Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Destroyer Of Worlds

Published by Tom Sullivan on January 26, 2024

Watching the world burn

“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

J. Robert Oppenheimer invoked the line from the Bhagavad Gita in life and in film in reference to the towering pillar of fire he witnessed in exploding the world’s first atomic bomb. Donald “91 Counts” Trump is not literate enough to know the reference, but the 77-year-old toddler means to destroy ours if he does not get his way. With the country. With women. With his political adversaries. With Europe. With the itchy mind-worm of Daddy Fred’s judgment: Loser.

Republicans have ginned up public concern over the southern border into a major 2024 campaign issue. They hold President Joe Biden responsible for a supposedly “open” southern border while actively working — at Donald Trump’s behest — to prevent any congressional action to address border issues.

https://bsky.app/profile/adamserwer.bsky.social/post/3kjtyndevss2b

Military aid to Ukraine for repelling (Trump pal) Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invaders is tied up in a border security deal being negotiated in the Senate (and opposed by House Republicans). Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has “reluctantly agreed to tie” Ukraine and other foreign aid “to border security,” reports The Washington Post:

The border deal, which negotiators say may be released as soon as next week, is focused on making it harder for migrants to seek asylum, changes to the use of parole for migrants, and a mechanism to effectively close down the border on days when crossings were particularly high. The overall aid package requested by President Biden includes $106 billion in military assistance for Israel, Ukraine and Indo-Pacific nations as well as humanitarian aid and U.S. border funds.

But passage is entangled with Trump’s need for a campaign issue (NBC News):

Tempers flared Thursday as Republicans battled among themselves over whether to accept or reject a deal for tougher immigration laws, with some pushing back on colleagues who want to bow to former President Donald Trump’s wishes and kill it.

“The border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and Congress people that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem — because he wants to blame Biden for it — is really appalling,” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, told reporters.

“The American people are suffering as a result of what’s happening at the border,” he said. “And someone running for president ought to try and get the problem solved, as opposed to saying, ‘Hey, save that problem! Don’t solve it! Let me take credit for solving it later.’”

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., urged his colleagues not to make it all about politics at the behest of another candidate.

“I didn’t come here to have the president as a boss or a candidate as a boss. I came here to pass good, solid policy,” Tillis said. “It is immoral for me to think you looked the other way because you think this is the linchpin for President Trump to win.”

Morality? This is Donald John Trump’s party we’re talking about. “Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.”

Now, about blowing up things (CNN):

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged in a private meeting on Wednesday that Trump’s animosity toward the yet-to-be-released border deal puts Republicans in a serious bind as they try to move forward on the already complex issue. For weeks, Republicans have been warning that Trump’s opposition could blow up the bipartisan proposal, but the admission from McConnell was particularly striking, given he has been a chief advocate for a border-Ukraine package.

U.S. failure to resupply Ukraine’s defense against Russia presents a serious threat to NATO (already on Trump’s shit-list) and to broader European security. Not that Trump cares about anything other than his personal fortunes and petty grievances.

“Do Republicans want to sponsor the 2024 equivalent of Saigon 1975?” the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board asks of Republican dithering on Ukraine aid.

Democrats have an opening here to further drive home Republicans’ fecklessness on national and international security policy and their obsequiousness to Trump. Dan Pfeiffer explains “the way Trump, McConnell, and the Republicans torpedoed this bipartisan deal is so ham-handed and patently cynical as to present Democrats with the chance to turn a weakness into a strength; and hopefully put Trump on the defensive on his top issue. “

Turd Blossom would do it in a skinny minute if he thought there was political advantage in it.

And Trump? If that joker cannot get his win, he’ll watch the world burn.

Sick, sick, sick

Published by digby on January 25, 2024

Daily dispatch from the Death Cult

We are a very primitive people using technology for primitive ends:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stay the execution of an Alabama inmate by nitrogen hypoxia, an untested method that experts have warned could cause him extreme pain and suffering.

Should a separate appeal still pending in federal court not pan out the way advocates and his legal team hope, Kenneth Eugene Smith will be the first person in the United States to be lethally suffocated by nitrogen gas on Thursday evening.

A terse court order noted that both Smith’s application for a stay and his petition for a writ of certiorari—a request for the high court to take up his case—had been denied. No justices publicly dissented from the order.

Smith has been on death row for more than a quarter-century for the 1988 murder-for-hire killing of preacher’s wife Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett. In 2022, he survived an attempt by the state to execute him by lethal injection. After officials spent hours jabbing at him with needles, probing for a vein they could use to put him to death, the execution was called off before the death warrant could expire at midnight.

“They were just sticking me over and over, going in the same hole like a freaking sewing machine,” Smith told NPR recently. “I was absolutely alone in a room full of people, and not one of them tried to help me at all—and I was crying out for help.”

The use of nitrogen gas in Alabama’s death chamber has prompted an outcry from advocates and experts around the world, including the United Nations, which issued a statement earlier this month expressing “alarm” that the method would likely violate its convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.

“We are concerned that nitrogen hypoxia would result in a painful and humiliating death,” a panel of four U.N. experts wrote.

Others have challenged Alabama’s decision to shroud its preparations in secrecy, redacting key sections of its published protocol. “There’s no precedent for it,” Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, told CNN this week. “There’s no testing of this procedure. No one knows how it’s going to occur.”

Smith, who has said in interviews that he is “absolutely terrified” of his upcoming execution date, has argued that the use of nitrogen gas is a violation of his constitutional rights under the 8th Amendment. His lawyers have also said that the previous execution attempt, which left Smith suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, raises questions about its ability to execute him this week.

[…]

Another issue is the question of nitrogen gas escaping the mask that will be fitted over Smith’s face in the chamber, posing a potential threat to the others who will be in the room. NPR reported last month that Smith’s spiritual advisor, the Rev. Dr. Jeff Hood, has been made to sign a waiver acknowledging that he could be exposed to the invisible and odorless gas during the execution.

“It’s so telling that they just have no idea, and that they’re going to try to kill him in a way that could kill other people, too,” Dr. Joel Zivot, an anesthesiologist and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine, said to NPR. “They’re not being realistic about what exactly is at stake here.”

They are so desperate to kill that they will do anything to achieve their goal. This man could be kept behind bars for the rest of his life. There is no reason to kill him other than primitive vengeance. And they don’t care if other, innocent people get killed in the process. It’s sick.

It Was The Pandemic, Stupid

Published by digby on January 25, 2024

Why did anyone ever think otherwise?

Krugman on the dynamite economic news today:

The U.S. economy is still growing fast, surpassing almost everyone’s expectations. Inflation is right at the Fed’s target. Let me explain why this is bad for President Biden.

OK, actually, no. Biden couldn’t have asked for better numbers.

Politics aside, these numbers help us make sense of the inflation that dogged America for a couple of years but plunged in 2023.

Here’s a wonkish chart, comparing the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation, the core personal consumption expenditures deflator (hey, don’t blame me), with a measure of labor market slack — the difference between the unemployment rate and the Congressional Budget Office estimate of normal, or “noncyclical,” unemployment. As you can see, before Covid there was a weak and noisy but still real relationship between the two: more slack, lower inflation.

Then inflation really took off. Many Biden critics, including some Democrats, blamed the big spending of Biden’s first year. But there was always a puzzle: Deficit spending is supposed to cause inflation by causing economic overheating, yet this should have been reflected in ultra-low unemployment, which didn’t happen. What happened instead was a period in which inflation was much higher than you would have expected, given unemployment.

But here’s the thing: At this point, we’re right back on the historical relationship.

The obvious story here is that we went through an episode of high inflation because of lingering but ultimately transitory supply disruptions caused by Covid, and that we’re back on track because the economy finally adjusted. Indeed, it takes real intellectual gymnastics not to tell that story.

So on inflation, it wasn’t Biden, it was the virus. And it’s over.

Of course it was. When you stop the global economy cold there is going to be a massive reaction. It’s wasn’t structural. I never understood why that wasn’t the default explanation.

Oh, and by the way, the media is finally starting to shift into reality:

Land Doesn’t Vote

Published by digby on January 25, 2024

It’s always worthwhile to circulate this map. Just so people can be reminded that our government is supposed to represent people not dirt.

Dean “Who?” It’s been reported that Phillips is almost certainly flirting with No Labels. Unfortunately for him, they are very unlikely to choose some cipher. But he’s a rich guy and his consultants are making big bank exploiting him which is fine. But really — what an ass.

No Labels Has A New Advocate

Published by digby on January 25, 2024

Has anything in the world ever been more predictable than this?

Former Attorney General Bill Barr is coming to the defense of No Labels and their longshot third party effort.

In a Wednesday op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Barr accused Democrat operatives of potentially breaking the law in response to a complaint filed by No Labels with the Department of Justice describing retaliatory tactics against members and efforts to keep them from making state ballots, an already complicated and costly effort for third parties.

The No Labels complaint describes an alleged “conspiracy to use retaliation, fear, intimidation, and even threats of violence” to keep the group off of ballots.

No Labels provided accounts of threats and phone calls from Democrat operatives as evidence of their claims.

“Although I am a committed Republican and not part of No Labels’ effort, I believe the campaign to disenfranchise the group is profoundly wrong. Poll after poll shows American voters want a choice beyond Joe Biden and Donald Trump,” Barr wrote about the situation.

If the accusations are true, he argued, then they amount to an attack on voter rights, an issue many Democrats have made central to their platforms amidst Trump’s constant talk of supposed voter fraud.

“Imagine what the progressive left would say if there were a campaign under way, with at least tacit support from the White House, to prevent Americans from registering to vote,” he wrote. “The current effort to block No Labels’ ballot access is as outrageous as taking away someone’s right to vote.”

No Labels is a Republican stalking horse effort so of course Barr would be supportive. He hates Democrats way more than he hates Trump and the Republicans, even now.

Here’s what the lawsuit is actually about:

For months, the centrist group No Labels has stockpiled cash and diligently worked to secure ballot access for a potential third-party presidential bid, striking fear among allies of President Joe Biden that the effort could siphon away votes and hand the White House to Donald Trump.

Now, with a rematch between Biden and Trump looking likely, two Democratic-aligned groups this week filed campaign finance complaints, hoping to crimp No Labels’ pipeline of campaign cash and force the group to follow the same rules as formal political parties.

The complaints, filed by the groups End Citizens United and Accountable.US, are part of a broader Democratic effort to ramp up legal scrutiny and elicit public scorn for No Labels as it teases a possible White House run by an as-of-yet unannounced ticket that many Democrats worry will play electoral spoiler.

“We are continuing to work every single avenue with our partners to hold (No Labels) accountable legally, to expose them publicly and to make sure they are playing by the same rules as everyone else,” said Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United. “I don’t think it’s any secret that No Labels is a threat to our democracy if they run a third-party (candidate). That’s going to siphon off votes from President Biden and reelect Donald Trump.”

In a statement, No Labels on Wednesday disputed any suggestion that the group had done anything improper and dismissed the complaints as part of a “coordinated conspiracy to subvert No Labels’ ballot access and limit Americans’ choices.”

No Labels regularly promotes itself as a “common sense” centrist organization. But while the group has established No Labels political parties in numerous states, at the national level it is actually registered as a nonprofit with the IRS. That has enabled No Labels to operate with limited transparency while accepting unlimited sums from an anonymous set of donors — a source of financing often referred to pejoratively as “dark money.”

If the Democrat-aligned groups are successful, No Labels would not only be compelled to register as a formal political party with the Federal Election Commission, but it would also have its tax-exempt status revoked, be forced to abide by the same donation amount limits as other political parties and be required to reveal its big-money donors.

I don’t know about this cause of action. Maybe No Labels has a point on the legal technicalities. But they are anti-democracy saboteurs who’ve decided to do what they are doing at the worst possible time in order to break the Democrats and they don’t care how they do it. They know that Trump will benefit and that he will destroy democracy as we know it. Defending itself on the basis of “democracy” is a terrible joke.

A Message From Our Once And Possible Future Dictator

Published by digby on January 25, 2024

He’s openly threatening anyone who supports Haley — and no doubt any of his other enemies. Come crawling now or never crawl to me again. I doubt he rally means it. He won’t turn away money. But he does want to see who comes running.

Why is he so desperate and angry at Haley? He’s ahead in all the polls, he won the first two contests, he’s certain to be the nominee. Could it possibly be that he just can’t stand a woman who refuses to succumb to his orders?

In any case, this was the response:

She said she’s raised a million dollars since her New Hampshire speech, mostly from small donors. She probably raised even more since Trump’s fatwa against her donors.

Good Morning

Published by digby on January 25, 2024

He put that out last night.

should be “impose”

David Leonhardt wonders if we should really worry our pretty little heads about all this:

My colleagues Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman and Charlie Savage are writing a continuing series on what Donald Trump plans to do during a second term as president. With Trump on his way to winning the Republican nomination, I want to devote today’s newsletter to a conversation with the three of them.

David: One question that some people have is whether Trump would govern as radically in a second term as his rhetoric suggests. After all, he also made sweeping promises when running in 2016, but he often failed to follow through.

There is no border wall. He didn’t withdraw from Afghanistan. He didn’t “lock up” Hillary Clinton. The courts rejected his initial Muslim ban and his changes to the census. What’s your view about whether to assume he will really do what he says in a second term?

Jonathan: I would challenge the statement that Trump didn’t do a lot of what he promised in his first term. Yes, there were some things he didn’t accomplish, and, yes, he initially appointed people who resisted his requests.

But by the end of his first term, Trump had put the U.S. on a course to withdraw from Afghanistan. On immigration, he had all but destroyed the asylum system. On trade, he had implemented tariffs against China and even European allies, and he had withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership — President Obama’s signature trade deal. He’d pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accords. I could go on, but you get the point.

Maggie: One way to look at this is that Trump would be picking up where he left off when the pandemic changed everything. At the beginning of 2020, Trump had installed a loyalist at the office of presidential personnel, John McEntee, to purge the government of anti-Trump officials and had plans to make it easier to fire civil servants. That was all put on pause, and would resume accordingly.

Charlie: Those who stuck with Trump learned a lot about how to work the levers of government over four years and are likely to be more competent than they were at first. For example, you mention that the courts blocked his ban on travel to the U.S. by people from several Muslim countries, but that is only true of the first stabs at it. Eventually, his administration figured out how to rewrite it in a way that the Supreme Court let take effect. His aides would be starting from that level of sophistication in a second term.

David: If he is president again, which policy areas do you think will be his biggest initial priorities?

Maggie: Immigration is an area where he tried to do a number of things last time, some of which his appointees blocked. One example was releasing undocumented immigrants into sanctuary cities — similar to what Republican governors have done with sending undocumented immigrants to blue states. But lawyers at Trump’s Department of Homeland Security said it couldn’t work.

If a second Trump term happens, I think you will see him move quickly on immigration. He has promised crackdowns at the border through use of the Insurrection Act, as well as mass roundups and deportations of undocumented immigrants.

He and his allies have also been clear that a big agenda item is eroding the Justice Department’s independence.

Charlie: Yes, Trump has vowed to use his power over the Justice Department to turn it into an instrument of vengeance against his political adversaries. This would end the post-Watergate norm that the department carries out criminal investigations independently of White House political control, and it would be a big deal for American-style democracy.

Jonathan: The reality is that Trump has spent almost no time thinking about what governing would look like in a second term. To the extent he has thought about it, his mind mostly turns to the Department of Justice and the “deep state” — which he understands as the intelligence community. People close to Trump are already drawing up lists of “disloyal” officials in the national security apparatus who will be targeted for retribution.

David: So far, we’ve been talking about the executive branch, but the Constitution includes checks on a president’s power — namely, Congress and the courts. How might they respond?

Charlie: The ability of other branches to serve as a check will be diminished. Most of the Republicans in Congress who occasionally stood up to Trump have left government or, by 2025, will have. Think of John McCain, Jeff Flake, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney.

The Supreme Court will be more tilted in Trump’s favor in any second term, thanks to his own appointments in his first four years. As a result, some disputes that he lost last time — such as the immigration case involving so-called Dreamers — would probably come out the other way.

Jonathan: I would add that the Senate has been the institution most resistant to Trump, but that, too, is changing. Mitch McConnell is near the end of his career. And the newer Republican senators, like J.D. Vance of Ohio and Ted Budd of North Carolina, are Trump loyalists who replaced Trump skeptics.

David: Good point. The main conclusion I take from your reporting is that when Trump tells voters what he plans to do in a second term, we should default to believing him.

Ya think? He lies about everything except one thing: his thirst for revenge. This is vengeance.

Identity Vs. Solidarity

Published by Tom Sullivan on January 25, 2024

Whatever happened to those pink pussyhats?

Over at Anand Giridharadas’ The Ink this morning, Anat Shenker-Osorio emphasizes the need for the left to adopt and use symbols the way MAGA uses hats. Or rather, the way abortion rights activists in Argentina use green bandanas not only to signify their movement’s cause, but to provide people not in the movement with social proof. “It’s one of the most persuasive tools in our arsenal,” Giridharadas writes. Shenker-Osorio explains (subscription req’d):

The thing is, people need to see, “Oh, that’s what my kind of a person thinks.” Humans are social creatures. We’re tribal. We want to find cues in our environment that tell us what our category subscribes to.

That is, what do people like me think? Or as Girdharadas explains below, what do people like me wear?

Shenker-Osorio continues:

So while I think there is some symbology on the movement side of the left, there isn’t enough. On the Democratic side, I think it’s very hard to maintain. You just can’t maintain symbology when the movement won’t carry it — like they literally will not wear a Democratic Party hat, won’t do it. 

But if you go to labor actions — I mean, look at the resurgence of labor, right? We ended 2023 with something like 400 separate labor actions in one year alone. We haven’t seen this in 40 years. Bread and roses.

Like, the labor movement sings. The labor movement has songs, the labor movement has T-shirts, the labor movement has signs. It even has iconic silly things, like that goofy rat that you see at picket lines.

It’s part of an identity, not a personal one, but with a larger movement.

We lefties are often not “joiners.” Radical individualism on the left and a drive for inclusion lead to political self-marginalization. Identity politics gets in the way of solidarity politics:

On the left we have to try to convince people who are fundamentally, psychologically left-wing in their makeup, in order to get them to repeat things to convert the conflicted. And that’s very different.

So, getting back to those green bandanas. After Dobbs came down, leaders of the abortion fight in Argentina mentioned to me that they had offered a few U.S.-based reproductive rights groups green bandanas without success. Why? My guess is that they saw this as something specific to Argentina and feared wearing the bandanas would amount to cultural appropriation. Of course it’s a political symbol, not a cultural symbol.

So you saw only a few green bandanas at the protests following Dobbs, and though since 2023 more folks have adopted it, we haven’t made it the thing. It’s used by some smaller groups, and individuals who’ve traveled to Latin America and brought it back (I wore mine when I managed to get great seats for a Warriors game).

It’s not enough signal to break through the noise. Only repetition does that, verbally and visually And mass adoption also would have extended visible solidarity with campaigners for this same cause not just in Argentina, but in Colombia, Mexico, and parts of Central America. It’s a missed opportunity.

So, what happened to those pink pussyhats that were everywhere during the 2017 Women’s March? By 2018, they’d begun to disappear, explained The Detroit Free Press:

The reason: The sentiment that the pink pussyhat excludes and is offensive to transgender women and gender nonbinary people who don’t have typical female genitalia and to women of color because their genitals are more likely to be brown than pink.

“I personally won’t wear one because if it hurts even a few people’s feelings, then I don’t feel like it’s unifying,” said Phoebe Hopps, founder and president of Women’s March Michigan and organizer of anniversary marches Jan. 21 in Lansing and Marquette.

Sometimes we can’t get out of our own way.

MAGA’s Mad Monarch

Published by Tom Sullivan on January 25, 2024

Some illiteration about the mad king

Roy Cohn and his former client and protege Donald Trump ( Dhance6033 / Flickr)

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan adjourned E. Jean Carroll’s defamation trial against Donald “91 Counts” Trump in New York City on Monday after one of the jurors became sick. Trump himself is expected to take the stand this afternoon.

The mad king was using his thumbs about it again last night. If Trump’s Truth Social account is any indication of his state of mind, hoo-boy (The New Republic):

Trump made 42 posts about Carroll (and one pushing falsehoods about the House January 6 investigative committee) on Truth Social in the span of 13 minutes. Many of his posts included photos or clips of interviews that he has previously shared about Carroll. Trump’s posting rate is so fast that the former president must have some prescheduled, some drafts saved for constant reuse, someone else posting for him, or some combination of all three.

His Truth Social account shared media interview clips and social media posts that appear to come from Carroll, all stripped of context so as to paint her as some sort of sexual deviant. He also falsely claimed that the co-founder of LinkedIn is paying Carroll’s legal fees and that presiding Judge Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan (no relation) are Democratic operatives.

Trump has made these claims about Carroll multiple times before. This is the third time during this trial that he has gone on such a posting spree. The first time was just before the trial began, and the second was—inexplicably—as he sat in the courtroom for the first day of the trial.

Trump must keep the undead corpse of Roy Cohn nearby and whispering bitter nothings in his ear. Perhaps it is Trump’s late mentor helping him tap out rapid-fire smears whenever Donald is feeling insecure, which is always.

From Where’s My Roy Cohn? (2019):

Cohn formulated his playbook in the 50s, but it is all too familiar today: always attack; never admit blame or apologize; use favors and fear to ensure support for your objectives; expertly manipulate the media to gain advantage and destroy your opponents; lie shamelessly, invalidating the idea of truth; weaponize lawsuits; evade taxes and bills; and, most importantly, inflame the prejudices of the crowd by scapegoating defenseless people.

Trump may be permanently aggrieved, semi-literate and under-educated (and mad, corrupt, etc.), but he learned all that from Cohn and learned it well.

Should Trump actually take the witness stand this afternoon, there’s not enough Maalox in Manhattan for Trump’s team of lawyers (NBC News):

Carroll is seeking at least $10 million in compensatory damages for “injury to her reputation, humiliation and mental anguish in her public and private life,” in addition to an unspecified amount in punitive damages to “punish Trump for acting maliciously and to deter Trump and others” from continuing to defame her. An expert who testified on Carroll’s behalf put the cost of repairing her reputation alone at $7 million to $12 million.

Carroll is expected to wrap up her case early in the day, paving the way for Trump’s defense to begin. He’s listed as one of two possible defense witnesses in the case, in which jurors will be deciding how much he should pay Carroll in damages for defaming her while he was in the White House in 2019, when he accused her of making up a sexual abuse claim against him for financial and political reasons.

Between E. Jean Carroll threatening to take him for tens of millions and Nikiki Haley, another woman (and she’s brown!) daring to taunt him on the campaign trail, Trump must be wound up tighter than usual. He’s threatening Haley’s donors now (The Hill):

“When I ran for Office and won, I noticed that the losing Candidate’s ‘Donors’ would immediately come to me, and want to ‘help out.’ This is standard in Politics, but no longer with me,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“Anybody that makes a ‘Contribution’ to Birdbrain, from this moment forth, will be permanently barred from the MAGA camp. We don’t want them, and will not accept them, because we Put America First, and ALWAYS WILL!” Trump continued, using the nickname “Birdbrain,” to refer to Haley.

Trump’s direct threat against Haley’s supporters signals a sharpening in his rhetoric, as the former president seeks to compel support from all corners of the GOP.

Donald Trump turn down money? That’ll be the day.

If Trump takes the stand today, his attorneys will wish they never got out of bed.

The Gravedigger Of Democracy Flips

Published by digby on January 24, 2024

Mitch McConnell believes in nothing. Not one thing.

A quandary? Trump is going to push his party, his country and the world over the abyss and Mitch doesn’t want to do anything to undermine him.

This is the GOP at its core. They are a death cult.