“If you fuck around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are going to do to you thing that have never been done before.”
He spread that message to his cult on Truth Social today. What could go wrong?
"what digby sez..."
Digby's Hullabaloo Posts
I hope they counted the silverware in the White House:
Former President Donald Trump agreed to return ancient artifacts after Israel’s antiquities authority launched a public campaign to get them back.
The story of how the ceramic oil lamps, which are part of Israel’s national treasures collection, ended up at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort is complicated. It is a saga in which the artifacts made a near-visit to the White House, sat in a California closet for months and were then taken through an X-ray machine in Florida before being delivered to Trump.
“These historic items were presented by a representative of the Israeli antiquities authority with the full support of the organization,” a Trump spokesman said Wednesday, adding that the items were on loan for permanent exhibition. “As the items were displayed as originally intended, the office will be expediting their return to the organization’s representative,” he said.
Their modern-day journey began in 2019, when Saul Fox, a private-equity executive, longtime Republican donor and backer of Israel, got a call from Israel Hasson, then head of the Israeli antiquities authority, saying he was coming to the U.S. and would like to meet him. Fox had just been invited to a Hanukkah party at the White House and suggested that Trump be presented with antiquities from Jerusalem in honor of his support for Israel.
Hasson traveled to Fox’s home in California with a black Samsonite carry-on containing a priceless collection of lamps and coins, which were intended to be displayed temporarily at the White House for a few weeks and then returned, Hasson said in an interview.
The items in the Samsonite bag next made it to Washington—but not the White House.
Fox, in an interview, said the State Department wanted to inspect them but didn’t return them in time for the Hanukkah celebration. “I was a little embarrassed,” he said. Several State Department officials said Wednesday that they couldn’t recall the encounter.
About three months later, Fox hired a courier to travel to Washington to retrieve the items, paying for an extra airplane seat to keep them at his courier’s side. At home in California, Fox locked up the bag “and sort of forgot about it.”
Then Covid hit and the world shut down, delaying any return to Israel.
In late 2021, Fox received an invitation to attend a candlelight dinner at Mar-a-Lago, which was during the Hanukkah period.
Catch up on the headlines, understand the news and make better decisions, free in your inbox every day.
“There’s a Yiddish word, ‘bashert’—meaning made to be,” said Fox.
He reached out again to Hasson, who was no longer in his position at the antiquities authority. “And this is another bashert,” Fox said. “He told me, ‘Saul, I just so happen to have a breakfast meeting tomorrow with the new director, and I’ll ask him.’ ” After a Zoom call with Fox and the director, Eli Eskosido, a plan was made to take the items to Trump. Fox’s girlfriend crafted a black display box. A card explained the items and stipulated that they were on loan.
Off to Florida from California they went. The Secret Service insisted on taking the box to an X-ray machine. Finally, Fox was inside Mar-a-Lago with the box, and he met Trump in his office. After a few minutes, the former president stood up and said he had to get ready for dinner.
“I stood in his way and said, ‘Mr. President, no, no, you can’t leave, I have these words that I wrote,’ ” Fox told him. He read his prepared remarks praising Trump’s stance on Israel, including the move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Trump slammed his hand on his desk, Fox said, and barked, “Well, how come I only got 25% of the Jewish vote?”
“I thought quickly and said, ‘Mr. President, I know you’ve had your problems with Rinos—Republicans in name only—well, we Jews in America have our problem with Jinos, Jews in name only, like Adam Schiff and Chuck Schumer,’ ” referring to the California Democratic House member and the Senate majority leader from New York.
“Yes, that’s right,” Trump said. “Very good. Let’s go now.” At dinner, Fox and his girlfriend sat at a table with Trump and his wife, Melania. “It was beautiful,” he said.
Rewind a bit.
Fox said he was sitting in the Mar-a-Lago lobby when he got an email from Eskosido: “He said there’s been some kind of miscommunication. You have to bring these back immediately to Israel.” Fox asked his girlfriend, who works in tech, whether anyone would know if he read the email. Yes, she said, but he decided to go forward.
“This permanent exhibition of Israel’s national treasures outside of the State of Israel in your honor is without precedent,” he told Trump. Fox in the interview said the agreement never came with a return date for the items. They weren’t Trump’s, but he effectively would act as their custodian, Fox said.
A couple months later, he said, he got a call from a man in the U.S. who reiterated that Israel wanted the items back. Fox said it was offensive to do so. “This was something that was promised and done and I acted on it in good faith,” Fox said.
Fox said he didn’t hear anything again until this week when friends began sending him copies of articles about how the Israeli antiquities authority was seeking the artifacts, an effort that was earlier reported by Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper.
Hasson, who negotiated the original 2019 arrangement, said, “Saul Fox operated transparently with the antiquities authority.”
Is there any crank and weirdo in America who isn’t compulsively attracted to Donald Trump? Birds of a feather …
Lol. Yeah, I know that I would definitely have voted for Trump if I’d seen Hunter’s dick-pics before the election. That’s a deal breaker. Never again.
I wonder what poll she’s talking about? The Truth Social Democratic Club straw poll?
Did you know about this trial? I guess I did but I forgot all about it:
After Trump’s and his children’s civil business-fraud trial in October and his second federal civil trial in January for defaming the woman he raped and defamed—but probably before his federal criminal espionage/justice obstruction trial in Florida, and definitely before his state hush-money criminal trial in March and his probable federal and state criminal election fraud trials in Washington D.C. and Georgia—he and the kids have another trial in late January: federal, civil, for defrauding people with the Trump Network to sell vitamins and with Trump Institute seminars teaching Trump’s sales “secrets.”
Here’s an explainer from 2020:
The lawsuit goes back to October 2018, when plaintiffs filed a federal class action suit against Trump, his three eldest children (Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka), and the family business for their role in an alleged pyramid scheme that caused them to suffer significant financial losses. The lawsuit initially included a civil RICO claim—essentially claiming that the Trump Organization operated as a criminal enterprise—which was dismissed by the court in July 2019.
White collar defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor Ken White explained to me that the dismissal of the RICO claim is not surprising, given both the complexity of the civil RICO statute and the reluctance of judges to entertain such claims outside the criminal context. However, the judge allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on their remaining claims of fraud, false advertising, and unfair competition—which ultimately constitute the real meat of the lawsuit.
The crux of the plaintiff’s 160-page complaint centers around a company called ACN, which offered a “business opportunity and training programs” for aspiring entrepreneurs. ACN had a multi-level marketing business model which required investors to pay a hefty membership fee to join as an “independent business owner” (IBO), and then additional fees for ongoing training seminars and conventions. IBOs could make commissions by selling ACN’s products, which included reselling third-party telephone and internet plans and proprietary ACN “videophones.”
But IBOs were told they could earn the most money by recruiting new people to join up as IBOs and earning commissions on their recruits’ “downline” sales. These new IBOs, in turn, would pay the initiation fee, attend in the trainings, recruit more members… and so on, rinse and repeat. In short, the model is alleged to be a textbook pyramid scheme, which the Federal Trade Commission describes as a business where the focus is on members recruiting new people to continue to generate income for the top-level owners, rather than on selling actual products. Most of the plaintiffs allege that they made no money at all; one made $38.
This is where the Trump family comes in. The plaintiffs allege that the Trumps’ role in endorsing ACN was central to their decision to invest in it. Specifically, the plaintiffs note that Donald Trump was featured prominently in ACN’s promotional materials and videos, with Trump personally attesting to the earning potential offered by ACN, touting his own experience and knowledge of ACN’s profitability to investors (the complaint notes that ACN was even featured on an episode of Celebrity Apprentice).
In reality, the plaintiffs charge, Trump had done zero due diligence on any aspect of ACN’s business, and was in fact being paid millions of dollars by ACN to lend his name and presence to their recruitment efforts, something that was not disclosed to potential investors in violation of FTC guidelines. The complaint also alleges that the Trump Organization engaged in a “quid pro quo” (sound familiar?) with ACN, whereby individuals affiliated with ACN bought property and held events at Trump’s golf courses.
But wait, there’s more. According to the complaint, the Trumps found the ACN agreement so lucrative that they entered into two other multi-level marketing schemes. One was with a company called Ideal Health, rebranded as “The Trump Network,” which sold dietary supplements and multivitamins.
As with ACN, the plaintiffs claim that this business scheme in reality offered no realistic possibility for investors to make money, despite Trump’s assurances to the contrary. The second venture, with a company called Business Strategies Group, renamed “Trump Institute” (which was part of a business plan with Trump University), charged thousands of dollars for seminars that promised to reveal Trump’s “secrets to success”—but which in reality, according to the plaintiffs, used materials that were not even created by Trump and were actually plagiarized from other sources.
Trump Organization lawyers have told The Washington Post that “the allegations completely meritless… [and] relate to events which took place nearly a decade ago and are well past the statute of limitations.”
Whether the plaintiffs will succeed on their claims remains to be seen. David Friedman, a law professor at Willamette University who specializes in marketing and advertising law, says that these kinds of lawsuits are tough to win, but that the facts alleged in the complaint present a very strong case under many state consumer protection laws.
Crooks all the way down…
And then there’s this. Weaponization? You be the judge:
Not too long ago, Donald Trump said both Joe Biden and Barack Obama should “be in jail for 50 years.” He also wondered why Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio hadn’t faced criminal charges yet.
They are among at least 27 of Trump’s apparent political foes that, since launching his 2016 campaign for president, Trump has explicitly stated or otherwise suggested should be indicted or jailed, according to an ABC News count.
Not one of them has been charged with any crimes.
“It’s ironic that he often called for the prosecution of political opponents and now finds himself the defendant,” said Tom Dupree, a former senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration.
As Trump seeks another term in the White House, he is under indictment by the Justice Department for his recent handling of classified documents, and by state prosecutors in New York over his alleged role in a years-old hush-money scheme.
He is also facing another ongoing federal investigation and a state probe in Georgia tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
The former president has repeatedly insisted he “did nothing wrong.”
Some experts say Trump’s past calls for the indictment or jailing of others underscore the political challenges he now faces in his bid for reelection, as well as his legal obstacles — and opportunities — as he mounts a criminal defense.
“He could win this case in the courtroom, or he could win it at the ballot box,” Dupree said.
On the campaign trail before the 2016 election, Trump energized the crowds at his rallies by calling for the criminal prosecution of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, he claimed, “should go to jail” for using a private email server as secretary of state and for allegedly deleting tens of thousands of emails after receiving a subpoena from a House panel investigating the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
“The big key [is] ‘after.’ That’s the key word: ‘after’ receiving a congressional subpoena,” Trump said at a Nov. 4, 2016, rally in Wilmington, Ohio. “She’s guilty.”
“Lock her up!” Trump’s supporters often chanted at his campaign events.
In the federal indictment against him, Trump is accused of refusing to return a cache of sensitive documents even after receiving a court-backed subpoena for them — and then taking steps to hide them from the government.
And Trump has mischaracterized key pieces of what prosecutors found in Clinton’s case: Clinton’s lawyers had deemed the emails personal in nature before they were deleted, and it was one of Clinton’s aides — not Clinton herself — who later deleted the emails without Clinton’s knowledge, she told the FBI, according to government documents related to the case.
In 2016, as he battled Clinton for the White House, this is what Trump said about court-backed subpoenas when he inaccurately accused Clinton of defying one: “It’s a court order. You have to give them. Now here’s what happens if you don’t give them, if you get rid of them … and do what she did: They put you in jail. They put you in jail.”
Since Trump is charged with 31 counts of “Willful Retention of National Defense Information,” such past comments could demonstrate how aware Trump was of his responsibilities under the law, according to Sarah Isgur, a Republican strategist and lawyer who served as the Justice Department’s top spokesperson for the first half of the Trump administration.
“He seems to know exactly what you can and can’t do with subpoenas,” Isgur, an ABC News contributor, said.
Trump has claimed he didn’t fully comply with the subpoena because he and his team were operating under the Presidential Records Act and that they were still “negotiating” with the National Archives — two claims that the National Archives has strongly disputed, noting that the Presidential Records Act requires presidents to separate personal documents before leaving office and that “no history, practice, or provision in law” lets an outgoing president take official records with them.
According to the federal indictment against him, Trump, after leaving the White House, kept classified documents in a bathroom and shower, in his bedroom, and on a ballroom stage at his Mar-a-Lago resort, which “was not an authorized location.” The indictment also alleges that Trump “showed and described” a document, which he called “highly confidential” and “secret,” to a book writer and a publisher, and he allegedly showed someone else without a security clearance “a classified map related to a military operation.”
Yet in recent years, Trump has said at different times that some of his critics should be jailed for allegedly exposing classified information — including his own former national security adviser John Bolton, who wrote a searing book about his time in the White House. Bolton denied disclosing any classified information in the book, and though a federal judge was skeptical of that, no charges were ever filed.
Trump also claimed on Twitter in January 2018 that Clinton aide Huma Abedin should be imprisoned after “disregarding basic security protocols” by sending work-related messages to Clinton’s private server.
“Jail!” he wrote.
Isgur said that split between rhetoric and reality is “core Donald Trump.”
“Color me shocked that Donald Trump said something that now doesn’t fit with his own narrative,” she said.
A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to a request for comment from ABC News, but Trump has previously said he’s been “unfairly treated” by a “deep state” that gives a pass to Democrats.
In one of his final attacks on Clinton before winning the White House in 2016, Trump repeatedly warned that a president under felony indictment would “be a mess for many years to come” — it would trigger “an unprecedented unconstitutional crisis” and “cripple the operations of our government,” he said.
“Nothing will get done. Government will grind to a halt, and our country will continue to suffer,” Trump declared in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on Oct. 31, 2016, a week before the election.
At the time, Trump suggested that Clinton would soon face indictment for a slew of supposed crimes. She “shouldn’t be allowed to run” in the first place due to her alleged crimes, he told supporters.
Clinton was never charged with any crimes.
Political analysts say Trump’s comments emphasize a core issue now facing his own campaign: his electability.
“If you’re a Republican primary voter, this fits into a larger problem that you have,” said Isgur said. “‘[Trump] is a contradictory being.”
But political and legal experts said Trump’s comments also highlight potential ways for Trump to avoid conviction, at least in the federal case against him.
Long-standing Justice Department policy agrees with his stated concerns about an indicted president.
“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the department’s Office of Legal Counsel said in a 2000 memo reaffirming the policy, which was first memorialized in 1973.MORE: Trump could still be elected president despite 2nd indictment, experts say
The policy prohibits a sitting president from being indicted — but it also prohibits a president from being put on trial because it would interfere with their presidential duties.
As a result, said Dupree and Isgur, if Trump is elected next year but hasn’t gone to trial yet — a completely conceivable scenario after in-court motions and appeals, they said — then the Justice Department would almost certainly be compelled to drop its case or at least have it put on hold until the end of Trump’s term.
There’s also the practical reality that if Trump wins reelection, it would be a Trump-appointed attorney general deciding how to proceed, and they would likely “just abandon the prosecution,” as Dupree put it.
It’s unclear what would happen in the state-level case against Trump in New York.
‘Thrown in jail’
As he sought the presidency in 2016, Trump accused numerous opponents of committing crimes.
While battling Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., for the Republican nomination, Trump suggested Rubio should be indicted for using a state Republican Party credit card, years earlier, to pay for improvements at his home. Rubio later reimbursed the party.
When Clinton announced that Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., would be her running mate that year, Trump asked about Kaine, “Why doesn’t he get indicted?” for accepting more than $160,000 in gifts while serving years earlier in the Virginia statehouse. Kaine’s team defended the gifts as completely legal, and there was no evidence that Kaine performed any official act because of them.
Later, during the run-up to Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, Trump said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., deserved to be “thrown into jail” for telling “lies” about Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president.
In August 2020, as controversy grew over government restrictions to stop the spread of COVID-19, Trump retweeted a post saying that then-New York Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo “should be in jail” for his handling of the pandemic.
And in September 2020, Trump said at a rally that Hillary Clinton’s lawyer years earlier “should go to jail with her” for her alleged crimes.
But most of Trump’s calls for imprisonment or indictment have stemmed from what he’s called “the greatest political crime in the history of our country” — the FBI’s probe of alleged ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.
Trump has claimed that “100 people” should be “in jail right now” for the investigation, and among the specific people he’s accused by name of committing crimes related to the probe are former special counsel Robert Mueller, former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI deputy director Andy McCabe, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI attorneys Lisa Page and James Baker, Mueller team prosecutor Andrew Weissman, former Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and his wife, and FBI source Christopher Steele.
In late 2018, Trump suggested that former President Bill Clinton, Obama’s former attorneys general Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, Trump’s former deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, and former Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta should be imprisoned too, retweeting a cartoonish image of them behind bars with a caption that read: “Now that Russia collusion is a proven lie, when do the trials for treason begin?”
Trump has also said that President Biden and former President Obama should be indicted for their roles in what he called the “Russia hoax.”
“Obama was involved, and Biden was involved,” Trump claimed at a rally on the eve of Election Day 2020.
He promises to “expunge” Trump’s impeachments
The impeachments happened whether Trump’s bootlickers pretend to “expunge” them or not. But that hasn’t stopped Trump from demanding that Kevin McCarthy demonstrates how servile he is anyway:
After House Speaker Kevin McCarthy suggested on national television last month that Donald Trump may not be the GOP’s best presidential nominee in 2024, the former president was furious — and wanted the California Republican to rectify the slight immediately.
“He needs to endorse me — today!” Trump fumed to his staff on his way to a campaign event in New Hampshire, according to people familiar with what happened. McCarthy, after all, had indicated to Trump’s team that he would do so eventually. Why not clean up the mess and announce his support now?
But the House GOP leader — who has felt compelled to stay neutral during the primary so as to not box in his own members — wasn’t ready to do that. To calm Trump, McCarthy made him a promise, according to a source close to Trump and familiar with the conversation: The House would vote to expunge the two impeachments against the former president. And — as McCarthy would communicate through aides later that same day — they would do so before August recess.
That vow — made reflexively to save his own skin — may have bought McCarthy some time, staving off a public war with the man who almost single-handedly rehabilitated his entire career and ensured he won the gavel in January. But it has also put McCarthy in a bind — and Trump world plans to hold him to his promise.
Several moderate House Republicans are loath to revisit Trump’s impeachments — especially the charges stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. (In fact, though only 10 of their GOP colleagues voted with Democrats to impeach Trump after the Jan. 6 attack, several more wanted to but were too worried about threats to their offices and families to take the plunge.)
But should McCarthy follow through, those members won’t have a choice. Given the speaker’s tenuous position with Trump allies in the House and the threat of his ouster looming over every move, McCarthy has no real option but to bow to the former president’s whims — even if it means putting vulnerable frontliners in a precarious political position.
The speaker has denied that he made such a promise to Trump at all, according to one Hill aide. From McCarthy’s point of view, he merely indicated that he would discuss the matter with his members — putting him and Trump on a collision course.
McCarthy’s own leadership team is divided on the matter.
House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who many believe is angling to be Trump’s running mate should he win the nomination, has pushed for an expungement vote. In late June, she teamed up with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on a resolution that would’ve cleared Trump of the impeachment charges.
But in a recent leadership meeting, moderate Republicans pushed back on the idea, arguing that any expungement vote would be poisonous to the reelections of members in Biden-won districts — particularly given that polling suggests most Americans disapprove of Trump’s actions on Jan. 6.
It’s also unclear whether an expungement vote even has enough support to pass the House, given the GOP’s slim five-seat majority. Two sitting Republicans — Reps. David Valadao (R-Calif.) and Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) — voted to impeach Trump, and are unlikely to support expungement.
Then, beyond the skittish moderates who’d prefer not to take the vote, there’s the clutch of constitutionally minded conservatives — who, we are told, have privately voiced skepticism that the House has the constitutional authority to erase a president’s impeachments.
Some senior Republicans — even those who back Trump — worry that an expungement vote would expose divisions in their ranks and only embarrass Trump if the effort comes up for a vote and loses.
“I’m for Trump,” one senior GOP member tells Playbook. “The problem is: If you have an expungement, and it goes to the floor and fails — which it probably will — then the media will treat it like it’s a third impeachment, and it will show disunity among Republican ranks. It’s a huge strategic risk.”
For now, some in McCarthy’s leadership team are under the impression that a vote won’t happen, with one person calling it “too divisive.” And though McCarthy has publicly backed the push, senior Republicans speculate that his words were merely an attempt to curry favor with the former president.
“I think it’s more of a messaging thing to please Trump,” one senior GOP aide said.
Supporters of expungement argue that despite members’ private reservations about the vote, they will fall in line if McCarthy puts the resolution on the floor. It’s not a far-out theory: most congressional Republicans will go to great lengths to avoid anything that can be seen as a public rebuke of Trump.
Regardless of its likelihood of passage, Trump world plans to hold McCarthy to account on his promise. While the former president knows he is unable to stop the myriad indictments expected to come his way, he believes the House has the power to erase the stain of impeachment from his name.
That vote, in fact, could become even more important to him given that special counsel Jack Smith appears ready to criminally charge Trump over his role in the Jan. 6 attack.
We’re told that Trump brings up the matter in every call he has with McCarthy, prodding the speaker about when he will bring expungement to the floor. McCarthy, however, has already pushed back the timeline. Perhaps realizing how tough such a vote will be, he recently told Trump’s team that the House will vote by the end of September.
But even that timeframe doesn’t look easy: Lawmakers are in session just 12 days that month, and will be working overtime to try to clear a host of controversial spending bills that will surely split the party.
Meanwhile, in Trump’s inner circle, frustration with McCarthy is boiling. The former president and his team think the speaker should have endorsed him months ago, and are befuddled that he has not. Most recently, McCarthy told the Trump team that he can’t back Trump, because he wants to look neutral while the House clears his name on impeachment.
But Trump’s team will only buy that excuse for so long. And if McCarthy doesn’t hold the vote soon, they warn, there will be consequences.
I think McCarthy needs to call for that vote. It will either lose because the GOP moderates refuse to go along in which case Trump gets furious and there is hell to pay or it passes and every Democratic challenger in those swing districts use that vote to illustrate how Trump owns them. It’s a good plan. Go for it.
Think back 10 years and imagine what you would have thought if you saw this conversation on CNN:
Advisors to former President Donald Trump have told him the only way he can avoid facing jail time is to win the 2024 presidential election, according to sources who’ve spoken to New York TimesNYT -2% reporter Maggie Haberman. “His advisors, in private conversations, have been pretty blunt,” Haberman said Wednesday on CNN This Morning. “They see it as he has to win the election and that is how he guarantees that he does not face jail time.”
“The fact that they are looking to an election to the highest office in the land as some kind of insurance policy or an out for him really affects or colors the entire presidential race,” Haberman said.
Good lord. And his followers call themselves patriots.
Trauma, bleeding, trickery and abandonment
Unintended consequences ain’t necessarily unforseen consequences. Just yesterday, a friend mentioned fallout from a GOP effort in North Carolina to change how school board members are elected. The change would in theory make it easier to elect Republicans either by making the elections partisan or (in my county) by redrawing school district lines. Try explaining the latter to kids who suddenly find themselves assigned to different schools. Partisan-inspired chaos ensues.
Fallout from the Dobbs decision was not unforseen either. GOP-led states are rushing to ban abortion. Women’s lives are put at risk. In Texas, for example (The New Republic):
Women who suffered medical complications after being denied abortions in Texas are now having to relive the trauma of their injuries and dead babies as they plead their case against the state. Welcome to the Republican Party’s America.
On Wednesday, women who are part of a 15-person (both patients and doctors) lawsuit against the state of Texas, returned back to court to challenge the state’s extreme abortion ban.
Texas implemented a near-total abortion ban in September 2021, even before Roe v. Wade was overturned by a Supreme Court now found to have nearly half its jurists embroiled in scandal and corruption. The ban prohibits anyone from getting an abortion unless their life is at risk—no exceptions for a fetus developing an anomaly that would prevent it from surviving past birth. Doctors face life in prison and fines of up to $10,000 if they are found supporting an abortion procedure.
The women challenging the ban were essentially forced to relive their trauma, and at one point, the court was forced to take a break after a plaintiff began vomiting on the witness stand while recounting her own experience.
Samantha Casiano vomited while retelling the story of how she was denied access to an abortion after her baby was diagnosed with anencephaly, a birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of the brain and skull. Casiano said she had to watch her baby die after giving birth.
Yes, there was more.
One of the lead plaintiffs, Amanda Zurawski, testified that she was initially excited to become pregnant. But her water broke prematurely at about 18 weeks, meaning the fetus wouldn’t survive—and her life was at risk if she couldn’t get an abortion. Under the repressive new laws, a Texas hospital refused to help her until she became much sicker. Thanks to the Republican-made delay, Zurawski developed sepsis. People who suffer from septic shock have a mortality rate of up to 40 percent, and even after recovering, sepsis still carries a fatal risk.
In other words, Republicans are directly responsible for Zurawski’s life being on the line even today.
This is your country on patriarchal GOP tribalism.
This week’s installment of Rachel Maddow’s Déjà News recounts the grinning cruelty of southern conservatives using nonwhite people as pawns in a political stunt. It involved using buses to internally deport them to northern cities where they’d be abandoned, penniless, propertyless, and without support. No, not now. Not Govs. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas. This happened in the 1960s to Black victims. Today it’s happening with immigrants.
There are photos.
Efforts to target minority voters as early as June 2020
“Jack Smith is going to accuse Donald Trump of voting fraud,” Marcy Wheeler wrote Wednesday.
The Department of Justice investigation into Donald Trump’s election-related crimes churns slowly. But it does churn. Trump has been named as a target of the investigation into election interference in 2020. Not by Russians as in 2016, but by Americans. Lots of them (Washington Post):
Trump disclosed on Tuesday he had been named as a target in special counsel Jack Smith’s probe of election interference. Hours later, the attorney general of Michigan announced she had issued forgery charges against 16 Trump supporters who had posed as the state’s presidential electors. A county prosecutor in Georgia is preparing to present a sweeping case to a grand jury, with indictments possible within weeks. And the attorney general of Arizona in recent months has ramped up a probe into attempts to undermine the 2020 results in that state.
The proliferation of charges and expected charges marks the most extensive effort yet to hold accountable those who attempted to help Trump remain in office after he lost the election. And because they come as the former president makes vindication a central pillar of his 2024 campaign, experts say they will mark an extraordinary test of the nation’s criminal justice system and political institutions.
One aspect of the investigation that even Wheeler missed earlier, she admits, was mentioned in Trump’s target letter: 18 USC 241, Conspiracy against Rights. Penalties for conspiring deprive Americans of their Constitutional rights include fines or imprisonment of “not more than ten years, or both” in cases not involving death, “kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.” The statute dates from the post-Civil War Reconstruction era, the New York Times explains:
Congress enacted that statute after the Civil War to provide a tool for federal agents to go after Southern whites, including Ku Klux Klan members, who engaged in terrorism to prevent formerly enslaved African Americans from voting. But in the modern era, it has been used more broadly, including in cases of voting fraud conspiracies.
This morning Wheeler admits that this civil rights charge was in view the entire time but the press missed it. She did too. Trump and his allies attempted to “discount the votes of 81 million Biden voters,” and that effort began well in advance of January 6.
Smith has issued subpoenas to multiple local election officials “in the predominantly minority counties that Democrats need to win swing states, going back to June 2020, well before the election itself. By December 2022, DOJ was taking overt steps in an investigation that even before the election Trump had plans targeting minority cities,” Wheeler explains this morning:
And there may have been a still earlier sign of this prong of the investigation, from the NYT itself. Alan Feuer (with Mike Schmidt) reported in November that prosecutors were investigating Stone’s rent-a-mob tactics, going back to 2018 but really going back to the Brooks Brothers riot in 2000, the same fucking MO Stone has adopted for decades, using threats of violence to make it harder to count brown people’s votes.
Evidence from the Proud Boys trial indicates that the group was “standing by” to deploy to state capitols and voting centers to intimidate vote counters on Trump’s behalf immediately after the election went Joe Biden’s way. Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, found guilty of seditious conspiracy in May, wrote in a Nov. 8, 2020 text that his instructions were coming from “the campaign.”
This investigation has been happening. It’s just that reporters — myself included — didn’t report it as such.
It’s not just the epic mob Trump mobilized on January 6, an attempt to use violence to prevent the votes of 81 million Biden voters to be counted. It was an effort that went back before that, to use threats of violence to make it harder for election workers like Ruby Freeman to count the vote in big cities populated by minorities.
One reason TV lawyers didn’t see this is they have always treated Trump’s suspected crimes as a white collar affair, plotting in the Willard, but not tasing Michael Fanone at the Capitol.
But it is also about race and visibility.
January 6 was spectacular, there for the whole world to see.
But those earlier mobs — at the TCF center in Detroit, the State Farm arena in Atlanta, Phoenix, Milwauke — those earlier mobs were also efforts to make sure certain votes weren’t counted, or if they were, were only counted after poorly paid election workers risked threats of violence to count them, after people like Ruby Freeman were targeted by Trump’s team to have their lives ruined.
And we, the press collectively, didn’t treat those efforts to disqualify votes as the same kind of crime, as part of the same conspiracy, as Trump’s more spectacular efforts on January 6.
Trump specifically targeted counties based on the race of the voters he saw there, Wheeler adds:
Everyone in MI knows — and I’m sure Trump knows — he lost MI because he lost Kent County, which as more young people move into Grand Rapids has been getting more democratic in recent years. That Trump targeted Detroit and not Kent (or Oakland, which has also been trending increasingly Democratic) is a testament that this was about race.
If Smith can prove it — and it appears he hopes to — the white mans’ party that has organized itself for decades around allegations of widespread fraud by black and brown voters will see its top leader(s) charged with doing exactly what they claim their opponents do.
FWIW
Not bad. It’s too close for comfort but we have a long way to go. We just have to keep our heads down and plow ahead.
I will never understand this:
BIDEN
Americans give President Biden a negative 38 – 54 percent job approval rating, compared to a negative 41 – 54 percent job approval rating in June.
Registered voters give him a negative 40 – 53 percent job approval rating compared to a negative 42 – 54 percent job approval rating in June.
Americans were asked about President Biden’s handling of…
the response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: 43 percent approve, while 48 percent disapprove;
foreign policy: 39 percent approve, while 53 percent disapprove;
the economy: 37 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove.
I guess a lot of people just hate the guy no matter what he does. But they’ll vote for him anyway? What?
It’s kind of depressing because it shows that a whole lot of Democrats are completely clueless about what’s actually happening and are as deluded as the cultists. Hooray for tribalism, I guess…