Jordan was on the inside helping during the attempted coup and yet for some reason he, like all members of congress, seems to be immune to any sort of accountability for it.
Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) on Tuesday discussed the potential criminal liability of election-denying Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump.
“I think that there’s no question that Jim Jordan has something to hide, probably a lot to hide,” Cheney — who has dropped severalbombshellrevelations in her new bestselling book, “Oath and Honor” — suggested to MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace.
“If you go back and look at the phone records, as well as what he’s said himself about his discussions and his conversations with Donald Trump on the 6th, the very significant role he played in the lead-up to that, [Jordan] was clearly one of the masterminds in terms of helping to facilitate Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the [2020] election and of course refused to comply with the select committee subpoena,” noted the ex-lawmaker, referring to a House panel order for Jordan to testify in connection with the 2021 attack.
Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, is likely “doing everything he can to help Donald Trump, to do Donald Trump’s bidding,” Cheney continued. “And I think that he has so many questions of his own to answer that people just need to go back and look at the record.”
He is “very clearly at the heart of what was an attempt to seize power and overturn an election,” she added.
Wallace asked Cheney if Jordan, who in October failed in his bid to replace Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as House speaker after his ouster, had any criminal exposure to the insurrection.
“I think he has a lot of questions to answer,” Cheney replied.
He does, but apparently nobody’s going to ask. Why is that?
Kevin McCarthy is leaving at the end of the year. He thought he could finesse Trump and the crazies and he failed. They ate his face. After enabling them for years and completely humiliating himself at the feet of Donald Trump, there was never any chance they wouldn’t. But then he’s always been a little bit dumb. (Liz Cheney says Johnson is smarter which isn’t saying much. He’ll be happy to blow the place up.)
MyKev is hurt, obviously. And he’s pissed. After all he’s leaving Johnson’s majority one less seat. They will be down to two and there’s a rumor that another one is going to resign as well. They’d better hope everyone else stays very healthy.
He’s also upset that Trump didn’t really support him in his time of need. But I’m not expecting him to sign on with the Lincoln Project any time soon. The man has a backbone made of silly putty and a brain made of mashed potatoes. Whatever he does will be wrong.
Trump was asked by his faithful servant Sean Hannity last night if he would reassure the public that he has no plans to be a dictator and abuse his power. His answer was telling:
WATCH: Hannity repeatedly asks Trump if he plans to “abuse power” and be a “dictator” — he doesn’t say no. pic.twitter.com/jh1iHZVeAS
Let’s remember that Trump believes the presidency has dictatorial power. He made that clear many times:
Hannity wanted so desperately for him to unequivocally deny it but he didn’t do it because it’s a big applause line for his feral mob. They love it when he’s swinging his tiny hands around like that.
Meanwhile,earlier in the day:
Kash Patel says as Trump’s next CIA Director he will lead “patriots” appointed by Trump in an all-out effort to prosecute and jail people in government and the media: “We will find the conspirators in govt and the media. Yes, we are going to come after the people in the media.” pic.twitter.com/NuLyqOIKWO
Patel was hired in February 2019 as a staffer for President Trump’s National Security Council (NSC), working in the International Organizations and Alliances directorate, and in July 2019 became Senior Director of the Counterterrorism Directorate, a new position created for him.[18] According to The Wall Street Journal, Patel led a secret mission to Damascus in early 2020 to negotiate the release of Majd Kamalmaz and journalist Austin Tice, both of whom were being held by the Syrian government.
In February 2020, Patel moved to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI),[21] becoming a Principal Deputy to Acting Director Richard Grenell.
In January 2021, Axios reported that Trump had considered Patel for appointment as Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to replace Gina Haspel. According to Axios, Patel was to be appointed Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency immediately before a planned dismissal of Haspel, allowing him to head the agency in an acting capacity. In an interview with Vanity Fair, Ezra Cohen-Watnick confirmed parts of the Axios report. Patel declined to comment.
In November 2020, Patel was made chief of staff to Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher C. Miller, a move that followed Trump’s firing of Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. Patel reportedly argued that Esper was disloyal to Trump by refusing to deploy military troops to Washington to quell the George Floyd protests.
AEI policy director Kori Schake argued that although neither Patel nor others were “confirmable”, the shakeup was primarily a matter of “spite” toward the Pentagon establishment. Foreign Policy magazine connected the move to Trump’s “refusal to accept the election results”. Based on interviews with defense experts, Alex Ward of Vox suggested that Patel’s appointment was “not sinister”, would “not change much”, and may have served an effort to accelerate the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. According to an unnamed source quoted by Vanity Fair, Miller was a “front man” during his time as Acting Secretary of Defense while Patel and Cohen-Watnick were “calling the shots” at the Department of Defense. Another source told the magazine that Patel was the most influential person in the U.S. government on matters of national security.
After the November 2020 election, Patel reportedly blocked some Department of Defense officials from helping the Biden administration transition, according to NBC.
He remains in Trump’s inner circle and is expected to hold a powerful position in a new Trump White House.
Trump tried to overturn the election results and incited his mob to storm the capitol to stop the transfer of power. And people are asking if he plans to be a dictator? Of course he does. he just ran out of time.
Update — Jonathan Chait has this right:
This exchange is best understood as Trump enjoying the idea of himself as dictator. Trump has always admired dictators and has longed to be granted the obsequious deference they are afforded. As president, his favorite moments were trips to places like North Korea, where he spoke admiringly about the way his counterparties were treated. (“He’s the head of the country,” Trump said of Kim Jong-un. “And I mean, he’s the strong head. Don’t let anyone think anything different. … He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”)
His allies have always found this trait embarrassing and wished to deny it. Republicans are angrily attacking media coverage of Trump’s promises to turn the government into a weapon of vengeance as a smear campaign.
“There is no longer any pretense. Not even a fig leaf about fairness,” complains Fox News self-style media reporter Howard Kurtz. “It’s not that [Trump] shouldn’t be held accountable for his own rhetoric and social-media posts, but I have never seen anything like this in my professional lifetime.”
Could the reason that Trump’s authoritarian threat is being covered in a different way than any previous candidate be that no previous presidential candidate has explicitly promised to use his power to crush his enemies as vermin? Kurtz does not consider this possibility. Media bias is the only explanation.
Trump’s allies likewise insist that coverage of his plans is actually a scheme to seed violence against Trump. “All of these articles calling Trump a dictator are about one thing: legitimizing illegal and violent conduct as we get closer to the election,” proclaims Senator J.D. Vance. “This extreme and dangerous genre — of claiming Trump is Hitler (because, they say, he might do what Democrats are doing right now) — should probably be given the name ‘Assassination Prep,’” warns the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway.
The whole pretense of these complaints is that Trump has done or said nothing dangerous or unusual, and that reporting on his plans and public statements is a form of dangerous incitement. They are all but begging Trump to give them a shred of deniability. He can simply say, even with a wink, that he doesn’t wish to become America’s Putin. He won’t give them even that — because, to Trump, being called “dictator” is a compliment his ego won’t permit him to deny.
I love it that Howard Kurtz is having a fit over the coverage. Good. The media must keep it up so that it will finally penetrate to the people who are not paying close attention.
Get ready for another magical night in American politics. Yes, the fourth Republican Presidential Second Place Debate is tonight, being broadcast by an obscure cable channel called News Nation. The whole country is crackling with excitement at the prospect watching of the last four standing, Former New jersey Gov., Chris Christie, Florida Gov. Ron Desantis, Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and Former S. Carolina Gov Nikki Haley going mano-a-mano once again.
Actually these debates have been the most boring political rituals in human history. The presidential race may be heating up and the stakes could not be higher but these events cannot wind up too soon. Their only purpose is to help the GOP base figure out who might be an adequate replacement if Donald Trump keels over at the Mar-a-Lago omelette bar one Sunday and I’m not sure most Republican voters really care who that might be.
DeSantis’ previous position as first runner-up has been usurped by Haley who is still riding the little boomlet that has pundits declaring that she is “surging” in Iowa and New Hampshire. The truth is that she’s pulled even with DeSantis for second place in the first and overtaken him for second in New Hampshire. That might mean something if it weren’t for the fact that Trump is leading both of them by nearly 30 points in Iowa and is leading Haley by 26 points in New Hampshire. (DeSantis has dropped to 4th there.) Nationally, Trump leads by nearly 50 points. So this Haley surge is reminiscent of past forgettable moments like when Newt Gingrich briefly took the lead in the GOP primary in 2012.
What is significant about the Haley boomlet isn’t this minuscule surge in her polling, it’s the massive surge in her donations from billionaires. It’s not just the Koch network which garnered huge headlines when it was announced that its Americans for Prosperity Action fund was endorsing her for president after laying out of presidential politics for some time. Haley attended at fundraiser New York attended by top Wall Street financiers on Monday and raised a whopping $500,000 in one fell swoop.
CNBC reported that the event was held at the “luxurious Upper West Side penthouse of former Facebook executive Campbell Brown and her husband Dan Senor, chief public affairs officer at hedge fund Elliot Investment Management” which was founded by GOP megadonor Paul Singer. (According to Theodore Schliefer of Puck News, everyone was slightly disappointed that Singer himself was not in attendance because everyone on Wall St. is waiting on tenderhooks to see who he has decided to back.) But, among those who were there were:
Cliff Asness, a co-founder of investment firm AQR Capital Management, Kristin Lemkau, CEO of JPMorgan Chase’s wealth management division, Robert Rosenkranz, head of Delphi Capital Management and Ray Chambers, a philanthropist who once had a stake in the NHL’s New Jersey Devils were all spotted.
CNBC notes that Lemkau showed up just days after her boss Jamie Dimon exorted people to back Haley at a conference hosted by The New York Times’ DealBook franchise. Dimon put it like this, which was laughable:
“Even if you’re a very liberal Democrat, I urge you, help Nikki Haley, too. Get a choice on the Republican side that might be better than [Donald] Trump,”
There is at least one liberal Democrat who stepped up early to help Haley in order to stop Donald Trump, Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn, who has funded a number of causes in opposition to Trump, but he’s a rarity. Liberal donors would generally rather spend their money on Democrats than Republicans.
The question is why in the world are these rich donors suddenly backing Haley so strongly when they are very unlikely to get much of anything out of it? As Pucks’ Schleifer observed:
[P]lenty of the people donating six or seven figures to Haley or DeSantis at this point don’t reasonably expect their candidate to win, a phenomenon I’ve never experienced before. The dominant feeling among major donors is a sense of apathy—that this is Trump’s race to lose, to say the least.
What is she doing that has them so enthralled that they are throwing away their money on her doomed campaign? The easy answer is that these people all have way too much money so these millions are just pocket change to them anyway and they can take a flyer. If there’s ever been a better reason to raise their taxes to better fund the government, I’ve never seen it. And that may hold the real answer to the question of why they are now looking at Nikki Haley.
As you’ll recall, in the last debate Haley broke dramatically with Donald Trump by declaring that “any candidate that tells you they’re not going to go after Social Security and Medicare is not being serious.” She didn’t sugar coat it with the usual euphemisms by saying “we need to reform entitlements” and she’s made it clear that she not only wants to raise the retirement age, she also wants to reduce benefits for current beneficiaries by changing the cost of living formula. None of that is new for the pre-Trump GOP, but it’s been off the table since he took office.
In fact, one of Joe Biden’s finest hours was when he goaded the congressional Republicans into insisting they had no intention of threatening the programs:
Joe Biden and the Democrats have made it clear that if they get the majority they plan to raise the caps on Social Security and Medicare taxes to shore up the program. These people are adamantly opposed to that and will do anything to prevent it.
As CNN reported, the Kochs’ Americans for Prosperity Action made it clear in their endorsement why they are backing Haley:
Emily Seidel – a top official in the influential political network associated with billionaire Charles Koch – praised the former UN ambassador’s “courage” for advocating changes to “an entitlement system that makes promises it can’t keep.”
And they aren’t the only ones:
“We need a complete reevaluation of entitlements,” Ken Langone, the billionaire co-founder of Home Depot who is weighing backing Haley
In fact, I think we can assume that Haley’s eagerness to cut these programs is a primary motive behind the surge in big donor interest in her campaign. They may realize on some level that she is not going to win this time but they are signaling that this is the way to a billionaire’s heart. If you’re willing to force poor elderly people into even worse penury than they already are, you are their kind of gal. They are investing in a future when Donald Trump is no longer telling his followers what they want to hear.
It will be interesting to see how Trump handles this. Although he’s vaguely indicated that he thinks cuts could be offset by growth for some reason, for the most part he’s held fast to his promise that the two vital programs cannot be cut and he’s kept the party with him. But as we can see, that’s a very tenuous promise. The real owners of the Republican Party are preparing to reassert themselves and this one little populist promise will die the day that Trump is finally out of politics. Haley is savvy enough to see that coming out strong on this issue tells the billionaires everything they need to know about who she really serves.
Many readers may have first come across Elizabeth Warren (as I did) in an online lecture: “The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class: Higher Risks, Lower Rewards, and a Shrinking Safety Net.” The then-Harvard Law professor lectured in the glow of her 2003 book, “The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke.” Warren described how since the Reagan administration the rich got richer and the rest got screwed. (She put it more delicately.)
The America Prospect this morning argues that Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis should in the public interest publish data it surely has that would make Warren’s case without her (or you) having to do the research.
This data is already collected but not displayed in a user-friendly form. The Gini index is reported annually, but Gross Domestic Distribution could be shown quarterly along with GDP, and offer granular data about who’s getting what share of growth. https://t.co/xYFMZwdjHI
“Last year, America’s current-dollar GDP grew 6.6 percent to over $26,000,000,000—one quarter of the entire world’s total output, produced by just 6 percent of the world’s population,” explains Richard Parker. Yes, but who benefited?
And so when the latest GDP number is announced, it’s front-page news in newspapers and magazines everywhere, a leading story for TV and radio, and the preoccupation of an almost uncountable number of online sites. But you may have noticed something strange about GDP: Because it’s a measure of the total economy’s output, it’s silent about how that output is divided among Americans. We’ve been living—and are living right now—in a nation with ever-increasing inequality, which makes the question of who gets how much of the GDP as important as GDP itself. And that makes it time for the government to start measuring and reporting more than GDP’s sum of our aggregate production. We need to know how GDP growth is distributed.
Let’s for the moment call such a measure the GDD—for “gross domestic distribution.” (I’ll explain how it would work in a moment.)
Most Americans already know that America has been growing ever more unequal—but beyond that, they know few details. Government tells them that GDP is still growing—by 5.2 percent in the last quarter—but not that nearly all of that growth is captured by the wealthiest 10 percent, and especially the top 1 percent.
Yet what most Americans know intuitively is that life for the Great American Middle Class has gotten much harder—something the government’s own data has been recording since the 1970s. That data shows that, to begin with, the broad middle class’s share of total household income has fallen from over 60 percent in the 1970s to barely 40 percent. Among young Americans—the millennials—far fewer are earning more than their parents at the same age, and the gap is growing wider, especially for the majority who lack college degrees.
Yet because that’s been a steady, slow-rolling decline, officials haven’t talked about what’s happening the way they do for a significant “event” like the Great Depression—or our recent Great Recession and COVID lockdown. Like the frog in the pot that gets hotter slowly, the temperature keeps rising—but the frog doesn’t jump.
Parker’s complaint is that while the data is there, it’s not available in user-friendly form (something I’ve found across the country with state election data).
What the BEA doesn’t do is tell you how Americans’ income can be broken out and arranged by the size of their incomes—ranked by the top 10 percent, say, or the middle fifth, or the bottom half. Thus, you won’t learn from the BEA where income has been flowing over the years—how much to the one percent or the poor or the middle class. That is, needless to say, elementary information for addressing income inequality—a serious topic to, let me remind you, 80 percent of Americans nowadays.
What the public doesn’t know won’t upset the status quo. Is that by design? The problem is (Parker dons his tinfoil hat, and I mine), “the government has a vast amount of detailed, publicly available information about the distribution of Americans’ income. It’s just that apparently the public doesn’t know it.”
Thus, here’s how a Harvard Business School study found Americans think income gets distributed vs. how it really is and how they think it should be:
As I’ve found with election data, Parker found after inquiring if “the BEA would be open to adding GDD data from the Census Bureau to its GDP reports,” that the issue comes down to bureaucratic turf and budgeting. Mustn’t pull back the curtain and reveal the Wizards.
A 2022 report by the nonprofit Washington Center for Equitable Growth recommended:
The federal statistical system needs to be resourced to expand and continue reporting on inequality … Four decades of rising inequality calls for a more robust policy response to ensure broad-based growth in the U.S. economy. An important first step is to develop the data infrastructure to track growth in inequality over time, so that policymakers can monitor and respond to the problem, and voters can hold them accountable to producing strong growth for all U.S. households.
I could say something similar about state election data. But now that’s 50 agencies and budgets. Imagine what happens to all the federal data with MAGA lackeys in charge.
Donald J. Trump and his MAGA horde attempted the murder of the United States of America on January 6, 2021. Give them a second chance and they may succeed. The media have finally caught on. The claxon sounding over at The Atlantic is itself news. (There are new articles there today.)
The Constitution is not a suicide pact, it’s said. Trump has announced his plans to make the 2024 election one for the country. His collaborators are mixing up the Flavor Aid now.
Prepare for Trump Plus Nothing, The Sequel. Call it mass insanity or something else, Trump’s followers are indeed ready once again to make their obeisance. During the COVID pandemic, many eschewed masks and vaccines and gave their lives for him. As former Trump fixer Michael Cohen explained, he talks like a mob boss. He doesn’t give explicit orders. The Boss lets underlings know what he wants and they go do it, even to their graves.
“Call it the opposite of virtue signaling,” writes Jill Lawrence of The Bulwark:
Trump’s harsh 2025 immigration agenda of travel bans, large-scale raids, detention camps, and “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country,” along with a House bill reflecting his views, are hanging over Republican senators as they try to negotiate a border security deal crucial to passing a bipartisan aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza. The Republicans are acting as if Trump is “looking over their shoulders,” a Democratic source told Washington Post writer Greg Sargent.
Health care is the next test for conservatives trying to out-conservative each other. By suddenly renewing his vows to kill the 2010 Affordable Care Act, Trump has now signaled what he expects from them. As in fealty, or else.
Lawrence’s focus this morning is health care policy. The Greg Sargent column suggesting Republicans sense Trump (and Stephen Miller) “looking over their shoulders” was about immigration policy. Whatever hints Trump drops, whatever mood strikes him in a second presidency, MAGA civilians and lawmakers will jump through their asses to deliver for The Boss. Zombie apocalypses are fiction. MAGA Republicans mean to make the Trump apocalypse a reality.
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R), 48, of North Carolina announced on Tuesday he will retire at the end of his term, saying, “This is not a decision I come to lightly, but I believe there is a season for everything and—for me—this season has come to an end.”
McHenry counts today as a moderate conservative. He served as Speaker pro tempore during the GOP’s weeks-long effort to replace Rep. Kevin McCarthy with whom he was closely aligned. Like animals nervously signalling the arrival of an earthquake, he’s heading for the exits.
Over the past six months, the personal consumption expenditure deflator excluding food and energy — I know that’s a mouthful, but it’s the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of underlying inflation — has risen at an annual rate of only 2.5 percent, down from 5.7 percent in March 2022.
The Fed’s inflation target is 2 percent, so we’re not quite there yet. And you shouldn’t expect the Fed to declare victory any time soon. As I can tell you from personal experience, anyone suggesting that inflation is more or less under control can expect an avalanche of hate mail and hostile commentary on social media. In fact, I believe that the vehemence with which some Americans insist that inflation is still running wild distorts coverage in conventional media, too, because journalists are deterred from saying anything positive. And the Fed has to be especially careful, because it would lose credibility if inflation went back up after sounding too optimistic. The truth, however, is that inflation is looking very much like yesterday’s problem.
But wait — don’t real people have to buy food and energy? Well, there are good reasons for policymakers to look at “core” measures excluding components that jump around a lot, but in case you’re interested, prices including food and energy have risen at an annual rate of … 2.5 percent, the same as core inflation.
The more familiar Consumer Price Index is rising a bit faster, by 3 percent, but that’s entirely because it puts a higher weight on housing, which at this point is very much a lagging indicator.
What’s remarkable isn’t just the fact that we’ve made so much progress against inflation, but also the fact that this progress has seemed to come without any visible cost. So far, this has been “immaculate disinflation,” requiring neither a recession nor a large rise in unemployment.
Here’s a chart I find helpful for telling the story of inflation in recent years. The horizontal axis shows the fraction of adults between 25 and 54 who are employed, an indicator that is closely correlated with the unemployment rate but has seemed to be a bit better at measuring how “hot” the labor market is running. The vertical axis shows core inflation:
The blue dots at the bottom are annual numbers from 2000 to 2019, while the red line above shows the path since January 2021. Prepandemic, there was on average a modest positive relationship between employment and inflation, shown by the dotted line. But inflation went far higher than this relationship would have led you to expect, then rapidly came down without any significant loss in jobs.
So what explains this history, and how does it compare with economists’ predictions?
There were some big disagreements among economists here. Almost everyone, I think, was surprised by how easily we reduced inflation. But some were more surprised than others.
Here’s a schematic picture with three arrows starting from the high inflation, fairly high employment position we were in midway through 2022:
The curve labeled “LS” shows the very pessimistic view held by economists who believed that we would need to go through a period of large job losses and very high unemployment to get inflation down, the way we did after the 1970s. Yes, L.S. stands for Larry Summers, the most prominent advocate of that view, although he had plenty of company.
The arrow labeled “PK” shows the much more optimistic — but as it turned out, insufficiently optimistic — view held by economists who believed that getting inflation down would have some cost in terms of unemployment, but nothing like the stagflation of the 1970s and 1980s. P.K. stands for the obvious: In August 2022 I put out a newsletter explaining why I thought the analogy with the aftermath of the 1970s was all wrong. I was, in fact, baffled by the extreme pessimism I was hearing. More on that later.
But I didn’t think disinflation would be painless. I believed that the U.S. economy was overheated, with demand exceeding supply, and expected that correcting this imbalance would involve some pain. “Getting inflation down,” I wrote, “requires cooling the economy down, but not putting it through an extended slump.”
And who’s R.W.? That’s the real world, where getting inflation down didn’t require any job losses at all. How was that possible? Demand may have exceeded supply in 2022, but the gap appears to have been closed not by reducing demand but by increasing supply, as lingering disruptions from the pandemic were resolved.
I think those of us who weren’t quite optimistic enough can be forgiven for not seeing this coming, although I would say that, wouldn’t I? And I did believe that the Fed was justified in raising interest rates given what we knew at the time, although I’m quite worried now that the Fed has overdone it and should start cutting soon.
But where did the extreme pessimism of some of my colleagues come from?
Several economists had warned that the American Rescue Plan, the large spending bill passed early in the Biden administration, would be inflationary, warnings that appeared to be vindicated by the inflation surge of 2021-22. In retrospect, these economists may have been right for the wrong reasons, since inflation eventually surged, not only in America but almost everywhere:
This suggests that inflation may have had less to do with overspending than it did with pandemic-related disruptions; see the article by Claudia Sahm in “Quick Hits” below. But my big question is why so many economists predicted that the rapid initial rise in inflation would be followed by protracted stagflation.
The thing is, we have a standard story about why ’70s inflation was so hard to end, which relies on the way persistent inflation had become entrenched in expectations. But this clearly wasn’t the case in 2022. So while predictions of inflation in 2021 more or less reflected textbook macroeconomics, predicting stagflation after 2022 meant throwing out the textbook in favor of novel arguments for pessimism.
Furthermore, what struck me in 2022 was that the arguments that leading pessimists were making for persistent high inflation had no logical connection to the arguments they had made for a surge in inflation back in 2021. They were predicting the same thing but for completely different reasons. There was nothing linking the inflationist views of 2022 to those of 2021 except a shared pessimistic vibe.
And vibes are a poor basis for economic analysis. Indeed, vibe-based predictions of stagflation — vibeflation? — turn out to have been completely, you might say epically, wrong.
Vibes are not reality and we need to live in reality right now, more than ever. That so many keep acting as though it is is yet another sign of our deep political crisis,
Speaker Mike Johnson says the House is working on releasing new Jan. 6 tapes and will blur out the faces of rioters:
“We don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ and to have other, you know, concerns and problems.” pic.twitter.com/dExchE0qbr
I could hardly believe I heard him right and had to listen to it twice. Not much is shocking these days but this is. The Speaker of the House is protecting the insurrectionists from the FBI. And he’s admitting it as if it is perfectly normal.
This is so far beyond normal we’re living in another dimension now. We are broken.
David Frum is one Never Trumper from whom I still recoil even though I’m a big believer in a popular front against Trump. He’s still a wingnut in some very important ways. Nonetheless, this big Atlantic issue about what will happen if Trump wins has a number of good articles and I thought his was was especially thought provoking:
A second Trump term would instantly plunge the country into a constitutional crisis more terrible than anything seen since the Civil War. Even in the turmoil of the 1960s, even during the Great Depression, the country had a functional government with the president as its head. But the government cannot function with an indicted or convicted criminal as its head. The president would be an outlaw, or on his way to becoming an outlaw. For his own survival, he would have to destroy the rule of law.
A restored Trump would lead the United States into a landscape of unthinkable scenarios. Will the Senate confirm Trump nominees who were chosen because of their willingness to help the president lead a coup against the U.S. government? Will the staff of the Justice Department resign? Will people march in the streets? Will the military obey or refuse orders to suppress demonstrations?
The existing constitutional system has no room for the subversive legal maneuvers of a criminal in chief. If a president can pardon himself for federal crimes—as Trump would likely try to do—then he could write his pardon in advance and shoot visitors to the White House. (For that matter, the vice president could murder the president in the Oval Office and then immediately pardon herself.) If a president can order the attorney general to stop a federal case against him—as Trump would surely do—then obstruction of justice becomes a normal prerogative of the presidency. If Trump can be president, then the United States owes a huge retrospective apology to Richard Nixon. Under the rules of a second Trump presidency, Nixon would have been well within his rights to order the Department of Justice to stop investigating Watergate and then pardon himself and all the burglars for the break-in and cover-up.
He goes on to point out that all the guardrails that existed in the first term are gone and that those who will be part of his new administration will be nothing but sycophants and henchmen along with groups of chaos agents and radical authoritarians:
This is what I found so interesting, though. He talks about the chaos that will ensue when he tries all these things which is not something I’ve seen too many people talk about. It’s not as if the rest of the country is just going to sit quietly by:
If Trump is elected, it very likely won’t be with a majority of the popular vote. Imagine the scenario: Trump has won the Electoral College with 46 percent of the vote because third-party candidates funded by Republican donors successfully splintered the anti-Trump coalition. Having failed to win the popular vote in each of the past three elections, Trump has become president for the second time. On that thin basis, his supporters would try to execute his schemes of personal impunity and political vengeance.
In this scenario, Trump opponents would have to face a harsh reality: The U.S. electoral system has privileged a strategically located minority, led by a lawbreaking president, over the democratic majority. One side outvoted the other. The outvoted nonetheless won the power to govern.
The outvoted would happily justify the twist of events in their favor. “We are a republic, not a democracy,” many said in 2016. Since that time, the outvoted have become more outspoken against democracy. As Senator Mike Lee tweeted a month before the 2020 election: “Democracy isn’t the objective.”
So long as minority rule seems an occasional or accidental result, the majority might go along. But once aware that the minority intends to engineer its power to last forever—and to use it to subvert the larger legal and constitutional system—the majority may cease to be so accepting. One outcome of a second Trump term may be an American version of the massive demonstrations that filled Tel Aviv streets in 2023, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to remake Israel’s court system.
And what might follow that? In 2020, Trump’s advisers speculated about the possibility of using the Army to crush protests against Trump’s plans to overturn that year’s election. Now those in Trump’s circle are apparently thinking further ahead. Some reportedly want to prepare in advance to use the Insurrection Act to convert the military into a tool of Trump’s authoritarian project. It’s an astonishing possibility. But Trump is thinking about it, so everybody else must—including the senior command of the U.S. military.
[…]
That grim negative ideal is the core ballot question in 2024. If Trump is defeated, the United States can proceed in its familiar imperfect way to deal with the many big problems of our time: the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, climate change, educational standards and equal opportunity, economic growth and individual living standards, and so on. Stopping Trump would not represent progress on any of those agenda items. But stopping Trump would preserve the possibility of progress, by keeping alive the constitutional-democratic structure of the United States.
A second Trump presidency, however, is the kind of shock that would overwhelm all other issues. It would mark the turn onto a dark path, one of these rips between “before” and “after” that a society can never reverse. Even if the harm is contained, it can never be fully undone, as the harm of January 6, 2021, can never be undone. The long tradition of peaceful transitions of power was broken that day, and even though the attempt to stop the transition by violence was defeated, the violence itself was not expunged. The schemes and plots of a second Trump term may be defeated too. Yet every future would-be dictator will know: A president can attempt a coup and, if stopped, still return to office to try again.
As we now understand from memoirs and on-the-record comments, many of Trump’s own Cabinet appointees and senior staff were horrified by the president they served. The leaders of his own party in Congress feared and hated him. The GOP’s deepest-pocketed donors have worked for three years to nominate somebody, anybody, else. Yet even so, Trump’s co-partisans are converging upon him. They are convincing themselves that something can justify forgiving Trump’s first attempted coup and enabling a second: taxes, border control, stupid comments by “woke” college students.
For democracy to continue, however, the democratic system itself must be the supreme commitment of all major participants. Rules must matter more than outcomes. If not, the system careens toward breakdown—as it is careening now.
I can’t help but point out that Frum’s former boss, the man he extolled as the greatest president since Lincoln, also won on the thinnest of pretexts having lost the popular vote and obtaining the office with the help of operatives interfering with the vote count, his Governor brother and two Supreme Court justices appointed by his father. Even so, he was hardly humbled or chagrined by any of that and famously said “I got political capital and I’m gonna use it.” And boy did he, with the full support of the Republican establishment including people like Frum. It was obvious then that the GOP was off the rails.
Nonetheless, we are where are and he’s right that we are careening into the unknown. Trump and his henchmen want the majority to protest because they want the excuse to use the Insurrection Act to put it down, citing the January 6th precedent. That won’t be like the Tel Aviv protests. It would more likely be like Tienanmen Square. And that would be just the beginning.
I’m sure he’ll be right back in the Senate GOP fold now. No biggie. He’s still on their team.
FFS:
Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama, announced on Tuesday that he would lift his blockade of nearly all the military promotions he had delayed for almost a year in protest of a Pentagon policy ensuring abortion access for service members, continuing to hold up only the most senior generals.
Mr. Tuberville said he had lifted his holds on about 440 military promotions. “Everybody but the 10 or 11 four-stars,” he said. “Those will continue.”
The announcement represented a stark reversal from Mr. Tuberville, who for 10 months had steadfastly defended his move to stall senior military promotions over a new Pentagon policy that offers time off and travel reimbursement to service members seeking abortions or fertility care.
His blockade had single-handedly disrupted the Pentagon’s ability to fill its top ranks, leaving hundreds of promotions in limbo. Other officials in senior positions were left to operate on an “acting” basis, unable to hire people to staff their new positions or to move into the quarters that come with the job.
The reversal came amid mounting pressure on Mr. Tuberville from both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Tuberville said on Tuesday that he had decided to lift the blockade after senators hatched a plan to temporarily go around the chamber’s rules to allow confirmation of almost all military nominees as a bloc. That would have been a major break with tradition and a step many senators in both parties were reluctant to take.
“It’s been a long fight,” Mr. Tuberville told reporters. “We fought hard. We did the right thing for the unborn and for our military, fighting back against executive overreach.”
