Posts

The Education of Ezra Klein

/56 Comments/in /by

As I said in this post, I believe Ezra Klein’s column on a possible shutdown, which many lefties have celebrated, is rambling and often confused.

It looks something like this:

  • 19¶¶ comparing the upcoming funding fight with the March one
  • 10¶¶ describing that now, unlike March, Trump is consolidating his authoritarian power
  • 9¶¶ describing a shutdown as “attentional”
  • 6¶¶ describing Democrats’ powerlessness
  • 5¶¶ on power

Within the column, Ezra has laid out a somewhat facile description of fascism, without discussion of how we got here or how to fight it. Having not done that work, Ezra is left, “hop[ing] somebody has better ideas than I do,” which is precisely the same kind of fecklessness of which he accuses Dems.

That fecklessness stems in significant part from Ezra’s inattention, in his description of Trump’s fascism, to Trump’s usurpation of Congress’ power of the purse, which is at the core of this funding fight.

Without explicitly doing so, Ezra describes Trump’s fascism in terms of a mafia state, as opposed to one of several other possible terms (including fascism) you might use to describe Trump.

You could still, under Mafia rule, get the trash picked up or buy construction materials. But the point of those industries had become the preservation and expansion of the Mafia’s power and wealth. This is what Trump is doing to the government.

The rest of this section describing fascism is muddled, down to repeatedly changing topics within paragraphs (which may be the fault of editors). Three paragraphs focus on Trump’s efforts to fire experts who provide Trump bad news and the ways he is using government to punish his enemies. One paragraph describes his bribery in plain sight. Half a paragraph describes ICE and Guard invasions without mentioning the racist animus of both. One paragraph describes the gold lamé vandalism Trump has done to the Oval Office. Another describes Steve Witkoff’s sycophancy. Half a paragraph describes stuff that happened before March.

We’ve watched Trump systematically purge the government of inspectors general, of military JAGs and officers, of federal prosecutors — anyone who might stand in the way of his corruption or his accumulation or exercise of power. It is astonishing that the Jan. 6 rioters have been pardoned and that dozens of the Justice Department lawyers who prosecuted them have been fired.

If the pardon of Jan6ers was so astonishing (and Ezra focuses on it in his video, too), then it should have raised the same alarm in March.

This passage reads, to me, like a centrist trying to persuade others that this really is authoritarianism. But the description is silent about a number of things, including both white nationalism and spectacle, that are key to Trump’s power. Ezra is particularly blind to the latter.

More importantly, nothing in the section where Ezra describes Trump’s fascism addresses Trump’s unconstitutional abuse of the power of the purse. Even when he discusses those things in the earlier shutdown section — describing how government grants were “being choked off and reworked into tools of political power,” imposing “shocking tariffs on Mexico and Canada,” and (quoting a law prof he interviewed) SCOTUS’ rubber stamp for Trump “Refus[ing] to spend money appropriated by Congress” — Ezra does not mention that all of these actions usurp Congress’ power of the purse, precisely the task before them this month. Ezra mentions neither the Republican approval of $9 billion in rescissions of spending on foreign aid and public broadcasting, nor Russ Vought’s attempt to carry out pocket rescissions of appropriated spending, both of which animate Democratic thinking on this shutdown.

In other words, amid a somewhat facile but very earnest description of Trump’s fascism, Ezra never gets around to describing how this funding fight plays into Trump’s efforts to domesticate Republicans in Congress — in part — by stripping Congress of the power of the purse. No wonder Ezra can’t come up with a message that works. He has ignored one of the fundamental issues behind this shutdown that didn’t exist in March: serial Congressional Republican capitulation to Trump’s demands that they cede him their constitutional power of the purse.

Meanwhile, Ezra (the guy who wrote the most influential piece on why Joe Biden had to step down last year) misunderstands the attention environment. He describes that a shutdown is an opportunity to focus attention on what he describes as an “argument.”

A shutdown is an attentional event. It’s an effort to turn the diffuse crisis of Trump’s corrupting of the government into an acute crisis that the media, that the public, will actually pay attention to.

Right now, Democrats have no power, so no one cares what they have to say. A shutdown would make people listen. But then Democrats would have to actually win the argument. They would need to have an argument. They would need a clear set of demands that kept them on the right side of public opinion and dramatized what is happening to the country right now.

He correctly observes that Dems had not prepared for the “attentional” aspects of a shutdown in March.

And I thought there was a fourth argument: Democrats had not prepared for a shutdown. They had not explained why they were shutting the government down or what they wanted to achieve. They had no strategy. They had no message. The demand I was hearing them make was that the spending bill needed more bipartisan negotiation. It was unbearably lame.

But then, in a shocking passage, he claims to believe Trump’s attentional hold — his spectacle — stems instead from his presidential power even while he ignores some of what Dems have done to fight back.

Power is a coordination problem. Trump can’t do much on his own. The advantage he has is the power to create coordination — he can send clearer signals, he has a louder megaphone, he can wield stronger punishments and rewards.

People do what others do. Each law firm that bent the knee to Trump made it harder for the next firm to say no. The universities that fell to Trump created the same problem — that’s why it mattered when Harvard fought back. Everyone in society — every person, every institution — is a node of coordination. And if you look at Democrats in Congress right now, the signal they’re sending is not to take any risks. Everything is normal. Just wait for the election. I think sending that signal is a mistake.

Ezra, like a lot of lefty pundits, has not seen — has not paid “attention” to — some of the things that Democrats have done to weigh in here. Like Brian Beutler did recently in a post structured, like Ezra’s, as a scold to Democrats, Ezra seems to have no fucking clue that sixteen Dems got the attention of law firms that had or might consider capitulating to Trump by raising bribery concerns. When I called out Beutler for falsely claiming Dems had not done such a thing, Sean Casten, who signed the letter, told me he still hears from law firms about the effort. It’s as if these pundits haven’t thought about the multiple things (the efforts of law firm associates and law school students were critically important as well, not to mention lawsuits that a shutdown would significantly slow) that did halt the flood of capitulation and so might stop other capitulation, including that of Republicans in Congress.

Ezra, the longtime wonk who chose not to use his platform to talk about all Biden’s policy successes last year, opting instead to kick off an intra-party squabble, appears not to understand that Trump exercised that attentional power without holding the White House. Like the Democrats Ezra criticizes, he is failing attentional basics.

You have to understand Trump’s attentional power — the power that explains why Democrats failed to claim credit for what Biden did, the power that (along with lazy lefty punditry) exacerbates real and perceived inaction that results in Dems’ shitty polling  — to understand why Republicans in Congress have capitulated just like law firms and a few universities did.

As a Democratic Senator hinted to Ezra, many pundits are seeking emotional catharsis, without imagining what tactical efficacy would be.

I was talking with a Democratic senator I respect, and he asked me a good question: Everything you say about what Trump is doing might be true. Everything you say about the kind of emergency this is might be right. But is a government shutdown the answer? Or is it a desire for emotional catharsis that might be self-defeating? Sometimes the best strategy is restraint.

This entire discussion should start from a theory of how to fight fascism.

As I laid out here, members of Congress have a unique role in such a fight, but it’s not the cathartic leadership lefty pundits want, leadership that is coming from other places (most recently from governors facing invasions). There are two — probably three — ways they can try to undercut Trump’s power, all based on a kind of political accountability that does not lend itself to catharsis, as well as a willingness to negotiate that Dems have decided equates to capitulation.

The first — the one Ezra nods to — is the 2026 election, winning one or both houses of Congress and with them to start halting Trump’s power grab. But, as Ezra correctly notes, Trump’s consolidation threatens what would otherwise be an easy House win.

The 2026 midterms are 14 months away. The machinery of the state is being organized to entrench Republican power through redistricting, to control information, to punish and harass enemies, to create a masked paramilitary force roaming the streets and carrying out Trump’s commands. Do you just let that roll forward and hope for the best?

Ezra ignores the second, more immediate possibility, one on which Dems have almost entirely failed but which are precisely at issue here: to peel off four Senators (after Trump successfully killed an effort to defeat Pete Hegseth, Democrats won four Senate supporters on a single bill opposing tariffs, but on little else) or up to eight House Republicans. That kind of Republican opposition to Trump policies exists on discrete issues: In addition to tariffs, Ukraine, war in Iran, various funding priorities (most terrible), Medicaid. It actually did exist on March’s spending bill, but Trump killed it, which is one reason no Democrats, in or outside Congress, were prepared in March.

As I noted on Nicole Sandler’s show on Friday, not only are at least five Republican Senators opposed to RFK Jr’s recent efforts to change vaccine recommendations, those five include Majority Whip John Barrasso.

Republicans in sufficient numbers oppose Trump policies, they’re all just terrified to act on their opposition. Like it or not, Dems have not given up on persuading them to do so. That may be the right decision. If they ever succeed, it would be the quickest way to slow or maybe reverse Trump’s fascism. Lefty pundits loathe that effort because it looks like capitulation, but if Democrats actually believe they might do this, it is sound tactically.

This leads me to the third, hypothetical role that Dems in Congress might play in reversing Trump’s fascism: the possibility that one or several predictable catastrophes — be it epidemic, supply chain failures, financial collapse, extreme weather events, or something else — will lead Republicans to beg Democrats to bail them out again, as happened in 2008 and 2020.

That’s one of two reasons that explains the Democratic focus on healthcare: because Republicans know they were wrong to cut Medicaid and rural healthcare like they did. Hate that relentless focus, done in the face of Democratic attentional failures, all you want, but Trump just attempted to rebrand the Big Ugly Bill because he knows it is a political disaster. The relentless Democratic attention has succeeded, thus far, in explaining the problems with the Big Ugly Bill.

And that’s a useful lesson, because whatever else, Democrats need to do the groundwork to hold Trump — and Republicans in Congress — accountable for the predictable catastrophes they cause, because otherwise Republicans will blame trans people (as they’re trying to do on gun violence) or migrants (as they’re trying to do on RFK’s measles epidemic), a classic fascist dynamic. The focus on the coming Republican-caused healthcare disaster is tedious, but also necessary to ensure accountability, most immediately in rural communities that are losing their hospitals.

But the more aspirational goal — to peel off Republicans in Congress — is one of several reasons why Jeffrey Epstein matters, and why Democrats claiming more important things, like invasions of blue cities, are just a distraction from Epstein is justifiable, even if doomsters can no longer understand that politics sometimes involves cynical posturing. In Congress, Epstein is an unprecedented opportunity, as already demonstrated in July, when House Dems, in partnership with Tom Massie (the kind of partnership lefties condemn across the board) and with the full support of Hakeem Jeffries, chased Republicans away a week early — literally deprived them of the tools of their majority — rather than face a dangerous vote on Epstein. Epstein is literally the first thing in a decade that has thwarted Trump’s efforts to control and redirect attention. If, as expected, James Walkinshaw and Adelita Grijalva win special elections today and two weeks from today, respectively, there should be enough votes to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files, almost perfectly coinciding with this funding fight. Trump whipped hard against the Khanna-Massie discharge petition, and he’ll surely whip just as hard against a vote to release the files (possibly with more success in the Senate than the House). But as the release of the Epstein birthday book exposing Trump’s lies attests, not even James Comer is fully in control of what will happen in the coming weeks. And Republicans have to know that their unwavering obedience to Trump demands could soon make them look like pedophiles in the eyes of a base violently opposed to such.

Which brings us, finally, back to Dem strategy (if you can call it that) on government funding. Much of the critical and doomerist discussion of the fight focuses on Democrats’ offer to negotiate a short term funding bill with health care funding, but they ignore that the beat reporting which they sometimes cite describes a two-part offer: Healthcare, plus a reversal on Trump’s attack on funding. They’re ignoring details like this:

Party leaders have signaled that they plan to use the looming funding showdown to press for reversals of Medicaid cuts, extensions of expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies, and limits on President Donald Trump’s spending authority—even if it means shouldering the political risk if negotiations collapse.

[snip]

Coons added that Democrats also want assurances that Trump cannot simply claw back funding after Congress approves it. “We need to trust you so that when we reach an appropriations deal it sticks, and reverses the damage that’s been done,” Coons said, pointing to the President’s repeated use of rescissions to cancel spending. [my emphasis]

The healthcare funding is important. But if it is yoked with a demand that Republicans reclaim their constitutional power of the purse, it would be a far more important stand against Trump. It would be the appropriate, minimal ask. And if Democrats make that clear in the next two weeks, it would also be the message that Ezra can’t discern in a post ignoring the centrality of rescissions to this fight.

Notably, Politico describes how this battle is creating fissures within Republican ranks, as well as between the parties.

Battle lines are emerging on Capitol Hill in the fight to avert a government shutdown in three weeks — and it’s not just Republicans vs. Democrats.

On one side, fiscal hawks are joining with the White House to keep federal agencies running on static funding levels, ideally into January or longer. On the other, Democrats and some top Republicans want to punt no further than November to buy congressional negotiators more time to cut a cross-party compromise on fresh funding totals for federal programs.

In the end, the standoff could hinge on Speaker Mike Johnson’s appetite for trying to pass a funding package backed by President Donald Trump but not Democrats, as he did in the spring — and whether Senate Democrats once again capitulate rather than see government operations grind to a halt Oct. 1.

“They jammed us last time,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), a top appropriator, said in an interview. “And I am encouraging my Republican friends who want to do appropriations to understand that that won’t work this time.”

Even more irate after Trump’s latest move to unilaterally cancel almost $5 billion in foreign aid through a so-called pocket rescission, Democrats are warning there will be a funding lapse if Republicans don’t negotiate with them. And while they’re being cautious not to box themselves in with ultimatums on funding totals or specific policy demands, they’re starting to flex their muscles by floating concessions Republicans could make in exchange for support across the aisle.

That includes making a deal by the end of the year to head off the expiration of enhanced health insurance subsidies that would result in premium hikes come January for millions of Americans.

Appropriators Tom Cole and Susan Collins have worked hard to accrue power that Trump has usurped. Neither, alone, can convince their colleagues to start acting like a co-equal branch of government again.

Those are quite literally the stakes — the stakes that barely got mentioned in wonky Ezra’s 3,200-word post talking about failures of messaging, even though those stakes have been reported in the beat press for weeks.

Trump has told Congress he doesn’t want Congress and its co-equal constitutional role to exist anymore. Such a stance provides Dems in Congress an opportunity to convince their colleagues they should defy their liege. It also ought to guide messaging, especially for people with a platform like Ezra’s.

But it’s really no more than an opportunity, similar to opportunities Republicans have declined to avail themselves of in recent weeks.

I certainly think it likely that fewer than four Republican Senators will assert their own prerogatives, and in that case, I think Dems have little choice but to refuse to participate in the willful capitulation of constitutional authority. The message, though, would be simple — or should be if one-time wonks like Ezra can figure it out before then. Republicans are refusing to perform the role that the Constitution reserves for them.

That is, quite literally, what this is about.

I’d say that’s an easy message. It ought to be a message that would hold not just Trump, but individual members of Congress who’ll be accountable to all the constituents who’ll suffer in a shutdown, necessary leverage to ensure that government ever reopens (one of Schumer’s points in March that Ezra simply ignores). But thus far, the push for feckless catharsis seems far stronger than the search for tools to fight fascism.

Update: Matt Glassman and Jonathan Bernstein both think a shutdown won’t work the way Dems want it to, which are both worth a read. Like Ezra, neither presents a plan to fight fascism.

Share this entry

Keeping the Courts Open in March Sustained Habeas Corpus

/26 Comments/in /by

The upcoming deadline for government funding at the end of September has renewed the debate over whether Democrats should help keep the government open or not.

I’ll come back to the debate itself — I think lefty pundits are misconstruing the key issues before Democrats in Congress, and therefore making the debate more contentious than it needs to be. I think they’re also misunderstanding how best to fight fascism.

But I want to examine one part of the debate: whether Schumer was right to let the GOP keep the government open in March, in part, to keep the courts open.

In a rambling and often confused post, Ezra Klein described that keeping the courts open was one of Schumer’s justifications for allowing Republicans to fund government back in March.

The argument Schumer made was threefold. First, Trump was being stopped in the courts. There were dozens of cases playing out against him, and he was losing again and again and again. Shut down the government, and you might shut down the courts.

But, Klein opined, that argument no longer holds because Trump is not losing at the Supreme Court.

Not a single argument Schumer made then is valid now. First, Trump is not losing in the Supreme Court, which has weighed in again and again on his behalf. Instead of reprimanding Trump for his executive order unilaterally erasing the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to all born here, it reprimanded the lower courts for imposing a national freeze on his order in the way they did. It has shown him extraordinary deference to the way he is exercising power.

[snip]

Schumer’s argument in March was that the courts were stopping Trump; let them do their work. What we can say in September is that no, John Roberts is not going to stop Donald Trump.

I’ve never argued the Supreme Court was going to save us and don’t think Schumer did either. It is certainly true that SCOTUS has used its shadow docket to override lower court orders upholding the plain letter of the law, perhaps most egregiously by endorsing suspicionless searches of Latinos today. Though there are still cases — most notably the tariff challenge — where SCOTUS may treat Trump more skeptically.

But even with SCOTUS’ repeated interventions to overrule lower courts since March, it remains a significantly different question whether keeping the courts open has value.

That is best shown, in my opinion, by the JGG immigration case, a case filed just hours after Democrats let Republicans pass a continuing resolution funding government.

Stephen Miller had schemed for years to use the Alien Enemies Act as a way to carry out deportations with no due process; he saw it as a way to bypass habeas corpus, the very foundation of Anglo-American law enshrined in the Magna Carta. On March 15, Trump invoked AEA with the gang Tren de Aragua, based on claims his spooks told him before and would tell him again afterwards were false. Then DHS started packing hundreds of Venezuelan men onto planes based on little more than their tattoos, sending them to Nayib Bukele’s concentration camp as part of a quid pro quo designed to hide Bukele’s own ties to gangs.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who continues to fight to vindicate his legal rights almost six months later, was also on one of those planes.

We would learn, months later, that at a meeting on March 14 — the same day Democrats let Republicans fund government — Emil Bove demanded that those flights “needed to take off, no matter what.” Bove even stated that if a court tried to enjoin the flights, DOJ would have to tell the court, “fuck you.”

ACLU filed that lawsuit and asked for a Temporary Restraining Order overnight after the CR passed the Senate. DC Chief Judge James Boasberg moved quickly, scheduling first a Sunday hearing then rescheduling it for Saturday at 5PM. At the hearing, Boasberg certified a class — including all Venezuelans covered by the AEA declaration — and halted the hearing to find out whether more detainees were being sent to CECOT. After DOJ dodged in response (and, according to Erez Reuveni, lied), Boasberg ordered that, “any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, but those people need to be returned to the United States.”

Emil Bove ordered the men to be unloaded from the planes anyway.

This was not an instance of the courts working. Trump blew off the courts, and when Boasberg later tried to hold DOJ in contempt for ignoring his order, two Trump appointees stalled, then overturned that effort, though a motion for an en banc review remains pending.

Bove has since been rewarded for illegally sending men to a concentration camp with a lifetime appointment on the Third Circuit.

But the courts did have an effect, with SCOTUS reaffirming detainees’ right to challenge their deportation, then intervening on an Easter Saturday to stop another effort to ship men away under the AEA with no due process. Both Trump judges and (this week) the Fifth Circuit have since ruled against Trump’s use of the AEA in this context.

SCOTUS may well intervene again on the Fifth Circuit order, but at the very least this entire set of cases has delayed the use of AEA by six months.

Meanwhile, Boasberg’s order almost certainly created the political problem for Trump that led Trump, ultimately, to have the Venezuelans shipped back to Venezuela, after months of enduring Bukele’s concentration camp. Other detainees who’ve been shipped off to third countries have largely disappeared from consciousness. Not those men, most of whom are free to tell their stories right now.

Just as importantly, having a court available on a weekend to enjoin those flights has created a bunch of political and legal problems for Trump, problems that could have ramifications down the road (and could also be the basis for accountability if we ever get beyond fascism). Donald Trump shipped a bunch of mostly innocent men to a concentration camp, where they were tortured, in defiance of a court order. That could be actionable in the future in a way that merely shipping people to a third country would not, especially because Trump did it in defiance of an order.

Even as SCOTUS continues to override lower courts, those lower courts do continue to rule in favor of plaintiffs. Just last week, in a showdown similar to the one in March (with DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign in a key role again), Judge Sparkle Sooknanan temporarily prevented the government from deporting a bunch of Guatemalan kids, and like the Venezuelan precedent, the aftermath has led to further visibility about what happened, which can be a tool for political pressure.

We don’t know how many of the judicial interventions that have slowed Trump down since March DOJ would have been able to thwart with Executive decisions about personnel covered by shutdowns. Even before the CR, Trump had done two things that tested his ability to shut down courts via secondary means — first, having GSA shut down an actual federal building housing courts, and politicizing the deployment of US Marshals. If the government shuts down this month, I would be unsurprised if he repeats both tactics as a means to shut down access to courts.

And while DOJ wouldn’t have been able to shut down court rooms immediately, they can pick and choose which of their own employees are deemed non-essential. What DOJ can do — has already been able to do, in the wake of purges at DOJ — is to ask for delays in scheduling due to the fact they’re short-handed. We know from Erez Reuvani that DOJ was counting on just such a delay with the JGG case, just 48 hours so they could get their innocent men into Bukele’s concentration camp without legal review first.

That didn’t happen in March. It may well happen in September during a shutdown.

We’re not in the same place we were in March, for a variety of reasons (again, I plan a follow-up). The question before both parties in Congress is whether Congress will reaffirm the power of the purse at all in the wake of Trump’s rescissions. That makes this decision far different than the one Congress faced in March.

But what the last six months have shown may well be the opposite of what Klein argues on the courts. Yes, SCOTUS has repeatedly intervened to help Trump. Even in the face of that, though, the courts remain one tool that people are using to fight fascism. There are people alive and free today who bear witness to that.

And that tool may get a lot more scarce if the government shuts down at the end of the month.

Share this entry

If Dems Successfully Message on News Outlets Lefty Pundits No Longer Read, Did It Ever Happen?

/36 Comments/in /by

In the wake of a WSJ report that Democrats have fallen to a historic approval low, the usual suspects — in this case, David Atkins — have taken to Bluesky to blame everything on Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Again.

Atkins demanded that Democratic leaders talk about Trump conspiring with his personal attorneys to cover things up.

People keep asking “what do you expect Democrats to do???”

I expect Schumer and Jeffries to hold a press conference and say: “Donald Trump is conspiring with his personal attorneys he corruptly installed at DOJ to cover up his close friendship and possible horrific crimes with Jeff Epstein.”

Let me stipulate that the messaging that Schumer and Jeffries do do is often feckless, though in this case, Schumer released a statement on both Xitter and Bluesky on Thursday first arguing that sending Donald Trump’s personal lawyer to meet with Ghislaine “stinks of high corruption,” which led a few articles. That followed around ten other social media posts, including his prediction on Wednesday that, “Maybe Speaker Johnson declared the Epstein Recess to give Trump time to prepare papers for the pardon of Ghislaine Maxwell. Disgraceful” (making Schumer a prominent early adopter of the theory that Trump will pardon the sex trafficker) and a post (again posted to both Xitter and Bluesky) elevating video of Markwayne Mullin admitting Republicans were trying to give Trump cover. And while Jeffries was more focused on redistricting and messaging on the Big Ugly last week, Epstein was a repeated focus in his press conferences (it was the initial focus of Katherine Clark’s comments), and he was mocking Trump on this even before it bubbled into a scandal.

Atkins’ complaints that Dems aren’t messaging on Epstein comes in the wake of three significant earned media wins by Democrats on Epstein in recent weeks:

  • After Dick Durbin released a whistleblower’s description of the 1,000 people Pam Bondi pulled off their day jobs to review Epstein files, Allison Gill responded by releasing damning details of the search, followed days later by NYT. The details of this search will continue to feed the controversy (as well as FOIAs to get the spreadsheet of prominent names discovered in the search, so it can be compared to the list of names Todd Blanche asked Maxwell about in their cozy tête-à-tête). Update: Durbin sent a letter (with Sheldon Whitehouse) to Todd Blanche for information about the meeting, which NYT reported on.
  • After Ron Wyden sent letters in March and June demanding that Todd Bessent and Pam Bondi release FinCEN files on Epstein and Leon Black, NYT did a story on the financial aspects. When Republicans accused Wyden of sitting on this during the Biden Administration, he sent another letter disproving that and mapping out what steps they should take. In a great story on Wyden’s efforts, Greg Sargent noted the value of such letters: “such trolling by lawmakers can be constructive if it communicates new information to the public or highlights the failure of others in power to exercise oversight and impose accountability.”
  • And then there was Ro Khanna’s tactic that shut down the House by leading Mike Johnson to give up on a rule governing last week’s work, which led to follow-on efforts in committees and the Senate. This — which required working with Tom Massie (something lefties religiously disavow) — was a parliamentary score, with series of stories in the Hill beat press to follow.

Almost none of that appears in Atkins’ response to my question why he was ignoring other members. He said he had mentioned a Whitehouse interview, but he ignored the long thread from Whitehouse more directly addressing the corruption, as well as a Podcast with Jamie Raskin where they dedicate the last 5 minutes of to it.

The real tell to Atkins’ willful ignorance (or outright deceit) about what Dems have done is his claim, “I have highlighted [Dems who are pushing this]. But they get lost in the fray when leadership isnt backing them up,” [my emphasis] a day after RTing this story from Axios.

The social media card for the story, which uses Jeffries’ picture above two quotes, misleadingly suggests the Minority Leader said, “This whole thing is just such bullsh**t” … “I don’t think this issue is big outside the Beltway.” Which seems to be as far as Atkins got.

The entire story is premised on those quoted centrists opposing Jeffries’ encouragement to focus on it, and links an earlier story describing Jeffries’ affirmative focus on it.

Why it matters: Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ (D-N.Y.) leadership team has encouraged its members to maintain the drumbeat on Epstein,

The column goes on to list just some of what Dems are doing — with the encouragement of the Minority Leader (the earlier post describes that Ro Khanna worked closely with Jeffries in jamming the Rules Committee).

The other side: Other Democrats argued that going after Republicans on policy and slamming them on Epstein aren’t mutually exclusive. “I think all these issues are linked together,” Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) told Axios.

  • “Trump is willing to lie and betray his own people, and he’s willing to take away your health care to give it to his rich friends. … I think it’s all part of one story,” said Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former CPC chair, said similarly: “I’m talking about Medicaid, I’m talking about tax breaks to billionaires — and I’m talking about Epstein, because he fits right in there.”

State of play: Jeffries has surprised some of his members by bear-hugging rank-and-file efforts to force the release of the Epstein files despite his usual reluctance to engage on salacious issues.

  • His messaging arm, the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, sent out several emails to members’ offices last week on how to message on Epstein, as Politico first reported.
  • “We’ve encouraged members to lean into this, to talk to their constituents about it,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), a DPCC co-chair. “It’s an opportunity to speak with people who might usually disagree with you.”

Atkins’ entire whine — based off a premise he would have known was outright bullshit if he had only clicked through to a ragebait story he RTed — was rewarding for Atkins; 17 people RTed it as if it were true, with one person even whining about Garland along the way. But the whole thing was either an affirmative misrepresentation or a confession that Atkins knows fuckall about what Dems have done and simply didn’t bother to check before whining about it.

I won’t lay out all that Dems have done — there are actually multiple stories out that I’m sure even Atkins could read if he bothered to click through on ragebait. It should be enough to say that Dems, with Massie, deprived Republicans of the tools of their majority for a week and have been mocking them relentlessly ever since. That Johnson ran away will continue to feed this story.

But one example is illustrative. Ruben Gallego — often attacked for his centrism and coddling of cryptograft — got into an extended spat with Trump mouthpiece Markwayne Mullin in the Senate last week (the appearance Schumer elevated), after Gallego tried to pass a resolution to release the files. Following that, Gallego appeared on Jim Acosta’s Substack show, where he described how this all reeks of a cover-up (and accused Republicans of revictimizing the victims and exploiting the vulnerabilities of their base). He played on populist concerns about rich people, and mocked Republicans for fleeing like they did when the Brits invaded DC. A centrist Dem delivered up precisely the kind of message Atkins claimed no one is delivering, and he did it two days before Atkins whined about it.

I’m not sure Atkins has an excuse for making a false claim belied by an Axios story he had RTed a day earlier. At some point, a pundit has to be responsible for clicking through to the stories they’re disseminating.

But — again stipulating that Jeffries and Schumer’s messaging is often feckless — I think there’s something else driving much lefty belief that Dems are not messaging, on top of pundits like Atkins making false claims belied by ragebait they’ve disseminated without reading.

In the last several years, fascist-supporting oligarchs have given people good reason to stop consuming a wide variety of media. After Elon Musk bought Twitter — the algorithm of which already disproportionately rewarded right wingers — he invited Nazis to overrun it. In a bid to cultivate Trump’s favor, Jeff Bezos has willfully gutted the WaPo and shut down anti-Trump opinion on the platform. NYT continues to frame most stories in ways that pitch Trump as the hero, with many outright framed to Dem- or trans-bash. Substack, where people like Paul Krugman and Terry Moran and Jim Acosta have fled after having been hounded out of traditional media, also platforms Nazis. Google has allowed AI to enshittify its search function, making it far more difficult to find breaking news.

One by one, lefties have abandoned those platforms, often in a failed attempt to force the oligarchs who own them to reverse course. The decision to abandon those platforms are, for most people, self-evidently ethical decisions.

But the consequences of those ethical decisions are that even if Dems do something great, you will be blind — blinded by ethical choices you yourself made.

Your blindspots might entail the following:

  • You will see (and far too often, help to disseminate) the latest outrage Trump posts to his Truth Social account, as well as the uncontested disinformation in it. Those posts will often silence the moral criticism of Trump, as happened with Rosie O’Donnell.
  • You will view Trump speeches and press sprays, as well as oversight hearings in which Democrats have been forcing real news that often is not getting picked up, through the lens of Aaron Rupar or Acyn, who make it easy but bring their own narrow lens. You might see clips from the traditional media. Not all of those clips will be easy to disseminate yourself without rewarding Xitter.
  • You will see the stories about shitty framing or Dem- (or trans-) punching at NYT, but will miss better routine news stories, and even, sometimes, important breaking reporting.
  • To the extent to which it still exists, you will not see the general access political reporting at WaPo.
  • You will not see Capitol Hill beat reporting that is publicized almost entirely on Xitter, including reports admiringly explaining why chasing Mike Johnson away early took some tactical smarts, unless you subscribe to them.
  • Because there’s not a viral algorithm at Bluesky, you may only see the content from electeds crafted for that platform if you follow them directly and even then only if you happen to be online when they post it; you will not see what they post — very often self-consciously crafted to be more confrontational — on Xitter.
  • You will see rage-bait stories from Axios and Politico designed to drive depression among Dems and often, as Atkins did, you’ll disseminate it without clicking through to see what it really says.
  • You won’t see what right wingers are saying on Fox or NewsMax or Breitbart, not even when they’re bitching about firey speeches Hakeem Jeffries made that didn’t filter into Bluesky.
  • You may entirely miss what is going on on TikTok, which is where a great deal of messaging is happening (so will I, as I learned when I looked for the Rosie O’Donnell post that had been widely covered in right wing media before Trump threatened to strip her citizenship over it).
  • You will have to work harder to find news stories that have been broadly reported.

In short, at least in part due to perfectly ethical decisions from people who used to have a radically different media diet before certain changes accompanying rising fascism, even activist Dems will be largely blind to a great deal of what Dems are doing.

I absolutely support that ethical decision (and after two weeks of doing a great deal of — sometimes very effective, IMO — messaging about Epstein and Tulsi’s disinformation campaign designed to bury it at the Nazi bar, such choices may be crucial for your mental health).

But it is not remotely ethical to make comments about what Dems are or are not doing if you have not checked your blindspots.

More importantly, we will not survive if you respond to the effects of oligarch takeover with passivity, demanding you get fed things as easily as you used to get. That is what they are counting on: that their efforts to make it harder to find important news will lead you to give up and assume it doesn’t exist.

I may be biased, but I’m also allegedly an expert on this, because it was the topic of my dissertation. Finding and disseminating oppositional news is an absolutely critical part of opposing authoritarianism; it can take work and risk your security. But it becomes a fundamental part of citizenship.

The oligarch-led assault on the press started long before Trump started implementing fascism but has accelerated during precisely the period when Democrats have demanded to have Dem messaging land in their lap. There are many things Dem electeds absolutely have to do better (though having spent far too much time on Xitter in the last week, it’s clear there’s a purpose to tailor messaging on both platforms, which I do too). I agree that neither Schumer nor Jeffries is great at this messaging (but am also acutely aware of how much time they’re spending off-camera trying to ensure Dems have a chance in 2026).

But Dems have done almost everything right on Epstein, down to forcing Denny Hastert’s successor to abdicate his power for a week to help Trump cover up his sex trafficking scandal. Yet whining pundits are winning clout on Bluesky by misrepresenting rather than learning from that fact.

Share this entry

Expecting Legislators to Lead the Resistance Is a Category Error

/60 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

Talking about Chuck Schumer Will No More Save Democracy than Chuck Schumer Will

/17 Comments/in /by

The State of the Union was 20 days ago. Since that day, Democrats have spent much of their time talking about other Democrats, talking about how Democrats are responding to the assault on the country, rather than talking about the assault itself and the people responsible.

In my opinion, focusing on Chuck Schumer — however justified your opinion about his fecklessness — is every bit as feckless as Chuck Schumer’s response to this crisis.

What has happened since the Continuing Resolution

There are a slew of reasons I think focusing on Chuck Schumer distracts from the matter at hand. One is that his view that the Continuing Resolution was less bad than a shutdown seems to have been a defensible good faith view (though that doesn’t excuse his head fake about it). It’s certainly possible that Democrats would have messaged effectively during a shutdown and used it to waken Americans of the risk Trump’s attacks on government pose (though as I said at the time, no one had laid the ground work for effective messaging, which makes me question how effective they might have been). But keeping the government open has allowed other positive developments.

Not shutting down the government at least temporarily affirmed the import of employment law. Last week, 25,000 government workers were reinstated pursuant to the efforts of two people whose lawsuits delayed their own firing long enough to issue judgments deeming the firings targeting probationary workers illegal, and then two judges (one, two) who ruled the firings to be unlawful (Trump has appealed the California one of these decisions to SCOTUS). Their reinstatement not only gave people paychecks until such time as Trump fires them properly — paychecks they would not have had under a shutdown — but it affirmed the import of following employment law.

Not shutting down affirmed the import of Congressional funding. On March 18, Radio Free Europe used the Continuing Resolution to substantiate its appropriations-related challenge to the shutdown.

28. On March 15, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed into law Congress’s FullYear Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (“Third Continuing Resolution”), which, like the previous continuing resolutions, appropriated “[s]uch amounts as may be necessary, at the level specified . . . under the authority and conditions provided in applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 2024” until September 30, 2025. See H.R. 1968, 119th Cong. § 1101(a) (2025).

29. In sum, Congress appropriated approximately $23 million for RFE/RL in the First Continuing Resolution for October 1, 2024, to December 20, 2024. Congress appropriated approximately $41 million to RFE/RL in the Second Continuing Resolution for December 21, 2024, to March 14, 2025. Congress further appropriated approximately $77 million for RFE/RL in the Third Continuing Resolution for March 15, 2025, to September 30, 2025.

Obviously, the legal posture of this, and similar cases, would be different if Trump had not signed a funding bill.

Not shutting down kept Trump on the hook for any collapse of Social Security. After Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander enjoined DOGE from tampering in Social Security, the Acting Commissioner Leland Dudek attempted to pick a fight with the judge, falsely claiming her order would force him to shut down Social Security entirely.

She wrote two letters basically calling him a dumbass, stating that DOGE can access anonymized data and her order only covers the DOGE agenda, not normal operations.

And then the White House told him he was out of line.

Acting Social Security commissioner Leland Dudek threatened Thursday evening to bar Social Security Administration employees from accessing its computer systems in response to a judge’s order blocking the U.S. DOGE Service from accessing sensitive taxpayer data.

Less than 24 hours later — after the judge rejected his argument and the White House intervened — Dudek is saying he was “out of line.”

Dudek initially told news outlets, including in a Friday interview with The Washington Post, that the judge’s decision to bar sensitive data access to “DOGE affiliates” was overly broad and that to comply, he might have to block virtually all SSA employees from accessing the agency’s computer systems. But Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, who issued the order, said in a letter that Dudek’s assertions “were inaccurate.

[snip]

In response to Hollander’s letter, Dudek said in a statement emailed to reporters just after 5:30 p.m. that the court clarified its guidance and “therefore, I am not shutting down the agency.”

Dudek, in a follow-up interview Friday afternoon with The Post, thanked Hollander for the clarification, adding, “The president is committed to keeping the Social Security offices open to serve the public.” He then acknowledged that this was an about-face from his stance in an interview with The Post earlier in the day.

“[The White House] called me and let me know it’s important to reaffirm to the public that we’re open for business,” he said. “The White House did remind me that I was out of line and so did the judge. And I appreciate that.”

Social Security has always been deemed essential during shutdowns and it would have been here. But right now, the White House is sensitive enough about Social Security that they’re not even using an expansive injunction as an opportunity to fuck with it.

Meanwhile, for all the complaints about how shitty the Continuing Resolution is — for the cuts it made to Veterans health and education — I’ve seen almost no effort to hold Republicans accountable for it (just three Democrats — Jared Golden, Jean Shaheen, and Angus King voted to pass it). If it’s so bad, why aren’t Democrats hanging it around Republicans necks (aside from the fact that they’re too busy talking about Chuck Schumer, who voted against the bill itself)?

What needs to happen

Many of the discussions about Chuck Schumer make the same mistake he does: they assume the answer to Trump’s attack on democracy lies in winning midterms.

That’s a luxurious thought.

(In a really good JV Last column, he describes, “Winning in 2026 will not be sufficient to stop the authoritarian push; but it is necessary.”)

But it imagines we have more time to reverse Trump’s actions than we likely do, and it falsely assumes that the Democratic Party — rather than a trans-partisan or nonpartisan movement — is the entity that might reverse Trump’s attacks. Even if you could be sure of winning the House, without thinking more broadly you could only freeze things; without a whole lot more political work, for example, you couldn’t impeach and remove Trump.

To be clear, the quickest way to slow or reverse Trump’s actions is to convince Republicans — somewhere between four and nine in the House, and/or four in the Senate — to stall his efforts. That’s actually what Schumer says too, but he’s not talking about ways (much less doing anything obvious) to make that happen. Barring convincing Republicans to do something to protect the Constitution, it’ll require a mass uprising (or strike) to bring about change. Barring convincing a politically active majority of the country to cherish democracy, even ousting Trump would just bring us back to where we were quickly, with some other right winger exploiting the Republican thirst for authoritarianism.

Town halls

And one of the things that are already going on — outraged constituents at town halls — is one of the quickest ways to affect that, as I wrote about here. Even Chuck Grassley resorted to bullshit claims at a rowdy town hall recently. Organizers have even succeeded in using empty-podium town halls to focus on Republican failures, and more Democrats are showing at town halls in other districts.

Protests

I’ve said from the start that Elon Musk’s role in DOGE provides Democrats with an easy villain. That’s true not just because he keeps fucking up.

He, and his showrooms, make really easy targets for protests.

It also provides a way for Trump believers to begin to criticize his actions, as NYT recorded among Trump supporters who attended the NCAA wrestling match to which Trump brought Elon.

“Not a big fan of Elon,” said Blaize Cabell, a 32-year-old wrestling coach from Independence, Iowa, who nonetheless remains a big fan of the president. He said he viewed Mr. Musk’s career as a businessman as a series of failures and buyouts and said that the billionaire was “making a lot of callous cuts,” citing the Department of Agriculture. Earlier this month, the department fired thousands of experts and then scrambled to hire them back.

“I don’t even know what to think of him at this point,” David Berkovich, a 24-year-old wrestler and graduate school student from Brooklyn, said of Mr. Musk. “He’s just there all the time.”

“He’s going a little rampant — I think everyone can agree with that,” said Bobby Coll, a 24-year-old finance broker who lives in Manhattan’s West Village. He was there with his girlfriend, Julia Sirois, who said of Mr. Musk’s role in the administration, “It’s someone putting their hand in a cookie jar they don’t belong in.”

[snip]

“That’s a tough one for me,” Jarrod Scandle, a 44-year-old retired police officer from Shamokin, Pa., said of the president’s Tesla stunt. “I think it’s a little, I’m trying to think of the word —” he said as his voice trailed off. He concluded that he was really more of a Chevy or Ford kind of a guy.

Katy Travis, a 48-year-old wrestling mom from Columbia, Mo., said she thought Mr. Musk’s constant presence “looks ridiculous.” That he is as empowered as he is just makes the president “look weak,” she said, which is about the worst thing that can be said of someone at a Division I wrestling championship.

“It makes him look like he’s kissing ass to get money,” Ms. Travis said of the president.

As I’ve repeatedly noted, the Wisconsin Democratic Party is trying to brand Brad Schimel with Elon’s taint in their Supreme Court race on April 1.

Right wingers are attempting to push back on the protests against Musk by claiming that all protestors are connected to the three people DOJ charged with attacks on dealers. But there’s an easy way to make this backfire. After Pam Bondi tried to intimidate her the other day, Jasmine Crockett did what I think every Trump opponent should: point out that Trump freed a bunch of violent cop assailants.

Even Neera Tanden did this in a recent CNN appearance.

What is missing so far from the pushback on Elon is a successful pushback on his claims that he is finding fraud, a claim that Republicans are using to avoid more directly confronting him. But the problems Elon is causing keep piling up. Catherine Rampell recently catalogued all the ways DOGE is preventing government workers from doing their jobs.

At the IRS, employees spend Mondays queued up at shared computers to submit their DOGE-mandated “five things I did last week” emails. Meanwhile, taxpayer customer service calls go unanswered.

At the Bureau of Land Management, federal surveyors are no longer permitted to buy replacement equipment. So, when a shovel breaks at a field site, they can’t just drive to the nearest town or hardware store. Instead, work stops as employees track down one of the few managers nationwide authorized to file an official procurement form and order new parts.

At the Food and Drug Administration, leadership canceled the agency’s subscription to LexisNexis, an online reference tool that employees need to conduct regulatory research. Some workers might not have noticed this loss yet, however, because the agency’s incompetently planned return-to-office order this week left them too busy hunting for insufficient parking and toilet paper. (Multiple bathrooms have run out of bath tissue, employees report.)

Yesterday WaPo estimated that DOGE attacks on the IRS will create a $500 billion revenue hole at the IRS.

Treasury Department and IRS officials are predicting a decrease of more than 10 percent in tax receipts by the April 15 deadline compared with 2024, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share nonpublic data. That would amount to more than $500 billion in lost federal revenue; the IRS collected $5.1 trillion last year. For context, the U.S. government spent $825 billion on the Defense Department in fiscal 2024.

Notably, this would have been invisible otherwise (as it was before Joe Biden hired extra IRS agents to track it down). But DOGE’s involvement makes it visible, something that can be hung on Trump.

And WaPo explained why Elon is having such a difficult time finding fraud at SSA. (Remember, I’ve got a list of all the DOGE debunkings here.)

Trump’s focus in the last two weeks on deportations, rather than firings, has also taken attention away from all the people fired, which has, in turn, shifted the focus away from the services Trump is taking away. Both need to be the centerpiece of messaging.

Messaging

There are topics that I think would be promising foci of organizing, or more organizing. because they’ll expand the network of organized people beyond traditional Democrats and may be more successful at pressuring Republicans.

There was a March for Science on March 7 — but finding ways to translate what science means into terms accessible to the public; the cancer cures and healthier food and business opportunities are a necessary step to get taxpayers to care about NIH and NSF cuts.

This morning I wondered why we haven’t seen more organizing around Trump’s attack on the Department of Education and sought to find a review of how Kentucky successfully defeated a voucher initiative last year. And I discovered that the group that succeeded in that has reformed to organize around that attack .

I have yet to see a concerted response to Trump’s attack on libraries and museums (though here are some organizing pages). Update: NYT has more.

There have been a few protests from Veterans in DC, at least one in February and another in March. VoteVets are also running ads in five swing districts.

I keep talking about how little farmers have pushed back, though I’ve seen individual pushback at town halls.

Finally, there needs to be an attempt to reclaim antisemitism from the white nationalists using it as a weapon against critics of Israel. There’s been a lot of Jewish pushback on the treatment of Mahmoud Khalil, for example. But not yet a full flipping of the perverse narrative Stephen Miller has adopted to justify shutting down universities.

Leaders are stepping up, all over the country. And rather than joining in those efforts, far too many people (at least some of whom who have a grift that depends on it) have made Chuck Schumer a bigger issue than Trump. Yes, people need to throw more anvils at Elon, and once he catches them, make sure he brings Trump down with him.

But they keep throwing anvils better suited for Elon at themselves.

Share this entry

“Dead Man Walking:” Magic Numbers Nine and Four

/64 Comments/in /by

I’d like to look at a few things that Chuck Schumer said in a wildly counterproductive interview.

After a squishy exchange about the horrible people running for NYC Mayor, Lulu Garcia-Navarro challenged Schumer for his focus on upcoming elections. Schumer noted that the courts are our best bulwark against Trump’s abuses (something that factored heavily in his decision to let the Continuing Resolution get a vote). But then Garcia-Navarro asked what happens when Trump starts ignoring judges, as he did Friday when deporting hundreds of mostly Venezuelans to El Salvador in defiance of an order from James Boasberg. Schumer said he hoped the five to six Senators who’ve spoke up in support of the courts would do so — but then suggested they might be more likely to do so in a few months, assuming Trump will become less popular.

You know, I’ve heard you and other Democratic leaders talk about the next election as if it’s just going to be another election like any other election. But there has been all of this discussion about Trump auguring the end of democracy. I worry about this. When I say we’ll win the election, I’m assuming democracy stays, but that we have to fight to make sure that happens. I think that Trump is destroying norms that have preserved our democracy for centuries, certainly for decades, and he’s destroying them, and he doesn’t care. What is our best bulwark? It’s the courts. And one of the things we were able to do, which is proving very, very good, is we put in 235 new judges. And they’re now hearing so many of the cases that attorneys general, private citizens, unions and others are bringing. We’ve had preliminary success.

Are they going to respect those court orders, do you think? That is the $64,000 question. So let us say the courts uphold this. And one of the people who will determine that more than any other is probably John Roberts, who is very conservative. I didn’t vote for him. But I do believe that he believes in the courts. And so I think that even at the highest level, if you get the Supreme Court upholding the law, it will matter. What if Trump keeps going? That’s the question everybody’s asking. And I worry about this a lot. I wake up sometimes at 2, 3 in the morning thinking about this. I believe this, and it’s a little bit in concert with what I’ve said to you before: I believe Republican senators, on this issue, will stand up. I’ve talked to some of them. About five or six have said publicly they will work to uphold the courts, and to uphold the law if Trump tries to break it. And we can do that legislatively if we have to. That’s my hope. That’s what we’ve got to work toward. And I think there’s a decent chance that that would happen, particularly if Trump, three months from now, is less popular. [bold NYT’s, italics mine]

Those five to six Senators have been silent since Trump’s open defiance was revealed on Saturday.

Then, later, Schumer again pointed to his confidence that Republican Senators would like some distance from Trump.

The Republicans would like to have some freedom from Trump, but they won’t until we bring him down in popularity. That happened with Bush in 2005. It happened with Trump in 2017. When it happens, I am hopeful that our Republican colleagues will resume working with us. And I talk to them. One of the places is in the gym. When you’re on that bike in your shorts, panting away next to a Republican, a lot of the inhibitions come off.

These passages were among those mocked by those prioritizing Schumer over Trump and Elon Musk. In the rush to condemn Schumer (who has canceled the book tour at which there were sure to be loud protests), people mocked the very idea that Republicans in the Senate would ever oppose Trump.

I think Schumer has earned a good deal of the criticism he’s getting, even if I’m certain it is distracting from the focus on Trump and Musk.

I part ways with the claim that Senators will never split from Trump.

To be very sure, Trump has garnered near-total fealty, from the House and Senate, since his inauguration in January. His grip on the GOP has tightened year after year since he first sold his grievance narrative in 2018. The reason the Senate had this no-win choice in the first place is because, for the first time in recent memory, the GOP House stood together on a funding vote. Many of these Senators are veritable cult members, spouting the craziest nonsense that Trump told him to say.

But to suggest Senators will never split from Trump is counterproductive for two reasons.

First, to suggest you can never get Republicans to break with Trump is to concede.

It is to give up on one of just a few theories of change available — with just (successful) mass protest and revolution left — and to give up on the one that could bring results most quickly. In the short term, at least, it would take just nine members of the House or four Senators to completely stall Trump’s agenda on a particular issue, and fewer members of the House to cause gridlock. There are that many members who oppose Trump on discrete issues (most notably, Ukraine and Medicaid funding), and exploiting that reality is a tool, however inadequate. Even if you think a mass protest movement would be more successful, pressuring the Senators who’ve enabled Trump so far is a necessary (and fairly easy) step to push back against Trump.

In the interview, Schumer seems to too readily adopt James Carville’s theory of change, to do nothing to accelerate this process (note, Carville’s op-ed assumed House Republicans could not mount the unity to fund government). Perhaps he wants to avoid pissing off the men he’s panting away next to in shorts in the Senate gym.

There’s a great deal that people can do to make it more likely Senators will oppose Trump. I try to make a point of calling out Joni Ernst publicly every time Pete Hegseth disappears the accomplishments of women soldiers, or Thom Tillis every time Hegseth makes the military less safe, or Roger Wicker every time Hegseth has an embarrassing faceplant, or Bill Cassidy every time RFK Jr does something to exacerbate the measles outbreak, or Jerry Moran every time DOGE makes a stupid cut of VA benefits, or Todd Young every time Tulsi Gabbard repeats Russian disinformation, or John Cornyn every time Marco Rubio cuts back on PEPFAR, or Tom Cotton every time Trump does something that will help China. These people haven’t hidden their disagreement on key issues or appointees with Trump. Yet, in spite of those disagreements, these people have all done things to support people they knew were wrong. As the consequences of their cowardice pile up — as measles spreads across the country from Texas and veterans lose their jobs — their complicity should be front and center.

And while right wing members of Congress are not publicly confronting Trump, some of them are pushing back quietly, mitigating some of the damage Trump is doing — sometimes even in ways that extend benefits beyond their own jurisdiction. According to the NYT, for example, Deb Fischer was among those who pushed Trump to reverse some of the firings at National Nuclear Security Administration (though NYT also reports that NNSA lost many key experts nevertheless).

And GOP pushback will go largely unnoticed elsewhere. After succeeding in strong arming vaccine propagandist RFK Jr’s confirmation to lead HHS, Trump withdrew the nomination for vaccine propagandist Dave Weldon to lead CDC, minutes before his confirmation hearing this week, because Weldon didn’t have and wouldn’t get the votes.

That’s all we’ll see of GOP pushback until proof of consequences of their own complicity and pressure on them mounts. But in a world where any kind of friction can slow the march of authoritarianism, even that non-public pushback bit matters, and it could provide definitive down the road.

By all means, scoff at Carville’s outdated naivete and Schumer’s unwillingness to more directly confront those he pants next to on the exercise bike.

But don’t abstain from pressuring right wingers to show some courage against Trump’s outrages.

Share this entry

Democrats Have to Stop Making Political Decisions with an Eye Towards 2026

/108 Comments/in /by

I’ve been out of pocket as events moved towards today’s cloture vote on the dogshit continuing resolution Republicans have written. It’s not yet clear whether seven Democrats (in addition to John Fetterman) will join Chuck Schumer — who has said he’ll vote for cloture — in helping Republicans pass it, or whether a Democrat will buy some time.

It’s clear that Schumer’s excuse only emphasizes that there are no good options. He says if there’s a shutdown, Republicans will only reopen those parts of government they want. In the face of the shuttering of USAID and dismantlement of Department of Education, that seems like a futile worry.

Among the best arguments I’ve seen against a shutdown, laid out but dropped here by Josh Marshall, is that a shutdown would provide Trump a way to halt legal proceedings by deeming those lawyers non-essential.

I was told yesterday that a major driver for Dems was the fear that a shutdown would slow down or stop the various court cases against DOGE. Honestly, that sounded so stupid to me that I was skeptical. But this afternoon I heard it from other key directions. I don’t know if it’s the biggest driver but just on the basis of what I heard I get a sense that it’s a major one. That seems so wrongheaded, so lawyer-brained, that when I got the final piece of the puzzle in front of me and realized this was a real thing, it was hard for me to even process.

Schumer described it this way in his speech yesterday:

Justice, and the courts, extremely troubling, I believe. A shutdown could stall Federal court cases, one of the best redoubts against Trump’s lawlessness, and could require a furlough of critical staff at the courts, denying victims and defendants alike their day in court, dragging out appeals and clogging the justice system for months and even years.

I don’t think this is lawyer-brained at all. Trump could simply call the lawyers engaged in these suits non-essential, stalling legal challenges in their current status, and then finding new test cases to establish a precedent while judges were stymied.

In both Phoenix, where a reduction in force affected all the people running the courthouse, and in the Perkins Coie lawsuit, where a hearing the other day reviewed all the Executive Branch personnel, from Marshals to GSA, who keep the courthouse running, the Executive’s ability to limit the Judiciary via manipulation of facilities and staff has already become a live issue. Here’s how Beryl Howell described the way in which Trump’s attempt to exclude Perkins Coie from federal buildings could be enforced via Executive branch personnel.

THE COURT: I just want to make sure because we, in the judiciary — we’re the third branch. We are not the executive branch. We are not subject to this guidance. But our landlord, and all of the federal courthouses around the country is GSA —

MR. BUTSWINKAS: GSA.

THE COURT: — General Services Administration. And the people who do the security at our front doors, all across the country in federal courthouses, are DOJ-component employees from the U.S. Marshals Service or court security officers. So they are all executive branch employees.

Meanwhile the court cases are making progress. Just this week, we’ve had two judges order reinstatement of all the people fired, grant FOIA status to DOGE, and grant discovery to Democratic Attorneys General (plus in one of the two reinstatement cases, Judge Alsup ordered a deposition from an OPM person involved in the firing). As of this week, DOGE now has to answer for its actions in the courts.

Imagine, for example, if a shutdown made it easier for DHS to keep Mahmoud Khalil in Louisiana for the duration of a shutdown, even if they simply said moving him back to SDNY (or New Jersey) is not a priority. There are other cases where the government is being ordered to pay back payments; a shutdown would make such recourse unavailable to anyone who has not yet sued. In the financial clawback cases (where EPA and FEMA seized funds already awarded), a shutdown would give the FBI time to try to frame the case against plaintiffs they’re pursuing, while the plaintiffs get no protection in the meantime. A key flaw was revealed in the lawsuit against Perkins Coie in the hearing the other day (which I’ll return to); if given the time, I would expect Trump to try the same trick against another law firm, fixing that flaw, in an attempt to eliminate any anti-Trump legal teams in the country.

So the concern that a shutdown would eliminate one of two sources of power is real.

I’m agnostic about whether a shutdown brings more advantage than risks.

One thing I am absolutely certain of, however, is that Democrats on both sides of this debate are framing it in terms of 2026. Those justifiably furious at Chuck Schumer are thinking in terms of primaries against any Senator who supports cloture. They’re demanding a filibuster so that elected Democrats, as Democrats, be seen wielding some power, so the party doesn’t look feckless to potential voters. Those afraid of a shutdown are discussing electoral consequences in 2026. Polls are measuring who would be blamed in the polls.

This mindset has plagued both sides of Democratic debates for two months, with disastrous consequences.

Democracy will be preserved or lost in the next three months. And democracy will be won or lost via a nonpartisan political fight over whether enough Americans want to preserve their way of life to fight back, in a coalition that includes far more than Democrats. You win this fight by treating Trump and Elon as the villain, not by making any one Democrat a hero (or worse still, squandering week after week targeting Democratic leaders while letting Elon go ignored).

And Democrats, on both sides of this fight, are not fighting that fight. I’ve seen none of the most powerful voices — not AOC, not Bernie, not Jasmine Crockett, not Tim Walz, not Pete Buttigieg — put out a video talking about the fight over impoundment, about the stakes of having elected representatives of both parties fight for funding for their own constituents.

Democrats who want a shutdown have done none of the messaging to those already hurt by Trump’s power grab work to make it a short term political win, to explain the tie between right wing capitulation to Trump and services shutting down. Instead, they’ve been fighting among themselves, mobilizing politically active Democrats.

I get the anger with Schumer — though I do think his concerns about the courts need to be taken very seriously.

But until Democrats stop thinking in terms of their own leadership in Congress but instead think exclusively about winning the political fight with people being hurt, not as Democrats, but as people opposed to fascism, they’re going to be looking for power in the wrong places.

Update: Someone on Bluesky defending AOC, arguing that this appearance from her on CNN amounted to the explanation about impoundment I said is missing. It’s a great appearance, and makes the anti-CR case superbly. But I don’t think it gets through the jargon about how government is funded or why. Plus, it’s not viral!

Share this entry

DNC Convention 2024: Day 2

/23 Comments/in , /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

The second day of Democratic National Committee Convention 2024 has commenced.

DAY 2 CONVENTION SCHEDULE
Here’s today’s event lineup (times shown are Central Time):

7 a.m.-9:30 a.m.: Delegation breakfasts
9 a.m.-10a.m.: Morning press briefing
9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Women’s Caucus meeting
12 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Disability Caucus meeting
12 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Youth Council meeting
12 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Rural Council meeting
1:45 p.m.-3:15 p.m.: Veterans & Military Families Council meeting
1:45 p.m.-3:15 p.m.: Poverty Council meeting
1:45 p.m.-3:15 p.m.: Interfaith Council meeting
6 p.m.-10 p.m.: Main programming

MAIN PROGRAMMING
Main programming has already begun as this post publishes at 7:30 PM ET/6:30 PM CT

Tonight’s schedule (times shown are Central Time):

5:30 PM

Call to order
• Jaime R. Harrison, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee

Gavel in
• Mitch Landrieu, DNC Night 2 Co-Chair and Committee Co-Chair

Invocation
• Rabbi Sharon Brous, IKAR
• Imam Dr. Talib M. Shareef, The Nation’s Mosque

Pledge of Allegiance
• Joshua Davis

National Anthem
• Aristotle “Aris” Garcia Byrne

Remarks
• Jason Carter, Grandson of President Jimmy Carter
• Jack Schlossberg, Grandson of President John F. Kennedy

Remarks: “Project 2025—Chapter Two: The Economy”
• Malcolm Kenyatta, PA state house of representatives
6:00 PM

• Kyle Sweetser, former Donald Trump voter
• Stephanie Grisham, former Trump White House Press Secretary
• Nabela Noor, Content creator
• Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI)
• Kenneth Stribling, Retired Teamster

7:00 PM

Roll Call
• Minnesota Delegation
• California Delegation

8:00 PM

• Ana Navarro, host introduction
• Sen. Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader (D-NY)
• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
• Gov. JB Pritzker (D-IL)
• Ken Chenault, American business executive
• Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM)

9:00 PM

Keynote Remarks
• Angela Alsobrooks, Nominee for the U.S. Senate (D-MD); Long-time mentee of VP Harris
• Mayor John Giles, City of Mesa (R-AZ)
• Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
• Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff
• Former First Lady Michelle Obama

10:00 PM

• Former President Barack Obama, key note speaker

Benediction
• Bishop Samuel L. Green, Sr., African Methodist Episcopal Church, 7th Episcopal District
• Archbishop Elpidophoros, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

HOW TO WATCH
See yesterday’s post for the best channels on which to catch the majority of this evening’s programming.

DNC at United Center-Chicago will stream a live feed from its own website between 7:00 PM to 11:00 PM ET (6:00 PM to 10:00 PM CT) Tuesday through Thursday.

https://demconvention.com/

USA Today will also live stream Tuesday through Thursday.

https://www.youtube.com/@USATODAY/streams – main page

https://www.youtube.com/live/6n40S96nmv8 – tonight’s feed

Share this entry

How Tucker Carlson Duped the People His Producer Called “Dumb … Cousin-Fucking … Terrorists”

/87 Comments/in , /by

In response to Tucker Carlson’s misleading propaganda claiming that Jacob Chansley was just a peaceful tourist escorted at all times by his own dedicated cop, a number of January 6 defendants are demanding mistrials because of claimed Brady violations.

Dominic Pezzola’s attorneys, for example, argued that the video released by Tucker shows that the Senate never had to recess, which (they claim) undermines the government’s obstruction claim against the Proud Boys.

Never during this trial has there been any evidence of any raucous or extremely disruptive or violent demonstration in the Senate chamber. (There have been a few images of demonstrators sitting on chairs or standing in the well of the Senate.)

Then came the Tucker Carlson show on the evening of March 6, 2023.

On March 6, Tucker Carlson released shocking footage from January 6th, 2021 that showed “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley walking calmly through the halls of the Capitol with two Capitol Police officers. At one point, one of the officers appears to try opening a door or elevator, and then turns and leads Chansley in another direction. Later in the video clips, Chansley is seen walking past nine police officers gathered in a hallway intersection. Chansley and his police escorts walk right past the nine officers without any resistance.

And then the Tucker Carlson show presented footage of officers calmly escorting Chansley (and apparently other protestors) into the Senate chamber. The Washington Post wrote that Albert Watkins, Chansley’s attorney through sentencing in November 2021, said he had been provided many hours of video by prosecutors, but not the footage which Carlson aired Monday night. He said he had not seen video of Chansley walking through Capitol hallways with multiple Capitol Police officers.

“What’s deeply troubling,” Watkins said Tuesday, “Is the fact that I have to watch Tucker Carlson to find video footage which the government has, but chose not to disclose, despite the absolute duty to do so. Despite being requested in writing to do so, multiple times.” [emphasis original]

The government’s response lays out that, in fact, both Chansley’s attorneys and Pezzola’s received this video in global discovery (there was a 10-second segment not released until January that was not exculpatory, which likely shows a Senator fleeing even as Pezzola stands just feet away — see below).

Pezzola’s motion describes “shocking footage” of Chansley “walking calmly through the halls of the Capitol” with two police officers who purportedly “escort[] Chansley (and apparently other protestors) into the Senate chamber.” ECF 679, at 4. Pezzola quotes Chansley’s former attorney for the proposition that the government “withheld” this footage from discovery in Chansley’s and Pezzola’s cases. Id. The footage is not shocking, and it was not withheld from Pezzola (or Chansley, in any material respect, for that matter).

The footage in question comes from the Capitol’s video surveillance system, commonly referred to as “CCTV” (for “closed-circuit television”). The Court will be familiar with the numerous CCTV clips that have been introduced as exhibits during this trial. The CCTV footage is core evidence in nearly every January 6 case, and it was produced en masse, labeled by camera number and by time, to all defense counsel in all cases.3 With the exception of one CCTV camera (where said footage totaled approximately 10 seconds and implicated an evacuation route), all of the footage played on television was disclosed to defendant Pezzola (and defendant Chansley) by September 24, 2021.4 The final 10 seconds of footage was produced in global discovery to all defense counsel on January 23, 2023. Pezzola’s Brady claim therefore fails at the threshold, because nothing has been suppressed. United States v. Blackley, 986 F. Supp. 600, 603 (D.D.C. 1997) (“For an item to be Brady, it must be something that is being ‘suppress[ed] by the prosecution.’”) (quoting Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)).

While discovery in this case is voluminous, the government has provided defense counsel with the necessary tools to readily identify relevant cameras within the CCTV to determine whether footage was produced or not. Accordingly, the volume of discovery does not excuse defense counsel from making reasonable efforts to ascertain whether an item has been produced before making representations about what was and was not produced, let alone before filing inaccurate and inflammatory allegations of discovery failures.

3 The productions excluded a limited set of footage that the Capitol Police designated as security information, such as X-Ray machine feeds and views of evacuation routes and Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (“SCIF”) office lobbies.

4 The remaining CCTV was disclosed in global discovery on January 23, 2023. It similarly – as with other CCTV – depicts defendant Chansley outside of the Senate Chamber with law enforcement, after his initial breach of the Chamber.

It’s hard to overstate how much this exchange vindicates DOJ’s decision to make all the January 6 video available to all defendants, which delayed trials for probably six months, but which ensured that at the moment defendants like Chansley and Pezzola started claiming they didn’t get something, DOJ could point to when they in fact did receive it.

DOJ rebuts Pezzola’s argument that any of this is exculpatory, relying, in part, on former Army Staff Sergeant Joe Biggs’ description of overwhelming the Capitol.

Pezzola’s argument seems to be that the snippets of Chansley’s movements that were televised by Carlson establish that there was no emergency necessitating the suspension of proceedings. The televised footage lacks the context of what occurred before and after the footage. Chansley entered the building as part of a violent crowd that gained access as a result of Pezzola’s destruction of a window and he traveled with Pezzola during the initial breach. And just as Defendant Biggs had recounted in a recorded statement after January 6, 2021, by the time Pezzola forcibly breached the Capitol and Chansley rode his coattails, the mob—through the sheer force of its size and the violence of those within it—had wrested control of portions of the Capitol grounds and the Capitol itself from a vastly outnumbered U.S. Capitol Police force. 5 As a result, for a period that afternoon, those defending the Capitol were in triage mode—trying to deal with the most violent element of those unlawfully present, holding those portions of the Capitol that had not yet been seized by rioters, and protecting those Members and staffers who were still trapped in the Capitol.

5 Biggs stated, in part: “When you’re holding a position, like a fort, and you’re being overrun, if there’s three of you or four of you, and you’re outnumbered a hundred to one, are you gonna sit there and just go, ‘I’m holding the door’? No, you’re just gonna get your ass beat. That’s already gone. if that many people show up to your house, there’s nothing you can do about it.” Gov’t Ex. 611B. Biggs later continued, “You’re gonna stand up to [] tens of thousands of people storming that? No, that’s stupid. You step [] aside. That puts less chance of anyone getting hurt or anything like that, and you allow it to happen.” Id.

DOJ also lays out specifically how Tucker chose to release only video from after the damage — in the form of the violent breach of the Capitol and the decision to flee the Senate — had been done.

Chansley piggybacking on Pezzola’s violent breach of the Capitol provides more than enough evidence of his corrupt intent to interfere with Congress that day. But there is much more evidence of his and others’ conduct. The televised footage shows Chansley’s movements only from approximately 2:56 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Prior to that time, Chansley had, amongst other acts, breached a police line at 2:09 p.m. with the mob, entered the Capitol less than one minute behind Pezzola during the initial breach of the building, and faced off with members of the U.S. Capitol Police for more than thirty minutes in front of the Senate Chamber doors while elected officials, including the Vice President of the United States, were fleeing from the chamber. Chansley then entered the Senate Gallery, where he proceeded to scream obscenities while other rioters rifled through the desks of U.S. Senators on the floor below. All these actions were captured by Senate floor and/or CCTV cameras. In sum, Chansley was not some passive, chaperoned observer of events for the roughly hour that he was unlawfully inside the Capitol. He was part of the initial breach of the building; he confronted law enforcement for roughly 30 minutes just outside the Senate Chamber; he gained access to the gallery of the Senate along with other members of the mob (obviously, precluding any Senate business from occurring); and he gained access to and later left the Senate floor only after law enforcement was able to arrive en masse to remove him. It is true that a sole officer, who was trying to de-escalate the situation, was with Chansley as he made his way to the Senate floor after initially breaching the Chamber, as the televised footage reflects.6 But the televised footage fails to show that Chansley subsequently refused to be escorted out by this lone officer and instead left the Capitol only after additional officers arrived and forcibly escorted him out.

6 Notably, this officer’s statement regarding these events was also disclosed in discovery to Chansley’s attorney on May 19, 2021.

It’s a classic lesson in how propaganda is made, by focusing on the least damning part of a story and suppressing the rest. It happens to have been released in the same period where the Dominion lawsuit revealed that Tucker’s then investigative producer, Alex Pfeiffer, likened Tucker’s own viewers to “dumb,” “cousin-fucking” “terrorists.”

“Might wanna address this, but this stuff is so f—— insane. Vote rigging to the tune of millions? C’mon,” Shah wrote.

Carlson’s producer, Alex Pfeiffer, responded: “It is so insane but our viewers believe it so addressing again how her stupid Venezuela affidavit isn’t proof might insult them.”

Shah advised that Carlson should mention the affidavit noting it was “not new info, not proof” but then quickly “pivot to being deferential.”

Pfeiffer, who has since left the network, answered that the delicate dance was “surreal.”

“Like negotiating with terrorists,” he added, “but especially dumb ones. Cousin f—– types not saudi royalty.”

The kerfuffle also gave journalists an opportunity to go back and ask for the video used in the Chansley case to be released to journalists.

One of the videos newly released to journalists shows the mob closing in on the Senate and — I suspect this may be the 10-second clip that was originally withheld — one or more Senators fleeing as a single cop holds off the mob by yelling “back off” repeatedly.

Kyle Cheney, who first pointed to this segment, suspects the fleeing Senator may be Chuck Grassley.

In other words, what we’ve learned from this incident is that Tucker is the one lying about what happened. DOJ, in fact, had been withholding some of the most damning video from the public but not defense attorneys, and Tucker’s propaganda effort has provided yet another glimpse of how many close calls the police managed to avert on January 6.

Share this entry