Posts

Three Coequal Timelines of Government

/59 Comments/in /by

Amid all the 100-day reviews of Trump’s term so far, a few people made an important point. In normal times, the legacy of presidential administrations rests on what a President can get passed into law, not what he can do via a flurry of Executive Orders thrown out on near-daily basis during his first hundred days.

Matt Glassmann made the point in this thread and Peter Baker made it at length with a comparison of FDR and Trump.

Unlike Roosevelt and every president who followed, however, Mr. Trump has relied mainly on executive authority rather than trying to pass legislation through Congress. Roosevelt set the standard when he took office in 1933 in the teeth of the Great Depression, pushing through 15 landmark pieces of legislation in those epic 100 days.

Overall, Roosevelt signed 76 bills into law in that period, more than any of his successors, while Mr. Trump has signed just five, the lowest of any president since then. By contrast, Mr. Trump has signed a whopping 142 executive orders, more than three times the 42 that President Joseph R. Biden Jr. signed in his first 100 days in 2021.

The lack of major legislation is not because Mr. Trump failed but because he has not even bothered to try. Even though his own Republican Party controls both houses of Congress, the president has all but disregarded Capitol Hill so far, other than seeking a giant package of spending and tax cuts that is only just starting to make its way through the House and Senate. Executive orders feed his appetite for instant action, while enacting legislation can involve arduous and time-consuming negotiations.

But the price of instant action could be failure to bring about sustained change. Bills passed by Congress and signed by a president become the law of the land for years if not decades to come, while executive orders can simply be repealed by the next president.

“F.D.R.’s accomplishments were enduring,” said H.W. Brands, a Roosevelt biographer at the University of Texas at Austin. “The Supreme Court overturned some but they were revised and reinstated. Most are with us still. Trump’s accomplishments, so far, can be undone by mere strokes of the pens of his successors.”

At the same time, Mr. Trump has claimed authority to act that his predecessors never imagined they had, setting off an escalating battle with the courts, which as of Monday had ruled at least 123 times to at least temporarily pause actions by the new administration that might be illegal or unconstitutional.

Mr. Trump has issued increasingly menacing threats against judges who dare to block him, and in one case his F.B.I. agents even handcuffed and arrested a county judge accused of obstructing his immigration crackdown.

“These first hundred days have been historic, not because of how much of his agenda he has achieved, but because of how much damage he has done to democratic institutions and state capacity in his effort to wield an unprecedented amount of executive power,” said Nicole Hemmer, director of the Carolyn T. and Robert M. Rogers Center for the American Presidency at Vanderbilt University.

Roosevelt too expanded executive power, but in the early days at least he did so in tandem with Congress, which empowered him to respond to the crisis afflicting the country. In the process, he designed a domestic architecture that broadened the federal government’s role in society just as he would later fashion a new American-led international system that would last for generations.

There are several reasons why Trump hasn’t relied on Congress. Republicans don’t have the margins in either house to push through the awful things Trump wants to do. In Trump’s preferred model, Congress remains a thoroughly captured rubber stamp for his agenda. And if his larger power grab succeeds, he will win legal sanction for emasculating tools Congress has — the power of the purse and the power to set up boards insulated from politics most of all, but even transparency tools via which Congress can exercise oversight — to affirm their status as a coequal branch.

Though few in Congress seem to understand this, the Executive is making a mad dash to get the Courts to rubber stamp Trump’s gutting of the already-supine Legislative Branch.

But he may not get there in time — particularly not as SCOTUS grows increasingly irked by Trump’s defiance of them.

And while the outcome of this clash is totally uncertain, the timeline of it is coming into focus.

Right now, it looks increasingly likely that Trump’s tariff emergency will pre-empt — and likely dramatically disrupt — both the effort to codify his agenda and his bid to get SCOTUS to neuter Congress entirely.

Congress must pass budget bills to raise the debt ceiling

Thus far, Republicans in Congress have successfully overcome disunity by deferring all the hard questions. In the House, especially, Mike Johnson faces a block of members who know they will lose reelection if Congress makes big Medicaid cuts recognized as such (they’re trying to disguise them with work requirements and other gimmicks) and another block that refuses to pass a bill that doesn’t create the illusion of fiscal austerity that requires huge Medicaid cuts. Given that both blocks include at least eight members, the math is nearly impossible.

This week marks the beginning of the effort to really overcome those disagreements. And already, the timeline is slipping, first to Memorial Day (Johnson’s bid) and now to Fourth of July (Scott Bessent’s new deadline).

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent set a new deadline for Republicans’ sweeping domestic policy bill Monday: July 4.

“We’ve got three legs to the President’s economic agenda, trade, tax and deregulation, and we hope that we can have this tax portion done by Fourth of July,” Bessent told reporters at the Capitol after a meeting with congressional leaders and top tax writers.

The deadline pegged to the Independence Day recess — which POLITICO reported over the weekend — comes as Republicans work through significant sticking points to get the party-line megabill through the House by Speaker Mike Johnson’s Memorial Day target.

Bessent’s updated timeline came not long after Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters earlier Monday that the speed of the process would be dictated in part by the need to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. That would constitute a “hard deadline” for lawmakers, he said, since Republicans plan to include debt hike in the bill.

The exact “X-date,” as the federal default deadline is known,” remains in flux, though outside estimates have pegged it to hit sometime over the summer.

So the GOP plans to use all the time between now and whenever the government bumps up against the debt ceiling overcoming these near-intractable disagreements.

Gotcha. So July, for present purposes. May, June, July. Over two full months from now.

A lot can happen.

SCOTUS intervenes in national injunctions and Trump’s firing authority

Meanwhile, challenges to Trump’s executive power grabs are churning through the courts. On April 15, SCOTUS scheduled a highly unusual (in terms of timing and posture) May 15 hearing for first they will formally review, birthright citizenship. But as Steve Vladeck explains, that won’t even get into the guts of the question about birthright citizenship; this is about national injunctions.

The technical but critical point here is that the Trump administration is not formally asking the Supreme Court to get rid of the injunctions altogether (and uphold the policy). It’s asking only for the second type of relief it sought in the courts of appeals – to narrow the three injunctions so that they apply only to the plaintiffs.

This ties into concerns that administrations of both parties have raised about the power of courts to freeze a president’s polices nationwide. By raising that argument in the context of the highly controversial birthright citizenship policy, it is a transparent attempt to get the court to rule for the Trump administration without having to hold that these new limits on birthright citizenship are constitutional.

If the court sides with Trump, the practical effect would be largely the same; if the Supreme Court narrows these three district court injunctions to only the handful of specific, named plaintiffs in the three cases, then the result would be to allow the Trump policy to go into effect against everyone else – albeit without the Supreme Court specifically upholding it.

Of course, non-citizens who would be affected by the policy who are not parties to one of these three cases could bring their own lawsuits challenging it, and would likely succeed in those lawsuits, but their claims would have to be litigated on an individual basis—which would not only take some time, but might be beyond the resources of at least some of those who might be impacted.

SCOTUS has also frozen another consequential pair of cases, the challenges to Trump’s firing of two board members whose tenure was protected by Congress, Gwynne Wilcox on NLRB and Cathy Harris on Merit Systems Protection Board. Two days ago, Vladeck noted that this temporary stay has been on hold for 19 days, the kind of comment Vladeck often makes before something substantial happens.

This legal dispute has consequences not just for workers’ ability to get independent protection that cannot be politicized, but also for the functioning of the Federal Trade Commission and the Fed, including any authority Trump has to fire Jerome Powell. Judge Loren AliKhan has scheduled a hearing in the lawsuit from Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya challenging their own firing from the FTC, one that directly addresses the precedent that SCOTUS might overturn, for May 20. So that issue could be accelerated, or it could wend its way to the court by fall.

The disputes about Trump’s unlawful impoundment and usurpation of Congress’ right to set tariffs — the latter an issue being fought by both Democratic states and groups backed by right wing donors, including Charles Koch and Leonard Leo — will take longer to get to SCOTUS, but we will continue to have confrontations on these issues all summer. Just the other day, former Trump White House Counsel Greg Katsas reversed his earlier position, siding with Obama-appointee Cornelia Pillard to let Amy Berman Jackson continue to review an injunction on Trump’s dismantlement of CFPB.

Instead, as his month on the “special panel” nears its close, Katsas — Trump’s former White House lawyer — joined with Pillard to tell the agency that it had to stop with any RIFs at all until the D.C. Circuit can hear the appeal of the injunction in May.

Of course, this is not some sea-change, and Katsas is likely still to side with the administration on many matters.

But, over the course of the month, a cautionary tale has played out in front of him — and he responded by stepping in to assert the rule of law.

Again, we’ll have consequential decisions (and even more important ones on habeas corpus) over the next several months, but with the possible exception of the firing authority, the substantive issues will take some time to get to SCOTUS.

Trump’s tariff emergency will hit before Congress passes a budget

Now throw Trump’s self-inflicted tariff disaster into the mix.

The shit is going to start hitting the tariff-inflated fan in the next few weeks. We’re beginning to see spikes in certain items (including toilet plunger parts). We’re beginning to see increasingly large layoffs tied to the expect drop in shipping. In the coming weeks, we expect to see expanding shortages.

Unless something dramatic changes, the US will experience a COVID-like crisis without the COVID, and with no appetite or excuse to start throwing money at people to stave off further crisis.

For all the claims of fecklessness, Senate Democrats will force Republicans to tie themselves to this shitshow for a second time later this week. John Thune invited Jamieson Greer to the first Senate lunch after Senators heard from their constituents what a disaster this is; it’s unclear whether he has placated their concerns.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune warned Republicans during the lunch against helping the Democrats pass the resolution, just weeks after four GOP senators crossed the aisle to pass a resolution disapproving of Trump’s tariffs on Canada.

“This is a messaging vote for the Democrats. And it’s important to — especially now with the administration on the cusp of getting some deals on trade with other countries — that our folks hang together, give them the space to do that,” Thune said of his message to his conference in a brief post-lunch interview.

The majority leader also launched a staunch defense of Trump’s trade strategy in the face of poor polling and economic turmoil over it, insisting the president’s “policy decisions are the right ones.”

Some Republicans remain uneasy about the tariffs, as they’ve watched Trump’s favorability ratings and consumer sentiment dip to the same level as the Covid-19 pandemic.

“There were a lot of questions,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who said he didn’t want to use the word “concerns” because it would be taken out of context. Kennedy said he expected to hear about a deal in the next few weeks — and wasn’t expecting the administration to announce all of its deals at once.

That reassured Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who said senators advised Greer to roll out deals as they happen, not to wait for when the 90-day pause ends July 9.

“Roll them out as they come along, don’t try to, you know, save them all up for the Fourth of July,” Cramer said. “Because people are anxious about it. They want to see the results.”

Trump has succeeded in winning near-unanimous support from Congress and on the issue of Congressional efforts to revoke his claimed emergency, he has already, repeatedly, issued a veto threat (meaning the effort is, in theory, futile). But the only way Republicans can convince themselves this trade war will not be a catastrophic disaster is by believing Administration hype that a deal, any deal, contours of a deal, a framework of a deal, sketches of deals — something they’ve been saying non-stop for 20 days now — will come any day now.

I mean, sure, maybe Trump will get a deal and convince people who can’t buy fans and toilet plungers — to say nothing about small businesses who will be filing for bankruptcy and farmers watching their crops go to waste — that his tariffs aren’t a disaster. Maybe he will make a humiliating reversal on tariffs, one of the few things in which Trump actually believes. Maybe that will happen. Republican members of Congress, in particular, have a near-infinite ability to allow themselves to buy rank bullshit and that may well happen here.

Or, maybe, the economy will be in meltdown by May, June, July, when the Administration needs near-total unity from Congressional Republicans to codify Trump’s policies into law.

How’s that going to work out?

I don’t know what will happen with any of this. No one does. Trump has succeeded in conning his way out of enormous problems before. The right wingers on SCOTUS are bound to help Trump in many, but not all, ways in months ahead. And Republicans in Congress have used every opportunity they could find this year to hand away their own power. Alternately, as I noted yesterday, malignant narcissists rarely respond well when they suffer a grave humiliation of the type that Trump may be headed towards.

What I am certain of, though, is that the wavering unanimity we’re seeing as everyone rubbernecks at the car crash of Trump’s trade policy may dissolve if Trump continues to willfully destroy the US economy.

Update: Just as I was posting this, CBO announced that GDP fell 0.3% in the first quarter.

Update: I was trying to remember the name of this YouTube, which Amicus12 noted in comments. So now I’m posting the most recent post on What Is Going on with Shipping.

Share this entry

Mike Johnson Let a Terrorist Roam the Capitol Yesterday

/63 Comments/in , /by

Mike Johnson had a wild run yesterday. Having once called for “any individual who committed violence” on January 6 to be “prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Johnson seemed to agree with JD Vance that violent attackers should not get pardons.

But after Trump put over a hundred violent criminals out on the streets, Johnson then defended Trump’s pardons, calling to move on.

Over the course of the day, Johnson set up a Committee to keep investigating January 6, boasted about Americans “deserving safety and security” — a wildly inconsistent stance with releasing a bunch of violent criminals, and then accusing Bishop Budde of “sow[ing] division” because she spoke of mercy.

Meanwhile, as this was all going on, Mike Johnson (who as Speaker plays a role in overseeing the Capitol Police) let a terrorist prowl the Capitol.

Stewart Rhodes was in Longworth Office Building lobbying that Jeremy Brown — who, because he also got prosecuted for having unlawful weapons and classified documents in his Florida home, was not released yesterday — get a further pardon so he can be released (it’s unclear how a member of Congress would make this happen, but maybe Yale Law grad Stewie doesn’t understand the legal posture of Brown’s case).

Rhodes was spotted in the Dunkin’ Donuts inside Longworth House Office Building, which is accessible to the public, with a group of people. He said he did not go into the actual Capitol building.

Rhodes said he was advocating for the release of Jeremy Brown, another Oath Keeper who is in prison on federal weapons charges stemming from an investigation into his alleged involvement in the riot.

Rhodes said Brown was not included in Trump’s sweeping pardon of nearly 1,600 people arrested in connection to the rampage and that he went to the Capitol with Brown’s family members. He said that no members of Congress invited him to the Capitol specifically.

“We’re advocating members of Congress, advocating that he be given a pardon also,” Rhodes told reporters.

Rhodes is one of the fourteen people whose sentence Trump commuted, but did not pardon. And he was not only convicted by a jury of sedition and obstructing the vote certification, but Judge Amit Mehta applied a 6-level terrorism enhancement at sentencing.

As Kathryn Rakoczy successfully argued at sentencing, Rhodes had organized an armed force across the river, and regretted not deploying it that day.

I think organizing an armed force across the river that was prepared to come in comes pretty close to being pretty much like advocating for actions that could cause the loss of life. The repeated uses of how we need to have a bloody Civil War comes pretty close. And it is incredibly hard to forget the chilling words of Mr. Rhodes on January 10th that suggests that on January 6th, he was playing a little bit of the long game, but that were the President not to do something about calling up the Oath Keepers and literally starting a civil war, that his view was, “Actually, I should have called in the QRF on the 6th.” And I think when you’re thinking about whether this was terrorism, which we believe it was, all of those factors suggest that something around the level of a six-level adjustment feels right.

This is terrorism. It’s not blowing up a building directly or directing someone else to blow up a building. But certainly in light of the threat of harm and the historic significance of attempting to stop the certification of an election for the first time in U.S. history, those facts together we do think provide a factual basis that supports an increase of roughly six levels.

As Mehta laid out when applying the enhancement, the goal of all this was to influence the conduct of government by coercion.

As I said yesterday, I think as a matter of law, the conduct of conviction of seditious conspiracy meets the description foursquare of what that element — excuse me, what that enhancement requires a showing of, which is an offense other than the one that is enumerated in the Guideline, but the motive was to intimidate or coerce a civilian — I’m sorry, rather than — sorry.

The motive was to — calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, which were to retaliate against government conduct. Certainly that first clause applies squarely to the conduct of conviction.

And based upon the facts as I found them yesterday and have incorporated them today, Mr. Rhodes and his compatriots’ objective was to affect the conduct of government, specifically Congress, and to do so through intimidation and coercion by means of force, both through the stockpiling of weapons in the event that they needed to be brought across the river — there was an agreement as to that — and then, of course, the actual use of force by others who went into the building and applied that force against police officers who were doing their duty that day.

Trump did not, as he did with Enrique Tarrio, pardon Rhodes. Rather, he left the judgement against Rhodes in place; he simply said, effectively, that three years and a week was a sufficient sentence for a guy who plotted an armed attack on the government.

At least one staffer tried to tell Stewie that it was disrespectful to return to the scene of the crime.

He obfuscated, as he always does.

But the legal fact remains. He has not been pardoned of his sedition conviction and terrorism enhancement. Donald Trump chose to leave the judgment in place (for now, though Rhodes is reportedly still pressing Trump for a full pardon).

And Mike Johnson let him wander around the Capitol, all while claiming discussion of “mercy” was divisive.

Update: Judge Mehta has now barred Rhodes and the other Oath Keepers whose sentences were only commuted from the Capitol.

Share this entry

On the Ambivalence of Speaker Mike’s Gavel

/32 Comments/in , /by

Mike Johnson was reaffirmed Speaker yesterday.

The how matters. In what would have been the first vote, six people did not vote and three voted for other candidates, for a total of nine people opposing Johnson. The number is significant because the new rules require nine people to call to replace the Speaker (right wingers sent out a letter of complaints about Johnson signed by 11 members, so they have a few friends). So before the vote was cast, the right wingers demanding austerity from Johnson made a show of having the ability to immediately call to replace him.

At that point, Hakeem Jeffries had 214 votes, Johnson 210, others 3, and 6 people wandering the halls.

Then, basically, Republicans cheated to keep the vote open for two hours. They hid the “tellers,” who have to tell the Acting Clerk what their vote totals, off the floor, so the vote could not be called.

Meanwhile, the six holdouts spoke to Trump, who exhorted them that Johnson was the only person with the “likability” to get his, Trump’s, policies approved. Eventually, the six no votes registered for Johnson, two of the three “other” votes flipped. And Mike Johnson got the required 218 votes.

So: cheating and fealty to Trump will get Trump through to Monday where he’ll be declared President.

Lots of stories on this want to determine what it all means and I think the most important takeaway is we don’t know. Mike Johnson could build on cheating and blind fealty to Trump to go anywhere from here.

The hardliners made it clear — in the way they delivered their votes — they are disciplined yesterday. What’s not clear are whether Main Streeters (what might be called moderates if they weren’t just a different kind of right wing) could be equally disciplined if it came to it. I doubt they can. That’s when you’ll see the same carrots and mob-based threats we saw during the Jim Jordan fight.

Thus far, Jeffries has managed his caucus impeccably. Going forward, staying unified in opposition, in contrast to what Dems did last Congress (where they usually kept the lights on with a minority of Republicans), may be a tougher battle.

The question is how coming challenges will stress the very fragile unity Johnson won today.

Monday’s vote certification should be uneventful. Kamala Harris can put herself out of a job without a terrorist attack to threaten it.

Then Congress has to raise the debt limit. This is actually an area where there could be sharp disagreement between the hardliners in Congress and Trump, because they [think they] really want to cut US debt, whereas Trump wants no limits on his spending powers. Johnson will be completely dependent on Trump, so he’ll likely try to raise the debt ceiling. But there’s no reason for Democrats to help him do that.

If, as I wildarse guess, Brad Weinsheimer fancies delivering up both Jack Smith and David Weiss Special Counsel reports around January 10, those reports may create chaos as well. As I’ve said, I think Weiss wants to smear up Biden, and Republicans could well be tempted to impeach him on his way out of dodge.

Short term Republican hopes are that they’ll be able to achieve much of their policy goals through reconciliation (which cannot be filibustered in the Senate). But that’s already a bone of contention.

A lot of the reviews of the vote have focused on how little Johnson has to manage the Freedom Caucus. And many Freedom Caucus members are stupid and believe that Jim Jordan could get the gavel — and with enough coercion from Trump, they might be right.

But what we know least going forward is how tensions between Trump and those right wingers will play out, the degree to which he’ll be able to coerce or con his way out of them, and the degree to which the few sane Republicans left will want to stick around and watch all that.

Share this entry

Speaker Mike Johnson Demands Better Treatment for Israel’s Prime Minister Than Given the President of the United States

/136 Comments/in /by

Ahead of Bibi Netanyahu’s address to Congress, much of the attention has focused on those — starting with Vice President Harris — who will not attend. Speaker Emerita Pelosi is one of a growing number of Democrats who will instead meet with the families of those still held hostage by Hamas.

Right wingers are trying to make a big stink out of Democrats’ decision not to attend an address by a guy accused of war crimes who openly sides with Republicans (I’ve altered this cover slightly).

What has gone unmentioned, however, is that Speaker Mike Johnson sent out a letter ordering members and their guests to maintain decorum.

In the interests of all involved, we will enforce a zero-tolerance policy for disturbances in the building.

All Members should kindly inform their guests that any disruption of the proceedings of the House is a violation of the rules and may subject the offenders to prosecution. If any disturbance does occur, the Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police will remove the offending visitor(s) from the gallery and subject them to arrest.

As Members, it is incumbent upon us all to likewise model respect and proper decorum as representatives of the American people and our institution, and as ambassadors of the United States on the world stage.

This is, of course, greater reverence than Republicans have offered of late to Democratic Presidents, most recently when Marjorie Taylor Greene interrupted President Biden’s State of the Union.

It’s not Israel that has been left behind, Speaker Mike.

Share this entry

Don’t Let a Biden Succession Crisis Create a Succession Crisis

/93 Comments/in /by

It took no time for the pundits calling for Joe Biden to drop out of the race to reveal their fundamental childishness by asking for someone — Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, JB Pritzker, Josh Shapiro — whose selection would create as many problems as they might, hypothetically, solve.

Nicholas Kristof, pulling a paycheck from the same people who demanded Biden step down because he didn’t do their job — “hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans” — well enough, even suggested the 71-year old guy running for a must-win Senate seat should take Joe’s place.

Biden can resolve this by withdrawing from the race. There isn’t time to hold new primaries, but he could throw the choice of a successor to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The Democratic Party has some prominent figures who I think would be in a good position to defeat Trump in November, among them Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce. And there are many others. [my emphasis]

These are not serious people, or even very smart about politics.

For both political and legal reasons, it would be doable to swap Biden for Kamala Harris, and for the same political and legal reasons, swapping Biden for anyone else is highly likely to do at least as much harm as good.

There are a number of people making this point succinctly. Jamelle Bouie has said it in a lot of ways worth following. Dan Drezner says it here.

But even these guys are making what I view to be a potentially catastrophic mistake. They think Biden should both step down from the race and resign the presidency, as Drezner lays out this way.

Here’s the thing, though: if Biden were to decide to step aside in the wake of a poor debate performance, the inevitable question would be whether he should step aside immediately. As previously noted, he is only going to keep aging, and the federal government cannot function well with a 10-4 presidency.

Biden resigning this summer would generate three political advantages. First, Kamala Harris being sworn in as the first lady president would be, to quote Biden, a big fucking deal. It would be a suitable final act in Biden’s distinguished political biography. Second, it would make the November election a choice between former president Trump and President Harris. The move would put Harris at Trump’s level and eliminate experience as a Trump argument during the campaign. Finally, Harris being president would remove the inherent awkwardness that sitting vice presidents have faced when running for the top job: being unable to disagree or disavow the sitting president’s policies. Anything that makes it easier for Kamala Harris to not resemble Al Gore is a good thing.

I think these calls for Biden to resign are as facile as the calls for Gretchen Whitmer to march into the convention and take over (much as I might like that to happen).

That’s true for one big reason: It turns out with a House packed with rabid supporters of Trump and led by a better-spoken but equally rabid supporter of this fascist project, having a Vice President is an important failsafe for democracy.

That’s true for two reasons. First, remember what happened on January 6, 2021? Big mob, chants of “hang the VP,” tweets encouraging the mob to do so? The VP may not have a big portfolio on most days. But she does on the day that, recent history warns us, is a fragile moment of our democracy. Certainly, it’s possible Democrats could convince Republicans to let Patty Murray do that job, as Chuck Grassley was prepared to do back in 2021.

But the bigger problem is the target you would put on Kamala Harris’ back if she became a President, running for re-election, without a Vice President as her designated successor. Trump has already made it clear he plans to return to power by any means necessary. Trump has already spent years frothing up his followers to a frenzy that could (and has) tipped into violence with little notice. Indeed, more than a handful of Trump’s supporters have embraced violence, some after getting riled up on Truth Social, others after little more than an incendiary Fox News rant.

The Secret Service did a piss poor job of protecting Kamala Harris on January 6. Let’s not tempt fate or Trump’s rabid brown shirts to make Mike Johnson President.

Besides, very few of the pundits screaming to replace Biden are focused on governance. This Franklin Foer piece, for example, engages in paragraph after paragraph of projection about the motives of Biden’s top aides, argues that it’s not enough to be a good President, Biden also has to campaign competently.

When I talk with aides on the inside, they never question Biden’s governing capacity. Perhaps this is their own wishful thinking. Perhaps they are better able to see how the benefits of experience overwhelm his inability to recall a name. But it’s also the product of a delusion among the Democratic elite about what constitutes effective leadership. Governing competently is different from campaigning competently. The ability to think strategically about China, or to negotiate a complicated piece of bipartisan legislation, is not the limit of politics. It’s not enough to deliver technocratic accomplishments or to prudently manage a chaotic global scene—a politician must also connect with the voters, and convince them that they’re in good hands. And the Biden presidency has always required explaining away the fact that the public wasn’t buying what he was selling, even when the goods seemed particularly attractive. [my emphasis]

The noxious NYT op-ed calling on Biden to step down because he doesn’t do their job well enough is likewise focused on Biden as campaigner.

The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence.

Mr. Biden has been an admirable president. Under his leadership, the nation has prospered and begun to address a range of long-term challenges, and the wounds ripped open by Mr. Trump have begun to heal. But the greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election.

As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden.

[snip]

[T]he United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him.

And it makes sense. As I argued, when Biden responded to a focus on his age in January, he correctly said he was doing one amazingly taxing job well, that of being President. But in recent weeks, he has also been in the thick of an equally taxing job, flying around the country and glad-handing potential voters, many of whom carry germs that don’t normally make their way into the Oval Office. He has also had the stress of his son getting convicted in a trial that would never have happened if he weren’t the son of President Joe Biden. This is best understood, in my mind, as a question about whether Biden can do the two jobs required of him.

Aside from his Israeli policy, Biden is, most Democratic voters (and even NYT’s editorial board) will concede, a remarkably successful President. Via whatever means, he has managed to do that job well, even at the ripe age of 81.

If he’s doing his day job well but there are questions about whether he has the stamina to do a second full-time job on top of the first one, the answer is not to send him out to pasture on both.

This is a perceived or real stamina problem, not — at least thus far — a competence problem.

Which means there’s no reason to create another succession crisis in an attempt to save democracy.

The goal here is not just to prevent Trump from winning the election. The goal is to prevent Trump from attaining the Presidency again, via whatever means he plans to pursue. And for that reason, it is highly unwise to add points of potential failure he can exploit where, thus far, there are none.

Share this entry

Big Media Ignoring the Who What When Why of GOP Apology for Trump’s Crimes

/69 Comments/in , , /by

Even before and especially in the wake of Trump’s guilty verdict, members of the MAGAt Party has stumbled over themselves to declare fealty to Donald Trump, and in the process to demean rule of law.

Chris Hayes described the process as a mob style pressure campaign.

This enforcement action is happening because the Trump people and the Fox people and most of the people in the upper echelons of the party understand: the only way to bring Trump down, to end his political career,  is if Republicans turn against him.

As long as they stay unified, no matter what he does, no matter how abhorrent, or how dangerous, or how criminal, or how vile, no matter how much of a threat he is to the nation, if they all band together, then in a polarized landscape, they can basically keep him afloat and make it essentially a coin toss.

That is why they dressed up like him during the trial and rushed to debase themselves in cringe-inducing fashion on any live TV camera they can find.

[snip]

There have only been two times in Trump’s political career where that dynamic of Republican unanimity has broken, where Trump was near political death.

One was in the aftermath of January 6, the violent assault on the Capitol that he stirred up, when everyone was criticizing him, when the blood was still on the floor of the Capitol including Lindsey Graham and Kevin McCarthy. Remember that? Trump’s approval rating dropped below 40%, about the lowest level it reached. Mitch McConnell was testing the waters for a vote for an impeachment conviction.

If it had not been for that man, Mitch McConnell’s abject, enduringly pathetic cowardice and McCarthy’s relentless quest to have the third shortest speakership in history — not to mention the legitimate fear Republican senators had for their families about violence — we wouldn’t have this issue now. They could have just voted to convict him and bar him from future office. Done.

Ironically enough, the other time — the other sort of near political death experience — was in the wake of the Access Hollywood tape. And just about every elected Republican tried to distance themselves and criticize him. Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus was even considering how to get him off of the ticket.

But Trump managed to hold it together, due in no small part to the fact that right at that moment, he got a guy named Michael Cohen, his lawyer, to pay to keep the porn star from talking. And so the Republicans never heard about that story, nor did the public, which could have been the political death blow.

The lesson he learned is if you enforce this totalitarian unanimity, you can keep chugging along.

Journalists not named Chris Hayes are covering this too.

But they’re covering it differently.

Like this 1,400-word story from WaPo yesterday.

It describes that Republicans are backing Trump’s false claims of victimhood. It quotes at least twelve Republicans undermining the verdict, most in inflammatory terms. It even notes, in lukewarm fashion, that Trump’s claims of victimhood have no basis.

But even though it gives ample platform to Bible-thumper Mike Johnson to screech, it doesn’t use the word “porn,” opting instead for “hush money.” It doesn’t use the word “fraud,” opting instead to describe “falsifying business records.”

If you were Martian dropping onto the Earth to learn what the hubbub was about, you would never know that the Speaker who claims to live by the Ten Commandments was running cover for a guy who paid $400,000 to cover up fucking a porn star while his spouse was home with his youngest kid.

This one, also close to 1,400 words, is worse. It doesn’t even mention what crime Trump was convicted of (it links to a piece describing that Trump was, “falsifying business records to conceal alleged affairs.”

Donald Trump — in the form of his University, his charity, his real estate empire, and finally his biological person — has been adjudged a fraudster over and over. Along the way there’s the lady he assaulted in the Bergdorf Goodman dressing room and the porn star he fucked who, he said, reminded him of his oldest daughter.

And almost nowhere, along the way, are journalists asking Republicans — or simply stating as fact — that the entire party has decided to apologize for fraud and fucking porn stars.

The press is giving Republicans a pass for conducting a wholesale assault on rule of law. Republicans are disavowing almost every thing they claim to stand for — and when you throw in the 140 cops assaulted on January 6, it would include everything — and yet the sordid details of what Trump actually did have disappeared.

Trump paid $400,000 to cover up fucking a porn star; he grossed it up to make sure it he’d kill the story in time.

It’s not just that Republicans are enforcing totalitarian unanimity in supporting Trump for fucking a porn star and covering it up. But that din of slavering Republicans debasing themselves to Donald Trump has silenced coverage about what it is Trump was found to have done.

Trump paid $400,000 to cover up fucking a porn star. Make the Bible-thumpers own that when they rush to defend him.

Share this entry

Trump Undone by the Truth of His Pecker

/141 Comments/in , , /by

In days ahead, the criminal protection racket known as the GOP will spend an enormous amount of energy reinforcing Trump’s spin on the crimes of which he was convicted.

The court room was so cold it violated his due process rights.

Any judges who have Democrats in their family are disqualified from presiding over trials of Donald Trump.

It is unfair for a man to be tried in the state where he lived for 70 years of his life, where he built a business, where he committed his crimes.

Trump cannot be prosecuted for cheating to win while he was President and cannot be prosecuted for cheating to win after he lost the presidency.

Trump’s practice of hiring liars to lie for him should immunize him from any criminal liability for crimes committed by those liars.

All of this is nonsense. But it is nonsense that has become an article of faith for members of a cult that make up 40% of the US voting population. All of this nonsense is the price of admission to the Republican Party. And because they all adhere to this nonsense, it serves as a kind of reality for those who adhere to that faith.

I’m of the belief that Trump’s prosecution will only matter if the entire GOP is held accountable for willfully sustaining the Reality Show that says Donald Trump, and only Donald Trump, must be immune from accountability. Indeed, the criminal protection racket must double down now, because if Donald Trump starts being held accountable for his own actions, then the years of coddling his misconduct — the corrupt choices they made to sustain his fiction of invincibility — may start to backfire on all those who made those corrupt choices.

Upholding the fraud Donald Trump has been spinning for eight years has become an object of survival for the entire party. And not just for the party, but for their psyches.

And that’s why it is important to emphasize why Donald Trump lost the case, as was made clear by the single substantive question the jurors had: To re-read four passages of testimony, three involving David Pecker.

Those passages made it clear that Trump was personally involved in efforts to kill stories that would harm Trump’s election chances — and that Pecker refused to kill a third, the Stormy Daniels story, in part because he couldn’t have his tabloid be associated with a porn star.

Q. Around this time, in October of 2016, did you also have any conversations with Michael Cohen about Stormy Daniels?

A. Yes, also a number of conversations.

Q. Can you tell the jury about some of those conversations?

A. Michael Cohen asked me to pay for the story, to purchase it.

I said, I am not purchasing this story. I am not going to be involved with a porn star, and I am not — which I immediately said, a bank. After paying out the doorman and paying out Karen McDougal, we’re not paying any more monies.

Q. How did Michael Cohen take that?

A. He was upset. He said that The Boss would be furious at me and that I should go forward in purchasing it.

I said, I am not going forward and purchasing it. I am not doing it. Period.

Pecker’s testimony, which validated Michael Cohen’s, came from a man who said he still considers Trump a friend. It came from a man who said he viewed Trump as a mentor.

David Pecker spent years spinning fictions. He put that fiction spinning machine to work for Trump’s campaign, attacking his opponents and killing harmful stories.

And then, he told the truth about spinning those fictions. He told the truth about why and how he spun those fictions. He told the truth about Trump’s role in spinning those fictions.

Trump’s success, his persona, has always been a careful creation built on fraud.

And that fraud became criminal in significant part because David Pecker told the truth about the fictions that go into sustaining the fraud.

Update: ernesto1581 reminded me that this account of the epic production efforts that went into making Trump look like a flashy CEO came out yesterday, thanks to the final lapse of the NDA.

Share this entry

“History Is Watching”

/274 Comments/in /by

I obviously come late to President Biden’s powerful State of the Union speech last night.

My biggest takeaway is this: The State of the Union is about visibility. That’s why the First Lady’s guests matter. That’s why the chattering class chatters about who is sitting next to whom and what they’re wearing. That’s why CSPAN preps so well to highlight key spectators, pro and con.

Joe Biden gave tribute to the possibility that government can work. He laid out one after another policy that makes sense, and often as not, saves money. He talked about real policy successes. He promised to fight against past policy disasters.

He did so in one of the few remaining venues where political shame exists anymore.

Joe Biden laid out one after another policy that voters overwhelmingly support. Behind him, Speaker Johnson squirmed, often shaking his head. Republicans sat sourly, usually in silence.

Joe Biden orchestrated a public event where voters could see that Republicans collectively want government to fail, want popular policies to fail.

We could do with a lot more shame in the United States. US democracy would be vibrant if Republicans were held accountable for their attacks on America.

Last night, Joe Biden made the Republicans look like the small men and women they are.

I don’t know if that refrain, History is watching, will ring in their minds.

But he used the opportunity, with cameras rolling, to capture Republicans being shamed.

 

Share this entry

A Second Trump Term Would Replace Competent Corrupt People with Incompetent Ones

/34 Comments/in , , /by

Steve Neukam is one of the Messenger scribes who often chases Dick Pics with little care for the actual evidence.

In the middle of a paragraph quoting an anonymous Republican saying that Republicans don’t even need direct financial ties to Joe Biden to impeach him, for example, Neukam treats the factual explanation that Republicans are trying to impeach Joe Biden based on loans he made to his family while a private citizen as a brush-off.

The source close to Trump also said Comer “set the bar too high” for an impeachable offense, attempting to prove a direct payment to Joe Biden in the probe. The investigation spent weeks rolling out payments to Joe Biden from Hunter Biden and James Biden, the president’s son and brother, which the White House and Biden allies brushed off as loan repayments. Proving a direct payment to the president, the source said, was not necessary. [my emphasis]

But by being a committed Dick Pic Sniffer, Neukam has hit paydirt with a story quoting a slew of MAGAts trying to blame James Comer, and James Comer exclusively, that Republicans haven’t even succeeded in the single thing they tried to do with their House majority last year: Impeach Joe Biden.

Comer has led a”clueless investigation” at best and — at worst — “a disaster.”

“It’s been a parade of embarrassments.”

[snip]

“James Comer continues to embarrass himself and House Republicans. He screws up over and over and over,” the source said. “I don’t know how Republicans actually impeach the president based on his clueless investigation and lack of leadership.”

[snip]

“It seems like they got played by Hunter Biden,” one senior House GOP aide said. “It was a disaster. They looked like buffoons.”

Behind these hilarious quotes, however, is a particular power structure, one that is actually far more telling than the quotes.

The same article that claims that Comer’s problem is that he was picked because of his fundraising prowess…

“This is why we shouldn’t pick our chairman based on how much money they raise,” another member told Moskowitz, according to the congressman.

… Has these two deliciously contradictory claims about Mike Johnson’s impotence, a Speaker picked in spite of his non-existing fundraising record.

The Republican lawmaker who took his complaints of Comer to the speaker’s office was told that Johnson is aware of the problem, agrees with the criticism but can’t really do much other than watch and shake his head, the lawmaker told The Messenger.

[snip]

Top House Republicans stand next to Comer amid the intra-party criticism. Johnson told The Messenger that he is “fully supportive” of the chairman’s work.

“I am grateful for the superb efforts of Chairman Comer,” the speaker said in a statement to The Messenger. “Without his and the other investigators’ work, we wouldn’t have uncovered the millions in foreign funds going to the Biden family, the dozens of exchanges between the President and Hunter Biden’s clients, and the litany of lies the White House has told.”

Meanwhile, at least some of the people griping are people close to Trump venting because the House GOP hasn’t delivered on Trump’s demands.

Twice-impeached Trump himself threatened House Republicans in August to impeach Biden “or fade into OBLIVION.”

[snip]

“You have to start producing,” a Trump ally said. “The base is starting to get more and more frustrated with him because they see all this smoke but they don’t see the movement.”

It is virtually certain that many of the Republicans quoted here (with the possible exception of Jim Jordan’s chief counsel Steve Castor) suffer from the very same problems James Comer has faced in this investigation. They’re incompetent. They exist in a Fox/Newsmax bubble that rewards feral loyalty, incompetence, and lies. When exposed to any real scrutiny, those lies crumble.

You won’t find them reflecting on whether their own false claims have contributed to the hilarity of Comer’s failures. Amid increasing concerns that Republicans will lose the House in November, they’re busy passing the blame, even while they ignore an even bigger underlying problem.

One reason this impeachment has failed, thus far, is because they’re pursuing impeachment for the sake of impeachment. One reason this impeachment has failed, thus far, is because the House GOP has dedicated their entire first year to delivering whatever Trump demanded, when he demanded it, irrespective of whether it served their own interests or was justified by anything but Trump’s petulant demands.

Of course, none of the Republicans quoted here (Neukam also relies on Jared Moskowitz’s second-hand claims about what Republicans have told him) would admit they’re no different than Comer. They could do no better.

The Republicans on these committees have, like Comer, gleefully made false claims about smoking guns for which they had no evidence, for example. These Republicans continue to chase every one of Comer’s new diversions, in hope somewhere there’ll be evidence.

This is the persistent problem with claims — renewed today from the NYT team — that Trump will use DOJ to pursue partisan retribution.

[Maggie] He and his allies have also been clear that a big agenda item is eroding the Justice Department’s independence.

Charlie: Yes, Trump has vowed to use his power over the Justice Department to turn it into an instrument of vengeance against his political adversaries. This would end the post-Watergate norm that the department carries out criminal investigations independently of White House political control, and it would be a big deal for American-style democracy.

He already did this!!! No matter how many times NYT claims this would be a new development, none of it can eliminate the evidence that Trump’s focus on retribution began when he ordered investigations into Hillary and John Kerry under Jeff Sessions and accelerated as Bill Barr tried to find ways to charge Hillary and other Democrats for Trump’s efforts to cozy up to Russia. These efforts continue, with wild success, as Trump’s demands for a Hunter Biden investigation finally bore fruit.

As people consider the dangers of a second Trump term — and make no mistake, it could end American democracy — they need to consider whether incompetent corrupt partisans like James Comer will be any more effective than what Bill Barr already tried. Hell, under Barr, DOJ altered evidence to attempt to implicate Joe Biden in Trump’s corruption. John Durham fabricated a claim to impugn Hillary, but still couldn’t make charges against her attorney stick.

The difference — the one place where Comer, and to a much greater degree, Jim Jordan — have succeeded where Barr did not is not in the quasi-legal outcome. Rather, it is in ginning up threats against — seemingly — every single adverse witness.

The incompetent corrupt people that Trump is relying on while disavowing his past competent agents of retribution are really really good at one thing: Sowing political violence. But it’s not clear they’d be any better at politicizing DOJ than Trump already managed.

Share this entry