#2016 Democratic Presidential nomination

[deadpresidents]

Do you think Biden would have beaten Trump had he run in 2016? I know Biden stepped aside because because of his son, but it also seems likely he stepped aside for Clinton.

Yes, I do think that Biden would have beaten Trump in 2016. I don't know how Biden would have handled a campaign at that time with the death of his son having taken place much more recently, but if he could have emotionally handled the rigors of a full-on Presidential campaign at that time, I think he would have beaten Trump in the general election.

The question to me is whether or not Biden could have won the Democratic nomination in 2016 if he had run against Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Obviously, Biden was younger at the time than he is now and still a much better retail campaigner than Hillary ever was, but I don't know if a Biden campaign in 2016 would have had the same energy as the Sanders campaign that year -- either from the grassroots or from the top-down. It would have been a much different campaign than 2020, as well, because that one took place during the pandemic and Biden was able to run against an historically unpopular incumbent in the midst of botching the worst public health crisis that every voter in America had ever lived through.

The other big question if Biden had run in 2016 is the role of Barack Obama. In 2016, Biden was the incumbent Vice President, finishing his second term of a partnership with President Obama that ended up being one of the closest personal and political relationships that a President and Vice President ever had. But it is no secret that President Obama did not believe that then-Vice President Biden was the best choice to succeed him. Biden's emotional well-being after the death of his son in May 2015 certainly worried Obama, but in books and reporting since that time, it's been apparent that Obama believed that Hillary Clinton made more sense as his successor in 2016 than Biden for a number of reasons. That ultimately resulted in some hurt feelings on the Biden side at the time when Obama seemed to be urging Biden to step aside in 2016 while the Vice President was still considering a potential run. It never impacted Biden's loyalty to the Obama Administration or truly got personal, but it was especially troubling to Biden because he still had not made a final decision about a potential 2016 campaign and one of Beau Biden's dying wishes was that his father would run for President. Obama never directly discouraged Biden from running in 2016; he thought that Biden earned the right to make his own decision about the race, but he was worried about Biden's emotional state in the wake of Beau's recent death, he worried that Biden wasn't the right candidate to defeat Hillary or Bernie for the nomination, and he worried that a potential Biden loss -- either in the primaries or the general election -- would tarnish Biden's overall political legacy and possibly come across as a repudiation of the Obama Administration eight years in the White House.

Of course, Trump's victory over Hillary in 2016 gave Obama's successor the opportunity to immediately start reversing many of Obama's accomplishments and reset the hope and change represented by Obama's successful 2008 campaign. And the irony is that the crucial, traditionally-Democratic blue-collar voters that Hillary Clinton's campaign tended to overlook in 2016 are the same voters that Biden has spent a significant portion of his political career representing and connecting with. So in 2016, Trump won battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Ohio that Obama had won in both 2008 and 2012. Without those states in 2016, Trump wouldn't have defeated Hillary Clinton, and when Biden did run against Trump in 2020, his victories in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (Trump once again won Ohio and Iowa) were crucial in the Electoral College.

[qqueenofhades]

I just saw an article that said like half of trump supporters would vote for someone else if given a good option, and now all I want is someone else to get the nomination but have Trump refuse to drop out so he splits the vote. I would love nothing more than for the republicans to get 0 electoral votes…well that’s not quite true, what I would really love more than anything is for republicans to get 0 votes in general, but unless all of them forget when the election is and forget to vote for themselves that seems unlikely 😂

Basically, there is about 30 to 35% of America that is just outrageously cruel, racist, stupid, evil, and anti-everything (science, medicine, progress, voting, reason, education, history, civic society, gay people, women, non-white non-Christians, immigrants, anything that is not a fascist white nationalist theocracy) and they are beyond help. They will go down with Trump and his awful cronies to the bitter end, because they think that the primary function of government is to punish their enemies and nothing else. There is no public, social, or economic policy you can offer that will ever appeal to them, because they don't care. Nothing matters as much to them as Hurting The Other. In other words, they suck, and they are loud, dangerous, and militant, but they are not by any means the majority, they consistently suffer when their views are exposed to the mainstream public, and candidates backed by them have been regularly defeated in general elections, because they are just too extreme.

Then there are the rest of the Republican voters, who like low taxes, guns, and "small government" (aka that which doesn't run any risk of helping black people), but aren't quite the militant deranged TrumpCultists. They want a less openly criminal or at least slightly more palatable "moderate" old school GOP alternative, which has absolutely zero chance of getting past the primary-voting rancid shitgibbons mentioned above. We often get various thinkpieces wondering whether the indictments will strip these voters away from Trump, and yes, on the one hand, it is possible -- if, and only if, someone apart from him is the nominee, which for many reasons is deeply unlikely. If it is not, then anyone thinking that Republican voters will vote for anyone other than the Republican candidate, i.e. Trump, is kidding themselves. These people show up every election and vote for every R-name on the ballot. The fact that Democrats have to be wrangled and argued at so hard to do the same is one reason among many that we are in our present mess.

It is true that Trump is barely statistically viable as a candidate at this point, two-thirds of Americans think the charges (especially the J6 charges) against him are serious, and a plurality think he should suspend his presidential campaign (he won't, since it is his last chance to keep from going to jail for probably the rest of his life). It's also true that post-Dobbs, Democrats and Democratic-voting independents have been incredibly more motivated to turn out, and that Trump has never won the popular vote in any election (he only won in 2016, as we all painfully recall, because of the Electoral College). The Republicans have also consistently underperformed in every election since the Greasy Orange God King came along, and this trend is only accelerating.

None of that, again, means that we are safe or can relax or let our guard down about 2024, but it does mean that the only way these shitbags can win is by cheating up the wazoo, which they always try to do. There legitimately are not enough Americans who actually support their heinous crap to properly vote for them otherwise, and if nothing else, we can and should take comfort in that.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 28, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

Behind the horse race–type coverage of the contest for presidential nominations, a major realignment is underway in United States politics. The Republican Party is dying as Trump and his supporters take it over, but there is a larger story behind that crash. This moment looks much like the other times in our history when a formerly stable two-party system has fallen apart and Americans reevaluated what they want out of their government.

Trump’s takeover of the party has been clear at the state level, where during his term he worked to install loyalists in leadership positions. From there, they have pushed the Big Lie that he won the 2020 election and have continued to advance his claims to power. 

The growing radicalism of the party has also been clear in Congress, where Trump loyalists refuse to permit legislation that does not reflect their demands and where, after they threw House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) out of office—dumping a speaker midterm for the first time in history—Trump lieutenant Jim Jordan (R-OH) threatened holdouts to vote him in as speaker. Jordan failed, but the speaker Republican representatives did choose, Mike Johnson (R-LA), is himself a Trump loyalist, just one who had made fewer enemies than Jordan. 

The radicalization of the House conference has led 21 members of the party who gravitate toward actual lawmaking to announce they are not running for reelection. Many of them are from safe Republican districts, meaning they will almost certainly be replaced by radicals.  

The Senate has tended to hang back from this radicalization, but in a dramatic illustration of Trump’s takeover of the party, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell today announced he would step down from his leadership position in November. McConnell is the leading symbol of the pre-Trump party, a man whose determination to cut taxes and regulation led him to manipulate the rules of the Senate and silence warnings that Russian disinformation was polluting the 2016 campaign so long as it meant keeping a Democrat out of the White House and Republicans in control of the Senate.

The extremist House Freedom Caucus promptly tweeted: “Our thoughts are with our Democrat colleagues in the Senate on the retirement of their Co-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (D-Ukraine). No need to wait till November…Senate Republicans should IMMEDIATELY elect a *Republican* Minority Leader.”

Trump has also taken control of the Republican National Committee (RNC) itself. On Monday, RNC chair Ronna McDaniel announced that she is resigning on March 8. Trump picked McDaniel himself in 2016 but has come to blame her both for the party’s continued underperformance since 2016 and for its current lack of money.

Now Trump has made it clear he wants even closer loyalists at the top of the party, including his own daughter-in-law, Lara Trump. She has suggested she is open to using RNC money exclusively for Trump. This might be what has prompted the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity to pull support from Nikki Haley in order to invest in downballot races. 

But the party that is consolidating around Trump is alienating a majority of Americans. It has abandoned the principles that the party embraced from 1980 until 2016. In that era, Republicans called for a government that cut taxes and regulations with the idea that consolidating wealth at the top of the economy would enable businessmen to invest far more effectively in new development than they could if the government interfered, and the economy would boom. They also embraced global leadership through the expansion of capitalism and a strong military to protect it. 

Under Trump, though, the party has turned away from global leadership to the idea that strong countries can do what they like to their neighbors, and from small government to big government that imposes religious rules. Far from protecting equality before the law, Republican-dominated states have discriminated against LGBTQ+ individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, and women. And, of course, the party is catering to Trump’s authoritarian plans. Neo-nazis attended the Conservative Political Action Conference a week ago. 

But these changes are not popular. Tuesday’s Michigan primary revealed the story we had already seen in the Republican presidential primaries and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Trump won all those contests, but by significantly less than polls had predicted. He has also been dogged by the strength of former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley. With Trump essentially running as an incumbent, he should be showing the sort of strength Biden is showing—with challengers garnering only a few percentage points—but even among the fervent Republicans who tend to turn out for primaries, Trump’s support is soft.

It seems that the same policies that attract Trump’s base are turning other voters against him. Republican leadership, for example, is far out of step with the American people on abortion rights—69% of Americans want the right to abortion put into law—and that gulf has only widened over the Alabama Supreme Court decision endangering in vitro fertilization by saying that embryos have the same rights as children from the moment of conception. That decision created such an outcry that Republicans felt obliged to claim they supported IVF. But push came to shove today when Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) reintroduced a bill to protect IVF that Republicans had previously rejected and Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) killed it again. 

The party has also tied itself to a deeply problematic leader. Trump is facing 91 criminal charges in four different cases—two state, two federal—but the recently-decided civil case in which he, the Trump Organization, his older sons, and two associates were found liable for fraud is presenting a more immediate threat to Trump’s political career.

Trump owes writer E. Jean Carroll $88.3 million; he owes the state of New York $454 million, with interest accruing at more than $100,000 a day. Trump had 30 days from the time the judgments were filed to produce the money or a bond for it. Today he asked the court for permission to post only $100 million rather than the full amount in the New York case, as required by law, because he would have to sell property at fire-sale prices to come up with the money.

In addition to making it clear to donors that their investment in his campaign now might end up in the hands of lawyers or the victorious plaintiffs, the admission that Trump does not have the money he has claimed punctures the image at the heart of his political success: that of a billionaire businessman.   

Judge Anil C. Singh rejected Trump’s request but did stay the prohibition on Trump’s getting loans from New York banks, potentially allowing him to get the money he needs.  

As Trump’s invincible image cracks with this admission, as well as with the increased coverage of his wild statements, others are starting to push back on him and his loyalists. President Biden’s son Hunter Biden testified behind closed doors to members of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees today, after their previous key witness turned out to be working with Russian operatives and got indicted for lying.

Hunter Biden began the day with a scathing statement saying unequivocally that he had never involved his father in his business dealings and that all the evidence the committee had compiled proved that. In their “partisan political pursuit,” he said, they had “trafficked in innuendo, distortion, and sensationalism—all the while ignoring the clear and convincing evidence staring you in the face. You do not have evidence to support the baseless and MAGA-motivated conspiracies about my father because there isn’t any.” 

After an hour, Democratic committee members described to the press what was going on in the hearing room. They reported that the Republicans’ case had fallen apart entirely and that Biden had had a “very understandable, coherent business explanation for every single thing that they asked for.” While former president Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself more than 440 times during a deposition in his fraud trial, Biden did not take the Fifth at all. 

The discrediting of the Republicans continued later. When Representative Tim Burchett (R-TN) tried to recycle the discredited claim that “$20 million flowed through” to then–vice president Biden, CNN host Boris Sanchez fact-checked him and said, “I’m not going to let you say things that aren’t true.” 

That willingness to push back on the Republicans suggests a new political moment in which Americans, as they have done before when one of the two parties devolved into minority rule, wake up to the reality that the system has been hijacked and begin to reclaim their government. 

But can they prevail over the extremists MAGA Republicans have stowed into critical positions in the government? Tonight the Supreme Court, stacked with Trump appointees, announced that rather than let the decision of a lower court stay in place, it would take up the question of whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for his actions in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. That decision means a significant delay in Trump’s trial for that attempt. 

“This is a momentous decision, just to hear this case,” conservative judge Michael Luttig told Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC. “There was no reason in this world for the Supreme Court to take this case…. Under the constitutional laws of the United States, there has never been an argument that a former president is immune from prosecution for crimes that he committed while in office.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[drwilfredwaterson]

Deranged, Destitute, and Dishonest Dementia Dummy donnie j. dump Doesn't Get To Be The Republican Presidential Nominee Anymore…Mwahahahahahahahahaa!!! A March 18, 2024 Update For All Political Debate Lovers! Part 7/17

LIDDLE Deranged and Destitute Dishonest Dementia Dummy donnie j. dump refused to debate anyone during the entire Republican primary season, so he's just going to have to wait and see how badly his dementia, senility, extreme poverty, and criminal/constitutional crisis is affecting him for the regular presidential debate schedule.

By the time the first presidential debate comes around on September 16, 2024, LIDDLE Deranged and Destitute Dishonest Dementia Dummy donnie j. dump will be on trial, and will have been on trial, in multiple criminal trials that President Joe Biden can reference during every single debate question.

The second and third presidential debates on October 1 and October 9, 2024 will just be more salt rubbed in the LIDDLE Simpering and Squirming Senile Snake of marred-a-LAME0's fatal wounds.

LIDDLE connie can cry all he wants, but if he'd wanted to debate so badly, he could've done so repeatedly during the Republican primary season! Too bad!

And in Yet Another Installment of "Trash Takes Itself Out": Democrats Warned Republicans They Opened A Pandora's Box of Karmic Payback and that It'd Only Be A Matter of Time… On September 26, 2020, LIDDLE Deranged and Dishonest Dementia Dummy donnie j. dump nominated Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court of the United States. Her nomination was controversial because the 2020 presidential election was only 38 days away and Senate Republicans had refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland during an election year in 2016. The next month, the U.S. Senate voted 52–48 to confirm her nomination, with all Democrats and one Republican in opposition. Barrett was sworn in October 27, 2020. (Wikipedia)

The next time Republicans give themselves a two-week taxpayer-funded vacation during a budget/funding crisis, they need to understand those two weeks are 50% of the time it takes to rush six Real American SCOTUS judge appointments and confirmations through the Senate. Should Republicans choose to force a government shutdown, they need to understand that time could be used to rush six Real American SCOTUS judge appointments and confirmations through the Senate. President Biden put MAGA SCOTUS on notice that Real Americans don't have to put up with their judicial activism, legislating from the bench, and criminal obstruction of justice, illegal constitution modification, and insurrection. Every action and aspect of creation has an equal and opposite within creation; and MAGA SCOTUS will eventually encounter their neutralizing equal; because it's always just a matter of time…

So here's how it's gonna go if it doesn't happen sooner… November 5, 2024: U.S. general and presidential elections.

November 6, 2024, per the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution, President Joe Biden implements the 2024 American Elections Rescue and MAGA Insurrection Prevention Plan to protect the results of the 2024 elections from the six criminal MAGA insurrectionist SCOTUS judges and all of their co-conspirators, enablers, supporters, donors, etc.. On November 6, 2024, just as connie j. chump and his MAGA insurrectionists appointed and confirmed SCOTUS "justice" Barrett in 30 days, so too shall Senate Majority Democrats push through all six MAGA insurrectionist SCOTUS judge replacements and swear them in by December 6, 2024.

The American public will be advised that impeachment proceedings to remove the six criminal MAGA insurrectionist SCOTUS judges will begin immediately on January 3, 2025, but in the meantime, the six Real American Patriot SCOTUS justices will insure that there will be no successful overturning of any popular vote at any county, state, or federal level, no Independent State Legislature nonsense, and no further attempts by the six criminal MAGA insurrectionist SCOTUS judges to overthrow the U.S. government or engage in obstruction of justice, election interference, or any other forms of treason against Real Americans and the U.S. government.

The MAGA cult and MAGA SCOTUS thought they had it all figured out, but MAGA SCOTUS is going to find out real quick that they can and will be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and election tampering and interference just like LIDDLE Cognitively Crippled Crying Cuck connie j. chump.

Democrats prommised the MAGA insurrectionist Republicans the Barrett situation was going to come back around on them; and there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that limits the number of SCOTUS justices or the amount of SCOTUS justices that can be appointed and confirmed in any presidential term.

And due to the illegal and criminal obstruction of justice, election tampering and interference, illegal constitution modification, and dereliction of duty to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States on ALL people of and in the United States of America, President Joe Biden has no choice but to adhere to and honor his Oath of Office and the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution to counter the corrupted insurrectionist and criminal MAGA SCOTUS poison, disease, and infestation.

The 2024 American Elections Rescue Plan not only saves the United States of America, it also saves Ukraine, Europe and all of America's NATO allies, Africa, South America, Asia, and the the Middle East. And all of that miraculous goodness begins November 6, 2024…

United States Constitution: Clause 5: Caring for the faithful execution of the law (Including enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on Congressionally-Determined insurrectionist donald. j. trump: whom through an act of Congress was referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution for his January 6, 2021 insurrection and election interference)

The president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the president to enforce the laws of the United States and is called the Take Care Clause, also known as the Faithful Execution Clause or Faithfully Executed Clause. This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the president even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law. Addressing the North Carolina ratifying convention, William Maclaine declared that the Faithful Execution Clause was "one of the [Constitution's] best provisions." If the president "takes care to see the laws faithfully executed, it will be more than is done in any government on the continent; for I will venture to say that our government, and those of the other states, are, with respect to the execution of the laws, in many respects mere ciphers." President George Washington interpreted this clause as imposing on him a unique duty to ensure the execution of federal law. Discussing a tax rebellion, Washington observed, "it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to [that duty]."

According to former United States Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Dellinger III, the Supreme Court and the Attorneys General have long interpreted the Take Care Clause to mean that the president has no inherent constitutional authority to suspend the enforcement of the laws, particularly of statutes. The Take Care Clause demands that the president obey the law, the Supreme Court said in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, and repudiates any notion that he may dispense with the law's execution. In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court explained how the president executes the law: "The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the president, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2."

The president may not prevent a member of the executive branch from performing a ministerial duty lawfully imposed upon him by Congress. (See Marbury v. Madison (1803); and Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838).) Nor may the president take an action not authorized either by the Constitution or by a lawful statute. (See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).) Finally, the president may not refuse to enforce a constitutional law, or "cancel" certain appropriations, for that would amount to an extra-constitutional veto or suspension power. (Wikipedia)

[tomorrowusa]

I frequently complain that people, especially on the liberal side, don't pay enough attention to state government. I hope that our readers in North Carolina take notice of this.

North Carolina Republicans have just nominated a candidate for governor who actually makes Trump seem slightly more moderate.

The Republican standard-bearer in the most competitive governor race of the 2024 election is now officially a man who has quoted Adolf Hitler, called LGBT people “filth,” and threatened to use an AR-15 on federal officials. North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson secured the Republican nomination in the state’s governor race Tuesday night. He was projected the winner of the primary by the Associated Press less than an hour after polls closed. Robinson defeated rivals Dale Folwell and Bill Graham, who were backed by figures in the GOP establishment uneasy with Robinson’s incendiary rhetoric and far-right views. Robinson’s primary win was expected. Now, he will face Attorney General Josh Stein (D) in a general election battle that is a top priority for both parties—and one that could have broader implications because of North Carolina’s status as a presidential battleground. [ ... ] A relative newcomer in politics, Robinson has quickly won many supporters and many detractors thanks to his eagerness to embrace controversy whenever possible. From making Islamophobic jokes to dismissing the Holocaust as “hogwash” in an old Facebook post, Robinson’s record offers seemingly endless opportunities for Democrats to craft attack ads. “There’s no reason anybody anywhere in America should be telling any child about transgenderism, homosexuality, any of that filth,” Robinson said at a Baptist church in June 2023. “And yes, I called it filth. And if you don’t like it that I called it filth, come see me and I’ll explain it to you.”

The good news is that this is a winnable contest for Dems if moderate and liberal voters take it seriously.

While Democrats have not won a statewide federal race in North Carolina since 2008, their track record in statewide races for governor and attorney general has been strong. Gov. Roy Cooper (D) is term-limited after winning election in 2016 and re-election in 2020. The state has only had a GOP governor for four out of the last 30 years.

Never assume that because candidates are perceived as being too extreme that they will automatically lose. Just think back to 2016.

If we want democracy to survive we need to drive a stake through the heart of electoral slackerism. There is no such thing as an unimportant election. When we vote, we win; just look at Minnesota.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Dianne Feinstein, the woman who represented California in the US Senate and was the longest-serving female senator in history, “blazed trails for women in politics and found a life’s calling in public service”, Hillary Clinton said.

The former New York Senator and Secretary of State, who in 2016 was the first woman to win the presidential nomination of a major US party, paid tribute to her fellow Democrat shortly after the announcement of her death. At the time of her death, Feinstein was 90 and still in office.

Clinton added: “I’ll miss her greatly as a friend and colleague.”

From the White House, Joe Biden saluted “a pioneering American.”

The President added: “Serving in the Senate together for more than 15 years, I had a front-row seat to what Dianne was able to accomplish. It’s why I recruited her to serve on the Judiciary Committee when I was chairman – I knew what she was made of.”

“… Often the only woman in the room, Dianne was a role model for so many Americans … she had an immense impact on younger female leaders for whom she generously opened doors. Dianne was tough, sharp, always prepared, and never pulled a punch, but she was also a kind and loyal friend.”

Gavin Newsom, the Democratic Governor of California, will select Feinstein’s replacement. Calling Feinstein “a political giant”, he said she “was many things – a powerful, trailblazing US Senator; an early voice for gun control; a leader in times of tragedy and chaos.”

“But to me, she was a dear friend, a lifelong mentor, and a role model not only for me, but to my wife and daughters for what a powerful, effective leader looks like.”

Feinstein’s “tenacity”, Newsom said, “was matched by her grace. She broke down barriers and glass ceilings, but never lost her belief in the spirit of political cooperation. And she was a fighter - for the city [San Francisco, where she was the first woman to be mayor], the state and the country she loved.”

There was some discord among the praise. David Axelrod, formerly a senior adviser to Barack Obama, pointed to recent controversy over whether, given her evidently failing health and absences which affected Democratic Senate business, Feinstein should have retired.

“How sad that the final, painful years will eclipse in the memories of some a long and distinguished career,” Axelrod said⁩. “RIP, Senator Feinstein.”

Many users cited a recent piece in New York magazine by the writer Rebecca Traister, about Feinstein’s declining years, which asked: “She fought for gun control, civil rights and abortion access for half a century. Where did it all go wrong?”

John Flannery, a former federal prosecutor turned commentator, was among those who had a rejoinder: “I hope some of those who hounded her in her dying days will remember her contributions.”

Many tributes highlighted Feinstein’s contributions to attempts to combat the problem of gun violence.

Though Feinstein “made her mark on everything from national security to the environment to protecting civil liberties”, Biden said, “there’s no better example of her skillful legislating and sheer force of will than when she turned passion into purpose, and led the fight to ban assault weapons.”

Chris Murphy, a Democratic Senator from Connecticut and a leading voice for gun control reform, said Feinstein would “go down as a heroic, historic American leader … an early and fearless champion of the gun safety movement as author of the monumental Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.”

“For a long time, between 1994 and the tragedy in Newtown in 2012 [in which 20 young children and six adults were killed], Dianne was often a lonely but unwavering voice on the issue of gun violence.”

“The modern anti-gun violence movement – now more powerful than the gun lobby – simply would not exist without Dianne’s moral leadership.”

From the US House, Maxwell Frost of Florida, one of the youngest congressional progressives, called Feinstein “a champion for gun violence prevention that broke barriers at all levels of government.”

“We wouldn’t have had an assault weapons ban if it wasn’t for Senator Feinstein and due to her tireless work, we will win it back. May her memory be a blessing.”

From outside Congress, Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, a pro-gun control group, pointed out that Feinstein was “one of the first among her colleagues to support gun safety – including Democrats”.

Inside Congress, as a government shutdown loomed, Feinstein’s desk in the Senate was draped in black cloth, a vase of white roses placed to mark her death.

From the other side of the political aisle, the Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins called Feinstein “a strong and effective leader, and a good friend.”

Newsom has pledged to pick a Black woman to replace Feinstein until the midterm elections next year.

On Friday, Barbara Lee, a Black Democratic congresswoman running for the seat, said: “This is a sad day for California and the nation. Senator Feinstein was a champion for our state, and served as the voice of a political revolution for women.”

Among commentators, the MSNBC anchor Mehdi Hasan highlighted what will to many prove a complicated political legacy.

“The high point and low point of … Feinstein’s long and storied career as a US senator both relate to the ‘War On Terror’,” Hasan said. “Low point: voting for the Iraq invasion. High point: going against the CIA to expose their torture programme.”

In his statement, Newsom said: “Every race [Feinstein] won, she made history, but her story wasn’t just about being the first woman in a particular political office, it was what she did for California, and for America, with that power once she earned it. That’s what she should be remembered for.”

“There is simply nobody who possessed the poise, gravitas, and fierceness of Dianne Feinstein.”

Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of political rhetoric at Texas A&M University, put the case for Feinstein perhaps most simply of all.

“Dianne Feinstein was on the right side of history,” she said.

[partisan-by-default]

Thinly veiled conservative to assist conservative-funded candidate getting conservatives get elected, facilitated by thinly veiled conservative pundit.

West, a prominent surrogate for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during his two presidential campaigns, announced his own plans to run as a candidate with the little-known People’s Party in a video earlier this month. But he quickly broke off from that group, which has limited campaign infrastructure amid concerns about ballot access, to join the Greens and seek their nomination. Stein does not currently expect to have a long-term presence on West’s campaign. But her involvement will likely rankle Democrats who say her candidacy siphoned progressive votes from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 general election – a claim she has always dismissed. In the key swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Stein’s vote total exceeded Donald Trump’s narrow victory margins. Still, it is unclear whether Stein voters would have turned out for Clinton had the Green nominee not been on the ballot. Stein also ran on the Green Party line in 2012, when President Barack Obama was reelected. Stein said she and others aligned with the Green Party, including her former running mate Ajamu Baraka, reached out to West, through the journalist Chris Hedges, following one of the candidate’s early media appearances to offer their help.

[seymour-butz-stuff]

If anyone wanted to understand the true priorities of the Republican Party, last week was one like no other. It was a week that would leave any decent American flabbergasted at the extent of Republican willingness to endorse betrayal and treachery against the American public. It clarified the willingness of Republicans to abandon all pretense of law and order to satisfy their aims. Frankly, it was a week that should, by all rights, forever erase any doubts about just how un-American and toxic to this country Republicans actually are. And for all the hype that surrounded it, the criminal indictment and formal arrest of Donald Trump played only a small part. At the exact time that Donald Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, was being arraigned in Miami and charged with felony violations of the Espionage Act in connection with his alleged mishandling of our nation’s classified documents, several of his Republican congressional supporters gathered in the U.S. Capitol for a fake “hearing.” This hearing honored the people who attacked the same Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, lauding, encouraging, and soothing them for their failed attempt to violently overturn the 2020 election. Earlier that week, a Republican congressman from Louisiana named Clay Higgins telegraphed a message on Twitter providing coded, helpful tactical advice to extremist white supremacist militia groups in the event they perpetrated a violent assault on the federal courthouse where Trump was being arraigned. Later in the same week, 196 Republicans—nearly the entire GOP House caucus—voted in favor of a resolution to censure and heavily fine Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff for investigating and revealing the rank complicity between the Trump administration and the Russian Federation in influencing the outcome of the 2016 election.  These acts aren’t simply “un-American.” They’re clear evidence of a political organization that has collectively resolved to make a clean break with democracy.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

IT’S DONE! TRUMP INDICTED!

The unprecedented case against Trump will have wide-ranging implications.

A Manhattan grand jury voted to indict Donald J. Trump on Thursday for his role in paying hush money to a porn star, according to five people with knowledge of the matter, a historic development that will shake up the 2024 presidential race and forever mark him as the nation’s first former president to face criminal charges.

In the coming days, prosecutors working for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, will likely ask Mr. Trump to surrender and to face arraignment. The specific charges will be announced when he is arraigned.

Mr. Trump has for decades avoided criminal charges despite persistent scrutiny and repeated investigations, creating an aura of legal invincibility that the vote to indict now threatens to puncture.

His actions surrounding his 2020 electoral defeat are now the focus of a separate federal investigation, and a Georgia prosecutor is in the final stages of an investigation into Mr. Trump’s attempts to reverse the election results in that state.

But unlike the investigations that arose from his time in the White House, this case is built around a tawdry episode that predates Mr. Trump’s presidency. The reality star turned presidential candidate who shocked the political establishment by winning the White House now faces a reckoning for a hush money payment that buried a sex scandal in the final days of the 2016 campaign.

On Thursday, the three lead prosecutors on the Trump investigation walked into the building where the grand jury was sitting in the minutes before the panel was scheduled to meet at 2 p.m. One of them carried a copy of the penal law — with Post-it notes visible — which was likely used to read the criminal statutes to the grand jurors before they voted. About three hours later, the prosecutors walked into the court clerk’s office through a back door to begin the process of filing the indictment.

For weeks, the atmosphere outside of the district attorney’s office had resembled a circus. But the fervor had cooled in recent days, and the outskirts of the office were emptier on Thursday than they have been in weeks.

Mr. Trump has consistently denied all wrongdoing and attacked Mr. Bragg, a Democrat, accusing him of leading a politically motivated prosecution. He has also denied any affair with the porn star, Stormy Daniels, who had been looking to sell her story of a tryst with Mr. Trump during the campaign.

Here’s what else you need to know:

Mr. Bragg and his lawyers will likely attempt to negotiate Mr. Trump’s surrender. If he agrees, it will raise the prospect of a former president, with the Secret Service in tow, being photographed and fingerprinted in the bowels of a New York State courthouse.

The prosecution’s star witness is Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer who paid the $130,000 to keep Ms. Daniels quiet. Mr. Cohen has said that Mr. Trump directed him to buy Ms. Daniels’s silence, and that Mr. Trump and his family business, the Trump Organization, helped cover the whole thing up. The company’s internal records falsely identified the reimbursements as legal expenses, which helped conceal the purpose of the payments.

Although the specific charges remain unknown, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors have zeroed in on that hush money payment and the false records created by Mr. Trump’s company. A conviction is not a sure thing: An attempt to combine a charge relating to the false records with an election violation relating to the payment to Ms. Daniels would be based on a legal theory that has yet to be evaluated by judges, raising the possibility that a court could throw out or limit the charges.

The vote to indict, the product of a nearly five-year investigation, kicks off a new and volatile phase in Mr. Trump’s post-presidential life as he makes a third run for the White House. And it could throw the race for the Republican nomination — which he leads in most polls — into uncharted territory.

Mr. Bragg is the first prosecutor to lead an indictment of Mr. Trump. He is now likely to become a national figure enduring a harsh political spotlight.

WE ARE LIVING HISTORY RIGHT NOW!

[deadpresidents]

Who do you think Hillary Clinton should have chosen as her running mate in 2016?

Of the people reportedly on her shortlist, I thought she should have chosen Cory Booker or Tom Perez. Tim Kaine seemed safe and he was certainly qualified, but I never thought he was a good choice and definitely wasn't excited by his nomination. Senator Booker would have been a great pick and a spirited campaigner. Perez wouldn't have been as good on the campaign trail, but he would have been an interesting balance to the ticket.

Outside of her shortlist, I thought she should have picked Admiral William McRaven. At the time I think I was already mentioning my hope that Admiral McRaven actually run for President. I still think he should run for President.

[mariacallous]

NEW YORK (AP) — Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel will leave her post on March 8, having been forced out of the GOP’s national leadership as Donald Trump moves toward another presidential nomination and asserts control over the party.

McDaniel announced her decision in a statement on Monday morning.

“I have decided to step aside at our Spring Training on March 8 in Houston to allow our nominee to select a Chair of their choosing,” McDaniel said in the statement. “The RNC has historically undergone change once we have a nominee and it has always been my intention to honor that tradition.”

The move was not a surprise. Trump earlier in the month announced his preference for North Carolina GOP Chair Michael Whatley, a little-known veteran operative focused in recent years on the prospect of voter fraud, to replace McDaniel. Trump also picked his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, to serve as committee co-chair.

The 50-year-old McDaniel was a strong advocate for the former president and helped reshape the GOP in his image. But Trump’s MAGA movement increasingly blamed McDaniel for the former president’s 2020 loss and the party’s failures to meet expectations in races the last two years.

In addition to McDaniel, RNC co-chair Drew McKissick said he would also leave.

The leadership shakeup comes as the GOP shifts from the primary phase to the general election of the 2024 presidential contest. While former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley has remained in the race, Trump has won every state in the primary calendar and could clinch the Republican nomination by mid-March.

Trump cannot make leadership changes without the formal backing of the RNC’s 168-member governing body, but McDaniel had little choice but to acquiesce to Trump’s wishes given his status as the party’s likely presidential nominee and his popularity with party activists. RNC members from across the country are expected to approve Trump’s decision in March.

McDaniel was the the committee’s longest-serving leader since the Civil War. The niece of Utah Sen. Mitt Romney and a former chair of the Michigan GOP, she was Trump’s hand-picked choice to lead the RNC chair shortly after the 2016 election. Her profile as a suburban mother was also considered especially helpful as the party struggled to appeal to suburban women in the Trump era.

McDaniel easily beat back criticism from opponents within the “Make America Great Again” movement to win reelection as party chair a year ago. But her opponents’ voices are carrying more weight. The party is also struggling to raise money. The RNC reported $8.7 million in the bank at the beginning of February compared to the Democratic National Committee’s $24 million.

As Trump’s grip on a third presidential nomination tightens, his allies are moving to direct the party’s resources and activists around his campaign.

Lara Trump has suggested that GOP voters would likely want the RNC to cover her father-in-law’s legal bills given that they see the 91 felony counts against him as an example of political persecution. It’s unclear whether the RNC’s 168 members will eventually agree.

And Trump also wants allies who echo his false theories of voter fraud.

That’s a key reason why Trump is believed to have tapped Whatley, currently the North Carolina GOP chair and general counsel to the RNC.

Trump won North Carolina in 2020 by just over 1 percentage point and the state is expected to be highly competitive again this year.

Whatley has taken credit for hiring an army of lawyers ahead of the 2020 election, which he has said stymied Democratic efforts to commit voter fraud that year. There was no evidence of any intentional efforts to commit widespread voter fraud in multiple investigations and court cases.

Whatley also has strong connections to the political establishment. His resume includes experience as an oil and gas lobbyist and links to establishment figures like George W. Bush and former Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C.

[qqueenofhades]

I like Bernie’s policies and I agree with him on mostly everything, but I really don’t understand his need to constantly shit on Biden and the Democrats and demand they do more. There’s not enough nuance for people to hear him and still vote for the Democrats and I fear he may be actually turning people away from voting blue by constantly saying they’re inadequate. I understand what he’s trying to do but I feel like it’s more important to stave off the fascist GOP than anything right now and this may be threatening that

Bernie sure runs his mouth a lot for someone who has passed not a single major piece of progressive legislation in 15+ years as a senator despite constantly bashing his colleagues for not doing enough, ran two major presidential campaigns to get the nomination of a party he doesn't even officially affiliate with, refused to support the nominee in 2016 to such a degree that a substantial fraction of his supporters either didn't vote or voted for Trump, insists that only he knows the right way to do things, is an actual millionaire with multiple homes who stiffed his campaign staff and didn't pay venues for campaign events, constantly fundraises and gives interviews about how the Democrats are Bad, still hasn't made a particular impact even in a progressive administration and mostly spends his time criticising it, has whipped up a militant army of Twitterati who get their jollies out of endlessly caviling about how Bernie Was Cheated instead of ever accepting that he was also a deeply flawed candidate who didn't accept the process or multiple American political realities, and otherwise (again, despite said total lack of tangible accomplishments aside from playing the Curmudgeon and giving rise to a few good memes) acting as if he alone, Socialist Messiah, knows what is good and best for the country. Other than that, he's fine.

[sabakos]

Cornel West, the progressive activist and professor, announced a presidential campaign on Monday with the People’s Party, a third party led by a former campaign staff member for Senator Bernie Sanders.

Dr. West has taught at Yale, Princeton and Harvard and is currently a professor of philosophy at Union Theological Seminary.

The People’s Party was founded by Nick Brana, who worked on Mr. Sanders’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, but later broke away. The party tried to recruit Mr. Sanders after his 2016 campaign, but he declined to get involved and again sought the Democratic nomination in 2020.

The continued existence of the New York Times is a crime against humanity, but they really do character assassination byline like no one else.

[lenbryant]

Illustration by Rebecca Chew/The New York Times

By The Editorial Board

Republicans who will gather to cast the first votes of the 2024 presidential primary season have one essential responsibility: to nominate a candidate who is fit to serve as president, one who will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Donald Trump, who has proved himself unwilling to do so, is manifestly unworthy. He is facing criminal trials for his conduct as a candidate in 2016, as president and as a former president. In this, his third presidential bid, he has intensified his multiyear campaign to undermine the rule of law and the democratic process. He has said that if elected, he will behave like a dictator on “Day 1” and that he will direct the Justice Department to investigate his political rivals and his critics in the media, declaring that the greatest dangers to the nation come “not from abroad but from within.”

Mr. Trump has a clear path to the nomination; no polling to date suggests he is anything but the front-runner. Yet Republicans in these states still have their ballots to cast. At this critical moment, it is imperative to remind voters that they still have the opportunity to nominate a different standard-bearer for the Republican Party, and all Americans should hope that they do so. This is not a partisan concern. It is good for the country when both major parties have qualified presidential candidates to put forward their competing views on the role of government in American society. Voters deserve such a choice in 2024.

Mr. Trump’s construction of a cult of personality in which loyalty is the only real requirement has badly damaged the Republican Party and the health of American democracy. During the fight over the leadership of the House of Representatives in the fall, for example, Mr. Trump torpedoed the candidacy of Tom Emmer, a lawmaker who voted to certify the 2020 election results, to ensure the ascendancy of Mike Johnson, a loyalist who was an architect of the attempt to overturn that election. (Mr. Emmer has since endorsed Mr. Trump.) But some Republicans have set an example of integrity, demonstrating the courage to put their convictions and conservative principles above loyalty to Mr. Trump. Examples include people whom he once counted as allies, like former Attorney General Bill Barr, former Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats.

Voters may agree with the former president’s plans for further tax cuts, restrictions on abortions or strict limits on immigration. That’s politics, and the divisions among Americans over these issues will persist regardless of the outcome of this election. But electing Mr. Trump to four more years in the White House is a unique danger. Because what remains, what still binds Americans together as a nation, is the commitment to a process, a constitutional system for making decisions and moving forward even when Americans do not agree about the destination. That system guarantees the freedoms Americans enjoy, the foundation of the nation’s prosperity and of its security.

Mr. Trump’s record of contempt for the Constitution — and his willingness to corrupt people, systems and processes to his advantage — puts all of it at risk.

Upholding the Constitution means accepting the results of elections. Unsuccessful presidential candidates have shouldered the burden of conceding because the integrity of the process is ultimately more important than the identity of the president. “The people have spoken, and we respect the majesty of the democratic system,” George H.W. Bush, the last president before Mr. Trump to lose a bid for re-election, said on the night of his defeat in 1992. When Mr. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, he sought to retain power by fomenting a violent insurrection against the government of the United States.

It also means accepting that the power of the victors is limited. When the Supreme Court delivered a sharp setback to President George W. Bush in 2008, ruling that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay had the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Bush administration accepted the ruling. Senator John McCain, then the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, said he disagreed with the court, “but it is a decision the Supreme Court has made, and now we need to move forward.”

By contrast, as president, Mr. Trump repeatedly attacked the integrity of other government officials — including members of Congress, Federal Reserve governors, public health authorities and federal judges — and disregarded their authority. When the court ruled that the Trump administration could not add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, for example, Mr. Trump announced that he intended to ignore the court’s ruling. After leaving the White House, Mr. Trump refused repeated demands, including a grand jury subpoena, to return classified materials to the government. As the government investigated, he called on Congress to defund the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice “until they come to their senses.”

Voters inclined to support Mr. Trump as an instrument of certain policy goals might learn from his presidency that changes achieved by lawless machinations can prove ephemeral. Federal courts overturned his effort to deny federal funding to sanctuary cities. Campaign promises to roll back environmental regulations also came to naught: Courts repeatedly chastised the Trump administration for failing to follow regulatory procedures or to provide adequate justifications for its decisions. His ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, announced on Twitter in 2017, was challenged in court and reversed on the sixth day of the Biden administration.

In 2016, Mr. Trump appealed to many caucus and primary voters as an alternative to the Republican establishment. He campaigned on a platform that challenged the party’s orthodoxies, including promises to provide support for domestic manufacturing and pursue a foreign policy much more narrowly defined by self-interest.

Voters who favor Mr. Trump’s prescriptions now have other options. The Republican Party of 2024 has been reshaped by the former president’s populism. While there are some meaningful differences among the other Republican candidates — on foreign policy, in particular — for the most part, Mr. Trump’s “America First” agenda has become the new orthodoxy.

Mr. Trump is now distinguished from the rest of the Republican candidates primarily by his contempt for the rule of law. The sooner he is rejected, the sooner the Republican Party can return to the difficult but necessary task of working within the system to achieve its goals.

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

North Carolina Senate Republicans filed legislation Monday to strip Gov. Roy Cooper of power to appoint State Board of Elections members, intensifying a years-long struggle over state government powers between the GOP-led General Assembly and the Democratic Governor.

The unveiling of the bill came almost two hours after a panel Cooper created recommended changes designed to ease the current GOP dominance of University of North Carolina governing boards.

The dueling proposals escalate the clash between Cooper and the General Assembly to reshape the balance of power within government in the final weeks of the year’s main legislative session. Still, Republicans maintain the upper hand after regaining veto-proof control of the legislature in April.

The current state board has five members appointed by the Governor — three Democrats and two Republicans from candidate lists made by state party leaders.

Under the GOP bill filed Monday, legislative leaders would appoint all eight members. The Senate leader, House speaker and House and Senate minority leaders would pick two apiece but wouldn’t be obligated to choose from the party’s nominations — raising the possibility that unaffiliated voters could serve.

The board administers elections in the ninth-largest state, a presidential battleground where over 7 million voters are registered and statewide elections are usually close.

Republicans say having an even number of members will support consensus building on the board. They’ve complained often about the Democratic-controlled board entering a legal settlement in 2020 over absentee ballot rules that the GOP says ignored state laws.

“The voters of North Carolina should have faith that members of the Board of Elections can work together to conduct free and fair elections without any perception of bias,” Sen. Warren Daniel of Burke County, a bill sponsor, said at a Legislative Building news conference.

The bill is scheduled for committee debate Wednesday. Senate leader Phil Berger told reporters that House GOP counterparts support the state board appointment changes. The bill also would direct legislative leaders from both parties to pick four-member election boards for all 100 counties. Berger’s office said expected amendments would make the state board changes happen immediately and the county board changes effective in 2024.

In a news release, Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue, a Wake County Democrat, called the bill a “power grab, plain and simple” that “would create more gridlock and uncertainty in our elections system.”

Cooper sued over previous state election board laws approved since late 2016, and courts ruled in his favor, saying the board’s compositions by the GOP prevented him from having control over carrying out elections laws. Registered Republicans now hold a 5-2 seat majority on the state Supreme Court.

Separate legislation being negotiated by House and Senate Republicans this year also would take more appointment powers away from governors on several key state boards, including state and local community college boards. GOP leaders have said more accountability and diversity of thought are needed on important boards that Cooper’s appointees control.

Speaking to unveil recommendations of a blue-ribbon commission led by former UNC system presidents Tom Ross and Margaret Spellings, Cooper said he hoped Republicans would now also consider seriously its suggestions to diversify the UNC Board of Governors and trustee boards at 16 campuses.

“Here the legislature controls pretty much everything in higher education. So diversifying appointment authority here is a good idea,” Cooper said at an Executive Mansion news conference. “I don’t know why it wouldn’t be here if it is there.”

For 50 years, the legislature has chosen the voting members of the system Board of Governors ― with half of the current 24 elected by the House and the other half by the Senate. In the 2010s, Republicans filled the board with like-minded members and ultimately pushed out Ross and later Spellings from the presidency. The legislature also stripped from the Governor appointments to campus trustee boards.

Cooper and others argue that the boards need to better reflect the state’s population as it relates to race, gender and political views.

The commission recommended the General Assembly keep electing UNC Board of Governors members, but that lawmakers return to electing 32 members as they did for decades. The minority party in the two chambers would get to select combined eight of those members. Sixteen members would be picked from specific regions of the state. The panel also recommended that the governor get to pick four of the 15 seats on UNC campus trustee boards, but that wouldn’t take effect until January 2025, after Cooper leaves office.