Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

The Casey and Ron Show

What a pair

This piece by Ruby Cramer about the DeSantis’ is fascinating. To me she seems like a version of Kari lake — a local broadcaster with a little bit of kook behind the eyes. (I don’t think she’s as out there as Lake, however.) But apparently, DeSantis is pretty much a robot and she’s his engineer:

She knew, starting with his early days in politics, when Ron was still a member of Congress, elected at the age of 34, how she wanted to figure in his world. She knew the staff he should hire, former aides said, the invitations he should accept and the invitations he should decline. She knew his walking path at events, the people he’d stand next to on a stage. She knew his schedule, down to every meeting and call and fundraiser and congressional vote, because she asked to be copied on every calendar entry. She knew the cowboy boots he should wear, even though, at first, he complained that they hurt his feet, until a staffer suggested he buy dress shoes instead, at which point he said, “Casey got them for me,” and that was the end of the conversation about the cowboy boots. She knew the earpiece he should use for live interviews, because she had spent 15 years in television, even though, at first, the earpiece was uncomfortable in his ear, at which point an aide said, “Casey got this for you,” and that was the end of the conversation about the earpiece.

Ron was always talking about the two of them as one — when “we” got elected, when “we” protect freedom, when “we” fight the woke agenda — as if it was hard to see his role and hers in clear relief. Reporters approached Casey’s story with phrases like“co-governor,” “secret weapon,”“not-so-secret weapon” — the“X-factor” who “knows what’s best for Ron.” Ron was known to inspire fear, even in his allies.“If you can’t make ’em see the light,” he has said,quoting Ronald Reagan, “make ’em feel the heat.” But Casey — she was a subject theywouldn’t touch if they didn’t have to. […]

In 2011, she was in the back of small Republican gatherings, handing out copies of the book her husband had paid to publish, “Dreams From Our Founding Fathers,” a treatise on constitutional conservatism that mocked Barack Obama’s best-selling memoir. In 2012, she was working one TV show in Jacksonville, and planning to launch another, while spending her weekends knocking on doors for her husband’s first congressionalcampaign. In 2013, she was packing up their house in Sawgrass, a gated club in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla.,to move to his new congressional district, making her commute to work an hour and seven minutes each way. In 2016, she was home with a newborn while he spent weekdays in Washington. In 2018, she was leaving TV altogether to help him run for governor. And then she was packing boxes again, this time to move to 700 N. Adams Street, the governor’s mansion in Tallahassee. She deactivated her cellphone number and didn’t give out the new onewidely. She had always been exceptionally private. But there were friends and colleagues and people she mentored who didn’t hear from her again. “You’re chasing a ghost,” onesaid. […]

Casey faded from an entire life in Jacksonville to be here, by her husband’s side as he runs for president. She was with him on stages, telling voters she got to marryher “hero.” She was with him on rope lines, wearing a black leather jacket bearing his slogan, “Where Woke Goes to Die.” She was with him at picnics like this one in Iowa, where the governor moved through a tent to grill steaks for the cameras. Or he thought she was. He tied a red apron around his waist and gripped a spatula. “Where’s your better half, governor?” someone asked. Behind him, a matching apron, printed with CASEY DESANTIS in bold, lay untouched beneath the tent.

“Where’s the first lady at?” Ron said.

Casey was back in the SUV. The wind was causing a disturbance in Iowa, with gusts reaching 30 mph and tornado warnings on the radio. After her husband’s speech, she had made it about 15 yards toward the tent, before she grasped her hair with both hands, twisted it low around the nape of her neck and retreated for the calm air of the car. The wind was a no.

“I gotta get my missus,” the governor said under the tent. “I gotta make sure she’s good.”

Casey does not have to be physically present, though she very often is, to make her influence felt. Her role in Ron’s political and governing life has no exact limit or shape. It is the air in which he moves. […]

Ron and Casey live as an inner circle of two. They were always two private people, trusting of each other, often exclusively so, but the level of prominence and power they achieved in Tallahassee seemed to insulate their world further, creating a level of distance between Ron and Casey and everyone else. They don’t take social calls to the mansion, except for Christmas receptions and Easter egg rolls and the like. DeSantis’s supporters say this is a good thing, to be so focused on “the mission” at work and on their family at home. They say Ron and Casey are normal people in abnormal positions. Normal people go to Chick-fil-A, they say, just like Ron and Casey do. Normal people play T-ball with their kids, just like Ron and Casey do. At the residence, invited guests post Instagram photos standing next to a sign that reads “Governor’s Mansion: Closed to Visiting.” Outside, new layers of security fencing have been added to the perimeter.

“It’s just them,” said Javier Manjarres, a journalist at the conservative-leaning Floridian Press who describes himself as friendly with Ron. “They don’t have time for girl friends and guy friends. Ron doesn’t go fishing. Maybe he’ll go golfing with legislators. But it’s not, like, his buddies. That’s not a thing with him. And same for her. It doesn’t exist.”

It’s clear from the rest of the article (which you should read in full) that Casey is a very disciplined, ambitious person. She had a whole career before they decided that Ron was going to become president and by this account she was good at it. She gave it up to become RonandCasey which is fine. Politics is always easier when you have a spouse supporting you and one like Casey is invaluable. It’s really Ron that’s a freak:

Ron did not like Washington. One of the first things he asked his team to do was order a “Do Not Disturb” signto place on his office door. The placard was double-sided, but both sides said “Do Not Disturb.” The office wasn’t toxic, recalled a former aide; it was just “weird.” DeSantis had his quirks: He kept the same yellow stadium-style cup by his desk that he filled daily with water and soft drinks. No one ever touched it. There were three things he liked to talk about with his staff: the Constitution, baseball and golf. The one thing they joked about, the former staffersaid, was Trump. “Ron always said this guy was just an idiot.” Often, communication with staffers occurred through text message,even if they were in the next room — or it happened through Casey.

She’s a much more interesting person than I realized and it’s clear that Ron alone is the one making the grotesque policies that define his political persona. But she’s something else too. And the two of them together are downright frightening.

Trump’s hot August night or no?

Judge Aileen Cannon sets Aug. 14 trial date

But don’t get too excited (CBS News):

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has set an Aug. 14 start date for former President Donald Trump’s trial in the case over his alleged mishandling of classified documents.

In a brief order issued Tuesday, Cannon said the criminal jury trial is set to take place over a two-week period beginning Aug. 14 at the federal district court in Fort Pierce, Florida. That date, however, is likely to change, as Trump’s legal team files requests with the court that could result in the trial’s delay.

Prosecutors suggested in their indictment that Trump’s documents trial might take 21-60 days, not two weeks. So there’s that.

We are told that the Southern District of Florida has a “rocket docket,” but what do I know? Is this normal procedure, or an attempt to keep Trump from rope-a-doping justice yet again with his delay-delay shtick? Not that Cannon would help stop that. Or is it an attempt by Cannon to help Trump clear his legal dance card in advance of his 2024 run for president?

The New York Times suggests the calendar’s “brisk pace suggests that [Cannon] is seeking to avoid any criticism for dragging her feet or for slow-walking the proceeding.”

Daily Beast:

Peter Carr, a spokesman for Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith, could not confirm that this decision was correct, and not simply a typo. Trump’s defense lawyers did not immediately respond to questions.

Legal scholars have noted that this judge is something of a loose cannon, consistently making puzzling decisions that lean heavily in favor of the president who appointed her in his final months in office.

There will be discovery issue and fights over disclosure and security clearance delays. Axios suggests, “Discovery allows lawyers to go through evidence from both sides, and sometimes there are disputes about which documents each side must disclose. The process can significantly lengthen a trial if there are voluminous records.”

And factors that “constitute grounds for a continuance,” Cannon writes, including those involving the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA).

The Times again:

Brandon L. Van Grack, a former federal prosecutor who has worked on complex criminal matters involving national security, said the trial date was “unlikely to hold” considering that the process of turning over classified evidence to the defense in discovery had not yet begun. Still, he said, Judge Cannon appeared to be showing that she intended to do what she could to push the case to trial quickly.

“It signals that the court is at least trying to do everything it can to move the case along and that it’s important that the case proceed quickly,” Mr. Van Grack said. “Even though it’s unlikely to hold, it’s at least a positive signal — positive in the sense that all parties and the public should want this case to proceed as quickly as possible.”

All Trump wants is for the D.O.J. to go away. With extreme prejudice, if he could.

UPDATE: Ah, I was waiting for Marcy (who actually knows something about this stuff) to weigh in.

The sniffing is back

Trump’s “I was very busy” interview with Fox News

“Good morning, everyone, especially those of you who didn’t admit to committing more federal crimes on television last night,” snarks the Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson.

“I don’t like watching the former guy EVER – least of all on Juneteenth – but he just confessed to the crime of stealing classified documents,” tweeted Christine Pelosi Monday night.

ICYMI, Wilson and Pelosi mean this Donald Trump interview with Bret Baier of Fox News.

“Because I had boxes, I wanted to go through the boxes and get all of my personal things out. I don’t want to hand that over to NARA yet.  And I was very busy, as you’ve sort of seen,” Trump insisted about why he failed to return all the national defense documents he removed from the White House.

But he was not too busy to order his attorneys to affirm in a sworn statement that he had complied fully with the subpoena.

Also, he’s not a very good listener, is he?

The sniffing is back. “His tell… whenever he’s spewing an egregious lie,” observed GottaLaff on Mastodon.

Trump insists he has no other government documents. Yet there are still the missing documents special prosecutor Jack Smith’s federal indictment suggests he moved to his Bedminster, N.J. resort. Questions about them remain unanswered, perhaps so as not to distract from his prosecution in Florida.

Peter Wehner writes in The Atlantic that Trump seems not to have any sense of morality. The sniffing — his “tell” — suggests he still knows when he’s been caught in a lie.

But Trump’s enablers, his acolytes and believers? Most of them are not so emotionally and morally stunted as Trump. They are, however, nearly as transactional:

Trump doesn’t just cross moral lines; he doesn’t appear capable of understanding moral categories. Morality is for Trump what colors are to a person who is color-blind.

But what’s true of Trump isn’t true of the majority of his enablers. They see the colors that Trump cannot. They still know right from wrong. But for a combination of reasons, they have consistently overridden their conscience, in some cases unwittingly and in some cases cynically. They have talked themselves into believing, or half-believing, that Trump is America’s martyr and America’s savior.

Trump’s behavior obviously speaks to his own character. But Trump’s behavior has also proved to be a test of the character of others—Republican politicians and voters, the GOP establishment and the evangelical movement. It’s proved to be a test of character for those who claim to be “constitutional conservatives” and “family values” advocates, for ethicists and public intellectuals, for right-wing commentators and party strategists.

With very few exceptions, and to varying degrees, they have failed it. They have turned against—or at the very least, at a crucial hour, they have failed to defend—ideals and institutions they once claimed to cherish. Donald Trump could not have so deeply wounded our republic without his enablers. It took a team effort.

“Being president doesn’t change who you are—it reveals who you are,” Michelle Obama once said of her husband. “For Barack, success isn’t about how much money you make, it’s about the difference you make in people’s lives,” she said.

Most Americans did not need Trump occupying the Oval Office to know who and what he is. Nor did we need the awful difference he’s made in this country.

Trump’s ascension in and takeover of the Republican Party pulled back the curtain to reveal the Dorian Gray portraits of American conservatism and the evangelical movement. Both refuse to gaze upon what they have become.

Everything old is new again

They always have a supposedly reasonable rationale but the truth is they assume that the people receiving these people will be horrified because of course they are just as racist as they are. But they’re horrified because of the cruelty inflicted on those who are being used a pawns in their ugly game.

This is sick, ugly stuff. But they can’t seem to help themselves, apparently convinced that most of the country thinks these stunts are hilarious and/or justified. It’s not.

This Reuters poll from last fall found:

Following a highly-publicized drive by Republican governors to bus or fly thousands of migrants to Democratic areas in recent months, 53% of Republican respondents in the poll said they supported the practice. Twenty-nine percent opposed it.

Sixteen percent of Democrats supported the practice and 55% were opposed. Overall, 29% of Americans supported the practice and 40% opposed.

Forty-five percent of respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll – including 63% of Democrats and 31% of Republicans – said state leaders transporting migrants were committing illegal migrant trafficking.

At the time the Republicans were working themselves into a frenzy preparing for what they assumed would be a massive surge at the border once the COVID rules were ended. That surge never materialized although you’ve heard absolutely nothing about it despite the fact that the mainstream media pimped the anticipation for months as well.

But they’re still shipping migrants out of state. now they’ve taken to shipping them to California. If they think they’re teaching California a lesson in migrant politics they have another things coming. I think it understands the issue very well since it too is a border state — unlike Florida which is just trying to get in on the ugly, bigotry action.

Another cabinet member declares Trump unfit

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he’s a national security risk

I know, I know. Duh, right? But still, it helps to have more Republicans saying this even if the rank and file are all lining up to take more kool-aid:

Esper, who served in Trump’s Cabinet, said: “People have described him as a hoarder when it comes to these type of documents. But clearly, it was unauthorized, illegal and dangerous.”

[…]

“Imagine if a foreign agent, another country were to discover documents that outline America’s vulnerabilities or the weaknesses of the United States military,” he said. “Think about how that could be exploited, how that could be used against us in a conflict, how an enemy could develop countermeasures, things like that. Or in the case of the most significant piece that was raised in the allegation about U.S. plans to attack Iran, think about how that affects our readiness, our ability to prosecute an attack.”

Tapper asked Esper if he thought that Trump, if elected president in 2024, could ever be trusted with the nation’s secrets again.

“Based on his actions, again, if proven true under the indictment by the special counsel, no,” Esper said.

“I mean, it’s just irresponsible action that places our service members at risk, places our nation’s security at risk. You cannot have these documents floating around.”

Of course he’s a threat. Some of us knew he was a threat the minute he started exhorting Russia to hack Clinton’s emails but hey, better late than never.

Does everyone remember after he first met with Putin in July of 2017 he came up with this?

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Twitter on Sunday that he discussed forming a cyber security unit to guard against election hacking with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Tweeting after his first meeting with Putin on Friday, Trump said now was the time to work constructively with Moscow, pointing to a ceasefire deal in southwest Syria that came into effect on Sunday.

“Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded and safe,” he said following their talks at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany.

Two years later:

The notion prompted bipartisan disbelief, and Trump backed away from it within hours. But it surfaced again Monday after the two leaders met in Helsinki, Finland, when Putin suggested both countries work together to examine the evidence that Russia had meddled in the U.S. presidential election.

“We can analyze [evidence] through the joint working group on cybersecurity, the establishment of which we discussed during our previous contacts,” Putin suggested, confirming that he and Trump had talked about the idea before.

His remarks resurfaced much of the scorn that Trump’s original tweets had received from lawmakers and cybersecurity experts. Putin’s comments also renewed some people’s worries that Trump might appease the Russian leader by finally taking action on his suggestion — perhaps giving Russia an inside look at the U.S. investigation of the attacks.

We all saw this stuff happening in real time. How could anyone be surprised that he would steal classified documents? And nobody should be surprised if we learn someday that some writers and campaign aides weren’t the only ones he shared them with.

Losing to religion

From law professor Xiao Wang in the LA Times:

Looking for a federal law to be declared unconstitutional? Religion may well be your best bet — and that’s true regardless of how “real” your religious beliefs are.

That’s part of the thinking behind one case the Supreme Court heard this session and will resolve soon. In 303 Creative vs. Elenis, the court is considering the constitutionality of a Colorado statute prohibiting most businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ+ customers. Lori Smith, a Christian webpage designer, had wanted to expand into the wedding website business — but only for opposite-sex couples, a plan that would have violated the Colorado law at issue. Her lawyers made the case on free speech grounds, but given Smith’s religious beliefs, “religious freedom” represents an undeniable backdrop to the suit.

The 303 Creative case is no outlier. Religion-based claims have proliferated in recent years, and plaintiffs have often won because courts have almost invariably found their religious beliefs to be sincerely held. Meanwhile, the burden of proof for the government — that it is not unduly interfering in religious practice — has become much harder to prove.

A string of recent Supreme Court cases demonstrates how religion offers litigants a ready path to disobey laws without consequence. In the 2021-22 term alone, the Supreme Court decided several high-profile cases that affirmed religion’s supremacy.

In Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District, the justices determined that a high school football coach could not be placed on leave for violating a rule against public prayer. In Carson vs. Makin, it held that Maine was constitutionally required to subsidize religious schools. And in Ramirez vs. Collier, it postponed the execution of an inmate after he asked, at the 11th hour, that his pastor lay hands on him — despite having previously explicitly disclaimed the same form of relief.

Then, in a narrow 5-4 decision last September, the court left in place a New York state court decision requiring Yeshiva University to recognize an LGBTQ+ student group over the school’s purported religious objections. Ruling on technical grounds, the majority directed the university to first seek relief in state court. But four dissenting justices would have granted review to vindicate the university’s 1st Amendment rights — and those justices say that the university would “surely” win if the case comes back up, after state proceedings conclude.

How did these results come to be?

In the conventional understanding, religious exercise was cast off as an almost disfavored right. Courts were, historically, generally willing to let the government prevail whenever public policy and religion came into conflict. Now though, when the court says that government action affecting religious exercise must satisfy “strict scrutiny” — a notoriously difficult burden — it actually means it.

But that’s not the full story. Courts aren’t just making it harder for the government in these cases; they’re also making things easier for plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs must in theory show that their religious beliefs are sincerely held before strict scrutiny can kick in. This requirement dates to a 1944 decision, United States vs. Ballard, which for many years served as an effective gatekeeper against cries of “religion” casually trumping the law.

But in practice, this requirement has been hollowed out since at least the early 1990s.

Today, many claims for “free exercise of religion” arise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. I conducted a systematic review of roughly 350 such cases decided by the Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts over the last 30 years. Since the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, the Supreme Court has always found plaintiffs sincere. Lower federal appellate courts found plaintiffs sincere in 270 out of 291 (93%) cases from 1994 to June 2022.

This marks a striking difference from other areas of law, in which plaintiffs are frequently unable to meet their burden. For instance, employment discrimination plaintiffs meet their burden just 27% of the time and antitrust plaintiffs only 16% of the time. In other words, the onus on the plaintiff poses a meaningful barrier to obtaining relief — except in religious free exercise cases.

Litigants have taken note. The rate of claims under those two religion-related laws has tripled since the 1990s. It has become easy for a plaintiff to win by leveraging beliefs, even if their “religious belief” is just a ruse to get into federal court.

The relaxing of the sincerity requirement has real-world consequences across many fields.

For instance, courts allowed plaintiffs to skirt COVID-19 vaccine mandates based on religious objections to the use of embryonic tissue in research development and testing. Never mind that those same methods were used to develop everyday medications such as Benadryl, Claritin and Tylenol. And the Supreme Court set aside COVID restrictions on gathering sizes to accommodate religious events.

Education hasn’t escaped the religious beatdown, either. States now must provide funding to both secular and religious private schools, or only to public schools. And many teachers at church-run schools are not protected by federal employment discrimination laws.

Further, these teachers — and any other nongovernmental employees — may not be able to receive contraceptive care through their employer-provided health insurance after religious objectors attacked the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. And, emboldened by recent judicial decisions, Catholic hospital systems and certain insurers have begun denying LGBTQ+ people fertility treatments.

Since anyone in America can start a religion,you can imagine where this leads — total abnegation of civil rights laws. I do have a sneaking suspicion that the courts will once again discover the “sincerity requirement” when an offbeat religion decides to test it by say, refusing to rent an apartment to white people.

This really is revolutionary. However much it may have been culturally dominant, religion has never been legally supreme in America. Until now. And unsurprisingly, it’s happening as fewer and fewer people are participating in organized religion.

Once again we have a group that is shrinking in number attempting to rig the law and the constitution in their favor. You have to wonder what would happen if they tried adapting and evolving instead of forcing the nation to turn back the clock, alienating their countrymen in the process? They might have better luck.

Happy Juneteenth

America’s second independence day

I thought this was a nice thought for this holiday:

There are little joys to be found in overheard conversations, like this recent gem on an Acela train. A couple of young professional dude-bros sat behind me and were discussing why they couldn’t reschedule something for the 19th of June. “Because it’s Juneteenth — we get it off this year,” one said. And after a beat or two too long, the other replied, “Oh yeah. What’s it for anyways? Like, I know for Black people but …”

The first gave a pitying chuckle and returned with, “It’s when America freed the slaves” — followed by an incredulous, “C’mon man.”

I mean, well, yes. Juneteenth commemorates the day when — more than two months after Robert E. Lee’s surrender to Ulysses S. Grant and more than two years after Abraham Lincoln’s Proclamation — a Union army finally reached South Texas with news of emancipation. But I was far less interested in historical accuracy than I was in the fact that these two guys were having a casual Juneteenth civics conversation. Five years ago, that exchange would’ve been unimaginable. Most Americans had little clue what Juneteenth was until it became a federal holiday in 2021.

The newness of the holiday for much of the country means that there’s no shared set of traditions associated with it yet. Without ritual and mythology, things do not stick to the culture. We need to decide what the holiday will mean for us and for posterity.

This doesn’t happen without thought and effort. Labor Day, for example, has become an end-of-summer milestone rather than an homage to the American worker. So I cringed to see social media last year fill with pictures of Juneteenth-themed party supplies and T-shirts in red, black, green and gold. These were clearly the product of a marketing shortcut: Nothing says Black people like kente cloth or the Pan-African red, black and green.

But in America, to mark something as explicitly Black is to understand that some will interpret that as exclusively Black. So robing Juneteenth in those colors and patterns will naturally cause many to think that the holiday is “for Black people,” rather than an observation of a vital story for all Americans. Given this marketing, it wouldn’t have surprised me to hear from my fellow train passengers that “Juneteenth is kind of like a summer Kwanzaa.” A mishmash of cultural understanding, perhaps, but serviceable.

Don’t get me wrong. An occasion to mark the mythical Black American Cookout (with its specific instructions of who can bring what and its notoriously stingy invitation list) is always welcome.

But Juneteenth must be a national and inclusive holiday with a narrative to match. It symbolizes how the emancipation of Black people initiated a new beginning for a nation that had fallen short of its founding ideals. It recalls the important truth that emancipation was not a gift; it was hard won by perhaps the greatest multiracial coalition the nation has ever assembled — with Black Americans actively engaged in the taking. The promise of America is clearest in the resulting Reconstruction amendments.

Juneteenth represents the ushering in of this new nation, and a glimpse of its potential. For Independence Day to have any meaning that connects to the founding ideals, Juneteenth must exist. Without a shared celebration of June 19, there is no reason for fireworks on July 4. It’s for this reason that the initiating legislation was titled the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act. At its core, the holiday observes the nation’s rebirth, its second founding.

The colors on the Juneteenth flag are red, white and blue; they must be. It is an American holiday, not a Pan-African one. When Lincoln and various organizations proposed exporting enslaved Black Americans to freedom on distant shores, Black folks almost universally refused. Their goal was not just freedom — but freedom here, in the country they helped shape and build. Imagine the national pride required to fight so hard and for so long to improve a place and become fully part of it.

Our national story urges every American to remember both a past in which our forebears were excluded and their battle for inclusion. This is the common thread in the story of every American, no matter their race, ethnicity or nation of origin. Juneteenth has the potential to represent that shared narrative better than any other civic observance. It comes just a few weeks after Memorial Day and a couple weeks before Independence Day. After a solemn remembrance of those who have given their lives in service to the country, but before celebrating another year of existence, Juneteenth represents the pride and resolve necessary to keep the nation moving forward. It admonishes us not to squander the sacrifices of previous generations. In this moment of divisive indictments and a looming presidential election, it is a hopeful project to shape the holiday’s meaning and traditions.

For now, I’m content to know that more of us are learning of an official holiday to mark the end of slavery in the United States. This is a big deal and something we should all be proud of. Before the summer Kwanzaa commercialization takes permanent control, however, there is still a chance to replace it with an annual reaffirmation of a commitment to build an inclusive democracy. We can still dream.

Indeed we can. And we must.

The Burisma BS

Last week I wrote about the misinformation being distributed by Republicans in comparing the Trump documents case to Hillary Clinton’s “but her emails” scandal in 2016. It’s taken as a given on the right that she broke the law and was granted special dispensation despite the fact that there were five different investigations that found otherwise. Unfortunately, that isn’t the only fake scandal they’re flogging these days to try to cover for Trump’s corruption and criminality. They’re back on the Burisma beat.

I wrote about this pseudo-scandal back in 2020 when it was making one of its periodic rounds in the right wing media, mostly so they could have a excuse to circulate embarrassing photos from Hunter Biden’s laptop (which is a whole other story for another day.) I distilled the story into this succinct description:

The “scandal” itself is actually nothing more than an example of the very common (and admittedly skeevy) business practice of hiring the family members of important people for the purpose of obtaining favors, gaining access or simply being viewed in a favorable light. Hunter Biden clearly made a mistake in joining the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, while his father was vice president. The apparent conflict of interest was obvious to literally everyone. But Republican charges that Joe Biden granted a favor to Burisma by having the Ukrainian government fire a prosecutor that was investigating the company are flat-out provably false. It’s true that Biden (along with virtually the entire Western alliance) pressured the Kyiv government to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor in question. But one of the reasons was because Shokin wasn’t investigating Burisma. There was no favor done on Hunter Biden’s behalf. If anything, it was the opposite.

The claims of Biden helping out Burisma just don’t make sense, the timeline is off and it’s easily disproved by the fact that the prosecutor Biden (and everyone else) wanted fired wasn’t targeting Burisma at all.

Not that it mattered. The right is operating, as usual, under a set of “alternative facts.”

Recall also that Trump’s first impeachment was partially based upon this bogus narrative along with some other bizarre assertions regarding the cyber security company Crowdstrike and the DNC server supposedly being kept in Ukraine. Wired explained the thinking behind that:

Trump believes—and by all indications this is true belief, not posturing—that after the Democratic National Committee was hacked in 2016, the DNC gave a physical server to Ukrainian cybersecurity company CrowdStrike and refused to let the FBI see the evidence. Trump further argues that the server in question now physically resides in Ukraine. Inside that server, Trump suggests, one would find evidence, gleaming like a Pulp Fiction briefcase, that Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the DNC in 2016.

Part of this false narrative now includes the charge that Biden received 5 million dollars in bribes from Burisma to fire Shokin based upon a confidential source that Rudy Giuliani dug up in his forays over to Ukraine to set up the smear against Biden. Again, Shokin wasn’t investigating Burisma at the time but pesky facts like that don’t matter when a hysterical right wing scandal is in motion.

(It all seems to be a sloppy conflation with a 5 million dollar bribe that was revealed in September 2020 when they arrested 3 Burisma executives for offering 5 million dollars to Ukrainian anti-corruption officials and which the Ukrainian government went to pained lengths to say neither Hunter Biden or Joe Biden had anything to do with.)

Two investigations were launched into these allegations, one by Bill Barr and another by the Nebraska Sen Chuck Grassley and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson of the GOP led Senate Finance and Homeland Security Committees. The DOJ case was handled by the US Attorney for western Pennsylvania to handle all the alleged “evidence” Rudy Giuliani was producing and which the FBI and Intelligence community believed was likely being fed to him by Russian agents. He talked to Giuliani and closed the investigation without saying a word.

The other investigation also found nothing except the old news that Hunter Biden traded on his father’s name to get a lucrative sinecure with Burisma and nobody testified that Biden changed any policies to help him out. Grassley apparently forgot all about that when he joined up with House Oversight Committee Chairman to demand that the FBI turn over a document in which a confidential informant alleged that he’d heard a Burisma executive (whom we later learned was Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky) claim that he had paid 5 million dollars to Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. That document was one of Giuliani’s and was known to Barr and the DOJ since June of 2020. It was not considered credible for obvious reasons.

As Politico reported back in 2020, Giuliani’s former accomplice Lev Parnas said he and Giuliani met with Zlochevsky the year before and when asked what contacts Zlochevsky had had with Joe Biden he said, “no one from Burisma ever had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him during Hunter Biden’s engagement.” Parnas told Politico that “at that point, after seeing the answers, Rudy started pounding the table and saying, ‘We just need to get this information!” He told Parnas to keep looking and it appears someone “found” some.

As I’m sure you’ve heard there was a big back and forth between the Justice Department which did not want to release the document and the House which demanded it or they would hold FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of congress. The FBI finally agreed to show a redacted version to members of congress and they very excitedly reported that the document revealed that Zlochevsky told the informant that there tapes of Joe and Hunter Biden accepting a bribe to fire the prosecutor in order to stop an investigation that didn’t exist. (No one knows if these tapes exist either which even Comer, Grassley and Ron Johnson have been forced to admit.)

Now Comer and the committee can’t find their whistleblowers and Giuliani is claiming his informant was killed and everyone knows it must be that the Biden Crime Family is doing something terrible to their enemies. None of it makes any sense but that’s really the point. The confusion and the contradictions and the possibility of tapes is all that’s needed to create a lot of smoke that their voters can claim proves that Biden is the real criminal for which the Trump investigations have been created to provide cover.

The right has done this sort of thing for years. Just look back at some of the ridiculous “investigations” they launched during the 1990s. It works for them. Normal people can see that it’s all a joke but it feeds into the overall impression that everyone in Washington is corrupt anyway. And today the person who benefits most from that belief is the presidential candidate who is under numerous investigations and indictments with more to come. If they all do it, what he did must not be all that bad, right?

Salon

A Juneteenth tale

Slavers hid news of slavery’s end

Today’s Google Doodle for Juneteenth.

A Juneteenth tale from CNN:

Temple “Tempie” Cummins stoically stares at the camera with her arms folded in her lap, sitting stiffly in a chair in her dusty, barren backyard with her weather-beaten wooden shack behind her. Her dark, creased face reflects years of poverty and worry.

The faded black and white image of Cummins from 1937 was snapped by a historian who stopped by her home in Jasper, Texas, to ask her about her childhood during slavery. Cummins, who did not know her exact age, shared stories of uninterrupted woe until she recounted how she and her mother discovered that they had been freed.

She said her mother, a cook for their former slave owner’s family, liked to hide in the chimney corner to eavesdrop on dinner conversations. One day in 1865, she overheard her owner say that slavery had ended, but he wasn’t going to let his slaves know until they harvested “another crop or two.”

“When mother heard that she say she slip out the chimney corner and crack her heels together four times and shouts, ‘I’s free, I’s free,’ ” Cummins told the historian, who recorded her story for a New Deal writers’ project that collected the narratives of the formerly enslaved during the Great Depression. “Then she runs to the field, ‘gainst marster’s will and tol’ all the other slaves and they quit work.”

Damn.

Tempie Cummins, “formerly enslaved” (1936). Photo: Library of Congress.

That story is one of the first recorded memoires of an experience that would inspire the creation of Juneteenth, an annual holiday celebrating the end of slavery that the US will commemorate this Monday. It marks the moment in June of 1865 when Union troops arrived in Texas to inform enslaved African Americans that they were free by executive decree. Many people like Cummins in remote areas of Texas and elsewhere did not know that they were free as their White owners hid the news from them.

My messaging friends remind us not to passive-voice the actions and decisions of others. “Mistakes were made” is obfuscatory bullshit. People made those decisions. Employees laid off did not “lose their jobs.” Their bosses/companies fired them. People were not “slaves.” Someone enslaved them.

“There’s been a shift in the historical community attempting to not define the period or the people by what was done to them in the sense that their identity becomes a noun, a slave, but rather that they are that they were in the process of being enslaved,” says Tobin Miller Shearer, a historian and director of African American Studies at the University of Montana.

“There were slavers who did that to them,” he says, “but there’s more to their identity than what was being done to them.”

Yet other myths about slavery persist, in part, because of the sheer enormity and brutality of slavery.

John Blake offers several myths. This anecdote was new to me:

In the Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC, there is a special exhibit of an artifact that is so rare that there are only a handful now in existence. It is what historians call a “Slave Bible.” It is a copy of a Bible that was used by British missionaries to convert enslaved African Americans. Published in 1807, the Bible deletes any passages that may inspire liberation – about 90% of the Old Testament is missing along with half of the New Testament.

“They literally blacked out, portions of the Bible that had anything to do with freedom, anything to do with equality, anything to do with God delivering folk,” says Leon Harris, a theology professor at Biola University in California.

Apparently, British missionaries created the radically edited Bible to reassure Caribbean farmers that they had not come to preach liberation to the enslaved. Nor to teach them to read?

The way of the nihilist

If there’s no personal gain in it, fuck it

The people who ran against Democrats over “defund the police” (never a Democratic Party policy) now want to dismantle the F.B.I., make the Department of Justice a political enforcement tool of a future Republican presidency, dismantle the civil service and more.

Consider it an extension of the profit motive to our entire experiment in popular sovereignty, from regulatory capture to full repurposing the government to serve personal aggrandizement. If there’s no personal gain in it, fuck it.

Now under federal indictment under a Joe Biden administration D.O.J., Donald Trump promised in a speech last week that if elected he would appoint a “real” special prosecutor to investigate the current president and his entire family. Being held to the rule of law is for Republicans an abomination. Holding your enemies to it is delicious.

Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage and Maggie Haberman write in the New York Times:

But by suggesting the current prosecutors investigating the Bidens were not “real,” Mr. Trump appeared to be promising his supporters that he would appoint an ally who would bring charges against his political enemies regardless of the facts.

[…]

Mr. Trump’s promise fits into a larger movement on the right to gut the F.B.I., overhaul a Justice Department conservatives claim has been “weaponized” against them and abandon the norm — which many Republicans view as a facade — that the department should operate independently from the president.

The Heritage Foundation is all in. “[The FBI] needs to be started over from scratch and rebuilt,” says Heritage president Kevin Roberts.

The F.B.I. is the most respected law enforcement agency in the world, handling some of the most critical and complex investigations there are, McCaskill told MSNBC’s Alex Wagner.

“What do these guys think are going to happen if they just fire everybody?” Are they going to recruit Trump fans from rural sheriff’s departments and train them to do this work, McCaskill asked, calling the notion ludicrous on its face. What happens to federal law enforcement in the meantime?

(How many times did Republicans in Congress promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act? How many times did they attempt the repeal with nothing to replace it?)

Republican 2024 presidential candidate, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, agrees with his rival Trump. As part of his “Day One” strategy, DeSantis plans to “end what conservatives see as the weaponization of the justice system” (Real Clear Politics):

[DeSantis] has privately told advisors that he will hire and fire plenty of federal personnel, reorganize entire agencies, and execute a “disciplined” and “relentless” strategy to restore the Justice Department to a mission more in line with what the “Founding Fathers envisioned.”

But his ambitions go beyond bureaucratic restructuring. He wants to physically remove large swathes of the DOJ from the District of Columbia, including FBI headquarters, RealClearPolitics is first to report.

[…]

DeSantis, who takes a broader view of executive authority than is typical of constitutional conservatives and who has told advisors he “doesn’t buy” the idea that presidents can’t fire anyone on the federal payroll. 

Scott McKay, a contributing editor at the fringe-right The America Spectator agrees wholeheartedly. The Trump indictment “stinks of a banana republic.” Whichever candidate Republicans nominate, he doesn’t care:

What I care about is that (1) we’ve got to have a Republican nominee who is capable and willing to do the things necessary to win in November 2024 — whether that means harvesting ballots, hiring every lawyer in America to engage in lawfare against local Democrat vote-fraud machines, kissing all the babies, lying to the rubes, whatever — and (2) that nominee, once he wins, had better be willing to take action.

“Action” meaning overhauling and/or dismantling the D.O.J., the Department of Energy, the E.P.A., etc. “The Departments of Education and Homeland Security, the IRS, and practically all the rest of them need major, strategic, and structural reorganizations.” To better comport with their arrogation of personal power, to be sure.

“Weaponization of government” is fine so long as Republican fingers are on the trigger. Or, as President George W. Bush said in perhaps his most famous Kinsley gaffe, ‘If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier… just so long as I’m the dictator. Hehehe.”

The Trump Republican Party represents the triumph of the profit motive (monetary and personal power) over government stewardship. Americans owe a debt of thanks to those who enter government service driven by the mission. Trump, DeSantis, et al. simply ask, “What’s in it for me?”

Founding Fathers, indeed.