Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Good luck with that

U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya tried back in August to stop Little Donny in his highchair from throwing his spoon. With little success.

This morning, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan will have a go at stopping the … ahem … former president of the United States from “attacking potential witnesses, prosecutors and court officials involved in his federal case over election fraud” (Politico):

If Chutkan agrees that Trump’s penchant for public invective should be restrained, it will be his first brush with court-ordered consequences in a criminal case — consequences that, at least in theory, could be backed by the threat of jail time.

And a gag order would immediately raise two questions that could define his bid to retake the White House: Is Trump capable of abiding by a court-ordered restriction on his speech? And what is Chutkan prepared to do if he isn’t?

Restraint is not exactly Donald Trump’s middle name, accustomed as he is his whole life to having sycophants trailing him with their lips firmly affixed to his backside. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson graphically described [52:22] Trump’s alleged response to being told by his Secret Service detail that they would not drive him to the Capitol after his Jan. 6 Ellipse rally. Chutkan will have to be at least as forceful if she expects compliance with any gag order.

If Trump were to violate a potential gag order, enforcement would fall to Chutkan, who has a range of options ranging from gentle warnings to pretrial incarceration. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which she orders the former president jailed before trial — though his rhetoric may test that premise. Still, short of detention, Chutkan could impose other restrictions, such as limits on his use of social media or access to the internet. Any consequence she were to impose on Trump would become instant grist for Trump’s attacks on the court and the justice system, a dynamic Chutkan is plainly aware of.

The former president is already subject to a narrow gag order in another case: the New York civil fraud trial of Trump and his business empire, which Trump attended earlier this month. During the proceedings, Trump posted a social media attack on Justice Arthur Engoron’s top clerk, including a picture of her and a link to her Instagram account. When Engoron learned of the post, he quickly ordered Trump to refrain from publicly commenting on his aides and staff.

But Engoron’s admonishments have barely slowed Trump’s efforts to publicly brand officers of the courts handling his multiple cases as “Trump haters” and “racist.” On some level, the indicted former president knows the weakness of his legal position in the concurrent criminal cases against him. His strategy now is not just to pound the table but to throw it over like lunch against the wall [58:59]. Trump’s attorneys argue that his being a presidential candidate, a gag order amounts to a freedom of speech violation.

But prosecutors replied with renewed urgency after Trump mounted a series of late-September attacks on Milley and former Vice President Mike Pence, saying he shouldn’t be able to use his political candidacy as a cover for harassing witnesses.

Milley told the House Jan. 6 select committee that he encountered Trump repeatedly during the final frenetic weeks of his administration, saying Trump privately acknowledged he had lost the election despite his public claims to the contrary. Pence became the object of Trump’s last-ditch bid to remain in power on Jan. 6, 2021, and the target of Trump’s fury when he refused to acquiesce.

“[N]o other criminal defendant would be permitted to issue public statements insinuating that a known witness in his case should be executed,” Smith’s team argued. “This defendant should not be, either.”

It may not be Chutkan’s job to defend the courts from charges that that U.S. justice is a hopelessly two-tiered system that treats the poor and non-whites dramatically more harshly than the well-heeled and prominent. But that is the hand she’s been dealt in overseeing the Trump case. The seemingly endless amount of slack Trump has already employed to trash both the courts and potential witnesses against him is visible to the world. Chutkan’s actions (or inaction) will either confirm or further undermine public trust in the institution to which she’s devoted her life, a system already visibly tattered by ethical lapses on the U.S. Supreme Court.

But see Trump’s antics in their broader context. See how his antidemocratic behaviors have undermined faith in democracy not just in public elections but within his own party. Trump is one face of a global authoritarian faction, albeit a minority movement, bent on getting its way or else. Adherents treat popular democracy and the rule of law as optional. Useful when the will of the people leans their way; disposable when it doesn’t. How U.S. justice handles Trump will either slow or accelerate the backsliding.

The only thing American about them beside their boasting is their birth certificates.

It’s the electoral college, stupid

This piece by an expert on the electoral college made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. The US political system is just nuts enough right now for this to happen:

Most of the concern over the independent presidential campaigns of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West and the No Labels party has focused on the risk that they could draw votes away from President Biden and throw the 2024 election to Donald Trump. That’s understandable, given what happened in 2000 and 2016.

But there is another reason to fear these candidacies, and it’s right there in the Constitution: a contingent election decided by the House of Representatives, arguably the worst part of the Electoral College system.

Ask people who don’t like the Electoral College — that’s roughly two-thirds of Americans — and they will point to its occasional habit of awarding the presidency to the candidate who comes in second in the popular vote. This fundamental violation of majority rule has happened five times — in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016. It nearly happened in 2020 and threatens to do so again in 2024.

Don’t get me wrong: The wrong-winner scenario is unequivocally bad. Mr. Trump once called it “a disaster for a democracy,” before it delivered him to the White House. Yet it is not the most democratically offensive feature of the Electoral College. Few Americans are aware that under the Constitution, a candidate could lose the popular vote and the Electoral College and still become president. In fact, it’s already happened.

How? By taking the election completely away from the people and giving it to the House of Representatives. This may sound far-fetched, but it is alarmingly plausible at a moment when the major-party candidates are relatively unpopular. No Labels (which is also the No Candidate party at the moment) seems to think that a contingent election is an entirely viable path to the White House — which is true, since it is virtually impossible to imagine any third-party candidate winning the old-fashioned way. But the group seems willfully oblivious to the chaos and destabilization that contingent elections provoked in the past and undoubtedly would again, especially in such a tense and polarized political climate. It is, as the best-selling author James Michener put it in a 1969 book on the topic, “a time bomb lodged near the heart of the nation.”

The bomb goes off if an independent candidate like Mr. Kennedy manages to pick up a few electoral votes and prevents either of the two main candidates from winning an outright majority of electors (at least 270 out of 538). In that case, the American people no longer have a say in the biggest election in the land. Instead, under the 12th Amendment, the top three electoral vote getters advance to a second round, in which the House of Representatives “shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president. But” — and rarely in the history of democracy has a “but” been asked to do so much — “in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.”

Those votes in the past were decided by what a majority of a state’s delegation wanted, although the House can set different rules if it chooses. If the delegation is evenly divided, the state gets no vote. The point is, it doesn’t matter which party has more members in the House as a whole; all that matters is the happenstance of which party controls more state delegations. And right now Republicans control 26 state delegations and Democrats 22.

One vote per state, with the presidency in the balance. Stop for a moment and consider the absurdity of this. North Dakota, whose single representative in Congress represents about 779,000 people, would have as much say in choosing the nation’s leader as California’s 52 House members, who together represent almost 40 million people. The two Dakotas combined (fewer than 1.7 million people, about the population of Phoenix) would wield twice as much power as Texas, with 30 million people. This is about as far from the principle of majority rule as you can get.

The irony is that many founders expected this to be the standard way America would choose its presidents. As the plan took shape during the constitutional convention in 1787, Virginia’s George Mason predicted that the House would end up deciding 19 out of 20 elections. This wasn’t a bug in the system but a natural consequence of the lack of knowledge held by 18th-century Americans of politicians outside their home state. As a result, the thinking went, votes would be spread among a wide range of candidates, leaving most with some electors but none with a majority.

This sounded reasonable at the time, but as soon as it happened, in the wild tie election of 1800, it nearly collapsed the young nation, and the founders quickly realized what a bad idea it was. Congress rapidly passed the 12th Amendment to avoid a repeat. Thomas Jefferson, who prevailed that year, later wrote to a friend that the House-election provision was “the most dangerous blot in our Constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit.” He was proved right in 1824, when a four-way race for the White House prevented any of the candidates from winning an outright majority. Andrew Jackson led in electoral votes and popular votes, but the House picked the second-highest vote getter, John Quincy Adams. Jackson’s supporters were furious. They called it a corrupt bargain, and for good reason: Henry Clay, the speaker of the House and one of the other candidates in the race, hated Jackson and strong-armed lawmakers to vote for Adams, who later chose Clay for secretary of state.

The House has not decided a presidential election in the 200 years since, although it came close in 1968, during a tumultuous three-way race among Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace, the former Alabama governor who ran on the ultraright American Independent Party ticket. Nixon won but not before Wallace, an archsegregationist, captured 46 electoral votes in five Southern states.

Now imagine that in 2024, a No Labels candidate or even Mr. Kennedy or Mr. West is able to peel off a few electors in, say, Maine or Alaska, states that pride themselves on their independent streaks. (Maine awards its electors by congressional district, making it even easier to pick one off.) It’s not a simple task, given the varied and sometimes strict ballot-access rules in many states. Many fans of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. West may never get a chance to vote for them. Still, No Labels has managed to secure a spot on the ballot in 11 states, including key battlegrounds like Arizona and North Carolina.

Bottom line: It’s easy to assemble an electoral map in which no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, sending the election to the House. That vote would not take place until early January 2025, after the newly elected Congress is seated, but even if Democrats regain a numerical majority in the House, Republicans are likely to hold and possibly expand their advantage in state delegations. In other words, assuming Mr. Trump is still a free man, he could be picked by the House to be the 47th president, even if Mr. Biden wins millions more popular votes and the most electoral votes.

It is reckless fantasy for a group like No Labels to inject more choices into a system that is not designed to handle them. That may sound like democracy in theory, but in practice it produces the opposite: a greater chance of a candidate winning with the support of only a minority. That’s all the more likely when the two major parties are as closely divided as they are today.

This isn’t an argument against more political parties. To the contrary, multiparty democracies can give voters a wider and healthier range of choices, better reflecting the diversity of the electorate.

A huge, diverse country like the United States should welcome reforms like a proportional election system — and, while we’re on the subject, the elimination of the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote. Until then, the quixotic campaigns by today’s professed independents aren’t just futile; they’re dangerous.

I was at a meeting some years back with some political heavy hitters and they asked me what electoral process I would change if I could and I said the electoral college. They practically laughed me out of the room. “What a waste of time,” they said.

That was after the 2000 election but they apparently thought it was a fluke. It’s not a fluke. It’s an anachronistic mistake. And even until recently our leaders couldn’t see that.

They have no mechanism for fixing it as long as MAGA reigns

Even if they finally manage to pick a speaker, they will find it impossible to govern. The inmates are running the asylum. Matt Ford at TNR:

For three years in the thirteenth century, there was no pope. The cardinals who gathered in the small Italian town of Viterbo after Clement IV’s death in 1268 could not agree on a successor. A group of French cardinals hoped to elect one of their own to lead the church, while the others feared France’s influence in the Italian peninsula. A deadlock ensued, until the people of Viterbo locked the cardinals into a church, cut their rations, and removed its roof.

Maybe someone should do that to the House of Representatives. The lower house of Congress is no closer to electing a new speaker since a renegade GOP faction ousted Kevin McCarthy earlier this month. If anything, it’s strayed even further away from that goal. Earlier this week, the House Republican caucus internally elected Majority Leader Steve Scalise as the party’s nominee for speaker. Then, unsurprisingly, everything fell apart.

“There are still some people that have their own agendas, and I was very clear: We have to have everybody put their agendas on the side and focus on what this country needs,” Scalise said on Thursday, while announcing his withdrawal from the speakership race. “This country is counting on us to come back together. This House of Representatives needs a speaker, and we need to open up the House again. But clearly, not everybody is there, and there [are] still schisms that have to get resolved.”

His withdrawal was sudden but hardly surprising. The math behind the House leadership race is simple and unyielding. There are 435 seats in the House, meaning any speaker-elect would need 218 votes for a majority. House Republicans only have 221 members in the chamber. Any three House Republicans, in other words, could effectively deny Scalise—or anyone else—the speakership. House Democrats, following the historical practice, would vote for their own leader, Hakeem Jeffries, in speakership races.

Scalise, the most obvious successor to McCarthy, received just 113 votes within the House GOP caucus. Ninety-nine of his colleagues instead voted for Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, a hyperpartisan member (even by today’s standards) of the far-right House Freedom Caucus. To say that Jordan would be a disastrous speaker is an understatement. He has shown no interest in actual governance throughout his 16-year tenure in Congress. His great passion in life appears to be yelling at people in House committee meetings.

A narrow majority isn’t a problem in and of itself. After all, House Democrats have held the chamber with razor-thin margins in recent years and avoided anything close to the leadership crisis facing House Republicans. The House GOP’s problem goes much deeper: a critical mass of their members expect the speaker to refuse to compromise on anything with the Democratic Party—a position that might work well on the campaign trail but is unfeasible in day-to-day governance.

The matters that require some amount of compromise include raising the debt ceiling, an unconstitutional measure that only functions as a gun pointed to the left temple of the American economy, or passing a continuing resolution to keep the government funded and open, which McCarthy did last month. Eight rogue House GOP members used that moment to topple him, and it’s unlikely that anyone who can replace him—if anyone even can—would survive something similar.

“The French have a word for it: ‘clusterfuck,’” Representative Mike Lawler quipped to reporters after a closed-door meeting among House Republicans on Friday morning. Representative Mike Collins posted a meme on Friday that shows two screenshots from a comedy sketch by Eric André. It shows André’s character, labeled “House Republicans,” shooting Hannibal Buress, who is labeled “Republican controlled House,” and then turning to face the camera. “Why is Jeffries the speaker?” André asks.

In theory, House Democrats could throw their weight behind one of the GOP nominees to elect them speaker. But at the moment, they have no political interest in helping Republicans solve their own internal leadership battles. I previously wrote that Democratic lawmakers should make their demands clear for any hypothetical coalition-style government, starting with abolishing the debt ceiling and restoring Covid-era expansion of the child tax credit. If the leadership vacuum goes on long enough, they just might convince a handful of swing-district House Republicans to back them.

House Republicans haven’t made things any easier on themselves by setting one another up to fail. Jordan, who denies that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, applied that thinking to his own defeat in the speakership race. According to Politico, after Scalise won the caucus vote on Wednesday, he spoke privately with Jordan about the path forward. “You get one ballot,” Jordan reportedly told him. “And when you go down, you will nominate me.” After Scalise noted he had won under the caucus’s rules, Jordan allegedly replied, “America wants me,” and left the room.

To say that America “wants” a Jim Jordan speakership is dubious at best. Americans barely wanted a House Republican majority in the first place. The GOP gained only nine seats in the 2022 midterms and eked out a narrow five-seat majority in the chamber. This was a poor showing by historical standards: The party out of the White House typically gains far more seats in a president’s first midterms, with Barack Obama and Donald Trump seeing the House lost to wave elections in 2010 and 2018, respectively. Had it not been for Republican gerrymandering in key states, Democrats might have even retained the House.

Jordan’s road to the speakership also apparently won’t be uncontested. Georgia Representative Austin Scott, a GOP backbencher and McCarthy ally, announced shortly before Friday’s next caucus vote that he would challenge Jordan for the post. “I have filed to be Speaker of the House,” he wrote on Twitter on Friday. “We are in Washington to legislate, and I want to lead a House that functions in the best interest of the American people.”

Scott, for his part, is far from a high-profile member of the GOP caucus. He holds no leadership positions or committee chairmanships. But he may nonetheless serve as a potent rallying point for disaffected House Republicans who aren’t willing to throw their weight behind Jordan. Axios reported on Friday that Jordan is struggling to gather support from members who supported McCarthy and Scalise, in no small part because of Jordan’s perceived backstab of Scalise after the latter won the previous vote.

When House Republicans gathered on Friday afternoon to vote again, the results were similar. One hundred twenty-four members voted for Jordan for the speakership nominee. Eighty-one of them voted for Scott. While Jordan may be tempted to cast this as consolidating support, it reads like the opposite to an outsider. That Scott, a virtual unknown before the weekend, could get the backing of more than one-third of the caucus for the speakership is a testament to how divided the House GOP remains.

It’s an open question whether Republicans can overcome this and do anything of substance before the next House election, where they face the unenviable task of trying to persuade voters that they deserve another shot. If this country had a more parliamentary system, a snap election would have already been called, and the House GOP may well have lost it. For now, the leadership feud continues until the American people say otherwise—whether by voting for new lawmakers next November or by locking the current ones in and taking the roof off of the building.

They have organized themselves entirely around the idea opf “owning” the other other side. Naturally it’s now extended to owning themselves. They have no other way of looking at the world anymore.

At this point I have no earthly idea what’s going to happen. It seems to me that it’s entirely possible that Kevin McCarthy will end up speaker again. Hell, it wouldn’t surprise me if Newt Gingrich ended up speaker again.

Sounds pretty good to me.

but….

Alexandra Petri’s latest:

 The word “But” has been stunned to find itself appearing in an increasing number of sentences that begin “The killing of children is never acceptable … ”

After finding itself in yet another Instagram comment, preceded by the phrases “I am devastated to read about the loss of life” and “I deplore the killing of civilians, especially children,” the word “But” described itself as “horrified” to be included. Although it did not specify what sentiment came after it — possibilities included the phrases “should have had different parents,” and a reference to making omelets and breaking eggs — “But” took to social media to beseech other posters to avoid making this mistake.

The coordinating conjunction begged that those phrases be added to the list of sentences in which it would notappear under any circumstances, a list that already includes: “You never have to compliment Stalin for any reason”; “I don’t want to suggest that slavery wasn’t an unmitigated evil”; and “Genocide is always bad.” The words “Nevertheless,” “Still” and “However” jointly concurred in “But’s”statement, though “Nevertheless” looked visibly tired and strained.

“‘I am against the killing of children, regardless of who their parents are or where they live,’ is a set of words that never should be accompanied by any of us,” their statement read. “If you notice that you are putting us in, please, we beg you, reconsider.”

“But” also asked to be left out of sentences that start with “Of course, I condemn the deaths of innocent civilians,” and, especially, “I object to war crimes.”

“‘I believe in the inherent dignity of human life’ is a sentence that is getting along just fine without me,” “But” observed, a sentiment with which “Nevertheless” said it concurred “a thousand times.”

In a separate statement, the noun “Collateral Damage” and the adjective “Inevitable” asked to stop being forced to appear together.

“But” concluded its statement by saying it would return to anxiously watching someone compose a post that began “There is no excuse for antisemitism” and praying not to be called into service.

She’s absolutely right …. but …

No really, some things are just unequivocal. Baby killings are bad, no if, ands or buts.

It had so much promise …

We thought that social media was going to be a great boon to civilization, opening up communication across the planet for the benefit of humans everywhere. Instead it’a become a dystopian nightmare. Look what’s happening in Israel and Gaza:

A WhatsApp voice memo purporting to have insider information ricocheted across hundreds of group chats in Israel early on Monday. The Israeli army was planning for another “battle like we’ve never experienced before,” the anonymous woman said in Hebrew, warning that people should prepare to lose access to food, water and internet service for a week.

Across the country, Israelis raced to the banks and to the grocery stores, anticipating another attack. But the message, the army clarified hours later on X, turned out to be a falsehood.

One week into the war between Israel and Gaza, social media is inducing a fog of war surpassing previous clashes in the region — one that’s shaping how panicked citizens and a global public view the conflict.

Social media has long played a critical role in battles in the area. During the 11-day war between Israel and Hamas in 2021, posts of carnage in Gaza rallied the public to the Palestinian cause. Researchers say increased internet access and the spread of smartphones enabled a watershed moment, revealing how tech platforms could show the horror and human toll of such events.

But now, a volatile, months-long fight over Israel’s democratic future has primed conspiracies and false information to spread within its borders. Tech platforms, diminished from waves of layoffs, have receded from policing falsehoods, disinformation and hate speech online. Electricity outages and strikes on telecommunications infrastructure in Gaza threaten Palestinians’ connectivity, according to human rights organizations.

While social media has been a critical tool for disseminating wartime information in recent days, a barrage of images, memes and testimonials is making it difficult to assess what is real. Activists in the region warn that viral horror stories that turn out not to be true may lead people to further distrust authority figures — and could spark hate, violence and retaliation against innocent people.

“I’m terrified,” Marwa Fatafta, a policy analyst at Al Shabaka, a Palestinian think tank and regional policy manager for the nonprofit digital human rights group Access Now. “There’s a lot of information being shared that is not verified, a lot of calls to violence and dehumanization. And all this is fanning the flames for further massacres [of Palestinians].”

Foreign disinformation — a key element ofRussia’s global strategy — has been a major feature of the protracted war in Ukraine.

But in the current Middle East war, researchers have so far found only minimal evidence of disinformation originating abroad, said John Hultquist, chief analyst with the Google-owned cybersecurity firm Mandiant.

Instead, much misinformation about the war is directed inward.

Posts, videos and memes falsely claim that the attack stemmed from collusion between Hamas and Israel. In the 24 hours after the Hamas attack, the hashtag “TraitorsFromWithin” became the top trend on X, formerly Twitter, in Hebrew. Some threads posited that Palestinian citizen of Israel workers were stationed at the border fence, while others claimed the attack was orchestrated to push a peace deal with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Months of protests over the country’s future, deep domestic polarization and broad distrust of authorities have caused these theories to spread, said Achiya Schatz, director of FakeReporter, an Israeli watchdog organization dedicated to fighting disinformation and hate speech online.

One viral TikTok video featured a woman who identified herself as a former soldier on the Gaza Strip. She claimed that the border was so tightly controlled that even “a cockroach” would have been detected in advance — a description many commenters took to mean that Israel would have had to have aided Hamas in penetrating it.

Supporters of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have taken to calling critics of his far-right government traitors in recent months, said Schatz. Now the narrative is bleeding into the current conflict.

“People don’t want to believe that their leader has failed them,” he said. “So it must have been an inside job.”

Hamas and its supporters have taken advantage of Israel’s disunity: On Monday a pro-Hamas account called Gaza Now shared an image suggesting that former left-wing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was fleeing the country. The image was undated and showed him in the baggage claim at an airport. The Gaza Now account had picked it up from a Jewish Israeli influencer who supports the far-right government of Netanyahu, and had shared the content to criticize Israel’s left. The influencer ultimately issued an apology on X.

Two years ago, when a war broke out between Israel and Hamas, locals used their cellphones to broadcast a play-by-play of the demonstrations and subsequent bombardment to the world.

But the stakes are far higher in today’s conflict, said Fatafta. While the 2021 conflict resulted in 250 deaths in Gaza and 13 in Israel, at least 1,300 people in Israel and more than 1,799 people in Gaza have been killed in the current war.

And unlike in 2021, Palestinians in Gaza are already losing access to the internet, she said, compromising their ability to tell their story to the world.

“People don’t have enough electricity to charge up their devices,” she said. “There are people who can’t send SMS messages, some telecommunications infrastructure has been damaged … It’s becoming an information blackout.”

Hamas’ swift and violent attack is more difficult to parse than the events in 2021. “No one knows what really happened on the border,” Schatz said. “It was too big, too fast and too brutal.”

This void is being filled by misinformation that appeals to people’s rage — which researchers warn could lead to more antisemitic attacks or violence against Palestinian citizens of Israel — and to justify a more brutal retaliation in Gaza.

Another WhatsApp voice memo featured the voice of a man claiming to be a soldier with intelligence that the country’s Arab citizens — roughly 20 percent of Israel’s population — were planning a coordinated attack. The audio message, which was played for The Washington Post, said Palestinian citizens were going to show up invehicles with Israeli plates and “start shooting people.”

We should have seen this coming. And I’m sure some people did. But it’s making everything worse.

Even here in the safety of the US, social media is a sewer owned by feckless billionaires who are helping to brainwash millions of people. This is the last thing we need right now.

In a deranged rant, Trump says Barr, Romney and Paul Ryan are conspiring with big donors and two GOP candidates running against him. He says they are disloyal losers with no talent and they “eat their young” by opposing him. He says “Republican Nation” must not listen to them. pic.twitter.com/zuDzMAbtDg

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) October 14, 2023

He always says that he feels like he’s 35…

To the rude, inappropriate and manipulative

Kat Abughazaleh of Media Matters is sick of being asked.

Stop asking every Palestinian if they support Hamas: pic.twitter.com/3oFalcc1as

— Kat Abu (@abughazalehkat) October 14, 2023

One of the most outrageous features of the public response to any mass terror attack is the assumption that everyone from the ethnic group of the terrorists is expected to publicly and immediately condemn the villains or be condemned themselves as a terrorist sympathizer. (Unless the perpetrator is a white American, naturally.) The premise behind the demand is assignation of mass guilt by association.

Plus, the demand itself is annoyingly manipulative, and not just limited to (in this case) Palestinians. It kind of works like, “If you are outraged by this act of terror, if you are horrified and sickened, we, your neighbors (and political adversaries), demand you shout your outrage from the rooftops. We demand you feel the way we feel and express your feelings about the attack the way we do, now, performatively, publicly and loudly. That is, unless you want to draw suspicion and condemnation yourself.”

Sincere question for the hive mind: Can anyone point me to statements or interviews from Republicans that struck this same balance? https://t.co/mZhV0oq7qf

— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 15, 2023

Despite the wailing mothers seen on TV, not all people express their feelings the same way. Not all people experience grief the same way, nor express them as openly and immediately. It is rudely and inappropriately manipulative to insist you either join us in our performance of outrage or you are with the terrorists. But some people are just that rude, inappropriate and manipulative. They’re too busy trying to score points to care.

I’ve not met Abughazaleh and have no other connection to Palestinians except for my humanity, but I too respond poorly to being manipulated.

omg pete davidson just made me cry https://t.co/j8wgInkNoc

— Lauren Windsor (@lawindsor) October 15, 2023

By any means necessary

Shamelessness is their superpower. You’ve likely heard that somewhere.

Voters in Louisiana on Saturday by 73 percent passed Amendment 1. It bans state and local governments from using funds, goods, and services donated by foreign governments or nongovernmental (private) sources for the purpose of conducting elections.

Bolts reported back in August that this makes Louisiana the 26th state to adopt such a restriction. As the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) described them back in July:

All legislation on this topic has been enacted since the 2020 election when the COVID-19 pandemic led to unexpected expenses related to mailing and processing an increased number of absentee/mail ballots, providing larger in-person voting facilities to accommodate social distancing and sudden demands for more cleaning and hygiene supplies. 

Generally, elections are funded by state and local budgets—with occasional federal infusions. To meet the additional needs during the pandemic, philanthropic funding for local election offices was made available by the Center for Tech and Civic Life, with donations from Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan. Grants ranged from $5,000 to $19 million. 

Those who support banning or limiting such grants argue that private funds could result in the donor or grant-making organization having undue influence over elections and perhaps favoring some jurisdictions over others. Opponents, however, say that elections are chronically underfunded and that such bans may prohibit election offices from using donated resources they have long relied on, such as cybersecurity tools and the use of polling places. 

Currently, over one-third of the states [now with 26 it is over half] have passed laws prohibiting or limiting the use of private funds in elections. Eleven states did so in 2021 (similar bills were vetoed in Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina,  Pennsylvania and  Wisconsin that year), and 13 states followed suit in 2022. The specifics vary, with some states passing outright bans on election officials accepting or using philanthropic funds and others setting new regulations on how and when such funding can be accepted. 

Bolts put the conservative hostility to benefactor funding a tad more bluntly in August:

[The bills are] directly inspired by what conservatives have demonized as “Zuckerbucks” spent on elections during the onset of the pandemic. The billionaire’s donations have drawn particular ire from conservatives convinced that CTCL boosted Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts, and the partisan outrage is clearly reflected in state policies: 23 of the 25 states that already adopted such restrictions voted for former President Donald Trump in 2020 or have Republican legislative trifectas, or both. 

NCSL’s article needs updating. The Republican-controlled state House and Senate in North Carolina overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of SB 747 last week. One of its provisions prohibits “the State Board and county boards of elections … from accepting private monetary donations or in-kind contributions for the purpose of administering elections or employing individuals on a temporary basis.” *

North Carolina’s legislature is underfunding election services here while adding new requirements elections officials must fulfill. Conservatives decades ago railed against unfunded mandates. Not now. But what they really, really dislike is benefactors stepping in to help fund elections operations Republicans mean to monkey-wrench.

If any reader has seen a current set of measures by which GOP legislators have tried to limit who can vote, make voting more difficult and take longer, skew equal representation away from unfriendly populations, and manipulate election outcomes to ensure Republican victories, please send along a link. Their efforts to overturn the 2020 election are now legend and being litigated in multiple courts.

As Josh Marshall observed last week, Republicans’ MAGA wing now reject democratic processes even within the GOP caucus. He wrote regarding the failure of U.S. House Republicans to elect a new speaker after the majority of their caucus voted to approve Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana. Nope. Not if the MAGA faction doesn’t get its way:

Couldn’t happen to a nicer caucus, of course. But we should note that there’s a clear thread connecting this to 2020 rigged electionism and, perhaps more tightly, the dramas of debt ceiling hostage-taking and government shutdowns. The premise of all those dramas is that they’re what you do when you don’t have the votes to do what you want. If you’ve got the votes in the Congress and a President who will sign your bills, you just do it. Threatening to shut down the government is what you do when you don’t. Do what I say even though I don’t have the votes or I start breaking things. That’s the bottom line behind every one of these gambits.

It’s all cut from the same cloth.

Grover Norquist, the anti-tax zealot, meant to “starve the beast,” to “cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” That was nearly 25 years ago. What has become of the Republican Party in the intervening years is working furiously by all means it can think of to drown democracy itself.

* As we featured on Wednesday, Voto Latino, the Watauga County Voting Rights Task Force, and Down Home North Carolina (with help from Marc Elias) immediately sued to prevent implementation of SB 747’s “Undeliverable Mail Provision.” Plaintiffs contend the section “will arbitrarily disenfranchise North Carolina’s same-day voters, those who register to vote on the same day they cast their ballots during the state’s early voting period.”

Jim Jordan was one of the coup plotters. Now they want to make him Speaker of the House?

I guess that’s a stupid rhetorical question. Of course they do. They’re all prepared to vote for the chief coup plotter so what’s the difference?

Just watch Jordan on that Youtubte try to wriggle out of it. Greg Sargent tweeted out these excerpts from the January 6th Committee Report in case you forgot the details: