Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Durham disinformation everywhere

Including in the Washington Post

It’s obvious that right wingers did not read the report. They have been relying on each other’s interpretations and it’s all wrong.

Here’s the very trustworthy NY Times’ Charlie Savage:

Marc Thiessen wrote a shoddy Washington Post column using as a foil the headline of my piece yesterday assessing how the Durham inquiry fell flat after years of political hype. (He didn’t engage with its substance, of course.) A dissection follows. 

As an initial matter, Thiessen got his start at a lobbying firm that included two named partners – Paul Manafort and Roger Stone – who were convicted of felonies in the Russia investigation & pardoned by Trump. He does not disclose that conflict to the WP’s readers.

Thiessen opens by insinuating that I am downplaying Durham bc I’m implicated in (his tendentious portrayal of) the media’s Trump-Russia coverage. Aside from whether he is accurately describing Mueller’s complex findings, I wasn’t part of the NYT’s Trump-Russia coverage team.

He links a screenshot, not the piece nyti.ms/3pSTil6, then moves goalposts. The hype was that Durham would deliver proof of a deep state conspiracy & prosecute people like Comey, Brennan & Clinton-not just find flaws/abuses like an inspector general already did.

Kudos for not pretending the FBI opened the inquiry based on the Steele dossier. Still, in cherrypicking some agents portraying the info as thin, he omits Durham’s concession that “there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine” it.

2x bait & switch. To criticize the FBI decision to open a “full”-level inquiry, he takes out of context passages actually discussing how the FBI later botched FISA applications. Using that to laud the Durham inquiry, he omits that it was instead found by the inspector general.

Continuing to implicitly credit Durham for the IG’s findings, Thiessen also here goes beyond being misleading and makes a factual error that the WP should correct. The doctored e-mail was bad, but used in internal discussions–not presented as evidence to the FISA court.

This is true — though, again, derived from the 2019 inspector general report and so not the Durham investigation delivering on the hype.

As he keeps going, notice how a column about the Russia investigation is turning into a critique of the Steele dossier–a common slight of hand. The dossier’s investigative role was limited to the Page FISA warrants.

Thiessen says the FBI relied on Danchenko as a paid source to investigate Trump. As the trial showed, while the FBI 1st approached him when vetting the dossier, it found his contact network unique and he evolved into an ongoing source about Russia stuff unrelated to Trump.

He’s now all in on conflating the Russia investigation with the Steele dossier. The FBI used the dossier for its botched Carter Page FISA warrants, which was bad in myriad ways the IG documented. But the scrutiny of Page was a small part of the overall Russia investigation.

Another error-the 2nd poll’s #s come from a subset, not all respondents. Anyway, a single # for views about “the media” means little. Lumps together too many different kinds of outlets & different types of people with mutually inconsistent views about what they’re mad about.

No comment necessary.

Savage’s article:

After Years of Political Hype, the Durham Inquiry Failed to DeliverA dysfunctional investigation led by a Trump-era special counsel illustrates a dilemma about prosecutorial independence and accountability in politically sensitive matters.https://nyti.ms/3pSTil6

Savage’s assessment is the correct one. If you want to go super deep, try emptywheel. Let’s just say that Durham’s report does not say what these wingnuts say it says.

The blame game is not a strategy

Back in January, I wrote this:

Democrats are supremely confident that the Republicans will be blamed for the standoff and that this will benefit them in the 2024 election. In fact, many of them didn’t even try to convince Sinemanchin to raise it in the lame duck because they are so sure that everything will turn out all right and the GOP will be blamed for any fallout from the hostage taking.

Wherever did I get that idea?

Democratic leaders have signaled that they don’t intend to address the borrowing limit in the current lame-duck session of Congress, when their majorities in the House and the Senate would theoretically give them a shot at raising or even eliminating the cap entirely without the help of  Republican votes.

Democrats also seem to have convinced themselves that should the issue come to a head in early 2023, pushing the nation once again to the brink of a default and economic crisis, Republicans will take the blame. 

“Although there is grave risk to the economy, the gun is in Republicans’ hands,” a Biden adviser told Politico last week. “And there is little question as to who will get blamed for this.”

I got the sense from the beginning that there were some Democrats who actually relished this mayhem because they believed the Republicans would be blamed. As if rattling the markets and possibly crashing the world economy would redound to their benefit if the GOP got blamed for it.

I speculated at the time that there might have been another motive:

[W]hat this suggests is that some Democrats (I’m looking at you Chris Coons) actually wanted this stand-off so they could justify cutting spending. They had to know that they would end up at the negotiating table and if past is prologue, the GOP may pay a political price, but the American people will pay a price too. The last time we barely escaped without cuts to Medicare and Social Security — which the White House endorsed! Luckily the nutcases refused to take yes for an answer and wanted even more. Let’s just see if this ends up on the menu again.

It doesn’t appear that they are making a big play for Social Security and Medicare this time at least not yet. But if they get all the rest you can be sure they’ll come back looking for that too. If you give them an inch they’ll take a hundred miles. This is how they “negotiate:

Over the weekend, Republicans rejected a new White House offer to basically freeze domestic spending at 2023 levels — a demand they have been yelling about for months. But not only did they reject the proposal, they also added new fresh ideas to their hostage ransom list — including work requirements that are more rigid than the ones they originally proposed and new provisions that they did not have in the debt ceiling bill they passed last month.

Will the American people know about that? Somehow I doubt more than a handful are following this closely and instead are hearing the media yammer on about how “both sides” are to blame and they need to stop posturing and “come together.”

The “Gopers will get the blame” strategy was as fatuous as it gets. It assumed that this would be a re-run of 2013 (which they forget was extremely fraught for many months even though the GOP capitulated in the end.) I guess they forgot that the Dems lost the elections in 2014 and 2016.

Witness to history

Just thought I’d share this because it’s very cool:

https://twitter.com/MichaelWarbur17/status/1660373232489316353?s=20

The Right Wing institutions have big plans

If they win the presidency get ready for a revolution

Picture if you will, it’s January 21st 2025 and Donald Trump has just been inaugurated for his second term after the Biden interregnum. Yes, it would be a horrific time, not unlike those first horrible weeks in 2016 when over half the country struggled to grasp how it was possible that an ignorant, bombastic, game show host had eked out a win through an electoral college fluke. But those feelings of despair are where the similarities will end. The next Trump administration will be ready to hit the ground running with their leader’s Retribution Agenda and it won’t be because Trump is any more effective at presidential leadership. It will be because right wing institutions will have spent their four years in the wilderness preparing for their chance to enact a radical overhaul of the federal government unlike anything we’ve ever seen in this country.

Even some members of the GOP establishment are getting nervous:

There was always talk of this among the original Trumpers, even though the president himself didn’t have a clue what they were talking about. Recall former adviser Steve Bannon bellowing about the “deconstruction of the administrative state” and Former Attorney General Bill Barr’s assertions of unchecked executive power for example. As it happened, Trump was so far in over his head and ran such a chaotic, scandal filled administration that they were unable to institute many systematic changes to test their theories but they came away with the knowledge that given another chance with a corrupt demagogue they could make changes to the system that could help them stay in power indefinitely.

There has been a cascade of stories discussing the poor roll out of Trump’s campaign and how he’s still stuck in the repetitive groove of his grievances over the 2016 campaign and his loss in 2020. His appearance on CNN’s generous kick-off campaign rally for him a couple of weeks ago reinforced that idea, as he repeated all his punch lines and the audience cheered and clapped ecstatically. It certainly left the impression that if Trump were to win the election next year we would be in for a repeat of his first term: turmoil, scandal and ineptitude in which the most terrifying consequence is that a crisis hits or someone makes a catastrophic error. Last time, you’ll recall, we got hit with the first deadly global pandemic in a hundred years and Trump publicly told America to take unproven snake oil cures and instructed scientists to look into having people ingest disinfectants since they kill the virus on surfaces.

It was a disaster. Many people died and many more families were decimated but I fear that too many Americans may think that a rerun of the The Trump Show won’t be a catastrophe since most of us survived his tenure. But it won’t be a rerun. Since the day Trump left the White House for his exile at Mar-a-Lago, well-funded right wing organizations have been planning the return to power with a fully developed agenda and plan to enact it. All they have to do is put the Sharpie in Trump’s hand to sign what they put in front of him after which he can run out to the camera’s and whine and complain about whomever is his target that day as his minions turn the Executive Branch into a full functioning partisan operation.

Last summer, Axios’ Jonathan Swan wrote a long report on what they’ve been planning:

The impact could go well beyond typical conservative targets such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service. Trump allies are working on plans that would potentially strip layers at the Justice Department — including the FBI, and reaching into national security, intelligence, the State Department and the Pentagon, sources close to the former president say…The heart of the plan is derived from an executive order known as “Schedule F,” developed and refined in secret over most of the second half of Trump’s term and launched 13 days before the 2020 election.

Schedule F is an Executive Order which would reassign potentially tens of thousands of federal employees they determine to have policy influence so they would lose their civil service protections. Republicans have come to believe that the entire federal government is filled with woke liberals intent upon depriving them of their natural right to rule without restraint.

The plan is being produced by a number of Republican groups and coordinated by some names with which you are no doubt familiar, like former DOJ lawyer Jeffrey Clark, former Devin Nunes staffer and acting Pentagon Chief of Staff Kash Patel and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows all of whom are caught up in Trump’s legal messes as well. They plan to salt every department with GOP toadies from the military to the DOJ to the Department of Education to the CDC and NIH. And institutions like the Heritage Foundation are drawing up lists of candidates. (That same right wing institution similarly staffed the provisional government in Iraq with young right wingers to disastrous results.)

The beauty of this plan is that it doesn’t actually matter if Trump wins again. They can use it just as easily for another Republican. But it would be especially well-suited for Trump’s main principle rival Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Time Magazine’s Molly Ball reported on DeSantis’ desire to use every bit of executive power to achieve his goals:

“One of my first orders of business after getting elected was to have my transition team amass an exhaustive list of all the constitutional, statutory, and customary powers of the governor,” he writes in The Courage to Be Free. “I wanted to be sure that I was using every lever available to advance our priorities.” Aides from the time have corroborated this account, describing a thick binder of information that DeSantis proceeded to devour.

There’s no need to reiterate all the ways in which he uses every lever and coerces the legislature to enact the most extreme agenda of any state in America and now promises to take it national. Should he win he will run with the Schedule F plan and probably come up with a few of his own. This is what defines him as a political leader.

In fact, from the sound of all the Republicans on the trail extolling the alleged “bombshell” (that’s actually a dud) of the Durham Report as if it’s some huge indictment of the “deep state” that has to be completely dismantled, it’s obvious that this is going to be a Republican Party project, not a Trump project at all. They are all organizing themselves around blatant lies about elections, democracy, law and justice, health, foreign policy and national security and their partisan institutions are plotting to use those lies to remake the federal government.

It’s an ambitious plan but with the courts on their side and a congressional majority it’s eminently doable. It’s imperative that the American people do not let them attain power again as long as this is their agenda or there may be no going back.

Salon

What could go worng?

Pull back firmly

A neighbor approached me last week about the possibilities for using A.I. in support of political campaigns. No way would I let it anywhere near campaign communications. Humans are not savvy enough not to include stock imagery from foreign sources in political ads. You’d let A.I. do it? Or generate audio that might pronounce Nevada Ne-VAH-duh?

The neighbor asked Bard to list “North Carolina state representatives who voted to overturn the governor’s veto on abortion bill.” What Bard came back with after a blazing fast search of the Net was a blazing hot mess. With a few more seconds I, Human, grabbed the accurate list at the source here. Perhaps “voted to overturn the governor’s veto on abortion bill” is too vague. Which governor? Which override? Which abortion bill? (SB 20, 2023-2024 Session).

I’m reminded of an old Isaac Asimov short story, “Risk.” Briefly:

Gerald Black, the etherics engineer responsible for causing the NS-2 model to “get lost” in the previous story, is watching the next stage of hyperspace testing. Hyper Base has developed an expensive prototype spaceship with a built-in hyperdrive, called Parsec, which is expected to travel out to Sirius and return.

When the countdown ends, however, the ship doesn’t leave and nobody knows why. Black is selected to board the ship and determine what went wrong and prevent the hyperdrive from activating before they lose their prototype hyperdrive ship.

They’d placed a robot at the controls for the risky test flight. Its instructions? “Seize the bar with a firm grip. Pull it towards you firmly. Firmly! Maintain your hold until the control board informs you that you have passed through hyperspace twice.”

Black explains what went wrong, “The robot was told to pull back the control bar firmly. Firmly. The word was repeated, strengthened, emphasized. So the robot did what it was told. It pulled it back firmly. There was only one trouble. He was easily ten times stronger than the ordinary human being for whom the control bar was designed.” It bent the control bar and wrecked the attached circuitry. What does firmly mean to a robot?

“Had they said, ‘apply a pull of fifty-five pounds,’ all would have been well,” Black explained. Asimov recognized in 1955 that how you pose the question to a machine matters. A lot.

This fascination with A.I. is going to get worse before it gets better:

When a 60 Minutes staffer got a call that appeared to be from correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi, she picked up.

A voice on the other end, generated by artificial intelligence to mimic Alfonsi’s voice, asked for some help. Clips from television had been used to clone Alfonsi’s voice. It took about five minutes.

“Elizabeth, sorry, I need my passport number because the Ukraine trip is on,” the fake Alfonsi said. “Can you read that out to me?”

The staffer did.

Terrorism in the defense of meritocracy

Time again to defend the ancien régime

America does not negotiate with terrorists.* Unless, of course, they’ve been elected to Congress.

The terrorists threatening to blow up the U.S. and world economy over paying debts the country has already incurred have demands. And hostages.

“House Republicans decided to hold the economy hostage to slash assistance for low-income Americans while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy,” asserts E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post. “That’s a factual statement, not a partisan complaint.”

The rest of Dionne’s Monday column details the hypocrisy at the heart of conservative backsliders’ demands for deficit reduction. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) wants the Trump-era tax cuts made permanent, “adding $3.5 trillion to the deficit over a decade.”

McCarthy demands cuts to domestic discretionary spending that impact poorer Americans. Republicans want work requirements before The Irresponsibles may receive government benefits or they’ll trigger their MAGA suicide vests.

“The fact that Americans with the lowest incomes are political pawns in this exercise is a moral stain on our country,” Dionne laments. But besides citing Adam Serwer’s “The Cruelty Is the Point,” he lacks the space to delve into why the GOP feels obliged to punch down.

I don’t. The Irresponsibles are always the deal-breaker. Like the caste system, meritocracy rationalizes inequality, social station, entrenched hierarchies, and rule by hereditary royalty and landed gentry. Republicans mean to protect the ownership class from the rabble.

They do know this is the United States of America, right?

I’ve written about the meritocratic jungle since my earliest days in blogging:

But fellow citizens who need help succeeding in the private sector deserve only pity, if that. It’s the law of the meritocratic jungle. Social Darwinism. If they aren’t smart enough, talented enough, disciplined enough, educated enough or well-born enough it’s because they are Irresponsibles. Helping them enables their dependency and unjustly burdens the more virtuous and successful.

Worse, a society that taxes the able to help the less able disincentivizes success by responsible conservatives, deprives them of their freedom, tilts the nation towards socialism, and fosters personal weakness.

If there’s one thing conservatives cannot abide, it’s personal weakness. Ask Bill Bennett or Rush Limbaugh.

In The Great Risk Shift Jacob Hacker explores what he dubs the “Personal Responsibility Crusade,” finding its roots in the insurance industry. Pooling risk among policyholders was once the point of insurance, like spreading the costs of national defense so that no citizen had to bear the burden of buying his own tank or fighter-bomber. One downside was an obscure insurance concept called moral hazard: “Protecting people against risks reduces the care people exercise in avoiding those risks.” It’s a potential risk the insurance industry deals with through properly designed programs.

But by the 1980s, Hacker contends, moral hazard became the conservative justification for dismantling New Deal-era programs that pool risk in the private sector.

“Insurance had been justified as a way of aiding the unfortunate – now it was criticized as a way of coddling the irresponsible. Insurance had been understood as a partial solution to social problems like unemployment and poverty in old age – now it was condemned as worsening the very problems it was meant to solve.”

Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Insure him against famine, and he’ll have no incentive to fish. Insure him against illness and he’ll overconsume health care, driving up health care costs and inefficiency, dragging down the economy.

Serve The Economy or perish. What’s more, terrorism in the defense of meritocracy is no vice!

*Another lie we tell “exceptional” selves.

DeSantis’ falter opens up the field

There’s lots of reporting that the GOP primary field is about to get very crowded. Christie, Sununu, Youngkin, a Dakota Governor nobody’s ever heard of on top of already announced DeSantis, Nikki Haley and Tim Scott are preparing to run against Donald Trump. Why is this happening when it was assumed that the smart move for the party was to field just one opponent to confront Trump? Well… Meatball Ron just isn’t making anybody’s heart beat faster:

No seasoned, successful politician runs for president without a theory of the case — a detailed and plausible path to victory. And as more prospective candidates surface, it’s becoming clearer what’s at the heart of those plans: a growing belief within the party that DeSantis is a paper tiger.

At one time, the Florida governor looked to be the candidate best positioned to knock off Trump, en route to finishing off President Joe Biden. DeSantis was Trump without the baggage — and 32 years younger.

He was coming off an epic 2022 reelection victory in the nation’s third-largest state, marked by Florida’s biggest winning margin in 40 years. Officials in both parties did a double take at his robust performance among all Latino groups.

With DeSantis, the GOP could get the same conservative policies as Trump, the same unyielding approach, the same judges, the same trolling of the libs. He was a party leader on Covid. The suburbs would be back in play. So would the five states Biden flipped from Trump in 2020.

But DeSantis’ Disney jihad and his Ukraine-is-a-territorial-dispute stumble have undermined his aura of competence among donors and the business community. Trump’s relentless attacks — none of them answered — and his drum beat of abuse have left the two-term governor bruised. Far from projecting strength, DeSantis suddenly appears to be a candidate who’s thrived in a protective cocoon, isolated from media scrutiny, and surrounded by a compliant legislature afraid to test him.

On the eve of his launch, DeSantis now confronts the perception that he is a porcelain candidate, glazed and decorative, durable enough, but not really built to withstand the blunt impact of Trump’s hammer or the full fury of a united Democratic Party.

Yet the notion that DeSantis is ripe for a takedown is only part of the reason why the presidential race is suddenly looking so enticing. In the three years since Trump lost reelection, there is little evidence to suggest he can win back the White House and much evidence to suggest he’ll drag the party to defeat with him.

This is what a healthy portion of the GOP political operative class — and the donor class — believes. Most of Trump’s primary rivals think it, too. Some of them, like Christie, are willing to say it out loud.

“Donald Trump has done nothing but lose since he won the election in 2016. We lost the House in 2018. The Senate and the White House in 2020. We underperformed in 2022 and lost more governorships and another Senate seat,” he said in a recent radio interview.

DeSantis says it privately. According to a New York Times report, the governor told supporters and donors in a call Thursday that Trump can’t win, pointing to “all the data in the swing states, which is not great for the former president and probably insurmountable because people aren’t going to change their view of him.”

Against that backdrop, it’s not a bad bet to jump in now under the expectation of filling the role DeSantis was once assumed to hold. But there is a sense of urgency: any new entrants must get in before DeSantis has the opportunity to use his considerable resources to make it a two-person primary with Trump. The clock begins ticking next week.

I will never understand why they think calling Trump a loser is going to win them the primary. The vast majority of their dipshit voters believe that Trump won and won big. And they aren’t telling them otherwise! This makes no sense.

But there’s another problem. The bigger field almost guarantees that Trump will win the nomination. Here’s why:

In 2024, more states will award delegates through winner-take-all primaries — a system that helped Trump when opponents divided the vote, allowing him to be awarded all or most of the delegates with less than majority support.

Once in office, Trump used his influence to stack state parties with loyalists who increased the number of winner-take-all states from seven in 2016 to 17 in 2020.

Do they not know this? Or is it all some elaborate kabuki dance?

I have to assume that all of them, including DeSantis, are running to be the last man standing in case Trump keels over. That’s the only possible reason.

Deja Vu Vu

This is really a thing:

This has an air of desperation to it, I’m afraid. They are flailing around with one investigation after another, now this nonsense based on the Durham dud. But it does serve one purpose. it keeps the Trump cult conspiracy nuts excited. But I’m fairly sure that if they launch yet another crusade against Hillary Clinton the general public will not be amused.

The Ultra MAGA Karens

Since when do you need ID to go into a bathroom? (That apparently happened some years ago but you can bet it’s happening today.)

Take a look at these horrible people who are institutionalizing more of this grotesque nonsense:

Members of the conservative parental rights group Moms for Liberty are known for making impassioned and sometimes spicy speeches to school boards to complain that teachers are supposedly indoctrinating students. This can include mothers, often in the group’s trademark tee, standing at a lectern reading sex scenes from books they deem inappropriate to have near their children.

Supporters post videos of these speeches, some of which have gone viral. And the group has claimed success, pointing to growing membership nationwide as well as policies and elections going their way. But because Moms for Liberty is working on such a local level, opponents have found plenty of opportunities to take action.

“I just got back from forcibly re-closeting myself for 90 minutes to infiltrate a Moms for Liberty meeting. … I got so much juice!” a TikTok user who goes by Morgan Howls said in a video. The video is one of many on social media made by parents who say they’ve “infiltrated” the group and give details of its strategy to others who do not support its politics.

When CNN traveled to Colorado earlier this month to observe a lunch meeting held by the El Paso County chapter of Moms for Liberty, chapter chair Darcy Schoening cautioned that some opponents might show up. It had happened before. Schoening knew there were liberal parents lurking in her chapter’s private Facebook group, because her group had some moles in the liberals’ Facebook group.

“We all know what’s going on. I don’t even know why we keep stuff private,” she said about the clandestine monitoring. She even said she welcomed some of the intended attacks on her group, showing screenshots of opponents messaging about what to tweet in protest.

“What they don’t realize is that they’re doing half the work for us,” Schoening said. “Because the more and more they post… You get those parents that are sitting out there saying, ‘Oh, this doesn’t sound so crazy. I want to go be a part of this.’”

Darcy Schoening says her Colorado Springs chapter of Moms 4 Liberty has about 250 people in it.CNN

There were no confrontations at the Moms for Liberty meeting held in a Mexican restaurant in Colorado Springs. There was some provocative talk about purported sexual content in library books – Schoening claimed a book about “how do two men pleasure each other” was available to first graders. (She did not name the book or say what school it was supposedly found in.) But the attendees spent more time on how to wield their power.

Activists helped to get conservative majorities elected to several school boards in El Paso County in 2021. At issue then were Covid mandates and teaching about racial injustice, two issues that spurred the creation of Moms for Liberty by two mothers in Florida earlier that same year.

The El Paso County chapter’s latest push was to get Colorado Springs’s District 11 school board to adopt a policy banning teachers from asking kids about their pronouns – whether they preferred “he,” “she,” or “they” – which Schoening described as “grooming.” But the proposal sparked a big backlash, and after protests in March, the board tabled it.

One man at the lunch said some school boards were “afraid to act” on issues like pronouns and bathroom access for trans kids because of the demands of “the loudest minority,” referring to progressives.

“It’s a very loud minority,” another attendee said. “It’s very loud. It’s very intimidating,” a third agreed.

But that was not a justifiable reason, the first speaker said. “The fact of the matter is, when we come out and we campaign for them, and we put them in an office. … We’re their stakeholders, and they’re beholden to us.”

As CNN filmed the meeting, a woman sitting in the back passed the crew a handwritten note: “We have the other side of this story. This is a hate group.” This time, the opponents were being covert, not overt.

The note-passer was Carolyn Bedingfield, who said a like-minded person was coming to the restaurant who had “more info.” In the parking lot, Emily Vonachen was waiting in her car. Vonachen said Colorado Springs had changed a lot in the two years she’d lived there. She’d been researching every conservative power player in the area and how they were all connected. She agreed to an interview, and then called several people from Neighbors for Education, a group set up after the conservatives’ school board wins in 2021.

The dispute between the two groups was clear, and they took it seriously. The Neighbors for Education crowd thought Moms for Liberty was operating in a different reality.

Schoening of Moms for Liberty explained why she viewed asking a child what pronouns they preferred was “indoctrinating” them into questioning their gender.

“If you ask my children, who are 7 and 8, ‘What are your pronouns?’ They don’t even know what that is,” she said. “When you ask that, you’re planting the seed in their minds, that they maybe should identify as another gender or that identifying as another gender is hip or cool – ‘Hey, my teacher’s asking me, so maybe this is what I should do.’”

Naomi Lopez, one of the people gathered by Neighbors for Education, called that “ridiculous.” Lopez is a speech pathologist who works in a District 11 school. She’s also the mom of a trans kid.

“That’s not happening,” she said of Schoening’s scenario. “We’re not going around saying, ‘OK, you know, I want you to think about it, what gender are you?’” When teachers meet new students, they ask how they want to be addressed, she said – a kid named Josiah might want to go by Joe. A kid could say they wanted to use a particular pronoun, and the teacher would respect that.

Naomi Lopez flatly rejected many of the assertions made by Moms for Liberty.CNN

Schoening made a series of claims that are not true, but are common amid a backlash to advocacy for trans rights.

For example, Schoening raised the idea that a tomboy – a girl who wore flannel and sneakers – would be told by a teacher, “You know, it might be time to gender transition. Let’s go talk to the school therapist. Let’s go talk to a physician. Let’s do this.” Schoening said she did not know any tomboys who’d actually transitioned after social pressure. But, she said, “Imagine the kids that aren’t strong enough to go talk to their parents and say, ‘My teacher is trying to gender transition me.’ We’re speaking for those kids. And those parents who aren’t made aware.”

Further, Schoening claimed 8-year-old boys could get surgery to remove their penises, and that she feared her state would pass a law saying if parents refused to have their boys’ penises surgically removed, the state would take them away. She thought this issue would eventually go to the US Supreme Court.

Medical guidelines do not call for gender affirming surgery on young children, and many health care providers do not offer it to patients under 18. Children diagnosed with gender dysphoria go through many years of care. In some instances, they can receive puberty-blocking hormones at the onset of puberty. These drugs are FDA-approved to treat children who start puberty at a very young age, but are not approved for gender dysphoria.

CNN asked Schoening if she was saying she believed there was some kind of high-level coordinated effort to make more children trans and gay. “There is,” she said. Who would be directing it? “Teachers’ unions, and our president, and a lot of funding sources,” she said. Why would they do that? “Because it breaks down the family unit,” she said. And why would they want that? “So that conservative values are broken down, and that we can slowly erode away at constitutional rights,” she said.

There is no evidence of a coordinated plot to make kids trans.

CNN asked Lopez what she thought of Schoening’s claims. Lopez flatly rejected the idea that teachers would encourage little kids to get surgery. “No, that’s ridiculous. The hell? No,” Lopez said.

CNN asked Lopez if there was a plan by President Biden and teacher unions to make more kids gay and trans to break down the traditional family. She began to get exasperated. “That’s ridiculous,” she said. “Attacking a whole sector of society who happen to be our children in order to push whatever agenda you have is dangerous, irresponsible, hateful, egregious – should I go on? No.”

And Lopez said there was no evidence that her child’s classmates cared.

“My child thinks it’s ludicrous, that it’s such a big deal, because to them, it’s just normal. To their friends, they don’t care how my child identifies, they love them for who they are.”

Another person in the Neighbors for Education group, Tiana Clark, said the controversy was a waste of time and resources. Clark is a parent and substitute teacher in that district. After one parent complained about five books, the school district had to form a committee to determine whether each book could stay in the school library. Clark sat on a committee.

“Of the five books, three of them had never been checked out. Two of them were only checked out once,” Clark said. All five books remained in the library, but the effort cost more than $20,000, she said, and asked, “What could that $20,000 have been spent on?”

These people are in a manic state, a frenzy of hate. And they’re finding strength in numbers. They’re horrible Serena Joy, witch hunting, harpies.

Vlad just loves the former guy

Sadly, I’m sure his vacuous followers think this is just great:

Russia has expanded its list of sanctioned Americans in a tit-for-tat retaliation for the latest curbs imposed by the United States. But what is particularly striking is how much President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia is adopting perceived enemies of former President Donald J. Trump as his own.

Among the 500 people singled out for travel and financial restrictions on Friday were Americans seen as adversaries by Mr. Trump, including Letitia James, the state attorney general of New York who has investigated and sued him. Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state of Georgia who rebuffed Mr. Trump’s pressure to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election, also made the list. And Lt. Michael Byrd, the Capitol Police officer who shot the pro-Trump rioter Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6, 2021, was another notable name.

None of those three has anything to do with Russia policy and the only reason they would have come to Moscow’s attention is because Mr. Trump has publicly assailed them. The Russian Foreign Ministry offered no specific explanation for why they would be included on the list but did say that among its targets were “those in government and law enforcement agencies who are directly involved in the persecution of dissidents in the wake of the so-called storming of the Capitol.”

I guess the point of this is to signal to Trump that he still has his back? Or maybe he’s been infected with MAGA brain too…