The Day Before Indictments Reads: “One Set of Laws”
Posted: June 12, 2023 Filed under: just because | Tags: Trump Family Crime Syndicate, Trump Indictment Day, Trump is in peril 3 Comments
Attorney Reading
Honore Daumier
Good Day, Sky Dancing!
We’ve planned a perp watch party here in my hood for tomorrow. We’re all excited that it’s finally happening. Here are some reads to get you ready for this big week!
We’ve heard a lot about the assignment of Judge Loose Cannon to the Case. Here is some information on what could possibly happen with that. BB suggested the best source for what’s going down with that, and the week is from Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance. This is her SubStack. I’ll focus on tomorrow’s Indictment. It will be handled by Judge Jonathan Goodman. This does not mean Judge Loose Cannon is gone.
We’re told Tuesday’s arraignments are being handled by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman in the courthouse in Miami, rather than in the Fort Pierce Division where Cannon sits. District judges can and do on occasion handle arraignments themselves in high-profile cases—it happened in this district in a case involving Colombian drug kingpins. But here, it’s likely that arraignment will proceed before the magistrate judge in a perfunctory matter, and Trump will enter his plea of not guilty after being processed, fingerprinted, and submitting to a mug shot. The process is likely to be highly orchestrated by the court, the Marshals Service, and the Secret Service, with everyone on high alert because of Trump’s social media posts, reminiscent of the “will be wild” tweet ahead of January 6. As the New York Times detailed, these latest posts have set off a cascade of troubling calls to “support” Trump.
Vance wrote quite a bit of what we might have to see with the appointment of Judge Loose Cannon.
Since we’re talking about judicial discretion, there is lots of concern about the assignment of federal Judge Aileen Cannon to this case. And rightly so given the way she mishandled Trump’s lawsuit after the search, designed to delay or prevent the investigation. Cannon was nominated to the bench by Trump and confirmed after he lost the election. However, there was nothing nefarious about Cannon’s selection. The clerk’s office uses a computerized random selection process. It was the bad luck of the draw.
Among other things, judges are supposed to carefully protect the integrity of the judicial system and the public’s confidence in it. That’s the reason for rules about recusal. The rules come down to requiring recusal where “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This isn’t a casual standard requiring constant recusals, which would be disruptive. It’s reserved for situations where an objective observer looking at a case would lack confidence the judge could act fairly, for instance, if they had a financial interest in the outcome or a family member were a lawyer for one side.
In less obvious situations, a decision about when a judge should recuse is made on a case-by-case basis. In a case I handled in 2006, U.S. v. Martin, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals considered an unusual situation involving sentencing and determined that a judge needed to step aside. The judge had sentenced the case, was appealed and reversed, and had resentenced. Considering the judge’s second bite at the appeal, the court reflected, “Finally, based on our review of the record and the elements that this Court considers in determining whether to reassign a case to a different judge where there is no indication of actual bias, see United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam), we have determined it wiser to remand this case with instructions to reassign it to a different judge. This is the second appeal in Martin’s case and the second time we have had to reverse the sentence that the district court gave Martin…In light of the two reversals in this case and three other appeals in which we have reversed the same judge for extraordinary downward departures that were without a valid basis in the record, we find it likely that ‘the original judge would have difficulty putting his previous views and findings aside.’” It’s unusual to find that a judge’s decisions can form the basis for recusal, but it did in Martin.
When Cannon handled the earlier Trump matter, the 11th Circuit ruled against her twice. The first time was on a preliminary motion after she limited the ways the government could use classified documents seized—in an entirely lawful and normal fashion—from Mar-a-Lago and seriously hampered the government’s investigation (as well as unnecessarily expanding the universe of people with access to classified material). When the Court decided the case on its full merits, they resoundingly reversed Cannon and were sharply critical of the way she handled the case in a fashion that went beyond the typical reversal where the appellate court thinks the district judge got it wrong. It’s not infrequent for that to happen. There are many close calls, and judges acting in good faith can disagree. The tenor of the 11th Circuit’s opinion reversing Cannon was different, finding she lacked jurisdiction and insinuating it was not a particularly close call. She reached a result that was favorable to Trump by all but ignoring the law, refusing to apply it, and rejecting the government’s positions without explaining why. It was the sort of extreme error that rises to the level of Martin, calling into question both whether the judge could set aside her previous views and whether a reasonable person would question her ability to handle the case fairly. Cannon had gone so far as to say her decisions were “inherently impacted by the position formerly held by the plaintiff,” i.e., that he had been the president.
All of this forms a solid basis for Cannon to decide that she should recuse. And she could couch it in this manner, that although she is confident she could handle the case fairly, she is stepping aside to ensure the public has confidence in this highly important matter. That wouldn’t guarantee a judge appointed by a Democratic president would take over—it could even be another Trump appointee. But it would ameliorate specific concerns about a specific judge that would so overtake the case that it would be impossible to have confidence in the outcome. Trump might even argue that she was bending over backward to rule against him in order to protect her own reputation. No one wins, including the judge herself, if she remains on the case. But it’s up to her right now.
What do we make of the fact that Cannon is a Trump appointee? Normally, that’s just not a factor. Every judge is appointed by a president from one party or another, and judges are often called upon to rule in favor of or against a policy of the president who appointed them. It’s not viewed as a ground for recusal. This may be a little different because it’s a criminal case involving the president who appointed her. A judge probably would recuse from a criminal case involving their former boss or mentor. That’s not precisely the relationship here, and, of course, there is no exact case law since Trump is the first ever president to be indicted. But judges err on the side of caution to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and here, combined with her conduct in the earlier case, this might be a factor to consider, although it’s unlikely it would suffice on its own.
If Cannon doesn’t recuse voluntarily, prosecutors will likely have to file a motion requesting the recusal to take the issue forward. This is always a difficult move for prosecutors, one to be avoided unless the circumstances are extreme, like they are here. Under the rules, if a judge denies a request by one of the parties that they recuse, “the Judge shall issue a ruling on the record, stating the grounds for denying the request.” Provoking that statement alone would be worthwhile.
Most likely though, prosecutors will wait for Cannon to make an objectionable ruling that can be appealed pre-trial, and use that opportunity to request that the 11th Circuit order the Chief Justice in the Southern District of Florida to reassign the case on remand. Of course, this means delay, and delay here works in Trump’s favor. None of this is ideal, by any means. But this is the type of situation where the 11th Circuit protects its integrity and reputation by ordering recalcitrant judges to recuse. Prosecutors are likely to get their opportunity because Cannon, whose appointment of the special master and rulings in the earlier matter already demonstrated some inexperience and discomfort handling highly sensitive classified matters, will be called upon to make decisions and set appropriate procedures under a complicated statute, CIPA, the Classified Information Procedures Act, that governs the handling of classified material in a trial setting. Because those decisions can be appealed immediately, it seem likely that the government will need to take an appeal at some point and that will give it the opportunity to request recusal.
The selection of Judge Cannon unnecessarily complicates the trial of what would be a straightforward case of mishandling classified documents and obstructing an investigation into that conduct if the defendant were anyone other than the former president of the United States. Trump seems to get all the breaks, and this is a difficult one to stomach. But I continue to think the courts will sort this out, one way or the other.
The Washington Post discusses the possibility of violence in Miami due to Trump’s armed and hysterical supporters. This analysis is offered by Mark Berman. “Trump’s Miami court date brings fears of violence, rally plans. Law enforcement officials are monitoring online threats and potential gatherings of far-right extremists and marshaling more officers.”
Federal and local authorities on Sunday ramped up security preparations ahead of Donald Trump’s first appearance in federal court on criminal charges here, monitoring online threats and potential gatherings of far-right extremists while marshaling more police officers to be on duty.
Escalating violent rhetoric in online forums, coupled with defiant statements from the former president and his political allies, have put law enforcement officials on alert for potential disruptions ahead of Trump’s court appearance. He is facing a 37-count federal indictment, 31 of which allege he willfully kept classified documents in his possession after leaving the White House.
Authorities were monitoring plans for pro-Trump rallies in Miami, including one outside the federal courthouse on Tuesday purportedly organized by a local chapter of the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group, some leaders of which were found guilty of seditious conspiracy in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
This article by interviewer and Executive Editor Andrew O’Hehir–writing for Slate–suggests Trump is in deep trouble. “Trump’s “peril is extreme”: Former federal prosecutor on the historic Mar-a-Lago indictment. Charges against Trump almost “open and shut,” says Dennis Aftergut — and prosecutors will ask for prison time.”
I’ve read a fair number of criminal indictments in 30 years as a journalist, and by any standard this one seems extraordinary. I’d like to ask you, as a former federal prosecutor, how you perceived it in a number of different ways. First of all, what was your general impression of Jack Smith’s indictment overall — as a work of legal argument and narrative, and also as an event in legal and political history?
The narrative here is one of betrayal of a nation and its most precious secrets by a man who was the commander in chief for four years and who seeks that mantle again. There’s never been anything remotely like it.
Just think about it. The disregard for the lives, the risk and the individual courage that goes into gathering information vital to our national security and our safety is incomprehensible. There is no way for the brain to wrap itself around what is described in this indictment, the violation of sacred trust, a one-man demolition crew working against the American intelligence system that has been built, brick by brick, over 80 years.
With the kind of conduct alleged in the indictment by the former occupant of the highest office in the land, how is any foreign intelligence service supposed to trust us to keep information confidential, to protect its methods of collecting our enemies’ secrets or the identity of its sources?
It could take years, if not decades, to recover from the damage.
In more concrete terms, how does that conclusion emerge from this indictment?
Put together three basic pieces: 1) The bone-chilling nature of the materials unlawfully taken from the White House; 2) the apparent exposure of those materials at Mar-a-Lago; and 3) what we know from public reporting about security there and our nation’s enemies whose agents may have breached it.
First, focus on paragraph 77. It lists, with brief descriptions, 31 documents, many of which have what are called “compartmentalized” Top Secret markings.
“Compartmentalized” means “information about certain intelligence sources and methods.” “Top Secret” signifies information that would cause, if revealed, exceptionally grave harm to the nation’s security. Compartmentalized top secret documents are kept in secure structures, or SCIFs — the fortified rooms that protect against electronic surveillance or other efforts by outside parties to obtain the information.
Examples on the list of materials that Trump took to Mar-a-Lago include documents “concerning nuclear weaponry of the United States,” “nuclear capabilities of a foreign country” — which could be North Korea, Russia, China or Iran, we just don’t know. The materials Trump possessed at his resort home included documents “concerning military attacks by a foreign country,” “timeline and details of attack on a foreign country,” and “military contingency planning of the United States.”
These are materials that almost anyone hostile to the interests of the United States would love to get their hands on. Which is why they should never be held at easily penetrated places like Mar-a-Lago.
Second, the indictment describes — and indeed shows, via an abundance of photographs — boxes of documents stacked in exposed locations: A ballroom stage, a bathroom shower and in one instance, a Secret document “concerning military capabilities of a foreign country” that had spilled out of its box and onto the floor in a storage room. (The indictment does not say whether the room was locked at the time.)
Visual journalist Art Lien says Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (center top) was known for being hard to capture on paper.
I would really recommend you read the complete interview.
David Aaron from Just Security uses U.S. sentencing guidelines to estimate how much jail time Trump might face.
The base level for willfully retaining national defense information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) is 24 — but increases to 29 if the information at issue was classified Top Secret, as alleged in the Trump indictment (§2M3.3). A defendant’s leadership role in a crime could add 4 points if the defendant was an “organizer or leader” of criminal conduct that involved at least five people or was “otherwise extensive” (for example, conduct that relied on the assistance of unwitting outsiders), or 2 points if the defendant organized or led criminal activity that involved fewer people and was not as extensive (§3B1.1). The Indictment alleges the defendant was the organizer or leader of criminal conduct that involved at least five other people, whether or not all were witting (Waltine Nauta, Employee 2, and Attorneys 1-3), so the defendant’s attorneys will consider calculations based on the 4-point increase. Conversely, point deductions are available if a defendant had a minimal or minor role (§3B1.2).
The Guidelines add 2 points for a defendant’s abuse of public or private trust to commit the crime (§3B1.3). Courts routinely add those extra points in Section 793(e) cases because the defendant usually came into possession of national defense information while in a position of public trust, and indeed by virtue of that position. Two additional points are added for a defendant’s willful obstruction of the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the offense at issue (§3C1.1). (The obstruction points are not applied to violations of statutes that themselves prohibit obstruction except in certain circumstances.)
A defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, such as by pleading guilty, provides a 2-point reduction in offense level. An additional 1-point reduction is available at the prosecutor’s discretion (if applied, the court would also need to approve the basis for the reduction following a motion from the government).
For an individual count of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), then, a potential offense level could consist of:
Base level with Top Secret: 29
Leadership role: 4
Abuse of trust: 2
Obstruction: 2
Total: 37For a defendant with no prior criminal convictions, an offense level of 37 yields 210 to 262 months (17 1/2 to almost 22 years). A defendant who accepted responsibility could reduce that range to 151 to 188 months if the prosecution agreed to deduct the third point.
The base levels for the other charges in the Indictment are lower. Section 2J1.2 applies to “obstruction of justice” charges such as the Tampering and related Conspiracy counts, the Concealment count, and the Scheme to Conceal and False Statements counts. The base level for these crimes begins at 14, but that increases to 17 if the offense “resulted in substantial interference with the administration of justice.” The base further increases to 19 if the court finds that the offense was extensive or involved “any essential or especially probative record,” which the allegations in the Indictment, if proved, would likely support. To account for obstruction of investigations of particularly serious crimes, however, the Guidelines direct the court to apply Section 2X3.1 instead of 2J1.2 if, as alleged in the Indictment, the offense involved obstructing a criminal investigation and Section 2X3.1 would yield a higher offense level. Section 2X3.1 provides a base level of 6 below the underlying offense, which in a Section 793(e) investigation involving Top Secret documents would result in a level of 23. The “leadership role” and “abuse of trust” increases would still apply, but the obstruction increase does not apply to sentences calculated based on Sections 2J1.2 or 2X3.1. As a result, for a conviction of one of these counts, a potential offense level could consist of the following (I’ve included alternate calculations based on 2J1.2 to illustrate the difference in guidelines)…
Base level using 2X3.1: 23 (or 19, as alleged, under 2J1.2)
Leadership role: 4
Abuse of trust: 2
Total: 29 (or 25)For a defendant with no prior criminal convictions, an offense level of 29 yields 87 to 108 months (7 1/4 to 9 years) and an offense level of 25 yields 57 to 71 months (4 3/4 to almost 6 years). A defendant who accepted responsibility could reduce those ranges to either 63 to 78 months or 41 to 51 months if the prosecution agreed to deduct the third point.
The question of whether sentences would run concurrently or consecutively has come up. The answer will depend on a variety of factors, not least of which include the evidence at trial, the count or counts of conviction, and “grouping” under Section 3D1.2. Section 5G1.2, which addresses sentencing on multiple counts, provides that if the sentence imposed on the count with the highest statutory maximum is sufficient to implement the total punishment, then the sentences on multiple counts will run concurrently. But if the sentence on the count with the highest statutory maximum is insufficient, the court can run sentences consecutively to achieve the target sentence.
No wonder Melania took off for New York City Today!
This has gotten very long. So, we should just take it all down the thread!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Totally Thursday Reads: Karma’s at Bat and Hits Home Runs
Posted: June 8, 2023 Filed under: morning reads, Republican politics, U.S. Politics | Tags: #TrumpIndictmentWatch, Thank you Fleet Street!, Trump Florida Grand Jury, Trump Target 16 Comments
You can have your cake and eat it too. #IndictmentDay #WhichWitchHunt #DingDong John (repeat1968) Buss @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
I get to go to the doctor tomorrow, so BB and I traded days again. Your eyes are not deceiving you! But, wow, did I get a Newsday today. I can’t see what’s going on in the news in the lowest hell realm, but they are celebrating a new denizen.
The New York Times obit for Payable to Pat Robertson is pretty disappointing. It not only displays its typical bothersiderism but acts like everyone loved him but us grumpy feminists and the GLBT community.
Let’s face it. The man was walking evil. I’m happier he’s gone than I was when Phyllis Schafly found her karmic spot in Avīci. There are actually 28 Naraka–hell realms–in Buddhist mythology. None of them are permanent, but then none of them are pleasant either.
Robertson’s run for president basically turned the Republican party into a place where culture war crusaders were welcomed and, dare I say, groomed for candidacy at all levels of government. He also was one of those who got everyone’s granny to give away her bank account by promising all kinds of things. Count me among his detractors.
Witchhunts! Witchcraft! WitchyWomen! Oh My! And the happiest tag of them all #IndictmentWatch!
Two UK newspapers have been on top of the news from yesterday. First, a Grand Jury in Florida is examing charges of espionage and obstruction. This is from the Independent. “Prosecutors ready to ask for Trump indictment on obstruction and Espionage Act charges.” Andrew Feinberg has this excellent bit of reporting. Additionally, it mentions casually that President Biden “laughs off” pardoning Orange Caligula.
The Department of Justice is preparing to ask a Washington, DC grand jury to indict former president Donald Trump for violating the Espionage Act and for obstruction of justice as soon as Thursday, adding further weight to the legal baggage facing Mr Trump as he campaigns for his party’s nomination in next year’s presidential election.
The Independent has learned that prosecutors are ready to ask grand jurors to approve an indictment against Mr Trump for violating a portion of the US criminal code known as Section 793, which prohibits “gathering, transmitting or losing” any “information respecting the national defence”.
The use of Section 793, which does not make reference to classified information, is understood to be a strategic decision by prosecutors that has been made to short-circuit Mr Trump’s ability to claim that he used his authority as president to declassify documents he removed from the White House and kept at his Palm Beach, Florida property long after his term expired on 20 January 2021.
That section of US criminal law is written in a way that could encompass Mr Trump’s conduct even if he was authorised to possess the information as president because it states that anyone who “lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document …relating to the national defence,” and “willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it” can be punished by as many as 10 years in prison.
It is understood that prosecutors intend to ask grand jurors to vote on the indictment on Thursday, but that vote could be delayed as much as a week until the next meeting of the grand jury to allow for a complete presentation of evidence, or to allow investigators to gather more evidence for presentation if necessary.
This looks to be a bit of brilliant lawyering. They know Trump will drag things out, and they know he always has arguments that do that. This approach cuts off a lot of legal shenanigans and appeal opportunities. This is also the case with the selection of a Florida venue. They’re going for the quick kill. This is Hugo Lowell’s offering from The Guardian.“Trump’s lawyers told he is target in Mar-a-Lago documents investigation.” And there was much rejoicing in the streets! Lowell appeared on MSNBC with Ari Melber yesterday evening, and wow, did he have the goods!
Federal prosecutors formally informed Donald Trump’s lawyers last week that the former president is a target of the criminal investigation examining his retention of national security materials at his Mar-a-Lago resort and obstruction of justice, according to two people briefed on the matter.
The move – the clearest sign yet that Trump is on course to be indicted – dramatically raises the stakes for Trump, as the investigation nears its conclusion after taking evidence before a grand jury in Washington and a previously unknown grand jury in Florida.
Trump’s lawyers were sent a “target letter” days before they met on Monday with the special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the Mar-a-Lago documents case, and the senior career official in the deputy attorney general’s office, where they asked prosecutors not to charge the former president.
Trump has reportedly said he had not been personally informed by the justice department that he was a target when asked directly by a New York Times reporter, but demurred when asked whether his legal team had been told about the designation.
The development comes as prosecutors have obtained evidence of criminal conduct occurring at Mar-a-Lago and decided that any indictments should be charged in the southern district of Florida, where the resort is located, rather than in Washington, according to people familiar with the matter.
To that end, prosecutors last month started issuing subpoenas to multiple Trump aides that compelled them to testify before a new grand jury in Florida, impaneled around the time that the grand jury in Washington stopped taking new evidence, the Guardian previously reported.
It’s nice to see Fleet Street give both the New York Times and the Washington Post a comeuppance. Their reporters are more like insiders than journalists on a beat. More from Andrew Feinberg.
Let’s repeat this together. “The Independent has learned that prosecutors are prepared to ask grand jurors to vote on charges as early as Thursday.” #IndictmentWatch.
A separate grand jury that is meeting in Florida has also been hearing evidence in the documents investigation. That grand jury was empaneled in part to overcome legal issues posed by the fact that some of the crimes allegedly committed by Mr Trump took place in that jurisdiction, not in Washington. Under federal law, prosecutors must bring charges against federal defendants in the jurisdiction where the crimes took place.
Even if grand jurors vote to return an indictment against the ex-president this week, it is likely that those charges would remain sealed until both the Washington and Florida grand juries complete their work.
Another source familiar with the matter has said Mr Trump’s team was recently informed that he is a “target” of the Justice Department probe, which began in early 2022 after National Archives and Records Administration officials discovered more than 100 documents bearing classification markings in a set of 15 boxes of Trump administration records retrieved from Mar-a-Lago, the century-old mansion turned private beach club where Mr Trump maintains his primary residence and post-presidential office.
Over the course of the last year, grand jurors have heard testimony from numerous associates of the ex-president, including nearly every employee of Mar-a-Lago, former administration officials who worked in Mr Trump’s post-presidential office and for his political operation, and former high-ranking administration officials such as his final White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows.
Up next on the January 6th DOJ investigation is a subpoena for Steve Bannon. We are going to get subpoenas on some MAGArat congress critters next, and hopefully, Ginnie Thomas. I don’t know if there’s enough popcorn on the planet to carry us through the next few weeks. It’s going to be a glorious Independence Day at this rate!
SCOTUS actually just did something surprising today on a day when everything has not been surprising but long overdue! This is from NBC News, “Supreme Court backs landmark voting rights law, strikes down Alabama congressional map. The justices threw out Republican-drawn congressional districts that a lower court said discriminated against Black voters.” Lawerence Hurley has the lede. Please say this also pertains to the Gret State of Lousyana too!
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Republican-drawn congressional districts in Alabama that civil rights activists say discriminated against Black voters in a surprise reaffirmation of the landmark Voting Rights Act.
The court in a 5-4 vote ruled against Alabama, meaning the map of the seven congressional districts, which heavily favors Republicans, will now be redrawn. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both conservatives, joined the court’s three liberals in the majority.
In doing so, the court — which has a 6-3 conservative majority — turned away the state’s effort to make it harder to remedy concerns raised by civil rights advocates that the power of Black voters in states like Alabama is being diluted by dividing voters into districts where white voters dominate.
In the ruling, Roberts, writing for the majority, said a lower court had correctly concluded that the congressional map violated the voting rights law.
In 2013, Roberts authored a ruling that gutted a separate, important provision of the Voting Rights Act and has long argued that various government efforts to address historic racial discrimination are problematic and may exacerbate the situation.
He wrote in Thursday’s ruling that there are genuine fears that the Voting Rights Act “may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power” and that the Alabama ruling “does not diminish or disregard those concerns.”
The court instead “simply holds that a faithful application of our precedents and a fair reading of the record before us do not bear them out here,” Roberts added.
As such, the court left open future challenges to the law, with Kavanaugh writing in a separate opinion that his vote did not rule out challenges to Section 2 based on whether there is a time at which the 1965 law’s authorization of the consideration of race in redistricting is no longer justified.
Civil rights groups and their supporters, including the Biden administration, reveled in a largely unexpected victory.
I’m already in need of a 7th Inning Stretch!
Alright! Let’s get this post published and take it down the thread!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Mostly Monday Reads: Republican Culture Wars and Greed threaten democracy
Posted: June 5, 2023 Filed under: U.S. Politics | Tags: Abortion bans, Abortion horror stories, Casey DeSantis, Elon Musk, Idiot Club, Insider Trading, Jack Dorsey, Nikki Haley, RFK Jr 19 Comments
@Repeat1968 has high expectations for the Foghorn/Leghorn performance artist in the Senate from the Gret State of Lousyana. Oh, wait!
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
Wow! The Monday news streams show just how out of whack things have gotten. Corruption and Theocratic Fascism are just out-of-control at all levels of government. Today’s corruption story goes right to the heart of my expertise and that of my youngest daughter, who works the derivatives market daily for an investment company. Not many knew that an obscure pipeline in Virginia was at the heart of the recent Budget/Debt negotiations. It came out of the blue for just about everyone but insiders to the deal itself.
On Wall Street, analysts had mostly expected vague promises on energy permits to be included in a bill to raise the US debt ceiling. Yet, options trading suggests something bigger may have been in the offing.
On May 24 — several days before an agreement was announced — a huge bullish bet was made on Equitrans Midstream Corp., data compiled by Bloomberg show. The company is deeply involved in the long-delayed Mountain Valley Pipeline. The wager involved snapping up 100,000 call options on the firm’s stock.
It proved prescient and wildly profitable within just a few days.
On May 27, White House and Republican lawmakers reached a deal that would give the long-delayed Mountain Valley Pipeline the final approvals needed to complete the project.
Throughout April and much of May, negotiators from the White House and Congress went back and forth on broad-stroke parameters of an agreement. Almost until the very end, the details were closely held and in flux. Doubts lingered over whether a deal would be reached before the US was scheduled to run out of money in early June.
The legislation, which was signed into law by President Joe Biden on Saturday, forced action on permits for the project. On paper, the bet appears to have earned $7.5 million through Friday. It has some asking whether more than skill and luck played a role.
“My questions are: Who’s the trader? How sophisticated are they? And what are their connections to the government?” said Donald Sherman, chief counsel at the ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. He added the bet raises the specter of whether the parameters of the debt deal had somehow leaked out ahead of time.
Digging into whether a trade is improperly based on confidential information is notoriously difficult, especially when it involves market-moving news from inside the government. The rules are also rife with gray areas and ambiguities.
Officials, including members of Congress, are barred from trading on confidential information they learned in their position. But if, for example, someone overhears a Congressional staffer loudly mention a piece of information on the train, they’re likely in the clear.
There’s just so much weirdness going on in Republican-led legislation that really interferes with the civil liberties of the entire country that it’s hard to know where to start. This shocking article is from Tessa Stuart, writing for The Rolling Stone. “The Real Reason Republicans Want to Give Tax Breaks for Embryos. “Wisconsin lawmakers are trying to “clarify” the state’s 1849 abortion ban in a bid to make the wildly unpopular and anachronistic law palatable to modern voters.” What about all the frozen embryos stored in deep freeze?
REPUBLICANS IN THE Wisconsin legislature introduced a package of bills this week to “clarify” the state’s abortion ban, 174 years after it became law. The 1849 ban, which criminalizes abortion in every circumstance, except to save the pregnant person’s life, went back into effect last June after 50 years of obsolescence.
It’s a deeply unpopular law: By margins of 2 to 1, voters said it should be repealed in every single county where the question was on the ballot this April. (In a statewide judicial election held the same day, the pro-choice candidate — who, it is widely assumed, will vote to strike the ban down when it is challenged at the state Supreme Court next term — won by 11 points.)
But Republicans in Wisconsin can’t seem to grasp this obvious truth. Rather than repeal the 1849 ban, as Democrats have proposed, a group of GOP lawmakers — led by 32-year old Sen. Romaine Quinn — touted a total of four bills they hope will make the pre-Civil War law more palatable to modern Wisconsinites. Included in the package is an offer that has become trendy among antiabortion ideologues: tax breaks for embryos.
LRB-2486 would allow parents to claim an exemption on their tax returns for “unborn children for whom a fetal heartbeat has been detected.” Co-sponsor Rep. Donna Rozar made the proposal’s intent crystal clear: The bill, she said, “recognizes an unborn child as a distinct human being prior to birth by allowing the child to be claimed as a dependent.” The point isn’t to support Wisconsin families — the point is to change the definition of when life begins as part of an effort to enshrine in Wisconsin law the dangerous and dehumanizing concept of “fetal personhood.”
It’s all part of an effort to extend Constitutional rights to fertilized eggs — a legal theory that simultaneously revokes the rights of the individuals carrying those pregnancies.
Wisconsin Republicans aren’t the first to try this: Georgia’s Department of Revenue announced in August “any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat” could be claimed as a dependent on state tax returns. The representative behind Georgia’s LIFE Act, which created the tax break, later admitted in a leaked video that the credit was all part of a gambit to get the Supreme Court to recognize fetal personhood: “We’re going to take this to the highest court in the land.”
The consequences of a ruling recognizing fetal personhood are difficult to overstate: The moment that an embryo is recognized as a person with rights, virtually any behavior that poses any kind of risk to a pregnancy can be criminalized or litigated. In one infamous case, an Alabama woman was charged with manslaughter for losing her pregnancy after she was shot in the stomach by another person. (That case was dismissed after a public outcry.) In another instance, a court allowed a woman who was hit by a car while seven months pregnant to be sued by her future child for negligence because she failed to use “a designated crosswalk.”
Wisconsin Republicans apparently think bodily autonomy comes pretty cheap: the credit they’re offering is $1,000. That’s one-third of the tax break you can get in Georgia, in case you’re comparison shopping dystopian hellscapes.
Also included in the package of bills is $1 million in funding for crisis pregnancy centers, $5 million in funding to support state adoption programs, and language to clarify that the 1849 ban does not apply to “a medical procedure or treatment designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman.” Dr. Kristin Lyerly, an OB-GYN who stopped practicing in Wisconsin when the ban went into effect and a plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the law, says the new language would do little to alleviate the burden on healthcare providers.
“Imagine if you had chest pain, and you went to the emergency department, and your doctors said, ‘Yes, I know exactly what to do to take care of you, but the Wisconsin legislature has enacted some laws that could potentially put me in jail for doing the things that I know to be medically correct, let me call a lawyer before I take care of you,’” Lyerly says. “Now replace ‘chest pain’ with ‘vaginal bleeding.’ It is exactly the same thing. Our legislature is preventing doctors from taking care of Wisconsinites, from providing evidence-based, appropriate, standard-of-care medicine, and threatening to throw us in jail.”
It remains unclear if the new proposal has sufficient support to advance through both houses of the Wisconsin legislature. A previous proposal, floated in March, that would have added exceptions for rape and incest to the 1849 law failed to advance to a vote on the Senate floor. (“Discussion on this specific proposal is unnecessary,” Republican Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said at the time.) But there is reason to believe this proposal might be viewed differently: The most prominent anti abortion groups in the state — Wisconsin Family Action, Pro-Life Wisconsin, Wisconsin Right to Life and the Catholic Conference — all of whom opposed the rape and incest exceptions, have announced support for the package.
If Republicans in Wisconsin truly wanted to support mothers, there is an existing proposal they could throw their weight behind: a bill that would expand Medicaid coverage for new mothers for up to one year. Today, Wisconsin is one of only a handful of states that kicks new moms off of public health care coverage just 60 days after giving birth. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has repeatedly pushed for a 12-month extension — a proposal that was rejected by Republicans in the legislature twice before. But expansion is particularly critical in Wisconsin now that the 1849 law is back in effect: Multiple studies have shown that the rate of maternal mortality spikes in states with abortion bans.
“More moms die in the postpartum period than when they’re pregnant or during the time of delivery. The postpartum period is a really important time for moms to be able to get medical care,” Lyerly says. Republican lawmakers, Lyerly says, “are not making logical decisions. All of the decisions that they are making are so political and so divisive — and not in the best interests of Wisconsinites and Wisconsin families.”
Ron DeSantis is so unlikeable and failing with the press so badly, that his wife, Casey, is stepping in to make him more human. We should have a vote-off. Who is more lizard-like Ted Cruz or Ron? Rumor has it that Casey sees herself as Jackie O. I wish I could stop right there, but it wouldn’t be me if I didn’t jump down that rabbit hole. This is from The Daily Beast as opined by Katie Baker. “Casey DeSantis Is the Walmart Melania. She’d better hope that pleather is pudding-proof.”
The First Lady of Florida showed up on the campaign trail in Iowa this weekend wearing a ghastly black leather jacket—American flag on front, an alligator and the silhouette of her state on the back, with the sneering words, “Where Woke Goes to Die”—that brought to mind nothing so much as the racks of a Red State big-bin store where it would be retailing for $24.99.
To be fair, Casey DeSantis wore the bomber to a charity biker rally and I’m sure the campaign intended it to be a viral moment, like Melania Trump’s infamous “I Really Don’t Care” coat that the former First Lady donned to check out the border crisis.
The message on Melania’s coat, like the one-time model herself, was sphinxlike. Was it a sign to the outside that Melania dreamed of escaping her boorish husband, the stuff of a thousand Resistance Twitter fever memes? Was it the physical manifestation of the Trumps’ casual cruelty? After all, Melania was flying down to where the administration locked up little kids in cages and tore them from the arms of their desperate parents. Did it mean nothing at all, like her spox insisted—maybe like Melania herself, a cipher whose eyes seem to betray an inner emptiness, like the infinite refraction of mirrored light off of all those gold-plated Trump Tower bathroom fixtures?
By contrast, Casey DeSantis’ coat is just like her husband Ron DeSantis’ campaign: Crude. Grasping. Saying the ugly part out loud. Whereas Trump would wink-wink at the fascists—who can forget his dog whistle to the “very fine people on both sides” at Charlottesville—DeSantis wants to peel off Trump’s base by being even more explicit about who he intends to target. You can see it right there on his wife’s jacket: DeSantis’ Florida is where the woke go to die—and a lot of other people die as well.
Florida under DeSantis has had one of the highest COVID death rates in the nation, even as he’s exulted in his anti-mask policies. And as the governor whips up anti-LGBT sentiment and bans books on race, Casey’s jacket and its message of death also bring to mind the horrific Pulse nightclub mass shooting in Orlando, not to mention the state’s shameful history of Jim Crow-era lynch mobs and the Rosewood massacre. But of course, DeSantis and his cronies want to prevent kids from learning about any of that by censoring their library books and AP curricula.
The jacket, then, is a warning: Watch out, America.
It’s hard to say one is reading too much into a coat that’s so explicit—and anyways, as The New York Timesnoted in a fawning profile, Casey DeSantis is definitely trying to make a political statement with what she wears, with her aspirations of “Camelot-meets-Mar-a-Lago.” But while Casey may be trying to position herself after Jackie Kennedy (good luck) and even Melania, if this weekend is any indication, she’s falling far short. It doesn’t matter how many times she wears that ice-blue Badgley Mischka cape-dress. The DeSantis’ will never be Camelot. Jackie and JFK symbolized the opposite of vulgar pettiness—they embodied youth, energy, a commitment to moral progress in the struggle for Civil Rights, a country fresh with idealism. Not an America that was obsessed with banning books about male seahorses and rainbows, or nuking the latest Disney movie.
We could also poll to see which media outlet wreaks bothersiderism all over its pages and the screen. It’s a tie between Jack Tapper’s fact-free zone interview with Nikki Haley and the New York Times’s surreal coverage. Both will give you the icks. Mark Jacobs, former editor of the Chicago Sun-Times characterized it thusly.
The New York Times gives Nikki Haley an embarrassing smooch today for her “reasoned manner”even though Haley blamed trans athletes for causing teen girls’ suicidal thoughts, an outrageous and fact-free accusation. 1/3 nytimes.com/2023/06/05/us/
Suicide rates of teen girls and bi and gay children are high beyond the pale and should not be minimized or used for political fodder. This is from a February article in the New York Times discussing the real statistics. “Teen Girls Report Record Levels of Sadness, C.D.C. Finds. Adolescent girls reported high rates of sadness, suicidal thoughts, and sexual violence, as did teenagers who identified as gay or bisexual.”
Nearly three in five teenage girls felt persistent sadness in 2021, double the rate of boys, and one in three girls seriously considered attempting suicide, according to data released on Monday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The findings, based on surveys given to teenagers across the country, also showed high levels of violence, depression and suicidal thoughts among lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. More than one in five of these students reported attempting suicide in the year before the survey, the agency found.
The rates of sadness are the highest reported in a decade, reflecting a long-brewing national tragedy only made worse by the isolation and stress of the pandemic.
“I think there’s really no question what this data is telling us,” said Dr. Kathleen Ethier, head of the C.D.C.’s adolescent and school health program. “Young people are telling us that they are in crisis.”
…
But about 57 percent of girls and 69 percent of gay, lesbian or bisexual teenagers reported feeling sadness every day for at least two weeks during the previous year. And 14 percent of girls, up from 12 percent in 2011, said they had been forced to have sex at some point in their lives, as did 20 percent of gay, lesbian or bisexual adolescents.
“When we’re looking at experiences of violence, girls are experiencing almost every type of violence more than boys,” said Dr. Ethier of the C.D.C. Researchers should be studying not only the increase in reports of violence, she said, but its causes: “We need to talk about what’s happening with teenage boys that might be leading them to perpetrate sexual violence.”
The researchers also analyzed the data by race and ethnicity, finding that Black and Hispanic students were more likely to report skipping school because of concerns about violence. White students, however, were more likely to report experiencing sexual violence.
And this is the last sentence in this article. “The 2021 survey asked about students’ sexual orientation but did not ask about their gender identity, so data on risk factors for transgender students is not available.”
Haley also weasel-worded her way through drastic abortion restrictions. This observation is from Digby.
I want to emphasize what my Ob/Gyn Dr. Daughter repeatedly tells me. There is no such thing as abortion after the point of viability. It’s a delivery. Successful or unsuccessful delivery depends on all kinds of factors. Haley obviously should be fact-checked, and I find none of this even slightly reasonable. So, I’ll just give the Bronx Cheer to Jack Tapper for not ‘veering into fact check-in’ and the New York Times’s Trip Gabriel for finding anything she said ‘reasonable’.
The Tennesee anti-choice law took the fertility of one woman last week. “Tennessee mother forced to undergo emergency hysterectomy after being denied life-saving abortion. Mayron Hollis was desperate to have a life-saving abortion. But due to Tennessee’s abortion laws, doctors feared they would end up in prison if they carried out the procedure” This is from The Guardian.
A Tennessee woman has been left infertile after being forced to undergo an emergency hysterectomy when doctors refused her an abortion.
Mayron Hollis, 32, learned she was pregnant soon after giving birth to her first daughter Zoe in February last year.
But her excitement at becoming a mother again soon turned into a battle for survival when she said she was denied a medically necessary abortion by doctors in the state after Roe vs Wade was overturned.
According to ProPublica, obsetricians at Vanderbilt University Medical Center grew concerned last August when she was eleven weeks pregnant after the embryo became implanted in scar tissue from the birth of her first child by caesarean section.
They feared that the ectopic pregnancy could rupture her uterus at any moment, which could lead to excessive bleeding and even death, according to the National Institute of Health.
But on the day of her treatment, 24 August last year, Tennessee was hours away from enacting one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, which would see any doctor who terminated a pregnancy imprisoned for up to 15 years.
The trigger ban automatically went into effect after women’s federally protected abortion rights were overturned by the Supreme Court last June.
Ms Hollis told ABC News that doctors did not explain to her prior to 24 August that she only had a narrow window to receive the life-saving abortion.
A lack of clarity from the state lawmakers who passed the bill meant that doctors, institutions and even criminal attorneys were unsure if the abortion might end up in a prosecution, ProPublica reported.
We’ve found a lot of Democratic candidates that don’t seem to fit their party affiliation recently. They generally get a lot of attention from Republicans, and that’s your first warning. Tech Weirdos Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk have jumped on the RFK jr campaign bus. Seems they all love Bitcoin and hate vaccines. It’s a weird news day when I keep having to quote from Fortune. Here’s one from The Daily Beast too.
Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey has endorsed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for president, posting video of a Fox News segment with anchor Harris Faulkner from last week in which the 2024 candidate said he could beat the top contenders in the race. The videoshows Kennedy claiming that internal polling reveals that he is “stronger against both the Republican candidates than Joe Biden.” It was reposted on Twitter by Dorsey with the comment: “He can and will.” When questioned by a Twitter user if Dorsey was endorsing or simply predicting the Democrat’s win, Dorsey replied, “Both.” He claimed RFK Jr.’s voice—Kennedy has a lifelong neurological disorder called spasmodic dysphonia that affects the voice and speech—was his “super power and set him apart.” Dorsey agreed with another Twitter user that the Democratic National Committee “would never allow” RFK Jr. to win the nomination but argued: “True but they seem to be more irrelevant by the day,” while adding “all the more reason” to back him as candidate. Kennedy is set to appear in a Twitter Spaces chat Monday with Elon Musk. Dorsey replied at the time of Musk’s invitation: “This would be great.”
I’m not sure how much I can take of this. But this is some expected news. No profit-seeking corporation wants to be associated with the trash Elon Musk keeps bringing to the Twitter Party. Again, from the New York Times. “Twitter’s U.S. Ad Sales Plunge 59% as Woes Continue .”
Twitter’s ad sales staff is concerned that advertisers may be spooked by a rise in hate speech and pornography on the social network, as well as more ads featuring online gambling and marijuana products, the people said. The company has forecast that its U.S. ad revenue this month will be down at least 56 percent each week compared with a year ago, according to one internal document.
I just find it extremely hard to use now. It also freezes continually. It’s basically gone back to AOL 1990s style.
Well, today, I will celebrate Pride Month with virtual Mike Pence. I’ll also spend time wondering how I managed to fit both my daughters into one blog post. I will mention I worry seriously about the U.S.A. my two granddaughters will inherit from us.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Finally Friday Reads: Trump-Ish
Posted: June 2, 2023 Filed under: U.S. Politics | Tags: 2024 Bottomless Republican Primary 7 Comments
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
There are a lot of headlines today on all the Trump Crime Sprees. Today’s news focuses on the insurrection, the stolen secret documents, and the racketeering law that will likely hold the Gang that Can’t Shit Straight’s election interference.
The most challenging question today is where to start. Let’s go with the Insurrection. “Former FBI agent from Bend indicted on felony charges stemming from Jan. 6 riot.” Wait just a minute! I thought all FBI agents were woke!
A federal grand jury indicted a former FBI agent from Bend Thursday on felony charges stemming from his alleged involvement with the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
The Washington, D.C., grand jury accused Jared Wise, 49, of civil disorder and assaulting, resisting and impeding officers, both of which are felonies, according to a Thursday press release from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Wise allegedly called on rioters to kill police officers as they fought back against the mob that attempted to disrupt a joint session of Congress certifying President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, the justice department said.
Federal prosecutors say that police body camera footage shows Wise — who moved to Bend in June 2022 — shouting expletives as law enforcement was being knocked to the ground in front of him and that he said: “Yeah, kill ‘em!”
This one is from The Washington Post. “Georgia probe of Trump broadens to activities in other states.”
An Atlanta-area investigation of alleged election interference by former president Donald Trump and his allies has broadened to include activities in Washington, D.C., and several other states, according to two people with knowledge of the probe — a fresh sign that prosecutors may be building a sprawling case under Georgia’s racketeering laws.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) launched an investigation more than two years ago to examine efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn his narrow 2020 defeat in Georgia. Along the way, she has signaled publicly that she may use Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute to allege that these efforts amounted to a far-reaching criminal scheme.
In recent days, Willis has sought information related to the Trump campaign hiring two firms to find voter fraud across the United States and then burying their findings when they did not find it, allegations that reach beyond Georgia’s borders, said the two individuals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the investigation. At least one of the firms has been subpoenaed by Fulton County investigators.
Willis’s investigation is separate from the one at the Department of Justice being led by special counsel Jack Smith, but the two probes have covered some of the same ground. Willis has said she plans to make a charging decision this summer, and she has indicated that such an announcement could come in early August. She has faced stiff criticism from Republicans for investigating the former president, and the ever-widening scope suggests just how ambitious her plans may be.
The state’s RICO statute is among the most expansive in the nation, allowing prosecutors to build racketeering cases around violations of both state and federal laws — and even activities in other states. If Willis does allege a multistate racketeering scheme with Trump at its center, the case could test the bounds of the controversial law and make history in the process. The statute calls for penalties of up to 20 years in prison.
“Georgia’s RICO statute is basically two specified criminal acts that have to be part of a pattern of behavior done with the same intent or to achieve a common result or that have distinguishing characteristics,” said John Malcolm, a former Atlanta-based federal prosecutor who is now a constitutional scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “That’s it. It’s very broad. That doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to charge a former president, but that also doesn’t mean she can’t do it or won’t do it.”
This is from CNN. “Exclusive: Trump attorneys haven’t found classified document former president referred to on tape following subpoena.”
Attorneys for Donald Trump turned over material in mid-March in response to a federal subpoena related to a classified US military document described by the former president on tape in 2021 but were unable to find the document itself, two sources tell CNN.
Prosecutors issued the subpoena shortly after asking a Trump aide before a federal grand jury about the audio recording of a July 2021 meeting at Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey. On the recording, Trump acknowledges he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran.
Prosecutors sought “any and all” documents and materials related to Mark Milley, Trump’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Iran, including maps or invasion plans, the sources say. A similar subpoena was sent to at least one other attendee of the meeting, another source tells CNN.
The sources say prosecutors made clear to Trump’s attorneys after issuing the subpoena that they specifically wanted the Iran document he talked about on tape as well as any material referencing classified information – like meeting notes, audio recordings or copies of the document – that may still be Trump’s possession.
The fact that Trump’s team was unable to produce the document underscores the challenges the government has faced in trying to recover classified material that Trump took when he left the White House and in understanding the movement of government records that Trump kept.
Over the course of the Justice Department’s investigation, prosecutors have expressed skepticism that all classified documents had been returned. The federal government recovered dozens of documents with classified markings from Trump at various points throughout 2022.
The sources say prosecutors made clear to Trump’s attorneys after issuing the subpoena that they specifically wanted the Iran document he talked about on tape as well as any material referencing classified information – like meeting notes, audio recordings or copies of the document – that may still be Trump’s possession.
The fact that Trump’s team was unable to produce the document underscores the challenges the government has faced in trying to recover classified material that Trump took when he left the White House and in understanding the movement of government records that Trump kept.
Over the course of the Justice Department’s investigation, prosecutors have expressed skepticism that all classified documents had been returned. The federal government recovered dozens of documents with classified markings from Trump at various points throughout 2022.
Most of these folks are headed to Iowa right now, but more interesting is this from HuffPost. “RNC Debate Rule May Prevent Rubio-Slayer Chris Christie From Doing The Same To Trump.”
The man who famously disassembled Sen. Marco Rubio on a Republican presidential debate stage in 2016 may be prevented from doing the same to coup-attempting former President Donald Trump under rules being considered by the Republican National Committee for its 2024 primary debates.
Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor and loyal Trump supporter who broke from him over his words and deeds after the 2020 election, is expected to announce his presidential campaign next week. He has openly said he plans to confront Trump about his “stolen” election lies and his actions leading up to and during the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, even as other candidates have shied away from criticizing Trump at all.
“If it takes a bully to beat a bully?” said one Christie adviser on condition of anonymity, acknowledging the criticisms of his brash personality. “At least Chris believes in the system. He’s read the Constitution.”
But such a showdown may not come to pass because of a proposed requirement that candidates must have at least 40,000 unique donors to make the first scheduled debate in August ― a threshold Christie, who had difficulty raising small-dollar donations when he ran in 2016, may not be able to meet in just two months.
“I definitely think the RNC rules were built to help Trump,” said Tim Miller, a former RNC communications director.
“In 2020, the RNC canceled 22 primaries and caucuses to protect their king,” said Joe Walsh, the former Republican congressman who ran against Trump in the 2020 primary. “This time around they can’t cancel primaries and caucuses, but they’ll still do all they can do to protect their king, like making it as hard as possible for challengers to debate him. Yes, the RNC will do all they can to keep Christie and any other Trump-critical candidate off that stage.”
Ron DeSantis is not catching up to Trump in Polls. This is from Yahoo News. “Poll: No bump for DeSantis from 2024 launch as Trump continues to climb .”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was surely hoping for abump from his presidential campaign launch last week. But a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows no sign of improvement.
In fact, the survey of 1,520 U.S. adults, which was conducted from May 25-30, suggests that DeSantis may have actually lostgroundagainst frontrunner and former President Donald Trump since officially entering the race for the 2024 GOP nomination during a glitchy Twitter Spaces event with the platform’s billionaire owner Elon Musk.
Among potential Republican primary voters — registered voters who identify as Republicans or GOP-leaning independents — Trump now leads the full field of seven declared candidates with 53%. That’s up from 48% in early May, before DeSantis threw his hat in the ring. And DeSantis now lags further behind than he did just a few weeks ago; his 25% is down from 28% in early May.
Put another way, DeSantis trailed Trump by 20 points in the previous Yahoo News/YouGov poll. Today, he trails by 28 points.
None of the remaining candidates — former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley (3%), Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (1%), South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott (3%), tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy (3%) or radio host Larry Elder (1%) — clear the 5% threshold.
A hypothetical two-way matchup, meanwhile, is no better for DeSantis, with Trump leading 55% to 31% (up from 50% to 36% in early May).
Iowa was the site of Trump’s town hall. Seven people showed up to see Hannity play softball.
It’s going to be a long campaign season. I’m waiting for the start of Lock Him Up Season to start personally,
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Memorial Day Reads
Posted: May 29, 2023 Filed under: just because | Tags: Graveyard Picnics, Memorial Day, Russians want Lindsey Graham arrested, The Debt Ceiling Deficit Deal 2023 13 Comments
A small group picnics on ledger-style tombstones in Historic St. Luke’s Ancient Cemetery. The photo is not dated but is believed to have been taken prior to St. Luke’s 1957 Pilgrimage Service. COURTESY HISTORIC ST. LUKE’S
Good day and I hope your Holiday weekend is peaceful, Sky Dancers!
This day reminds me of my family’s picnics in small-town Missouri and Kansas graveyards, where we would clean up the family plots. I don’t even remember where they are, although I could dig my scrapbooks up if I had a ladder to get up there. We paid particular attention to the Civil War Veterans. Many had their own good size monuments. I don’t think anyone does this anymore, but I remember it clearly. “Remembering When Americans Picnicked in Cemeteries. For a time, eating and relaxing among the dead was a national pastime.”
Now I would just like to do it to remind the NeoConfederates they freaking lost.
It appears this new breed of them has also lost the debt ceiling deal. I just hope they vote for it. This is from the Washington Post‘s Catherine Rampell. “With this debt limit deal, Congress has beclowned itself.” Sure, why not send in the clowns?
With apologies to Peggy Lee: Is that all there is?
Late Saturday night, the White House and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced broad outlines of a deal to resolve the debt limit standoff. Their agreement would suspend the debt ceiling through 2025 — which means, hopefully, taking the threat of default and ensuing global financial crisis off the table at least untilafter the next presidential election.
In exchange, Congress would expand spending on defense and veterans’ programs; leave Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and tax rates untouched; keep most other domestic spending roughly flat; trim funding for the Internal Revenue Service; modestly amend the permitting process for energy projects; and tweak the existing work requirements in the food-stamp program.
We’re still waiting on details, of course. But from what we know so far, this much-ballyhooed “deal” doesn’t seem terribly different from whatever budget agreement would have materialized anyway later this year, during the usual annual appropriations process, under divided government. To President Biden’s credit, the most objectionable ransoms that Republicans had been demanding are all gone. For example, there are no longer sharp cuts to safety-net programs, nor measures to effectively block all agency regulations nor new work requirements for Medicaid.
Arlington Cemetery. Illustration: The Library of Congress
This is from Dean Obeidallah writing at his substack The Dean’s Report: The Debt ceiling deal was a big WIN for Biden—and a big LOSS for Trump and MAGA. MAGA is furious with the deal.”
Check out the deal Biden got. For starters and very importantly, it raises the debt ceiling for two years—not one as the GOP wanted. That means during the 2024 presidential election the House GOP can neither hold our economy hostage in exchange for massive cuts—nor cause a default that would be horrific for our economy but could be perceived as good for the 2024 GOP presidential candidate.
In addition, the budget cuts agreed–to per a NY Times analysis Sunday–amount to only “a fraction of the cuts Republicans originally sought.” In addition, Biden’s student loan relief program and climate change policies all remain intact. The deal also meets the requests in Biden’s budget to increase spending for the military and veterans affairs in line with inflation. However, the deal will include increasing work requirements—temporarily—as demanded by the GOP for certain federal programs but at the same time it expands food stamp benefits for veterans and the homeless.
The reality is that this deal—if approved—was much more than just about raising the debt ceiling. Like many of us, I believed—as I wrote last week–that President Biden should invoke the untested, yet legally plausible approach of invoking Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to authorize the Treasury to pay bills above the debt limit. (The history behind that post-Civil War Amendment makes using it today against the same GOP responsible for the Jan 6 attack was especially fitting.)
But it became clear late last week from President Biden that these negotiations were more focused on reaching a broader budget deal. As the President stated Thursday afternoon: “I want to be clear that the negotiations were happening with Speaker McCarthy is about the outlines of what the budget will look like, not about default.” He added, “It’s about competing visions for America. Speaker McCarthy and I have a very different view of who should bear the burden of additional efforts to get our fiscal house in order.”
If you want a good smile this morning, try this headline from CBS News. “Russia issues arrest warrant for Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Well alright then.
Russia’s Interior Ministry on Monday issued an arrest warrant for U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham following his comments related to the fighting in Ukraine.
In an edited video of his meeting on Friday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that was released by Zelenskyy’s office, Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, noted that “the Russians are dying” and described the U.S. military assistance to the country as “the best money we’ve ever spent.”
While Graham appeared to have made the remarks in different parts of the conversation, the short video by Ukraine’s presidential office put them next to each other, causing outrage in Russia.
Later, Zelenskyy’s office issued video of Graham’s actual remarks showing the shorter version had been edited. The Reuters news agency made the video available.
I’m keeping it short today because I’ve been sick the last few days and the fever finally broke last night but I’m still exhausted. Hope you’re enjoying the day!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
This definitely is an open thread.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
jjlo
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments