now rests largely on how many other Republicans feel abortion should be legal, even if they wouldn’t choose it for themselves. The constitutional amendment restoring legal abortion up to the point of fetal viability — around 24 weeks — would have to clear a 60-percent threshold in a state with nearly a million more registered Republicans than Democrats. One recent poll shows 57 percent support for the measure statewide, though another puts support below 50 percent. (“There is no path to passage without 2 out of 5” Republicans, Anna Hochkammer, a leader in the pro-referendum coalition, texted me.) And the referendum’s supporters know the path to passage runs through places like [Hialeah], where many residents or their recent ancestors fled from autocracy, and are Republican precisely because they value freedom and limited government.

Freedom is a contested value Democrats have failed to contest for too long. So long that some on the left may feel uncomfortable using a word so identified with Republican tropes. This is a mistake, Anat Shenker-Osorio has long argued, and as Lacasa’s declaration illustrates. (She advocates using freedoms, plural.) Freedom means different things to different Americans, Kathy Gilsinan illustrates in her reporting from Florida. “This doesn’t necessarily mean these voters feel abortion should count among those freedoms or that they’d prioritize a political freedom over a religious value.”

Over at The New Yorker, John Cassidy speaks with Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz about his new book, “The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society.” A play on Friedrich Hayek’s famous polemic against socialism, Stiglitz argues that the negative concept of freedom peddled by neoliberalism has hoarded it for the few while restricting it for the many. He illustrates by repeating a quote from the late Oxford philosopher Isaiah Berlin: “Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep.”

Stiglitz observes, “The current conservative reading of what freedom means is superficial, misguided, and ideologically motivated. The Right claims to be the defender of freedom, but I’ll show that the way they define the word and pursue it has led to the opposite result, vastly reducing the freedoms of most citizens.”

Cassidy explains:

Gun violence and the spread of diseases by people who refuse to abide by health guidelines are examples of what economists call externalities, an awkward word that is derived from the fact that certain actions (such as refusing to wear a mask) or market transactions (such as the sale of a gun) can have negative (or positive) consequences to the outside world. “Externalities are everywhere,” Stiglitz writes. The biggest and most famous negative externalities are air pollution and climate change, which derive from the freedom of businesses and individuals to take actions that create harmful emissions. The argument for restricting this freedom, Stiglitz points out, is that doing so will “expand the freedom of people in later generations to exist on a livable planet without having to spend a huge amount of money to adapt to massive changes in climate and sea levels.”

In all these cases, Stiglitz argues, restrictions on behavior are justified by the over-all increase in human welfare and freedom that they produce. In the language of cost-benefit analysis, the costs in terms of infringing on individual freedom of action are much smaller than the societal benefits, so the net benefits are positive. Of course, many gun owners and anti-maskers would argue that this isn’t true. Pointing to the gun-violence figures and to scientific studies showing that masking and social distancing did make a difference to COVID-transmission rates, Stiglitz gives such arguments short shrift, and he insists that the real source of the dispute is a difference in values. “Are there responsible people who really believe that the right to not be inconvenienced by wearing a mask is more important than the right to live?” he asks.

As in the debate over gun ownership, “responsible” is also a contested concept.

As an economist accustomed to thinking in theoretical terms, Stiglitz conceived of freedom as expanding “opportunity sets”—the range of options that people can choose from—which are usually bounded, in the final analysis, by individuals’ incomes. Once you reframe freedom in this more positive sense, anything that reduces a person’s range of choices, such as poverty, joblessness, or illness, is a grave restriction on liberty. Conversely, policies that expand people’s opportunities to make choices, such as income-support payments and subsidies for worker training or higher education, enhance freedom.

Ask “freedom-loving” Americans if they love their jobs, how many will say yes? Then ask them if they feel free to quit, to move and try something else somewhere else? Even with a closetful of AR-15s?

What the right and wealthy elites are selling is the cowboy myth of rugged individualism, where there is no common good and every man (of course) is a law unto himself, where freedom is personal and something to hoard in a threatening world against bandits, communists, and, well, THEM.

What the American left advocates, even if it fails to broadcast it to the heavens, is something breathtaking, Anand Giridharadas explained last year, something reactionaries and conspiracy theorists fear:

We are trying something hard and awesome. And at the risk of kind of mixing progressivism with patriotism, it is an awesome pursuit in history. Most of our ancestors lived in small, little monocultures in all kinds of different places in the world where they never met anybody who was different.

We are building an entire country on the idea that human beings are enriched through encounters with difference. And, even though there is this incredibly scary movement, it is not the protagonist of this drama. We are the protagonist of this drama. We have won victory after victory after victory to get here.

Look at this room. Most places in the world do not look like this room, right? And [opponents of the American experiment] are a barnacle on our progress. They are not prosecuting some awesome new revolution that is a cool, new idea. They have fought against every major advance of extending freedom to more people. They have lost virtually every time. They will lose again.

And I think we have to buck up, get our act together, talk and think like winners, and remember that the cause of the country we’re trying to fight for is an attractive cause, and make it attractive — joyous, your word [to a panelist] — and bring people in, not keep anyone out.

How much does the right fear that expansive vision, one based more in cooperation than ruthless competition? Fear the left talking, thinking and acting like winners?

On May 1, conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat argued that President Biden should stop campaigning as if he is ahead in the 2024 presidential contest. He should consider stepping aside in “a patriotic recognition of his own limits, physical and political.” He should stop “running on progressive autopilot.” Stop a phase-out of internal combustion autos. Stop a “new student loan forgiveness program that could cost over $1 trillion in the teeth of stubbornly high inflation.”

The flop sweat in Douthat’s insistence that Biden is “gliding toward defeat” by not boldly quitting the race almost dripped off the page.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.

They’re ba-ack

Militia groups went quiet after Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 insurrection. But not for long, Tess Owen writes at Wired:

“JOIN YOUR LOCAL Militia or III% Patriot Group,” a post urged the more than 650 members of a Facebook group called the Free American Army. Accompanied by the logo for the Three Percenters militia network and an image of a man in tactical gear holding a long rifle, the post continues: “Now more than ever. Support the American militia page.”

Other content and messaging in the group is similar. And despite the fact that Facebook bans paramilitary organizing and deemed the Three Percenters an “armed militia group” on its 2021 Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List, the post and group remained up until WIRED contacted Meta for comment about its existence.

Free American Army is just one of around 200 similar Facebook groups and profiles, most of which are still live, that anti-government and far-right extremists are using to coordinate local militia activity around the country.

After lying low for several years in the aftermath of the US Capitol riot on January 6, militia extremists have been quietly reorganizing, ramping up recruitment and rhetoric on Facebook—with apparently little concern that Meta will enforce its ban against them, according to new research by the Tech Transparency Project, shared exclusively with WIRED.

Individuals across the US with long-standing ties to militia groups are creating networks of Facebook pages, urging others to recruit “active patriots” and attend meetups, and openly associating themselves with known militia-related sub-ideologies like that of the anti-government Three Percenter movement. They’re also advertising combat training and telling their followers to be “prepared” for whatever lies ahead. These groups are trying to facilitate local organizing, state by state and county by county. Their goals are vague, but many of their posts convey a general sense of urgency about the need to prepare for “war” or to “stand up” against many supposed enemies, including drag queens, immigrants, pro-Palestine college students, communists—and the US government.

These cosplayers are often dismissed at Meal Team Six or Gravy Seals, but as Jan. 6 demonstrated they can still do damage. Enough have military training and skills that make them a threat. Maybe not as much of a threat as they imagine while they’re running around with AR-15s at secluded training camps.

Wired being Wired, it focuses heavily on Meta’s failure to police its own policies against this use of its online platform. Facebook remains “a go-to hub for militia organizing.”

Polling conducted earlier this year of more than 1,000 Americans found that one in five Americans “strongly agree” that violence is the only viable solution to get the country back on track. Although the societal conditions heading into this year’s election are not the same as those in 2020, a newly emboldened militia movement could add a dangerous dimension to potentially fraught future events, such as a judge handing down a prison sentence for Trump or Trump losing another close presidential election.

So far, Trump’s calls for MAGA to rise again to show its support outside his Manhattan trial have come up all but empty. Doesn’t mean they can’t still do damage. The Department of Justice is still not done prosecuting the lot from Jan. 6.

Comedian Neal Brennan thinks we should test out militias’ “watering the tree of liberty” theories with live fire.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.