Trump’s Coffee for Coup Accountability Emergency

/45 Comments/in /by

As a reminder, the trade war Trump launched on April 2 purports to address an emergency created by trade deficits in goods (not services).

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2483), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, find that underlying conditions, including a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers, and U.S. trading partners’ economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States. That threat has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States in the domestic economic policies of key trading partners and structural imbalances in the global trading system. I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to this threat.

[snip]

I have declared a national emergency arising from conditions reflected in large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, which have grown by over 40 percent in the past 5 years alone, reaching $1.2 trillion in 2024. This trade deficit reflects asymmetries in trade relationships that have contributed to the atrophy of domestic production capacity, especially that of the U.S. manufacturing and defense-industrial base. These asymmetries also impact U.S. producers’ ability to export and, consequentially, their incentive to produce.

Specifically, such asymmetry includes not only non-reciprocal differences in tariff rates among foreign trading partners, but also extensive use of non-tariff barriers by foreign trading partners, which reduce the competitiveness of U.S. exports while artificially enhancing the competitiveness of their own goods. These non-tariff barriers include technical barriers to trade; non-scientific sanitary and phytosanitary rules; inadequate intellectual property protections; suppressed domestic consumption (e.g., wage suppression); weak labor, environmental, and other regulatory standards and protections; and corruption. These non-tariff barriers give rise to significant imbalances even when the United States and a trading partner have comparable tariff rates.

That claim seems to have been forgotten in discussion of the 50% tariff Trump just threatened to place on Brazil.

Trump barely focused on his claimed emergency in his letter — posted to Truth Social — to Lula da Silva. Rather, he mentioned:

  • The purported Witch Hunt against Jair Bolsonaro — the prosecution for Bolsonaro’s attempted coup — “that should end IMMEDIATELY!”
  • Efforts to regulate social media in Brazil (largely with the goal of investigating and cracking down on insurrection), which Trump called “hundreds of SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms, threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market”

All that was in addition to (and before) the boilerplate language on goods included in the letter.

Mind you, that boilerplate would be nonsense in any case, because the US enjoys a trade surplus with Brazil. There could be no trade deficit emergency with Brazil because the US doesn’t have one.

Which is one of the points Lula noted in response (ironically, on Xitter). The US says the US has a trade surplus with Brazil.

In light of the public statement made by U.S. President Donald Trump on social media on the afternoon of Wednesday (9), it is important to highlight the following:

[snip]

The claim regarding a U.S. trade deficit in its commercial relationship with Brazil is inaccurate. Statistics from the U.S. government itself show a surplus of $410 billion in the trade of goods and services with Brazil over the past 15 years.

Therefore, any unilateral tariff increases will be addressed in accordance with Brazil’s Economic Reciprocity Law.

Sovereignty, respect and the unwavering defense of the interests of the Brazilian people are the values that guide our relationship with the world.

Which leaves solely the complaints pertaining to coup accountability: that Brazil fined Xitter when it refused to comply with legal and investigative demands, as well as the requirement that it have a local representative (through whom Brazil would enforce the law), as well as the complaint that Brazil is holding Bolsonaro accountable for the same crime that Trump himself committed.

Here’s how Lula addressed those complaints.

Brazil is a sovereign nation with independent institutions and will not accept any form of tutelage.

The judicial proceedings against those responsible for planning the coup d’état fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of Brazil´s Judicial Branch and, as such, are not subject to any interference or threats that could compromise the independence of national institutions.

In the context of digital platforms, Brazilian society rejects hateful content, racism, child pornography, scams, fraud, and speeches against human rights and democratic freedom.

In Brazil, freedom of expression must not be confused with aggression or violent practices. All companies—whether domestic or foreign—must comply with Brazilian law in order to operate within our territory.

This is not a trade emergency.

It’s a democracy emergency.

A sovereignty emergency.

A coup accountability emergency.

And even if those were emergencies to the US, Trump has not declared a separate, “OMIGOD an ally might hold someone accountable for the same crime I committed,” emergency to cover the real scope of this letter.

Trump’s trade war has already been declared unlawful. Trump’s attempt to use trade policies to help a fellow coup conspirator comes in the wake of a May 28 Court of International Trade judgement that Trump usurped the power of Congress in imposing these tariffs — the tariffs focused on trade deficits and fentanyl trafficking, as opposed to coup accountability.

Plaintiffs and some Amici argue that the Government’s interpretation transforms IEEPA into an impermissible delegation of power because “[t]he President’s assertion of authority here has no meaningful limiting standards, essentially enabling him to impose any tariff rate he wants on any country at any time, for virtually any reason.” Pls.’ V.O.S. Mots. at 25; see also Pls.’ Oregon Mots. at 19; Pls.’ V.O.S. Reply at 22. Similarly, Plaintiffs suggest that Congress’s use of the words “regulate . . . importation” does not indicate the clear mandate necessary to delegate “such unbounded authority to the President to make such decisions of ‘vast economic and political significance,’” as the wide-scale imposition of tariffs. Pls.’ Oregon Mot. at 18; see also Pls.’ V.O.S. Reply at 17; Inst. for Pol. Integrity’s Amicus Br. at 16–18. The Government counters that IEEPA contains sufficient limitations: the President must declare a national emergency, the emergency expires after one year unless renewed, the emergency must be declared with respect to an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” and the powers must extend only to property in which a foreign country or foreign national has an interest. Gov’t Resp. to V.O.S. Mots. at 28–29.

The separation of powers is always relevant to delegations of power between the branches. Both the nondelegation and the major questions doctrines, even if not directly applied to strike down a statute as unconstitutional, provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems. These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government. Regardless of whether the court views the President’s actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional. [my emphasis]

The CIT distinguished past tariffs from these Trump tariffs — again, tariffs that were tied exclusively to a trade deficit, not a coup accountability emergency — because they didn’t entail imposing “whatever tariff rates he deems desirable.”

While the court in Yoshida II ultimately reversed the lower court’s decision and upheld President Nixon’s tariffs, it upheld the tariffs on the basis that they were limited, “which is quite different from imposing whatever tariff rates he deems desirable.”

[snip]

Like the court in Yoshida II, this court does not read the words “regulate . . . importation” in IEEPA as authorizing the President to impose whatever tariff rates he deems desirable. Indeed, such a reading would create an unconstitutional delegation of power. See id. Importantly, President Trump’s tariffs do not include the limitations that the court in Yoshida II relied upon in upholding President Nixon’s actions under TWEA. Where President Nixon’s tariffs were expressly limited by the rates established in the HTSUS, see Proclamation No. 4074, 85 Stat. at 927, the tariffs here contain no such limit. Absent these limitations, this is exactly the scenario that the lower court warned of in Yoshida I—and that the appellate court acknowledged in Yoshida II.

In sum, just as the court recognized in Yoshida II, the words “regulate . . . importation” cannot grant the President unlimited tariff authority. [my emphasis]

And, in language addressing Trump’s drug trafficking sanctions, CIT also said the President could not use tariffs to pressure a country to do what he wants (in that case, to do more on fentanyl trafficking).

The Government’s reading would cause the meaning of “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat” to permit any infliction of a burden on a counterparty to exact concessions, regardless of the relationship between the burden inflicted and the concessions exacted. If “deal with” can mean “impose a burden until someone else deals with,” then everything is permitted. It means a President may use IEEPA to take whatever actions he chooses simply by declaring them “pressure” or “leverage” tactics that will elicit a third party’s response to an unconnected “threat.” Surely this is not what Congress meant when it clarified that IEEPA powers “may not be exercised for any other purpose” than to “deal with” a threat. [my emphasis]

The Court of International Trade has already said doing this is ultra vires, well beyond Trump’s legal authority, precisely because Trump claims to have unlimited unreviewable authority to usurp Congress’ tariff authority. And it said so precisely because the claimed authority Trump was invoking was so unlimited, extending even to coercion regarding things entirely unrelated to trade.

And it’s not just the court that said it. The captioned challenge here, from a wine importer and other small businesses, is being lawyered by CATO associates. Another challenge is being lawyered by recipients of Koch funding. Among the amicus briefs submitted to the CIT was one signed by a weirdly bipartisan group of muckety-mucks, including right wingnuts like Steven Calabresi. And in recent days, before the Federal Court of Appeals (which will hold a hearing on Trump’s appeal on July 31), the Chamber of Commerce and a bunch of economists fronted by the American Enterprise Institute weighed in. The latter debunks both Trump’s assertion of emergency and his claim that tariffs will fix the purported emergency.

First, IEEPA requires the President to declare a national emergency based on an “unusual and extraordinary threat . . . to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. § 1701(a). Trade deficits, however, have existed consistently over the past fifty years in the United States, for extended periods in the United States in the nineteenth century, and in most countries in most years in recent decades. They are thus not “unusual and extraordinary.” See Part I, infra. Second, the existence of these ordinary and recurring trade deficits is not in and of itself a “threat . . . to the national security, foreign policy or the economy” of the United States. See Part II, infra. Third, even if the current trade deficit constituted an unusual and extraordinary threat to national security or the economy as required by IEEPA, the tariffs imposed under IEEPA by the President do not meaningfully reduce trade deficits and hence do not “deal with” the deficits as IEEPA requires. See Part III, infra.

With his coup accountability emergency, Trump has taken his unlawful tariffs — already opposed by a wide swath of right wing intellects, who are represented by lawyers who’ll get a fair hearing at SCOTUS — and made them far more abusive.

And he has done so with a trade partner for whom threats tied to China may backfire. After all, China has long substituted agricultural imports from Brazil, notably in soybeans, to replace US imports when Trump stages a tariff tantrum.

Trump has staged his coup accountability emergency with a trade partner that provides a notable proportion of America’s coffee imports. 50% tariffs on Brazilian coffee will undoubtedly provide a jolt to the system, but probably not the kind that will help Trump.

Donald Trump has threatened to impose a 50% tax on coffee in the United States for little other reason than Brazil won’t let his buddy overturn democratic elections with impunity.

That’s outrageous. It is quite clearly an instance of Trump threatening “whatever tariff rates he deems desirable” with the goal of “inflict[ing ]a burden on a counterparty to exact concessions, regardless of the relationship between the burden inflicted and the concessions exacted,” both precisely the measure the CIT used to declare Trump’s trade deficits unlawful.

But it clarifies the legal stakes on the one legal challenge on which right wingers have joined Democrats in droves to oppose Trump’s abuses, because in this case the President is attempting to use tariffs completely divorced from a trade deficit to elicit concessions totally unrelated to the national good.

It was already the case that this is the legal challenge that plaintiffs had the best chance of winning — because SCOTUS treats economic stability differently, because right wing lawyers will argue it, because this is a clear separation of powers violation. Then Trump went and made the arbitrary, personalist nature of it far more explicit.

Share this entry

Expecting Legislators to Lead the Resistance Is a Category Error

/50 Comments/in /by

On podcasts and in this post, I’ve been trying to make a point about how you resist fascism.

Americans have at least three tools to resist fascism: legal, legislative, and via political movement. A great many people have conflated legislative opposition with movement opposition, and based on that conflation, assumed that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries must be leaders of The Opposition.

But that’s a category error.

While there are a lot of things Schumer, especially, could do better, you shouldn’t want either Schumer or Jeffries to be the leader of the resistance. You shouldn’t want that because the goals of the movement and of an opposition party in Congress are not the same. You shouldn’t want that because having a Black guy and a Jew from New York leading your resistance will likely make it harder to do what you need to do, which is (in significant part) to build a political movement big enough to undermine if not overthrow fascism.

I’m sure I’ll need to tweak this illustration and table,  but here’s how I think about it: Democrats in Congress are part of the political movement, but that is different than their legislative role.

Start from the end goal: according to a contested theory from Erica Chenoweth, if a popular nonviolent movement comes to incorporate 3.5% of the population, you can achieve political change. G. Elliott Morris estimates that around 4 to 6 million people participated in the No Kings protests, so about 1.4 to 1.8% of the population (but that’s a one-time protest and you need to sustain such numbers). If you buy this theory, you need to at least double the popular opposition to Trump willing to take to the streets.

While it’s possible you could get rid of Trump via other means (maybe right wingers get sick of him and support impeachment in two years; maybe a Democrat beats him or his chosen successor in 2028; maybe he dies a natural death and JD Vance takes over, with less charisma to get things done), doing so would not be enough to reverse a number of institutional things, starting with the right wing majority on SCOTUS, that serve to protect the trappings of Christian nationalism anyway.

To do a lot of things people rightly believe are necessary — such as holding the ICE goons accountable — you’d need to do far more than just win an election, because unless something more happens, the goons will be protected by qualified immunity.

Now go back to how opposition to Trump’s fascism has grown.

The first things that happened were lawsuits, a flood of them (which continue unabated). While Democratic-led states have brought a number of important lawsuits, members of Congress have little standing to do so. Unions have brought many key lawsuits, as have Democratic groups, as have other members of civil society, including the law firms and universities targeted. I keep noting that some of the key lawsuits challenging tariffs have come from Koch or CATO-aligned non-profits (and the Chamber just filed an amicus), a fact that may get them a more favorable hearing at SCOTUS.

The courts help to buy time. They can provide transparency otherwise unavailable. They force the Trump administration to go on the record, resulting in damaging contradictions. Trump has, thus far, selected his targets very poorly, and so his persecution has and will created some leaders or political martyrs.

But the courts will not save us.

The courts won’t save us because, after some initial pushback on Stephen Miller’s deportation gulag, SCOTUS seems to have fallen into line, repeatedly intervening to allow Trump to proceed with his damaging policies even as challenges continue. The courts won’t save us because we fully expect SCOTUS to bless a lot of what Trump is doing, including firing everyone short of Jerome Powell.

Protests and loud opposition at town halls have been growing since the beginning. But these protests weren’t affiliated with the Democratic Party. That’s useful for several reasons. You’re going to find it a lot quicker and easier to target a well-funded corporate entity like Tesla without such affiliation. And protests will be more likely to attract defectors — former Republican voters or apolitical independents — in the numbers that would be necessary if they’re not branded as Democratic entities.

Plus, movement activities include far more than protests, and there are a number of things being done by people who want no tie to the Democratic Party. Some of the smarter pushback to ICE in Los Angeles, for example, comes from Antifa activists who are far to the left of the Democratic Party and have been doing this work even under Democratic Administrations. Some of the witnessing of abuse of immigrants comes from the Catholic Church, and I would hope other faiths might join in. Some of the political activism is focused on particular interest groups, like Veterans or scientists, which don’t and should not derive their energy from the party.

The political movement is and should remain a big tent because it affords more flexibility and provides more entrance points for people.

And so, even if Jeffries or Schumer were better at messaging, you wouldn’t want them to lead it.

Which brings us to what we should expect from them. A lot of the hostility to both of them derives from the Continuing Resolution in March, in which Jeffries kept all but one (Jared Golden) of his members unified in opposition, but then Schumer flipflopped on whether to oppose cloture. In my experience, the vast majority of people who know they’re supposed to be angry at Schumer for that don’t know what the vote was, don’t know the terms of government shutdown (for example, that Trump would get to decide who was expendable), and can’t distinguish between the cloture vote and the final passage (in which just Angus King and Jeanne Shaheen voted to pass the bill). They sure as hell have not considered whether keeping the government open resulted in things — like the emergency filings that prevented wholesale use of Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans to CECOT — that really were a net good, to say nothing of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s challenge to his deportation.

The point being, much of the frustration with Jeffries and Schumer comes without a sophisticated understanding of their day job. For example, many people were complaining that Schumer was messaging about the Big Ugly bill when they wanted him to be messaging about immigration, and then, once they understood the import, started complaining that there hasn’t been enough coverage of the healthcare cuts in the Big Ugly (in my opinion both he and lefty journalists should have been focusing on the dragnet funded by it, as both David Dayen and I did, and as other journalists are only belatedly doing). But they often ignored the efforts made to thwart the bill with Byrd Rule exclusions, which in some cases excluded really toxic things from the bill (like restrictions on judicial contempt).

Jeffries and Schumer will continue to disappoint people wanting them to lead the resistance, because to do their day job — to try to win majorities in 2026 so they can do more to hold Trump accountable and, in the interim, to try — however fruitlessly — to coax their Republican colleagues to stop rubber stamping Trump’s authoritarianism, they have to do things like recruit challengers and help them raise money. There’s a lot one can explain — such as why, in the wake of the crypto industry flooding the Sherrod Brown race with funding, too many Democrats would support a bill the crypto industry wants — without endorsing.

But there’s a great deal that Jeffries or Schumer do that doesn’t get seen; each week of the last five, for example, one of the people whining about one or both Minority Leaders non-stop has falsely claimed they hadn’t done or said something they actually had; they were, in fact, whining because what Jeffries and Schumer did wasn’t easy for them to see without their having to work for it. An expert on parliamentary procedure just showed that Dems have made their colleagues work far more hours than in recent memory; Democrats have been using tools to stall, often with no notice, much less anyone mining their public comments for good attack footage.

More importantly, though, there’s a great deal that other legislators are doing that serves both political and legislative opposition. Hearings with Trump’s cabinet members, for example, are astounding, both in terms of content and conflict. While lefties don’t understand the potential use of Congressional letters like right wingers do, some of the ones Democrats have sent lay necessary foundation for ongoing pressure on the Administration, whether on immigration or Epstein or DOD waste. I’ve seen multiple people assume that members of Congress only attempt to do oversight of ICE detention if they get arrested, but far more members have tried; I would like Democrats to have already sued regarding DHS’ serial efforts to change the law on how they do that oversight, but I hope that will happen soon.

There’s a great deal of content for adversarial messaging. The failure — and this is only partly a failure of Congress itself — is in doing that messaging, in using what is out there. If a Minority Leader said something powerful but pundits were too lazy to watch CSPAN, did it really happen?

Therein lies the rub — and the area where the complaints at least identify the correct problem (while often lacking the mirror necessary to identify the cure).

There is broad and growing opposition to Trump’s actions. For privileged white people, at least, most still have courage to step up in both easy and more challenging ways. All around the country Americans are standing up for their migrant neighbors.

Leaders are stepping up to do the most powerful work, the political movement. And Leaders in Congress, as well as rank-and-file members, are doing a lot that’s getting ignored.

What is missing, in my opinion, is the kind of online messaging to make stuff resonate, yoked with an understanding of what Congress can and should do and what activists are better suited to do.

We — and I include myself in that we — are part of the problem.

What is missing is, to a large extent, the same thing that was missing last year, during the election, and was missing before that where Joe Biden’s son was destroyed with no pushback. What is missing is a feedback mechanism that can mobilize shame and accountability, so all the outrage can have some effect, both political and electoral.

Share this entry

“Are You Still Talking about Jeffrey Epstein?”

/80 Comments/in /by

There was a remarkable moment in Trump’s cabinet meeting. A journalist asked, first, if it was true that Jeffrey Epstein had worked for a foreign intelligence service. Then he asked why there was a minute missing in the video released to show no one entered in cell.

Trump blew up.

Trump: Are you still talking about Jeffrey EPstein? This guy’s been talked about for years. You’re asking — we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things that, people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is UNbelieveable. You want to waste the time [points to Bondi] you feel like answering?

Bondi: I don’t mind answering.

Trump: I mean, I can’t believe you’re asking a question about Epstein at a time like this, where we’re having some of the greatest success, and also tragedy, with what happened in Texas. It just seems like … a desecration.

I can think of no moment in his ten year political career where Trump so obviously lost his cool because he was helpless to direct attention where he wanted it.

And it’s likely to only keep Epstein at the center of attention.

Update: Mike Cernovich has already posted that, “We will continue asking about Epstein.” Elon asks, “How can people be expected to have faith in Trump if he won’t release the Epstein files?”

Update: Liz Wheeler (no relation–but one of the propagandists originally promised Epstein files) wrote a long screed about how Trump is misreading his base. This is just part of it!

President Trump snaps at reporter who asks him Epstein question.

Trump is massively misreading his base on this one.

It could cost him the midterms.

People CARE about Epstein. Not only because of the grisly crimes against children, but because there’s evidence of a government cover up.

Evidence like Epstein’s autopsy showing injuries incongruent with suicide. Evidence like the British Palace’s response to ABC’s nuked report on Epstein & Prince Andrew & Bill Clinton. Evidence like former U.S. Atty Alex Acosta saying he was told to back off because Epstein was an intel asset & then finding his DOJ emails mysteriously disappeared, etc.

And now government officials are telling us to ignore the evidence in front of our eyes & believe them—without evidence. Nope. Not gonna do it. We voted for radical transparency & JUSTICE.

President Trump should not underestimate how much goodwill he’s lost among his base due to Pam Bondi’s mishandling of the Epstein files. People are furious. I would know, I was the collateral damage in Bondi’s infernal Epstein binder debacle. She should’ve been fired on the spot.

[snip]

Epstein is foundational. That’s why Trump’s base has a visceral reaction to being told we’ll get the Epstein files… and now being told actually we’re getting nothing.

Pam Bondi didn’t tell us the truth. She seems more interested in being a Fox News star than keeping promises. Something is fishy about the Epstein stuff. His racket. His death. His friends. His intel connections. Patting us on the head & telling us “nothing to see here” is infuriating.

President Trump should not underestimate the significance of this moment. He’s losing goodwill by the day—thanks to Pam Bondi. Trump is smart. He cares about his base. He listens.

He should listen now, so it doesn’t cost him the midterms.

Share this entry

Pam Bondi Admits She Must Fire Kash Patel and Dan Bongino

/68 Comments/in /by

Even before Trump was inaugurated, I had great fun boosting expectations that Trump would release the Jeffrey Epstein files.

I didn’t do so because I believed there would be a massive Epstein release (partly because some of the conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein are not true and partly because what is true is that Trump is among the powerful men who are implicated). I didn’t do so because I believed any files would ever come out.

I did so because beliefs about Epstein are non-falsifiable. I did so because even if there were no damning materials tying Trump to Epstein, the President would still never be able to satisfy the expectations of his mob.

I did so because the promise (from Kash Patel, long before he was confirmed, and then from Pam Bondi) and expectation that Trump would release the files was an expectation that Trump’s supporters should expect to have fulfilled — after all he ordered DOJ to do just that, with the JFK, RFK, and MLK files.

But there’s no chance their expectations can ever been fulfilled. It was a way, I knew, where Trump was going to disappoint some of his most rabid fans.

Trump promised to release the secret files the continued secrecy of which have fueled decades of conspiracy theories, so why wouldn’t he release files about pedophilia, the legitimate concern that has fueled the Trump-supporting QAnoners?

I fueled such expectations on Xitter because if the demand to see the Epstein files ever took hold, Bondi would be stuck.

Then Bondi made things worse when she told Fox News that Epstein’s client file was on her desk for review. She made things worse when she orchestrated the re-release of the already-released files to a select group of right wing propagandists, all packaged up to look special, a spectacle that stoked divisions among MAGAts but also raised concerns that she was covering stuff up. She made things still worse when — responding to James Comer’s role in making things worse, when he claimed the Epstein files had been disappeared — she said there were tens of thousands of videos involving Epstein.

Kash Patel, who promised to release the files, and Dan Bongino, who begged his readers never to let go of this scandal? They fed the fever too with their years of spreading conspiracy theories about the Epstein files. And when FBI’s conspiracy theorists in chief tried to reverse course a month ago, it only further fueled suspicions.

Then Elon joined the fun, accusing Trump of being in the Epstein files as part of his tantrum against Trump (but then deleting that file). As someone who was also close to Ghislaine Maxwell, Elon might know!

Dan Goldman joined in, expressing, “grave concern about what appears to be a concerted effort by you to delay and even prevent the release of the Jeffrey Epstein Files,” and asking whether Trump’s identity was being redacted from any of the files. Robert Garcia and Stephen Lynch joined in, writing Pam Bondi a letter, asking Bondi to formally answer whether the Epstein files are being withheld — as Elon Musk alleged — because Trump is in them, and further asking (among other questions) whether Trump had a role in the delay of their release.

Bondi’s stonewalling, after both she and Kash promised everything would come quickly, was becoming the story.

So yesterday, DOJ and FBI released (or rather, made available to Axios without yet, apparently, releasing it via normal channels) a two-page unsigned notice (which may be on letterhead created for the purpose).

It included two main, credible conclusions:

  • Much of the material that FBI has depicts victims and any release of that material would retraumatize the victims.
  • FBI concluded (and Trump’s flunkies agree) that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. DOJ released two files (one unaltered, one enhanced, both with titles that do not even mention Epstein) showing that no one entered his cell the night he killed himself.

But there’s also a short, broader conclusion that is less sound.

This systematic review revealed no incriminating “client list.” There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. [my emphasis]

Emphasis on credible?

Of course there’s a client list; one version of it was already released. There are also the names or descriptions shared by victims of the men who abused them. And while there may be no evidence in the FBI files that Epstein did blackmail Trump or anyone else, he had blackmail material on them. There’s certainly credible reason to believe that information is one of the reasons he was allowed to persist so long; it was useful for other powerful people, possibly even spooks in one or another country. That FBI didn’t uncover evidence confirming that others were involved in trafficking young people is dramatically different from saying that there’s no damning information implicating Epstein’s Johns.

But let’s assume for the moment that these conclusions are impeccable (and as I said, the decision not to release videos showing victims and the conclusion about the suicide are sound), that means that the people who’ve been claiming to have inside knowledge who promised to release the files — starting with FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Direct Dan Bongino — are braying conspiracy theorists who cannot be trusted in any position of authority.

If it’s true that all this was a conspiracy theory, Kash and Bongino must leave the FBI, because they’ve just confessed they will endorse any kind of conspiracy theory to spin up Trump’s rubes. Pam Bondi must call for their resignations immediately, and while she’s at it, she should leave herself, because her original stunt release created the very expectations that she’s now trying to squelch.

They all promised to fulfill conspiracy theories and are now claiming they were lying about their certainty there was some there there.

Honestly, they’d be doing themselves a favor by doing so. But that won’t happen, and because these conspiracy theories are non-falsifiable, this attempt to make the entire promised reveal go away will simply fuel further conspiracy theories. Indeed, it already is.

Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Pam Bondi have now confirmed they are raging conspiracy theorists. And yet even that will not be enough to tamp down further conspiracy theories.

Update: I’m laughing my ass off. Doocy quoted Pam Bondi’s claim from an old interview, stating she had the client list on her desk. Karoline Leavitt spun it, with Doocy making big faces.

In addition, Unusual Whale notes that the last minute of the day (these may be PT time), from 11:58:59 to 11:59:59, missing from the video. Oh, and it turns out it’s not even the right cell.

Share this entry

How Trump Plans to Dodge Accountability Again

/64 Comments/in /by

Like many insecure white men, Donald J. Trump is a master at dodging all personal accountability for his own actions. There are the serial bankruptcies, sure. He has blamed “his predecessors” for things that happened between 2017 and 2021 (indeed, Scott Bessent just blamed Democrats for blowing out the deficit in 2020). But the real measure of his mastery at dodging accountability is how, through a combination of denial and distraction, Trump never paid a price for the excess deaths and delayed recovery from Hurricane Maria in 2018.

 

 

A similar catastrophe in Hurricane Katrina response probably did more to sink George W. Bush’s legacy than the Iraq War.

But Trump managed to simply deprive Puerto Rico of disaster support and still flip heavily Puerto Rican districts in last year’s election.

Understanding and preempting Trump’s attempts to dodge accountability for his failed policies may be crucial to reversing his authoritarian power grab. After all, already his policies have killed thousands overseas and endangered business, big and small. But the scale of catastrophe he will exacerbate or even cause, whether in economic crash or pandemic or terrorism or cybersecurity failures or things less obvious, could do grave lasting damage to the US. We can say that with great confidence now, but that only matters if we can hold him accountable for all the foreseeable catastrophes his policies will cause.

If he is held accountable, we might generate broad opposition to him, even among some MAGAts; if he scapegoats others, catastrophe will only provide a way to consolidate power.

Which is why the panicked response to the Texas flood that devastated a girl’s summer camp matters.

It’s not yet clear how the vacancies Trump demanded exacerbated flood response, but key positions, including those that might have warned of the flood, are vacant.

The National Weather Service’s San Angelo office, which is responsible for some of the areas hit hardest by Friday’s flooding, was missing a senior hydrologist, staff forecaster and meteorologist in charge, according to Tom Fahy, the legislative director for the National Weather Service Employees Organization, the union that represents Weather Service workers.

The Weather Service’s nearby San Antonio office, which covers other areas hit by the floods, also had significant vacancies, including a warning coordination meteorologist and science officer, Mr. Fahy said. Staff members in those positions are meant to work with local emergency managers to plan for floods, including when and how to warn local residents and help them evacuate.

That office’s warning coordination meteorologist left on April 30, after taking the early retirement package the Trump administration used to reduce the number of federal employees, according to a person with knowledge of his departure.

Some of the openings may predate the current Trump administration. But at both offices, the vacancy rate is roughly double what it was when Mr. Trump returned to the White House in January, according to Mr. Fahy.

John Sokich, who until January was director of congressional affairs for the National Weather Service, said those unfilled positions made it harder to coordinate with local officials because each Weather Service office works as a team. “Reduced staffing puts that in jeopardy,” he said.

Both Speaker Mike and — more controversially — the White House have suggested prayer is the only available recourse. “May God wrap his loving arms around all those in Texas,” because Trump stripped Texas of emergency response services before a climate disaster rolled through.

Scott Bessent (fresh off blaming Democrats for blowing up the deficit while Trump was in charge) lashed out at Larry Summers for tying the Big Ugly bill to response failures in Texas, declaring that holding a white man like himself accountable is “toxic” and “cruel.”

He has turned a human tragedy into a political cudgel. Such remarks are feckless and deeply offensive.

Professor Summers should immediately issue a public apology for his toxic language.

I hope the nonprofit and for-profit institutions with which he is affiliated will join me in this call.

If he is unwilling or unable to acknowledge the cruelty of his remarks, they should consider Harvard’s example and make his unacceptable rhetoric grounds for dismissal.

Trump himself, when asked whether his assault on FEMA had a role in delayed warnings in Texas, both claimed that this was unforeseeable but also deferred discussion of FEMA because “they’re busy working” (and, of course, Trump instantly made an emergency declaration whereas he has delayed for even larger tragedies in states that oppose him).

I got a bit of criticism on social media for suggesting we need a tag for Trump disasters — Trump Murder Flood, Trump Murder Hack, Trump Murder Disease — so as to make it harder for him to dodge accountability (and to demonstrate their commonality in policy failures). Plus, there’s the larger question of accountability for refusing to combat or prepare for climate change, the real culprit in Texas.

But amid tepid insider analysis about whether Democrats can hang the Big Ugly bill on right wingers in the mid-terms, if we make it that far, the accountability for the impacts of Trump’s policy failures is a far more important issue.

Trump’s policies have and will get people killed. Will we find a way to hold him accountable.

This time?

Share this entry

Seeing Language as a Tool of Authoritarianism

/76 Comments/in /by

I’m going to write a series of posts about things we need to do to fight fascism. They’re part of the same conversation that LOLGOP and I have started to have on video.

Start with this, which is fairly obvious but needs to be said: The right and the left use language as a tool differently. Understanding that is, in my opinion, a crucial step for understanding the asymmetry in the polarization of society and attempting to more effectively combat authoritarianism.

In short, liberals and journalists treat language as transparent, whereas right wingers treat language as utilitarian.

By transparent, I mean that liberals and journalists believe language serves as a way to describe and understand reality. This is, after all, built into the definition of small-l liberalism: that one can understand and describe the world, and using that understanding, engage in rational debates about how best to live in it. One can iteratively test descriptions of the world and policy prescriptions and improve our relationship with the world and each others.

Politicians who accept they live in a liberal (small-l) system are adhering to a system where people with competing visions describe, transparently, what they see in reality or believe it to be, and persuade others that that vision of reality is a better description of reality than their opponent, and that if that vision of reality is true, then it counsels certain actions or policies. This is the cornerstone of a successful legislative body: the shared belief that debate and discussion can result in rational persuasion and through that good policy solutions.

Transparent language is an idea at the heart of democracy.

Our current conception of journalism (which most people, including or perhaps especially journalists, forget arose out of a particular conception of politics, technology, and economy) builds from this. A society professionalizes journalism and pays for it because of a belief that that feedback role — the provision of information more accurate and accessible than rumor or diatribe — helps sustain an orderly society. Once upon a time we believed that the mere act of disclosing corruption and scandal played a pivotal role in defeating it, and certainly some journalists still aspire to do that.

By contrast, right wingers approach language differently. For right wingers (a term I’ve adopted, because “in reality,” the MAGAt right is a departure from a Republican tradition that bought into assumptions about rationality and reality), language is instead a means to impose power, to impose a desired order on society. They are not trying to persuade you that living in an authoritarian hellhole will be better than living in a democracy. They are trying to bring about that helhole by disrupting debate, by policing language, by breaking the tie between language and reality. Utterances are valued not for the fidelity with which they describe the world. Rather, they are valued for the degree to which they help to attain a certain end state in which they accrue more power.

Obviously, this exists on a continuum. There are circumstances, perhaps with their family, perhaps when making backroom deals, where right wingers will use language transparently (though for Trump, even those situations involve motivated language). Liberals and journalists realize that you can use language in certain ways to make its use more effective, a concession that language is never entirely transparent.

But if you don’t adhere to that vision at all — if you believe language is always about accruing power — then not only is the effort to debate about reality futile, but language can be used to disrupt and replace rational discussion, which is one reason right wingers have systematically attacked moderation and disinformation scholarship, to make it harder to disrupt the process of accruing power by disrupting the transparency of language.

This is why the battle over pronouns has been so pitched. For right wingers, gender is a means of structuring society, of enforcing order, of reverting back to a prior hierarchy. Of course, gender is a construct, and particularly for non-binary people, the demand that a person adhere to their sex is a form of control, a denial of the reality of their identity. For some years, liberals tried as a matter of courtesy to use pronouns that a person used for themselves. To enforce a rigid order, right wingers understood they needed to destroy this practice as a means to superpose the power of fixed categories over the complexity of gender.

This dynamic underlies what I keep harping on about Trump’s Truth Social posts. Journalists, whose profession is premised on language being transparent, therefore treat these posts as a collection of words that in some way helps them get to a reality about Trump. Journalists really seem to believe that what Trump says is in some way a reflection of his feelings or his understanding of reality — and, to be fair, he has often fired people via tweet, literally changing reality with that tweet. For Trump, however, every single Truth Social post is an act of power, an act of commanding attention, of renewing polarization in society based on the relationship (either blind affirmation or opposition) one has with that Truth Social post, and often of exploiting the journalistic fetish for words to get them to serve as a vehicle for mindless repetition, which journalists’ entire professionalization otherwise would fight.

This extends even to punditry. Certainly, lefty pundits are focused on describing a motivated vision of reality. Their job is to be persuasive, if not always honest. But right wing pundits more often use their words and appearances as a means to impose an order. That is, they wouldn’t so much attempt to use an appearance to make a persuasive argument, true or not; rather, they would use it to repeat certain language, often doing violence to reality in the process.

This plays out in the interactions I call “Cotton Swabs,” where a news host asks right wingers whether they agree or disagree with some outrageous thing Trump says. Some still try to claim they didn’t see it. But in recent years, right wingers in good standing instead used such questions to disrupt the premise of the question — to speak over the journalist, to repeat key buzzwords, to perform loyalty to Trump’s tribe. Not only didn’t such questions shame a politician into breaking from Trump, but they instead served as opportunities to discredit such questions altogether. Journalists were willingly serving as props in a power play.

But this dynamic also extends to how the left and the right use social media, because left and right imagine using social media for different purposes. One thing that drives the feckless left wing habit of non-stop criticism for Democrats (many of whom are indeed feckless) is a belief that you effect change by persuading someone, and once you persuade someone, they will in turn persuade someone. Even as lefty pundits fill lefty discursive space with repeated efforts to alter the speech and behavior of elected pols (thereby creating the repetition the right uses so well), the right wing exploitation of the discursive environment goes uncontested, with the effect that right wing repetition and ordering language holds sway. Or in opposition, democrats might share their own feelings, honestly describing the emotions that Trump’s abuses elicit. By contrast, right wingers might respond to feeling similar or similarly strong emotions by instead asserting power of the language of the person who elicited the emotion. Democrats describe what ideally should happen. Right wingers ensure every utterance furthers an effort to implement their preferred end state.

I’m not, here, suggesting that lefties abandon their faith in the ability to describe a reality. For now, I’m suggesting lefties (and, even more so, journalists) need to be aware of the ways in which their speech makes them easy props for a power play.

When you speak on social media, are you saying or are you doing?

Share this entry

No Kings Day Reflections from an American-Irish in the Home of Her Ancestors

/55 Comments/in /by

I took off this week to come to Gaeltacht — one of the small areas on this wee island in which locals still use Irish on a daily basis — to try to learn more Gaeilge.

It’s a curious place to spend the Fourth of July.

When I decided to come here it meant little more to me than a place I could immerse myself, sort of, for a week. The blurbs said little more than that the school offered both language classes and cultural classes — things like harp playing and weaving and folklore. But being here, it has the feel of one of the Jesuit retreat centers at which my late mother guided retreats: in a stunningly beautiful remote location, where you can hear and often cannot escape from the wind and — on the occasional clear day — see the stars, and a whole rhythm to the day to facilitate a kind of contemplation.

It is a place people come to contemplate Irishness or perhaps to use Irishness as a means to contemplate.

A storyteller who performed the other day spoke about the rhythm of it all: the rhythm of the language, of the music, of the verse, of the dance, of the weaving.

It’s a place where people — Irish people, people who identify as Irish, and people who take meaning from Irishness — come to preserve and participate in those traditions that sustained Irishness during colonization. Both because of that “Saving Civilization” bit (one of Ireland’s founding saints lived here for a bit and, as is true of many places on the coast, there’s an island nearby with an old ruined monastery) and because of the recurring Irish effort to build a nation out of the oral tradition that refused to be stamped out by the British, Irishness serves as a celebrated from-ness, to people far and near, even if (and if we’re honest, partly because) Ireland went through a lot of death and misery to get there.

And so it is here in this beautiful place of from-ness that I look west and contemplate a celebration of the Colonies’ break from the same empire from which Ireland would, eventually, free itself too, free itself in significant part by building on that oral tradition. As cities cancel the celebration of defying Kings because a white man who wants to disappear all the diverse from-ness that Made America Great has started disappearing actual people, I am thinking about how this from-ness in which I’m immersed (sort of), is what my ancestors and those of millions others brought to America to make up an identity called Irish-American. That process of bringing a from-ness to (or, for Native Americans, sustaining it in) America has been replicated in thousands of ways. The part of America that is Great is the one that weaves all that diverse from-ness together into one tapestry.

As you wonder whether there is anything to celebrate, as you reflect on how Trump views the list of injuries and usurpations in the Declaration as an aspiration, not an admonition, consider the ways in which your own from-ness and those of everyone around you is both that thing that Stephen Miller is trying to kill, both figuratively and literally. But also something that can provide a rhythm to sustain you.

That’s what he wants to suffocate: The very tapestry that Makes America Great.

Is America a nation that weaves together or one that, like the British attempted but failed, stamps out?

This is a political battle. But even more it is a cultural one.

No Kings.

Note: I’m going to be really busy for the next two days so won’t be in comments. I’ll check in tomorrow night. 

Share this entry

“Egregious Behavior:” Alina Habba Confesses She Must Prosecute Donald Trump

/16 Comments/in /by

Note: I’m obviously failing my effort to get off this website for a week. I haven’t left yet!! But hopefully I can wean myself off this thing for a week starting … now.

Twice yesterday, Alina Habba made claims about prosecutorial priorities that mandate she charge her boss, Donald Trump.

First, she RTed the NJ USAO announcement of charges against someone who threatened several judges.

The charges seem real, involving phoned threats to cut off judges’ fingers or shoot them, though the accused perpetrator left the country (possibly to India) in 2018, and there’s no announcement of an extradition request. Plus, Ricky Patel — the same guy who ginned up the arrest of Ras Baraka after Baraka obeyed Patel’s request to leave a property onto which he had been invited — is involved, which makes it suspect.

In both the Tweet and the press release, Alina Habba, who represented Donald Trump when he routinely attacked judges in that case and others, presumably Tweeting some of those threats from his property in New Jersey, whose attacks led to phoned-in threats to Judge Juan Merchan and his staffers, talked about how heinous it is threaten judges.

“The conduct alleged in the Indictment is as heinous as it is troubling: threats to a federal judge, two state superior court judges, an elected official, and a private New Jersey resident. The conduct is not just reckless — it is a direct attack on our justice system. Targeting those who uphold the rule of law is an attack on every community they serve. This egregious behavior is unacceptable. And, as the charges make clear, no matter where you are, we will find you and hold you responsible.”

Excuse me? If you believe this, Alina, you charge Donald Trump for what you call heinous behavior.

Maybe even consider whether you need to turn yourself in for some of your attacks on the judge?

But Habba wasn’t done.

After that, Habba RTed Kash Patel’s announcement of charges for a man in Florida who allegedly — and I emphasize allegedly — threatened Habba.

Kash claimed this was an instance of a “copycat” threat using “86,” a clear reference to Jim Comey’s Tweeting something he saw on a beach.

A dangerous copycat, fueled by reckless rhetoric from former officials, threatened those protecting our country. Political violence has no place here. Proud of our @FBITampa and thankful to our Florida partners for acting fast to deliver justice.

The indictment in question charges a guy named Salvatore Russotto with two counts — threatening an official and assault (18 USC 111) — for four kinds of statements:

  • Calling Alina Habba the C-word, repeatedly
  • Hoping she dies a painful death (but not threatening to cause that himself)
  • Saying “86” her
  • Calling for “death penalty for all traitors”

Kash already charged someone else for using the 86-term, though in that case, the threats were much more graphic and personalized.

But this? Hoping someone dies? Calling someone the C-word?

The only real threat is calling for the death penalty for traitors. Remember Trump’s threats against Liz Cheney? Against Peter Strzok?

How about the time when current FBI Director and then private citizen Kash Patel told a lie about something in a John Durham filing, which led Trump to claim that Michael Sussmann should be put to death?

Trump calls his adversaries traitors all the time, and he has repeatedly called for them to be killed. Speaking of copycat, so did hundreds of the Jan6ers Trump pardoned after they stormed the halls of Congress calling to “Hang Mike Pence.” Those people weren’t charged with assault for that, but then I guess DOJ could now charge them?

And again, some of these threats Trump made undoubtedly were issued from New Jersey, and many of them were less than five years ago.

Of course, Kash’s decision to charge someone for the kind of threat he has facilitated is about Comey, not rule of law, perhaps an attempt to make nothing into something. Kash wants to claim that this is a copycat, but that Jack Posobiec’s even more viral use of the very same term against Joe Biden, also fewer than five years ago, was not.

If I were the lawyer of the guy in Florida, I would raise all this in a selective prosecution bid. As I also would if I represented the Alabama woman charged with bringing home classified documents (also a seemingly legitimate case) after a search the likes of which Kash called “unlawful” when such a search targeted Mar-a-Lago.

Share this entry

Fridays with Nicole Sandler, Going, Going, Gone Fishing Edition

/47 Comments/in /by

Note: As I mentioned at the end of this … I’m going to be out of pocket next week. My goal is to do something I have not done for a decade: to take a week off posting.

Listen on spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

Share this entry

How the Newslettification of News Reifies Trump’s Power Rather than Exposing His Lies

/20 Comments/in /by

Increasingly (possibly as an outgrowth of their willingness to serve as data mules for his Truth Social tweets), news outlets treat Donald Trump’s mere act of saying something as news.

There’s an interesting example in the NYT that shows how doing so wildly distorts the workings of what democracy America has left.

On the front page of the NYT digital page there’s a package of stories about the reconciliation bill, which Trump wants to push through by July 4, in part, to keep Stephen Miller’s dragnet running. The top “story” in that package bears the headline, “Trump rallies for signature policy bill as GOP rushes to save it; President Trump’s domestic policy bill faced another hurdle after the Senate parliamentarian said several of its major provisions could not be included.”

If you click on that story, it’s not a dedicated news story. Instead, it’s just the top newsletter page, with stubs for stories on the reconciliation bill, Iran strikes, and deportation. Nevertheless, that page itself also bears the headline, “Trump rallies for his policy bill as GOP works to save it.”

If you click though the reconciliation bill stub, it takes you to this story, in which the Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough — not Trump — is the primary actor.

It’s not until the fifth paragraph of the story that we get the promised “news” about Trump rallying for the bill — and the only newsworthy part of that 73-word passage is that Trump either misstated or lied about what was in the bill.

President Trump worked to rally support for the legislation on Thursday at an event at the White House, praising the “hundreds of things here” to like about the bill.

“It’s so good,” he said, though one item he trumpeted, eliminating taxes on Social Security, was not actually in the bill.

When a reporter shouted out a question about whether Congress could pass the bill by July 4, Mr. Trump replied: “We hope so.”

You could make an entire news story about this: that Trump promised to eliminate taxes on Social Security, but it’s not in the Big Ugly he’s pushing through to codify the things that really matter to him. Instead, Trump will take food from children and medical care from working people so he can pay off the billionaires who got him reelected (something else that’s not in the story). Trump made a promise, and rather than keeping it, he is falsely claiming he’s keeping it.

NYT didn’t do that (though it did publish a story about Republicans who rely on the benefits right wingers are trying to kill), but they did cast him as the lead character in the one event in town where he’s a side player, what might be the only substantive legislation passed this year, if right wingers even can pass it, which is not yet clear (Jake Sherman says John Thune doesn’t have the votes to pass it, yet).

Incidentally, the only mention of a Democrat in the story comes from Bobby Kogan, who provided a price tag for the things right wingers had stuffed into a bill that broke the rules for reconciliation.

If Republicans are forced to remove all the provisions Ms. MacDonough has ruled against, it would eliminate more than $500 billion of the bill’s intended spending cuts, according to a rough analysis by Bobby Kogan, a former Democratic Senate Budget Committee staff member and White House budget official who is now the senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

What doesn’t make any of these stories is that the Parliamentarian’s serial rejection of one after another policy in the Big Ugly came as a result of a lot of work from Democratic staffers who successfully argued that the provisions were extraneous to the bill (see the sections on the Byrd Rule in this post for an explanation of what that means).

Ron Wyden is one of the few people who made this point: he and his staff had to work to make this happen.

This is what Democrats in the Senate have been working on (even giving little-noticed press conferences) during a period when many wailed they were doing nothing: trying, at a minimum, to remove the gratuitously bad things right wingers are trying to jam through on this bill. Among the things Democrats did via Byrd Rule challenges are:

  • Preserving CFPB and Public Company Oversight Board
  • Kept some Food Stamp funding and benefits
  • Limited a rule trying to prevent states from regulating AI
  • Eliminated an attack on the judiciary’s ability to enforce contempt
  • Prevented DOJ from punishing sanctuary cities
  • Thwarted Mike Lee’s bid to sell off public lands
  • Combatted several attacks on renewable energy and defeated an effort to exempt offshore oil drilling from the NEPA process
  • Preserved civil service protections for Federal employees
  • Defeated an effort to attack unions
  • Killed a plan to get rid of USPS’ electric vehicles
  • Protected some ObamaCare provisions
  • Exempted existing student loan borrowers from an effort to restrict access
  • Defeated a bunch of attacks on Medicaid
  • Protected Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care
  • Eliminated vouchers for religious schools
  • Killed a tax exemption written just for Hillsdale College
  • Defeated an effort to decriminalize gun silencers

It’s not yet clear what will happen with the Big Ugly. Some House members are calling on Thune to fire the Parliamentarian, or to ignore her. There is a workaround that would blow up the filibuster.

For now, at least, Thune keeps insisting he won’t ignore MacDonough’s rulings (though as Politico notes, that could change if Trump demands it).

At the very least, the success in getting things excluded under the Byrd Rule has made a shitty bill less shitty. It has also created a delay, and any delay creates the outside possibility that the press will start to cover this bill as it should be, an effort to steal from the poor to pay off Trump’s debt to Elon Musk, and with the coverage spook enough Republicans to kill the bill in current form. As Cogan notes, these eliminated cuts also create a bigger financial hole in the bill, one of a few issues that risks killing it altogether.

Yes, the press is covering the drama created because Republicans may not have the votes. Yes, it’s likely Republicans will cave, again, once Trump directly threatens them.

But until that happens, Trump is not the story here.

If you want to tell a story about Trump, make it about the lies he and other right wingers are telling to try to reverse the overwhelming opposition to this bill. Absent that, treat Article I as if they still exist.

Update: Both David Dayen and I were once too optimistic that the Big Ugly wouldn’t get done in the House. But he lays out here, with Whitney Curry Wimbish, why these Byrd Rule rulings could doom the bill.

REPUBLICANS HAVE A BUNCH OF OPTIONS for dealing with this, but all of them have either been ruled out, would make the bill seemingly unpassable, or would need more time than they want to take.

First, Republicans can “cure” the Byrd rule problems by coming up with other language and negotiating with the parliamentarian to insert them back into the bill. The Senate Banking Committee already did this with new language on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Previously the committee completely zeroed out funding for the CFPB by setting an existing “cap” on how much the Federal Reserve can transfer to the agency at 0 percent of total Fed funds. That was thrown out by the parliamentarian. Now, in the new text, the committee has changed that to 6.5 percent.

Senators are reportedly trying to go back with new provider tax language as well.

Republicans would also likely try to squeeze more blood from cuts that have already been allowed to stay, Sanders said. “The big thing hanging over them is specifically the instruction to cut Medicaid,” she said. “Exactly where this could come out of, I feel like they’d probably try to get deeper savings from existing Medicaid savings that are allowed to stay in, which might end up making them more harmful.”

The problem here is that all new text would have to go back to the parliamentarian for more haggling. The parliamentarian did approve a change that would add state cost-sharing (along a slower timeline) to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but as a Hill source explained, the process for the full bill could take weeks, and with each passing day, the bill gets less popular. That is why the White House wants the bill done by July 4. That would be next to impossible under a constant rewrite scenario.

[snip]

The Senate appears eager to just stick a bill in the House’s lap and dare them to vote it down. But that assumes they can get a bill over to the House at all. The buildup of parliamentarian rulings really does threaten the outcome.

One huge problem for Republicans is the debt limit, where something needs to be done to raise the nation’s borrowing cap by as early as August. There is a $5 trillion debt limit increase in the Senate version of the bill. If the impasse on the bill continues, Congress may have to split that out and pass a standalone version, which would almost certainly need Democratic support, where Democrats could dictate terms.

Under the timeline needed to pass the megabill by July 4, votes would need to begin today. There’s almost no chance of that happening. A press officer for Thune did not respond to an email request for information to say whether the Senate is operating under a new timeline.

You don’t want to say that a bill cutting taxes and spending simply cannot pass a Republican Congress. It doesn’t make much sense to say that. But that threat has grown much more real by the day.

Share this entry