James.galbraith

Read 11 remaining paragraphs | Comments

On Friday, Oath Keeper ringleader Elmer Stewart Rhodes—now facing charges for seditious conspiracy—extended an offer to testify under oath before the Jan. 6 committee investigating the U.S. Capitol attack and former President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. 

The proposal was first reported by CBS News. And when Daily Kos contacted Rhodes’ attorney, James Lee Bright, on Friday by phone, Bright confirmed the offer had been made and said it would only be honored if the committee agrees to Rhodes’ conditions. 

Rhodes wants his testimony in an “open forum,” Bright said. The remarks must be taken publicly in front of committee members “face-to-face and subject to cross-examination and under oath with counsel present.”

“He will be willing to testify regarding the history of the Oath Keepers, the manner in which they were founded, their membership, their involvement in the election in terms of support of Trump or not, the things that they were doing at various rallies in the months leading up to the election and as well as what became of January 6,” Bright said. 

Bright added that Rhodes would also be willing to testify about what the Oath Keepers and himself specifically were doing on Jan. 6

“But it must be live,” he repeated.

RELATED STORY: Jan. 6 probe holds two hearings next week; one slated for prime time

The committee has two hearings slated for next week, the first on July 12 at 10 AM and the next for July 14. That hearing is expected to unfold in prime time, but the schedule is subject to change. 

Rhodes’ offer comes as the committee prepares to unpack several of the extremist elements that underpinned the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and the panel is expected to examine evidence that they say shows the connections between former President Donald Trump and groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. 

Rhodes and several members of the group he once oversaw were charged with seditious conspiracy and a multitude of other charges this January. Prosecutors say Rhodes led a sweeping and weaponized scheme to attack the Capitol in hopes of obstructing the peaceful transfer of power from Trump to then-President-elect Joe Biden. 

Justice Department attorneys say Rhodes was the ringleader of a quick-force reaction team network with members he directed to cross state lines and position themselves with caches of weapons so they could help those members who were physically on Capitol grounds. 

Rhodes has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. 

A spokesperson for the committee, Timothy Mulvey, declined to comment Friday.

Bright said there is a lack of trust Rhodes has for the committee and that he is insisting on these conditions because he doesn’t want a spectacle. 

“We don’t want a circus, we want a direct presentation, an open question-and-answer by select committee members, if they really want to have direct contact with one of the top individuals they are painting as a boogeyman. Otherwise they don’t [get his testimony] or they can present their version,” Bright said. 

Rhodes’ attorney noted his client would not entertain questions about his personal life or allegations about his personal life during the hearing.

“What we’re not willing to do is let his ex-wife Tasha show up,” Bright said. 

Rhodes and his former wife and mother to his six children, Tasha Vonn Adams, were estranged for years. She officially filed for divorce in 2018. According to a sworn petition filed by Adams, Rhodes had frequent violent outbursts against her and his family and choked their teenage daughter in 2016. After his indictment for seditious conspiracy, Adams told ABC News affiliate WFAA in Texas that she was hopeful Rhodes would remain in prison as he awaited trial. She described him as a “narcissist” and “sociopath.”

Why Rhodes would make this offer to the Jan. 6 committee is a matter of speculation at this point.

Bright told Daily Kos he “admonished” Rhodes against this course of action. But why would he do it? Is he hoping for a lighter sentence if he’s found guilty? Is he angling for leniency from the Justice Department at his impending trial this year? 

“I can’t really tell you that. Stewart is a smart man. He’s a Yale-educated lawyer. He has a phenomenal memory and he very much wants to advocate his belief system in terms of the Oath Keepers and what place they did or didn’t truly have in what’s being said about January 6,” Bright said. “Perhaps he’s tired of being in a jail cell under solitary confinement.”

He added: “I feel that no matter what came out in these hearings [the DOJ is] still going to move forward for trial and this is a situation, despite admonishment and discussion, that he is insisting upon.”

If he’s convicted at trial, Rhodes faces a maximum sentence of up to 20 years in prison just for the seditious conspiracy charge.

As with any client, Bright noted, if they take the stand and testify under oath and they are not telling the truth, it could backfire tremendously. 

“It could destroy any trial that we have but Mr. Rhodes is insistent upon doing this if these incredibly simple conditions can be met. I can in no way hold it against him for conditions he is requesting,” he said. 

Bright again said that Rhodes would be willing to answer questions about other Oath Keeper members who attend rallies tied to the “Stop the Steal” movement. 

The hearing must be “straightforward, clean, and to the point,” Bright said.

Rhodes’s trial has faced delays and at present, he and several other Oath Keepers facing charges filed in Washington, D.C. have asked to push the trial into a different venue, citing a prejudiced jury pool in D.C. 

Earlier this week, another attorney for Rhodes, Phillip Linder, requested that the Oath Keeper trials now slated for September and November be waylaid over concerns that the committee’s hearings would prejudice jurors. Rhodes offered to waive his right to a speedy trial. 

A public hearing between Rhodes and the committee is unlikely, to say the least.

If he was allowed to testify, it would conceivably lend support to his existing argument n court regarding juror prejudice inspired by the committee’s coverage. 

Two weeks after the Trump-packed U.S. Supreme Court ended federal protections of abortion rights (and more than two months after the court told us it would do just that), President Joe Biden is signing an executive order intended to “defend reproductive rights and protect access to safe and legal abortion.”

Biden is ordering Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra to act to ensure access to abortion, including by expanding access to medication abortion and expanding access “to the full range of reproductive health services,” including “emergency contraception and long-acting reversible contraception like intrauterine devices (IUDs).” The order will also direct HHS to “take steps to ensure all patients—including pregnant women and those experiencing pregnancy loss—have access to the full rights and protections for emergency medical care afforded under the law.” That will include evaluating and updating the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) as needed to “clarify physician responsibilities and protections.”

The order directs HHS to “increase outreach and public education efforts regarding access to reproductive health care services—including abortion.” To that end, it has launched the website reproductiverights.gov. Beyond HHS, the administration announced that Attorney General Merrick Garland and the White House counsel will “convene private pro bono attorneys, bar associations, and public interest organizations to encourage legal representation for those seeking or offering reproductive health services,” including patients, providers, and third parties who assist in coordinating abortion care. That includes “protecting the right to travel out of state to seek medical care.”

The order also will direct the Federal Trade Commission to consider actions to protect consumers’ privacy when they seek information about reproductive health services, and to work with HHS and Justice to “consider options to address deceptive or fraudulent practices, including online.” It directs HHS to consider additional actions to prevent information about patients from being disclosed. Finally, Becerra is order to report back to Biden within 30 days.

For plenty of advocates, it’s both too little and a lot too late considering how long it’s been apparent that this was exactly what was going to happen with the Supreme Court—at least since September 2021, when it allowed Texas’ abortion bounty hunter law to stand.

A public health emergency declaration would definitely be in order, one of the handful of bold actions the administration could be taking. Declaring this a public health emergency would give the federal government broad powers to redirect federal funding for abortion provision and granting civil immunity to allow licensed medical providers to practice in states where they aren’t licensed, giving them the ability to prescribe medication abortion via telemedicine to patients in states where providers are banned from doing so. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tina Smith (D-WI) suggested just that in an op-ed in The New York Times. The White House reportedly considered doing that, but ultimately decided against it. 

Additionally, Biden could order the Food and Drug Administration to issue a statement that federal regulation of medication abortion preempts state law, and he could direct the Department of Justice could initiate its own lawsuits or participate in ongoing lawsuits to enjoin these bans as they apply to medication abortion. 

The administration also rejected allowing independent abortion providers to lease property on federal public lands for abortion provision. Warren and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) made that suggestion in a letter to Biden a month ago, urging him to get an executive order out immediately announcing bold actions. The White House ultimately rejected that as well, with Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre saying using public lands would have “dangerous ramifications.”

Many of the bold actions the administration could take but has thus far chosen not to would bump up against federal courts and would likely ultimately fail. But what’s the downside of trying to fight for the most fundamental right of people to have a say over their own bodies? Certainly there isn’t one as far as the public—and especially Democratic voters—is concerned.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Patreon users tell me many of them don't know what grits are, and honestly that just deepens the metaphor.

Today's News:

The U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, but in most states, laws or constitutional amendments would revive the prohibition if the high court decides, as it did with abortion, that such unions are not a constitutionally protected right. Thirty-five states ban same-sex marriage in their constitutions, state law, or both, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and Stateline research. All were invalidated in 2015 by the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. But should the now-more-conservative U.S. Supreme Court overturn the right to same-sex marriages, those state l…

Read More

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN Travel: Breakfast in Paris, lunch in Frankfurt and dinner in Vienna -- all without the hassle and frustration of flying. Imagine a network of modern, super-fast and comfortable trains hurtling between every major city in the European Union, providing a reliable, comfortable and sustainable alternative to air travel. That was the vision outlined by rail industry leaders in Lyon, France, on June 29, amid ambitious European plans to double high-speed rail use by 2030 and triple current levels by 2050. Only a massive -- and accelerated -- expansion of the high-speed network can achieve these hugely ambitious targets, but are they a realistic and affordable proposition? Unlike many parts of the world, Europe already has thousands of kilometers of dedicated high-speed railway. France's world-famous TGVs, Germany's ICE and Spain's AVE have transformed rail travel over the last 40 years, but they remain largely focused on domestic markets. That's no surprise. When countries are investing billions of euros in new infrastructure, political pressure to squeeze out the maximum benefit for taxpayers is inevitable. Building lines across international borders, even within the European Union, creates tension over who pays for what, how the contracts are allocated, conflicting national standards and regulations and a host of other obstacles. For decades it's been too easy to kick difficult projects down the road until they become someone else's problem. Now a body of European organizations have committed to a new study highlighting the numerous benefits of an expanded high-speed rail network connecting national capitals and major cities. These include the European Commission, the Community of European Railways, the European Rail Supply Industry and ALLRAIL, which represents non-state-owned railways. Most importantly the group will investigate how to pay for tens of thousands of kilometers of new lines and how a radical transformation of the continent's rail network can help the EU deliver on its "Green Deal' objective of carbon neutrality by 2050. Some of that expansion will come on new routes that are planned or under construction but many more will be needed to facilitate the vision of European leaders. "According to EU statistics, 17 of the 20 busiest air routes in Europe cover distances of less than 434 miles (700 kilometers) -- exactly the kind of distances where city center-to-city center trains can offer faster, cleaner and more sustainable journeys -- if the right infrastructure exists," adds CNN. "And according to Alberto Mazzola of the Community of European Railways, carbon emissions trading could be a key tool in funding the massive investment required to complete a Europe-wide high-speed rail network." A Paris-Berlin flight generates at least six times the CO2 emissions of a similar train journey, notes the report. Meanwhile, flights of less than 621 miles between and within European countries are estimated to create 28 million metric tons of CO2 every year. "Excess carbon emissions from airliners, trucks and cars are currently charged at 50 euros per ton in the EU, but this could soon rise to 80 euros per ton," reports CNN. "If just 10% of that revenue is re-invested in transport it could add around 8 billion euros a year to the pot for rail upgrades."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Read 14 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Tennessee-based, state-sponsored Holston United Methodist Home for Children is a foster care and adoption agency. While they are a “private” entity, they receive taxpayer money under the guise that they are doing the heavy lifting service of placing children in foster homes and adoption scenarios. That’s the deal.

In January 2020, Republican Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee signed a bill effectively allowing Christians the “religious freedom” to discriminate against whomever they deemed non-Christians. The bill was designed most obviously to allow Christian organizations to discriminate against LBGTQ+ parents but had the added bonus, in Holston United Methodists’ eyes, to discriminate against other religions as well.

In January 2022, Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram sued the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services after Holston United Methodist Home for Children refused to help them with the state-funded foster training services required by the state. The reason Holston United Methodist Home for Children refused to help them was because Elizabeth and Gabriel are Jewish.

On June 27, 2022, a three judge panel in a Tennessee court rejected their lawsuit on the grounds that: "Because the Couple has received the very services they claim they were previously denied, the Panel Majority adopts the Defendants' analysis and concludes that any issue related to denial of services is not capable of the prospective relief the Plaintiffs seek and is now moot.”

RELATED STORY: Couple alleges state-funded ‘Christian’ foster agency discriminated against them for being Jewish

If you feel like you’ve heard this chestnut before, that’s because you have—in 19th century America. That’s when Supreme Court Justice Henry Billings Brown argued that having “separate but equal” accommodations for different races did not conflict with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Why? Because their legal equality was not impinged upon since there were other ways for Black Americans to receive services—just not the white services. In Plessy v. Ferguson, this made the point moot.

The Tennessee court majority opinion, in this case Judges Roy B. Morgan Jr. and Carter S. Moore (with Chief Judge Ellen Hobbs Lyle dissenting), argue that because the Rutan-Rams were—after losing out on a foster child opportunity—finally able to foster a child, there was not enough “harm” done. They subsequently argue that just because the defendants were denied state-funded services because they were Jewish isn’t a sign of “stigmatic injury.” How? Because technically the law doesn’t consider Jewish people less than.

Cut to: “We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it … The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races… If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.”

Oops, sorry, that’s Plessy v. Ferguson from 1896. As the Tennessee court’s Lyle concluded in her dissenting opinion, “As to injury in fact and redressability, the law is that plaintiffs need not demonstrate that they would have been completely foreclosed from fostering/adoption―only that they cannot compete for the right to adopt on the same footing as everyone else.” Echoing Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy, Lyle went on to explain that there is no excuse for interfering with the personal freedom of citizens. “Demonstrating injury in fact does not require an allegation of exclusion entirely from participation in the state foster care program or even by a majority. Allegations of practical barriers to a plaintiff’s participation in the state foster care program that make it more difficult for members of one group to obtain a benefit than it is for members of another group are sufficient to establish standing.”

Americans United For Separation of Church and State, who represented the Rutan-Rams, say they plan to appeal this dismissal.

RELATED STORIES:

Tennessee's Republican governor says he will sign law allowing discrimination against LGBTQ parents

Tennessee Republican that said South won Civil War now talking about Hitler’s inspiring story

Read 16 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments

There was a brief moment in conservatism when the Republican Party frowned, maybe, on open antisemitism in its ranks. If memory serves, it coincided with the years in which conservatives were running around insisting loudly that the country was founded on "Judeo-Christian" values, and the main reason candidates weren't allowed to be openly antisemitic during that period was antisemitic outbursts would detract from the party's raging bigotry against Muslims after the 9/11 attacks.

The extent to which the party really ever enforced that standard is of course debatable, but it is extremely gone now. It’s flown the coop. Republican candidates and Supreme Court justices alike have hacked off that Judeo prefix to once again assert that the United States will be a Christian-led nation that tolerates the existence of other religions only so long as citizens of those other religions do not press the point.

And now, once again, we've got open antisemites running for high office as Republicans, and the Republican base seems quite damn happy to vote for them.

Campaign Action

In Oklahoma, Republican state senate candidate Jarrin Jackson was the top vote-getter in his June Republican primary; he now faces his closest Republican rival in an August runoff election in state Senate District 2. As per usual, he's a Republican with a history of recording his political beliefs—there's no point in having extreme political beliefs if you keep quiet about them, after all—and as usual, that means journalists have lots of material to comb through in the process of doing the vetting that Oklahoma Republicans themselves have no damn interest in doing themselves.

Hey, surprise: It turns out Jackson has a history of antisemitic statements, part of a wider pattern of white supremacy-laced conspiracy theories that we can only presume were the reason Oklahoma Republican voters chose him as the person they most wanted to represent them in the state legislature. Go. Figure.

Media Matters does the job this time around, bringing attention to Jackson's past (sigh) video recordings and social media posts. The leading Republican candidate for state Senate in District 2 has variously announced that he is "not beholden to Jews," that "the Jews" can be taken as evidence that "evil exists," and says he "largely" believes the conspiracy theory that Jews are "taking over the world," weaponizing immigration and miscegenation (you can look the word up if you need to, given that it's becoming a top-tier topic in Republican circles again) in order to outbreed good Jesus-loving white racists everywhere.

If you're wondering where the Republican candidate gets his theories, he's willing to tell you names. Jackson cites far-right pseudo-pundit Michelle Malkin, and, of course, Tucker Carlson's promotion of "great replacement theory."

"Zionism, Jews taking over the world, the Rothschilds, the Kalergi Plan, the ‘white replacement theology’ or ‘white replacement theory’? I largely agree that all of those things are happening," says Jackson.

The Tucker Carlson connection should be a given. The point of Carlson promoting these things on Fox News, with the full support of the company's executives and board, is to make it more palatable for individual racist pieces of crap to spout it in their own social circles without fear. If somebody on a television network is saying it between commercial breaks, after all, then there's no reason Uncle Jarrin can't say the same thing when he's shooting the breeze with his Oklahoma friends.

It's likely that in Jackson's social circles these conspiracy theories aren't the sort of opinions that needs to be hidden, which is why Jackson felt comfortable running for state office shortly after piping up with them and why a bunch of Oklahoma Republican voters chose him as their preferred candidate.

Jackson is full of other racist statements, all couched in evangelical language so that he can claim Jesus as inspiration for his theories and it's not just him being a hate-filled conspiracy nut of the sort you can find in every bar and on every street corner. His opinions of QAnon conspiracies are slightly more shaded, because while he says he "appreciates" the conspiracy movement, he says he's concerned that their own conspiracies don't have enough Jesus in them.

We can focus, though, on the antisemitic neo-Nazi belief that a secret worldwide Jewish movement is behind world immigration patterns and is the reason your white neighbors are having sex with non-white partners. That's straight-up neo-Nazi (or just straight-up Nazi) stuff, stuff even Klan robe-filler David Duke had to back away from during his own brief Republican career, and in past instances of conservatism, it was at least in theory something the party couldn't stomach. At least in public. If it was recorded.

That's self-evidently no longer true.

This was coming. It was inevitable, in fact; the reason Republicanism can no longer reject open antisemitism from Republican candidates is that Republicanism is now based on conspiracy theories. Believing conspiracy theories is required to be a Republican in good standing; if you're not willing to believe that a secret conspiracy of somebodies rigged our entire democracy to oppose conservatism, Republicans will find primary candidates who do. It is the requirement if you want to be endorsed by Donald Trump. It is a requirement when standing on a debate stage. You have to believe that less-white portions of America steamrolled over white America by adding "fake" votes. You have to believe that Italian satellites quantum-physicked their way into your local voting booth. You have to believe that "caravans" of refugees aren't fleeing war, crime, hunger, or instability, but are being delivered to the United States and "white" Europe by secret societies looking to destroy "cultures."

Why? Because fear, of course. You can't possibly have a conservative movement without naming an enemy to fight.

The problem with the Republican Party’s various new conspiracy claims is that the vast majority of Americans willing to believe that secretive groups of elites are rigging our elections, running child sex trafficking rings, or spilling plans for world domination coded as emailed recipes are Americans who already believed similar things to begin with, and it's nearly impossible to name past conservative conspiracy theories that did not originate in the antisemitic far-right. It used to be "the Jews" who heartland conservatives in small-town diners believed were conspiring against them. Then, in a fit of conservative rebranding, it became "globalists." Now it's back to "the Jews."

I don't know what it might be like to be Jewish in Oklahoma, but we know what Oklahoma Republicans want it to be like. We know because those Oklahoma Republicans are voting for a person willing to blame all the world's troubles on the existence of non-Christians and their supposed secret powers.

It should probably be alarming, the speed with which Republicanism quietly abandoned its opposition to antisemitic rhetoric. It was almost instant. It happened the moment Donald Trump's allies declared the election to be "stolen" and the base began hunting about for plausible suspects. It happened the moment Samuel Alito no longer needed to pretend to give a damn about the Jewish faith because he now had the votes to impose a purely hard-right Christian ideology and all those other faiths could now be satisfyingly criminalized. It happened the moment Tucker Carlson brought the neo-Nazi "great replacement" conspiracy theory to his conservative audience, a theory that named "the Jews" as those doing the “replacing” from its inception, and got the backing of Lachlan Murdoch and the Fox board to do it.

It was like a tide coming back in. Certainly, Republican leaders are still willing to express remorse when an antisemitic gunman targets a synagogue for the latest American mass murder. But embracing antisemitic hate is something most Republican primary voters in the small towns northeast of Tulsa gave a particular damn about, and there's no Republican leader in the state who's going to advocate that their voters sit out the November election rather than supporting an open antisemite to their Senate.

Republicanism is a movement that badly needs to be infused with a basic sense of shame. It's a movement that seems to now pride itself on electing the shittiest people that can be found for the sake of making every last town and city a worse and meaner place than it was before.

When we last looked in on the state of Republican candidates in the various states, it was to explore Michigan Republican secretary of state candidate Kristina Karamo’s belief that you could catch a bad case of demon possession by having sex. Arizona Republican Blake Masters has largely run his campaign around a series of racist burps; Georgia Republican Hershel Walker's campaign consists of little more than emphatically not knowing things to the point where his campaign still can't be fully confident he's come clean on how many children he has.

It takes a lot for a party to find itself riddled with officials willing to back a hoax-promoted attempted coup but still be able to find and elevate candidates even worse than those—or so you'd think. In practice, a base that's willing to forgive an attempted coup probably has no other standards left.

If nothing else, political journalists need to stop holding up the rural "heartland" as the supposed soul of America. The heartland is a deeply racist place. It's insular, selfish, superstitious, and resentful. You wouldn't get these people running for office—and winning—if the base wasn't falling all over themselves running to prop them up.

How to elect more Black women, with Ruby Powell-Dennis on Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast to talk about what moves Democrats can make

RELATED STORIES:

Michigan's Republican secretary of state nominee warns demon possession is sexually transmitted

GOP's 'island of misfit toys' candidates a gift to Senate Democrats looking to expand majority

Officials in Florida are again battling a highly invasive, extraordinarily destructive giant snail species that also happens to be capable of spreading parasitic worms that invade human brains. From a report: The giant African land snail (GALS) -- aka Lissachatina fulica -- can grow up to 20 centimeters (8 inches) long and is considered "one of the most invasive pests on the planet," according to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. It ravenously feasts on over 500 plant species -- including many valuable fruits, vegetables, and ornamentals -- while prolifically spawning, pushing out several thousand eggs in its multiyear life span. In late June, Florida state officials confirmed the presence of GALS on a property in Pasco County, on the west-central coast of the state, just north of Tampa. They have since set up a quarantine zone around the property and began snail-killing pesticide treatments last week. While the snails are a grave threat to agriculture and natural vegetation in the state, the invasive mollusks also pose a health risk. They're known to transmit rat lungworm parasites, which can invade the human central nervous system and cause a type of meningitis. For this reason, officials warn people not to handle the mammoth snails without gloves.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

In addition to Herschel Walker being altogether completely and utterly unqualified to be a senator, his constant issue with the truth makes him a frightening possibility as a representative of Georgia.

According to new reporting from The Daily Beast, not only did Walker try to hide the fact that he had any children other than his 22-year-old son Christian, but he also apparently lied about the existence of his other kids—to his own campaign aides.

When rumors of Walker’s children from past relationships began to emerge, Walker's own aides had to press him for admission of the truth, The Daily Beast reports. In fact, just days after finally admitting to a secret 10-year-old son in June, Walker then finally admitted to fathering two more children not previously revealed. Then, according to People, he was forced to come clean about yet another child.

"I have four children. Three sons and a daughter. They're not 'undisclosed'—they're my kids," Walker said in a statement to The Daily Beast in June. "I support them all and love them all. I've never denied my children, I confirmed this when I was appointed to the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, I just chose not to use them as props to win a political campaign. What parent would want their child involved in garbage, gutter politics like this?"

RELATED STORY: Herschel Walker claims his old friend Donald says ‘crazy things,’ and ‘never asked’ him to run

But it’s more than the secret family. An unnamed adviser close to Walker told The Daily Beast that the campaign’s a wreck and the team has “zero” trust for the candidate.

Walker spits out lies “like he’s breathing,” the source said. “He’s lied so much that we don’t know what’s true,” they claimed, and even called Walker a “pathological liar.”

As we’ve reported at Daily Kos, Walker’s lies are ubiquitous.

The GOP and Trump-endorsed Walker has lied about everything from graduating from the University of Georgia, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported, to mammoth exaggerations about his business acumen, to the tall tale about the time he founded (or co-founded) the organization Patriot Support—which he did not. He even recently tried to deny that former President Donald Trump ever said that the 2020 election was stolen.  

But the real deal is that Republicans are counting on Walker to pull this off in Georgia, and the Senate GOP is struggling.

As Daily Kos staff writer Kerry Eleveld wrote, Walker’s campaign reported strong Q1 fundraising to the tune of $5.5 million—but that pales in comparison to the whopping $13.6 million raised by Georgia’s Democratic incumbent, Sen. Raphael Warnock. The Daily Beast reports donors are running from Walker, citing as an example the notable reluctance from Walker’s once-generous megadonor, Bernie Marcus.

Walker’s aides say his incompetence, lack of predictability, and inexperience are all reasons they’ve tried to keep him from speaking publicly. But he can’t run forever. He’s got three debates scheduled with Warnock—an experienced senator and senior pastor at the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.  

How to elect more Black women, with Ruby Powell-Dennis on Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast to talk about what moves Democrats can make

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Apple Immortality unfortunately got sued out of existence, so now you gotta die.

Today's News:

Growing discontent in his party raises the question of whether he's equipped for this moment.

Europeans risk seeing social media services Facebook and Instagram shut down this summer, as Ireland's privacy regulator doubled down on its order to stop the firm's data flows to the United States. From a report: The Irish Data Protection Commission on Thursday informed its counterparts in Europe that it will block Facebook-owner Meta from sending user data from Europe to the U.S. The Irish regulator's draft decision cracks down on Meta's last legal resort to transfer large chunks of data to the U.S., after years of fierce court battles between the U.S. tech giant and European privacy activists. The European Court of Justice in 2020 annulled an EU-U.S. data flows pact called Privacy Shield because of fears over U.S. surveillance practices. In its ruling, it also made it harder to use another legal tool that Meta and many other U.S. firms use to transfer personal data to the U.S., called standard contractual clauses (SCCs). This week's decision out of Ireland means Facebook is forced to stop relying on SCCs too. Meta has repeatedly warned that such a decision would shutter many of its services in Europe, including Facebook and Instagram.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

By Mark Hill Published: July 06th, 2022

President Joe Biden’s response to the ongoing judicial coup carried out by the extremists on the U.S. Supreme Court has been less than forceful so far. That’s frustrating plenty of people, particularly the millions of voters who put Democrats in power precisely to protect the most fundamental of our rights: determining what happens with our own bodies. It’s also frustrating some of the people Biden asked to address precisely what to do about a Trump-packed Supreme Court veering headlong into deeply partisan and anti-democratic territory.

That would be the bipartisan commission Biden appointed back in April 2021, when he was looking for a way to diffuse demands from the people who helped get him elected to do something about the court. When he signed the executive order creating the commission, Biden told CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell: “I will ask them to, over 180 days, come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system, because it’s getting out of whack.”

It’s gone beyond out of whack to completely off the rails, and some of the commission members are wondering why they were even asked for their opinions, which were mostly focused on issues of transparency and ethics reform, though everyone had their say in what actions should be taken. Instead of pursuing any of those recommendations, though, the Biden administration has ignored them and in fact explicitly ruled out the thing that might actually put a scare into the extremist majority: taking power from them by expanding the court.

Campaign Action

This session’s horrific rulings on guns, abortion, climate change, voting rights—everything that matters—has one of those commission members livid. Former U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner has become a court expansion advocate and is scathing in assessing the court. “It was a place of solidity and rational discourse. It really is not anymore,” Gertner told Politico. “It really is a set of decisions that they did only because they can. And that is an exercise of pure power, not legal reasoning.”

Gertner didn’t start out in the expansion camp, initially arguing for more modest structural reforms. Her experience in working with the commission and hearing testimony from outside experts convinced her more needed to be done, even though the commission released a relatively noncommittal report. The court itself solidified that for her. “This is absurd. Of course, there’s something we should do,” she said. “When you read the draft … and then you watched as the court did whatever it wanted to do. I changed.” Gertner said that she is “deeply frustrated” that Biden seems to fundamentally not get the danger the court poses to democracy.

She’s not the only one. “His admiration for the court as an institution has been overtaken by reality. And I think it’s time to wake up,” Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe told Politico. Tribe was also on the commission and has advised the Biden White House previously. “It’s the court itself that has plunged ahead without any inhibition on a kind of highly activist, agenda driven, right-wing ideological jihad.”

The White House responded, and not well. In fact, they rather missed the point. “The president has blasted the court’s decision in Dobbs attacking Americans’ most personal rights as ‘extremist,’ ‘outrageous,’ and ‘awful’ and taken swift action while warning against the national abortion ban congressional Republicans are seeking,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates said. Then he pivoted to inflation. “He’s being straight with the American people, giving voice to their biggest concerns, and leading the way on protecting their rights and middle class families’ finances,” Bates added.

That precisely demonstrates what many see as the core problem: Biden and his White House aren’t seeing the Supreme Court for what it is—a threat—and are looking at it through an outdated, outmoded lens of politics as usual. Or politics as usual in the 1980s and 1990s.

“If you’re in a kind of theoretical game situation with an opponent who begins acting in bad faith, what do you do? Do you continue to play by the rules and hope that will incentivize them to return to the norms? Or do you retaliate in a tit for tat way and thus hopefully incentivize [them] to go back to the traditional norms?” asked Michael Klarman, a Harvard law professor. He was among the experts who testified to the commission. “I think you’re a fool for not doing what’s in your power to try to protect the system,” Klarman added, calling Biden “hopelessly naïve” for opposing court expansion.

“Why does Joe Biden consider it his job to keep the public having confidence in a court that is completely working to thwart his agenda?” said Brian Fallon, the executive director of court reform group Demand Justice. “He’s not ready to endorse it. [But] why demotivate his people that are passionate and upset at that moment? Why not leave a little fear in the minds of the Republican justices on the court about what he might support once he gets into office? Why not put a little fear into Mitch McConnell about what he might be for?”

Biden’s embrace of the status quo has defenders. Democratic strategist Ben LaBolt, who helped shepherd Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination and confirmation, is among them. “If you put all the rhetorical and political pressure behind something that you know is not going to pass this Congress, such as court expansion then you’ve passed on the opportunity to do all of the things that that can and must be done now,” he told Politico, ignoring the fact that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is not giving him that opportunity anyway.

There is an already big and growing disconnect on the Supreme Court between Biden and the people he needs to help him get elected. The very day the court overturned abortion rights, Biden’s spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre explained away Biden’s initial reaction, in which he said: “This is an extreme and dangerous path the court is now taking us on.” That wasn’t what he meant, Jean-Pierre insisted, saying what he meant was that the decision was extreme, but he’s hunky dory with the court. “He sees the court obviously as legitimate and he respects the court … it is a court that he highly respects,” Jean-Pierre insisted.

Biden’s voters disagree. For example, this week’s Navigator poll, reported by Kerry Eleveld, tracked the net change in favorability of the court:

• Liberal Democrats: -57
• 2020 Biden voters: -52
• College women: -44
• White collar: -40
• Suburban: -39
• Service industry: -34
• Women: -32
• Independent women: -30
• Ages 18-34: -30

“The groups that have moved most against the court are younger, female, suburban, liberal Democrats, and independent women.” Precisely the people who need to be motivated to turn out in droves this November if Biden has any hope of seeing his presidency succeed.

RELATED STORIES:

On May 24, 19 children and two adults were murdered and 17 others were injured by a young man wielding an AR-15 rifle. The victims were elementary school students and teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. The heinous crime, committed with legally purchased weapons and ammunition, only highlighted the devil’s bargain elected officials have made with gun manufacturers and law enforcement.

It quickly became clear that the recently financially boosted and shooter-trained Uvalde police force had been useless in the face of the mass murder spree. In fact, there is evidence they may have made it worse, missing opportunity after opportunity to lessen the carnage wrought that terrible day. Law enforcement and conservative Texas officials like Gov. Greg Abbott, Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin, and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick have put in overtime work to keep from being held accountable for their failed policies and useless ‘thoughts and prayers’ mantras.

At the same time, the public has wanted nothing to do with right-wing-o-sphere spin blaming teachers and false reports of locked and unlocked doors. It has been very clear, regardless of how hard Texas officials try to fight the public from finding out the facts of the shooting, that all of the GOP and NRA promises that “good guys” with guns will keep people safe from “bad guys” with guns failed. Again.

Guess what? Texas Republicans have a new plan. In this case, the word “new” means “a waste of money in service of gun manufacturers at the expense of Americans’ lives.”

Campaign Action

KHOU11 reports that Texas “leaders” announced that they are going to spend $105.5 million in “state funds to boost school safety and mental health services” in response to the Uvalde mass shooting. Including mental health services is something, considering the very same Texas leaders cut mental health services in the first place. But before you start a sentence with “at least they are ...” let’s find out how much of that money is being wasted on warfare.

According to the report, about half of that money ($50 million) will be going to “bullet-resistant shields for school police officers.” What? Yes. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the same guy that said grandparents needed to die for capitalism during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, got his wish: bulletproof shields that he asked for in lieu of gun safety laws.

That’s not all. Another $17.1 million will be going to Texas school districts to spend on buying “silent panic technology.” So half of this money is going to bulletproof shields for the militarized police that sat outside for an hour while children were being murdered; and a little less than one-fifth of the money is going to be spent on giving schools technology that banks have had since World War II.

Of that more than $105 million in taxpayer money, $5.8 million will go “to expand telemedicine for children and $4.7 million to increase the use of a treatment program for at-risk youth.” That’s the “mental health” expenditure. This is the Texas GOP leadership’s response to the mass killing of 17 children.

bullet

proof

shields

for cops.

The officials patting themselves on the back for this sideshow are worthless. They are cowards. They are without worth.

RELATED STORY: Uvalde high schoolers remember Robb Elementary children and teachers during graduation ceremony

RELATED STORY: Uvalde native Matthew McConaughey honors the lost children of his hometown at White House event

RELATED STORY: We still don't know the truth about police inaction at Uvalde, but some facts don't change

RELATED STORY: Beto O'Rourke removed from Uvalde, Texas, presser for rightfully calling out Abbott's inaction

RELATED STORY: Greg Abbott blames 'mental health' for the 19 dead children. He cut those programs himself

RELATED STORY: ‘Today we stand for Lexi, and as her voice, we demand action’: Uvalde parents confront Congress

Lowering prices for prescription drugs may still happen, and bring other benefits with it.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
iTunes actually works fine if the goal is to learn the futility of existence.

Today's News:

While the Jan. 6 committee hearings are riveting much of the nation as they narrow in Donald Trump as the leader of the attempted violent overthrow of the government, a huckster industry has emerged in the states promoting the basis of Trump’s insurrection, the Big Lie. It’s not just the civically illiterate being taken in, though they—and their dollars—are the marks. The more cynical recruits are the ones who see power and revenge and the potential to take over this country forever. That group includes at least four sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices.

The Big Lie hucksters include four key proponents who are crisscrossing the nation to spread disinformation about the 2020 election and anger and distrust in the whole apparatus of elections. Seth Keshel, David Clements, Douglas Frank, and the originator Mike Lindell, are the key fraud influencers identified in an NPR investigation. They’ve held hundreds of community events all over the country spreading the new MAGA gospel of fraud. That’s driving local elections, said Chris Krebs, a former Department of Homeland Security official who was in charge of election security in 2020 for the federal government. “It’s this constellation of election conspiracy theorists. […] You can see the complexion of local politics shifting as a result. They have decentralized post-January 6th and are really trying to effect change at the lowest possible level.”

As Daily Kos’ Laura Clawson noted weeks ago, they’ve recruited at least 357 Republican lawmakers in key battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas. President Joe Biden’s victory in six of those states was essential to his victory. With the help of the Supreme Court, if enough of those Republicans get control in enough of these states, they can steal the White House under the debunked and ridiculed legal theory that John Eastman used to justify the 2020 attempted coup.

Campaign Action

Last week the Supreme Court announced they would hear a challenge from North Carolina based on that “independent state legislature” theory which posits that state legislatures have the ultimate authority at the state level for governing federal elections in their states.

As Daily Kos’ Stephen Beard writes, “Indeed, four Republican-appointed justices—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—have already indicated their support for the North Carolina GOP’s position in earlier rulings, while Roberts dissented in the 2015 Arizona case. Only Amy Coney Barrett has yet to reveal her views.” Her tenure on the court thus far shows little in the way of moderation from Barrett, so this threat is exceedingly real.

This would allow states to gerrymander districts with no constraints, and depending on how broad the ruling, harsher voting restrictions. It could strip ballot initiatives and governors of their power in shaping and overseeing federal elections rules. State-sponsored election subversion wouldn’t be impossible. There are some federal laws that could constrain state legislators from appointing fake electors, Eastman’s gambit, but again depending on how broadly the Court could rule, those federal laws could be undermined.

“Under the theory, state constitutions could no longer serve as a check on a legislature that seeks to replace the voters’ voice with their own in selecting presidential electors,” Helen White, counsel at the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, told the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent. The checks of federal law and the constitution are “robust after the election,” White said. “But before the election, because this has not been done in modern history, we would be in relatively uncharted and radically undemocratic territory.”

“One nightmare scenario is that a Republican state legislature, potentially with a Trumpist governor, passes a law saying the state legislature itself is the final canvassing board for the state,” Matthew Seligman, an election law scholar, told Sargent. “Under the theory, state courts and state constitutions would place no constraints on such a radically anti-democratic partisan putsch,” Seligman continued.

Never mind that the Court rejected this radical theory in 2015. Precedent means nothing anymore, and the Trump-packed Court has no compunction going to the extremes in partisanship, whether it before for Trump or whatever successor might come out on top in the MAGA wars.

Read 6 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Peggy Nienaber may provide her own downfall thanks to hubris. Rolling Stone revealed on Wednesday that the Christian fascist, who serves as vice president of the nonprofit anti-abortion group Faith & Liberty and serves as hate group Liberty Counsel’s executive director of D.C. Ministry, was caught bragging about praying with Supreme Court justices. While appearing on a livestream she didn’t realize was being recorded, Nienaber confirmed that she prays with some of the justices inside the Supreme Court itself. “They will pray with us, those that like us to pray with them,” Nienaber said, adding with a laugh that, “Some of them don’t!” This claim was backed up by the founder of the ministry that ultimately got absorbed into Liberty Counsel. Rob Schenck, who used to work alongside Nienaber, has since renounced his actions. Yet from the late 1990s onward, he prayed with Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia in the Supreme Court itself.

The prayers never directly mentioned cases, but clearly worked their manipulative magic, though Schenck seems shocked by this. “I was sure, while we were doing it, it would be a positive contribution to our public life,” Schenck told Rolling Stone. “It didn’t have the effect I thought it would. In some ways, it set the stage for the reversal of Roe, which I now think of as a social catastrophe.” Rolling Stone also points out the conflict of interest in this practice that Nienaber has continued, as her group, Liberty Counsel, “frequently brings lawsuits before the Supreme Court.” An amicus brief from the group was even cited in the majority opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

Campaign Action

Liberty Counsel, a 501 tax-exempt organization allegedly dedicated to litigating cases regarding religious freedom and the so-called sanctity of life, has already been cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an extremist group pushing an anti-LGBTQ agenda. It’s clear from its website that abortion is the cause du jour for the organization, which pushes outlandish talking points that reproductive rights somehow, say, constitute eugenics. And Liberty Counsel’s influence isn’t just a Supreme Court problem, either. Nienaber’s influence in politics cannot be understated: Per Rolling Stone, she’s been seen with Republicans like Sen. Lindsay Graham and former vice president Mike Pence, along with—of course—justices like Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.

The bad news, as Rolling Stone points out, is that there are few ways to address the Supreme Court’s outright bias and impartiality. The Constitution offers minimal guidance on matters like these and a federal statute on justice recusal doesn’t offer much, either. The good news? We don’t have to let the court stand as it currently does. What are y’all doing to get more involved as we look toward the midterms? I’m looking forward to hearing y'all’s responses.

After months of assuming Democrats would suffer epic losses at the polls this November, journalists are now catching on to the idea that candidates actually matter. That is particularly true in a handful of critical Senate races, where Republicans have nominated what one Democratic strategist described as an "island of misfit toys."

The New York Times has a roundup of recent missteps by GOP Senate candidates, who have been readily gifting Democrats ammunition for the fall.

Arizona Republican Blake Masters, leading the GOP Senate primary, blamed “Black people, frankly,"  for most of America's gun violence.

Georgia Republican and former football star Herschel Walker, who revels in railing against absentee fathers, recently admitted to fathering three children he had never publicly acknowledged before.

Pennsylvania Republican and TV huckster Mehmet Oz, a carpetbagger from New Jersey, recently misspelled the name of his new home away from home on an official campaign form.

Nevada Republican Adam Laxalt, the state's former attorney general, derided the landmark Roe v. Wade decision as "always a joke" while attending a pancake breakfast in June. A survey last year found that 65% of Nevadans identify as pro-choice, including 66% of independents. Laxalt even lamented during his remarks, "We’re not a pro-life state. We all have to be honest about that. It’s sad, it doesn’t make me happy,

Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson's attempt to deliver two slates of fake electors on Jan. 6 to Vice President Mike Pence was recently revealed during House a select committee hearing. Oops. Johnson's alibi has been a work in progress ever since.

At this point in time, with the election still four months away, Senate Democrat incumbents stand a legitimate chance of holding the line in November. That includes the three most endangered incumbents, Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Raphael Warnock of Georgia, and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada.

At the same time, Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, current lieutenant governor, appears decently positioned to capture the state's open Senate seat (a flip for Democrats), while GOP Sen. Johnson could be vulnerable to attacks waged by his eventual Democratic challenger (primary on Aug. 9).

The Democratic-aligned political group Future Majority PAC recently released polling showing improving prospects for Democrats following the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe.  

As Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg noted regarding Democratic incumbents:

• AZ – Mark Kelly leads Republicans Blake Masters, 48-39, and Jim Lamon 47-41.  He trailed a generic Republican 43-45 in March.
• GA – Raphael Warnock leads Herschel Walker 48-44.  He trailed 48-49 in March.
• NH – Maggie Hassan leads Republican Don Bolduc 49-40.  They didn’t poll NH in March.  
• NV – Catherine Cortez Masto leads Adam Laxalt 46-43.  She trailed Laxalt 43-45 in March.  

As Rosenberg also writes, GOP incumbents are looking weak.

Fetterman has meaningful leads in several recent polls, and now has to be considered a favorite in that race.  Ron Johnson trailed 3 of his 4 opponents in a new Marquette University poll, a poll that suggests that Johnson – even before Roe and his admitted involvement in Trump’s effort to overturn the election – is in serious trouble. ...

Bottom line – Dems are in our book now favorites to keep the Senate, and have a shot at picking up 1-2 seats.

Far from Senate Republicans being on a glide path to victory in November, they are instead more likely to lose seats than gain them. Mainstream media is starting to catch up. 

Privacy as a foundational value in a post-Roe landscape on Daily Kos' The Brief podcast

Related articles:

• GOP extremism on abortion opens new lane for Democrats in November
• House Democrats go on offense, attacking GOP extremism on abortion, Jan. 6
• Midterm generic ballot moves toward Democrats as independents move away from Republicans
• White House and Democrats start to key in on midterm abortion strategy

So many ministers have resigned from Johnson’s government.

The Conservative rebellion has come for Boris Johnson.

The United Kingdom prime minister’s position looks increasingly in peril, as Johnson faces dozens of resignations from his government, including two high-profile cabinet ministers.

The resignations arrive about a month after Johnson survived a no-confidence vote among his fellow Conservative members of Parliament, which followed months of allegations including that he lied about parties hosted at his Downing Street offices during the worst of the Covid-19 crisis. Johnson held on to his job, but the margin was slim enough to leave him politically weakened. Some ultimately interpreted it as the start of a downfall for the once-dominant politician.

That downfall may now be here.

It is looking increasingly unlikely Johnson can withstand this onslaught of resignations, prompted by yet another scandal. This latest scandal involves the Conservative deputy chief whip, Chris Pincher, who was forced to resign last week amid allegations he got drunk at a private club and groped two men. That might have been the end of it, but the debacle resurfaced other allegations of sexual misconduct against Pincher, including one from 2019, when Pincher served in the foreign office. This immediately raised questions about what, exactly, Johnson knew — and whether he promoted Pincher, a Johnson loyalist, to deputy chief whip in spite of those accusations. At first, No. 10 Downing Street largely hewed to the line that Johnson didn’t recall, until that story fell apart and officials confirmed that Johnson was, in fact, aware of some of the allegations against Pincher.

Johnson apologized Tuesday for appointing Pincher, saying it was a “mistake,” in hindsight, to name him deputy chief whip. But it looks to have been too little too late. On Tuesday evening, two of Johnson’s top senior officials, finance minister Rishi Sunak and health secretary Sajid Javid, both resigned from the cabinet, calling Johnson’s integrity into question. Their move set off the slew of resignations happening now — more than 35 as of Wednesday, with possibly more to come.

Both Javid and Sunak are major figures in the Conservative Party who may have their own designs on leadership, so their departures were already going to be hard to overcome. Johnson, of course, replaced those ministers. But British media is reporting that some of Johnson’s top cabinet officials are currently mobilizing to convince the prime minister that it’s time to go.

Whether Johnson will willingly resign or fight to keep his position is still the biggest question. Though Johnson survived the no-confidence vote in June, those early revolts are usually a sign that the party has soured on their leader. Past Conservative prime ministers, including Theresa May, also survived no-confidence votes, only to resign or be forced out sooner rather than later.

Johnson technically can’t face another such vote for another year — though the rules could be changed, and this is likely one of the threats hanging over Johnson right now. As of Wednesday, the 1922 Committee, which oversees the Conservatives in Parliament, has declined to change those rules, but it’s having its own committee elections right now, and after that, could revisit those rules.

And if Johnson lasts that long in power, he may face an even more decisive rebellion.

Johnson may finally be facing the end of his premiership. It’s a wild turn.

In 2019, Boris Johnson, the former London mayor and Brexit rabble-rouser, led the Conservatives to a historic victory on the promise to “get Brexit done.” Johnson’s massive 80-seat majority in Parliament — won, in part, by securing seats that were once Labour strongholds — made it seem as if Johnson, and his version of the Conservative Party, would be in power for a long, long time. Or, at the very least, until the next election around 2024.

That is not exactly how things turned out. Johnson got Brexit done, at least in the sense that the UK left the European Union, but his deal left many, many loose ends that are still unresolved. The coronavirus pandemic and the attendant economic crises, including the worst UK inflation crisis in 40 years, added new pressures. And then there were the crises of Johnson’s own making. Specifically, lots of scandals.

“Partygate” is largely what brought Johnson to this point. Last year, allegations started emerging of Downing Street officials hosting boozy, in-person parties when England was under very strict lockdown rules. Johnson initially denied any knowledge of the parties, but more photos and stories started trickling out, and “Partygate” refused to go away. Juicy details aside, the scandal is fairly straightforward: The people in charge of making and enforcing Covid-19 rules were themselves breaking them. Not only that, but much of the country was on extreme lockdown and couldn’t visit family or friends in the hospital, let alone host parties. One of the Downing Street parties that was investigated happened on April 16, the day before Queen Elizabeth had to attend her husband Prince Philip’s funeral alone.

A government ethics investigation ultimately found a failure of government leadership, and that many of these parties shouldn’t have happened. Following a police investigation, Johnson was fined for attending one event, and dozens of other officials faced penalties.

Johnson and his backers had used Russia’s war in Ukraine to try to tamp down some of the Partygate criticism, and to make the case against a change in leadership during the war. But the inflation crisis further dampened support for the prime minister. And in May, the Conservatives lost hundreds of seats in local elections, a sign that the electorate was moving against Johnson and his party. Even after Johnson survived the no-confidence vote, the party lost two seats in June by-elections (held because two MPs had to resign, also because of sex scandals). One, in Tiverton and Honiton, reversed a Conservative majority of 24,000. If Conservatives needed another sign that Johnson shouldn’t lead them through the next election, this was it.

In some ways, Johnson’s premiership almost seemed as if it was waiting for the thing to bring it down. Johnson has always had a reputation for having a loose relationship with the truth, and it’s not surprising he’s been caught up in a cycle of cover-ups, and then having to apologize for those cover-ups. (Which also makes all these resignation letters about integrity ring a little hollow.) Johnson was never super popular with the public (just more popular than his election opponent, the unpopular then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn). And while he has loyalists within the party, Conservatives ultimately backed Johnson in 2019 to be party leader because he was seen as the guy who could get Brexit done and, maybe most importantly, win elections. The first is less relevant now, and the second doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Public opinion also has broadly turned against Johnson.

Johnson, for now, is still the prime minister. If more ministers rebel — especially other top cabinet ministers — Johnson may not be able to hold on much longer. He may continue to try to fight the pressure to resign; according to the Times of London, when he was asked about it by an ally on Tuesday, he replied: “F that.” But it is very difficult to remain leader of a party when the entire party is against you. It may be less a matter of if, than when and how, Johnson goes.

Since the Supreme Court gutted Roe. v. Wade two weeks ago, Daily Kos has done a number of stories on how the future might play out, from examining how ectopic pregnancies will be treated, the effect of limited access to clinics, the increased violence abortion providers are facing, and being unclear on the legal ramifications for people who seek abortions in states where the procedure is now banned. But real-life consequences are already here for one 10-year-old girl.

Following the SCOTUS ruling, a story of one child in Ohio has made its way across social media, being shared not only in the U.S. but internationally. According to the story published by the Columbus Dispatch, a 10-year-old rape victim was forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for an abortion due to Ohio’s six-week abortion ban.

Ohio’s abortion ban, which does not allow exceptions for rape or incest, prohibits all abortions from six week’s conception, or earlier if “fetal heart activity” is detected. The law was a “trigger ban,” which was passed to take effect shortly after Roe was overturned. 

Indiana-based abortion provider Dr. Caitlin Bernard said she received a call from a child abuse doctor in Ohio asking if Bernard could see their 10-year-old patient, who was six weeks and three days pregnant. Because abortion is still legal in Indiana, Bernard was allegedly able to help the 10-year-old rape survivor.

The story isn’t unheard of. A similar story from Brazil, in which another 10-year-old rape victim was denied the right to an abortion, made headlines days earlier. As both stories went viral online, social media users are noting how America is moving in the direction of many countries it once criticized for lacking basic human rights.

But Bernard was able to provide that girl care now, Indiana too is on its way to discuss a possible abortion ban later this month, WFYI reported. “It’s hard to imagine that in just a few short weeks we will have no ability to provide that care,” Bernard told the Columbus Dispatch.

The news comes alongside that of several clinics moving across state lines nationwide in order to stay open and provide services.  Most recently, Whole Woman's Health, one of the leading abortion providers in Texas, announced Wednesday that it is closing down not one but all four locations due to Texas’ near-total ban on abortion. However, while the clinics are closing in Texas, they plan to relocate to New Mexico to continue services.

The announcement follows the Texas Supreme Court blocking an order that would allow clinics to provide abortions by letting the state's 1925 pre-Roe ban—which makes performing the procedure punishable by 10 years in prison—be civilly enforced. The ban had been temporarily blocked; the state’s trigger ban has also not yet become active, but abortion providers are preparing to relocate.

 "While we continue to do everything in our power to fight for abortion rights and access, Texas has banned abortion entirely throughout the state in response to the fall of Roe," Whole Woman's Health said on a GoFundMe page set up to raise relocating funds.

"Abortion access in the South will only get worse as the damage done by this awful ruling continues to compound, and more conservative states pass abortion bans. We are stepping up to ensure everyone has a trusted independent abortion provider as nearby as legally possible.” The organization noted that relocating to New Mexico will allow them to treat patients from not only Texas but “Oklahoma, Arizona, and elsewhere in the South where safe, legal abortion care is restricted."

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group, at least 26 states are “certain or likely” to ban or limit abortion due to the overturn of Roe v. Wade, while 16 states have laws that protect the right to abortion. This link shows how far patients in each state have to drive to access reproductive care.

In addition to how pregnancies will be impacted and how many clinics will now have to move out of state, the reversal of Roe v. Wade may also result in fatal consequences for pregnant cancer patients. According to experts, doctors may be unable to treat some cancer patients with chemotherapy for fear of breaking abortion laws, since chemotherapy treatment may end pregnancies, Business Insider reports. So while chemotherapy may save lives, the risk of ending a pregnancy for a pregnant cancer patient may lead to doctors stopping treatment—even when chemotherapy is the only viable option for saving the patient’s life. 

"This ruling calls into question giving treatment that may cause termination of pregnancy (even if intended to treat cancer)," Dr. Stephanie Blank, president of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, told Business Insider. She noted that chemotherapy and radiation therapy can, in some cases, affect a fetus and raise the risk of miscarriage. Additionally, she noted that some cancers, like cervical cancer or gestational trophoblastic disease, are not possible to treat without ending a pregnancy.

That’s not all, though. Most of the states that are actively banning abortion also lack benefits to support the birth of children, including paid family leave, universal pre-K, tax credits aimed at helping families, and medical assistance. An analysis by HuffPost found that at least 23 states set to restrict or ban abortion following the SCOTUS ruling lack some sort of benefits.

“In the absence of federal action, overturning Roe will be especially devastating in the states poised to ban abortion,” Osub Ahmed said, associate director of women’s health and rights at the Center for American Progress. “Most of these states have failed to develop policies or invest in programs that support mothers and their families, setting up women forced to continue a pregnancy for failure.”

A 900 MW 'water battery' that cost Switzerland 2 billion euros and was under construction for 14 years, is now operational, Euronews reported. The battery is located nearly 2,000 feet (600 m) underground in the Swiss Alps. Interesting Engineering reports: A water battery consists of two large pools of water located at different heights. When power production is high, excessive power is used to move water from the lower pool to the pool at a higher height, which is similar to charging a conventional battery. When power demand increases, the water at the higher level can be released and, as it heads to the lower pool, it passes through turbines that generate electricity and can be used to power the grid. The water battery that recently went operational in Switzerland has a storage capacity of 20 million kWh, the equivalent of 400,000 electric cars, and is aimed at helping stabilize the energy grid in Switzerland and other connected grids in Europe. The plant has six turbines that can generate 900 MW of power, Euronews revealed. The battery has been built between the reservoirs of Emosson and Vieux Emosson in Valais, a canton in the southwestern part of Switzerland. Located nearly 2,000 feet (600 m) underground, the vast engine room of the plant measures about 650 feet (200 m) long and is over 100 feet (32 m) wide. To move the building materials to the site, the engineers had first to carve out tunnels through the Alps. The length of the tunnels dug for the project extends to about 11 miles (18 km). Once these tunnels were in place, building material and prefabricated buildings could be moved into the mountain, a process that took 14 years. To increase the energy storage capacity of the battery, the height of the Vieux Emosson dam was also increased by 65 feet (20 m). After all this hard work, the battery is now operational and at its peak is capable of powering 900,000 homes at a time.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

It must be the fault of nagging women, or marijuana. Certainly not guns.

Korean crypto startup Uprise lost virtually all of its client funds by shorting luna (LUNA) during its price crash and getting caught on the bounces, Seoul Economic daily reported on Wednesday. From a report: The Korean firm billed itself as using artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled automatic trading strategies to trade crypto on behalf of its clients. This trading desk is one-half of the company's service called Heybit while the other half is a global exchange-traded funds platform called Iruda. Under Heybit, Uprise took custodied crypto assets from customers and traded them in the cryptocurrency futures market. Uprise's AI-enabled trading technology was supposed to minimize the risk associated with leveraged crypto trading. However, the system could not prevent the firm from being liquidated out of its LUNA futures trading position and losing 26.7 billion won ($20 million) in the process. This happened during Luna's price crash. It was reportedly shorting Luna -- while its price plummeted -- but got caught out during sudden price pumps along the way. The lost funds represent about 99% of the funds that Uprise was managing on behalf of its customers. These clients are high-net-worth individuals and corporate entities, according to the report. Uprise also reportedly lost $3 million of its own funds short trading LUNA.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.