#Robert B. Hubbell Newletter

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Gary Taxali

* * * *

Harris-Walz demonstrate discipline and drive while Trump-Vance create new controversies

August 31, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Most of the stories on Friday were continuations of themes from the week. That’s good news because the Harris-Walz campaign continues to show discipline and drive while Trump and Vance create new controversies on a daily basis. Here are a few stories to discuss on Saturday:

Per AP, “Vice President Kamala Harris ’ campaign is announcing that it is launching a 50-plus stop “Reproductive Freedom Bus Tour,” as it looks to motivate voters ahead of November. The first stop will be next Tuesday with an event near former President Donald Trump’s Florida home in Palm Beach.”

The Harris-Walz campaign’s focus on reproductive liberty coincided with Trump's flip-flop on reproductive rights for women. Trump began the week by saying that his administration would be great for women’s reproductive rights. He said on Thursday that he would vote for a ballot initiative in Florida to end the six-week abortion ban currently in effect in Florida. After a backlash from evangelical groups, Trump announced on Friday that he would vote against the ballot amendment, thereby supporting the six-week ban. See WaPo, Trump backs keeping Florida’s six-week abortion ban. (Accessible to all.)

See also Trump’s latest waffling on reproductive health shows he’s still struggling to find an answer for what he created | CNN Politics.

The Harris-Walz campaign issued a statement that said, in part,

Donald Trump just made his position on abortion very clear: He will vote to uphold an abortion ban so extreme it applies before many women even know they are pregnant. Trump proudly brags about the role that he played in overturning Roe v. Wade and said there should be punishment for women who have an abortion. So, of course he thinks it's a 'beautiful thing' that women in Florida and across the country are being turned away from emergency rooms, face life-threatening situations, and are forced to travel hundreds of miles for the care they need.

Trump continues to struggle to explain his disgraceful actions at Arlington National Cemetery. At campaign stops on Friday, he twice told his audience that his campaign staff have urged him not to talk about it—but he could not stop himself. His explanations did not make things better. See NYTimes, A Defensive Trump Tries to Limit the Fallout of the Arlington Clash. (Accessible to all.)

Per NYTimes,

Mr. Trump insisted he had not taken the photos for the publicity. But earlier in the week, his campaign posted photos and footage from the visit on social media. A spokesman for the campaign also insisted that it had received permission to have a photographer at the gravesite, a notion the cemetery rejected in statements.

Despite the ongoing coverage of the dispute, the press is not digging for answers. There were a dozen witnesses to the scuffle, but no one has identified the campaign staff member who shoved the cemetery official. That is a knowable fact—and one certainly capable of ascertainment by the media. But the press seems to be giving Trump wide latitude on this story. Why??

There have been many fine essays written about the disgraceful campaign appearance by Trump at Arlington, but none finer than Lucian K. Truscott IV’s post on Substack, Trump manages to disrespect both veterans and women as Arlington visit blows up his campaign. Reading Truscott’s article is a worthy investment of your time over the Labor Day Weekend.

JD Vance tried to quell the outrage over Trump's post that suggested that Kamala Harris had succeeded as a politician by performing sexual acts to advance her career. During a morning interview on Friday, JD Vance dismissed the misogynistic attack on Kamala Harris as good-natured teasing. JD Vance said,

Donald Trump is a political candidate who isn’t stodgy, who likes to have some fun and likes to tell some jokes. I would much rather have a candidate who is willing to go off script, who is willing to give every interview, and who is willing to tell some jokes. I do think that’s how you lift people up. . . .

Let’s cut through the gaslighting. Suppose JD Vance’s wife came home from her job as a lawyer in a top law firm and said a male colleague had made a “joke” about her similar to Trump's “joke” about Kamala Harris. Are we expected to believe that JD Vance would say, “Usha! It was a joke! He was just trying to “lift you up”! Don’t be so stodgy!” Of course not! Vance would likely demand that the offending lawyer be fired and urge his wife to sue the law firm for maintaining a hostile workplace.

JD Vance and Trump are fooling no one. They are making things worse. Much.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Up on i76 in Pennsylvania. This is a traditional static/vinyl billboard (not digital) and will stay up through November. Chip in. https://maddogpac.com/products/quick-donate-1

* * * *

Are we really not going to talk about this?

August 29, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Apologies to all for the subject of this newsletter. It relates to Trump's posting a sexually crude attack on Kamala Harris. If you would rather not hear or read about it, please stop here and skip ahead to the article entitled “Trump-Vance campaign doubles down on cemetery desecration.”

On Wednesday, Donald Trump used his vanity social media platform to distribute a photo of Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton, which contained the caption: “Funny how blowjobs impacted both their careers differently . . . .”

The link is here if you don’t believe that Trump posted this disgusting sexist attack on Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton. I urge you NOT to click on this link. But if you must see for yourself, it is here: Truth Details | Truth Social

The post was part of a string of lunatic posts on Wednesday in which Trump promoted QAnon memes, suggested that Barack Obama should be tried before a military tribunal as a traitor, showed a half-dozen Democratic leaders in orange prison jumpsuits, and featured AI images of Trump riding a lion.

None of the above managed to pierce through the media’s criticism that Kamala Harris’s first interview after the convention will be with her running mate, which the media suggests is a sign of Kamala Harris’s weakness. Such joint interviews are traditional—including Trump/Vance, Trump/Pence, Obama/Biden, Biden/Harris, Romney Ryan, and Clinton/Kaine.

But when Kamala Harris follows that tradition, the media loses its collective mind—while ignoring Trump's use of a misogynistic trope asserting that the only way a female politician can get ahead is by performing sexual acts.

Where is the outrage? Where are the demands to apologize? Where are the editorials in stentorian tones proclaiming that Trump is unfit for the presidency?

We are witnessing the near universal moral collapse of the media. They have created the monster that is Donald Trump. They are allowing him to “slut shame” the first Black South Asian female presidential candidate with impunity. Until the press finds its backbone and moral compass, Trump will continue to slander women, minorities, veterans, LGBTQ people without consequence. That is the lesson Trump takes from our collective silence.

The first question in every press conference with Donald Trump henceforth must be “Will you apologize for and renounce your statement that Kamala Harris used sexual acts to succeed as a female politician?” If Trump refuses to answer that question, the media should walk out of the press conference. Cut off his oxygen—media exposure.

As a husband, father of three daughters, and grandfather of three granddaughters, I urge all women and the men who love them to stand against this outrage. We must not be silent or accept grotesque misogyny as the norm. We harm all women everywhere if we do so. We cannot be silent.

 [Update: Late Wednesday evening, the NYTimes ran a front-page, above the fold story on this topic: Trump Reposts Crude Sexual Remark About Harris on Truth Social. This article is accessible to all. It was written by Michael Gold. I have emailed Michael at michael.gold@nytimes.com thanking him for writing a factual article on this topic.]

Trump-Vance campaign doubles down on cemetery desecration and insulting women without children

A campaign led by normal people would apologize for the Trump's campaign altercation with a military worker at Arlington National Cemetery. Not the Trump-Vance campaign. Instead of apologizing for violating federal rules against using the national cemetery for political purposes, the Trump-Vance campaign released a Tik-Tok video of Trump's visit, claiming that the family of one of the deceased soldiers gave permission to photograph them at the cemetery.

The problem is that family members do not have the authority to waive federal regulations prohibiting photography. Why? Because as the Trump “thumbs-up” photo shows, it is impossible to take a photo that does not capture other grave markers or mourners (as Trump's photo did). Worse still, the family could not give permission to Trump to use Arlington as a site for political campaigning—which he did by converting the photo and video into a campaign ad. See CNN Politics, Arlington National Cemetery: Fresh controversy brews over Trump’s visit.

The increasingly creepy and angry JD Vance responded to the controversy by claiming that the media had exaggerated the significance of “the altercation”—his word, not mine. Worse, he criticized Kamala Harris for not investigating the Abbey Gate bombing on the last day of US troop withdrawal by saying that Kamala Harris could “go to hell.” See CNN Politics, JD Vance defends Trump after cemetery incident, says Harris ‘can go to hell’.

Ah, yes! JD Vance’s precious family values are on full display as he defends the indefensible by swearing at a person who dares to criticize Donald Trump. Of course, Vance is wrong in asserting that there was no investigation of the Abbey Gate bombing. There were multiple investigations by the Department of Defense. Kabul Airport Attack Review Reaffirms Initial Findings.

Perhaps JD Vance intended to be provocative and outlandish in his defense of Trump's desecration of Arlington because yet another “childless cat lady” video of JD Vance has surfaced. This time, Vance asserts that any woman without children is unfit to teach in school because they will “brainwash” the minds of their students. See The Guardian, JD Vance attacks childless teachers in newly resurfaced remarks.

A video of JD Vance’s remarks is here: An Evening with the Ohio Candidates for US Senate.

Vance said,

So many of the leaders of the left, and I hate to be so personal about this, but they’re people without kids trying to brainwash the minds of our children, that really disorients me and disturbs me. Randi Weingarten, who’s the head of the most powerful teachers’ union in the country, she doesn’t have a single child. If she wants to brainwash and destroy the minds of children, she should have some of her own and leave ours the hell alone.

As usual, Vance is wrong on the facts, politics, and morals. Randi Weingarten is a stepmother to her wife’s child. Factual errors aside, JD Vance believes that anyone without children is out to “brainwash” his kids. In most of America, people without children are known as teachers, coaches, principals, clergy, mayors, business leaders, politicians, and just plain “people.” JD Vance has a creepy worldview in which parents have a privileged status that entitles them to a greater voice in governance than people without children.

Meanwhile, Team Normal continues to act like normal people campaigning for the presidency and vice-presidency

After the disgusting and creepy display by the Trump-Vance campaign, the appearances by Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in Georgia felt like a breath of normalcy and decency. They started their bus tour through Georgia with a high-profile rally of 10,000 in Atlanta. See Slate, I Was at the Kamala Harris Rally in Atlanta. What You’re Seeing Is Very Real.

Kamala and Tim visited a school in Hinesville, Georgia, where they dropped in on a band practice. The video is here: Harris and Walz speak to students. The tour is part of an effort to decrease GOP margins in red counties of Georgia—essential to winning the race on a statewide level in November 2024.

Harris and Walz will conduct a similar tour in Michigan and Wisconsin over the Labor Day weekend. Trump, Harris heat up campaign trail in mad dash toward Election Day (usatoday.com). And President Joe Biden will appear with Kamala Harris this week!

As I said yesterday, they are acting like candidates who really want to win in November by taking their campaign directly to the people.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

“We have to be a nation that trusts women.”

March 15, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

The most significant political development on Thursday was the appearance by Vice President Kamala Harris at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota. Her appearance at a women’s healthcare clinic was the first by a U.S. vice president (or president) at a facility that provides abortion services. See CNN, Kamala Harris becomes first VP to visit abortion provider with Planned Parenthood visit.

The visit was part of Kamala Harris’s “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour. She is taking the lead on an issue where she can be (and has been) a more effective and outspoken advocate than President Biden. Her leadership on the issue of reproductive liberty is a good development for Harris, Biden, and the American people.

V.P. Harris said, in part,

I’m here at this health care clinic to uplift the work that is happening in Minnesota as an example of what true leadership looks like. . . . The reason I’m here is because this is a health care crisis. Part of this health care crisis is the clinics like this that have had to shut down and what that has meant to leave no options with any reasonable geographic area for so many women who need this essential care.

Harris framed the issue as one that pitted politicians against women’s control over their bodies:

How dare these elected leaders believe they are in a better position to tell women what they need. To tell women what’s in their best interest. We have to be a nation that trusts women.

Harris’s visit was historic. But it also showcased Kamala Harris’s campaign skills, including her ability to connect with women and young people on the campaign trail. For readers who remember Kamala Harris only from the debate stage in 2020, I urge you to watch a few minutes of her appearance in Minnesota.

No soaring rhetoric. No shouting. No anger. No pep rallies. Instead—like Joe Biden—she is a relatable candidate speaking to the American people about their needs, wants, and fears.

I was impressed and by Kamala Harris’s appearance in Minnasota, and I hope you will be, too.

But there is more. In a similar speech last week in Arizona, Kamala Harris touched on a matter of extreme urgency for all women and men: The plan by religious fundamentalist extremists to make contraception illegal.

In Arizona, Harris said,

And right now, other extremists, as you have heard and know, are in court trying to bring back a law from 1864 that would completely ban abortion in Arizona — 1864.  Understand: 1864, before women had the right to vote, before women could own property, before Arizona was even admitted as a state.

So, the 2024 ballot will not only include access to abortion service, but access to contraception. See The Independent, Republicans are taking aim on contraception — and they’d rather you didn’t know.

In short, Kamala Harris is fast becoming the leading voice for reproductive liberty on the Biden-Harris team.

Readers sometimes send emails suggesting that Joe Biden replace Kamala Harris by appointing her to the Supreme Court or to serve as Attorney General in Biden’s next administration. When I question readers about their desire for a different vice presidential candidate, some say Harris is not “likable.” That (mis-)impression is an unfair hangover from her appearances on a debate stage with sixteen other Democratic candidates in 2020. Watch the video above if you still labor under that misapprehension.

Other readers say (wrongly) that Harris is not “ready” to be president if called upon to replace Biden. As I tell readers who raise that concern, she has more experience than did the following presidents when they began their first term: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John F. Kennedy, Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. She has comparable experience to George H.W. Bush when he was elected president.

Biden and Harris are a formidable team. That fact will become increasingly apparent when Trump picks a V.P. candidate from a rogue’s gallery of sycophants willing to debase themselves by serving as running mate to an insurrectionist, coup-plotting, extortionist, document-stealing sexual abuser.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Christoper Weyant :: @ChristophWeyant

* * * *

The weekend news cycle

Democrats are on tenterhooks waiting for Kamala Harris’s vice presidential running mate selection. She spent much of the weekend meeting with three (?) final candidates. In the meantime, her campaign is advertising heavily on NBC’s Olympics broadcast. For the first time, I received an unsolicited call from a legitimate Democratic organization inviting me to engage in GOTV efforts. I engaged the volunteer in conversation and was pleased to hear that he received positive feedback from call recipients nationwide.

Sadly, a leading development is the continuing moral collapse of the New York Times, which seems incapable of breaking itself of the habit of slanting its coverage in favor of Trump. When the obituary of the Times is written, its utter failure to rise to this moment will be cited as a proximate cause.

On Friday, Trump posted on his social media that he would debate Kamala Harris on September 4, televised by Fox, with Fox anchors, to be held in an arena. (Fox was surprised to learn it would host the alleged debate.)

In other words, Trump offered to debate Kamala Harris at a Trump campaign rally. That would not be a debate; it would be a spectacle worthy of the Coliseum under Emperor Nero, complete with lions and gladiators. It was not a serious offer; it was a sham and a joke. It was clickbait for unserious journalists.

The Times took the bait. It ignored the fact that Trump had withdrawn from the previously agreed upon debate and blared that “Trump Agrees to Fox News Debate on September 4.”

After reputable journalists pilloried the Times’ for its misleading headline, the Times was shamed into correcting the headline to read, Trump Cancels a Debate With Harris on ABC News and Pitches One With Fox News Instead.

But even after correcting its headline, the Times couldn’t get the details right. The Times wrote that Trump proposed the debate be held before “a live audience.” Wrong! Trump demanded that the debate be a “full arena audience.” The difference is material and the Times’ reporters failed to report a material term of Trump’s sham offer.

Here's the point. The Times’ biased reporting in favor of Trump is the steady state. That means that we must not only defeat Trump but defeat him decisively at every turn. No half measures, no narrow margins, no letting up—on Trump or on the media. The Times responded when its readers revolted—in comments to the article and on social media. We need to keep it up.

Over the weekend, Trump's surrogates defended his racist statements questioning the racial identity of Kamala Harris. See ABC News, Byron Donalds: Trump's comments on Harris' race 'a side issue'. Trump's surrogates will continue to push his racist agenda until the voters punish those surrogates.

For example, Dennis Aftergut notes that GOP Rep. Mike Garcia (CA-27) has recently used racist tropes to attack Kamala Harris, saying, “She’s not very intelligent, she’s not very well-spoken.” See Dennis Aftergut, Salon, Dog whistling past Dixie: Republicans are in over their heads playing the Kamala Harris race card.

Aftergut writes,

Whether Garcia’s trolling results from implicit or explicit bias or racialized cognitive dissonance, the net effect is that he’s gone full MAGA. He accused her, in effect, of what’s known in other circles as being “inarticulate while Black.” Garcia resides in Southern California, representing a “Biden district” – one that the president carried while Garcia beat his Democratic opponent.  Unlike those actors, however, Garcia is living in the past. This November, his district’s voters can send his House membership right back there with him.

Good point, Mr. Aftergut! George Whitesides is challenging Mike Garcia for the honor of representing CA 27. Show George Whitesides some support and teach Mike Garcia that racism has no place in politics—particularly in CA-27. See George Whitesides for Congress.

Finally, Trump held a rally in Georgia over the weekend that was his usual toxic mix of lies, hate, and incomprehensible gibberish. During the rally,

Trump congratulated Vladimir Putin on the prisoner exchange;

Attacked Georgia’s Republican Governor (Brian Kemp) for not helping win (read: cheat) in 2020;

Attacked Brian Kemp’s wife;

Said Atlanta was a crime-ravaged city “like a killing field”;

Called Kamala Harris “a low IQ individual”;

Said Kamala Harris wants to get rid of cows;

Said that an electric vehicle charger is a “gas pump that has electricity come through it”;

Claimed that he won Georgia in 2020 (he lost);

Dissed Bruce Springsteen (“I only like people who like me”);

Had numerous glitches where he couldn’t read the teleprompter and simply gave up.

So, whatever Trump is doing, he is not appealing to swing voters in Georgia. He is constitutionally incapable of doing so. Which is why Kamala Harris’s campaign should give all of us hope and confidence for the next 90 days.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Nick Anderson, RA News

* * * *

Take a deep breath!

December 21, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

DEC 21, 2023

Opening comment.

After Colorado ruled that Trump could not appear on the state’s presidential ballot, a curious thing happened. People who wished for years that Trump would be held accountable for his crimes suddenly expressed second thoughts, deep reservations, and fear for the future of democracy if the plain words of the Constitution were applied to Donald Trump. Otherwise sober scholars predicted “another Civil War” if the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado decision.

Let’s all take a deep breath. Yes, we are in uncharted territory, but we have the Constitution, legal precedent, and the rule of law to guide us. We live in the world’s largest democracy, which is fueled by the world’s largest economy—twin pillars that create enormous momentum and heft in favor of institutional stability.

We must overcome our irrational fears by grounding our analysis on the terra firma of the Constitution and the history of a nation that has—for more than two centuries—survived civil war, insurrection, depression, financial panic, plague, bigotry, demagoguery, and political corruption. We will make it through this crisis, too—assuming (but not conceding), that applying the Constitution to Trump qualifies as a crisis.  

Below, I review the reservations expressed by many commentators and readers of this newsletter. I also examine some of the legal arguments that may decide the issue of Trump's disqualification from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The most important point. It is imperative to say the most important thing first: Whatever else happens—and regardless of the result—we must apply the Constitution and the rule of law to Donald Trump in the same way it would be applied to any other citizen. If we fail to do that, we will inflict grievous injury on the Constitution and invite further assaults until “all the laws have been cut down.” If that were to happen, “Do we really think we could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”  (Paraphrasing Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt.)

Every hesitation, reservation, and exhortation to “make an exception” because of potential violence or political chaos is an invitation to abandon the Constitution. We do so at our grave peril and possibly for the first, last, and only time—because if we set our great charter aside once, there is no logical stopping point for setting it aside again when it serves the pleasure of a president who views the Constitution as an obstacle rather than a safeguard.

Addressing the arguments for ignoring Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

What happened. On Wednesday, voices were raised from many quarters arguing that applying Section 3’s disqualification bar to Donald Trump is a bad idea that should be rejected on practical and political grounds. For example,

RFK Jr. claimed that barring Trump from the ballot would make the nation “ungovernable.”

Lawrence Lessig asserted that barring Trump would result in “a second Civil War.”

The Texas Secretary of State threatened to bar Joe Biden from the Texas ballot if Trump is barred from Colorado’s ballot.

Chris Christie said that “the people should decide” who will be president.

Why it matters. Each of the above arguments, in its own way, suggests that an “exception” should be made to the Constitution because Donald Trump has threatened violence if he does not get what he wants. Those arguments are born of fear and have no place in considering the application of Section 3. If the threat of violence is all it takes to suspend the Constitution, we are lost.

The threat by the Texas Secretary of State falls into its own unique category of MAGA bad faith. It asserts, “If you apply the Constitution as written, we will violate the Constitution by unlawfully barring Joe Biden from the ballot in Texas.” We have heard that argument before in various manifestations—“Democrats shouldn’t take X [lawful action] because Republicans will retaliate.” (See, e.g., impeachment.) If threats of unlawful retaliation are all that it takes to suspend the Constitution, we are lost.

The constitutional bar must be applied to Trump precisely because he resorted to violence in 2020 to overturn the Constitution—and threatens to do so in 2024. Arguing that political or practical realities—including violence—justify suspending the Constitution by giving Trump a “free pass” for insurrection is wrong.

Would it be better to defeat Trump at the ballot box? Define “better.” Who among us believes that Trump's base will accept the legitimacy of a defeat at the ballot box in 2024 any more than they accept the legitimacy of his loss in the 2020 election? Arguing that we should “let the people decide” because Trump's base won’t accept the legitimacy of a Supreme Court decision barring him from the ballot also amounts to an abandonment of the Constitution. The Constitution deserves better from us.

And let’s be clear: No one is making the argument that Democrats will refuse to accept the legitimacy of the 2024 election if Trump is not barred and defeats Joe Biden. When arguments consist of “The only legitimate election is one in which we win”—the premise of the “let the people decide” argument—we should not treat those arguments seriously. We should, instead, apply the Constitution as written.

A brief review of some of the legal issues raised by the Colorado decision.

What happened. We experienced a blizzard of legal commentary on Wednesday. There were many superb articles, but I will discuss three because they cover a range of reactions and provide some hints at how the Supreme Court will decide the case. Let’s take a look at three articles.

First article: “Calling the originalists’ bluff.”

The reactionary majority on the Supreme Court frequently resorts to “originalist” or “textualist” approaches to the applying the Constitution. Those approaches—although conceptually different—often result in a stilted, mechanistic application of the language of the Constitution as the words were understood when the Constitution and amendments were enacted. (“In theory, originalism is committed to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning as it was understood at the time of adoption.”)

Adam Sewer addresses the originalist philosophy of the reactionary majority through the lens of the Colorado ruling barring Trump from the Colorado ballot. See Adam Sewer, The Atlantic, The Colorado Ruling Calls the Originalists' Bluff  (Accessible to all).

Sewer argues that the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution bars Trump from holding federal office because

“The evidence that Trump engaged in the sort of conduct the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to address is overwhelming.” [¶]

“Originalists are not supposed to rule based on the impact of their decisions, a tendency they derisively refer to as “results-oriented judging.” Instead, they are merely supposed to ensure that the law is implemented to the letter, as it was intended to be.”

The text of Section 3 is plain, and a court found that Trump engaged in insurrection (after an evidentiary hearing). If the reactionary majority is true to their judicial philosophy, they will uphold the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court in short order.

Second article: The argument that Trump is not “an officer” of the United States.

Those who seek to block the application of Section 3 to Donald Trump argue that Trump is not an “officer” of the United States. By its terms, Section 3 applies to anyone who has taken an oath “as an officer of the United States.” The Constitution repeatedly refers to the President as holding “office” and taking “an oath of office.” That should be the end of inquiry because Section 3 is plain on its face; there is no ambiguity.

But Trump supporters argue that an earlier draft of Section 3 explicitly referred to “the President” and that the later omission signals a clear intent to exempt the president from Section 3’s disqualification provision. The problem with that argument is that it is not based on the text of the Constitution but on something omitted that appeared in an earlier draft.

Lawrence Lessig argues that the omission of the term “the President” from Section 3 as enacted is clear evidence of the Drafters’ intent that the term “officer” in Section 3 does not include the President of the United States. See Lawrence Lessig in Slate, The Supreme Court must strike down Trump’s ballot removal.

Lessig writes:

“The puzzle in Section 3 is that it seems as if the framers of that text were just sloppy in their enumeration. The clause bars insurgents from being “a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or [to] hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.” The obvious question is why they would enumerate “Senator or Representative” — not to mention “elector of President” — but not the president.” “Defenders of the Section 3 argument suggest this was a mere drafting error but that the clause applies to the president nonetheless, since the president occupies an “office … under the United States.” And in any case, these lawyers argue, it would be “absurd” to read the clause to apply to every elected official, including electors for president, but not the president.”

I believe Lessig is wrong—because he would ignore the plain text of the Constitution and instead rely on something not included in the Constitution to change the meaning of its unambiguous words. Moreover, if the Supreme Court were to examine the reason the Drafters excluded the term “the President,” the Court would find that the Drafters omitted the term “the President” because they believed it was encompassed in the term, “officer.”

Third article: Even the dissenters in the Colorado ruling agree that Trump engaged in insurrection and is an officer of the United States.

George Conway III wrote an article for The Atlantic entitled Don't Read the Colorado Ruling. Read the Dissents. Conway convincingly demonstrates that although the Colorado ruling was split 4-3, even the dissenters agreed with the majority’s key rulings that Trump engaged in insurrection and is an officer of the United States.

Conway writes,

“The dissents were gobsmacking—for their weakness. They did not want for legal craftsmanship, but they did lack any semblance of a convincing argument.” “For starters, none of the dissents challenged the district court’s factual finding that Trump had engaged in an insurrection. None of the dissents seriously questioned that, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump is barred from office if he did so. Nor could they. The constitutional language is plain.” [¶] “And the dissenters didn’t even bother with the district court’s bizarre position that even though Trump is an insurrectionist, Section 3 doesn’t apply to him because the person holding what the Constitution itself calls the “Office of the President” is, somehow, not an “officer of the United States.”

As Conway notes, the dissents relied on a provision of state law they claim stripped the Colorado court of authority to decide the question of Trump's eligibility. The three dissenters lost on that point and—this is important—the US Supreme Court will not review a state court’s interpretation of state law. So, the dissents offer no hope for Trump on appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Two more points worth considering.

First point: The distinction between “appearing on the ballot” and “disqualification from holding federal office.”

Section 3 imposes disqualification from holding federal office. It says nothing about appearing on a state ballot for president—a decision firmly committed to state legislatures and courts.

The ruling in Colorado was that Trump cannot appear on the state ballot. A different state might conclude that Trump can appear on its ballot. Thus, there could be a patchwork of state rulings about appearing on a presidential ballot in elections run by states. That might seem like it invites chaos, but it does not.

If the US Supreme Court affirms the ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection and is an officer of the United States, he is barred from holding federal office—without regard to his appearance on state ballots, any “victories” he may win in those states, or any “electoral votes” he may secure.

The disqualification from federal office is absolute; it supersedes other provisions of the Constitution, and it can be enforced by an injunction prohibiting Trump from being sworn in as president.

Could that situation result in a constitutional stand-off? Sure! But if the Supreme Court rules that Trump is disqualified, it will also issue ancillary relief to prevent him from assuming office. At that point, the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the military will follow the ruling of the US Supreme Court.

Second point: Democrats are not responsible for the complicated judicial and political questions that have emerged from Trump's decision to run for president after attempting a coup.

Josh Marshall wrote the following in Talking Points Memo:

“Whatever complaints Trump or anyone else might have about this, it’s the logical and inevitable result of trying to overthrow the United States government. Don’t want the hassle? Don’t try to overthrow the state. In other words, he brought it on himself. His problem, not ours.”

I would add to Marshall’s list that we are in this pickle because Republicans refused to convict Trump in the Senate on two occasions despite his manifest guilt. Republicans have been hanging back and badmouthing Trump behind his back while hoping Democrats will finally end Trump's political aspirations. Now that Democrats are on the cusp of doing so, any protestations by Republicans are theatrical—as in “theater of the absurd.”

Concluding Thoughts.

There is oh-so-much more to discuss, but I felt it was important to address the disqualification in detail so we have a foundation to process future developments.

How will this situation resolve itself? In a just world, the Supreme Court would affirm Colorado’s ruling and declare that Trump is disqualified from holding federal office. But there are multiple “offramps” that might allow the Court to uphold the gist of Colorado’s ruling (and the plain language of the Constitution) while still allowing Trump to remain eligible to hold federal office.

For example, the Court might rule that the trial proceeding in Colorado did not provide sufficient due process to Trump. I disagree, but several commentators have suggested that conclusion as a face-saving device for the Court to duck the hard question without inflicting (additional) major damage to its legitimacy.

Because the legal issue is out of our hands, the best advice (from readers in yesterday’s Comments section) is to stay the course, get out the vote, and plan to beat Trump at the ballot box by a landslide in 2024. The antidote to anxiety is action. Rarely has that advice been more apt. We can beat Trump. We have done so before; we can beat him again!

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A reflection on last week.  :::  April 10, 2023

Robert B. Hubbell

             Tonight, I offer a reflection on last week—and a suggestion about how we must respond. We went into last week expecting the news to be dominated by Trump's arraignment. It was—until the GOP-controlled legislature in Tennessee expelled two young Black Representatives for protesting briefly in the well of the assembly. We then received the report of Pro Publica outlining the manifest corruption of Justice Thomas by Texas millionaire and Hitler memorabilia collector Harlan Crow. And then Judge Kacsmaryk issued a thinly disguised religious fiat banning mifepristone for women across America.

         Each of the above events demonstrates the GOP’s efforts to achieve its goals by breaking the democracy that guarantees their liberties in the first instance. But we must now add to the sad litany a new item—Governor Greg Abbott’s pre-emptive announcement that he will pardon a Texas man convicted of murder after a jury trial. At trial, the defendant was able to present his argument that he acted in self-defense. The jury rejected that claim and voted unanimously to convict him of murder.

         Why does Abbott believe that he is justified in pardoning the murderer even before appeals have been heard? Abbott is, after all, substituting his judgment for that of the jurors who heard the evidence first-hand. Abbot believes the defendant is innocent of murder because he killed a “BLM” protester.

That’s right: Governor Abbott has established a new rule that laws do not apply equally to people protesting police killings and right-wing extremists who are upset by the protests. In a single act, Abbott has altered the law in Texas, demoted protestors demanding justice to second-class status, and told Texas jurors that their voices do not matter when MAGA extremists are on trial. In short, “self-defense” is a MAGA “get out of jail free” card under Greg Abbott’s reign in Texas.

         Together, these four instances illustrate a strategy the GOP learned from Trump: If the democratic system does not produce the result you want, then break democracy to obtain a different result. That is what the Tennessee legislators did to Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, that is what religious zealots did to all Americans, that is what monied interests did in bending the Supreme Court to do the bidding of the privileged and elite, and that is what Greg Abbott has done in summarily overturning a jury verdict that flies in the face of the facts.

         We have been confronting this asymmetry from the very moment Trump announced his bid in 2016, and it has worsened over time. As Democrats toil within the system to forge compromises over competing policies, Republicans break the system to get their way. They simply ignore it (McConnell on Merrick Garland’s nomination), they deny it (outcomes of elections), they falsify it (fake electors), they rig the judicial system to guarantee assignment of cases to a sympathetic federal judge (Kacsmaryk), and they attempt to stop its operation through violence (J6).

         There have been scattered calls for Democrats to employ similar tactics. Indeed, some are calling for the federal government to ignore Judge Kacsmaryk’s order if it is not stayed by the 5th Circuit or the Supreme Court. To state the obvious, to do so would amount to “breaking democracy” simply because we don’t like the result. We must not give in to the temptation to adopt the GOP’s anti-democratic tactics. We must fight our battle of resistance from within the walls and ramparts of democracy if we have any hope of saving it.

         The truth is that the rule of law continues to exist in America today because one of America’s major political parties remains committed to upholding that rule—despite the efforts of the other party to destroy it. If both parties feel emboldened to ignore the rule of law, our democracy will be gone. All that will be left is a contest of brute force in which dark money will substitute for violence.

         I do not believe we will reach that point. I have faith that Democrats will do the right thing despite legitimate feelings of anger, hurt, and despair. In each of the four situations described above, there is a democratic path forward to correct the result. It will not be easy, and we may not succeed entirely. But so long as we have a path forward, we should not set aside our great charter and the laws that give it life. It has endured for more than two centuries during equally trying times; we can make it through the present challenges, as well.

+

[from comments]

Overall, MAGA Republicans are revealing who and what they are. During the mid-terms, Democrats pushed back against an anticipated red tsunami and vastly outperformed expectations. Perhaps the ongoing MAGA performances will convince even more voters to shut them down.

Jessica Craven's latest post in "Chop Wood, Carry Water," celebrates many recent victories. She also writes that the two Tennessee lawmakers who were expelled can run in the special elections for their seats, and if they win, they cannot be expelled again. As for the other ugly instances cited here, I can sympathize with the anguished plea, "what does it take?" that most of us uttered during the long years of the Trump regime. Read Jessica Craven's post from today to understand that there are reasons for optimism.

https://open.substack.com/pub/chopwoodcarrywaterdailyactions/p/extra-extra-april-9th

We are being forged by fire to get as tough as our opponents and as clever. We already outnumber them. We are inspired by the courage of Ukrainians in their fight for their democracy and their lives. We are inspired by the heroes of our own Civil Rights movement that is ongoing. We are inspired by the turnout of the Israeli populace and even its military members that caused the Netanyahu regime to blink. We are being called upon to dig deep, stay tough and committed and resist even though we are tired.

Tomorrow is another day. Let's get on with the work.

[Gary S.]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

More on Trump's statement on banning contraception

Earlier this week, Trump said he was considering restricting contraception and emphasized that states could make their own choice about the legality of contraception. Hours later, he tried to walk back his statement, saying that the GOP would never ban contraception.

As Trump was claiming that the GOP would never ban contraception, Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed a bill that would have guaranteed Virginians access to contraception. The bill vetoed by Youngkin said that “health care providers have a right to prescribe contraceptives and that people have a right to obtain them.” See Virginia Mercury, Youngkin vetoes bills on contraception access.

So, Governor Youngkin doesn’t believe that “people have a right to obtain contraception.”

Oh, and when the House GOP caucus introduced its proposed budget priorities for 2024, guess what it said about contraception? Yep! Their bill would “gut funding” for contraception for low income and uninsured women. See House Republicans Endorse a National Abortion Ban with Zero Exceptions in Latest Budget | The White House

Here’s the point: Don’t believe Republican double-talk about not banning contraception. You can’t believe a word they say. You can’t believe Donald Trump. You can’t believe Nikki Haley. You can’t believe Glenn Youngkin.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A cautionary tale about Florida.     

          Donald Trump joked over the weekend that rising sea levels would “create more beachfront property”—a debatable proposition that ignores the newly created sea bed that replaces formerly dry land. But the effects of climate change will not be limited to sea level rise. Indeed, Florida’s Lake Okeechobee becomes a toxic sewer for months each year as rising temperatures, increasing rainfall, and agricultural runoff combine to create a toxic slime in a lake that was once critical to the Everglade’s ability to recharge itself with clean water. See NYTimes, It’s Toxic Slime Time on Florida’s Lake Okeechobee. (This article is accessible to all.)

          The Times’ reporting is remarkable. Lake Okeechobee spews toxic fumes from rotting algae mats that bloom in warm water polluted with phosphorous from agriculture. Joggers must stay away from the lake’s shore to avoid inhaling the fumes. Forget about fishing and boating near the algae blooms. And if record high rains continue, the Army Corps of Engineers may have to release the toxic water into canals that feed into dozens of Florida cities downstream.

          So, Trump can joke about climate change creating new beachfront property, but the citizens of Florida are facing immediate threats from climate change that may make their fancy homes on canals worthless—and dangerous. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen. But if it does, it will be because Republican legislators refused to regulate the use of phosphorous in agriculture. That decision may have benefitted the economic interests of a handful of corporate farmers in Florida, but it is now threatening the life, health, and property of Floridians who live near Lake Okeechobee.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Jack Ohman, Sacramento Bee

* * * * *

And so it begins . . . CNN treats Trump like an ordinary presidential candidate.

         CNN will sponsor a “town hall” in New Hampshire next week at which Republican voters will have the opportunity to ask questions of Donald Trump. See HuffPost, CNN rolls out the red carpet for Trump. Per HuffPo,

The event, scheduled for May 10 at St. Anselm’s College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, will be televised at 9 p.m. Eastern. Kaitlan Collins will moderate. Trump will take questions from Republicans and undeclared voters who are planning to participate in the 2024 GOP primary.

         CNN will thus provide a ‘Trump-friendly’ audience and a moderator who began her career at The Daily Caller—a media website founded and owned by Tucker Carlson (until 2020).

         Media companies should, of course, cover the news relating to Trump's candidacy for the 2024 nomination. And it is within the accepted traditions of networks and cable companies to host town-hall-style interviews with presidential candidates. But Trump is not merely a presidential candidate. He is a former president who attempted a coup and incited an insurrection. He attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. He stands credibly accused of rape in an ongoing trial in federal court. He has admitted to removing and retaining classified documents relating to the national defense. He routinely issues misogynistic, racist, and anti-LGBTQ slurs for which he is given a pass by the media.

         No responsible media organization should act as a neutral observer of Trump's political career, much less as a public relations surrogate for Trump--as is CNN by hosting a friendly “town hall.” It is particularly inappropriate for CNN to do so as special counsel Jack Smith and District Attorney Fani Willis present evidence to sitting grand juries regarding Trump's interference in the 2020 election. And let’s not forget that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has indicted Trump for concealing hush-money payments designed to change the outcome of the 2020 election.

         Of course, it is possible that CNN’s Kaitlan Collins will ask Trump if he raped E. Jean Collins, if he stole defense secrets, if he attempted a coup, and if he tried to interfere in Georgia’s 2020 election. Possible but not likely. Trump would not have agreed to an appearance on a network he routinely attacked as “fake news” unless he received assurances that he would not be asked hard questions by Kaitlan Collins.

         CNN has decided to treat Trump as if he is like any other presidential candidate. That is a dangerous mistake—as explained by Dan Rather’s Substack publication, Steady, The Danger of "Horse Race" Politics. As Dan Rather and Eliot Kirschner explain, it is irresponsible of the media to reduce the 2024 presidential campaign to a “horserace” in which the only relevant factor is “Who is ahead in the polls?” Per Rather and Kirchner,

When you cover politics like a horse race, it becomes logical for Donald Trump to be the frontrunner for a third Republican presidential nomination.

A horse race confers an equivalence upon all candidates. The only detail that matters is who is going to win — not all that might be lost. To view America through that lens today is an exercise in the absurd, a practice stuck in the insular logic of the past.

         CNN has left the building. It is in the business of treating the 2024 presidential race as entertainment. CNN should no longer be counted among legitimate news organizations. Any journalist who remains at CNN is lending their good name to Trump. CNN is a weak competitor in the news ecosystem and is desperate for viewers—which is why it is hosting a PR event for Trump. Don’t add legitimacy (or viewership) to CNN as it attempts to convert itself into a Trump mouthpiece.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Steve Brodner

* * * *

Kevin McCarthy will step down at the end of December.

          Disgraced former Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced that he will resign from Congress at the end of 2023. McCarthy is a miserable, universally loathed person who deserted America during its hour of need. He voted against the impeachments (plural) of Trump; he objected to the count of the electoral ballots on January 6; he led the rehabilitation of Trump after January 6 by making the first pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago to visit the failed president.

          Kevin McCarthy was a well-known liar whose inability to speak the truth was too much for the likes of Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert. To the extent that he served as a mentor and left a legacy, he is responsible for bringing Marjorie Taylor Greene into the House GOP leadership. That legacy will haunt him forever.

          There is little else to say except that his absence will further complicate the ability of Speaker Mike Johnson to pass the “must-pass” legislation necessary to enact a budget. Or, as Marjorie Taylor Greene said about the GOP’s shrinking majority, “Hopefully, nobody dies.”

          McCarthy’s only accomplishments as Speaker came with majority support from Democrats and minority support from Republicans. In effect, Hakeem Jeffries was the “real” Speaker of the House during Kevin McCarthy’s tenure. That is how the history books should be written. A fitting epitaph for a man whose only goal was to obtain the Speakership to advance his personal glory, not because he had any plan or sense of duty to the American people. Good riddance.

Fake Electors held to account.

          There were two positive developments on Wednesday regarding accountability for “fake electors.” In Nevada, the state Attorney General announced the issuance of two felony charges each against six false Trump electors. The defendants include the Nevada GOP Chair, the state GOP vice chair, the Clark County Republican Party, and a GOP national committeeman. See Talking Points Memo, Six Fake Pro-Trump Electors Indicted In Nevada.

          In Wisconsin, a civil suit brought by two legitimate Biden electors against ten fake Trump electors was settled. The fake electors settled the suit by agreeing to withdraw their fake certifications, admitting that Joe Biden won the election, and admitting that they were not duly elected electors. See Talking Points Memo, Wisconsin Fake Electors Admit It Was All A Sham!

          Both actions will help discourage similar actions in the future. Importantly, the Wisconsin electors claim they were misled by Trump lawyer Ken Chesebro. The settlement agreement included text messages between the fake electors in which they refer to their effort as a “possible steal” of the election—by Trump!

The Senate rejects aid bill for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan.

          The Senate voted 49-51 on the supplemental funding bill for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. All Republicans voted against the bill; Chuck Schumer voted “No” when it became clear the bill would not reach the 60-vote threshold, a procedural move that will allow Schumer to call for another vote on the bill. See The Guardian, Senate Republicans block funding bill that included aid for Ukraine and Israel.

          Senate Republicans are holding out for stricter immigration reforms before providing support for the bill. House Republicans are conditioning their support for a similar bill for aid to Israel on drastic cuts to the IRS budget.

          If we didn’t know better, it’s almost like Republicans want Putin to win his war on the Ukrainian people. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget told Congress that the US will run out of money to fund Ukraine’s defense sometime in December.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Congressman for Lewiston area of Maine changes position on assault rifles.

          Rep. Jared Golden represents the Lewiston area of Maine—the site of the latest mass shooting that resulted in the deaths of eighteen people. “Last year, Golden was one of just a few Democrats in the House to oppose gun control measures, such as a ban on certain semi-automatic weapons and limits on high-capacity magazines. But Golden said that he now plans to work with colleagues to get a ban passed.” Democratic Rep. Jared Golden reverses course, now in favor of assault weapons ban after Maine mass shooting - CBS News

In a press conference of officials discussing the killing, Golden made the following remarkable statement:

"The time has now come for me to take responsibility for this failure, which is why I now call on the United States Congress to ban assault rifles, like the one used by the sick perpetrator of this mass killing in my hometown of Lewiston," Golden said. "To the people of Lewiston, my constituents throughout the 2nd District, to the families who lost loved ones, and to those who have been harmed, I asked for forgiveness and support as I seek to put an end to these terrible shootings. In the days to come, I will give everything I have to support this community's recovery.”

          Rep. Golden’s change of heart and strong public statement deserve praise. If we want more politicians to follow Golden’s lead, we need to welcome them with open arms if they follow his example.

          Still, Rep. Golden’s change of heart would have been so much better if it did not take the deaths of his constituents, his neighbors, and (possibly) his friends to convince him to change his mind. Were the deaths of schoolchildren at Sandy Hook not enough? Or the killings at the Tree of Life Synagogue? Were those deaths an abstraction because they were in different congressional districts? I hope as Rep. Golden becomes part of the community of citizens seeking to stop gun violence, he will urge others not to wait until violence touches their lives in a direct way before changing their position on weapons of war.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

“Alice in Wonderland” at the Supreme Court :: December 6, 2022

Robert B. Hubbell

         On Monday, the Supreme Court held a bizarre hearing on a case the Court should have refused to hear. The reactionary majority bent over backward to accept review of 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case that was hand-crafted by religious advocacy groups to expand the grounds for discriminating against LGBTQ people. Based on comments by the reactionary justices during oral argument, the majority will rule that business owners can discriminate against LGBTQ people if their business offers services that involve “speech” of any kind. 303 Creative v. Elenis is merely the latest step in the Court’s effort to advance the religious agenda of the Christian evangelical base that successfully appointed Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

         The oral arguments regarding 303 Creative devolved into offensive and unhinged hypothetical questions from Justice Alito because the case does not present an actual “case or controversy”—as required by the Constitution. In general, the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to real disputes in which the plaintiff can show actual injury. (That is a gross oversimplification of a complicated judicial doctrine, but stick with me for a moment!)

         The 303 Creative “controversy” was manufactured by a religious advocacy organization (ADF). The plaintiff is a web design company that might—in the future—offer such services for weddings. But the plaintiff does not yet offer that service, may never do so, and (therefore) has not yet been asked to provide those services to a same-sex couple. Nonetheless, the plaintiff asks the Court for an advisory ruling about its obligations under a Colorado statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

         The metaphysical nature of the alleged “case or controversy” in 303 Creative is explained by Mark Joseph Stern’s article in Slate, The Easy-to-Miss Twist That Makes the Supreme Court’s New Gay Rights Case So Strange. Per Stern,

No same-sex couple has ever asked Smith to make them a wedding website; in fact, she has never made a wedding website for anyone. Her work to date focuses on local politicians, dog breeders, contractors, and houses of worship—not celebrations of life events.

Smith one day might be asked to make a same-sex couple’s website, ADF asserted. And when that day comes, she wants the right to say no.

There is no live controversy, and therefore no facts against which the justices could test their legal theories. It would be supremely helpful to know, for instance, how Smith would have responded to a request from a same-sex couple.

         Critically, the Colorado statute at issue would permit the plaintiff to refuse to make a custom website for same-sex couples, but if the business offers “off the shelf” website designs for sale to the public, Colorado requires those “templates” to be made available to everyone. But 303 Creative claims it can refuse to sell a standardized product to same-sex couples. As explained by Ian Millhiser in Vox,

The main thing that Colorado’s law requires, according to the state, is that once a web designer agrees to sell a particular web design to the public, it must provide the same service to people of all sexual orientations.

         The “Alice-in-Wonderland” quality of the alleged “dispute” presented to the Court resulted in wildly speculative hypotheticals as the justices attempted to grapple with a case that presented no actual dispute. Particularly offensive was Justice Alito, who asked questions about a “Black Santa Claus” being photographed “with a child who’s dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit.” After Alito posed his offensive hypothetical, he then said the following (apparently as a sarcastic “joke”):

You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits, right? All the time!

         The bizarre hearing should cause the justices to conclude they erred in granting review of the case and dismiss the appeal. (Hold onto your keyboards, my attorney friends! No one knows what “Certiorari was improvidently granted” means!) But the conservative majority will not do so; instead, it will chip away at the right of LGBTQ people to be treated like “people”—human beings who possess the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as all other Americans.

         The rightward lurch of the Court coincides with efforts of many state legislatures to legitimize discrimination against LGBTQ people by prohibiting discussion of gender identity and sexual orientation in educational settings. Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law has inspired a variety of similar bills in a dozen states. Such bills serve as a wedge for legitimizing future discrimination against other groups. They are also culture war “cluster bombs” designed to conceal the moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party.

         Florida’s attack on LGBTQ people is a lesson not lost on Vladimir Putin, who today imposed his own supercharged “Don’t Say Gay” law. See Cathy Young in The Bulwark, Russia to Gays: Shut Up and Disappear. (The law prohibits all public speech or actions deemed to encourage “distorted notions of the social equivalency of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations.”)

         Of course, Putin is using discrimination against LGBTQ people to distract attention from Russia’s catastrophic invasion of Ukraine. And although Putin’s law is more comprehensive than Florida’s, his modus operandi is identical to that of Ron DeSantis: Attack a vulnerable minority to intimidate others into submissive obedience. Such is the way of all dictators—and religious reactionaries across the ages.

         Sadly, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court has decided to aid and abet the efforts of religious reactionaries in America to impose their parochial views on the strong majority of Americans who do not share those views. Today in the Supreme Court, the target of that reactionary minority was the LGBTQ community. We must resist attacks on the rights and dignity of LGBTQ people with all our might—just as we must also defend the full personhood and citizenship of women, ethnic and racial minorities, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups subject to discrimination by MAGA extremists.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

It’s pretty crazy when you can post Trump’s real quotes and people still ask if it’s satire.

* * * *

Biden Wins New Hampshire Primary—Twice

January 24, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Joe Biden was not on the New Hampshire primary ballot, but he was the first-place finisher in the Democratic primary thanks to a write-in campaign by grassroots volunteers. Democrats owe those volunteers a big “Thank You” for propelling Biden to victory on the Democratic ticket—creating momentum for Biden heading into South Carolina. And those volunteers also avoided the sensationalized media narrative of Joe Biden “losing” a primary where he did not appear on the ballot.

Joe Biden also won in New Hampshire because of the strong anti-Trump vote. Although Trump won the GOP primary, it appears that former president lost 45% of the GOP vote—and beat Haley by only 12 percentage points. Moreover, Nikki Haley won 61% of the independent vote. If Biden can convert a small percentage of the anti-Trump vote—or merely replicate Haley’s performance with independent voters—Biden will defeat Trump in the New Hampshire general election—as he did in 2020.

Haley’s concession speech was significant because she refused to withdraw from the GOP primary—a good result for Joe Biden. The longer that Haley and Trump attack one another, the more the American people will be reminded that both Trump and Haley are miserable candidates who promote policies opposed by most Americans.

Nikki Haley’s concession speech was also important (although insufferable) because she called out Trump's legal and cognitive challenges. She said that Trump cannot beat Joe Biden—an idea that is starting to gain traction among voters and the media. She also referred to Trump's “senior moments” that are becoming increasingly obvious to the media.

Haley’s willingness to discuss Trump's frequent mental lapses coincides with stories in major media that have finally—finally—begun to discuss the issue of Trump's mental fitness. See Washington Post, Trump’s increasing flubs risk blunting big polling edge on mental sharpness; Newsweek, Trump Has Another Gaffe While Defending Cognitive State; Fox News, Nikki Haley suggests Trump may not be ‘mentally fit’ to be president after he seems to confuse her with Pelosi.

The new scrutiny on Trump's mental fitness was confirmed by Trump's “victory” speech in New Hampshire that was . . . odd? Bizarre? Addled? Unhinged? All the above? Trump began by claiming—falsely—that he won the New Hampshire general election in 2016 and 2020. (In fact, Trump lost New Hampshire in 2016 and 2020.)

Trump then suggested that NH Governor Sununu was “on something” because he was so energetic on the campaign trail. After about four minutes of rambling commentary that failed to thank the volunteers or attract voters in the upcoming South Carolina primary, Trump turned over his victory speech to Vivek Ramaswamy because . . . why? Because Trump was unable to deliver a coherent victory speech?

Trump then re-took the stage and threatened both Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis in classic mob-boss style:

And just a little note to Nikki, she’s not going to win. But if she did, she would be under investigation by those people in 15 minutes, and I could tell you five reasons why already. Not big reasons, little stuff she doesn’t want to talk about, that she will be under investigation within minutes, and so would Ron have been, but he decided to get out.

Chris Hayes of MSNBC described Trump's victory speech as “petulant incoherence. Hayes referred to nonsense statements by Trump on Monday where, in the middle of a campaign speech, Trump tried to criticize the Biden administration, saying.

Which is incapable of solvin’ even the sollest… smallest problem. The simplest of problems we can no longer solve. We are an institute in a powerful death penalty. We will put this on.

And in the same speech, Trump appeared to deliver teleprompter notes intended to give him cues on how to deliver his speech. Trump said,

Yes. Oh yes, and quickly says President Trump. We will be there very quickly.

So, on a night when Trump could have given a victory speech to create momentum heading into South Carolina, Trump effectively collapsed, unable to fill his national airtime with cogent, organized remarks. That does not bode well for Trump—and should give Democrats renewed confidence heading into November 2024.

While we cannot count on Republicans to defeat themselves, we should recognize the weaknesses and challenges they face—which are formidable, as the New Hampshire primary proves. As Simon Rosenberg frequently reminds us, all things considered, we would much rather be us than them.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Jack Ohman, Sacramento Bee :: [Scott Horton]

* * * * *

“So foul a sky . . .”August 28, 2022

Robert B. Hubbell

         On Sunday, the New York Times Editorial Board called for the Department of Justice to indict Trump if it “concludes that there is sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt on a serious charge in a court of law.” That is the same standard that any prosecutor would apply in deciding whether to prosecute any defendant. The Times’ editorial board recognizes that a former president is not just “any defendant,” but concludes that prosecution is nonetheless warranted if the DOJ determines that there is sufficient evidence to establish Trump’s guilt. The Times’ board writes:

“This board is aware that in deciding how Mr. Trump should be held accountable under the law it is necessary to consider not just whether criminal prosecution would be warranted but whether it would be wise. [¶]

No matter how careful Mr. Garland is or how measured the prosecution might be, there is a real and significant risk from those who believe that any criticism of Mr. Trump justifies an extreme response. [¶]

Yet it is a far greater risk to do nothing when action is called for. Aside from letting Mr. Trump escape punishment, doing nothing to hold him accountable for his actions in the months leading up to Jan. 6 could set an irresistible precedent for future presidents.” [¶]

         As I have written before, the only thing worse for the nation than prosecuting Trump is not prosecuting Trump. That is particularly true given that Trump is inciting passions ahead of a DOJ decision on indictment. Trump released a letter from his lawyers that relayed an offer to help Merrick Garland—an offer that was the equivalent of a mobster’s statement, “Nice shop you have here; it would be a shame if it burned down.” See Huffington Post, Trump Tries Mobster-In-Chief Role With Attacks On Law Enforcement. Trump’s lawyers sent the following statement to Garland three days after the Mar-a-Lago search:

The heat is building up. The pressure is building up. Whatever I can do to take the heat down, to bring the pressure down, just let us know.

         The details in the FBI affidavit that survived redaction raise grave and alarming potential breaches of national security by Trump. See Vox, Why the redacted affidavit for the search of Trump’s home is so concerning.

         To date, Trump’s rambling and inconsistent defenses have failed to address the fundamental question of why Trump removed some of the nation’s most sensitive defense secrets from the White House. Issues of executive privilege and declassification of documents are entirely irrelevant to theft and illegal retention of national defense secrets.

         Instead of offering a justification for his actions, Trump is attempting to conjure storm clouds of threatened violence to dissuade the DOJ from indicting the former president. The DOJ must stand firm. As Shakespeare wrote in King John (Act 4, Sc. 2):

         So foul a sky clears not without a storm.

         A consensus is emerging that the DOJ must indict Trump if the evidence warrants prosecution. The redacted FBI affidavit strongly suggests that such evidence exists. We may experience turbulent times if Trump is indicted, but prosecution of Trump may be necessary to clear the “foul sky” that will shroud America as long as a lawless president threatens our democracy.

Reader comments.

         I sent a very short newsletter on Friday as a means of opening the Comments section to readers over the weekend. Collectively, the reader comments were the most insightful and informative observations I have read on the Mar-a-Lago search and its ramifications. If you don’t normally peruse the comments section, I recommend the weekend comments for a keen insight into what concerned Americans are thinking about the search (and other pressing topics). The link to the comments is here: Comments - The new Joe Biden.

         I hesitate to single out comments given the many worthy entries, but I feel compelled to share two. (I have lightly edited both for context and brevity.)

         Reader Nathan K. observed that the Mar-a-Lago search has now put the American justice system to the test:

[Trump] may yet be indicted in one court or another, for one or another of a myriad of crimes. What is on trial now is the American justice system. Given the overwhelming amount of evidence publicly available and who knows how much more as yet unrevealed, if we don't see a resolute march to justice, the public will abandon any trust it has left in our system's will and capacity to prosecute the rich and powerful. How ironic, that a criminal destined for a special place in the annals of crime in this nation is actually putting the justice system on trial. So be it; it’s been a long time coming.

         Reader ChipsPOV responded to the above comment, noting that the search of Mar-a-Lago is putting all Americans to the test:

Nathan, you are right that the core of government, the Department of Justice is on trial. It is because of situations like this that the DOJ was created.

But I think what is on trial is our form of government. Are we or are we not a democratically formed Republic? Do the majority of Americans support and defend the Constitution or not? Do we choose to be united, or do we seek division?

Ultimately for a democratic form of government to succeed, the majority must first care and then coalesce around what is best for the common good.

         If an indictment is warranted, it will serve as a stress test for the DOJ and for us. It is better that we rise to this challenge and prevail than temporize while greater crises brew.  

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy delivered a “prebuttal” speech in which he demanded that Biden apologize for calling MAGA Republicans “semi-fascists”. Biden should issue such an apology—when MAGA Republicans do the following:

Stop treating the reproductive liberty of women as a felony.

Eliminate the “bounty” on pregnant women who do not carry a pregnancy to term.

Allow schools to teach students about the true history of the United States.

Stop banning books that do not align with white Christian theology.

Stop their culture war on LGBTQ people.

Stop efforts to suppress the votes of Black Americans.

Condemn white nationalism, neo-Nazism, and the conspiracy theories of QAnon.

Stop efforts to overturn free and fair elections.

End their campaign to undermine public trust in elections.

Concede when they lose elections rather than claiming fraud.

Recognize that Donald Trump is not above the law and that efforts to hold him accountable for his crimes are not “an assault on democracy.”

Denounce violence against poll workers, elected officials, judges, and government employees.

Condemn the assault on the Capitol and Congress on January 6th as an instance of domestic terrorism which should be punished to the full extent of the law.

         The above is a partial list, but you get the point. Until then, “semi-fascist” is a polite description of MAGA Republicans and Biden’s use of the term is appropriate.

         Biden’s speech on Thursday was a superb effort but is just the beginning. Biden must continue with his newfound energy and aggressiveness on the campaign trail through November. And he must continue to call the threat to democracy by its name: fascism.

         Strong words, I know. But as Trump’s promise to pardon the January 6th defendants illustrates, the threat is metastasizing. If we intend to stop it, we must drop all pretense and describe the threat in words Americans understand. Joe Biden’s speech on Thursday advanced that cause. Let’s hope he continues to lead the way.