Head of Republican Party Attempts to Stave Off Multiple Indictments by Announcing Candidacy Early

In the last week — in the last six months, really — the Trump-whisperers keep doing stories on Donald Trump’s plans to plan to announce he’s running in the 2024 election. Those stories include the claim that he wants to make it harder for DOJ to indict him by announcing he’s running for President in 2024.

Each time attention in the ousted President wanes, he toys with the press again.

Jonathan Swan kicked off the latest such frenzy, promising a November 14 announcement, or maybe not.

Former President Trump’s inner circle is discussing announcing the launch of a 2024 presidential campaign on Nov. 14 — with the official announcement possibly followed by a multi-day series of political events, according to three sources familiar with the sensitive discussions.

Why it matters: Trump and his top advisers have been signaling for weeks that a 2024 announcement is imminent. But those discussions have reached the point that allies are blocking off days in their calendars for the week after the midterms — and preparing to travel.


A Trump spokesman declined to comment. The discussions are still fluid and could change depending on Tuesday’s results, especially if the Senate still hangs in the balance and the Georgia race between Herschel Walker and Raphael Warnock goes to a run-off.

Reality check: It’s Trump. So anything could happen — or not. He’s conflicted on the timing and nothing is ever certain. But people who have been close to him for many years are lacing up for the next race.

The Guardian picked it up — noting that Trump’s planning has “intensified” as DOJ has continued the investigation of Trump’s theft of documents and attempted theft of an election.

The plans for the anticipated presidential campaign have intensified as the justice department moves forward with several criminal investigations surrounding Trump, including over potential mishandling of national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort, and over the January 6 attack.

Some advisers have told Trump that the timing could be positive since the combined effects of announcing a presidential run and daring the justice department to indict him as a candidate could drown out political messaging by congressional Democrats and the Joe Biden White House.

Then, one of Trump’s sycophants said that he was going to announce last night. After his belligerent rally (at which he attacked Nancy Pelosi), the press reconvened and, rather than talking about the likelihood he’ll incite more violence against the Speaker of the House, talked about his imminent announcement. Maggie Haberman observed, with no irony,

It’s sort of incredible how good he is at getting everybody to follow along with him when he does this game of, I’m thinking of doing it, and — to be clear Don, it’s hard to know sometimes whether it is a game, or whether he is working this out in his head, testing it with 800 different advisors, which is what he was doing.


We all know what he’s talking about, we all know what’s coming. I’m personally of the view that it’s more interesting when he actually does something, because we will cover it. He’s running for President, he’s a front-runner in the polls, there’s legitimate reasons to cover it.


I think he is extremely smart in terms of media coverage and what the media will chase.

Again, there was no irony in her extended explanation that when Trump actually makes news, they will cover it. None.

Then WaPo’s Mar-a-Lago stenographer teamed up with another Trump scribe to give the full tick-tock of how it didn’t happen. Again: how it did not happen. After a bunch of blather about the election law implications (Trump has committed a container ship’s worth of campaign finance violations in his short political life, but the FEC refuses to act on any of them), in paragraph 15, WaPo talks about making it harder to indict Trump.

Part of Trump’s urgency comes from wanting to get ahead of a potential indictment, the logic being that a declared candidacy makes a prosecution look more political. He is under investigation in two federal probes: one into the efforts to block certification of the 2020 electoral college results and another into the mishandling of classified documents brought to Mar-a-Lago. The Justice Department’s customary freeze on overt steps that could be seen as influencing an election expires when the polls close Tuesday.

Trump also faces an ongoing investigation from a prosecutor in Atlanta into his pressure on Georgia officials to override the state’s popular vote for president in 2020.

Apparently none of these people mind being treated like tools. They’re happy to keep reporting on stories they realize aren’t stories. And why not? Their career depends on leveraging all the access they’ve gotten by reporting on the gilt furnishings at Mar-a-Lago. Their job, until such time as Trump returns to the White House again, is ensuring he stays in the news.

As Maggie said, It’s sort of incredible how good he is at getting people like Maggie to follow along.

Imagine how this infantilization of journalism would change if every major outlet instead reported, factually, that the leader of the Republican Party may announce his candidacy early, in part, in hopes of staving off at least two federal and possibly a Georgia indictments?

Imagine if these people instead reported the news story they’re burying, that the political cycle of the Republican Party is now dictated, in part, by the suspected criminality of the guy whose legal bills the Republican Party has been subsidizing for years? Imagine if every time he played this game, the Trump beat reporters instead described the institutional support in the Republican Party for fraud and political violence?

125 replies
  1. Sue Sanders says:

    He managed to counter program the Nancy Pelosi interview with Anderson Cooper while conveniently getting the press to cover him where he called her an animal at about the same time CNN was playing her describing the trauma Paul experienced re entering the place where the attempted murder took place. It is a permission slip for more violence. And the press helped to get more eyes for it.

  2. Peterr says:

    Yes, Maggie’s gotta Maggie, proving the truth of the immortal words of Annie Savoy in Bull Durham: “The world is made for people who aren’t cursed with self awareness.”

    But you have to wonder about Maggie’s editor, whose job it is to make sure that folks don’t make themselves and The Times (genuflect here) look like idiots. Someone should have read this and said “Uh, Haberman? You do realize that you are mocking yourself here, right? It’s sort of incredible that you make yourself the perfect example of what you are complaining about. Please rework this a bit and get back to me.”

    As for Trump . . .

    I’m not saying this will happen or even should happen, but imagine what the reaction would be at Mar-a-Lago if the DOJ announced at 9am tomorrow morning that they were indicting Trump in DC for obstruction of justice over his failure to turn over subpoenaed documents . . .

    • bbleh says:

      Can we have an indictment for espionage too? I mean, for appearance’s sake if nothing else? It would make GREAT copy!

    • Just Some Guy says:

      I don’t think many of the news editors at the NYT have any self-awareness, either. After all, we’re talking about the same organization who, when first covering the killing of a lady’s dog in Prospect Park by a presumably unhoused suspect, used their first article about it to punch down at the neighborhood’s residents (and councilperson) who expressed concern about how NYPD would treat the suspect.

      It only took the NYT a few weeks later to report on how the NYPD has utterly, miserably failed in finding the suspect, much less apprehending him, because apparently the precinct is so dysfunctional neither its commander nor the 2nd in charge are speaking to each other! That was in the same article that reported, finally, that the woman whose dog was killed was encouraged by NYPD to surveil the suspect if she saw him in public and call 911, yet NYPD took over 30 minutes to arrive! But yeah, it’s the fault of the neighbors who are tired of police killing people, or stockpiling them in Rikers, instead of NYPD’s fault. SMDH.

    • BobBobCon says:

      To add details, one of Haberman’s top patrons at the Times is Carolyn Ryan, who was political editor at the NY Times in 2016, and has now been promoted to #2 under top editor Joe Kahn.

      Ryan is a nightmare and well known at the Times as the deadly combo of suckup to higher ups and bully to the rest. And of course she is a perfect fit for AG Sulzberger.

      Ryan drove the anti-Clinton narrative in 2016, and pushed hard on false angles on the email story, including the notorious false report that Clinton was facing criminal charges that was later edited mysteriously to fiddle with the verbiage but never issue a correction.

      For a perfect encapsulation of how broken Ryan’s thinking is, this Charlie Pierce piece is great.


      As Pierce notes up front, as Carolyn Ryan was facing a firestorm of correct criticism for the Times’ broken coverage, who did she use to counterattack?

      Glenn Greenwald.

      • Dark Phoenix says:

        Speaking of Glenn, anyone else see him basically imply that the Red Wave fizzling out is proof that the US election system needs to be fixed and the Dems are the party standing in the way?

        Apparently Glenn’s decided to go all-in on Trump’s “any time I lose, it’s because my opponent cheated!” strategy…

  3. Heather Dearlove says:

    Normally, we in the UK have always taken the view that the USA has been in relatively “safe” hands over the years. This lunatic is another matter. Wonder what classified documents this criminal has stashed away in his golf ‘resorts’ in Scotland and Ireland? Still we have the worst government in history here too. Good luck with your mid terms folks. Vote blue ❤️

    • Rayne says:

      Oh dear, the GOP here is as prone to being howfin bawbags as Tories in the UK with Trump being the worst of the litter.

      Definitely voting blue up and down the ticket. Too much depends on it.

    • xy xy says:

      Why would you not think that the classified documents are stashed in putin’s Kremlin office or msb’s office?

        • John Gurley says:

          I guess you forgot about the Russian spy posing as a Rothschild heiress who passed through Mar a Lago last year.

          Also busted in Canada on espionage charges.

          • bmaz says:

            Um, no I did not forget. There is no evidence that anything was passed in that instance either. It would be nice if people here had at least a shred of evidence to support allegations they conjure up out of nowhere.

            • Troutwaxer says:

              Why would anyone pass a document to someone else? The “spy” doubtless carried a cellphone. I have no idea what actually happened, (or didn’t happen) but let’s keep our tradecraft up to date.

              • puzzled scottish person says:

                ‘Why would anyone pass a document to someone else?’

                Well, me, I’m:
                a) getting on in life
                b) liking an Oxford comma
                c) not having one of those mobile phone things.

                I’d have to write my spying out in longhand with a vintage fountain pen before I was prepared to trust anyone with it.

                I’d make a lousy spy, heh, I’d just spill my guts here on an evening after I’d had a few jars ;-)

                Good luck with the elections, folks, it would be nice to have some sanity back :-)

  4. WilliamOckham says:

    I sometimes wonder if some elements of the press are trying to help Trump create a new reality a la “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius” by Borges.

  5. oldtulsadude says:

    Many in the media have attached a live microphone to the ass of a guy with the walking farts, and every time he releases flatulence it is reported as “news “.

    • Lynne says:

      “Attached a live microphone to his ass”
      Best reply ever. And I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it’s true.

  6. Leu2500 says:

    “ Their job, until such time as Trump returns to the White House again, is ensuring he stays in the news.”

    Sorry. That’s called a PR agent. That’s not what journalists do.

    Just another example of how low the media has sunk.

  7. badideas&dumbquestions says:

    Please excuse my ignorance of US criminal law.
    Is there a law or practice that the DoJ gives represented individuals advance notice – perhaps through their attorneys – that an indictment will be issued on [date]?
    If so, might that have a bearing on the timing of the Big Announcement?

    • nedu says:

      In the U.S., federal grand jury secrecy is controlled by FRCrP Rule 6(e). Note specifically that Rule 6(e)(2)(B) generally prohibits disclosure of grand jury matters by “an attorney for the government”.

      Them’s the rulez.

      But in America, it’s also commonly rumored that some grand jury systems, most particularly some state grand juries (whose secrecy rules are similar to federal rules), maintain persistent and notorious tales of leaks in practice.

      Obviously, those base and scurrilous rumors about other grand juries cannot be read to imply or impute any allegation of bad behavior by federal court or DoJ employees. Always scrupulously, sanctimoniously — the feds keep above that.

      • bmaz says:

        I have never seen a leak from a grand juror or prosecutor even in state level felonies here. Witnesses, sure.

  8. Alan Charbonneau says:

    Michael Cohen still says Trump will not run for president because that will end his opportunity to grift. I’m looking forward to seeing if he is correct. If Trump is planning on announcing his candidacy on Nov 15th, I hope he is indicted by the 14th, even if that is unlikely.

    • gmoke says:

      I believe Ronna Romney McDaniel, chair of the Republican Party, recently reiterated that the Party will no longer pay Trmp’s legal bills if he becomes a candidate. One reason to doubt he will declare his candidacy any time soon.

      • rip no longer says:

        Jeez, who are goin’ to believe?

        Some fatuous, flatulent liar, or some party spokesthing saying whatever. All these peoples know that there are no negative repercussions for spouting nonsense and their nose-ringed herds will probably open their bank accounts a bit more. (C’mon people, use your credit cards!)

        I should have made this more succinct:
        “Why should we care what they say?”

  9. Terry Salad says:

    Trump will probably announce his campaign for 2024 soon. But if DOJ can show even one of those documents marked Top Secret was seen by someone who was not supposed to see it (say a foreign national), it’s game over, right? I find it almost impossible to think that those documents were not seen by many people, given the sloppiness of everyone involved.

    • John B. says:

      I honestly think, from everything I have observed about this modern day Republican party and the party that continues to support the former president* thick or thin, that they do not care about the top secret document theft no matter who may have seen them. They will support him no matter what and when the next Republican candidate gets elected President, which could very well be in 2 years, the first thing he or she will do is pardon him for whatever crimes he has been convicted of during the next two years. It will be better for him on some ways if he is not the one being elected as he cannot pardon himself. Although he may try. I want him indicted, tried and convicted for any federal statutes he has crossed. And for state crimes as well as he cannot be pardoned for those convictions.

    • Christenson says:

      My sweet summer child!….the Trump base won’t care, and the grifters won’t care, sorry.

      Also, the press will lap it up…because most of the press is in it for the clicks, and the only thing that might change that is if the big advertisers started going on about brand safety, as they have done with twitter.

      • bmaz says:

        No, they cannot. People need to quit looking at the criminal justice system to cure their political ills. It is simply not built for that.

        • Super Nintendo Chalmers says:

          They can and they have. Eugene Debbs ran from jail in 1920 and received more than 900,000 votes. Perennial candidate and nut job on the Democratic side Lyndon LaRouche ran from jail in 1992.

          Dude, you’re a lawyer. Do better.

          • ExRacerX says:

            How exactly do those examples support the argument that the criminal justice system is a cure for political ills?

            Seems to me (IANAL) they show that an individual can run for office while incarcerated.

          • Purple Martin says:

            Chalmers, “…cannot and will not solve our political problems” is the operative clause here. Do better.

  10. Kathy B says:

    You know, Avenatti got arrested when he was “talking about a presidential run”.
    So… there’s precedent.
    Support your local state prosecution (and watch DOJ – with 900 prosecutions climbing the ladder, a lotta folks are going to be “going through some stuff.”

  11. Rugger_9 says:

    The only reason such an idea has traction is the OLC opinion (fox guarding the henhouse) about not indicting a sitting president. That opinion has not been tested in court, and FWIW, Individual-1 and the rest of the GQP is trying to extend the ‘rule’ to their candidates. Dems need not apply.

    What’s different this time and quite relevant is that actual crimes defined in the USC and various state codes have allegedly been committed by the GQP party leader (they haven’t changed their platform away from ‘whatever TFG wants’) with objective evidence already shown in public (plus whatever DoJ has reserved). This is what trials are for, to test the evidence. Durham’s ballyhooed witch hunt fell apart when examined objectively. Precedent also exists for candidates running campaigns from jail (Debs, for example) so an indictment is really not out of line here.

    If the roles were reversed, does anyone really believe the GQP would show restraint? The answer is ‘No’ between Hunter, HRC, etc., all the way back to McCarthy’s HUAC and the subversives lists, naming names, secret evidence, faked evidence, politicization of the LEO structure plus many other abuses. It’s in the GQP DNA so there is no reason to cut any slack over a concern that the GQP might pursue Biden, Dems in general and other DFH riff-raff (as they see it). They already said they will if in power.

        • bmaz says:

          My understanding is there are just the two, but others under seal is not an impossible scenario. But the thing is, that is currently the DOJ guidance, and they will not go against it unless and until those opinions are officially withdrawn.

          • Silly but True says:

            We can get into the weeds sooner than later, because those weeds are where some of this needs to be argued out and perhaps some new case law established. And this assumes that a criminal POTUS is not getting convicted of an impeachment and removed from office so his POTUS role remains present.

            We can start with Mueller. To be clear it wasn’t _just_ “those damn OLC memos.” That is, Mueller was clear that it was not just OLC alone that fouled his “more traditional decision” and absent OLC memo he could have done something else. He detailed four entire legal justifications, only one of which was associated to the “OLC Memos.” For that one, we can additionally point to his precise Vol. 2 words: “And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.”

            So along with OLC Memos, we face two hurdles further identified by Mueller absent OLC: 1) “burden on capacity to govern” (really an untested area of Presidential law), and 2) “potentially preempt constitutional processes” which can state is a problem with a January 20 expiration date if that POTUS leaves office.

            Mueller himself notes his second point is that nothing bars a complete _investigation_ and so he completed his investigation for two reasons: 1) POTUS-shield does not apply to non-POTUSes (POTI?) and 2) POTUS loses POTUS-shield when he leaves office. This really doesn’t apply to the discussion, Trump is not POTUS any longer at this moment, and there is no possibility of him being so until January 20, 2025.

            For his third point, Mueller also delineates what he describes as “fairness concerns,” this is a more general way of getting into some of the specifics of the OLC memo. But he defines the problem thusly: “Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.” This is a long way of saying that such a prosecution runs the risk of molesting multiple of a POTUS’ Constitutional Sixth Amendment Rights, as well as perhaps his Fourteenth Amendment Rights, and may not pass muster under any of those issues. Wrapped into this, Mueller also lamented that the US Government couldn’t hold a secret and so same reasons fouled any sort of “preemptively” indicted in secret for later prosecution after out of office; this route would probably pass even less muster than simply indicting openly.

            And for completeness, Mueller’s fourth point is his infamous “also does not exonerate him” conclusion which also really doesn’t apply here.

            So adding them up, even if OLC were rescinded before Mueller closed shop, he would still have made his decisions on other issues:

            1. Burdens on Presidential capacity to govern: In the whole universe of possibilities, it’s probably possible that some system be set up in a federal prison to accommodate an imprisoned POTUS. Call it the “Rykers Wing” of the White House: prison populations could be isolated. Communications systems could be added. Presumably White House Executive Branch administrators could either be “deputized” or granted on-staff access. It would certainly be an endeavor, but we can say in the realm of possibility, with proper setup, prison need not bar POTUS. There likely would be some Constitutional arguments and disagreements, foreign dignitaries, treaties, waging war and like that would have to be hammered out. I am, however, partially serious. I don’t think any federal court would go for this, and it’s most likely they may rule the burdens overwhelm the benefits and bar prosecution, conviction, and/or sentencing.

            2. Sixth Amendment Rights: Rights to speedy and public trial; I assume these would certainly be for a case of indicting a POTUS but then not trying him until some time later after he is out of office. But they may probably trigger coming out of (1) in that if a POTUS’ burdens on Presidential capacity can’t be tolerated then this would also probably apply to case of a POTUS needing to be present for a trial. Any court seeking to hold a public trial of a sitting POTUS would probably pose its own practical issues, to say the least. I imagine a pack of llamas would be the least of such a circus.

            3. Fourteenth Amendment Right: Right to Due Process. Here, again, I presume Mueller’s assumption would be true. How due would any POTUS trial process practically be? I’m not sure.

            All of these point to the baseline due process that avoids all of this is a criminal POTUS be removed from office mooting the entirety of all of this. Absent that, the next thing that avoids all of this is after a full investigation has completed, indicting a criminal POTUS after he leaves office; this defers back to the same state as being convicted in an impeachement. Absent that, the solutions then start needing to be creative.

            • bmaz says:

              Overly long comment (nearly 900 words, which is as long or longer than many of our front page posts) for a simple proposition.

              PLEASE, for the love of gawd, when making comments, have some pity on people reading on mobile devices and don’t go on long winded and unnecessary manifestos. And, no, until the OLC memos are withdrawn it simply will not happen in DOJ.

              • Silly but True says:

                I don’t know that it could get to that point. We may already be well into the theater of the absurd, but how fast could something less than about 113,000 people in the Department of Justice prosecute a trial against someone who can fire them all at the speed of a tweet? It would be like a relay race sprint from 950 Pennsylvania Avenue to 333 Constitution Ave. to file the paperwork before they all got removed.

          • ApacheTrout says:

            It seems there should be a mechanism for forcing the withdrawal that resides outside the Executive Branch. I struggle to see a plausible scenario where a President would direct withdrawal of the very opinions that protects him/her while in office..

            • bmaz says:

              It is strictly a DOJ thing. Any POTUS that tried to get involved would be doing totally the wrong thing.

              • Bay State Librul says:

                But technically, the AG reports to the President. Under the powers of the Presidency, Biden can do anything as long as it is legal

  12. 90’s Country says:

    It all begs the question: Who gives a shit if the guy who lost by seven million votes in 2020 runs again in 2024? W the F?

    • TXphysicist says:

      We do. We give a shit. And so should you.

      Republicans’ continued embrace of the singular person behind the Big Lie, insurrection attempt, and so many, many other lies bodes very poorly for our future.

      And the sad reality is that the popular vote doesn’t matter for POTUS elections. I’m not even sure the electoral college matters terribly much, at this point, because Trump could lose by a large margin and engineer another coup attempt, but this time, successfully. Thousands of hammers, to thousands of heads in the night, perhaps.

      You should really, really try giving a shit.

      • 90’s Country says:

        It’s not that I don’t care. I care way too much. But before the election I figured the Repubs we’re about to be torn in half by Trump and the Alito/Thomas wing of the big court. Now that it’s over the R’s can turn on Trump, cowards that they are, perhaps even delighting in his coming indictments. Like the rest of us, I’d be happy to see the former president spend his dotage behind bars. DBB.

        On a different note, a song I wrote in 1995, Heads Carolina Tails California has been updated and just spent five weeks at the top of the national country radio charts. Not to brag, of course.

  13. The Old Redneck says:

    When I worked for my college newspaper, I brought them a story about how a prominent local business owner was threatening to sue another. My editor threw it in the trash and said: “Talk is cheap. Bring this back when he actually sues someone.”
    The pack of access journalists hanging on Trump’s every word obviously feel differently.

  14. harpie says:

    11/7/20 Fmr. President Trump Campaigns for Ohio Republicans

    [1:33:55] [movie soundtrack music in background] [< !!!]

    TRUMP: We are a nation that has lost its confidence, its will power, and its strength. And we are a nation that has just plain lost its way. But we are a nation that is not going to allow this horror to continue. Two years ago we were a great nation, and we will be a great nation again.

    [applause, cheers, swelling movie soundtrack music]

    But, (not to detract from tomorrow’s very important, even critical election, and I would say in the strongest way, it’s a country saving election, specifically including the election of all the people that I’m going to name), I’m going to be making a very big announcement, on Tuesday, November 15th, at Mara Lago in Palm Beach, Florida.

    [applause, cheering].

  15. Rugger_9 says:

    Semi-OT, does anyone else find it odd that FL and other states are trying to prevent oversight by DoJ in the election process? WHat are they hiding.

    Apparently there is also some intimidation going on in NC, but I doubt that will be the last report. It will take time, but I think suing the bozos for unauthorized videotaping would make it expensive enough for them to stop. CA has laws on unauthorized recording of people (especially with doxxing likely), probably some other states don’t like aggressive paparazzi either.

      • TXphysicist says:

        We’ve closed all the schools here on voting day, for the first time in modern history. Public primary schools have always been polling places and still hosted students attending classes on voting day.

        The schools are closed for “security reasons”, and TOTALLY NOT for voter suppression. OK? OK?!?

        Hmm, which state-level ruling party created the conditions and events to use as justifications for “security reasons”?? Hmmmmmmm…

        • bmaz says:

          Long ago, we lived in a different part of the valley here, and the local polling place was a middle school. But it was in a small gym and there were no kids in the vicinity. Worked fine. Our local place where we have lived for nearly 25 years is in a church, though have only been there a couple of times before I started doing vote by mail (which works perfectly I might add).

          • TXphysicist says:

            Right on. I vote in a public library.

            Yeah, I remember not having to run laps in gym and instead getting to watch videos on election day, here. Good day, every two years.

            I’m not allowed to vote by mail. Although, it sounds like the plan this year (not here, but elsewhere) is to “legally” disqualify mail-in voting. I wish there were a way to bill the MAGA movement for needlessly body-slamming the judicial system. Ugh

          • P J Evans says:

            Where I first voted, in San Jose, the polling place was at the local fire station. But for school elections, we voted in the basement of the Baptist Church across the street in the next block, which I always thought was kind of amusing.

        • Rayne says:

          I think after Parkland and Uvalde we need to look at the use of schools differently. All the more reasons to vote in more progressive Dems who are more likely to make election day a national holiday though it will still mean parents need to find ways to care for kids while parents vote if they can’t avail themselves of early or no-excuses absentee voting.

          • TXphysicist says:

            I guess it’s weird that we don’t have enough public-zoned facilities available for serving as voting facilities without invoking schools, huh?

            On the one hand, I appreciate the fortitude offered by having a patchwork of voting rules, instead of federally handling the vote. Maybe it’s something to strive for, but any differences in voting laws have currently been exploited to sow confusion. Dunno how to get around that.

            I would at least prefer to see a loose federal mandate to force states to allow mail-in voting. More traceability. And maybe even something like a voting voucher worth $10 – $20. Even more traceability for not much more cost.

            It’s going to be too late before Americans understand just how much the value of a secure election is actually worth, in terms of $’s. Like 2 years lol or maybe in a few days

            • StillHopeful says:

              I went with my Mother to watch her vote starting at about 5 years old (many years ago).
              Once I reached voting age, I began a continuing streak of voting in every election.
              One of my best lessons in life.

              • bmaz says:

                Same. And it was never weird at all for me to go with my mother. It was exhilarating and fun. And I have never forgotten, and also never miss a vote.

          • P J Evans says:

            Until 2020, my precinct polling place was in the auditorium of a middle school. The kids got to see people showing up to vote.

      • hester says:

        But FLA is preventing DOJ personnel from entering the buildings.

        From WaPo
        “On Monday, the Justice Department announced that it would send federal monitors to 64 jurisdictions nationwide to monitor how elections are being conducted. Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties were all slated to receive federal monitors from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

        But Brad McVay, the chief counsel for the Florida Department of State, said in a letter issued late Monday that those monitors would not be allowed inside polling places under Florida law.

        McVay said the Florida secretary of state’s office — which Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis oversees — would instead send its own monitors to those three counties, which are among the most Democratic-leaning counties in Florida.”

        • TXphysicist says:

          This is what a bid for the 2024 presidential campaign looks like. Sending legal refugees across the country illegally just wasn’t enough.

          Maybe Greg Abbott can just single-handedly vote straight ticket GOP for all of Texas by 5 PM, as a rebuttal?

            • TXphysicist says:

              Absolutely, and I am well aware of the potential Moore vs. Harper fiasco, don’t worry.

              No wait, worry. Not about me tho

        • Rugger_9 says:

          FL is a special case in that DeSantis has his own ‘election police’ last seen arresting mostly POC voters who’d been told that they could vote by the state (which had responsibility for that eligibility decision at the time). However, DeSantis then kicked the ownership to the voter instead of the state after getting busted for his stunt.

  16. Bay State Librul says:

    Indict Trump at 12:01 AM on November 9, 2022 while we still have the time.
    Rescind the OLC memo upon receipt of this post,
    The OLC Memo is unconstitutional!

  17. Doctor My Eyes says:

    It’s a measure of journalistic dysfunction but also a measure of the low level we’ve sunk as an audience. It’s all a game, and the only thing that matters and who wins and who loses. Nothing has significance beyond that. Haberman’s idle musings as though she’s watching a movie, are representative.

    Another thing that causes me to stare agape is the insistence on treating Trump as a rational being who is carefully planning courses of action, weighting alternatives, etc. Sentences like this: “He’s conflicted on the timing and nothing is ever certain.” No shit he’s conflicted–unceasingly and terminably so. They’re like children flinching at every move of their abuser as though their lives depend on it. I believe that is the attitude being encouraged in the electorate. “I wonder what Trump is going to do and say” is the ultimate distraction.

    • TXphysicist says:

      Let us hasten the era of “Trump serving life sentence, and 10 of the most common ways to ruin paella”

    • Matt___B says:

      MSNBC just fired their newest Saturday morning anchor Tiffany Cross because (wait for it) she was having an “on-air feud” with Tucker Carlson – he was bad-mouthing her on his show – and the MSNBC execs just couldn’t have that. Bad for ratings? Corporate sponsors complained? Frankly, I didn’t like her show very much but that’s the wrong reason to fire her.

      Too sassy: firing offense for MSNBC / ratings bonanza on Fox. Huh?

      I notice that MSNBC is now letting Joe Scarborough freely say the word “fascist” on-air and are not bleeping the audio when he says “bullshit”. There don’t seem to be any consistent journalistic standards in place anymore.

  18. gmoke says:

    I wondered, “Can we talk about something other than Trmp?”

    “Sure,” the media answered. “Here’s what Elon Musk is up to.”

    No more billionaire fanboys/girls writing the news, please.

      • Hug h roonman says:

        I do feel nostalgic for an earlier time when a Candidate uttering these words-
        “I like people who weren’t captured.”, would be a Campaign ending event. Instead we’ve gotten seven years of doubling down and a noxious Political Party.

        • Justsomeguy says:

          I’m old enough to remember ‘The Dean Scream’, wherein Howard Dean yelled YEAH! at a press conference and then the media replayed it hundreds of times in a week; ZOMGS! He SCREAMED! His campaign is Obviously Over, raising one’s voice is so terribly unPresidential, clearly too unhinged for High Office…

          Aaaaaaand then we get 2016, wherein TFG barely went an hour without doing something that would have been considered campaign ending in any other modern Presidential race, but not only was it all good, it was Great! Mock Veterans! Mock the Disabled! Threaten Reporters! Ritualistically Humiliate all of your primary challengers! Ask foreign countries to sling mud at your competitors for you while you’re on television! Norms are out, The Spectacle is IN!

        • rip no longer says:

          I think my favorite honest candidate was Pierre Salinger – who, if I remember somewhat, said “yes, I’ve had multiple affairs and enjoyed each one.”

          True personal honesty in politics doesn’t exist any more. All are being manipulated by PR and $$.

          • Earthworm says:

            Or gov Romney of MI who came back from his Pentagon choreographed Vietnam tour saying we’ve been duped and was hounded out the GOP nomination sweepstakes for his honesty!

  19. Silly but True says:

    It just feels a little early, and so I suppose that’s as good as any basis to say anyone is announcing “early” vs. “normal,” or “late.” But I was interested to validate how accurate my feelings are, and so Google tells me some recent experiences:

    1. No incumbent: for the past four Presidential elections without an incumbent running, which presumptively does not and may not apply here, nominees of the two major parties launched their campaigns an average of 531 days before the election took place. This would put things around May 24 of next year, right about 6 months away from now, and so a Tuesday announcement will be _months_ early.

    2. 2020 Trump: Trump filed for reelection on January 20, 2017, inauguration day, some 1,383 days before the election. OOH, this is probably no good guide for 2024 for the condition. But OTOH, it’s Trump, and we can say any announcement from him will be the world’s worst-kept secret.

    3. Incumbents: In 2012, it looks like the first Republican Pawlenty announced about 600 days before the election which would put it March 2023 — although I’m not going to make any judgements about how reasonable their chance was to even be running to begin with. And in 2004, Kerry announced in December 2002, about 700 days before the 2004 election, which would put it in December 2022.

    What’s my take-away. If Trump were a more normal Republican, then a November 15 2022 announcement would seem a bit early. But Trump’s not a more normal Republican, nor are these more normal times for his particular candidacy.

    And so, perhaps the even older, more standard election adage may apply: “the campaign never ends.” That seems to apply to Trump as well as any.

    • Paulka says:

      Isn’t there a DoJ policy that you cannot indict a person after they announce that they will announce something in a week? I am sure that is what Trump is counting on.

      • rip no longer says:

        Careful. Some people parse words differently than you and me. I got your drift right away.

        When we need to announce /sarcasm/, /innuendo/, /irony/, /ianal/, /flame/, /etc/ on every post we lose the ability to make people think twice – “was what I read really what it meant”?

        Some say the inability to understand inflection or have empathy is connected to a certain world-view (or politics). Maybe our brains are just different?

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Snark tags, clear writing and agency, direct vs. passive voice are always useful. They don’t take away from thought, effective humor or commentary. They do avoid wasting time, which most of us have too little of.

  20. pdaly says:

    There is at least some certainty wrt Trump in November 2022:

    Lawyer Robert “Robbie” Kaplan, who deposed Donald Trump twice in October 2022 at Mar-a-Lago for two cases in the works (class action lawsuit against ACN; and E. Jean Carroll defamation suit), also plans to file a new case on behalf of her client against Trump on 11/24/22 (the first allowable date) alleging Battery
    (I assume E. Jean Carroll is the plaintiff for this new case, too?)

    Robbie Kaplan states the new case relies on a new law in NY called “The Adult Survivors Act.”
    Kaplan indicates it is highly likely they will include NEW defamatory statements Trump made on Truth Social after he was no longer the president.

    For bmaz and others who would rather read transcripts than listen to audio, the above details are at least mentioned in the first 5 minutes of this 32 minute (Nov 2, 2022) podcast.

  21. Lori Sirianni says:

    And imagine if the Trump whisperers in the press gave their heads a shake and remembered the reason theirs is the only profession cited and protected by our Founders in the Bill of Rights: to inform the populace, expose wrongdoing, and hold the powerful accountable. They knew it was key to democracy enduring. Imagine if the Maggie Habermans of the journalism world remembered history and imagined themselves back in the 1930s, reporting on the rise of fascism in Europe. Would they similarly fawn over Hitler and Mussolini, breathlessly reporting on them as if the destruction of democracy and human rights, and political violence that happened then and are happening again today were the most normal thing in the world?

    They need to report on Trump *now* as the lethal threat to democracy that he is. They need to report how utterly shocking it is that a man who obtained the US presidency with an open solicitation to our adversary Russia on live TV to hack his political opponent and who welcomed Putin’s interference; the man who then cruelly separated children from their parents at the southern border; who undermined our institutions for four years; who extorted our vulnerable ally Ukraine trying to coerce illegal foreign election interference from them and was impeached for it; whose lies and failures during the first year of Covid caused thousands of preventable American deaths; who started lying in early 2020 that mail-in ballots would result in “massive fraud” to prime his supporters, then escalated that lie after the election; who had his GSA Administrator refuse to ascertain the election winner and block Biden and his transition team’s access to government funding, secure office space, and classified briefings until late November 2020; who filed dozens of failed, frivolous election challenges in courts just to prop up his Big Lie; who conspired with lawyers like John Eastman and others in his cabal to submit slates of fake Trump electors; who called Georgia’s Secretary of State to pressure him to “find” him 11,780 ballots; who summoned a mob of his supporters to the capital on Jan 6, delivered an incendiary speech telling them—knowing some were armed—to march to the Capitol and “fight”, inciting and causing, then failing for hours to call off, a deadly insurrection against the government; who absconded with highly sensitive classified documents, kept them at his Florida beach club crawling with foreign spies and American hangers-on, and refused to return them to the government and who knows yet what else he did with them; that THAT man is not only still walking free (but hopefully indicted soon) but is traveling the country doing his fascistic hate rallies and is the leading contender for the Republican nomination for President in 2024.

    It beggars belief. How did we get here? And how did we get to the point where so many reporters are failing to accurately report on the threat to democracy Trump and many Republicans pose, and continue their insipid horse-race coverage as though Trump is a perfectly normal ex-president and potential candidate? It feels surreal to me. The warning lights of fascism are blinking red but they’ve got blinders on, completely failing to rise to the moment. (I am, of course, excepting Marcy from my condemnation as she has consistently reported accurately and in no-nonsense terms on Trump for the years I’ve read her work, as well as a few other good journalists).

    I’m pretty sure this is my first comment here after reading for years, and if I seem upset I’m sorry, it’s because I am. I’m angry and profoundly disappointed in our free press who squanders their First Amendment rights, and in the 74 million of our fellow citizens who voted for Trump in 2020 after seeing him in action as POTUS for four years, and the millions voting today for extremist, anti-democracy Republicans.

    How is this the same country that sent 16 million men, including my late beloved grandfather, off to WWII to defend our nation, her allies, and democracy against the fascist Axis powers? The country that has stood for liberty, human rights, and democracy for generations? Living outside the US and looking in as an ex-pat, it looks to me like America’s now being destroyed from within, by its own citizens, without a single shot being fired.

    • rip no longer says:

      A wonderful comment, Lori. It will take time to digest but everything I’ve seen is heartfelt and feels so real. Perhaps one of the moderators will castigate you about the length of the post – please keep on posting!

      • Rayne says:

        We don’t have a problem with occasionally longer comments depending on the quality of the comment.

        We do have a problem with community members either policing commenters or deriding moderation. *side eyeing you hard*

    • DrDoom says:

      I have little doubt that Maggie Haberman would have been acting as Hitler’s stooge had she been a journalist in 1930’s Germany. Trump is every bit as obvious as Hitler was. IMO concentration of the media into few hands is a prominent contributor to the press’s recent failures. Musk being allowed to buy Twitter adds to the danger that media will only disseminate messages approved by ownership. NY Times is a case in point.

      • bmaz says:

        What do you mean “Musk being allowed to buy Twitter”? How would that have been prevented? On what basis?

        • DrDoom says:

          You are of course correct that there is no legal obstacle to the purchase. I am perfectly happy for very few very rich people to enjoy their money, but am less happy about them controlling information infrastructure. Twitter has become that, like it or not. I feel similarly about philanthropy, and object to the Gates Foundation’s impact on good works, regardless of the fact that I agree with their choices about which projects deserve support. As policy, I would favor a more expansive antitrust system, which might be used to limit actions such as Musk’s Twitter purchase. I do not mean in any way to suggest that there is a basis for doing so at present.

          • bmaz says:

            Agree completely. And tougher antitrust enforcement, generally, would be a very good thing. Not sure, given that Meta and others exist, it would apply to Musk buying Twitter. It is indeed beyond unfortunate that Musk has bought Twitter. Now if Meta had bought Twitter, that would be different, but Musk’s private purchase not so much. Sadly.

  22. Savage Librarian says:

    Starting Gate in the Dick State

    He’s crouching now for the pounce,
    But he relishes what he can flounce,
    In his mind he ogles headcounts.

    Craggy and Roger Stone-ious,
    Each is such a phony ass,
    Craving the felonious.

    They dream of being paramounts,
    But who has the beefier bounce,
    And who’s not about to give an ounce?

    Between the sanctimonious
    and the bellicose baloney ass,
    it’s a hustle to the most erroneous.

  23. David F. Snyder says:

    Maggie The Clueless. A perfect example of The Peter Principle. Or perhaps she is a willing propagandist.

  24. klynn says:

    November 14th and 15th are big days for Mike Pence. His David Muir interview on the 14th and his book release on the 15th.

    Lots converging that would be negative for DT. I can see Trump wanting to suck the air out of it all with an announcement.

  25. Silly but True says:

    JFC. The Oathkeepers Conspiracy jurors along with ASUA Kathryn Rakoczy need to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for their sacrifice in enduring Rhodes’ testimony.

    File literally in “silly but true” is yesterday’s testimony by Rhodes confirming he and SoRelle were banging:
    “Rhodes made the claim when he was asked during cross-examination whether he had enough control over the attorney to get her to stay silent about the Oath Keepers’ role in the riots. The militia founder smiled before answering: ‘Do we have to get into kink, really?’ ‘Outside the bedroom, she’s definitely a type A. Inside the bedroom, she definitely switches to a sub,’ he told Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn Rakoczy.”

    • RobertaM says:

      I think he also tried to get released to her custody referring to her as his girlfriend, which she later denied.

Comments are closed.