James.galbraith

Kenneth Starr has died, and John Durham's probe has fizzled. Republicans though they'd both deliver the goods, and they both failed.

Evidence keeps coming in that antipoverty spending, especially what we did in pandemic relief, has been enormously beneficial.

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday rejected a Justice Department demand to let federal prosecutors continue their review of records marked classified that were recovered from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

In her ruling, Cannon refused to accept department officials’ contention that the records they are trying to review as part of an ongoing criminal investigation remain highly classified or contain extraordinarily sensitive defense information that could damage national security if released.

"The Court does not find it appropriate to accept the Government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion,” Cannon, a Trump appointee, wrote in her 10-page ruling denying the Justice Department’s request to essentially exclude about 100 documents marked classified from the special master process.

Cannon instead appointed Raymond Dearie, a senior federal judge in New York, to lead an independent review of the seized materials. He was one of two potential special masters proposed by the Trump team, and prosecutors said they found him acceptable even though he was not one of their initial picks.

In a signed filing released by the court on Thursday night, Dearie accepted the task. Cannon urged him to complete his review by Nov. 30 — more than a month after the Oct. 17 deadline the Justice Department had most recently asked Cannon to set.

While Cannon’s timeline appears to extend Dearie’s review well past the November midterm elections, she did instruct him “to prioritize review of the approximately 100 documents marked as classified (and papers physically attached thereto),” meaning it’s possible prosecutors could regain access to some or all of those materials before they get another look at the other records seized in the FBI’s Aug. 8 search of the Trump’s Florida estate.

Last week, the Justice Department appealed Cannon’s order to appoint a special master and indicated it would seek relief from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if she did not agree to delay aspects of her ruling by Thursday night. .

The ruling is another setback for federal prosecutors, who have expressed alarm at the extraordinarily sensitive records they found in boxes intermingled with Trump’s personal items in his Mar-a-Lago storage room, as well as some recovered from his office. The Justice Department has warned that Cannon’s Sept. 5 order — which enjoined the department from furthering its criminal review of the documents seized by FBI agents — had also disrupted a parallel risk assessment of those documents by the intelligence community. Though Cannon allowed that review to continue, the Justice Department emphasized that her order had sown confusion within the executive branch.

In one nod to the Justice Department, Cannon ordered Trump to shoulder the full cost of Dearie’s review, as well as that for any staff or associates he hires.

Cannon also clarified certain steps the department could take to further its criminal investigation even while the documents remained off-limits, such as “questioning witnesses and obtaining other information about the movement and storage of seized materials, including documents marked as classified, without discussion of their contents.”

She also said the Justice Department was free to brief congressional leaders “with intelligence oversight responsibilities” on the seized materials.

Cannon’s ruling denying the Justice Department’s stay makes clear she simply did not buy prosecutors’ argument that an intelligence community review of the national security impact of the presence of the information at Mar-a-Lago could not proceed while the criminal investigation remains temporarily halted.

“The Government’s submissions, read collectively, do not firmly maintain that the described processes are inextricably intertwined, and instead rely heavily on hypothetical scenarios and generalized explanations that do not establish irreparable injury,” she wrote.

However, the judge also emphasized that she was giving Justice Department personnel some leeway to participate in the national security assessment even as she maintains her order blocking the use of any of the documents in the criminal probe.

“To the extent that the Security Assessments truly are, in fact, inextricable from criminal investigative use of the seized materials, the Court makes clear that the September 5 Order does not enjoin the Government from taking actions necessary for the Security Assessments,” she wrote.

Cannon based her ruling in part on what she said were “media leaks” describing the seized materials.

While the Justice Department had raised alarms about a delay in its criminal investigation risking the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, the judge suggested that the risk of such was speculative, but that the evidence of ongoing leaks related to the investigation was concrete.

“There has been no actual suggestion by the Government of any identifiable emergency or imminent disclosure of classified information arising from Plaintiff’s allegedly unlawful retention of the seized property,” Cannon wrote. “Instead, and unfortunately, the unwarranted disclosures that float in the background have been leaks to the media after the underlying seizure.”

A high-spending effort to draft Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis into the 2024 presidential race has promised to forge ahead with an unusual attempt to boost his would-be campaign, after the Federal Election Commission deadlocked on a request for guidance about whether the strategy was legal.

The group, Ready for Ron, is a federal PAC with the goal of building a list of up to 1 million people urging DeSantis to run for president. But along with those names, the group wants to deliver would-be supporters’ email addresses and phone numbers to DeSantis — a potential treasure trove of information for a presidential campaign.

Email and text lists that candidates can hit up for donations are cornerstones of modern political campaigns — and building them can be expensive and time-consuming. The FEC has historically maintained that candidates can rent or buy supporter lists compiled by other groups, but they can’t just accept something of such value as a gift without breaking campaign contribution limits.

But Ready for Ron argues that it is compiling a petition, not a mailing list, and the PAC should be able to freely share the information with DeSantis whenever it wants.

The group asked the Federal Election Commission if its plan to share its petition for free with DeSantis was permissible, either now, when DeSantis is not a federal candidate, or later if he takes more formal steps toward running for president, which is widely anticipated.

On Thursday, the FEC deadlocked on the request to provide advice to the group. The commission voted to reject a draft advisory opinion that would have explicitly blessed Ready for Ron’s plan to share the information with DeSantis for free before he took formal steps to consider a presidential run, but not after that point. But the committee split 3-3 along partisan lines on another draft advisory opinion that says the PAC cannot provide the names and contact information to DeSantis at any point, leaving the decision in some sort of limbo.

“We have moved the ball in the right direction,” Dan Backer, an attorney who is representing Ready for Ron, said in an interview after the hearing.

The FEC is likely to take another crack at some sort of advisory opinion, with commissioners directing staff to draft a response that merges the areas of commonality between the two drafts, seemingly in the post-”testing the water” phase, a somewhat legally nebulous phase when a potential candidate is considering a campaign and spending money to explore it but has not officially declared a run.

But Backer indicated the group will be aggressive, and didn’t rule out litigation should the commission try to throw up barriers. “I want the commission to tell me what exactly is ‘testing the waters,’ because my rights are not subject to an amorphous standard,” he said.

He also contended that because DeSantis has not entered that “testing the waters” phase yet, the group is free to share the petition — and contact information — with DeSantis whenever they wanted to, although they had no plans to do so imminently.

But already, that list is likely valuable on its own. Ready for Ron has collected around 43,750 signatures as of Wednesday morning, according to Backer, and is getting an additional 1,000 people to sign on every day, with the pace picking up. He said his “personal target” would be to hit 1 million signatures by the end of the year.

When reached for a comment, a spokesperson for DeSantis' campaign pointed to a memo from the campaign's legal counsel that said "supporters of the governor should understand that contributions made to the PAC do not benefit Governor DeSantis or his re-election as Florida’s governor." Fox News first reported on that memo in June.

Campaign finance watchdog groups that opposed Ready for Ron’s proposal, arguing that it would open the door even further to candidates skirting contribution limits, found a silver lining in Thursday’s deliberations, even with the deadlock. Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center, said the commissioners seemed skeptical of Ready for Ron’s attempts to define their list as anything but a mailing list, which the FEC has already established as something that holds value and is subject to contribution limits.

“If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck,” he said. “And the [regulations] specifically say this particular duck is an example of an in-kind contribution.”

Gary Fineout contributed to this report.

Rep. Frank Pallone said members can't agree on which time frame to set.

The hope is that more Republicans will vote for the bill after the midterms — when they’re under less political pressure.

A Senate vote on the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would codify federal protections for same-sex marriage, has now been delayed until after the midterm elections, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) told reporters on Thursday.

That vote was originally expected to happen next week before lawmakers left for a break in October. Senators said that part of the reason for the delay was the release of new legislative text and the fact that lawmakers were still reviewing that language. Mostly, however, the bill was delayed for political reasons: Democrats need 10 GOP votes to pass legislation in the Senate, and an insufficient number of Republicans have signed on so far.

“Leader Schumer is extremely disappointed that there aren’t 10 Republicans in the Senate willing to vote yes on marriage equality legislation at this time,” the Senate majority leader’s office said in a statement. “Leader Schumer will not give up and will hold the bipartisan group to their promise that the votes to pass this marriage equality legislation will be there after the election.”

The Republican votes are likely missing because many fear the political blowback they’d get if they took a position on the bill. Were the vote to happen before the election, GOP lawmakers who voted against the bill could face backlash from moderate voters and independents who’ve widely supported same-sex marriage, while those who voted for it risk pushback from the members of their base who are still against it.

Multiple lawmakers suggested to Vox that it’s likely the bill will pick up more Republican votes once the midterms are over, when senators up for reelection would be under less political pressure. While there is overwhelming public support for same-sex marriage, a socially conservative segment of the Republican base continues to oppose it.

“I think that’s a wise decision, they’ll get more votes,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), one of the top Republicans in the Senate conference, said of the delay. “I think ... a handful of [senators] will likely decide to be somewhere after the election that they wouldn’t have been with a vote that was purely … a political ploy.”

This is not the end for the bill

The legislation would be historic if passed, a prospect that lawmakers are still optimistic about. It would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, and guarantee recognition of same-sex marriages and interracial marriages under federal law.

These provisions are especially vital given concerns that protections for same-sex marriage could be in danger following the Dobbs v. Jackson decision ending the federal right to an abortion. Statements Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has made suggesting that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage, is one he’s interested in revisiting have made those fears especially pointed.

While a vote on the legislation is delayed, both Democrats and Republicans who are sponsoring the legislation are still bullish on its chances.

“We’re very confident the bill will pass, but we will need a little more time,” Baldwin, the lead Democrat backing the bill, told reporters.

Beyond political considerations, one issue holding up the bill is Republicans’ desire to include language making it clear the legislation wouldn’t infringe on people’s religious liberties. Baldwin noted that lawmakers were set to release text on Thursday of amended language that addressed those issues.

At this point, 10 Republican senators have yet to voice their support for the bill. Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) have firmly backed it, while Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has indicated openness to doing so. The group would still need to pick up several more Republican votes in order to hit the 60-vote threshold the bill would require to pass the Senate.

The lawmakers working on the legislation now have several more weeks to find that support — though there’s no guarantee, even once midterms are over, that they will.

“The leader has to make a strategic decision about what the best time is,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). “My personal preference is to put everyone on the record before the November elections, but I understand the decisions that are made about when the prospects are best for passing the measure. I want a law, not just a bill.”

This 15-week proposed ban isn’t about “late-term” abortions.

Senate Republicans’ plans for a national abortion ban in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s June decision to overturn Roe v. Wade may be backfiring on them.

On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced a bill that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy based on the unproven claim that fetuses can feel pain at that point in development. It includes exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the pregnant person.

The proposal is stricter than versions of the bill Graham has previously introduced, which would have banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and goes further than many existing state restrictions on abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 44 states ban abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, most after about 20 weeks since the pregnant person’s last menstrual period.

Few Republicans have announced their support for the bill, however. It comes at a delicate moment for the party nationally, just weeks ahead of the midterms and as they try to temper voters’ concerns about what they might do to further restrict abortion access if they win control of Congress. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) all suggested to Politico that Graham’s bill did not reflect the tack that most other Republicans would take when it comes to abortion.

“That wasn’t a conference decision. It was an individual senator’s decision,” Cornyn said.

Democrats have already begun to attack the legislation as a first step toward a total ban. “For MAGA Republicans—it’s always been about making abortion illegal everywhere,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted Tuesday. Republicans, however, claim it is only a ban on “late-term abortions,” seemingly in an effort to paint Democrats as extreme for supporting a bill that would have banned states from enacting many kinds of abortion restrictions.

“That [Democratic bill] is extreme in every fashion and we should be talking about legislation for the nation as a whole that would put us in line with the science and the civilized world,” Graham said in a press conference Tuesday.

Abortion rights advocates argue that having an abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy does not qualify as a “late-term abortion,” which is not a medical term and typically refers to abortions after at least 21 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. Though most abortions happen earlier in pregnancy, many medical anomalies, including ones that are inconsistent with life, can only be detected in tests conducted at the 20-week mark. There’s also a concern that demand from states that have banned or severely restricted abortion could stretch abortion clinics’ resources thin, forcing pregnant people to wait longer than they might have previously for an abortion.

Given these concerns — and Democrats’ support for abortion access — there’s little chance of Graham’s bill coming up for a vote this year. Instead, Graham promised action on it if Republicans retake control of Congress following the midterms this fall.

“If we take back the House and Senate, I can assure you that we’ll have a vote on our bill,” Graham said.

The bill probably won’t become law, even if the GOP is in power

It’s not clear that the bill would pass even if the GOP reclaims Congress.

Some 85 percent of Americans think that abortion should be legal in some circumstances, according to a long-running survey by Gallup. Embracing such a broadly unpopular policy could carry electoral costs for Republicans by further activating Democratic voters. And the party would need to consolidate power not just in Congress but also in the White House to actually make it law.

Though Republicans initially celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe, they have since avoided the subject on the campaign trail in an apparent effort to avoid turning off persuadable voters ahead of the midterms. On Tuesday, McConnell did not take a stance himself and told reporters that most GOP senators would prefer abortion to remain under the purview of the states rather than pursue a national ban like Graham’s.

While abortion is still behind the economy, gun policy, and education in terms of voters’ top priorities, it appears to be animating voters. In New York’s 19th District, the Democratic winner of a special election centered his campaign on abortion access. In Kansas, voters turned out in record numbers to resoundingly reject a constitutional amendment that would have allowed state lawmakers to further restrict abortion access in the state. Young people (particularly young women) are also registering to vote at a significantly higher rate in states where abortion rights are under threat.

Republicans are no longer favored to win control of the Senate and are preparing for the prospect of a narrow majority in the House. But even if they reclaim the Senate, the bill would need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, a significantly tougher task considering not even all Senate Republicans are in favor of restricting abortion. Republicans could also potentially choose to eliminate the filibuster to pass the ban.

They have previously introduced bills that would recognize life from the moment of fertilization, which would effectively ban abortion nationwide. But only 19 senators and 164 House members supported the legislation the last time it was introduced, far short of the numbers it would need to pass.

Should they overcome that issue, a Democrat in the White House would likely veto any such legislation. But there’s no guarantee Democrats will hold the executive branch after 2024, especially given that President Joe Biden’s approval rating continues to struggle, and that polling early this year found most Americans don’t want Biden to seek reelection.

Those political hurdles make Graham’s bill mostly messaging on where he wants Senate Republicans to draw the line on abortion, which for now is still short of a total ban. It remains to be seen whether leaning into that stance can help them rebut Democrats’ midterm attacks about the GOP being too extreme.

The Biden administration has announced the latest in its renewable energy efforts, this time focused on a technology that hasn't really arrived yet: floating offshore wind turbines. From a report: Compared to turbines directly anchored on the seafloor, floating versions are estimated to cost about 50 percent more, which has made energy development of large areas of the ocean cost-prohibitive. The program announced this week will create a "wind shot" that aims to drop the costs by more than 70 percent over the next decade and position the US as a leader in this industry. While offshore wind is booming in Europe and China (and poised for a belated takeoff in the US), existing hardware is built directly up from the seafloor, which requires sitting in shallow waters. This works out well for the US East Coast, where a broad continental shelf can host massive wind farms, many of which are in the permitting and planning stages. Most of those projects involve a partnership with European companies, as the US's long delay in adopting offshore wind has ceded the industry to the countries that pioneered the field. Based on a newly released map of the potential for offshore wind in the US, many areas with good potential are too deep to be exploited by wind turbines affixed to the ocean floor. This includes nearly the entire West Coast, Hawaii, and the Great Lakes. Even along the East Coast, floating turbines could greatly expand the areas open to development.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Read 7 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 6 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 10 remaining paragraphs | Comments

A half century after founding the outdoor apparel maker Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard, the eccentric rock climber who became a reluctant billionaire with his unconventional spin on capitalism, has given the company away. The New York Times reports: Rather than selling the company or taking it public, Mr. Chouinard, his wife and two adult children have transferred their ownership of Patagonia, valued at about $3 billion, to a specially designed trust and a nonprofit organization. They were created to preserve the company's independence and ensure that all of its profits -- some $100 million a year -- are used to combat climate change and protect undeveloped land around the globe. The unusual move comes at a moment of growing scrutiny for billionaires and corporations, whose rhetoric about making the world a better place is often overshadowed by their contributions to the very problems they claim to want to solve. At the same time, Mr. Chouinard's relinquishment of the family fortune is in keeping with his longstanding disregard for business norms, and his lifelong love for the environment. "Hopefully this will influence a new form of capitalism that doesn't end up with a few rich people and a bunch of poor people,â Mr. Chouinard, 83, said in an exclusive interview. "We are going to give away the maximum amount of money to people who are actively working on saving this planet." Patagonia will continue to operate as a private, for-profit corporation based in Ventura, Calif., selling more than $1 billion worth of jackets, hats and ski pants each year. But the Chouinards, who controlled Patagonia until last month, no longer own the company. In August, the family irrevocably transferred all the company's voting stock, equivalent to 2 percent of the overall shares, into a newly established entity known as the Patagonia Purpose Trust. The trust, which will be overseen by members of the family and their closest advisers, is intended to ensure that Patagonia makes good on its commitment to run a socially responsible business and give away its profits. Because the Chouinards donated their shares to a trust, the family will pay about $17.5 million in taxes on the gift. The Chouinards then donated the other 98 percent of Patagonia, its common shares, to a newly established nonprofit organization called the Holdfast Collective, which will now be the recipient of all the company's profits and use the funds to combat climate change. Because the Holdfast Collective is a 501(c)(4), which allows it to make unlimited political contributions, the family received no tax benefit for its donation. Mr. Chouinard is certainly not like most ultra successful entrepreneurs today. The report notes that he "wears raggedy old clothes, drives a beat up Subaru and splits his time between modest homes in Ventura and Jackson, Wyo." He also doesn't own a computer or a cellphone. When the company's sales soared and Mr. Chouinard's net worth continued to climb, it made him uncomfortable because he abhors excessive wealth. "I was in Forbes magazine listed as a billionaire, which really, really pissed me off," he said. "I don't have $1 billion in the bank. I don't drive Lexuses." This ranking, along with the Covid-19 pandemic, "heped set in motion a process that would unfold over the past two years, and ultimately lead to the Chouinards giving away the company," the Times reports.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 8 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 11 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 36 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Goldman's credit card business, anchored by the Apple Card since 2019, has arguably been the company's biggest success yet in terms of gaining retail lending scale. It's the largest contributor to the division's 14 million customers and $16 billion in loan balances, a figure that Goldman said would nearly double to $30 billion by 2024. But rising losses threaten to mar that picture. CNBC: Lenders deem bad loans "charge-offs" after a customer misses payments for six months; Goldman's 2.93% net charge-off rate is double the 1.47% rate at JPMorgan's card business and higher than Bank of America's 1.60%, despite being a fraction of those issuers' size. Goldman's losses are also higher than that of Capital One, the largest subprime player among big banks, which had a 2.26% charge-off rate. "If there's one thing Goldman is supposed to be good at, its risk management," said Jason Mikula, a former Goldman employee who now consults for the industry. "So how do they have charge-off rates comparable to a subprime portfolio?" The biggest reason is because Goldman's customers have been with the bank for less than two years on average, according to people with knowledge of the business who weren't authorized to speak to the press. Charge-off rates tend to be highest during the first few years a user has a card; as Goldman's pool of customers ages and struggling users drop out, those losses should calm down, the people said. The bank leans on third-party data providers to compare metrics with similar cards of the same vintage and is comfortable with its performance, the people said. Other banks also tend to be more aggressive in seeking to recover debt, which improves competitors' net charge-off figures, the people said. But another factor is that Goldman's biggest credit product, the Apple Card, is aimed at a broad swath of the country, including those with lower credit scores. Early in its rollout, some users were stunned to learn they had been approved for the card despite checkered credit histories. "Goldman has to play in a broader credit spectrum than other banks, that's part of the issue," said a person who once worked at the New York-based bank, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly about his former employer. "They have no direct-to-consumer offering yet, and when you have the Apple Card and the GM card, you are looking at Americana."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Read 13 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced his national 15-week abortion ban on Thursday, because what Republican efforts to convince voters that they aren’t anti-abortion extremists needed was an official proposal for a national abortion ban. 

“I think we should have a law at the federal level that would say, after 15 weeks, no abortion on demand except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother,” Graham told reporters. “And that should be where America is at.” And if that’s not where large chunks of America are at, tough, because congressional Republicans are going to impose it. 

Republicans want a national abortion ban, which means abortion is on the ballot everywhere there are Republicans on the ballot. Can you chip in $3 to help these Daily Kos-endorsed candidates and causes beat back the Republican attack on our rights?

RELATED STORY: Republicans are proposing a national abortion ban. Yes, really, in 2022

Campaign Action

“Abortion is a contentious issue,” Graham said. “Abortion is not banned in America. It is left up to elected officials in America to define the issue ... States have the ability to do [so] at the state level and we have the ability in Washington to speak on this issue if we choose. I have chosen to speak.” 

Graham’s plan is for states to not have the ability to choose. His bill wouldn’t restore abortion rights up to 15 weeks in the states that have banned it. It would just strip away rights in states that have not banned abortion. While the bill doesn’t stand a chance of passing a Congress controlled by Democrats, Graham pledged, “If we take back the House and Senate, I can assure you we'll have a vote.”

Graham is trying to sell his bill as a moderate compromise that just bans “late-term abortions,” but in addition to the fact that “late-term abortion” is not medical language, 15 weeks is substantially earlier than the point at which abortion opponents usually start using that label. Similarly, Graham’s inclusion of “Pain Capable Unborn Children” in the title of the bill is a lie. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks.”

But even if any of these attempts to paint a sharp restriction of abortion rights in many states as moderate were accurate, Graham’s bill is a starting point for Republicans, not a stopping point, just as we’ve seen in Republican-controlled states. Graham’s own trajectory shows that. A few months ago, he was all about the states deciding “if abortion is legal and on what terms”:

Even last month, Graham was saying, “I think states should decide the issue of marriage and states should decide the issue of abortion.” Now he is leading an effort to get the federal government to institute a ban. Similarly, once Republicans have their 15-week ban, they’re going to get more extreme.

If voters let them. Graham promised, “If we take back the House and Senate, I can assure you we'll have a vote.” Voters should take that very seriously, but it begins with a big if. There are lots of signs—from the lopsided vote for abortion rights in Kansas to the special elections in New York and Alaska to a host of polls—that voters are furious about the loss of abortion rights and ready to go out and vote to protect them. Graham’s bill should add urgency to that.

Abortion rights, climate change, and gun safety are all on the ballot this fall, and there are literally thousands of ways to get involved in turning our voters. Plug into a federal, state, or local campaign from our GOTV feed at Mobilize and help Democrats and progressives win in November.

RELATED STORIES:

Democratic ads hit extreme anti-choice GOP candidates with their own words

Democrats are hammering Republicans as 'too extreme' on abortion in state after state

Read 21 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Ari Fleischer’s claim to fame was being the press secretary under President George W. Bush. In recent months he’s been the kind of mouthpiece who calls the leaked Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade “an insurrection against the Supreme Court,” and then stays super duper quiet when it becomes much more probable that this judicial branch “insurrection” came from inside one of the right-wing Supreme Court judges’ chambers. 

Sunday was the 21st anniversary of the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001. Since Fleischer has been on Twitter, he has live-tweeted his experience that day, being one of a few White House staffers in Bush’s presence on that day. It’s a thing he has done every year since around 2011. Fleischer’s annual commemoration of 9/11 is followed by thousands with a mixture of thanks and criticism. On Saturday evening, Fleischer went to his Twitter account and wrote a thread that began: “For the last 10 years or so, I have live tweeted the events of September 11, 2001, sharing my perspective of what I saw standing at President Bush’s side for much of the day...” Fleischer explained that on the 20th anniversary, last year, he was unable to live-tweet his experience that day because he was in attendance at an event marking that fateful day down at Ground Zero in New York City. He then explained that he would also be missing live-tweeting again this year because he would be “on a plane.”

He added that he would no longer continue his annual commemoration on Twitter of the events of 9/11. “In truth, it is exhausting to relive the day. It wears me down to go through it, even though I am not the one who has suffered the most.” Fair enough. Except some people pointed out that Fleischer’s decision to stop using his social media account to try and highlight his dubious claims to fame and promote lame conservative talking points comes just three months after the Saudi-backed LIV Golf Invitational Series hired Fleischer Communications to be their communications consultants promoting the new golf league.

For those too young to remember, 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been working very hard over the years to try and make people forget the connection, as did people like George W. Bush and his warmongers. Last year, President Joe Biden declassified a 16-page FBI report of the 9/11 hijackers and their connections to Saudi nationals in the United States. It has added fuel to the fire for people who believe many people in the Saudi government were far more aware of the activities going on in the days, weeks, months, and years leading up to the attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

Environmental reporter Zack Budryk was one of the first people to point out the strange coincidence.

A juxtaposition to illustrate.

And finally.

New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman is again facing criticism for holding vital information related to national security until her next book comes out. This time, it was the knowledge that former President Donald Trump—more than once—told aides after losing the 2020 election that he would not leave the White House, CNN reported on Monday in an exclusive.

“I’m just not going to leave,” Trump is accused of saying in Haberman’s account.

“We’re never leaving,” he reportedly told another aide. “How can you leave when you won an election?”

RELATED STORY: Once again, New York Times reporters betray the public interest for the sake of a book deal

Haberman's book, Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, is set to be released Oct. 4.

The author, who also works as a political analyst for CNN, is said to have described Trump telling one advisor, “We did our best,” and also telling junior press aides, “I thought we had it,” before he reversed courses.

He was reportedly overheard asking Ronna McDaniel, who leads the Republican National Committee, “Why should I leave if they stole it from me?”

And with that divulgence and the many others like it, Haberman’s name was trending for much of the day on Monday, some Twitter users penning jokes at her expense and others posting meaningful critiques.

Haberman's revelation comes amid a special grand jury investigation in Fulton County, Georgia, tasked with looking into alleged efforts to overturn Trump's election loss. Fani Willis, the first Black woman to serve as district attorney for the county, is leading the charge, and she has already asked dozens of witnesses to testify in the case, reportedly at the displeasure of Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, who is up for reelection.

RELATED STORY: Only 85 days before the midterms, Georgia’s top DA is coming for GOP incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp

Willis told Kemp's lawyer, Brian McEvoy, in an email regarding a grand jury appearance by the governor himself that McEvoy was "wrong and confused," The New York Times reported. 

“You have taken my kindness as weakness,” Willis wrote. “Despite your disdain, this investigation continues and will not be derailed by anyone’s antics.”

It’s unfortunate that Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon doesn’t seem to share Willis’ stance. She decided to grant the former president's request to appoint a “special master” to look into documents the FBI seized from Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.

Journalist and attorney Elie Mystal said in a Twitter thread on Monday that it’s best if people stop thinking of Cannon as a real judge. ”Judge Cannon has already proven that she regards briefs and legal arguments as confusing squiggles,” he said in the tweet. “She'll rule for Trump... unless she's afraid she'll take too much heat.”

Mystal went on to say that it's possible, but "not likely," that Cannon will "react to the absolute dragging she's taken this past week."

“But, again, my read on what she'll do is based on these factors... because I won't dance for y'all and pretend that she's motivated by logic or legal reasoning,” Mystal wrote. “She's already PROVEN she doesn't care about that. And I will not be complicit like some legal Maggie Haberman.”

RELATED STORY: Trump legal filing calls theft of classified records a 'document storage dispute'

Non-photorealistic rendering has opened up an alternative to the ubiquitous “Pixar look.”

When you think of CGI animated films, you likely think of Pixar. The studio practically invented the genre with 1995’s Toy Story — the first animated feature film made via computer-generated imagery.

Pixar

After Toy Story, almost all animation studios wanted to follow in Pixar’s successful footsteps, all the way down to their style. Many studios sought out “the Pixar look”: extremely high quality, physically based, and in some cases almost photorealistic.

Toy Story 4, Pixar

It’s an appealing approach that remains popular at the box office, but animated movies started looking kind of homogeneous. And while studios and independent artists tested out more stylized approaches in short films, no studio would commit to a feature-length animated movie that looked too different.

That is, until Sony Pictures/Imageworks took on Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. Instead of chasing the look everyone else was after, the team wanted to create something visually new. They did it with non-photorealistic rendering.

Sony Pictures Animation

And since Spider-Verse, non-photorealism has taken off, with almost every studio set to incorporate it in the next five years. Check out our video to learn more about how non-photorealism works.

You can find this video and more on Vox’s YouTube Channel.

If the evidence he committed crimes is clear, the Justice Department must move forward.

Republicans across the country are working to make it harder to pass ballot measures — a direct threat to abortion-rights advocates and other liberal groups’ efforts to bypass governors and legislatures and take issues directly to voters.

The next major test for the strategy comes in November: Arizona and Arkansas’ GOP-controlled legislatures are asking voters to approve constitutional amendments that would raise the threshold for ballot initiatives from 50 percent to 60 percent. Arkansas’ proposal would apply to constitutional amendments and citizen-initiated state statutes on any subject matter, including abortion. Arizona’s applies only to taxation-related measures, though some see it as a prelude to a broader version.

"Our state constitution … should only be amended when there is genuine consensus among voters,” said Arkansas state Rep. David Ray, the Republican who sponsored the proposed amendment. "[The ballot measure] provides a much-needed guardrail so that big money, out-of-state special interests quit trying to hijack our state constitution and ballot initiative system by pulling the wool over voters' eyes and effectively buying new laws and constitutional amendments.”

The Republican push to regulate ballot measures has escalated in recent years as citizen-led initiatives have been used to legalize marijuana, expand Medicaid, create independent redistricting commissions and raise the minimum wage in purple and red states.

But the tactic is under new scrutiny after deep-red Kansas’ anti-abortion referendum failed by a wide margin, which gave abortion-rights supporters around the country hope that ballot measures can be a viable way to circumvent GOP-controlled legislatures and restore access to the procedure.

Some progressives worry they could lose one of their last remaining tools to defend or advance abortion rights in a post-Roe country.

"Red states know that this is the one lever that reproductive rights advocates still have in many of these states — where we've lost both chambers of the legislature, we've lost the gubernatorial seats, and we don't have very much hope in the court system,” said Kelly Hall, executive director of the advocacy group The Fairness Project. "Ballot measures remain the one true muscle that the people still have to flex.”

Conservative groups in North Dakota are expected to try again next year to impose a supermajority vote threshold for ballot initiatives after their signature-gathering attempts to put such a measure on the November ballot fell short earlier this summer. Republican lawmakers in South Dakota are also expected to take another swing at making it harder to approve ballot initiatives after voters rejected one 60 percent vote requirement during the state’s June primary.

In Florida, a state where proposed constitutional amendments already need 60 percent approval to pass, lawmakers recently imposed limits on fundraising for ballot campaigns, though that policy was blocked by a judge this summer. In Nebraska, legislators this year banned signature-gathering near voting drop boxes as part of an omnibus election bill.

Lawmakers in Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah are also expected to soon renew their push for other restrictions, such as raising the vote or signature threshold, requiring signatures from a certain number of counties in the state, limiting what topics citizen-initiated ballot measures can address, or dictating what font size canvassers need to use.

“The Constitution is supposed to be a framework and then you have laws that operate within that framework. But, increasingly, our Constitution is becoming a law book in and of itself,” said Missouri state Rep. Bishop Davidson, who supports limits on the ballot measure process.

Davidson added that the threat of a pro-abortion rights ballot measure — something activists are discussing after their victory in neighboring Kansas — may persuade more of his Republican colleagues to support reforms to the initiative petition process next session.

“I would be shocked if there wasn’t a petition circulated from the pro-choice side of this debate,” he said. “I think it is coming. I am concerned.”

Proponents argue these changes, which more states are expected to debate when legislatures reconvene in January, are aimed at preventing out-of-state money from pouring into their states and influencing voters to change laws or amend their constitution.

“I know that there’s a lot of paid petitioners out there. Is it truly the people who are wanting these things, or is it just groups that are paying for these things?” said Oklahoma state Rep. Carl Newton, a Republican.

The pattern extends beyond state legislatures into other parts of government.

In Michigan, Republicans on the state’s Board of Canvassers voted to block the certification of a sweeping abortion-rights ballot initiative that got far more than the required number of valid signatures over claims the text of the proposed constitutional amendment had spacing and formatting errors. The state’s Supreme Court overrode their decision on Thursday, meaning voters will have a chance in November to decide whether abortion remains legal.

And last year in Mississippi, a conservative-leaning court struck down the state’s entire ballot initiative process.

"This new tool in our box to protect reproductive rights and liberty is going to give our opposition even more incentive to take that away from us and to make it harder to pass ballot measures,” said Corrine Rivera Fowler, director of policy and legal advocacy at the progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center.

Of the two dozen states that allow citizen-initiated ballot measures, 11 have laws prohibiting most abortions, though some are temporarily blocked in court.

The efforts to stymie ballot initiatives, however, haven’t been targeted specifically at abortion.

Arkansas legislators, for example, acted after liberal groups turned to voters to raise the minimum wage and legalize medical marijuana. But these policies may have their greatest impact on abortion rights as lawmakers across the country consider not only whether and when the procedure should be legal but also what punishments to mete out to physicians and patients.

Arkansas Right to Life hasn’t taken a position on the proposed supermajority vote requirement. But the group’s executive director, Rose Mimms, told POLITICO its passage would help prevent efforts to amend the state’s Constitution to codify a right to abortion.

The lawmakers pushing for the higher threshold, she said, are “very good pro-life people, so I’m thinking they had not only [abortion] but other conservative issues in mind when they wanted to protect our Constitution from being changed so easily by making that supermajority a requirement.

“We’ve seen it here in Arkansas with marijuana, that once you start amending the Constitution, there’s no meaning to it,” she added.

Opponents of the 60 percent requirement argue it would make it much more difficult to pass progressive policies, including protections for abortion, in a state where Republicans in the Legislature outnumber Democrats 3 to 1.

“This is the only tool we have in a state like Arkansas,” said Kymara Seals, policy director for the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, one of the groups campaigning against the amendment. “That’s why we must fight to protect our access to the ballot because we’re not going to get it in the legislature.”

Groups that oppose the restrictions also argue that the process is already time-consuming and expensive. In Michigan, for example, tens of thousands of canvassers — mostly volunteers with some paid staff — worked for months to gather hundreds of thousands of signatures to get the abortion rights amendment on the November ballot and planning for the effort began years earlier.

Both SBA Pro-Life America and Students for Life, two national anti-abortion groups that have spent millions on ballot initiative fights in Kansas and other states, told POLITICO they aren’t getting involved in debates over the ballot process.

“Too many state and national leaders are not responsive to what voters really want, so the rise in ballot initiatives as a trend comes from people taking advantage of the course open to them,” said Kristi Hamrick, the spokesperson for Students for Life. “I hope this isn’t about silencing constituents.”

Polls show that Roe’s demise has helped Democrats close the enthusiasm gap and Democratic candidates have benefited from a surge in donations since POLITICO published the draft Supreme Court opinion in May, but progressive groups fear not enough attention is paid to the ballot initiative process.

“We are really raising the alarm bell about what's happening this November,” Hall said. “Because if they succeed in any of these [states], it will be all the more fuel on the fire to say that they should be proposing these restrictions everywhere else.”

The Fairness Project was behind a successful Medicaid expansion ballot measure in Oklahoma in 2020, after which lawmakers introduced several bills to make it harder to pass citizen-led ballot initiatives, including a proposal to raise the threshold for approving constitutional amendments to 55 percent.

The legislation failed this year, but Newton said he plans to bring back his bill in the 2024 legislative session.

Newton added that while he’s not specifically concerned about an out-of-state group introducing a pro-abortion rights ballot measure in Oklahoma, “there is a possibility because there are some groups [like] Planned Parenthood … that would want that to be a reality. So they may pick us out as a target state.”

Abortion-rights groups within Oklahoma, meanwhile, are contemplating unwinding the state’s near total ban by putting the question directly to voters. That’s why protecting ballot access is so crucial, said Laura Bellis, executive director of Take Control Oklahoma, which advocates for reproductive health care access.

“We have to protect ballot initiatives in general before we can even think about having one to protect abortion rights,” she said.

Read 10 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Utah Republican State Rep. Merrill F. Nelson has been in the Beehive State’s legislature since 2013. Before that, he was an attorney with affiliations to the Utah Supreme Court, the Utah State Bar, and many other prestigious Utah groups, in including the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. In December 2021, Rep. Nelson announced that he would not seek reelection and is due to leave at the end of 2022. In his announcement, Nelson said that one of the things he would “miss” was “having a voice and a vote on issues of public importance. Particularly, I hope that my efforts to protect children and strengthen states’ rights prove beneficial.”

On Thursday, the Associated Press released an explosive story showing that Nelson, who was also an attorney for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly known as the Mormon Church), once “advised a church bishop not to report a confession of child sex abuse to authorities, a decision that allowed the abuse to continue for years.” This truly detestable allegation was filed in the Arizona Court of Appeals by the abused children who are seeking to have the Church disclose their communications in an ongoing lawsuit.

Campaign Action

In 2010, church member Paul Adams admitted to sexually abusing one of his daughters. According to the lawsuit, Bishop John Herrod took this information to the church’s “help line” (established in 1995), where they were referred to the Church’s attorneys at the law firm Kirton McConkie. That initial call was answered by Mr. Merrill Nelson. Nelson was a shareholder in Kirton McConkie. Calling the helpline was a mandatory step for clergy who were informed of any abuse.

Call logs filed show that Nelson spoke numerous times with Bishop Herrod, and later Bishop Robert “Kim” Mauzy, from the period before until the period after Nelson became a state representative. Adams was not reported to law enforcement and continued to abuse multiple prepubescent children in his home for the next seven years. 

An important warning: The filing is truly disturbing. It includes the graphic blow-by-blow details of one of the videos made by Adams with his daughter, who was 9 years old at the time. The detailed abuse, which the Mormon Church was aware of, is excruciatingly vile.

According to the report, Rep. Nelson advised the church not to report the abuse. More importantly, if the Church chose to report the abuse, Nelson could be sued. In fact, “the instruction by counsel not to report Paul to the authorities was the law in Arizona and had nothing to do with Church doctrine.” The Associated Press caught up with Republican Nelson before these documents were filed to ask him about the case:

“I don’t have all the facts, but it seems to me like it did operate as intended,” he said. “The bishop called the help line and was advised no duty to report it to civil authorities. In fact, could not report because of the clergy privilege,” Nelson said.

“It is intended and always has from the beginning been intended to to help victims get the help they need through social services, professional counseling, medical help, legal help, law enforcement,” Nelson said.

Nelson has also opposed “legislation that would do away with the clergy-penitent privilege.” That’s some dark magic right there. Nelson did not respond to the AP’s requests for a statement after this information came to light. 

The Church excommunicated Adams in 2013, but still did nothing to protect the children being abused. Federal officials arrested Adams in 2017. Adams died by suicide while in custody before his trial. His wife, Leizza Adams, served two years in state prison. Three of the six children filed this lawsuit against LDS. The Church is appealing a judge’s ruling that determined they must provide any “confidential” records related to the case they have been withholding.

Donald Trump and his MAGA allies came close to overthrowing our democracy on January 6, and they will try again if they win in 2022. The best thing you can do is to help get out the Democratic vote for the midterms, and we need everyone to do what they can. Click here to find all the volunteer opportunities available.

Since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe v. Wade, states across the country have been infringing on reproductive rights. Pregnant individuals are increasingly becoming incarcerated for not abiding by the agenda of conservative politicians. In a recent incident, an Alabama jail incarcerated a pregnant woman for months after she admitted to smoking marijuana; the state allegedly refused to release 23-year-old Ashley Banks unless she entered drug rehab.

According to AL.com, Banks was around six weeks into her pregnancy when she was arrested and jailed over an unregistered gun and possession of a small amount of marijuana. While individuals arrested for such charges can ordinarily post bond and leave jail, police officials forced her to remain in the Etowah County Detention Center unless she entered rehab after Banks’ admitted she had smoked marijuana two days prior—the same day she found out she was pregnant.

Campaign Action

While authorities said that was the only choice Banks had, it remained unavailable to her as rehab centers refused to take her. Because Banks couldn’t enter a rehab center, she was left in a position of limbo for at least three months.

According to AL.com, state specialists who evaluated Banks for drug addiction on several occasions found she didn’t qualify for free addiction services offered through the state. According to Banks’ lawyers, state investigators even pressured her to “admit” to a drug addiction she didn’t have so that she could access rehab, pay the $10,000 cash bond for allegedly exposing her fetus to drugs, and leave jail—but Banks refused.

“I have reckless murder cases where defendants have been released on bond,” said Banks’ attorney Morgan Cunningham, AL.com reported. “Requiring her to go to rehab is not Constitutional.”

As Banks was unable to go to rehab because she didn’t qualify, she was forced to stay in jail, during which time she even furthered the risks associated with her pregnancy—the pregnancy that officials claimed to jail her to protect. After six weeks of being imprisoned, Banks started to bleed and continued to do so for another five weeks, AL.com reported.

Because of overcrowding, she was forced to sleep on the floor, even after being diagnosed with a condition, subchorionic hematoma, that heightened her risk of miscarriage.

As Banks continued to bleed for weeks, she told AL.com she was often hungry and went through fainting episodes.

Attorneys with the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, an organization that opposes laws that criminalize pregnancy, noted that it’s unfair to impose special conditions on pregnant women who haven’t been convicted of any crimes.

As a result of their “drug” policy, the Etowah County Detention Center often holds several pregnant and postpartum women in jail against the advice of experts on maternal and fetal health. According to AL.com, Dr. Carolyn Sufrin, an OB/GYN and expert on incarceration and pregnancy at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, wrote an affidavit urging the court to release Banks.

“The stress and conditions in jail and prisons, including lack of consistent access to standard prenatal care and mental health care, poor diets, poor sanitation, infestations with bugs and vermin, poor ventilation, tension, noise, lack of privacy, lack of family and community contact, can be detrimental to physical and mental health which can result in poor pregnancy outcomes for both the mother and the baby,” Sufrin wrote.

While Banks was finally released to community corrections on Aug. 25, it is unclear how many other women have been incarcerated due to similar situations. A recent AL.com investigation found at least seven pregnant or postpartum women in a jail log who had been incarcerated at some point between April and August. 

In another case, Hali Burns, a mother of two, was arrested six days after the birth of her newborn son because she tested positive for methamphetamine and Subutex, a medication used to treat pregnant women with opioid use disorder. According to Burns’ lawyers, Burns had a prescription for Subutex, and the sinus medication triggered false positive results for methamphetamine. While Etowah County prosecutors dispute those claims, neither a judge nor a jury has had an opportunity to examine the evidence leaving Burns in jail for more than two months. 

Her boyfriend, Craig Battles, became emotional while talking about the impact this has had on the family.

“My little girl keeps asking what she did wrong and why she can’t come home,” Battles told Al.com

Battles noted that he tried to deliver pads and underwear so Burns would not bleed onto her clothes since she was jailed after giving birth, but jail staff told him the items weren’t allowed.

“When she first got in jail, she was right out of the hospital,” Battles said. “She didn’t even have panties or pads, and she had just had a baby. She was stuffing paper towels or toilet paper in her pants to stop the bleeding.”

While state legislators claim these laws are in place to protect children, they fail to realize the impact jailing the mother has on the children.

Researchers for National Advocates for Pregnant Women have also tracked more than 150 chemical endangerment cases involving women in Etowah County since 2010.

But that's not the only issue. Medical needs not being met in jail can lead to pregnant people being prosecuted even further as Alabama law states that women who used drugs during their pregnancy and who suffer a miscarriage or stillbirth can be sent to jail for as long as 99 years.

Alabama leads the nation in arresting women who use drugs during pregnancy. According to a report by The Marshall Project, Alabama leads the nation in arresting women who allegedly used drugs during pregnancy. In one case, a woman who used meth while pregnant and then suffered a stillbirth was sentenced to 18 years in prison.

The state was also the first to add a “fetal personhood clause” to its constitution in 2018, recognizing “the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.”

But such incarcerations are not solely in Alabama. Earlier this year in California, Adora Perez was released after serving four years in prison for manslaughter after she experienced a stillbirth after alleged methamphetamine use. 

Going to jail is not the end of it. Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, pharmacies across the country, out of fear of criminal liability, have been refusing to fill prescriptions for not just medication abortions and Plan B, but literally any drug—including life-saving medications—that could cause miscarriage.

Abortion rights, climate change, and gun safety are all on the ballot this fall, and there are literally thousands of ways to get involved in turning our voters. Plug into a federal, state, or local campaign from our GOTV feed at Mobilize and help Democrats and progressives win in November.

Two incumbent Republican senators, both up for reelection in November, pose a clear and present danger to our democracy. One, Florida’s Marco Rubio, is the leading Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee and is refusing to say that the former president stealing highly classified documents and shoving them in a closet in his Florida resort is a bad thing. The other, Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, has admitted that he was involved in the plot to overturn American democracy on Jan. 6, and is now calling on voters to “Join us in unifying and healing and saving this nation.”

Rubio wants us to know via Politico (of course) that he is “joining forces with a top Democrat to demand a formal assessment of any damages to national security related to Trump’s handling of the documents.”

“The people who hate Donald Trump are happy about the raid. The people who support him were not,” Rubio said in an interview. That indicates immediately that he is on Trump’s side, calling it a raid. Rubio insists that he’s in a third category with “A lot of other people are wondering about the wisdom of undertaking such an effort, an unprecedented effort, before having exhausted every other opportunity or every other potential option they would have.”

No. If you are a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, there isn’t a “maybe a little big of espionage by a former president shouldn’t be investigated too strenuously” option. There is just not. He took an oath to protect and defend the constitution, and they didn’t put in any outs for being scared of the former president’s mob.

Grassroots donations like yours were absolutely crucial in turning the Senate blue last cycle. We can keep the momentum going in the midterms with your support.

Campaign Action

Rubio really pushed the “we’re all bipartisan and it’s great” bit with Politico, which his chair, Democrat Mark Warner, said was certainly the goal of any potential inquiry, but also had no patience for one of Rubio’s wishy-washy arguments. Rubio has said that maybe all those classified documents seized in the search weren’t really classified because intelligence officials had failed to notify Congress that they were missing. Which doesn’t sound plausible.

And, turns out, it’s not! “The idea that some of the Trump advocates are not even acknowledging that these are classified is kind of beyond the pale,” Warner told Politico, though he used “some people” instead of saying “that dipwad Marco Rubio.” He added, “Until the size or the extent of the reach becomes clear, I don’t know how you pre-warn [Congress].”

Niceties aside, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee is finding excuses for the theft of some of the mostly highly sensitive documents the intelligence community produces. And is somehow getting away with not being called a traitor by association.

Then there’s the guy who really has no association with intelligence at all—personal or professional—and who straight-up tried to help the attempted coup. Johnson went on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, which HuffPo reporter Jen Bendery listened to.

“If you love this nation and are concerned about its future, join us,” Johnson said on the show, pitching himself to voters. “Join us in unifying and healing and saving this nation. That’s what we need to do.”

He actually said that! He said he wants to heal the nation when he tried to overthrow the election! He has admitted he was involved in the coup attempt! He tried to get a slate of fake electors to then-Vice President Mike Pence to challenge the legitimate election of President Joe Biden.

His version of unifying the nation is aligning with white nationalist groups and promoting an anti-vaxxer who was suspended from Twitter last year for comparing vaccinations to the Holocaust.  

This is a guy who was warned by the FBI that he was being used by Russia to disrupt the 2020 election, and he blew it off. He called the FBI’s “defensive briefing” that he was pushing Russian propaganda “completely useless and unnecessary.”

And he wants anyone to believe he’ll be a uniter?!

Both of these men are a threat to democracy. Neither should be returned to the Senate, and they sure as hell have to be kept out of a majority.

Democrats can build a blue wave if we get out every voter. Click here to find out all the ways you can help in the last days before Election Day.

RELATED STORIES: