Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

It’s so unlike him

Published by digby on June 27, 2023

Rolling Stone reports:

STEPHEN MILLER, ONE of Donald Trump’s top immigration advisers, advocated using U.S. predator drones in 2018 to blow up migrant boats full of unarmed civilians, according to an upcoming book by a former administration official.

In a passage reviewed by Rolling Stone, former Trump Department of Homeland Security appointee Miles Taylor writes about an April 2018 conversation in which Miller allegedly advocated an attack on a migrant ship headed for the United States. Miller, Taylor writes, argued for the potential mass killing of civilians by suggesting they were not protected under the U.S. Constitution because they were in international waters.

He denies saying it … but of course he did.

Taylor’s book, Blowback, describes the alleged 2018 conversation in depth. The critical passage reads:

‘Admiral, the military has aerial drones, correct?’ Stephen inquired. 

‘Yes,’ Zukunft replied.

‘And some of those drones are equipped with missiles, correct?’

‘Sure,’ the commandant answered, clearly wondering where the line of questioning was going.

‘And when a boat full of migrants is in international waters, they aren’t protected by the U.S. Constitution, right?’

‘Technically, no, but I’m not sure what you’re getting at.’

‘Tell me why, then, can’t we use a Predator drone to obliterate that boat?’ 

Admiral Zukunft looked nonplussed. ‘Because, Stephen, it would be against international law.’ 

According to the book, Miller begins arguing with Zukunft:

[The] United States launched airstrikes on terrorists in disputed areas all the time, Miller said, or retaliated against pirates commandeering ships off the coast of Somalia. The Coast Guard chief calmly explained the difference. America attacked enemy forces when they were armed and posed an imminent threat. Seafaring migrants were generally unarmed civilians. They quarreled for a few minutes. Stephen wasn’t interested in the moral conflict of drone-bombing migrants. He wanted to know whether anyone could stop America from doing it.

The book continues:

‘Admiral,’ [Miller] said to the military chief nearly thirty years his senior, ‘I don’t think you understand the limitations of international law.’

The admiral says he doesn’t remember this. But let’s just say that Stephen Miller’s extreme xenophobia argues in favor of the idea that it did take place. He’s a sociopath.

The Supremes haven’t totally lost their minds.

Published by digby on June 27, 2023

Thank God they rejected that cockamamie Independent State Legislature Theory

Former President Obama said the Supreme Court rejected a “fringe” theory that threatened to “upend our democracy” in rejecting the independent state legislatures theory on Tuesday. 

The court ruled 6-3 against an effort by North Carolina Republican lawmakers to declare that courts did not have the authority to block congressional maps put forward by state legislatures. The lawmakers argued that the U.S. Constitution gave the authority to regulate federal elections in state legislatures exclusively, so courts could not strike down the map that the North Carolina legislature approved. 

But Chief Justice John Roberts disagreed, writing for the majority that the Constitution’s Elections Clause does not “insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.” 

Obama praised the ruling and warned of the consequences if it had gone the other way in a tweet. 

“Today, the Supreme Court rejected the fringe independent state legislature theory that threatened to upend our democracy and dismantle our system of checks and balances,” he wrote, adding  “This ruling rejects the far-right theory that threatened to undermine our democracy, and makes clear that courts can continue defending voters’ rights—in North Carolina and in every state.”

The Biden administration opposed the effort to declare courts had no authority to review the maps, arguing it would “wreak havoc” on administering elections across the country. 

Roberts wrote that courts must still review legislatures’ actions within the “ordinary bounds” of judicial review.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority, arguing that the case should have been declared moot. 

Republicans retook control of the North Carolina Supreme Court and reversed the court’s decision throwing out the map, raising the possibility that the court could pass on ruling on the merits of the case. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas’ dissent, and Justice Samuel Alito joined in part.

Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett haven’t completely lost their minds — at least when it comes to voting rights. I’m not sure why, exactly. You know they don’t believe in them. Perhaps the backlash against the Roe decision and the profound corruption has scared then just a little bit? Whatever it is, it’s welcome, even if it’s only temporary.

Somebody’s got some groveling to do

Published by digby on June 27, 2023

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., on Tuesday expressed some doubt that former President Donald Trump is the best GOP candidate to defeat President Joe Biden and win back the White House next year.

In an interview on CNBC, McCarthy initially said that the former president could beat Biden in November 2024.

“Yeah, he can beat Biden,” said McCarthy, who added that “Trump’s policies are better, straightforward than Biden’s policies.”

Asked if Trump can win the general election given two criminal cases in which he’s the defendant, McCarthy signaled that the former president may not be the strongest option.

“Can he win that election? Yeah, he can,” McCarthy said. “The question is, is he the strongest to win the election? I don’t know that answer. But can somebody, can anybody beat Biden? Yeah, anybody can beat Biden.”

He’d better get his knee pads on. He’s going to have to start crawling. STAT.

Update — Kevin on his knees:

“As usual, the media is attempting to drive a wedge between President Trump and House Republicans as our committees are holding Biden’s DOJ accountable for their two-tiered levels of justice,” McCarthy said in a brief conversation with Breitbart News on Tuesday. “The only reason Biden is using his weaponized federal government to go after President Trump is because he is Biden’s strongest political opponent, as polling continues to show.”

Deal with ambiguity

Published by Tom Sullivan on June 27, 2023

They have to

Pediatrician delivers child: “Congratulations. It’s a, a, um, uh…. It’s healthy?”

I’ll never forget the Saturday afternoon when BBC radio ran a documentary (this is from a later TV production) profiling adults born with intersex traits (nearly 2% of the general population). I’d never heard of it. Decades before DNA testing (and not so long ago) it was something the medical profession and families hushed up. Hospitals had teams who conducted “gender assignment” surgery on infants born with ambiguous external genitalia.

Doctors instructed parents to tell no one and to raise the children as whatever sex the plastic surgeons had assigned using the tissues they had to work with. (Female was most often easier.) It was horrifying. It was barbaric. IIRC, one British family moved to the U.S. to avoid the stigma.

I never saw the world the same again. Theirs isn’t any “lifestyle choice” or any other such phobic B.S. It’s a medical fact. God doesn’t make mistakes, you say? Well then, this is normal. The surgeries are not.

Now amidst the right-wing panic over all things LGBTQ, “Every Body” is an intersex documentary opening in just days (AP):

Like some 260,000 Americans, Sean Saifa Wall was born with significant intersex traits. The sex on the birth certificate was checked “ambiguous” and then crossed out.

Wall was instead labeled female on the document and, at the age of 13, after his mother was inaccurately warned of a cancerous threat, his testes were removed. Doctors told his parents to raise him as a girl, though Wall later developed masculine features and now identifies as a man.

Tribeca:

In a country obsessed with gender, intersex people are often erased entirely. Sean Saifa Wall, Alicia Roth Weigel, and River Gallo are here to change that. Recounting their individual experiences with stigma, social pressure, and nonconsensual surgeries performed on them as minors, these three make the case for the much-needed rethinking of both archaic medical practices and binary ideas of gender and sex.

Trump Bedminster tape: first hearing

Published by Tom Sullivan on June 27, 2023

“Provides context,” claims Trump campaign spokesman

As we wait once again to see if today is the day the Supreme Court drops a bomb on the U.S. Constitution with its Moore v Harper decision, let us consider the bomb dropped last night on (or by) the insurrectionist-in-chief.

CNN somehow obtained a copy of the 2021 audio recording of Donald Trump boasting to people working on the memoir of former chief of staff Mark Meadows about classified war plans he had in a box at his Bedminster, New Jersey resort. Special counsel Jack Smith quotes from the tape in his indictment of the former president in the documents case.

(And just where is Mark Meadows, anyway?)

The Washington Post, the New York Times, and CBS (at a minimum) also have copies.

Trusting to Marcy Wheeler’s keener understanding of legal and national security matters, let’s see what emptywheel hears in the Trump tape on first hearing:

“THIS THING JUST CAME UP.”

Shortly after the CNN clip starts, Trump says, “I have a big pile of papers, this just came up.” He’s saying that, remember, after having transported the documents from Mar-a-Lago to Bedminster for the summer. His comment that, “this just came up,” suggests he was not only carrying these documents around, but reviewing them.

Given the fact that Trump’s lawyers weren’t able to find this document, it means he was reviewing them … before they disappeared forever.

“THESE ARE BAD SICK PEOPLE”

Trump compulsively shared this document for revenge — the same reason he put together the dumbass Russian binder. It not just speaks to intentional retention of documents, but it shows that he intended, from the start, to retain documents to avenge his perceived detractors.

Note that this is the same reason he released classified information at least once while President — when he shared details about the Josh Schulte investigation with Tucker Carlson on the same day the FBI planned to search Schulte’s home. He did so because of false claims he had been wiretapped, but also did so to blame President Obama for the leak.

Trump’s pathological need for revenge would be very very easy to exploit by anyone willing to push Trump’s buttons.

“YOU PROBABLY ALMOST DIDN’T BELIEVE ME, BUT NOW YOU BELIEVE ME”

As multiple reports regarding this document explained, Trump was lying. This document didn’t come from Milley, it dated back to Milley’s predecessor, sometime in 2019. Nevertheless he kept saying, “this was him, this totally wins my case.”

So it didn’t prove his case. Milley didn’t want to attack Iran, but Trump was using an unrelated document to claim that he did.

But Trump was using it — waving a document he described as highly confidential — to substantiate a false claim.

“SHE’D SEND IT TO ANTHONY WEINER, THE PERVERT”

Trump and his aide joke about Hillary printing this out and sending it to Anthony Weiner. That’s unsurprising: Trump always rationalized his own mistreatment of information by pointing to Hillary’s email server (this Roger Parloff post is a remarkably thorough debunking of Trump’s claims).

But understand how this comment will appear against the context of the five attacks on Hillary Trump used to get elected, cited in the indictment.

Jack Smith plans to use Trump’s past condemnation of Hillary to show that Trump knew this was wrongful. So even his false quip about Weiner will make this evidence more valuable.

And then, at the end of this recording, Trump called a staffer to bring some cokes, emphasizing how banal sharing classified information was for Trump.

Wheeler later tweets a short thread on how this tape likely got into the hands of the press:

Probably a good time to remind people that as SDNY was about to obtain access to the recording Michael Cohen made of Trump ordering a hush payment (which will be used in NYS trial), Trump released it preemptively.

It happened at the equivalent time, too: Trump got access to what had been seized from Cohen by intervening in that Special Master process. And then, voila! the tape got released.

So that’s Trump’s M.O. And this Bedminster tape?

One more point: Trump INDEPENDENTLY has this recording — it was recorded by his employee for his benefit, and after she was asked about it, lawyers reviewed it. But Trump will be prohibited from leaking stuff he ONLY obtained thru discovery.

A Trump campaign spokesman’s comment suggests why Trump may have released the tape (Associated Press):

“There was no document. That was a massive amount of papers, and everything else talking about Iran and other things,” Trump said on Fox. “And it may have been held up or may not, but that was not a document. I didn’t have a document, per se. There was nothing to declassify. These were newspaper stories, magazine stories and articles.”

Trump pleaded not guilty earlier this month to 37 counts related to the alleged mishandling of classified documents kept at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

A Trump campaign spokesman said the audio recording “provides context proving, once again, that President Trump did nothing wrong at all.”

Trump remains a defense attorney’s nightmare. And the secret documents case is only his second indictment. Special counsel Jack Smith and his Department of Justice investigators are “barreling forward on multiple tracks,” reports the Washington Post. In addition to the Jan. 6 insurrection itself, Smith’s team is investigating Trump’s “election fraud” fundraising pitches as well as the fake electors conspiracy in multiple states.

Sean Hannity twisted himself in knots Monday night on Fox News to deny what Trump said on Trump’s own tape.

“That does not confirm for me whether or not specifically this document was declassified or not,” Hannity told viewers. “Was that actually the real document, or was it a story he was telling?”

Twitter had a field day:

Justice JP Stevens FTW

Published by digby on June 26, 2023

Stevens understood the meaning of ethics. The right wingers never have apparentrly:

This isn’t the first time Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas have faced pressure to recuse themselves from cases over the activities of their relatives, their relationships with involved parties or their financial interests.

Newly released and previously unreported court documents that belonged to Justice John Paul Stevens, who led the marble palace’s liberal wing, show just how aware the justices were of charges that the appearance of impropriety could shake the public’s faith in the institution. They also show just how quick they were to push back against these concerns.

The Library of Congress opened the papers to the public on May 2.

The issues the justices wrestled with back then echo the controversies engulfing the court today.

Although the court often puts up a united front in public, the documents provide a rare glimpse into its inner workings and show that at least one justice — Stevens — found Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s rationale for not recusing himself from a major case to be insufficient.

Let’s go to the archives …

In 1998, the Justice Department and 20 state attorneys general filed a major antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, accusing the software giant of wielding a monopoly over the personal computer business.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, Rehnquist faced a conundrum: His son, James C. Rehnquist, was a partner at a law firm and was working on “private antitrust cases” for Microsoft, as Chief Justice Rehnquist later publicly wrote.

The question was whether Rehnquist should recuse himself — an important decision because justices who recuse themselves from cases cannot be replaced, raising the risk of a 4-4 deadlock.

Seven Supreme Court justices — including Rehnquist — had previously signed a 1993 statement outlining their recusal policy for cases in which a law firm representing one of the parties before the court also employed one of the justices’ relatives. The justices wrote that they would not recuse themselves from these types of cases unless the relative was lead counsel or the relative’s compensation would be “substantially” affected by the outcome.

Rehnquist ultimately decided that he would not disqualify himself from the case and explained his decision in a draft statement he sent to the justices.

Rehnquist suggested to the other justices that he was acutely aware of the weight of impartiality on the public consciousness — and that the court wasn’t operating in a vacuum.

“All of the usual kibitzers will be watching this case like a hawk, and I think full disclosure in advance may avoid some of the inevitable criticism,” the chief justice wrote.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor responded, praising the chief’s decision. (Ginsburg died in 2020. O’Connor, now 93, withdrew from public life in 2018.)

Stevens, on the other hand, had concerns with Rehnquist’s reasoning.

The justice, a former antitrust lawyer, thought “that if the Supreme Court did something substantive in this case, it could and very likely would have an impact on a private antitrust litigation that [Rehnquist’s] son was involved in,” a former Stevens clerk told us, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal court matters.

Stevens underlined an argument by Rehnquist that said “it would be unreasonable and speculative” to conclude that the outcome of the Microsoft case “would have an impact” on his son’s interests. Stevens wrote“WRONG”in the margin next to the underlined text (many of Stevens’s notes throughout his papers are in capital letters) and explained that the “MATTERS ARE INTERTWINED.”

Rehnquist also wrote that the outcome of the case before the court “could potentially” affect Microsoft’s exposure to antitrust liability in other litigation. Stevens circled “could potentially” and wrote “WILL DEFINITELY AFFECT AND MAY CONTROL” in the margin.

Stevens also believed that the appearance of a conflict of interest between the chief justice and his son should have been enough for Rehnquist to recuse himself from the Microsoft case, the clerk said. Stevens wrote, “APPEARANCE – !!!” on the front page of the draft.

“This is a no-brainer for him,” the clerk explained, noting that Stevens “had a very low bar for recusal.”

The Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the case and sent it back to the appeals court. The two parties later settled.

In 2004, weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments about whether Vice President Dick Cheney should hand over documents related to his energy policy task force, Justice Antonin Scalia went duck hunting in Louisiana.

Scalia was joined on the trip by about a dozen other hunters, including Cheney, who traveled on a Gulfstream jet with Scalia, and a businessman who hosted the hunt.

Legal experts at the time said the trip raised the appearance of impropriety and cast doubt on whether Scalia could be impartial. On Feb. 23, 2004, the Sierra Club, which had sued for access to the energy task force’s records, asked Scalia to recuse himself from the case.

Scalia refused, wrote a 25-page “rough draft” of a statement explaining his rationale — which was longer and much more critical than the final version — and sent it to Stevens for his feedback.

The final version of the statement is slightly different from the draft sent to Stevens:

A clause about recusals was removed: In the original draft, Scalia wrote that he “will have no hesitation” about recusing himself from cases in the future.

The word “false” was replaced with “misleading”: Scalia wrote in the draft that descriptions in news outlets (including The Washington Post) of Wallace Carline, the host of the Louisiana hunting trip, as an executive in the oil industry were “false.” The final version says they were “misleading.”

The draft referenced frequent invitations to fly with administration officials: Officials in the executive branch “frequently” invite members of Congress and the Supreme Court to join them “on government planes,” Scalia wrote in the draft. The final version said “Members of Congress and others are frequently invited to accompany Executive Branch officials on government planes, where space is available.”

It is unclear from the documents why Scalia made these changes or whether Stevens made any suggestions.

Nearly two decades later, Alito would use arguments similar to those employed by Rehnquist and Scalia to defend his decision not to recuse himself from cases in which billionaire Paul Singer stood to benefit. He was also similarly defensive about the concerns raised by what Rehnquist referred to as the “usual kibitzers.”

This time, the kibitzing isn’t likely to stop anytime soon.

Rehnquist was a real piece of work too.

This is all coming out and it’s clear that they have been totally politicized for some time and a few of them have a serious problem with corruption. There is no reason to hold them in some high esteem as a sacred institution that cannot be reformed. It’s time for term-limits and we might as well add a couple of new justices while we’re at it.

Nobody like Marge

Published by digby on June 26, 2023

She’s a pariah even among the wingnuts:

House Freedom Caucus members took a momentous vote Friday on Marjorie Taylor Greene’s future with the group, according to three people familiar with the matter — but it’s not yet clear whether she’s been officially ejected.

The right-flank group took up Greene’s status amid an internal push, first reported by POLITICO, to consider purging members who are inactive or at odds with the Freedom Caucus. Greene’s close alliance with Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and her accompanying criticism of colleagues in the group, has put her on the opposite side of a bloc that made its name opposing GOP leadership.

While her formal status in the conservative group remains in limbo, the 8 a.m. Friday vote — which sources said ended with a consensus against her — points to, at least, continued strong anti-Greene sentiment.

A spokesperson for Freedom Caucus Chair Scott Perry (R-Pa.) declined to comment on the group’s vote as well as the official status of Greene’s membership. Perry said in an interview last week that he had denied requests to remove members from the group of roughly 35 House Republicans. A spokesperson for Greene did not respond to a request for comment.

The uncertainty that now shrouds Greene’s status is partly due to the tightly held bylaws that govern official Freedom Caucus decisions. Even before the Greene vote, members questioned whether the group’s rule that 80 percent of the Freedom Caucus must support any formal decision applies to all matters — or just legislation.

Interviews for this story reflected lingering interest in trying to reconcile differences with Greene before any formal action is taken, and a suggestion that the chair or board could separately intervene to slow down any removal.

Discussions about Greene’s Freedom Caucus status were simmering for weeks, and the Friday vote occurred shortly after a high-profile clash between her and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), a member of the conservative group’s board.

Greene confronted Boebert on the House floor, calling the Coloradan “a little bitch” and claiming Boebert copied her on a measure aimed at quickly impeaching President Joe Biden. After the exchange was first reported in The Daily Beast, Greene confirmed the fight and doubled down, adding another pejorative.

Should Greene ultimately exit the Freedom Caucus, it is likely to trigger a greater feud within the House GOP as conservatives wrestle over how closely to work with their own party leaders. McCarthy’s team is still struggling to quell an ongoing rebellion propelled by Freedom Caucus members.

The public cracks in Greene’s relationships with her fellow conservatives also come as the House’s right flank continues to debate when to abandon party unity to advance its ideological goals.

Former Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) is the closest example of the Freedom Caucus previously weighing whether to remain open to a member who no longer aligned with the rest of the group. Amash, who had called for then-President Donald Trump to be impeached before leaving the GOP, resigned before the Freedom Caucus acted further — saying he didn’t want to be a “distraction.”

She’s a uniquely unlikable person even by MAGA standards and that’s saying something.

She’s getting weirder than ever:

It just gets dumber and dumber

Published by digby on June 26, 2023
Trump posted this himself

Meanwhile, this is happening in the US Congress:

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) on Monday challenged a labor union president to a physical fight in response to some mean tweets.

The senator and Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien have been feuding since March, when O’Brien referred to Mullin, a business owner, as a “greedy CEO” during a Senate committee hearing.

Mullin brought up the exchange during another Senate hearing last Wednesday, prompting O’Brien to respond online, where he called the senator “JohnWayne” and a “moron” in one tweet, and a “clown” and a “fraud” in another.

“Quit the tough guy act in these senate hearings,” O’Brien wrote in a tweet that mocked Mullin’s height. “You know where to find me. Anyplace, Anytime cowboy.”

After apparently thinking about it for five days, on Monday, Mullin suggested they set a date and location for a mixed martial arts showdown ― “for charity.”

“An attention-seeking union Teamster boss is trying to be punchy after our Senate hearing,” Mullin wrote. “Okay, I accept your challenge. MMA fight for charity of our choice. Sept 30th in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I’ll give you 3 days to accept.”

Mullin fought and won in three mixed martial arts matches in 2006 and 2007, according to Sherdog.com. He was elected to the House in 2012 and won a special Senate election last year.

In 2018, Mullin Twitter-challenged Democratic lawyer Michael Avenatti to meet him on the mat. The two never fought and Avenatti has since been sentenced to prison for ripping off his clients.

O’Brien, for this part, has indeed projected a punchy image since winning a 2021 election to lead the Teamsters, having campaigned on a promise of aggressive organization and contract negotiation.

Hookay. That’s a US Senator doing that. How about some idiot tech bro billionaires?

Two of the world’s most high-profile technology billionaires – Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg – have agreed to fight each other in a cage match.

Mr Musk posted a message on his social media platform Twitter that he was “up for a cage fight” with Mr Zuckerberg.

Mr Zuckerberg, the boss of Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta, then posted a screenshot of Mr Musk’s tweet with the caption “send me location”.

“The story speaks for itself,” a Meta spokesperson told the BBC.

Mr Musk then replied to Mr Zuckerberg’s response with: “Vegas Octagon.”

The Octagon is the competition mat and fenced-in area used for Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) bouts. The UFC is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Oh Dear God. And then this:

https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1673053159172833280?s=20

Just… no. This is too dumb even for America. Make it stop.

Bannon and RFKJr, two peas in a pod

Published by digby on June 26, 2023

Media Mzatters took a deep dive into this tragic relationship. It’s not pretty:

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon has spent nearly two years promoting anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist and Democratic presidential primary candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on his War Room podcast in a mutually beneficial relationship that could have disastrous public health consequences for the country and the world. 

Both men have used their substantial platforms to spread incorrect information about vaccines and COVID-19, which could now reach an even wider audience given Kennedy’s longshot campaign. 

Bannon reportedly encouraged Kennedy to run against President Joe Biden in the Democratic Party primary, believing he could be “both a useful chaos agent in [the] 2024 race and a big name who could help stoke anti-vax sentiment around the country,” according to CBS’ Robert Costa. Other right-wing pundits have similarly exploited Kennedy’s run as an attempt to undermine Biden’s support among Democrats with the aim of weakening him in the general election.

Costa’s reporting aligns with Bannon’s public support of Kennedy on War Room. Since July 2021, Bannon has interviewed and provided a platform for Kennedy, his publisher, and colleagues involved in his anti-vaccine work. In addition, Bannon has repeatedly hyped Kennedy’s book, a discredited diatribe against Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the face of the United States’ effort to mitigate the risks of COVID-19. Even the magazine of the Trump-aligned Claremont Institute concluded that “Kennedy’s book has all the objectivity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

Even relative to other right-wing media, Bannon’s podcast is a hotbed of conspiracy theories, many of which relate directly to COVID-19 and vaccines. He frequently pushes junk science from discredited charlatans like Naomi Wolf, has celebrated efforts to disrupt vaccine distribution, and claimed the pandemic was everything from a way to eradicate religion to a form of global war deliberately unleashed by China.

Given this feverish and paranoid atmosphere, it’s not surprising that Bannon amplified Kennedy’s longstanding efforts to discredit safe and effective vaccines, including those that protect against COVID-19, and has now latched onto his nascent campaign. Both are ecumenical and opportunistic in their conspiracism, including pushing QAnon messages and influencers. 

[…]

n July 24, 2021, Bannon interviewed Kennedy twice over the course of two hour-long shows. Although Kennedy’s The Real Anthony Fauci wouldn’t be released for months, Bannon was already hyping it. Tony Lyons, the book’s publisher, would make frequent appearances on War Room in the coming months. 

Bannon mentioned the book and disparagingly referenced a report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate that listed Kennedy as one of the 12 biggest spreaders of misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.

“When you make your speeches, do your analysis, you’ve got your center, you put out information, you put out reports — do you think that you’re adding to, or your focus is on digital hate?” Bannon asked. “Does that concept apply to any of the work that you’re doing?”

“Not only does it not have anything to do with digital hate, it has to do — we don’t put out any misinformation,” Kennedy responded.

Sound difficulties forced Bannon to cut the interview short and return to it during the following hour’s broadcast. In reintroducing Kennedy, Bannon again promoted the upcoming book, referring to it as something “I know our audience is going to want to pile into.” The interview lasted for roughly half of that episode.

[…]

In the lead-up to 2023, Bannon’s War Room had helped lay the groundwork for an old school ratfucking. The next step would be gassing up a spoiler candidate to serve as a “chaos agent.”

Kennedy filed his statement of candidacy on April 5. Bannon and his guests immediately began framing Kennedy as a fellow traveler who shared their same enemies, even if not all of their exact policies.

On April 10, days before Kennedy’s official launch announcement on April 19, Bannon and Wolf discussed the opposition he would face from the Democratic National Committee.

“Any campaign that made a crusade of Wuhan lab, Tony Fauci, the pharmaceutical-industrial complex, and the vax and everything about vaccines, right, all the science and logic of it, would be something that would help the American people. Do you agree with me on that?” Bannon asked. “And look, he’s a very progressive, liberal Democrat and I’m a right-wing populist, but something like that would help the country just basically sort through these issues that have come up so big over the last couple of years, ma’am?”

“Yeah, I’m actually scared to answer that publicly because when you like him, the entire legacy media gets angry at both of you,” Wolf replied.

After outlining how great a Kennedy challenge would be for Democrats, Wolf painted him as a victim of the party’s structures. 

“I am not at all persuaded that the DNC, which I see as a group of criminals at this point, are going to let any challenger who’s not wholly owned by the DNC, and wholly owned by whoever owns the DNC, bring up those issues,” Wolf said. “I think there’s going to be a massive mobilization against a campaign like his, and a campaign like Marianne Williamson’s.” 

Two days later, Bannon devoted an entire episode to discussing a speech Kennedy had just made at Hillsdale College, interspersing long clips of his remarks with obsequious praise.

Then on April 24, Bannon escalated his rhetoric, arguing that if failed Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake wasn’t available to be Trump’s future running mate, that Kennedy would make a great choice.

“Somebody asked about Robert F. Kennedy, and the great speech at Hillsdale, and his opening speech, and what did I think about his prospects,” Bannon said, describing a recent public appearance he’d made. “I said, ‘Look, I’m a Kari Lake person, but if Kari Lake becomes governor, as she should, with this court case, or if not, if she runs for the Senate — if she’s not available to be Trump’s VP, that Bobby Kennedy would be, I think, would be an excellent choice for President Trump to consider.’ It was a standing ovation.”

He reiterated the point the following day on Charlie Kirk’s podcast. 

“I see a very compelling reason — although I know Bobby Kennedy is terrible on guns, he ain’t great on Ukraine — but he talks about going after the administrative deep state in a very significant way, led by the pharmaceutical industry,” Bannon said. “If we put together a unity ticket of Trump and Kennedy, it would be insurmountable.”

There’s more, a lot more. Useful idiots are always a little bit depressing but this one is especially sad. The man clearly has big problems and these people are having a lot of fun exploiting them.

One Surreal Weekend

Published by digby on June 26, 2023

Well, that was quite a weekend wasn’t it? For a while there it looked as if Russian president Vladimir Putin might be overthrown by a monstrous mercenary warlord named Yevgeny Prigozhin. If that wasn’t strange enough, after taking over a couple of cities en route to Moscow, the plan was abruptly aborted and the warlord was quietly sent packing to Belarus while his mercenary troops were cordially invited to join the Russian army. Nobody knows why. Now it just remains to be seen if the Putin regime has been permanently damaged or whether it was just another surreal moment in the increasingly surreal era.

Meanwhile, back in the equally surreal USA, the Republican presidential candidates all attended the annual conservative evangelical gathering, The Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference. By all accounts the crowd was very excited to see all the candidates make their pitch, but the keynote speech by former president Donald Trump was the star event by a mile.

Former Vice President Mike Pence came out in favor of a national abortion ban at 15 weeks, which Senator Lindsey Graham explained would be really great because they could start “saving babies in California.” Some of the faithful were reportedly disappointed because they want a full ban with no exceptions but most are willing to go along with this idea as a first step.

If you ever wondered about the sincerity of these folks, this move says it all. For years they said they simply wanted to devolve the abortion issue to the states. They insisted that all the alarm about banning abortion across the nation was overblown. I think we know better now, don’t we? They should re-name their group the Bad Faith Coalition.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis only vaguely alluded to his main rival Donald Trump during his speech, reserving most of his ire for the woke and the woke and, of course, the woke. He did mention in passing that the wall never got built and that “some” of his opponents have criticized him for going after Disney — for being woke. I didn’t get the impression that the crowd saw him as any different than the other wannabes and he even signed a six week abortion ban. That is a testament to just how little they think of him even if many of them share his agenda:

The biggest moment of the conference came from former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who had the temerity to criticize Donald Trump. He told the startled crowd:

“Beware, everybody, of a leader who never makes mistakes. Beware of a leader who has no faults. Beware of a leader who says that if something goes wrong, it’s everybody else’s fault, and he goes and he blames those people for anything that goes wrong. But when things go right, everything is to his credit. I’m running because he’s let us down. He has let us down because he’s unwilling … to take responsibility for any of the mistakes that were made and any of the faults that he has and any of the things that he’s done. And that is not leadership, everybody. That is a failure of leadership.”

That was when the booing got very loud. If there’s one thing they won’t stand for it’s hearing the truth. Christie responded by saying,

You can boo all you want. But here’s the thing: Our faith teaches us that people have to take responsibility for what they do. People have to stand up and take accountability for what they do. And I, I cannot stand by.”

They were unmoved. Christie explained to the media afterwards that he expected to get booed but that he thinks it’s important for people to hear what he said. The problem is that as important as one might think it is for Republicans with conservative credentials to stand before a group like that and tell them what they don’t want to hear, their beliefs don’t stem from never hearing it. They hear it. They just don’t believe it.

They believe that Donald Trump is the victim of cascading witch hunts because he was so successful as president and won so hugely that the Democrats and the RINOs had to steal the election from him and indict him for crimes he didn’t commit. They don’t believe he made any mistakes for which he needs to acknowledge or apologize, so slamming his character is meaningless to these people.

Trump spent a lot of time confessing to the crime for which he’s been indicted under the espionage act, by insisting that he had every right to commit it because he used to be the president. That’s his story and he’s sticking to it. And he once again proclaimed “I am being indicted for you” which, as expected, went over very well with the evangelicals. They like a messianic message.

But he also talked a little bit about politics too.

He took credit for ending Roe v Wade by thoroughly politicizing the Supreme Court and bragged that “no president has ever fought for Christians as hard as I have — I got it done, and nobody thought it was even a possibility.” He got a standing ovation for that. But he also pointedly did not endorse the 15 week national ban, instead saying that the federal government has a “vital role” in protecting unborn life and praising states for the great progress they are making in banning abortion. He’s smart enough to see how lethal the issue is for Republicans but he’s stuck just like the rest of them. There is no finessing this issue.

But he reserved much of his speech to push his strong wartime message:

“As we gather today, our beloved nation is teetering on the edge of tyranny. Our enemies are waging war on faith and freedom, on science and religion, on history and tradition, on law and democracy, on God almighty himself.”

In case you were wondering, the enemies he was talking about are Americans. But he also promised to keep out all the foreigners who are helping to destroy the nation. Back in 2016 it was Muslims and Mexicans. He’s casting a wider net this time:

Trump went to Michigan the next night and took it a step further. He pledged to “drive out” those that are already here:

DeSantis only promises to “destroy leftism.” Trump’s making it personal.

All of this was happening on a split screen, with a possible Russian coup attempt by a former chef turned mercenary general on one side threatening to topple the Russian government and a reality TV star and defeated president who happens to be under both state and federal indictment vowing to purge all the alleged Marxists, Communists and fascists in America on the other. Surreal doesn’t begin to describe it.

Salon