Shared posts

16 Oct 05:24

Adelsons pour $75M into last-ditch effort to save Trump

by Zach Montellaro and Alex Isenstadt
James.galbraith

Hopefully it won't work and another GOP idiot will just set money on fire


Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam Adelson gave $75 million to a super PAC that flooded battleground states with anti-Joe Biden ads in September, a huge investment from the GOP megadonors as President Donald Trump slipped in the polls.

The Adelsons gave the massive sum to Preserve America PAC, accounting for roughly 90 percent of the group’s fundraising in September, according to a person familiar with the group's finances who shared details with POLITICO ahead of the group's campaign finance filing.

The money for Preserve America brought the Adelsons' giving to Republican candidates and committees to a whopping $176 million for the 2020 election cycle, according to FEC data. The couple had previously given $50 million to Senate Leadership Fund, the GOP super PAC focused on defending the Senate majority. An additional $40 million in donations to the Congressional Leadership Fund, the Republican super PAC focused on the House, was revealed in new filings late Thursday night.

IRS filings Thursday also showed that the Adelsons gave $5 million to the Republican State Leadership Committee, which focuses on state legislative and other state-level races, and $2 million to the Republican Governors Association.

In total, Preserve America raised $83.76 million between its creation on Aug. 31 and the end of September. Other major donors include Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, who gave $5 million, investment banker Warren Stephens, who gave $2 million, and businesswoman Diane Hendricks, who gave $1 million.

The group will report spending $77 million in September, with almost all of it — just under $76 million — on independent-expenditure ads pillorying Biden. In just over a month of activity, Preserve America has become one of the largest outside spenders in politics, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, trailing only the pro-Biden super PAC Priorities USA Action and America First Action, another long-running pro-Trump group, among super PACs focused on the presidential race.

The Adelsons' cash infusion backing Trump comes despite some tension between the president and the megadonor. In a phone call this summer, before the founding of Preserve America, Trump confronted Adelson about why he wasn’t doing more to support his reelection. At the time, Adelson chose not to escalate the iight with the president, POLITICO reported at the time.

The donations come as Trump’s once yawning cash advantage over Biden has crumbled. Biden announced Wednesday that he and his affiliated committees raised a record-smashing $383 million in the month of September, and they entered the final stretch of the race with $432 million in the bank.

Trump has not yet announced the latest details of his campaign finances, but reports from some arms of his fundraising operation are due to the FEC by midnight on Thursday. The campaign itself must file a new report by the end of Tuesday.

16 Oct 05:20

Rudy Giuliani mocks Asians in a racist video that was ‘accidentally’ posted by his staffers

by Aysha Qamar
James.galbraith

Such the GOP hero

Being racist and deleting social media posts once they go viral seem to be requirements if you’d like to work for or with Donald Trump. In a number of incidents, Trump and his associates have deleted posts on social media that were either offensive or just filled with nonsense false information. In the most recent incident of technological blundering, Trump’s personal lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani posted a racist video clip on his YouTube channel mocking Asians on Wednesday.

The now-deleted racist video was allegedly accidentally posted by his staffers. In it, Giuliani can be heard using a stereotypical fake Chinese accent and seen mimicking a bow. Of course, while the clip was deleted off Giuliani’s page, everything posted on the internet stays on the internet—the video was caught and posted by The Daily Beast.

According to The Daily Beast, Giuliani’s xenophobic remarks followed an interview with former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer for the podcast Common Sense on Tuesday. Instead of cutting the video at the interview when posting the footage online, editors seemed to have kept rolling and posted the footage in its entirety, including post-interview moments where Giuliani mocked Asians.

Rudy Giuliani posts video of him being racist as hell to his own YouTube page https://t.co/5HDWwUsROr pic.twitter.com/e5ly9UqT33

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) October 15, 2020

In the extended footage, Giuliani appears to be unaware the camera is still recording as he sits at his desk indulging in acts of racism with individuals off-screen. He calls to his assistant, Jayne Zirckle, in a mocking accent, alleging she is “going to be the most famous model in China.” This continues on for several seconds with Giuliani repeating her name in the offensive accent and laughing. “Ah, get me Jayne Zirkle,” Giuliani said. “What would you like to have for dinner? Jayne Zirkle.”

Giuliani is the only one laughing from this incident. Racism is not a joke, and mocking accents is not only inappropriate and disrespectful but inhumane. The ability to speak fluent English is not a measure of intelligence, and for far too long individuals have equated language ability and accents to intelligence. Accents differ from country to country and while they may not sound the same, they are no laughing matter.

In response to Giuliani’s unfiltered racism, California Rep.Ted Lieu tweeted a hard fact: Asian Americans “make up almost a half a million voters.” A number of studies, including data compiled by the Pew Research Center, have found that Asian Americans are the fastest-growing racial or ethnic group in the U.S. electorate. If Giuliani is allegedly working to increase votes in swing states for Trump, this move does quite the opposite.

Dear @RudyGiuliani & @realDonaldTrump: Asian Americans are the fastest growing group in America, including in multiple swing states. API voters make up 11% of the electorate in Nevada; 5.5% in Texas & 4.7% in Georgia. So keep doubling down on your racism; see you in November. https://t.co/rj42YtViMQ

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) October 15, 2020

But alas, this is not the first time Giuliani has accidentally shared more than he’d like. In 2019, the former mayor allegedly butt-dialed not just a friend but a reporter from NBC News. He then left a three-minute-long voice message discussing his need for cash. Ironically, that accidental call followed another incident in which Giuliani left a voicemail again accidentally including information he did not want to share, including a conversation in which he is complaining about being the target of bad press. Moral of the story? Giuliani is prone to technological “accidents.”

16 Oct 05:16

Feinstein praises Graham for railroading vapid Amy Coney Barrett puppet show through committee

by Hunter
James.galbraith

Time for Feinstein to go.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, continues to be a tremendous waste of Senate space and one of the reasons why America Is Going To Hell Right Now.

As Republicans wrap up the Amy Coney Barrett hearing with plans to vote, Dianne Feinstein praises Lindsey Graham: "I just want to thank you. This has been one of the best set of hearings that I've participated in," she tells him. "Thank you so much for your leadership." pic.twitter.com/I3oXSYpVDk

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) October 15, 2020

Yeah. Yeah, that's the takeaway from the Amy Coney Barrett hearings, which should not have been held due to multiple members of the Senate committee testing positive for a deadly disease. The hearings that were scheduled on such a rush basis, in order to beat the upcoming election, that the nominee for the Supreme Court appeared to have done absolutely no preparation for whatsoever, whether it was in the disclosure of past political advocacy, the review of her past legal opinions, or skimming through the Constitution of the United States a few times so that she could answer basic questions about what is in it. The hearings that did not require the nominee to take "notes" because there were no questions asked by the United States Senate that the nominee felt compelled to further contemplate or return with fuller answers on.

It was the best. Why can't we handle all impossibly consequential, history-altering nominations to the nation's highest court with no preparation and knock through them in two days? Maskless hugs all around!

A mask-free embrace between Feinstein and Graham to cap things off. And the Amy Coney Barrett hearings are over. pic.twitter.com/3gJcpWpi5Z

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) October 15, 2020

It is as if the last few weeks have been stakeless theater, and the next 40 years will be as well.

Amazing. And yet not.

16 Oct 05:16

Report on killing of Portland antifa shooter by federal officers suggests it was never an arrest

by David Neiwert

Unanswered questions have hovered over the September 3 shooting death of Michael Reinoehl of Portland, Oregon, at the hands of federal law enforcement officers—four days after Reinoehl had himself shot a right-wing protester named Aaron Danielson to death on the streets of Portland—like a dark cloud, in large part because the police themselves have been opaque about the event. There were no body cameras used, no surveillance video available, and constantly changing official stories about the shooting from authorities.

Now, after an investigation by ProPublica and Oregon Public Broadcasting into the case, those clouds now loom dark and ominous. The portrait that emerges of how the shooting transpired, including witnesses saying the police gave no warning, and that Reinoehl did not display a gun, suggest that the 48-year-old fugitive was not arrested so much as he was simply executed. UPDATE: Donald Trump confirmed today at a rally that this was the case, telling a rally audience that “they didn’t want to arrest him.” (See below.) 

The shooting happened in the early evening. Reinoehl had been on the lam ever since the shooting of Danielson, and apparently was hiding out that day in a neighborhood near Lacey, Washington, some 119 miles north of Portland. He had given an interview to Vice magazine earlier in the day, telling the reporter that he had acted in self-defense. He was leaving the apartment where he had been in hiding, and had just gotten into his car, when a cluster of SUVs containing U.S. Marshals Service contractors descended and surrounded him.

Police and witness reports have varied widely, and some conflict with other witnesses and the evidence at the scene. A deputy U.S. Marshal claims that Reinoehl pointed a gun at him. One witness claimed he saw Rienoehl firing two guns. However, Reinoehl’s only gun was found in his front pants pocket after he was shot. What we know for certain is that the marshals hit him with a barrage of gunfire, and he was killed by bullets to the head and torso. And the majority of witnesses said he displayed no weapon at all.

One witness said the bullets from the fusillade the marshals unleashed—without any kind of warning or order to surrender, he said—were flying around the apartment complex where the arrest happened. Children were present, and one father described running his two young children inside his home for safety. “There was no ‘drop your weapon’ or ‘freeze’ or ‘police’ — no warning at all,” the man recalled.

According to the report, most of the men firing the weapons were local law enforcement officers who had been deputized by the Marshals Service.

The shots were fired by two Pierce County sheriff’s deputies, a Lakeview police officer and a Washington State Department of Corrections employee — all deputized by the U.S. Marshals Service and serving on a Tacoma-based fugitive task force, a common and standard procedure among local-federal partnerships. A U.S. marshal was also part of the team but did not fire.

Donald Trump may have played a role in the officers’ apparent eagerness to kill Reinoehl. One hour before the fugitive was killed, Trump had tweeted:

Why aren’t the Portland Police ARRESTING the cold blooded killer of Aaron “Jay” Danielson. Do your job, and do it fast. Everybody knows who this thug is. No wonder Portland is going to hell!

Afterward, Attorney General William Barr issued a statement on the Justice Department letterhead that was equally bloodthirsty:

The tracking down of Reinoehl — a dangerous fugitive, admitted Antifa member, and suspected murderer — is a significant accomplishment in the ongoing effort to restore law and order to Portland and other cities.  I applaud the outstanding cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement, particularly the fugitive task force team that located Reinoehl and prevented him from escaping justice.  The streets of our cities are safer with this violent agitator removed, and the actions that led to his location are an unmistakable demonstration that the United States will be governed by law, not violent mobs.

Trump subsequently told Maria Bartiromo of Fox News: “This guy was a violent criminal, and the U.S. Marshals killed him. And I'll tell you something—that's the way it has to be. There has to be retribution."

This all stood in stark contrast to how the Trump administration led a right-wing parade of support for Kyle Rittenhouse, the Illinois teenager who killed two Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August.

Trump himself had openly sympathized with Rittenhouse. “That was an interesting situation,” he told a rally in Kenosha. “You saw the same tape as I saw. And he was trying to get away from them. I guess it looks like he fell and then they very violently attacked him. And it was something that we’re looking at right now, and it’s under investigation. But I guess he was in very big trouble. He would have been—probably would have been killed, but it’s under investigation."

The Department of Homeland Security also promoted this narrative by directing public comments by its officials to follow this storyline with prearranged talking points. An internal DHS document suggested that department officials note that Rittenhouse "took his rifle to the scene of the rioting to help defend small business owners." If officials are asked about Rittenhouse, it recommended they first decline comment on an ongoing investigation, with the addendum that “what I will say is that Rittenhouse, just like everyone else in America, is innocent until proven guilty and deserves a fair trial based on all the facts, not just the ones that support a certain narrative. This is why we try the accused in the court of law, not the star chamber of public opinion.”

The official storyline, in both cases, promotes the larger right-wing narrative creating a bogeyman of a supposed “violent left” comprised of Black Lives Matter and antifa, while erasing the reality of a growing army of violent right-wing thugs directing their heavily armed ire at these concocted enemies. And as the facts in Michael Reinoehl’s killing emerge, it appears to have created a mentality within law enforcement creating permission (if not outright encouragement) not only to join them, but to perform extrajudicial executions on behalf of the same authoritarian cause.

Trump: We sent in the US Marshals, took 15 minutes and it was over... They knew who he was, they didn’t want to arrest him and 15 minutes that ended pic.twitter.com/fJA5BsJVeF

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) October 15, 2020

UPDATE: Donald Trump again commented approvingly on Reinoehl’s killing again today in Greenville, North Carolina, at a campaign rally. He told the crowd, in fact, that there was no intention of arresting Reinoehl:

We sent in the U.S. Marshals, it took 15 minutes and it was over, 15 minutes and it was over ... They knew who he was, they didn’t want to arrest him, and 15 minutes that ended. And they call themselves peaceful protesters.

16 Oct 04:59

Kelly Loeffler breaks out the red flashing lights to announce Marjorie Taylor Greene endorsement

by Laura Clawson
James.galbraith

Well that's horrifying.

QAnon’s takeover of the Republican Party continues, with Sen. Kelly Loeffler excitedly touting her endorsement for Q-friendly House nominee Marjorie Taylor Greene. Yes, a sitting U.S. senator considers an endorsement from a House nominee a big get. That’s partly because Loeffler is locked in a multi-way battle not just with leading Democratic challenger Rev. Raphael Warnock but with Republican Rep. Doug Collins, so locking down Republican voters is important to her. But it’s also because Greene has achieved celebrity precisely because of her conspiracy theorist leanings. If she was a run-of-the-mill Republican nominee in a deep red district, Loeffler would be happy, but maybe not quite this excited.

When Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn endorsed Loeffler, it didn’t get the flashing red lights emoji, caps-locked excitement of the tweet announcing the Greene endorsement. Neither did the announcement of Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp's endorsement, even though you’d think that the endorsement of the governor of your state would be a big deal. Not even an endorsement from the world's largest gun store got the kind of splashy treatment of the Marjorie Taylor Greene endorsement.

Let's give Kelly Loeffler more reason to be nervous. Can you chip in $3 to help elect Rev. Raphael Warnock?

This is not just a sign of Loeffler’s desperation in a tough race, in other words. There is something special about Greene, despite—or because of—her violent threats to Democratic lawmakers and her embrace of an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory claiming that a cabal of Democrats is running a global pedophile network. Republicans are really going down this path.

“Instead of trafficking in division and proudly standing alongside those that spout dangerous rhetoric like Marjorie Taylor Greene, we're focused on being a voice for all Georgians,” Warnock tweeted in response to the endorsement. “It's time to fire our unelected Senator.”

15 Oct 21:53

Surprise! Huge early vote bodes well for avoiding electoral disaster.

by Greg Sargent
James.galbraith

One can hope.

Here's another way Trump's corrupt designs might be backfiring.
15 Oct 21:53

Trump’s approval on the pandemic keeps falling

by Paul Waldman
James.galbraith

But never using their names. Such courage.

Even some Republicans have to admit that he's done a disastrous job.
15 Oct 21:52

Taking over the Supreme Court will cost the GOP a great deal

by Paul Waldman
James.galbraith

Only if we fix the court after the GOP has stolen 2 out of the 9 seats

Years from now, will Republicans conclude that it was worth it?
15 Oct 21:51

Trump has one last hope of shielding his tax returns from New York prosecutors: The Supreme Court

by Kerry Eleveld
James.galbraith

And they'll try and kill it on the shadow docket

When Donald Trump petitioned the Supreme Court to shield both his personal and corporate tax returns this summer, he argued that his position as a sitting president made him immune to any criminal inquiry. The high court resolutely rejected that claim in a 7-2 ruling in July, but said Trump's lawyers could continue to challenge a subpoena for his returns from the Manhattan DA on specific grounds.

Since then, Trump has lost two more times, with both a federal district judge and a federal appeals court panel in New York ruling against Trump's claim that the subpoena from the office of Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance was merely an exercise in presidential harassment.

“None of the president’s allegations, taken together or separately, are sufficient to raise a plausible inference that the subpoena was issued out of malice or an intent to harass," the appeals panel wrote in a unanimous decision last week.

Now, it's down to the Supreme Court once more, according to the New York Times. Trump's lawyers submitted a 38-page emergency application Tuesday to delay the ruling that cleared the way for Vance to access Trump's tax records from his accounting firm, Mazars USA.

“Allowing this deeply flawed ruling to stand, especially given the prominence of this case, will needlessly sow confusion where none presently exists,” wrote Trump attorneys William Consovoy, Jay Sekulow, and others. “The decision is indisputably wrong.”

When the high court originally put Trump's taxes in play this summer, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, “No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding."

Now, Trump and his legal team are hoping to keep the records out of the hands of prosecutors just a little longer, if not indefinitely. Though Vance would typically be required to keep them confidential until his investigation had yielded some kind of conclusion, Trump's lawyers argued that he could be irreparably harmed by a breach of financial information—as if the Times hadn't been publishing all sorts of details about a couple decades of Trump's tax returns over the past couple weeks.

“If the president’s records are disclosed publicly (as thus could happen even without a grand-jury breach), then the harm will not only be irreparable. It will be case-mooting,” they wrote.

15 Oct 20:57

For the love of god, please stop with the 'run like we're 10 points down' nonsense!

by kos
James.galbraith

Seriously

I have a no saying: Conservatives can’t handle bad news. Liberals can’t handle good news. 

I can’t even with the chorus of people responding to every good poll hyperventilating about “ignore the polls!” and “run like we’re 10, no TWENTY points down!” 

Let me be clear: no one is motivated by losing. So please stop!

Contribute now to take back the White House!

I get the intent, this belief that someone will see a good poll and decide that they can take it easy and not vote. There is a fear about complacency if people start believing that we’re winning. 

BUT IT’S NOT TRUE. 

We didn’t lose 2016 because of complacency. We lost because of voter suppression in Detroit, Philly, and Milwaukee. 

You know when we did suppress our own vote? In 2010, when liberals pissed off at President Barack Obama’s efforts to forge bipartisan consensus with Republicans sat the election out—ushering in the very conservative majorities that then passed laws suppressing the vote in, you guessed it, Detroit, Philly, and Milwaukee. 

Here’s the reasons you shouldn’t fear good polling: 

1) People are motivated by winning, not by losing

So here’s a test—are you motivated by Democrats leading the Maine Senate race by five points, or losing the Kansas Senate race by five points? Which one gets you more excited to donate and volunteer? 

If you say “losing by five points,” you are lying. Because we can see how Maine’s Sara Gideon has raised more money and generated far more national excitement than Kansas’ Barbara Bollier. That doesn’t mean that we can’t win the Kansas race! It doesn’t mean we aren’t fighting for it! But which one gets people more excited? Time and time again, it’ll be the race in which we’re leading (or tied). 

Conservatives know this, which is why they have a media machine to feed them sweet, sweet reassuring lies, which is why Trump screams about “fake news” and “fake polls,” and why conservative bunk polling outfits like Rasmussen and Gravis exist. They create an alternate reality in which they’re always winning, because even hints of losing demobilize base participation. 

In 2010, Democratic chances plummeted the more we realized we were losing. There wasn’t any “oh, we’re losing by 10, I’m so fired up!” Nah, people said “fuck it” and walked away from politics. And we got saddled with a decade of Republican gerrymanders at the federal and state levels, and the voter suppressive legislation that cost us the 2016 election. 

Don’t tell people we’re losing, or to pretend that we’re losing, because you’re hurting the cause.  

2) No one is staying home no matter what

Take a look at the early vote numbers. Our people are turning out. In Florida. In Georgia. In TexasIn everywhere

People aren’t voting to elect Joe Biden anymore. They’re voting to give Donald Trump the biggest middle finger possible. This is transcending mere electoral considerations and becoming a cultural moment. 

Even California, which has no competitive political offices at stake, has record turnout. Knowing Biden is going to win the state isn’t deterring any golden stater from casting that delicious anti-Trump vote. 

California Secretary of State @AlexPadilla4CA says in a release that as of this morning over 1.5 million vote-by-mail ballots have already been returned by California voters. A massive increase compared to ~150,000 ballots returned at this same point for 2016 general election

— Amanda Golden (@amandawgolden) October 14, 2020

No poll showing Trump winning California by 30-40 points is going to stop people from voting.  

3) There are more races than president 

Once upon a time, liberals were singularly focused on the presidency, oblivious to the thousands of other critical races nationwide—House, Senate, state legislative, judges, school boards, county boards, etc. 

That is no longer the case. Jamie Harrison, a Democrat running for Senate in South Carolina, raised presidential-level numbers of $57 million in a single quarter. Meanwhile, House candidates like Rep. Katie Porter are raising the kinds of numbers Senate candidates did not too long ago. 

Another "whoa" fundraising update: @RepKatiePorter raised $5.2 million in Q3. Unheard of for a "front line" freshman who isn't part of leadership. Porter, who Republicans couldn't find a strong recruit against, will give some of it to other Dems. https://t.co/LQvDyqXaJX

— Dave Weigel, Re-Animator (@daveweigel) October 14, 2020

She doesn’t even have an opponent, and is raising crazy sums, and Porter isn’t the only House Democrat raising eye-popping numbers. So are Democrats running in state legislative and lower offices. And let’s not forget the stunning 10-point Wisconsin Supreme Court race victory earlier this year, a critical office Democrats hadn’t even bothered contesting a few weeks prior. 

Democrats finally realize that winning isn't just about the presidency, but about every lever of power in government. So the response to a good Biden poll isn't "cool! Our work is done!" Rather, it's "awesome, but what's the latest Texas Senate numbers? Can we flip the state legislature?" 

A good Biden poll means that we have a better chance to win tough Senate races in Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, and elsewhere. It means we can flip state legislatures. It means we can expand our House majority. 

There is so much at stake, and so much attention being lavished on those races, that Biden’s status is now a marker for how well we can do overall

But you know what? If Biden was down 10 points, then forget those tight Senate races in South Carolina and Texas. Forget flipping state legislatures. Forget making gains in the House. None of that would be possible. 

So by saying “act like we’re 10 points down,” you’re saying “shit, we’re losing everywhere else too.” 

SO PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP IT? Please? 

15 Oct 20:54

More undisclosed talks by Amy Coney Barrett emerge as hearings reach final day

by Laura Clawson
James.galbraith

Of course

Amy Coney Barrett will not appear at the final day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, which is too bad, since she has some explaining to do. CNN has uncovered still more public talks Barrett failed to disclose in her Senate paperwork, including yet another one with an anti-abortion group.

Of course, the fact that this is far from the first such thing Barrett failed to disclose means that we already know her explanation: shrug, it’s hard to remember stuff. And since Republicans aren't any more interested in honesty or transparency than she is, she’s not feeling any pressure.

At the final day of hearings, senators on the Judiciary Committee will speak again, Republicans will move to advance to the full Senate for a vote, and Democrats will call for a week’s delay, which Lindsey Graham, the committee chair, has said he will honor. 

“That would put the committee’s vote to approve Judge Barrett’s nomination on Oct. 22,” The New York Times reports. “A vote on confirmation by the full Senate is expected the following week, as early as Oct. 26.” “As early as” is an interesting phrase here, since it speaks to how quickly Senate Republicans have jammed this nomination through, but the fact that October 26 would be one week and one day before Election Day highlights the other side of the rush: It’s incredibly last-minute.

Also at Thursday’s hearing, members of the American Bar Association’s standing committee on the federal judiciary will come to say that Barrett is qualified. Then Democrats will bring witnesses to illustrate the dangers Barrett poses to regular people by limiting access to abortion and other health care, and Republicans will bring witnesses to say that Barrett is a very nice lady whose niceness means we should pretend she won’t strip tens of millions of people of key healthcare protections and send women to back alleys for abortions.

15 Oct 20:34

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Pre

by tech@thehiveworks.com


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
In real life, the kid would assume this was all real and feel very proud of making the card.


Today's News:
15 Oct 20:04

Review: Healing and hope in Star Trek: Discovery’s third season

by Kate Cox
James.galbraith

hmm interesting

"The Federation isn't just about ships. The Federation is its people."

Enlarge / "The Federation isn't just about ships. The Federation is its people." (credit: CBS | YouTube)

The most frequent complaint leveled against Star Trek: Discovery during its first two seasons was: "This doesn't feel like the Star Trek I remember." The critics did indeed have a point—from the outset, Discovery tried to lean into the modern streaming prestige-drama mold, while also retaining its Starfleet soul. Those two goals don't necessarily align, and as a result Discovery sometimes seemed like a show that simply couldn't make up its mind.

In its third season, however, Discovery has finally picked a side. The show is now all-in on venerating the optimistic, wide-eyed Federation fans want to remember from the '80s and '90s, and it's bringing back the old planet-of-the-week format to do so. Now, the show's inner conflict has taken a whole new direction: for a story all about leaping a millennium into the future to explore the strangest possible new world, Discovery for the most part plays it startlingly safe.

(Spoilers below for the first two seasons of Discovery.)

Read 20 remaining paragraphs | Comments

15 Oct 17:10

‘The Sleeping Giant Is Finally Awake’

by Tim Alberta
James.galbraith

Here's to hoping




Oct. 15, 2020 | Phoenix, Arizona

Dear Washington,

There we stood in a Dollar Tree parking lot, slow roasting at a temperature of 102 degrees, our shoes melting into the blacktop beneath us.

It was not my idea of a prime stakeout spot. For the past few hours, I had loitered in the shade beneath the strip-mall awning on either side of the polling precinct, respecting the 75-foot boundary that kept electioneers at bay. But curiosity had finally gotten the better of me. Stationed in the parking lot, facing the front door from no more than 74 feet and 11 inches away, were two young women. They had no umbrella. They had no running car in which to seek refuge from the sun. They had only clipboards and infinite energy, pursuing every person who exited the polls and luring them into lengthy, animated discussions. I wanted to know their game—which party they worked for, how much voter data they were collecting and why they were risking heatstroke on the very first day of Arizona’s early voting.



As it turned out, STEPHANIE CRUZ and DULCE PEREZ weren’t working for either party. They weren’t focused on harvesting voter information. Their purpose in the parking lot was simple and straightforward. They wanted people to vote—and that meant bothering people who had just voted. Every time an Arizonan emerged from the polling location, either Cruz or Perez intercepted them on the way to their car. They introduced themselves, explained why voting was more important than ever, and issued a challenge: Text three people, right then and there, reminding them to vote and sharing the location of where the voter had just cast an early ballot. Anyone who complied received a sticker celebrating his or her contribution to civic society.

It struck me as a thankless job. And yet, the excitement Cruz and Perez showed when that perfect stranger sent that third text message—the sheer joy, the sense of a sudden bond—was remarkable. When we got to talking, I asked them about doing such menial work under such punishing conditions. Cruz rolled her eyes. “If our forefathers could do manual labor in this heat,” she told me, “we can stand here in this heat and make sure people remember to vote.”

Cruz is 19, the ideal age to be an idealist. This is her first time voting for president or any other office. She is a self-described progressive who despises President Donald Trump and wants to make the world a better place one election at a time. That said, defeating Trump this November is not Cruz’s principal objective. She is taking a longer view of politics.

“People like us, young Hispanic activists, we are the ones who will change our community,” Cruz said. “We have registered our family members, even the older people, people who have never voted. Now, they’re not just registered, they’re asking us about issues and telling us who they’re going to vote for. It’s no longer a question of if they’re going to vote. They have already registered. They have already made up their minds. That’s why this year is different.”


Different how?

“The sleeping giant,” Cruz said, “is finally awake.”


This time four years ago, I arrived in Phoenix hoping to answer a simple yet elusive question: Would 2016 finally be the year when Hispanics voted in numbers that might turn Arizona blue?

There was reason to be skeptical. It has been a quadrennial tradition, within the political class of the Cactus State, to envision and handicap a hypothetical voting universe in which Hispanics voted at rates approaching those of non-Hispanic whites. Everyone here understands that Hispanics, who doubled as a share of Arizona’s population between the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama (from 16 percent to 32 percent), and who historically voted Democratic here by a 2:1 margin, were destined to redraw the state’s political landscape sooner or later. The question was always one of pace. In 2016, given Trump’s insults of Hispanics and scapegoating of immigrants, there was reason to believe he had—to use Stephanie Cruz’s phrase—awakened a sleeping giant. Democrats here hoped it was really going to happen. Republicans here worried it was really going to happen.

And then it didn’t happen.

Turnout among eligible Hispanic voters in 2016 once again finished south of 50 percent—lagging some 20 points behind white turnout—a bitter disappointment to Democratic organizers and activists. Over the past decade, they had launched unprecedented initiatives to register new voters and engage people and places with no history of political involvement. And yet, there was little to show for it. Even in the face of galvanizing events—including the controversial “Show Me Your Papers” law of 2010—the voting behaviors of Arizona’s Hispanic community remained static. They were disproportionately voting in favor of Democrats, yes, but their numbers were nowhere near reflective of their growing share of the population.



Which is why 2018 caught everyone off guard. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that in Trump’s first midterm election, which saw participation spike across every demographic, “Hispanic voter turnout increased by 13 percentage points, a 50 percent increase in Hispanic voter turnout.” This constituted the biggest jump of any group, and the results were especially evident in states with the largest Hispanic populations. Arizona’s U.S. Senate race was decided by 2 points; the extraordinary uptick in Hispanic vote share almost surely put Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema over the top against her GOP opponent.

Naturally, this sets the stage for great expectations among Arizona Democrats in 2020. But those expectations might not be realistic. In my conversations with voters and party officials, it was clear that the dramatic increase in off-year turnout, heartening though it was to activists, might have papered over some of the fundamental obstacles that have long kept Hispanics away from the polls.

“Latinos are afraid to vote, man. Trust me. I was born here, I’ve been voting for 50 years, and I’m still afraid to vote,” said MIGUEL SALDIVA, a 70-year-old landscaper who stopped for groceries at the Food City marketplace.

Why? What makes an American citizen afraid to vote?

“It doesn’t matter if you have papers or don’t have papers,” Saldiva explained, referring to immigration status. “Because even if you have papers, maybe you live with someone in your house who doesn’t have papers, and you’re worried about registering with the government. You know what I mean?”

He continued, “I have a lot of friends—friends with papers—who don’t vote. They get mad, they get frustrated, but they don’t vote. They don’t want any trouble. Plus, they hear too much crap on the television that confuses them. They are good people, and they don’t want to be taken advantage of by the politicians.”

Saldiva removed his ball cap and ran his hands through a full head of salt-and-pepper hair. “I don’t think they’re going to vote just because of this president—” here he broke into a brief fit of bilingual cursing. “God knows they should, you know? But I don’t think they will.”


Maricopa County is a behemoth. Roughly two-thirds of Arizona’s people live here. It’s the 15th-biggest county in the U.S. by land mass, the fourth-most populous county overall. As Maricopa goes, politically speaking, so goes Arizona.

That’s generally been good news for Republicans, who have carried the county in every presidential election since 1952. But things have gotten interesting of late. Trump won Maricopa by a hair less than 3 points in 2016, the closest margin in two decades. Then, in the 2018 midterms, Sinema won the county by more than 4 points, a result that stunned some Republicans here. They had a hunch Maricopa was tightening and might be fought to a draw, but few people in either party envisioned a Democrat winning a high-turnout statewide race in the county.

It was long anticipated that a Hispanic voting boom would move Maricopa County to the left. In reality, the dramatic political makeover here owes more immediately to the exodus of white suburbanites from Trump’s GOP. Whatever disappointment Democrats have felt at lagging Hispanic turnout in past election cycles is now morphing into an opportunity they did not foresee: Explosive turnout from Hispanics here is no longer about turning Arizona purple, as was the plan, but about turning it blue.



That’s what GREG MORALES was thinking when he pulled into McDowell Square on October 7.

It was the first day of early voting in Maricopa County. A total of seven precincts were open across the county’s 9,200 square miles, with voters able to cast a ballot at any location they chose. Talking with locals, it was clear that most of those seven locations were in affluent pockets of metropolitan Phoenix. And then there was McDowell Square.

Squeezed between a freeway and the south side of several heavily Hispanic neighborhoods, the shopping center was bustling with people buying groceries, people getting their nails done, people grabbing takeout food on their lunch break. Over the course of the day, fewer than 200 people stepped inside the tiny voting precinct—an annex of the Dollar Tree, barely visible from the parking lot, with no sign or banner above the entryway—to cast their ballot for president. Of those who did, nobody was more animated than Morales.

“I’ve been waiting for today. I’ve been counting the days until I could vote. I could barely sleep last night!” squealed Morales, a 65-year-old accountant who pulled into the parking lot in a conspicuous, 90s-vintage Porsche. “Some bad shit is happening in this country, man, and now it’s time to do something about it. This is the time. This is the time.”

What kind of bad shit?

“These Republicans, they scare me, man. Trump scares the hell out of me,” Morales said. “I mean, Bill Clinton was kind of a pig, right? He was macking on Monica [Lewinsky] and everything. But at least he did a good job. At least he took the job seriously. And then George W. Bush, you know, he didn’t do such a good job, but at least he was a good person. Trump is the worst of all those worlds. He’s a bad guy and he does a bad job.”

Morales described himself as a former staunch Republican. He said Ronald Reagan was his political hero, explaining that he continued to vote GOP even as the party moved further right, until he finally abandoned ship in 2016 when the party nominated “a total fraud, a total scam artist” for president. I asked whether his friends and family were similarly alienated by Trump—and if so, whether they voted accordingly.


He shook his head. “There’s a lot of racism in Arizona, man. People have always been afraid of the government here. That’s why a lot of my Chicano friends never even bothered before,” Morales said. “But now, with Trump, it’s like they don’t give a shit anymore. I talk to all my Chicano friends, and they’re all registered, they’re all voting, they’re all voting against Trump. And the weird thing is, some of them even gave him credit for getting the economy going—which, I disagree with, but whatever—and it’s still not enough. They’re still voting his ass out.”

When Morales repeated his hymn—“This is the time”—I asked how he could be so certain. How could he feel confident that Hispanics, after decades of punching well below their electoral weight, were finally going to start throwing haymakers?

“It’s Trump,” he cried, slapping the back of his right hand into his left palm. “He gave us the jump-start we needed. And now that we got the jump-start, there’s no shutting us down. And you know why? This new generation of Latinos. These kids, man. They’re not playing games. They’re voting whether anyone likes it or not.”


Not everyone was in a position to vote that day.

When I met CYNTHIA JOHNSON, the 38-year-old retail clerk was waiting for her takeout lunch—shrimp fried rice—from the window-in-the-wall Chinese joint sandwiched between the Boost Mobile store and the insurance company. Johnson was on her break from Marshall’s, the clothing store, and was sizing up the scene nearby. Eyeing the members of her community walking into the tiny, nondescript storefront, she looked confused when I told her people were casting ballots for president inside.

“I don’t usually vote,” she shrugged. “I didn’t vote last time, and I don’t have a good reason why. But I’m going to vote this time. I already registered.”



Why this time?

“I do not like Donald Trump,” she deadpanned.

Why didn’t she vote against him last time, then?

“I never really cared who was president,” she said, shrugging again. “There’s just something about this guy—he’s a racist, but it’s more than that. It’s like he’s always creating this fear and this chaos for no good reason. Everything he says, you know it’s a lie as soon as it comes out of his mouth. I can’t put up with him.”

Does she know anyone who likes Trump?

“Not really. Most of my friends are Democrats. My daughter, my husband, they’re both Democrats, they’re both voting for Biden,” Johnson said. (Her family is from Mexico; the surname, she explained, owes to her “white boy” husband.) “The only person I really know personally who voted for Trump was my mom. She was a big time supporter of his. But now she’s talking like she might not vote at all.”

I asked why.

“She’s mad she didn’t get that second stimulus check,” Johnson laughed.


A few minutes later, I got to talking with another 38-year-old. His name was MIGUEL NUNEZ.

Nunez emigrated legally to the United States at 5 years old. He felt a fierce patriotism from childhood but was ashamed by his lack of citizenship. Once, when his high school government teacher held a mock election, he decided to “come clean” and tell her he was ineligible. Rather than rebuke him, Nunez said, the teacher encouraged him to prepare for the day when he would have the right to vote.

That day came when he was 24, an enlisted man in the United States Marine Corps. Nunez, newly minted as an American citizen, proudly cast his first vote for president for John McCain, his home state senator. It had nothing to do with party affiliation or political ideology—just like it had nothing to do with his heritage.

“I refuse to vote as a Hispanic, or as a Mexican immigrant, or as a member of any group or party. I vote as an American, as a Marine, as someone who served my country and earned the right to vote,” Nunez said. “In 2008, that was an easy call for me. John McCain was a patriot and a great leader.”



Things got a little fuzzy from there, however. Nunez said that he accidentally sat out the 2012 election because he “screwed up my absentee,” but said he had planned to reluctantly support Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Four years later, he was even less enthused with his choices. After some deliberation, Nunez recalled, he decided to vote for Trump—not because he liked the Republican nominee, but because he recoiled at what he considered to be hyperbole deployed against him.

“Honestly, I was tired of hearing people freaking out about how everything would go to hell if Trump won. I had all these friends super-worried about Trump coming after them, picking on their communities, making life hard on them,” Nunez said. “I believed they were wrong. I wanted them to be wrong. But they weren’t.”

I asked Nunez why he’d soured on the president.

“It’s about accountability and integrity,” he replied. “When you lose trust, when your word is no good, it’s hard to be a leader. And that’s where the accountability comes in. When a leader gets something wrong, they have to admit responsibility and fix it. But he won’t. He can’t. It’s not who he is.”


Nunez sounded thoroughly lukewarm about Biden. Having spent 16 years in the conservative culture of the Marine Corps—he is now retired and going back to school—Nunez cannot bring himself to accept some of what he sees in the Democratic Party: identity politics, subverting of law enforcement, flirtation with socialism. Still, right now, in this election, “It was an easy choice. Biden is the better candidate for the job.”

I asked Nunez whether he notices any change, among his Hispanic friends and family members, in this election cycle.

“I don’t think it’s political, actually. It’s the ownership we have now in our communities. Growing up here, this is day and night from when I was a kid. I never saw a Hispanic lawyer’s face on a billboard. That would have been crazy. But they’re everywhere now,” Nunez said. “So, that’s cool for my son—he’s 19—for him to see that every day. But I don’t know what that ownership means in terms of politics. I mean, I hear a lot of complaining about Trump from the younger generation. But I’m not sure they’ll do anything about it.”


JOSE ESCARCEGA is not part of the younger generation.

At 68, with wisps of silver hair and the hunched back of a retired construction worker, Escarcega looked much older than his age. He stood outside the mechanic’s shop waiting for his brakes to get fixed. Right around the corner, past the Food City, a short line had formed in front of the early voting station. But Escarcega had no need to join them.

A citizen since 1988—and a longtime user of Maricopa County’s cutting-edge mail voting program—he had already requested a mail-in ballot. He was one of more than 2 million people in Maricopa County to do so, shattering old records for mail-in ballot applications. By law, delivery had begun earlier that very day. Now, all he could do was wait—and decide who to vote for.

“I’m a Democrat, I voted Clinton the last time, but then I was happy with Trump because of the economy. I liked the economy,” Escarcega said, annunciating slowly in his second language. (I apologized to him for having shed four years of high school Spanish classes.)

“But now I come back to the Democrats,” he added.



Why?

“I don’t like Trump.”

There was that answer again—something so basic, so one-dimensional, that you’re inclined to dismiss it until you hear it for the thousandth time. I asked Escarcega why he doesn’t like the president.

He cocked his head back and gazed skyward in silence. After a long moment, he removed his sunglasses and turned back toward me.

“Republicans are just for the rich people. Trump doesn’t know me. I’m poor.”

Escarcega went on to explain how that perception—Republicans as hostile to the poor—was deeply rooted in his community. At the same time, he noted, many of the people who felt that way had never voted; he was something of a maverick for participating in the mail balloting program. I asked him for his theory on that disconnect.

“I don’t know,” he said, frowning. “Something is not right.”


The most interesting person I met at McDowell Square was a young woman named DANIELLA MARTINEZ.

A customer service manager at Food City—she ducked into the store to grab something on her day off—Martinez was a family success story. She had a good job, a nice car, a safe place to live in her hometown of Phoenix. But the 2016 election left her feeling like she had let everyone down.

“I felt so guilty for not voting. I almost cried when I found out Hillary lost to Trump,” Martinez said. “I just didn’t think it was important, you know? But as soon as I found out he won, this guilt came over me. I knew I needed to vote the next time.”

The only problem? Martinez had never voted before—not for president, not for anything. She didn’t know quite where to start. After researching the process and the party programs, Martinez, feeling reassured that she was, in fact, a Democrat, registered to vote. “And here I am,” she said, not 100 feet from the election center, having just cast her ballot. “Voting for the first time, on the first day anyone can vote.”

I asked Martinez why Trump’s victory had lit such a fire underneath her.

“It’s all about my heritage. Where I come from, there are boundaries for how people should talk to one another, and so much of what he has said crosses that line. It’s so offensive to me,” she said. “I just feel like he’s a racist, like he’s a white supremacist, and it’s my responsibility to my heritage to help get him out of office.”



Martinez held up a hand, as if something needed to be clarified.

“Honestly, if things go back to normal, this might be the last time I vote. We’ll see,” she said. “It might just be a one-time thing, where I’m doing my part to get rid of Trump, and then I’m out.”

I asked Martinez whether her peers shared her sense of urgency about taking down Trump.

“Well,” she chuckled, “Yes and no. Most of the people I know who usually don’t vote, I don’t think they will vote this time, either. But most of the people who do vote, I think they’ll vote again. Does that make sense?”

She thought for a moment. “I don’t think there’s necessarily a lot of people like me out there,” Martinez said. “But I hope I’m wrong.”


You know what’s interesting, Washington?

When I called the Maricopa County elections office, a spokesperson told me that 180 people cast ballots at McDowell Square that day. I spoke with about 15 of them. There was a great deal of diversity—age, background, socioeconomic status—but they all had two things in common.

First, they were Hispanic, which was intentional for the reporting of this piece.

The second thing was not intentional: Nobody had voted for Trump. I stayed until the polls closed, speaking to every person I could, hoping to find a single supporter of the president. For the first time in this series, every citizen I encountered was voting for the same candidate.

I know, I know—it’s a microscopic sample size. Still, if I were working to reelect the president, it would scare the hell out of me. Trump might be able to weather a bludgeoning from upscale white suburbanites or a groundswell of Hispanic voter intensity. In Phoenix, there is mounting evidence of both.

You haven’t heard the last of me, Washington. Keep an eye on your inbox in the weeks ahead. I’ve got something special in store for you.

Until then, if you’ve got places you think I should visit, people you think I should meet, drop me a line: L2W@politico.com.

Your sunburned buddy,

Tim



CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story gave an incorrect ranking for Maricopa County’s geographic size. It is 15th largest nationally, not second.

14 Oct 23:46

Top conservative 'charity' leaders met to coordinate voter suppression. It's probably illegal

by Hunter
James.galbraith

pathetic

There's a lot to digest in this Washington Post report on videos obtained of the meetings of the arch-conservative Council for National Policy, videos that show the organized—and in some cases possibly illegal—coordination of a host of top conservative leaders as they planned out and advised each other on how to best push Trump and Republican allies over the top in the November elections.

We're talking about Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, members of Trump's administration, leaders of the most toxic "nonpartisan" "charities" in the country, and outright conspiracy weirdos—but I repeat myself—all getting together to strategize on coordinated plans to help Republicans win. The Post quoted a few of the requisite experts in order to point out that technically it seems like the charities could be committing some rather blatant tax criming in doing so, but YOLO, nothing matters, and so forth.

One takeaway from the Post-excerpted tapes, certainly, has to be that the leaders of today's Trump-devoted conservatism are absolutely the same crackpot conspiracy nuts they appear to be in public. Hoo, boy. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, a Fox News regular, warned the crowd that da left has a plan in the works to sabotage the election and install Nancy Pelosi as president—and that it is "not an insignificant concern." Longtime crank Brent Bozell said the left plans to "steal the election." These are not people interested in hiding behind Alex Jones notions that maybe the nutty things they say are just performance art once lawsuits start flying: They are the squeezings of two decades of Fox News insanity, distilled and poured into expensive suits.

Aside from everyone's insistence on standing knee-deep in those pools of Every Possible Conspiracy, though, the private goals of the Council for National Policy seem well agreed on by its members. The Council for National Policy's goal is to suppress votes. As many votes as possible, using whatever means are necessary.

  • Turning Point USA youth fascist leader Charlie Kirk was there to celebrate the good news of nationwide closures of universities—you know, because of the deadly pandemic—which he estimated would keep as many as half a million students from voting. "Please keep the campuses closed," he urged. "It's a great thing."
  • Fitton told the audience that blocking mail-in voting was essential. "We need to stop those ballots from going out, and I want the lawyers here to tell us what to do."
  • "Be not afraid of the accusations that you're a voter suppressor, you're a racist and so forth," Public Interest Legal Foundation President J. Christian Adams weirdly told the assembled members.

Buddy, I think your audience is way ahead of you on that last one.

Coupled with this coordinated agreement that everyone needed to focus on voter suppression was, of course, the “except for us” part. Lifelong conman and crook Ralph Reed promised the crowd that his fake-Christian Faith and Freedom Coalition absolutely would be "ballot harvesting" in churches around the nation, despite Republicans and Trump continuing to publicly condemn "ballot harvesting" as nation-breaking ultrafraud.

(Whether this has anything to do with the California Republican Party's own illegal ballot harvesting is unknown, but it's pretty clear both Reed and the party don't intend to abide by the laws on such things if the laws are getting in their way.)

So there you go. The top conservative lobbyists, conservative "charity" heads, fascists, conspiracy cranks, and a few Trump administration members are all meeting together to break laws and have the lawyers "tell us" what coordination needs to be done to most effectively block Americans from voting.

In case anyone, anywhere was unclear on what "conservatism" is all about, now that it's been stripped of every other pretended-at ideal.

14 Oct 23:45

McConnell has written off Trump, it's now all about preemptively crippling the Biden administration

by Joan McCarter

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been taking a lot of fire for not just capitulating to Republicans and taking the poison-pilled scraps that they are purportedly offering in pandemic relief. Those poison pills are the big tell here. Mitch McConnell doesn't want a deal and his refusal to pass anything without them are all the proof you need.

We've speculated about this for a few weeks, the possibility that McConnell and his fellow Republicans have already given up on a Trump victory, and is purposefully wrecking the economy to complicate Joe Biden's first year in office. Both in giving him a wrecked economy, and setting the stage for making it harder to demand the trillions that are going to be necessary to save the country. That speculation has proven true, with Republican operatives admitting that's the strategy.

We’ve got to stop them to save the country. Donate now to help bring back the White House and Senate.  

As the Washington Post's Greg Sargent points out, McConnell has offered up the bare minimum of assistance to give vulnerable Republicans something to point to, to tell voters that they've done a thing and maybe, maybe save his majority. But he's got his poison pill that he knows Democrats will not accept: absolving businesses from any liability for exposing their workers to infection with COVID-19. It's seemed for months that McConnell didn't want a deal and now, well, a Republican operative confirms it, and says point blank it's about fighting Biden next year.

A GOP strategist who has been consulting on Senate campaigns told Bloomberg that "Republicans have been carefully laying the groundwork to restrain a Biden administration on federal spending and the budget deficit by talking up concerns about the price tag for another round of virus relief." A number of hard-core Republicans have been using the deficit peacock's argument against saving the nation for months, to be clear. This isn't new—it's what Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Ron Johnson have been arguing since early summer. But now it's hardened into how they'll deal with a Biden administration starting in January. "The thinking, the strategist said, is that it would be very hard politically to agree on spending trillions more now and then in January suddenly embrace fiscal restraint."

It makes it all the more critical that Democrats retake the Senate. It also makes it all the more critical that when they do, they eliminate the filibuster so they can pass the trillions of dollars in stimulus that is going to be necessary without allowing Republicans to stop it.

14 Oct 23:42

'What am I missing?': Judge Barrett unable to name 5 freedoms granted by First Amendment

by Walter Einenkel
James.galbraith

Seriously

During Wednesday’s nomination hearings of Amy Coney Barrett, Barrett continued to not answer questions about her opinions or beliefs regarding the law. Democratic senators attempted to highlight what is known about Barrett’s legal opinions while Republican senators tried very hard to continue highlighting how many children Barrett has while offering up some super simple softball questions that frankly, anyone with an elementary school-level civics understanding would be able to answer.

One such question came from Republican wishy-washy Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska. After listening to Barrett say that the Declaration of Independence is not a document to base law on but the Constitution is, Sasse followed that up with this powerhouse question: “What are the five freedoms of the First Amendment?” Well, it’s only five, and technically, it is in the Constitution, the document Barrett considers so sacred she is only willing to read it in regards to slaveowners’ rights, like a true “originalist.” But, guess what? Like every other question Barrett has been asked, this one is a bit too difficult to answer.

Click over on the right there to help get rid of these Republican hack senators this November.

AMY CONEY BARRETT: Speech, religion, press, assembly, and I don't know, what am I missing?

[Raising my hand] Ohhhh, me me me me, can I be Supreme Court Justice????

SEN. BEN SASSE: Redress or protest.

Oh, whatever. Protest. That’s not important, amiright? 

This didn’t go unseen on Twitter, of course.

OOPS! This was clearly a more difficult question than the one about piano lessons... #SCOTUS #FirstAmendment #WednesdayWisdom #5Freedoms https://t.co/qGXSvs18dX

— phunnyphilly (@phunnyphilly) October 14, 2020

Maybe Katie Phang is more qualified for the Supreme Court?

The Five Freedoms: speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. 🇺🇸 https://t.co/uezylaDh0B

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) October 14, 2020

And now it’s time to remind everyone of that stupid notepad gimmick the Republican Party thought was so brilliant.

Q: "What are the five freedoms of the first amendment?" A: pic.twitter.com/bQT2O4ybsx

— 2️⃣0️⃣days until Nove〽️ber 3🗽 (@snowmanomics) October 14, 2020

The five freedoms protected by the 1st Amendment pic.twitter.com/XSIJ7DfQIv

— Dan Massey (@KinkSpring) October 14, 2020

Maybe she should have brought some notes after all. https://t.co/TxD6Wb5qkD

— Kaili Joy Gray (@KailiJoy) October 14, 2020

The fact that she left off protest did not go unnoticed.

Amy Coney Barrett can't or won't name all five freedoms protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Unsurprisingly, she neglects to list the right to protest.#wednesdaywisdompic.twitter.com/zsn1Sf9xtf

— Holly Figueroa O'Reilly (@AynRandPaulRyan) October 14, 2020

And from the file called, “Seriously.”

Amy Coney Barrett can't name the five freedoms listed in the First Amendment. That's like a basketball player not knowing what a ball is.

— JRehling (@JRehling) October 14, 2020

imagine youre interviewing for a job where the description is "must know constitution" and in the interview you're like "um, what?" https://t.co/B0EOWkpiMj

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) October 14, 2020

14 Oct 20:33

5 key moments from day 3 of Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court hearing

by Li Zhou
James.galbraith

She doesn't belong anywhere near a court

Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the third day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on October 14, 2020, in Washington, DC. | Hilary Swift/Getty Images

Unlike past nominees, Amy Coney Barrett won’t say whether she thinks a landmark contraception case was rightly decided.

Senators on Wednesday had one more chance to press Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on a range of issues including voting rights, health care, and executive power — questions she, once again, broadly declined to answer.

The second and final day of questions during Barrett’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee went much like the first. On subjects such as the president’s ability to pardon himself, mail-in voting, and climate change, Barrett — like other judicial nominees before her — said she couldn’t provide a viewpoint because she needed to maintain impartiality in case she was asked to consider a related challenge if confirmed.

While Barrett’s approach is one that other nominees have taken in the past, she’s been more reluctant to comment compared to Justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan on Griswold v. Connecticut, a landmark case concerning the right to contraception.

“I think that Griswold is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere,” Barrett said in lieu of providing her stance on the decision.

Here are some of the key moments from the third of four days of Barrett’s confirmation hearing.

Barrett says she hasn’t spoken out in support of the Affordable Care Act, though she’s criticized past decisions upholding it

During an exchange with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Barrett said she’s never publicly supported President Barack Obama’s landmark health care law, but she acknowledged that, in her capacity as a law professor, she’s been critical of previous Supreme Court decisions upholding the ACA.

After the 2012 NFIB v. Sebelius decision, which preserved the ACA, she argued in a journal article that Justice John Roberts’s conclusion “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.” Following the 2015 King v. Burwell case, which reaffirmed provisions of the ACA, she also noted that she agreed with Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent.

When Leahy asked if she’d ever commented in favor of the ACA, Barrett said she had not. “No, I’ve never had a chance to weigh in on the policy question,” she said.

Barrett, during her hearing, has emphasized that she does not have an “agenda” against the ACA, which Democrats have highlighted as a law she could overturn if she is confirmed for the high court. “I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act,” Barrett has said.

Leahy’s question sought to draw attention to the existing record she has on the subject.

Barrett wouldn’t say whether Griswold v. Connecticut was rightly decided, which other nominees have commented on in the past

Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 Supreme Court case that guaranteed couples the right to contraception in the privacy of their own homes, was among the decisions that Barrett would not take a position on, signaling a break from past nominees who have affirmed that it was rightly decided.

“In my other capacity, I get to grade, but not in this particular capacity with respect to precedent,” she said when asked by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) if she thought Griswold was wrongly decided. “I think that Griswold is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere.”

Although it’s common for nominees to withhold their opinions on various cases because they aren’t trying to signal how they’d rule on a potential challenge, Roberts and Kagan both commented on Griswold during their confirmations.

“I agree with the Griswold court’s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception,” Roberts said at his 2005 confirmation hearing.

Barrett wouldn’t take a position on climate change

Barrett on Wednesday, once again, declined to take a position on climate change, after saying she didn’t have “firm views” on the topic on Tuesday.

“I don’t think I’m competent to opine on what causes global warming or not,” Barrett said in response to a question from Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who asked if she thought humans contributed to global warming. “I don’t think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge, nor do I think I have views that are informed enough.”

Barrett’s answer spoke to a seeming unwillingness to break with Republicans’ approach to climate change, which some GOP lawmakers have repeatedly shied away from tying to human activity. Later in the hearing, she went on to describe climate change as a “very contentious matter of public debate.”

Barrett declined to comment on whether Trump could pardon himself

President Donald Trump has previously claimed that he could pardon himself — an act that no president before him has ever done. Barrett was asked, for a second time, on Wednesday about whether he’d legally be able to do this, an issue she declined to comment on because it’s something that could potentially come before the Supreme Court.

“That question may or may not arise, but that is one that calls for legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is,” she said. “Because it would be opining on an open question when I haven’t gone through the judicial process to decide it, it’s not one on which I can offer a view.”

According to NPR, there is currently no “legal consensus” about whether Trump has the ability to take such action. (Previously, a Justice Department memo had concluded in 1974 that President Richard Nixon could not pardon himself, and he was later pardoned by President Gerald Ford after he had already stepped down.)

Barrett agreed Wednesday that “no one is above the law.”

Lindsey Graham tried to appeal to Republican women

Graham, the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is currently locked in a contentious reelection fight in South Carolina, and he used the hearing this week to appeal to Republican women — a crucial contingent of voters he’ll need to win.

On both Tuesday and Wednesday, Graham emphasized repeatedly that Barrett’s nomination showed conservative women that there was a place for them on the country’s highest court — and called out the challenges he saw them facing.

“There’s one group in America that, I think, has had a hard time of it, and that’s conservatives of color and women conservatives,” he said. “This hearing to me is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women.” Barrett — whom Graham described as “unashamedly pro-life” — would only be the fifth woman to ascend to the high court if she’s confirmed.

According to a September Quinnipiac poll, Graham is trailing Democratic opponent Jaime Harrison by 10 points among likely women voters overall.


Help keep Vox free for all

Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what’s happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world: Contribute today from as little as $3.

14 Oct 20:06

Trump Supporter Says ‘Black Lives Don’t Matter,’ Makes Homophobic Taunts, Coughs on Protesters at Utah Gas Station: WATCH

by Towleroad
James.galbraith

Welcome to Utah

A Trump supporter identified as Robert Brissette was filmed taunting Black Lives Matter supporters with homophobic slurs before violently coughing on them at a gas station in Kanab, Utah.

Screams Brissette in the video: “You’re the one talking sh*t to me. Everybody knows who I am. My name is Robert Brissette. Find me on Facebook. I hate all you Democrats. Black lives don’t matter. All lives matter!”

“You!” adds Brissette, pointing at a protester. “You look like a little pansy-ass piece of sh*t.”

Brissette then began coughing dramatically into the protesters’ faces and taunting them as they swatted him away: “Oh, I’m so scared of your f**king virus.”

In a GoFundMe campaign, Brissette claims to be the victim: “On Saturday 10/10/20 I was attacked by BLM protesters in Kanab Utah.  I now have legal issues do to this. .. What happened I was pumping gas had my Trump flag on my truck. Some other random guy Rolled Coal from his truck on some BLM/Biden people that were on the corner. Every one around me was laughing. Two of the protesters threw rocks at me. I went to confront them and was totally verbally attacked. So without touching anyone I called out the BLM at this point someone started recording it. During my rant two women hit me. And now I’m being charged with starting it.  I need help to clear my name against these race baiting protesters.”

Brissette added: “The BLM member has made a video go viral. And it only show me calling them out. It does not show 1st 5 mins were I was being assaulted with rocks and verbal attacks. Also there is a video show me go after a guy but it starts after he messed with my truck while I was in the gas station. I’m getting charged with 5 different crimes and my reputation trashed. help me to combat these people.”

The video first appeared on Reddit, where users noted that Brissette set a land speed record at El Mirage, a land speed racing track in California, after his son’s death.

The post Trump Supporter Says ‘Black Lives Don’t Matter,’ Makes Homophobic Taunts, Coughs on Protesters at Utah Gas Station: WATCH appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

14 Oct 20:05

Lindsey Graham Thrashed for Linking Marriage Equality to Polygamy in Questioning of Amy Coney Barrett: WATCH

by Andy Towle
James.galbraith

Fucking ridiculous

Lindsey Graham Amy Coney Barrett

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) followed up a question about marriage equality to SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett with a question about the legality of polygamy during hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning. Graham appeared to be drawing connections between the two.

RELATED: Aaron Schock’s Story Reveals Why Discussing Lindsey Graham’s Sexual Orientation is Totally Appropriate

Asked Graham: “So we talk a lot about laws legalizing same-sex marriage [the Obergefell case]. If anybody tried to change that precedent one of the things you would look at is a reliance interest that people have formed around that piece of legislation?”

“Yes,” Barrett replied.

“So, reaching a decision that the case was wrongly decided doesn’t end the debate in terms of whether or not it should be repealed. Is that correct?” asked Graham.

“That is correct,” Barrett replied.

“And there is a very rigorous process in place to overturn precedent?” Graham followed.

“There is, many factors, reliance being one,” Barrett replied.

“Is there any constitutional right to a polygamous relationship?” asked Graham.

“Um, let’s see,” Barrett answered. “That might be a question that could be litigated at, you know, polygamy obviously in many places is illegal, now, but that could be an issue somebody might litigate before the Court at some point.”

ALSO: ‘Washington Post’ Historicizes Speculation About Lindsey Graham’s Sexual Orientation

“Somebody might have made the argument it’s possible for three people to love each other, genuinely, and that would work this way with court if somebody wanted to make that argument, is that correct?” asked Graham.

“Somebody could make that argument,” Barrett replied.

Twitter erupted following the remarks.

The post Lindsey Graham Thrashed for Linking Marriage Equality to Polygamy in Questioning of Amy Coney Barrett: WATCH appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

14 Oct 20:04

Senator Mazie Hirono Rips Amy Coney Barrett for Using ‘Offensive and Outdated’ Term ‘Sexual Preference’ to Describe Gay People: WATCH

by Andy Towle
James.galbraith

Kudos to Hirono

As we reported on Tuesday, At Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein grilled SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett on whether she thinks marriage equality is protected. Barrett wouldn’t say, and also used the anti-LGBTQ buzzphrase “sexual preference” to describe orientation, indicating that she believes it is a choice.

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) laid into Barrett later in the day.

Said Hirono: “Even though you did not give a direct answer, I think your response did speak volumes. Not once but twice you used the term ‘sexual preference’ to describe those in the LGBTQ community. And let me make clear, ‘sexual preference’ is an offensive and outdated term. It is used by anti-LGTBQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity.”

“That ‘sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable’ was a key part of the majority’s opinion in Obergefell,” Hirono continued. “Which, by the way, Scalia did not agree with. So if it is your view that sexual orientation is merely a ‘preference,’ then the LGBT community should be rightly concerned whether you would uphold their constitutional right to marry.”

“I don’t think that you used the term ‘sexual preference’ as, I don’t think it was an accident,” Hirono added. “And one of the legacies of Justice Scalia and his particular brand of originalism is a resistance to recognizing those in the LGBT community as having equal rights under our Constitution.”

More, below:

Barrett apologized for using the term “sexual preference.”

The post Senator Mazie Hirono Rips Amy Coney Barrett for Using ‘Offensive and Outdated’ Term ‘Sexual Preference’ to Describe Gay People: WATCH appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

14 Oct 20:04

‘#BoycottNBC’ Trends After Network Announces Thursday Town Hall with Trump at Exact Same Time as Biden’s, on Night President Refused to Debate

by Andy Towle
trump biden debate

Twitter rang out in reaction to NBC News’ announcement that it would hold a Town Hall event with Donald Trump on Thursday night, at the same time Joe Biden was holding his own ABC News Town Hall event in Philadelphia, because Trump had said he wouldn’t participate in a virtual debate between the two candidates.

#BoycottNBC began trending on social media Wednesday morning in reaction to the news.

NBC News reports: “During the one-hour town hall at 8:00 p.m. ET, Guthrie will moderate a conversation between Trump and a group of Florida voters. It will take place outdoors at the Pérez Art Museum in accordance with guidelines set forth by health officials and consistent with all government regulations. NBC News said it has received a statement by Dr. Clifford Lane, Clinical Director at the National Institutes of Health, indicating that he and Dr. Anthony Fauci have reviewed Trump’s recent medical data, including a PCR test collected and analyzed by NIH on Tuesday, and have concluded ‘with a high degree of confidence’ that the president is ‘not shedding infectious virus.'”

The post ‘#BoycottNBC’ Trends After Network Announces Thursday Town Hall with Trump at Exact Same Time as Biden’s, on Night President Refused to Debate appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

14 Oct 20:00

OAN reporter fired from FDA appointment is still at FDA, flouting rules

by Beth Mole
James.galbraith

Because the rules don't apply to republicans apparently.

Emily Miller, when she was a reporter for OAN in 2016.

Enlarge / Emily Miller, when she was a reporter for OAN in 2016. (credit: YouTube)

Back in August, the Food and Drug Administration ousted Emily Miller from her role as the agency’s top spokesperson. Miller, a right-wing activist and former One America News reporter, was installed in the FDA by the White House and given the role of assistant commissioner for media affairs, a role typically held by nonpartisan civil servants. She held the post for a mere 11 days and was fired amid intense controversy after several high-profile agency missteps.

But now it appears that Miller never left the FDA. She’s still at the regulatory agency and has since been given a new—perhaps more prestigious—title. And as before, she is causing problems for the agency.

Miller is now the senior advisor to the chief of staff at the FDA. As an FDA employee, she has publicly promoted an unapproved drug as being “like a cure” for COVID-19 on Twitter. Her tweets support unproven and potentially dangerous statements from President Trump and may violate FDA regulations. The drug she promoted is currently being reviewed by the FDA for emergency use, raising concerns about the agency’s impartiality.

Read 7 remaining paragraphs | Comments

14 Oct 19:58

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Flood

by tech@thehiveworks.com


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Kelly told me the first two panels were a bit much, but so far I haven't been struck by lightning, so I think we're good.


Today's News:
14 Oct 19:57

How Conservative Is Amy Coney Barrett?

by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, Laura Bronner and Anna Wiederkehr
James.galbraith

She's a lunatic

Erin Schaff / Pool / Getty Images

Just how conservative is Amy Coney Barrett?

It’s a question we’ve asked before with other appellate judges who have been nominated to the Supreme Court — most recently with Justice Brett Kavanaugh — but it’s surprisingly difficult to answer with any precision. On the one hand, we know that Barrett’s appointment would mean a huge rightward shift on the court, as she is far more ideologically conservative than the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But on the other hand, we don’t really know how conservative Barrett would be if she’s confirmed.

We can look to her track record on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, though, for clues. Barrett has served on that court for almost three years now, and two different analyses of her rulings point to the same conclusion: Barrett is one of the more conservative judges on the circuit — and maybe even the most conservative.

University of Virginia law professors Joshua Fischman and Kevin Cope analyzed more than 1,700 cases that the 7th Circuit has heard since Barrett joined the court in 2017, including 378 where Barrett cast a vote,36 and according to their analysis, Barrett is part of a cluster of conservative judges at the rightmost edge of the 7th Circuit.

However, even though her ideological estimate was furthest to the right of the judges currently on the 7th Circuit, Barrett was statistically indistinguishable from the three other Trump appointees and three judges appointed by other Republicans, including prominent conservative Judges Diane Sykes and Frank Easterbrook. “[Barrett is] clearly near the right side of the conservative spectrum on the court,” Fischman told us. “She’s not off the charts, though — she’s in line with other well-known, well-respected conservative judges on the court.”

But there are some differences between Barrett and her current conservative colleagues. Fischman and Cope also dug into how judges ruled on various types of issues and found that Barrett is closer to the middle of the court on cases involving employment discrimination, labor and criminal defendants, but much more conservative in cases involving civil rights — a category that is mainly composed of cases involving prisoners’ rights and civil rights claims against government employees, but also includes hot-button issues like gun rights, voting rights and abortion rights.

Barrett is particularly conservative on civil rights issues

Share of decisions in which Amy Coney Barrett voted conservatively, compared to all judges on 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, since 2017

conservative share of decisions
Type of cases Barrett 7th Circuit Diff.
Discrimination + labor 83.8% 83.2% +0.6
Criminal + habeas corpus 87.9 86.2 +1.6
Civil rights 83.2 77.6 +5.6

Each decision was coded as liberal or conservative, where “liberal” generally meant a decision was in favor of a criminal defendant or against the state. Decisions that were part liberal and part conservative were coded as a fraction of a decision for each side. Does not include about a thousand cases that could not be classified as liberal or conservative.

Source: Fischman & Cope

Barrett’s record on abortion has come under a lot of scrutiny, but Fischman noted that she might also be especially conservative on gun rights. She only heard a handful of cases involving Second Amendment rights during her time on the 7th Circuit, but she came out strongly against several of her conservative colleagues in a case involving a law stripping felons of their gun rights, arguing that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow such a blanket ban. Those views could be especially relevant on the Supreme Court, which hasn’t heard a major case involving gun rights in almost a decade.

We can also look at how Barrett has ruled in special cases known as “en banc” hearings, which are used when there’s a serious disagreement among the judges about an outcome, or when circuit precedent is being reconsidered. These cases are not very common — Barrett, for instance, has only sat on six en banc panels in her three years on the court — but they can offer a clearer snapshot of a judge’s ideology, as judges often have more freedom in how they rule in these cases, in part because they are not constrained by circuit precedent as they normally would be. En banc hearings are also more comparable to cases the Supreme Court might hear because the legal issues are knottier. And they’re more similar to how the Supreme Court works, because they require all the circuit judges to vote together rather than splitting them into smaller panels of three judges, which is how the appeals court normally operates.

An analysis of 7th Circuit en banc cases by Tom Clark, a political science professor at Emory University, mirrored what Fischman and Cope found: After just six cases, Barrett fell on the rightmost edge of the court, along with two other Trump appointees and Sykes. (There was considerably more uncertainty in her estimate, though, since Clark’s model was drawing on less data for judges who have been on the court for less time.)

“Things could be different with more data, of course,” said Clark. But overall, he thought her ideological profile was remarkably clear. “She’s voting very consistently in these cases so far. Even with this small number of cases, she’s showing up on the far right edge of the court.”

It’s hard, of course, to directly extrapolate from Barrett’s record as an appellate judge to how she might rule as a Supreme Court justice, but it’s reasonable to expect she will be reliably conservative. That said, Barrett has not always ruled in line with fellow conservatives on the 7th Circuit, and even the conservative justices on the Supreme Court disagree with each other on some topics or differ on which issues are more important. It remains to be seen just how persuadable Barrett might be if she’s confirmed, or how her perspective might change after a few years on the bench.

This is important, too, because to keep the Supreme Court from moving quickly to the right on hot-button issues, Chief Justice John Roberts may try to peel off another conservative vote. Whether Barrett might be amenable to such overtures is hard to say, but we do know that during her time on the 7th Circuit, Fischman and Cope found that she has voted in a liberal direction about 20 percent of the time when at least one Democratic nominee is on the panel but only about 9 percent of the time when the panel is composed of three Republican nominees. That could indicate that Barrett is open to the arguments of her more liberal colleagues — or that she is choosing not to dissent in some cases for the sake of collegiality. Either way, though, it’s a sign that she does vote slightly differently depending on the composition of the panel, rather than being consistently conservative regardless of who she’s voting with.

Clifford W. Berlow, a partner at the law firm Jenner & Block who specializes in appellate litigation, said that this is in line with the 7th Circuit’s general reputation as a polite, respectful circuit. “I don’t think you’ve seen from Barrett or any of the other [Trump appointees] the sort of scathing, scorched-earth dissents or biting concurrences that you might see in some other circuits,” Berlow said. He added that he wouldn’t be surprised if Barrett carried this sense of collegiality with her to the Supreme Court.

Overall, though, it’s plain from Barrett’s record why Republicans are eager to confirm her before the election and why Democrats are dead-set against her. With only a few years under her belt as a judge, she’s established herself as one of the most conservative members of a court that already has a lot of Republican appointees. If she’s confirmed, it seems fairly safe to assume that she would continue that pattern — even if she’s occasionally willing to break from her fellow conservatives.

What to watch for during Supreme Court confirmation hearings | FiveThirtyEight

14 Oct 19:54

DOJ: Trump's 'total declassification' of Russiagate docs has no effect

by Kyle Cheney
James.galbraith

Bullshit. "Cheeto's tweets are only official when we want them to be" is not a sustainable position


What happened: When Donald Trump tweeted last week that he authorized the "total declassification of any & all documents" related to the long-running Russia investigation and Hillary Clinton's emails — "No redactions!" he tweeted — he really didn't mean it, the Justice Department argued in court Tuesday.

DOJ attorneys told a judge that the White House Counsel's Office effectively told DOJ to disregard Trump's tweets on the matter. They weren't accompanied by an actual declassification order, and DOJ will proceed as though the tweets hadn't occurred, continuing to redact and release documents at its discretion.

"The White House Counsel's Office informed the Department that there is no order requiring wholesale declassification or disclosure of documents at issue in this matter," Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer wrote in a filing with Judge Reggie Walton, who had ordered DOJ to clarify its position after the president's tweets.

The background: Walton is presiding over a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by BuzzFeed's Jason Leopold seeking the disclosure of redacted portions of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the 2016 Trump campaign's contacts with Russia, as well as its underlying documents.

The White House's position cuts against Trump's emphatic tweet, which came amid a remarkable string of invective aimed at his political allies — as well as demands that his Justice Department indict and prosecute his political rivals, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

"I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax," Trump said. "Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!"

The tweet drew immediate accolades from some of Trump's closest allies, who have long claimed hidden documents would expose the Russia investigation as a politically motivated assault on the Trump presidency. But DOJ made clear that Trump's pronouncement had no actual force.

"The Attorney General has not ordered the declassification and release of any of the redacted material in this case based on the President's tweets," Weinsheimer wrote. "The Department was further informed that the President's statements on Twitter do not require altering any redactions on any record at issue in this case, including but not limited to, any redactions taken pursuant to any discretionary FOIA exemptions."

14 Oct 19:52

North Carolina voters unmoved by Dem Senate hopeful’s sex scandal

by James Arkin
James.galbraith

thank goodness


Democrat Cal Cunningham has been under siege for 10 days, facing a barrage of attacks over his extramarital affair and brutal news coverage across North Carolina.

So far, though, the scandal hasn’t made a dent. One poll out Tuesday from Monmouth University showed Cunningham's image has taken a hit — but he's actually in a slightly stronger position in the matchup with GOP Sen. Thom Tillis compared to their last survey taken weeks before Cunningham's personal troubles became public.

A trio of public polls in the past two days showed Cunningham ahead by mid-single-digits, including a 48 percent to 44 percent lead in the Monmouth survey. They corroborate what Democrats have said: Voters are well aware of the issue but aren’t budging from Cunningham.

North Carolina is one of the most important Senate races on the map. Spending in the contest is already close to $200 million, and it’s on track to be the most expensive Senate election in history. Republicans have seized on Cunningham’s affair with TV ads bashing him as a hypocrite and unfit for office.

“He has apologized. He knows that he has disappointed his family and friends and supporters,” said Wayne Goodwin, chairman of the state Democratic Party. “But everyone agrees, and that poll further verifies, that the election to the United States Senate and which party has the majority in the United States Senate, rests not on one individual, but where individuals stand on key issues such as health care.”

Ray McKinnon, a former Democratic National Committee member in the state, said of Cunningham: “I think most definitely he's weathering the storm."

McKinnon argued that antipathy for President Donald Trump and Tillis is driving the election and Democrats' willingness to stand by Cunningham, even as they express disappointment or frustration with the affair.



"We're tired of playing by a different set of rules than other people. And they keep winning playing by that set of rules, and we keep playing by that other standard," McKinnon said.

Republicans say, however, they are just beginning to litigate the issue. The National Republican Senatorial Committee launched a new ad Tuesday calling Cunningham “just another political hypocrite” and featuring local news coverage of his affair. Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC run by allies of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also launched a new ad highlighting coverage of Cunningham facing questions from reporters last week, where he did not answer when pressed on whether he had been involved with other women.

“I don't think it's been baked in yet,” said Michael Whatley, the state GOP chairman. He argued the full breadth of the situation, including the confirmed investigation by the Army into Cunningham, a lieutenant colonel in the reserves, would have more impact in the coming weeks. “It’s going to be much more prevalent in voters minds shortly, and I think that will definitely move it,” he said.

The Monmouth poll showed Cunningham with a slightly larger lead, 49 percent to 44 percent, in a high turnout scenario, and only a one-point advantage in a low turnout environment. The Senate results mirror the presidential race in the state: Democrat Joe Biden holds a 1-to-4-point lead, depending on the turnout model.

The Monmouth survey matches the results of two online polls also showing Cunningham still outpacing Tillis. A SurveyUSA poll conducted for WRAL-TV showed him ahead, 49 percent to 39 percent; a poll from Morning Consult showed him leading, 47 percent to 41 percent.

But Republicans are optimistic those polls don't paint an accurate picture. Glen Bolger, the pollster for Tillis' campaign, said in a tweet that he planned to release survey data Wednesday that would show the affair has had more of an impact on the race. Bolger and Tillis' campaign declined to share details on the polling on Tuesday.

"Cal Cunningham's scandal, coupled with the military investigation, is taking a toll on him" in the race, Bolger said.

But Republicans face a challenge in moving the needle. Voters already have high awareness of the affair: In the Monmouth survey, 80 percent of voters had heard about Cunningham's texts with a woman who is not his wife. But only 14 percent said it disqualified him from office; 32 percent said it called his character into question but did not disqualify him; and 51 percent said it’s an issue for only him and his family.


The survey questioned only awareness of Cunningham sending “romantic texts” to a woman who was not his wife. The woman, Arlene Guzman Todd, confirmed at least one intimate encounter with Cunningham to the Associated Press. And the Army confirmed an investigation into the affair.

“There are more layers to this scandal that continue to be unpacked, and it’s undoubtedly had a negative effect on Cunningham’s image,” said Jesse Hunt, a spokesman for the NRSC. “Closing the campaign with questions about an Army investigation into your behavior and whether or not you have multiple mistresses is not a winning message for him.”

Cunningham did take questions from the media last week following a Zoom event about Covid-19 recovery. He did not address specifics when pressed on if there were other affairs, making it clear he doesn't intend to discuss the matter beyond his initial apology and arguing voters care more about other issues. “I've said what I'm going to say about it,” Cunningham said.

Spokespeople for Cunningham's campaign did not respond to followup questions after that press conference. A spokesperson on Tuesday referred to a memo the campaign released from campaign manager Devan Barber in which she argued the fundamentals of the race favor the Democrat, highlighting his polling lead and massive fundraising and advertising advantage.

‘We know this race will come down to a handful of votes, and because of the strong position Cal is in today, we will continue to have the tools and resources to keep this race in reach in the final weeks,” Barber wrote in the memo.

14 Oct 19:50

It's starting to seem like Bill Barr really has arranged an October surprise ... for Donald Trump

by Mark Sumner
James.galbraith

Yeah watch out for more surprises

The idea that the Obama administration had engaged in “unmasking”—improperly revealing the name of Americans in intelligence intercepts—was the original source of claims that they had “spied” on the Trump campaign. It was the focus of Fox stories, the foundation of Trump tweets, the reason that Devin Nunes leaped from an Uber to pay secret visits to the White House, and the basis of the right-wing media coining “Obamagate.” Trump tweeted about unmasking over a dozen times, declaring that it was proof of spying and “an end run around the Constitution.”

So it was no surprise that one of Attorney General Bill Barr’s actions in following up on every Trump conspiracy theory was to assign U.S. Attorney John Bash to investigate unmasking practices, as well as claims that Obama staffers had leaked classified information to reporters in advance of the 2016 election. It was, however, a surprise when Bash resigned from both that role and the whole of the Justice Department at the beginning of October. And now The Washington Post has reported why Bash went out the door in such a hurry: Because he found no “substantive wrongdoing.”

By the way, has anyone seen Barr?

Bash has wrapped up his investigation without filing a single criminal charge. There also appears to be no public report … which doesn’t mean there’s not a report. It seems likely that Bash didn’t go out the door without producing something. It’s just that whatever Bash found is being kept under wraps by a “Department of Justice” more interested in protecting Trump than in revealing the truth. The Post indicates that the contents of Bash’s findings “would likely disappoint” those who have tried to make a conspiracy out of unmasking.

In addition to the Bash investigation, Barr had also initiated an investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham in an effort to confirm other aspects of Trump’s conspiracy theories against Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and everyone who’s not Donald Trump. But just three weeks before Bash resigned, Durham’s lead aide also went out the door, with indications that the Durham investigation was also coming up dry. Just a week ago came news that Durham’s report is unlikely to be ready in time for the election—a result that one GOP staffer called “a nightmare scenario.”

Of course, there is a solution for both the Bash and Durham problems, a solution that Barr has already demonstrated in the past: Summaries. Rather than hand over the actual report of either investigation, Barr could simply “summarize” the results in a way that boosts Trump and slings mud at his enemies. That’s exactly the approach that Barr took by releasing a three-page document purporting to summarize the results of the Mueller investigation, even though it drastically distorted the actual findings of the special investigator’s team.

Barr could do that, except … where is Barr, exactly? On Oct. 2, Barr claimed that he had tested negative for COVID-19 and would not be isolating himself despite being present at the Amy Coney Barrett superspreader introduction without wearing a mask or using social distancing. Then, three days later, Barr announced that that he would “self-quarantine for now” but was expected to return to work within a week.

But has he? There seem to be no public sightings of Barr since the announcement that he was self-quarantining. However, there have been mentions of Barr by Trump. Back in August, Trump was still crowing about the possibility of a Barr-Durham report being produced as an October surprise. Since then, Trump has made several attacks on Barr and the failure to produce a report in advance of the election. Trump has complained about Barr in rallies, complained about Barr in appearances on Fox and Rush Limbaugh, and complained about Barr on Twitter.

It all goes to show that, when you’ve signed on to be a toady, you better provide some … toad.

Maybe Barr really is sick. Maybe he’s on the run from Trump. But don’t discount the idea that he may still be scribbling furiously on a summary that explains what Bash and Durham “really” found. 

14 Oct 19:34

How Republicans will try to destroy a Biden presidency

by Greg Sargent
James.galbraith

Yup. Bad faith abounds.

An anonymous GOP strategist makes a strikingly candid admission.
14 Oct 19:03

Amy Coney Barrett thinks she can fool us

by Paul Waldman
James.galbraith

Yeah it's bullshit. She's a hack

She claims to be so ideologically unsullied that she will do what no other justice can do.