washingtonmonthly--2020-08-10--How Mitch McConnell Is Making the Case For Ending the Filibuster

Over the weekend , Trump signed several memorandum ( which he referred to as “ bills ” and others are calling “ executive orders ” ) that are designed to signal that he actually cares about what is happening to Americans during this pandemic .
I ’ ll let others discuss why they are not only unconstitutional , but ineffective , because I want to focus on what they tell us about the modern-day GOP .
Apparently Senate Majority Leader McConnell is fine with the president ’ s move to completely neuter congress .
He issued a statement praising Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite of what he said when Obama signed DACA .
Knowing McConnell ’ s history under a Democratic president , this statement in response to Trump ’ s actions is a complete reversal .
The President ’ s team worked hard to bridge differences on many of the policies that would rapidly help American families…But Democrats have continued to block all of it while holding out for non-COVID-related liberal demands… Weeks ago , some predicted that Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer might actually prefer if the American people received no further bipartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have done nothing to suggest otherwise .
Just to be clear , a top priority for Democrats has been funding for state and local governments , whose budgets are being decimated by the pandemic .
McConnell refers to such aid as a “ non-COVID-related liberal demand.
” But beyond that , it is absolutely breath-taking to hear McConnell complain about the opposition party attempting to block legislation .
For eight years we watched him obstruct anything Democrats tried to do—even stimulus funds in the midst of the Great Recession .
The difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Schumer were at the table attempting to negotiate when Trump jumped the gun .
All McConnell did in the past was to say “ no , ” without providing any alternatives .
There is also the fact that McConnell has already made it clear that if Biden wins the election in November , he will proceed to obstruct anything Democrats try to do .
So as McConnell praises Trump ’ s use of executive orders while Democrats attempt to negotiate , he accuses them of blocking legislation , even as he promises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they win in November .
All of this reminds me of something Grover Norquist said back in 2003 .
While bragging about a “ permanent Republican majority , ” he was asked what the GOP would do if Democrats were elected .
His response was to say that “ We will make it so that a Democrat can not govern as a Democrat.
” McConnell actually took that one step further .
He seems intent on making it so that no one can actually govern .
Not only does he attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has been content to do nothing for the past four years as majority leader other than give rich people a tax break and stack the federal courts .
Knowing that his party is heading for minority status , he ’ s made it clear that he wants the extremists he ’ s helped place on the federal courts for life to legislate from the bench .
The end result of McConnell ’ s efforts will be to completely neuter congress as a legislative body .
The only way a president will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive order—which will go directly to the courts for judges to decide .
Given the undemocratic nature of the senate and our polarized political climate , it is very unlikely that either party will gain a supermajority in that body in the near future .
If the only alternative is to allow McConnell to destroy the legislative process , it is probably time to end the filibuster and allow a simple majority to govern .

Over the weekend, Trump signed several memorandum (which he referred to as “bills” and others are calling “executive orders”) that are designed to signal that he actually cares about what is happening to Americans during this pandemic. I’ll let others discuss why they are not only unconstitutional, but ineffective, because I want to focus on what they tell us about the modern-day GOP.
Apparently Senate Majority Leader McConnell is fine with the president’s move to completely neuter congress. He issued a statement praising Trump’s memorandum, which is the opposite of what he said when Obama signed DACA.
“Look, as the president has said, democracy is hard,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said after Obama proposed executive action on immigration in 2014. “Imposing his will unilaterally may seem tempting. It may serve him politically in the short term. But he knows it will make an already broken system even more broken.”
Knowing McConnell’s history under a Democratic president, this statement in response to Trump’s actions is a complete reversal.
The President’s team worked hard to bridge differences on many of the policies that would rapidly help American families…But Democrats have continued to block all of it while holding out for non-COVID-related liberal demands… Weeks ago, some predicted that Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer might actually prefer if the American people received no further bipartisan aid before the election. Sadly, they have done nothing to suggest otherwise.
Just to be clear, a top priority for Democrats has been funding for state and local governments, whose budgets are being decimated by the pandemic. McConnell refers to such aid as a “non-COVID-related liberal demand.”
But beyond that, it is absolutely breath-taking to hear McConnell complain about the opposition party attempting to block legislation. For eight years we watched him obstruct anything Democrats tried to do—even stimulus funds in the midst of the Great Recession. The difference between then and now is that Pelosi and Schumer were at the table attempting to negotiate when Trump jumped the gun. All McConnell did in the past was to say “no,” without providing any alternatives.
There is also the fact that McConnell has already made it clear that if Biden wins the election in November, he will proceed to obstruct anything Democrats try to do.
“If I’m still the majority leader in the Senate think of me as the Grim Reaper. None of that stuff is going to pass,” McConnell said while speaking to community leaders in Owensboro, Ky… “I guarantee you that if I’m the last man standing and I’m still the majority leader, it ain’t happening. I can promise you,” McConnell added.
So as McConnell praises Trump’s use of executive orders while Democrats attempt to negotiate, he accuses them of blocking legislation, even as he promises to be the Grim Reaper of obstruction if they win in November.
All of this reminds me of something Grover Norquist said back in 2003. While bragging about a “permanent Republican majority,” he was asked what the GOP would do if Democrats were elected. His response was to say that “We will make it so that a Democrat cannot govern as a Democrat.”
McConnell actually took that one step further. He seems intent on making it so that no one can actually govern. Not only does he attempt to obstruct anything Democrats want to do, he has been content to do nothing for the past four years as majority leader other than give rich people a tax break and stack the federal courts. Knowing that his party is heading for minority status, he’s made it clear that he wants the extremists he’s helped place on the federal courts for life to legislate from the bench.
The end result of McConnell’s efforts will be to completely neuter congress as a legislative body. The only way a president will be able to accomplish anything would be via executive order—which will go directly to the courts for judges to decide.
Given the undemocratic nature of the senate and our polarized political climate, it is very unlikely that either party will gain a supermajority in that body in the near future. If the only alternative is to allow McConnell to destroy the legislative process, it is probably time to end the filibuster and allow a simple majority to govern.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-10--Trump’s Bizarre Obsession with Mount Rushmore

In Teddy Roosevelt ’ s 1913 autobiography Progressive Principles , he wrote about his father , Theodore Roosevelt , Sr .
In his 2013 book , Heir to the Empire City : New York and the Making of Theodore Roosevelt , Edward Kohn reports that Teddy Sr. sent Teddy Jr. off to Harvard with the following advice : “ Take care of your morals first , your health next , and finally your studies.
” Fred Trump didn ’ t offer this type of guidance to his son , Donald .
That ’ s the beginning point to understanding why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Mt .
Rushmore .
As a child , I had trouble understanding why Teddy Jr. was carved into that mountain rather than his distant cousin , Franklin .
As an adult , I ’ ve come to wish that the monument had never been created at all , since it was carved on land that was supposed to be set aside in perpetuity for the Sioux .
I visited the place first back in 1982 , on a trip I took before high school with one of my older brothers .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , right around the time of the troubles in Charlottesville , Virginia .
I was there during the annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally .
It ’ s an interesting place to visit for the bizarre little culture that has sprung up around the monument .
The carving itself does not live up to the hype .
Any tribute to America ’ s greatest presidents should obviously include Washington , Jefferson , and Lincoln .
We also have stand-alone monuments to them in our nation ’ s capital .
Donald Trump would more fittingly be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents , but according to Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times , he thinks otherwise .
Since the first days after she was elected governor of South Dakota in 2018 , Kristi Noem had been working to ensure that President Trump would come to Mount Rushmore for a fireworks-filled July 4 extravaganza .
After all , the president had told her in the Oval Office that he aspired to have his image etched on the monument .
And last year , a White House aide reached out to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to a Republican official familiar with the conversation : What ’ s the process to add additional presidents to Mount Rushmore ?
Donald Trump disputes that this conversation ever happened , but not that he belongs on Mt .
Rushmore .
It ’ s not a very convincing denial , and apparently there ’ s physical evidence .
Somewhere there ’ s a four-foot tall mockup of a five-president Mt .
Rushmore that includes Trump ’ s mug .
I hope one day the Smithsonian gets their hands on this thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been inadvertently crushed by a dwarf .
It would look good and get a few grim laughs in the National Museum of the American Indian .

In Teddy Roosevelt’s 1913 autobiography Progressive Principles, he wrote about his father, Theodore Roosevelt, Sr.
“My father…was the best man I ever knew. He combined strength and courage with gentleness, tenderness, and great unselfishness. He would not tolerate in us children selfishness or cruelty, idleness, cowardice, or untruthfulness.”
In his 2013 book, Heir to the Empire City: New York and the Making of Theodore Roosevelt, Edward Kohn reports that Teddy Sr. sent Teddy Jr. off to Harvard with the following advice: “Take care of your morals first, your health next, and finally your studies.”
Fred Trump didn’t offer this type of guidance to his son, Donald. That’s the beginning point to understanding why the current president doesn’t belong on Mt. Rushmore. As a child, I had trouble understanding why Teddy Jr. was carved into that mountain rather than his distant cousin, Franklin. As an adult, I’ve come to wish that the monument had never been created at all, since it was carved on land that was supposed to be set aside in perpetuity for the Sioux.
I visited the place first back in 1982, on a trip I took before high school with one of my older brothers. I returned with my own family in 2017, right around the time of the troubles in Charlottesville, Virginia. I was there during the annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. It’s an interesting place to visit for the bizarre little culture that has sprung up around the monument. The carving itself does not live up to the hype.
Any tribute to America’s greatest presidents should obviously include Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. We also have stand-alone monuments to them in our nation’s capital. Donald Trump would more fittingly be included in a tribute to our worst presidents, but according to Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, he thinks otherwise.
Since the first days after she was elected governor of South Dakota in 2018, Kristi Noem had been working to ensure that President Trump would come to Mount Rushmore for a fireworks-filled July 4 extravaganza. After all, the president had told her in the Oval Office that he aspired to have his image etched on the monument. And last year, a White House aide reached out to the governor’s office with a question, according to a Republican official familiar with the conversation: What’s the process to add additional presidents to Mount Rushmore?
Donald Trump disputes that this conversation ever happened, but not that he belongs on Mt. Rushmore.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1292628590425759747
It’s not a very convincing denial, and apparently there’s physical evidence.
In private, the efforts to charm Mr. Trump were more pointed, according to a person familiar with the episode: Ms. Noem greeted him with a four-foot replica of Mount Rushmore that included a fifth presidential likeness: his.
Somewhere there’s a four-foot tall mockup of a five-president Mt. Rushmore that includes Trump’s mug. I hope one day the Smithsonian gets their hands on this thing, assuming that it hasn’t been inadvertently crushed by a dwarf. It would look good and get a few grim laughs in the National Museum of the American Indian.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-11--Trump Gave Christian Nationalists What They Want: Power

On Sunday , Trump ’ s trade advisor Peter Navarro attempted to justify the president ’ s memorandum on coronavirus relief by suggesting that God had something to do with creating executive orders .
The narrative is that congress is simply a “ swamp ” and so Trump took action via something that was created by God and our founding fathers to bypass the legislative body .
Of course , that is the opposite of what was written into the Constitution when it describes three separate , but equal branches of government .
In a sense , Navarro is claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the president to act as king .
He backs that up with the idea that God was involved with doing so .
None of that is going to be a concern for Trump ’ s base among Christian nationalists .
Over the weekend , Elizabeth Dias published a piece in which she reminded us of that one time when Trump actually told the truth by saying that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and his supporters wouldn ’ t abandon him .
She noted that it was during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa that Trump said this : “ I will tell you , Christianity is under tremendous siege , whether we want to talk about it or we don ’ t want to talk about it , ” Mr. Trump said .
Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the country , he said .
And then he slowed slightly to stress each next word : “ And yet we don ’ t exert the power that we should have.
” If he were elected president , he promised , that would change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christianity will have power , ” he said .
“ If I ’ m there , you ’ re going to have plenty of power , you don ’ t need anybody else.
” Over the last four years , we ’ ve heard endless attempts to explain why Christian nationalists have been so loyal to a man who has lived the opposite of everything they have claimed to value .
But there you have your answer : he promised to give them power .
That is precisely why Katherine Stewart titled her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Worshippers .
She explains that we miss the mark if we assume that this movement is all about the so-called “ culture wars.
” This is a political movement that wants power .
I do think it is helpful , in understanding this movement , to distinguish between the leaders and the followers .
The foot soldiers may believe that they ’ re fighting for things like traditional marriage and a ban on abortion .
But over time , the movement ’ s leaders and strategists have consciously reframed these culture war issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes of a large subsection of the American public .
They understand if you can get people to vote on just one or two issues , you can control their vote .
So they use these issues to solidify and maintain political power for themselves and their allies , to increase the flow of public and private money in their direction , and to enact economic policies that are favorable to their most well-resourced funders .
In commenting on the Christian right ’ s comparison of Trump to King Cyrus , Stewart wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk a good game about respecting the Constitution and America ’ s founders , but at bottom they sound as if they prefer autocrats to democrats…The great thing about kings like Cyrus , as far as today ’ s Christian nationalists are concerned , is that they don ’ t have to follow rules .
They are the law .
This makes them ideal leaders in paranoid times… This isn ’ t the religious right we thought we knew .
The Christian nationalist movement today is authoritarian , paranoid and patriarchal at its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a culture war .
They ’ re making a direct attack on democracy itself .
They want it all .
And in Mr. Trump , they have found a man who does not merely serve their cause , but also satisfies their craving for a certain kind of political leadership .
This is why you ’ ll find no objections from Christian nationalists to the prospect of Trump upending Constitutional norms like the separation of powers among the three branches of government .
They want the tyrannical power associated with an autocrat in @ @ @ @ @ @

On Sunday, Trump’s trade advisor Peter Navarro attempted to justify the president’s memorandum on coronavirus relief by suggesting that God had something to do with creating executive orders.
The narrative is that congress is simply a “swamp” and so Trump took action via something that was created by God and our founding fathers to bypass the legislative body. Of course, that is the opposite of what was written into the Constitution when it describes three separate, but equal branches of government. In a sense, Navarro is claiming that our founding fathers created a mechanism for the president to act as king. He backs that up with the idea that God was involved with doing so.
None of that is going to be a concern for Trump’s base among Christian nationalists. Over the weekend, Elizabeth Dias published a piece in which she reminded us of that one time when Trump actually told the truth by saying that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and his supporters wouldn’t abandon him. She noted that it was during that same speech at a Christian college in Iowa that Trump said this:
“I will tell you, Christianity is under tremendous siege, whether we want to talk about it or we don’t want to talk about it,” Mr. Trump said. Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the country, he said. And then he slowed slightly to stress each next word: “And yet we don’t exert the power that we should have.” If he were elected president, he promised, that would change. He raised a finger. “Christianity will have power,” he said. “If I’m there, you’re going to have plenty of power, you don’t need anybody else.”
Over the last four years, we’ve heard endless attempts to explain why Christian nationalists have been so loyal to a man who has lived the opposite of everything they have claimed to value. But there you have your answer: he promised to give them power. That is precisely why Katherine Stewart titled her book about Christian nationalists, The Power Worshippers. She explains that we miss the mark if we assume that this movement is all about the so-called “culture wars.”
This is a political movement that wants power. I do think it is helpful, in understanding this movement, to distinguish between the leaders and the followers. The foot soldiers may believe that they’re fighting for things like traditional marriage and a ban on abortion. But over time, the movement’s leaders and strategists have consciously reframed these culture war issues in order to capture and control the votes of a large subsection of the American public. They understand if you can get people to vote on just one or two issues, you can control their vote. So they use these issues to solidify and maintain political power for themselves and their allies, to increase the flow of public and private money in their direction, and to enact economic policies that are favorable to their most well-resourced funders.
In commenting on the Christian right’s comparison of Trump to King Cyrus, Stewart wrote this:
Today’s Christian nationalists talk a good game about respecting the Constitution and America’s founders, but at bottom they sound as if they prefer autocrats to democrats…The great thing about kings like Cyrus, as far as today’s Christian nationalists are concerned, is that they don’t have to follow rules. They are the law. This makes them ideal leaders in paranoid times… This isn’t the religious right we thought we knew. The Christian nationalist movement today is authoritarian, paranoid and patriarchal at its core. They aren’t fighting a culture war. They’re making a direct attack on democracy itself. They want it all. And in Mr. Trump, they have found a man who does not merely serve their cause, but also satisfies their craving for a certain kind of political leadership.
This is why you’ll find no objections from Christian nationalists to the prospect of Trump upending Constitutional norms like the separation of powers among the three branches of government. They want the tyrannical power associated with an autocrat in order to enact their agenda.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-11--What Are the Chances Trump Could Actually Go to Jail?

Will America soon have its first Shawshank President ?
Will Donald Trump find himself fending off riots in the Attica mess hall ?
Tweetless and at the mercy of 2,000 “ angry Democrat ” inmates ?
A number of recent developments show that one can not rule it out .
Things took a decidedly serious turn last week when New York prosecutors told a federal judge that there were “ public reports of possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization.
” They added that they that they may also be investigating possible crimes involving bank and insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times , which also reported that Deutsche Bank has been complying with a Manhattan District Attorney ’ s Office subpoena for months , turning over detailed financial records in connection with some $ 2 billion the bank has lent Trump .
The news comes on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling last month that declared the president was not immune from state criminal investigations , therefore clearing the way for a New York grand jury to subpoena Trump ’ s financial records , an effort spearheaded by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t be higher once he leaves office : He could go from the White House to the Big House .
So , I asked some experts the likelihood that the president could really wind up in a New York prison .
“ Absolutely yes , if we are a nation of equal justice and Trump is convicted of serious felonies , ” Trump biographer David Cay Johnston told me .
But he quickly added , “ Whether it happens is entirely unpredictable.
” Still , New York has a real chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state has jurisdiction over most of his properties and operations relating to his 2016 presidential campaign .
Crucially , states also are not subject the U.S. Department of Justice ’ s rule that a sitting president may not be prosecuted for federal crimes .
Trump , therefore , is stripped of his four-year kryptonite shield if he is re-elected .
A state indictment of a sitting president , though historically unprecedented , is entirely possible .
His DOJ-Roy Cohn , Bill Barr , is constitutionally powerless to intervene .
That should make Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Letitia James ramps up her own investigations .
“ We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family , ” she declared after taking office two years ago .
At the same time , Vance ’ s subpoena appears to go beyond obtaining financial records relating to alleged pre-election hush money payments to silence two women , Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal .
Both of the women claim to have had affairs with Trump .
Information gleaned from the DA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and money laundering as well as bank and insurance fraud , which are felonies .
Johnston told me he ’ s confident that Vance already has Trump ’ s New York tax filings .
Even though the IRS and state tax authorities share tax information on citizens and business entities , it ’ s unclear whether he also has the president ’ s federal returns .
The DA is seeking Trump ’ s financial records from his accounting firm Mazars USA in addition to Deutsche Bank—to compare that data with what he already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Johnston .
“ Trump has a well-documented history as a tax cheat and for hiding business records , ” Johnston said .
“ This is garden variety tax fraud , a straight-up tax scam that could easily be a felony.
” That doesn ’ t necessarily mean he will go to jail .
More often than not , tax cheats get away with heavy fines in lieu of prison sentences , Johnston said .
Moreover , Trump , like many very wealthy people , will continue to throw monkey wrenches into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other rope-a-dope tactics until revenue agencies finally become open to a low-punitive settlement .
This is echoed by Duncan Levin , formerly a senior staff member under District Attorney Vance and an ex-assistant U.S. attorney .
Whether the president would actually be sentenced to prison is a political call , Levin said .
“ Can you imagine an ex-U.S. president actually being sent to prison ?
” he told me .
“ It ’ s inconceivable that Trump didn ’ t know about the hush money payments .
But it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested on misdemeanor charges .
They would have to be very serious felonies.
” False statements to financial institutions would count .
More likely , he added , the DA may be zeroing in at this point on Trump ’ s inner circle .
“ Michael Cohen didn ’ t act alone .
He collaborated with people within the Trump organization to cover up the hush payments just before the election , ” Levin said .
Look , at least initially , for indictments of Trump underlings .
The good news , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off his investigation and possible indictments until after the November election .
DA ’ s proceed on cases irrespective of extraneous events , including a general election , Levin said .
But the hope of many that Trump could finally be held accountable for his crimes may be remote .
At most , one can imagine him behind bars at a white-collar correctional facility like that of his former lawyer Michael Cohen , as opposed to hard time at a penitentiary like Attica .
For now , though , time will tell .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ carried out are more likely to watch this shamed crook-in-chief spending his remaining years out of office consumed in exhausting and financially draining legal battles , fully exposed for the criminal he ’ s always been .

Will America soon have its first Shawshank President? Will Donald Trump find himself fending off riots in the Attica mess hall? Tweetless and at the mercy of 2,000 “angry Democrat” inmates?
A number of recent developments show that one cannot rule it out. Things took a decidedly serious turn last week when New York prosecutors told a federal judge that there were “public reports of possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization.” They added that they that they may also be investigating possible crimes involving bank and insurance fraud, according to the New York Times, which also reported that Deutsche Bank has been complying with a Manhattan District Attorney’s Office subpoena for months, turning over detailed financial records in connection with some $2 billion the bank has lent Trump.
The news comes on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling last month that declared the president was not immune from state criminal investigations, therefore clearing the way for a New York grand jury to subpoena Trump’s financial records, an effort spearheaded by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr.
For Trump, the stakes couldn’t be higher once he leaves office: He could go from the White House to the Big House.
So, I asked some experts the likelihood that the president could really wind up in a New York prison. “Absolutely yes, if we are a nation of equal justice and Trump is convicted of serious felonies,” Trump biographer David Cay Johnston told me. But he quickly added, “Whether it happens is entirely unpredictable.”
Still, New York has a real chance at putting Trump behind bars. The state has jurisdiction over most of his properties and operations relating to his 2016 presidential campaign. Crucially, states also are not subject the U.S. Department of Justice’s rule that a sitting president may not be prosecuted for federal crimes. Trump, therefore, is stripped of his four-year kryptonite shield if he is re-elected. A state indictment of a sitting president, though historically unprecedented, is entirely possible. His DOJ-Roy Cohn, Bill Barr, is constitutionally powerless to intervene.
That should make Trump uneasy, especially as New York Attorney General Letitia James ramps up her own investigations. “We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family,” she declared after taking office two years ago.
At the same time, Vance’s subpoena appears to go beyond obtaining financial records relating to alleged pre-election hush money payments to silence two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Both of the women claim to have had affairs with Trump. Information gleaned from the DA’s inquiry could expose tax cheating and money laundering as well as bank and insurance fraud, which are felonies.
Johnston told me he’s confident that Vance already has Trump’s New York tax filings. Even though the IRS and state tax authorities share tax information on citizens and business entities, it’s unclear whether he also has the president’s federal returns. The DA is seeking Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm Mazars USA in addition to Deutsche Bank—to compare that data with what he already possesses, looking for corroborating information, according to Johnston.
“Trump has a well-documented history as a tax cheat and for hiding business records,” Johnston said. “This is garden variety tax fraud, a straight-up tax scam that could easily be a felony.”
That doesn’t necessarily mean he will go to jail. More often than not, tax cheats get away with heavy fines in lieu of prison sentences, Johnston said. Moreover, Trump, like many very wealthy people, will continue to throw monkey wrenches into the judicial system with appeal after appeal and other rope-a-dope tactics until revenue agencies finally become open to a low-punitive settlement.
This is echoed by Duncan Levin, formerly a senior staff member under District Attorney Vance and an ex-assistant U.S. attorney. Whether the president would actually be sentenced to prison is a political call, Levin said. “Can you imagine an ex-U.S. president actually being sent to prison?” he told me. “It’s inconceivable that Trump didn’t know about the hush money payments. But it’s highly unlikely that he’d be arrested on misdemeanor charges. They would have to be very serious felonies.” False statements to financial institutions would count.
More likely, he added, the DA may be zeroing in at this point on Trump’s inner circle. “Michael Cohen didn’t act alone. He collaborated with people within the Trump organization to cover up the hush payments just before the election,” Levin said. Look, at least initially, for indictments of Trump underlings.
The good news, though, is that Vance will not put off his investigation and possible indictments until after the November election. DA’s proceed on cases irrespective of extraneous events, including a general election, Levin said.
But the hope of many that Trump could finally be held accountable for his crimes may be remote. At most, one can imagine him behind bars at a white-collar correctional facility like that of his former lawyer Michael Cohen, as opposed to hard time at a penitentiary like Attica. For now, though, time will tell. The Americans who want to see justice carried out are more likely to watch this shamed crook-in-chief spending his remaining years out of office consumed in exhausting and financially draining legal battles, fully exposed for the criminal he’s always been.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-11--What Trump Doesn’t Want You to Know About Russia’s Election Interference

Last Friday , William Evanina , director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center , released a statement that “ Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia ‘ establishment . '
” It also noted that both China and Iran prefer that Trump be defeated in the November election .
The timing of that wasn ’ t lost on New York Times reporter Robert Draper who was about to publish an article titled , “ Unwanted Truths : Inside Trump ’ s Battle With U.S. Intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to press — and shortly after I submitted a list of questions to the O.D.N.I .
relating to its struggle to avoid becoming politically compromised — Evanina put out a new statement .
In it , the O.D.N.I .
at last acknowledged publicly that Russia “ is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia ‘ establishment.
’ ” In the same statement , however , Evanina also asserted for the first time that both China and Iran were hoping to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement , the O.D.N.I .
made no distinction between Russia ’ s sophisticated election-disrupting capabilities and the less insidious influence campaigns of the two supposedly anti-Trump countries .
Like its predecessor , the statement seemed to be tortured with political calculation — an implicit declaration of anguish rather than of independence .
The predecessor Draper referred to was at the heart of his reporting .
According to his sources , the National Security Estimate was a document that caused controversy between Trump and the intelligence community in the summer and fall of 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DNI Dan Coates .
Initially , it contained a finding that “ in the 2020 election , Russia favored the current president : Donald Trump.
” By the time Trump and his loyalists were through with the NSE , it read : “ Russian leaders probably assess that chances to improve relations with the U.S. will diminish under a different U.S. president.
” All of that is designed to once again hide what Trump has consistently denied : that Russian interference in the 2016 election was aimed at helping him .
While the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was Russia who interfered in the election , the facts about Putin ’ s motives for doing so are verboten among his loyalists .
Just to be clear , it wasn ’ t just Mueller who documented that Putin intervened to help Trump .
A bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee came to the same conclusion .
This controversy is important to keep in mind as Attorney General Barr prepares to release Durham ’ s findings on the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation .
From the beginning , Barr has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interference was focused on helping Trump—because that is what launched the entire Trump-Russia probe .
Here is what the Washington Post reported back in 2017 ( emphasis mine ) : Early last August , an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House .
Sent by courier from the CIA , it carried “ eyes only ” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people : President Barack Obama and three senior aides .
Inside was an intelligence bombshell , a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race .
But it went further .
The intelligence captured Putin ’ s specific instructions on the operation ’ s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee , Hillary Clinton , and help elect her opponent , Donald Trump .
Our intelligence services would have been derelict in their duty if they had not investigated whether an adversarial power was interfering in an election to support one candidate in particular .
So while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into whether or not the Trump campaign was engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government , intelligence services went on to further investigate the activities and intentions of a foreign power ’ s attempt to interfere in our elections .
In January 2017 , they released their report , which included the following : After Barr appointed Durham to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe , this is what was reported by the New York Times .
Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A .
sources who helped inform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian interference campaign , an official has said .
He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A .
to the F.B.I .
in the summer of 2016 .
During the final weeks of the Obama administration , the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “ aspired to help ” Mr. Trump ’ s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton ’ s .
The C.I.A .
and the F.B.I .
reported they had high confidence in the conclusion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ electronic surveillance , had a moderate degree of confidence… Conservative critics of the intelligence assessment and the Mueller report have questioned the conclusion that Mr. Putin actively favored Mr. Trump , as opposed to simply wanting to sow chaos and weaken Mrs. Clinton .
From the beginning , Trump ’ s enablers have been attempting to make this ridiculous distinction between Russian attempts to weaken Clinton and the necessary corollary that they were supporting Trump .
That ’ s why it ’ s important to note that Evanina was able to report that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden , ” but not that these efforts are designed to help Trump .
What our intelligence sources aren ’ t telling us is at the heart of Senator Richard Blumenthal ’ s concerns .
It is clear that , once again , Vladimir Putin is interfering in our elections to support Donald Trump .
The president doesn ’ t want us to know that and has done nothing to stop him—much like he ’ s ignoring the fact that Putin put bounties on the heads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence of how far we ’ ve fallen down the rabbit hole of Trump ’ s criminal presidency is that most of the media doesn ’ t seem to care that this is happening .
Perhaps that is because this president is regularly committing impeachable offenses that would have led to the removal of any prior occupant of the Oval Office many times over .
We can now add one more to the list : Trump ’ s refusal to stop Russian interference in our election—which is specifically aimed at helping him get @ @

Last Friday, William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, released a statement that “Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia ‘establishment.’” It also noted that both China and Iran prefer that Trump be defeated in the November election.
The timing of that wasn’t lost on New York Times reporter Robert Draper who was about to publish an article titled, “Unwanted Truths: Inside Trump’s Battle With U.S. Intelligence Agencies.”
Just as this article was going to press — and shortly after I submitted a list of questions to the O.D.N.I. relating to its struggle to avoid becoming politically compromised — Evanina put out a new statement. In it, the O.D.N.I. at last acknowledged publicly that Russia “is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia ‘establishment.’” In the same statement, however, Evanina also asserted for the first time that both China and Iran were hoping to defeat Trump. As with the preceding statement, the O.D.N.I. made no distinction between Russia’s sophisticated election-disrupting capabilities and the less insidious influence campaigns of the two supposedly anti-Trump countries. Like its predecessor, the statement seemed to be tortured with political calculation — an implicit declaration of anguish rather than of independence.
The predecessor Draper referred to was at the heart of his reporting. According to his sources, the National Security Estimate was a document that caused controversy between Trump and the intelligence community in the summer and fall of 2017 and eventually led to the firing of DNI Dan Coates. Initially, it contained a finding that “in the 2020 election, Russia favored the current president: Donald Trump.” By the time Trump and his loyalists were through with the NSE, it read: “Russian leaders probably assess that chances to improve relations with the U.S. will diminish under a different U.S. president.”
All of that is designed to once again hide what Trump has consistently denied: that Russian interference in the 2016 election was aimed at helping him. While the president has vacillated on whether or not it was Russia who interfered in the election, the facts about Putin’s motives for doing so are verboten among his loyalists.
Just to be clear, it wasn’t just Mueller who documented that Putin intervened to help Trump. A bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee came to the same conclusion.
Where the Intelligence Community assessed that the Russian government “aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him,” the Committee found that IRA social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump, and to the detriment of Secretary Clinton’s campaign.
This controversy is important to keep in mind as Attorney General Barr prepares to release Durham’s findings on the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. From the beginning, Barr has been unwilling to admit that Russia’s interference was focused on helping Trump—because that is what launched the entire Trump-Russia probe. Here is what the Washington Post reported back in 2017 (emphasis mine):
Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides. Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race. But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.
Our intelligence services would have been derelict in their duty if they had not investigated whether an adversarial power was interfering in an election to support one candidate in particular. So while the FBI eventually began its CrossFire Hurricane investigation into whether or not the Trump campaign was engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government, intelligence services went on to further investigate the activities and intentions of a foreign power’s attempt to interfere in our elections. In January 2017, they released their report, which included the following:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
After Barr appointed Durham to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, this is what was reported by the New York Times.
Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016. During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton’s. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence… Conservative critics of the intelligence assessment and the Mueller report have questioned the conclusion that Mr. Putin actively favored Mr. Trump, as opposed to simply wanting to sow chaos and weaken Mrs. Clinton.
From the beginning, Trump’s enablers have been attempting to make this ridiculous distinction between Russian attempts to weaken Clinton and the necessary corollary that they were supporting Trump. That’s why it’s important to note that Evanina was able to report that “Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden,” but not that these efforts are designed to help Trump.
What our intelligence sources aren’t telling us is at the heart of Senator Richard Blumenthal’s concerns.
The warning lights are flashing red. America’s elections are under attack. This week, I reviewed classified materials in the Senate’s Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility and received a similarly classified briefing on malign foreign threats to U.S. elections. I was shocked by what I learned — and appalled that, by swearing Congress to secrecy, the Trump administration is keeping the truth about a grave, looming threat to democracy hidden from the American people. On Friday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a statement that only hints at the threats. The facts are chilling. I believe the American public needs and deserves to know them. The information should be declassified immediately.
It is clear that, once again, Vladimir Putin is interfering in our elections to support Donald Trump. The president doesn’t want us to know that and has done nothing to stop him—much like he’s ignoring the fact that Putin put bounties on the heads of American soldiers in Afghanistan.
The evidence of how far we’ve fallen down the rabbit hole of Trump’s criminal presidency is that most of the media doesn’t seem to care that this is happening. Perhaps that is because this president is regularly committing impeachable offenses that would have led to the removal of any prior occupant of the Oval Office many times over. We can now add one more to the list: Trump’s refusal to stop Russian interference in our election—which is specifically aimed at helping him get re-elected.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-11--What’s the Real Point of the Lincoln Project?

I was raised in the Episcopalian church , the American variation of the Church of England , or Anglicanism .
It used to be illegal to hold office in England if you believed in transubstantiation .
Personally , I prefer to keep religion out of politics , and that goes double for theology , but I ’ ll note that one of the main appeals of settling in the New World was to get away from governments that dictated what you could and could not believe .
That process wasn ’ t really complete in America until we had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cohesive unit .
It was only then that we banned religious tests , and we originally only banned religious tests for federal offices .
Today , you can believe that the communion sacrament literally turns the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ , and this belief can not bar you from working in or for state or federal governments .
So , from a legal and political point of view , it ’ s completely irrelevant what I think about it .
I certainly don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for understanding what has gone wrong with the Republican Party , but Ross Douthat differs .
In reviewing Stuart Stevens ’ new book “ It Was All a Lie : How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump , ” Douthat places special significance on a passage where Stevens , who served as Mitt Romney ’ s campaign manager , suggests that no one really believes in the doctrine of transubstantiation .
There is another way of reading this history , though , that ’ s suggested by a passage where Stevens is emphasizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on deficits and taxes .
“ But still the Republican Party continues to push tax cuts the same way the Roman Catholic Church uses incense for High Mass , ” he writes , “ as a comforting symbolism for believers that reminds them of their identity.
” And then , pushing the analogy further : “ Being against ‘ out-of-control federal spending , ’ a phrase I must have used in a hundred ads , is a catechism of the Republican faith .
But no one really believes in it any more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drinking the body and blood of Christ.
” Douthat believes that this is both naive and disrespectful , which it certainly is .
But he also thinks it ’ s emblematic of something much more significant .
It suggests , instead , that at some level Stevens and his fellow Republican strategists regarded their own voters in exactly the way certain populist conservatives always claimed the Republican establishment regarded its supporters — as useful foot soldiers , provincials to be mobilized with culture-war appeals , religious weirdos who required certain rhetorical nods so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more important work of governing .
In which case the original sin of the strategist class wasn ’ t moral compromise or racial blindness but simple condescension : a belief that they didn ’ t need to take their own constituents seriously , that they could campaign on social issues and protecting the homeland and govern on foreign wars and Social Security reform and that it would all hang together .
Which it did — until a demagogue came along who was ready to exploit the gap between promises and policy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adults supposedly in charge of governing weren ’ t actually governing very well .
Stevens obviously touched a raw nerve with Douthat , and he really could have been more generous in understanding the intended point , which is that most Republicans still mouth doctrines that they no longer believe .
Yet , that doesn ’ t mean Douthat is off-base in sensing a chasm between the GOP ’ s base and its consultant class .
His main critique of Stevens and the rest of the Lincoln Project crew is spot-on .
Stevens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intellectual conversion or gradual ideological disillusionment .
He doesn ’ t tell us that he used to believe in supply-side economics but now rejects it , or that he used to be against abortion or same-sex marriage but came to a different view , or that he used to favor welfare reform and tough sentencing laws and now repents… …But mostly Stevens presses a critique of Republican voters , activists and operatives — and white religious conservatives above all — that makes its author seem less like a convert with a tale to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s most clueless mercenary , a political veteran who noticed only after several decades that he was fighting for what was , by his own account , transparently the wicked side .
We can certainly say the same thing with equal accuracy about Steve Schmidt , Rick Wilson , George Conway , and the other ex-Republican strategists who dominate the Never Trump movement .
Even when they ostensibly cop to having some responsibility for creating the monster that devoured the country , they do very little explaining about how they were so blinded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all like King Oedipus , clawing their eyes out when they realize that they ’ re the cause of the plague .
But Oedipus could not have known he was killing his father or bedding his mother , while these political mercenaries were well aware that they were exploiting and stoking the religious conservatism and racial bigotry of a segment of Americans for the political benefit of rich people .
The thing about mercenaries is that you only hire them when you need them .
They ’ re inherently unreliable because they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ re acting as volunteer soldiers against Trump , and perhaps there ’ s a genuine desire for atonement involved here .
Still , even if they ’ re not expecting the Democratic Party or its candidates to pay them , they ’ re still trying to sell books and make a buck .
Douthat is actually fairly successful in exposing their game , despite his idiosyncratic take on the subject .
I won ’ t reject their help as long as it ’ s free , but I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

I was raised in the Episcopalian church, the American variation of the Church of England, or Anglicanism. It used to be illegal to hold office in England if you believed in transubstantiation. Personally, I prefer to keep religion out of politics, and that goes double for theology, but I’ll note that one of the main appeals of settling in the New World was to get away from governments that dictated what you could and could not believe. That process wasn’t really complete in America until we had to pull all the colonies together into one cohesive unit. It was only then that we banned religious tests, and we originally only banned religious tests for federal offices.
Today, you can believe that the communion sacrament literally turns the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and this belief cannot bar you from working in or for state or federal governments. So, from a legal and political point of view, it’s completely irrelevant what I think about it. I certainly don’t think it’s a terribly important subject for understanding what has gone wrong with the Republican Party, but Ross Douthat differs.
In reviewing Stuart Stevens’ new book “It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump,” Douthat places special significance on a passage where Stevens, who served as Mitt Romney’s campaign manager, suggests that no one really believes in the doctrine of transubstantiation.
There is another way of reading this history, though, that’s suggested by a passage where Stevens is emphasizing the fundamental emptiness of G.O.P. rhetoric on deficits and taxes. “But still the Republican Party continues to push tax cuts the same way the Roman Catholic Church uses incense for High Mass,” he writes, “as a comforting symbolism for believers that reminds them of their identity.” And then, pushing the analogy further: “Being against ‘out-of-control federal spending,’ a phrase I must have used in a hundred ads, is a catechism of the Republican faith. But no one really believes in it any more than communicants believe they are actually eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ.”
Douthat believes that this is both naive and disrespectful, which it certainly is. But he also thinks it’s emblematic of something much more significant.
It suggests, instead, that at some level Stevens and his fellow Republican strategists regarded their own voters in exactly the way certain populist conservatives always claimed the Republican establishment regarded its supporters — as useful foot soldiers, provincials to be mobilized with culture-war appeals, religious weirdos who required certain rhetorical nods so that the grown-ups could get on with the more important work of governing. In which case the original sin of the strategist class wasn’t moral compromise or racial blindness but simple condescension: a belief that they didn’t need to take their own constituents seriously, that they could campaign on social issues and protecting the homeland and govern on foreign wars and Social Security reform and that it would all hang together. Which it did — until a demagogue came along who was ready to exploit the gap between promises and policy, and to point out that the Republican adults supposedly in charge of governing weren’t actually governing very well.
Stevens obviously touched a raw nerve with Douthat, and he really could have been more generous in understanding the intended point, which is that most Republicans still mouth doctrines that they no longer believe. Yet, that doesn’t mean Douthat is off-base in sensing a chasm between the GOP’s base and its consultant class. His main critique of Stevens and the rest of the Lincoln Project crew is spot-on.
Stevens does not really offer a story of intellectual conversion or gradual ideological disillusionment. He doesn’t tell us that he used to believe in supply-side economics but now rejects it, or that he used to be against abortion or same-sex marriage but came to a different view, or that he used to favor welfare reform and tough sentencing laws and now repents… …But mostly Stevens presses a critique of Republican voters, activists and operatives — and white religious conservatives above all — that makes its author seem less like a convert with a tale to tell and more like the world’s most clueless mercenary, a political veteran who noticed only after several decades that he was fighting for what was, by his own account, transparently the wicked side.
We can certainly say the same thing with equal accuracy about Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, George Conway, and the other ex-Republican strategists who dominate the Never Trump movement. Even when they ostensibly cop to having some responsibility for creating the monster that devoured the country, they do very little explaining about how they were so blinded for so long. They’re all like King Oedipus, clawing their eyes out when they realize that they’re the cause of the plague. But Oedipus could not have known he was killing his father or bedding his mother, while these political mercenaries were well aware that they were exploiting and stoking the religious conservatism and racial bigotry of a segment of Americans for the political benefit of rich people.
The thing about mercenaries is that you only hire them when you need them. They’re inherently unreliable because they’re always for sale. Right now, they’re acting as volunteer soldiers against Trump, and perhaps there’s a genuine desire for atonement involved here. Still, even if they’re not expecting the Democratic Party or its candidates to pay them, they’re still trying to sell books and make a buck.
Douthat is actually fairly successful in exposing their game, despite his idiosyncratic take on the subject. I won’t reject their help as long as it’s free, but I don’t recommend handing them your money.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-12--The Extremist Agenda of Establishment Republicans

Last Tuesday , Kansas held its Republican senate primary—a race that I suggested was the most bizarre of the season .
In the end , the so-called “ establishment ” breathed a sign of relief that Kris Kobach lost to Representative Roger Marshall .
That means that Kobach is now a two-time loser in state-wide races .
In 2018 , he lost the governorship to Democrat Laura Kelly , indicating that even for a deeply red state like Kansas , he is too extreme .
But with the current state of the Republican Party , it can be difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and those who are “ extreme.
” For example , Marshall is touting the fact that he is “ trusted by Trump ” because he has voted for the president ’ s agenda 98 percent of the time .
That includes support for the president ’ s wall and xenophobic immigration policies—a position that would make Kobach proud .
One of the things that Marshall wants you to know about him is that he ’ s a doctor—going so far as to try and have his nickname “ Doc ” included on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ no go.
” But those credentials put him right in the center of efforts to repeal Obamacare and oppose Medicaid expansion in Kansas .
Here ’ s how he explained his position on the latter .
“ Just like Jesus said , ‘ The poor will always be with us , ’ ” he said .
“ There is a group of people that just don ’ t want health care and aren ’ t going to take care of themselves.
” “ Just , like , homeless people .
… I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , [ some people ] just don ’ t want health care , ” he said .
“ The Medicaid population , which is [ on ] a free credit card , as a group , do probably the least preventive medicine and taking care of themselves and eating healthy and exercising .
And I ’ m not judging , I ’ m just saying socially that ’ s where they are .
So there ’ s a group of people that even with unlimited access to health care are only going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is chopped off or when their pneumonia is so bad they get brought [ into ] the ER.
” On access to health care , that is what passes for the “ establishment ” position in the GOP these days .
Basically what Marshall is saying is that poor people are too lazy and slothful to take care of themselves and so they don ’ t deserve to have coverage .
To make matters even worse , Marshall quotes Jesus to back him up .
I ’ ll forgo a sermon on that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bible contains over 300 verses on our responsibility to care for the poor and an additional 250 on the proper use of wealth .
There might have been a time when establishment Republicans would argue with Democrats over the role of government in making sure that Americans had access to health care .
But Marshall demonstrates just how extremist the entire GOP has become .
They ’ re no longer worried about denying health care to millions of Americans because poor people aren ’ t worthy of care .
They also have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that kind of soulless policy .

Last Tuesday, Kansas held its Republican senate primary—a race that I suggested was the most bizarre of the season. In the end, the so-called “establishment” breathed a sign of relief that Kris Kobach lost to Representative Roger Marshall. That means that Kobach is now a two-time loser in state-wide races. In 2018, he lost the governorship to Democrat Laura Kelly, indicating that even for a deeply red state like Kansas, he is too extreme.
But with the current state of the Republican Party, it can be difficult to distinguish between candidates who are “establishment” and those who are “extreme.” For example, Marshall is touting the fact that he is “trusted by Trump” because he has voted for the president’s agenda 98 percent of the time. That includes support for the president’s wall and xenophobic immigration policies—a position that would make Kobach proud.
I’ve been to the border several times. I know it is a crisis, and President Trump is right: we must build a wall and fix our broken immigration system, and we have to turn off the magnets that attract, promote, encourage and allow migrants to enter our country under false pretenses.
One of the things that Marshall wants you to know about him is that he’s a doctor—going so far as to try and have his nickname “Doc” included on the primary ballot. Election officials said “no go.” But those credentials put him right in the center of efforts to repeal Obamacare and oppose Medicaid expansion in Kansas. Here’s how he explained his position on the latter.
“Just like Jesus said, ‘The poor will always be with us,’” he said. “There is a group of people that just don’t want health care and aren’t going to take care of themselves.” Pressed on that point, Marshall shrugged. “Just, like, homeless people. … I think just morally, spiritually, socially, [some people] just don’t want health care,” he said. “The Medicaid population, which is [on] a free credit card, as a group, do probably the least preventive medicine and taking care of themselves and eating healthy and exercising. And I’m not judging, I’m just saying socially that’s where they are. So there’s a group of people that even with unlimited access to health care are only going to use the emergency room when their arm is chopped off or when their pneumonia is so bad they get brought [into] the ER.”
On access to health care, that is what passes for the “establishment” position in the GOP these days. Basically what Marshall is saying is that poor people are too lazy and slothful to take care of themselves and so they don’t deserve to have coverage.
To make matters even worse, Marshall quotes Jesus to back him up. I’ll forgo a sermon on that one and simply point out that the Bible contains over 300 verses on our responsibility to care for the poor and an additional 250 on the proper use of wealth.
There might have been a time when establishment Republicans would argue with Democrats over the role of government in making sure that Americans had access to health care. But Marshall demonstrates just how extremist the entire GOP has become. They’re no longer worried about denying health care to millions of Americans because poor people aren’t worthy of care. They also have no shame about misusing the Bible to justify that kind of soulless policy.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-12--The 1996 Black Lesbian Film We Didn’t Know We Needed

The coronavirus pandemic has come with an odd paradox for the movie business .
Efforts to stop the spread of the virus have shut down theaters across the country—putting to a sudden halt the way films are supposed to be experienced : on a big screen and in the company of others—just as Americans have been hungrier than ever for film and television entertainment to keep them occupied while physical distancing .
Naturally , the new reality led to a surge in new subscriptions in streaming services .
Then , at the same time that people found themselves locked inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minneapolis police officer brutally killed George Floyd , igniting a worldwide social justice movement that demanded an end to police brutality and systemic racism .
That pivotal moment of national introspection also has led to an increased appetite for aesthetic representations of marginalized people .
Netflix unleashed a Black Lives Matter collection .
The Criterion Channel put out a retrospective of pioneering Black filmmakers .
Their logic made sense : Art is perhaps the greatest instrument through which we can understand the human experience .
No wonder , then , it is where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation ’ s social unrest .
That has come with an added benefit .
Filmmakers who were once relatively obscure are now getting the attention they have long deserved .
Just ask Cheryl Dunye .
More than two decades after its release , her groundbreaking arthouse film , The Watermelon Woman , has been making something of a mainstream comeback .
News outlets like Vanity Fair and Complex are writing think pieces on the film ’ s significance .
The Criterion Channel included her semi-autobiographical 1996 film in its Black cinema spotlight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month lineup .
That ’ s because the movie depicted intersectional struggle before “ intersectionality ” was considered a thing : the story follows a Black lesbian filmmaker named Cheryl who works at a video rental store and who is making a documentary about a Black lesbian actress from the 1930s .
“ Putting myself into my work is something that I was already doing even before The Watermelon Woman , ” she told me in a recent interview .
“ I went to art school , got an MFA at Rutgers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started putting myself into my own pictures .
I think that that ’ s something that I ’ ve always wanted to do with my own personal ideasAs a Black lesbian , being out and queer and doing a different thing , it was definitely a long time before I got to this point where I am now , but I was able to work more independently.
” The Watermelon Woman is widely recognized as the first film directed by a Black lesbian , with Dunye starring in its lead role .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black and queer communities almost immediately after its release .
The movie received critical praise and won a Teddy Award for Best Feature Film at the Berlin International Film Festival and Audience Award for Outstanding Narrative Feature at L.A. Outfest .
But it has never quite gotten as much attention as it is now .
That ’ s partly because , even in the years since its release , there hasn ’ t been a great surge in more movies portraying queer people of color .
Most of the LGBTQ films of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Brokeback Mountain , The Favorite—feature white queer couples without any black or brown characters in sight .
Director Clea Duvall ’ s upcoming holiday-themed lesbian romantic comedy , starring Kristen Stewart , features a similarly homogenous looking cast .
Television shows have done better .
According to GLAAD ’ s annual “ Where We Are in TV ” report , 2018 was the first year that people of color made up more than half of the queer characters on TV—up from 24 percent 10 years ago .
“ You can see that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dunye told me .
“ There are strides , and there is a big effort all over .
But there aren ’ t a lot of people doing it at that level , there are just a few.
” The question now , however , is whether a newfound interest in Dunye ’ s work—and the demands of a growing societal awareness over the plight racial and sexual minorities—will make films about queer people of color more of a norm than an outlier .
That starts with who is given a chance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A 2015 study from the Director ’ s Guild of America revealed that only three percent of television episodes from 2014-2015 were directed by minority females .
In other words , Black lesbian directors like Dunye aren ’ t as likely to receive opportunities as their white counterparts .
A Washington Post analysis of the 2015 Academy of Motion Pictures Awards found that among the 317 male directors , who “ rank among Hollywood ’ s most powerful decision makers , ” only 50 weren ’ t white .
As the study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power behind the scenes , by deciding which projects get funded , which actors get cast–and which stories get ignored.
” Even lists of the top gay and lesbian directors in the industry show white men are overrepresented compared to women and persons of color .
The good news is , people are starting to recognize that .
“ There are conversations happening now about the lack of black and brown folks in queer culture production , ” Dunye said .
As the Black gay director Steve McQueen wrote in The Guardian , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Minority Experience ( BAME ) employees working behind the camera .
“ It felt like I had walked out of one environment , the London I was surrounded by , into another , a place that was alien to me , ” McQueen wrote .
“ I could not believe the whiteness of the set.
” The critical resurrection of The Watermelon Woman should inspire Hollywood to fix this problem .
The film ’ s lasting success proves that films about Black lesbians are not micro-targeted exclusively to Black lesbian audiences .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ universally appealing themes that resonate with and interest broader audiences .
The Watermelon Woman , after all , is about the struggle to understand one ’ s identity .
Who doesn ’ t relate to that ?
Today , Dunye is working on a TV pilot , which is slated to be released later this year but doesn ’ t yet have a premiere date .
She is also trying to expand a previously made short film , Black is Blue—about a Black trans security guard—into a larger , full-length production .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attention her first film is getting now , she ’ s not dwelling on it .
Rather , she ’ s using it as an engine to spur future work .
“ [ That ’ s something ] I had to get over a long time ago , about this sense of what I am owed and what the universe has given me , ” Dunye said .
“ To receive that visibility now , I ’ m not going say , ‘ Oh , it ’ s been out there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work.
’ That ’ s what being an artist is about , ya know .
It ’ s about inspiring a movement.
” Lucky for us all , Dunye might just be doing that .

The coronavirus pandemic has come with an odd paradox for the movie business. Efforts to stop the spread of the virus have shut down theaters across the country—putting to a sudden halt the way films are supposed to be experienced: on a big screen and in the company of others—just as Americans have been hungrier than ever for film and television entertainment to keep them occupied while physical distancing. Naturally, the new reality led to a surge in new subscriptions in streaming services.
Then, at the same time that people found themselves locked inside and tied to their screens, a Minneapolis police officer brutally killed George Floyd, igniting a worldwide social justice movement that demanded an end to police brutality and systemic racism.
That pivotal moment of national introspection has also led to an increased appetite for aesthetic representations of marginalized people. Netflix unleashed a Black Lives Matter collection. The Criterion Channel put out a retrospective of pioneering Black filmmakers. Their logic made sense: Art is perhaps the greatest instrument through which we can understand the human experience. No wonder, then, it is where Americans have turned to make sense of the nation’s social unrest.
That has come with an added benefit. Filmmakers who were once relatively obscure are now getting the attention they have long deserved.
Just ask Cheryl Dunye. More than two decades after its release, her groundbreaking arthouse film, The Watermelon Woman, has been making something of a mainstream comeback. News outlets like Vanity Fair and Complex are writing think pieces on the film’s significance. The Criterion Channel included her semi-autobiographical 1996 film in its Black cinema spotlight, as well as in its June 2020 Pride month lineup. That’s because the movie depicted intersectional struggle before “intersectionality” was even considered a thing: the story follows a Black lesbian filmmaker named Cheryl who works at a video rental store and who is making a documentary about a Black lesbian actress from the 1930s.
“Putting myself into my work is something that I was already doing even before The Watermelon Woman,” she told me in a recent interview. “I went to art school, got an MFA at Rutgers and that’s sort of where I started putting myself into my own pictures. I think that that’s something that I’ve always wanted to do with my own personal ideasAs a Black lesbian, being out and queer and doing a different thing, it was definitely a long time before I got to this point where I am now, but I was able to work more independently.”
The Watermelon Woman is widely recognized as the first film directed by a Black lesbian, with Dunye starring in its lead role. It earned a cult-like status among cinephiles and Black and queer communities almost immediately after its release. The movie received critical praise and won a Teddy Award for Best Feature Film at the Berlin International Film Festival and Audience Award for Outstanding Narrative Feature at L.A. Outfest. But it has never quite gotten as much attention as it is now.
That’s partly because, even in the years since its release, there hasn’t been a great surge in more movies portraying queer people of color. Most of the LGBTQ films of the last 10 years—Call Me By Your Name, Brokeback Mountain, The Favorite—feature white queer couples without any black or brown characters in sight. Director Clea Duvall’s upcoming holiday-themed lesbian romantic comedy, starring Kristen Stewart, features a similarly homogenous looking cast.
Television shows have done better. According to GLAAD’s annual “Where We Are in TV” report, 2018 was the first year that people of color made up more than half of the queer characters on TV—up from 24 percent 10 years ago. “You can see that Hollywood has changed a bit,” Dunye told me. “There are strides, and there is a big effort all over. But there aren’t a lot of people doing it at that level, there are just a few.”
The question now, however, is whether a newfound interest in Dunye’s work—and the demands of a growing societal awareness over the plight racial and sexual minorities—will make films about queer people of color more of a norm than an outlier.
That starts with who is given a chance to tell the stories that shape our culture. A 2015 study from the Director’s Guild of America revealed that only three percent of television episodes from 2014-2015 were directed by minority females. In other words, Black lesbian directors like Dunye aren’t as likely to receive opportunities as their white counterparts.
A Washington Post analysis of the 2015 Academy of Motion Pictures Awards found that among the 317 male directors, who “rank among Hollywood’s most powerful decision makers,” only 50 weren’t white. As the study notes, this group wields “unmistakable power behind the scenes, by deciding which projects get funded, which actors get cast–and which stories get ignored.” Even lists of the top gay and lesbian directors in the industry show white men are overrepresented compared to women and persons of color.
The good news is, people are starting to recognize that. “There are conversations happening now about the lack of black and brown folks in queer culture production,” Dunye said. As the Black director Steve McQueen wrote in The Guardian, there is a need for more Black and Minority Experience (BAME) employees working behind the camera. “It felt like I had walked out of one environment, the London I was surrounded by, into another, a place that was alien to me,” McQueen wrote. “I could not believe the whiteness of the set.”
The critical resurrection of The Watermelon Woman should inspire Hollywood to fix this problem. The film’s lasting success proves that films about Black lesbians are not micro-targeted exclusively to Black lesbian audiences. In fact, they can touch on universally appealing themes that resonate with and interest broader audiences. The Watermelon Woman, after all, is about the struggle to understand one’s identity. Who doesn’t relate to that?
Today, Dunye is working on a TV pilot, which is slated to be released later this year but doesn’t yet have a premiere date. She is also trying to expand a previously made short film, Black is Blue—about a Black trans security guard—into a larger, full-length production.
And while she’s enjoying and appreciating the attention her first film is getting now, she’s not dwelling on it. Rather, she’s using it as an engine to spur future work. “[That’s something] I had to get over a long time ago, about this sense of what I am owed and what the universe has given me,” Dunye said. “To receive that visibility now, I’m not going say, ‘Oh, it’s been out there, people just haven’t seen the work.’ That’s what being an artist is about, ya know. It’s about inspiring a movement.” Lucky for us all, Dunye might just be doing that.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-12--The Biden-Harris Ticket Is the Antithesis of Trumpism

The title of a piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates back in 2017 was eye-catching .
He referred to Donald Trump as “ The First White President.
” But his subtitle told you a bit about where he was going with that claim .
It read : “ The foundation of Donald Trump ’ s presidency is the negation of Obama ’ s legacy.
” It is often said that Trump has no real ideology , which is not true—his ideology is white supremacy , in all its truculent and sanctimonious power… Replacing Obama is not enough—Trump has made the negation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own…Trump truly is something new—the first president whose entire political existence hinges on the fact of a black president .
And so it will not suffice to say that Trump is a white man like all the others who rose to become president .
He must be called by his rightful honorific—America ’ s first white president .
Launching his entry onto the national political stage by claiming that the first African American president wasn ’ t a citizen and ending his first term by accusing Obama of treason are the bookends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done everything possible to negate his predecessor ’ s accomplishments .
But it ’ s not as if Trump ’ s antipathy for Obama is simply personal .
It is rooted in a past and present packed with racist words and deeds .
Both Trump and his supporters took offense at the election of a competent African American to lead this country .
His presidency was primarily a backlash to that seminal event .
On Tuesday , the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , Joe Biden , chose Senator Kamala Harris to be his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The most striking thing about the ticket is that it presents a clear backlash to that backlash .
It is no accident that Democratic voters chose Obama ’ s vice president to be their nominee .
The Obama-Biden relationship was legendary , and as Michael Harriot noted , it had an impact .
Biden didn ’ t just listen , he learned .
In the midst of all of that , he offered both his boss and his African American colleagues respect , loyalty , and honesty .
I ’ m sad to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men his age for having done so .
But then Biden chose Kamala Harris to be his running mate , adding someone who is the very antithesis of everything we ’ ve come to associate with Trumpism .
She is an intelligent , experienced Black woman whose parents were immigrants to this country .
Take a look at how Harris talked about her mother during the Democratic primary .
This discussion with Ari Melber is also the antithesis of everything Donald Trump stands for .
You have Cory Booker talking about how Kamala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks by quoting poet Maya Angelou .
Right on cue , the president went there on his Twitter feed Wednesday morning .
Commenting on the historic nature of Harris ’ s candidacy , Nikole Hannah-Jones quoted the Black women of the Combahee River Collective : “ If Black women were free , it would mean that everyone else would have to be free since our freedom would necessitate the destruction of all the systems of oppression.
” That is precisely why the Biden-Harris ticket is the antithesis of Trumpism .
It takes direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s presidency and delivers the antidote .

The title of a piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates back in 2017 was eye-catching. He referred to Donald Trump as “The First White President.” But his subtitle told you a bit about where he was going with that claim. It read: “The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Obama’s legacy.”
It is often said that Trump has no real ideology, which is not true—his ideology is white supremacy, in all its truculent and sanctimonious power… Replacing Obama is not enough—Trump has made the negation of Obama’s legacy the foundation of his own…Trump truly is something new—the first president whose entire political existence hinges on the fact of a black president. And so it will not suffice to say that Trump is a white man like all the others who rose to become president. He must be called by his rightful honorific—America’s first white president.
Launching his entry onto the national political stage by claiming that the first African American president wasn’t a citizen and ending his first term by accusing Obama of treason are the bookends. In between, this president has done everything possible to negate his predecessor’s accomplishments.
But it’s not as if Trump’s antipathy for Obama is simply personal. It is rooted in a past and present packed with racist words and deeds. Both Trump and his supporters took offense at the election of a competent African American to lead this country. His presidency was primarily a backlash to that seminal event.
On Tuesday, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, chose Senator Kamala Harris to be his running mate in the November election. The most striking thing about the ticket is that it presents a clear backlash to that backlash.
It is no accident that Democratic voters chose Obama’s vice president to be their nominee. The Obama-Biden relationship was legendary, and as Michael Harriot noted, it had an impact.
Biden worked for a black boss and, as veep, he was surrounded by black people who were smarter than him (Susan Rice, Michelle Obama, Eric Holder, Jeh Johnson). This might not seem like much, but eight years listening to black people is something few white people have ever done.
Biden didn’t just listen, he learned. In the midst of all of that, he offered both his boss and his African American colleagues respect, loyalty, and honesty. I’m sad to say that Biden is unique among white men his age for having done so.
But then Biden chose Kamala Harris to be his running mate, adding someone who is the very antithesis of everything we’ve come to associate with Trumpism. She is an intelligent, experienced Black woman whose parents were immigrants to this country. Take a look at how Harris talked about her mother during the Democratic primary.
This discussion with Ari Melber is also the antithesis of everything Donald Trump stands for. You have Cory Booker talking about how Kamala Harris will handle the president’s attacks by quoting poet Maya Angelou.
Right on cue, the president went there on his Twitter feed Wednesday morning.
Commenting on the historic nature of Harris’s candidacy, Nikole Hannah-Jones quoted the Black women of the Combahee River Collective: “If Black women were free, it would mean that everyone else would have to be free since our freedom would necessitate the destruction of all the systems of oppression.”
That is precisely why the Biden-Harris ticket is the antithesis of Trumpism. It takes direct aim at the foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency and delivers the antidote.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-12--Georgia Republicans To Send a Tax Cheat and a QAnon Supporter to Congress

With everyone justifiably focused on the announcement that Kamala Harris will be Joe Biden ’ s running mate , you may have missed that Georgians effectively elected a QAnon supporter to the United States Congress last night .
Marjorie Taylor Greene won a Republican primary runoff against a neurosurgeon and will now in all likelihood coast to victory in November , since the 14th District is one of the most Republican districts in the country .
If you aren ’ t familiar with the QAnon phenomenon , it ’ s a crackpot theory that “ says that Donald Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paedophiles in government , business and the media.
” And if you ’ re wondering how someone believing such nonsense could win a Republican primary , Media Matters can explain that for you : As of July 7 , 2020 , President Donald Trump has amplified tweets from accounts promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory at least 185 times via at least 114 individual accounts , some of them more than once .
( Since the novel coronavirus pandemic began in the United States , he has amplified QAnon Twitter accounts at least 90 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Additionally , members of Trump ’ s family , his personal attorney , current and former campaign staffers , and even some current and former Trump administration officials have also repeatedly amplified QAnon supporters and their content .
Ms. Greene isn ’ t just a QAnon supporter , however .
As Politico can tell you , she is so much more .
As for the president , he praised her victory and wrote that she is “ strong on everything.
” The House leadership was hoping that her opponent John Cowan would prevail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that her construction business doesn ’ t do enough to prevent Latinos from finding employment in Georgia .
On Tuesday , there was also a Republican run-off in Georgia ’ s 9th congressional district .
That contest was won by a gun shop owner named Andrew Clyde , “ a first-time candidate who has emphasized his military career and his successful battle against the IRS after it seized close to $ 1 million from him in 2013.
” The tax scofflaw prevailed against State Rep. Matt Gurtler who was supported by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at “ an event hosted by a local white supremacist.
” With only tax-cheats , klan-sympathizers , anti-Semites , and crackpots to choose from , it was inevitable that we ’ d see some troubling results .
The 9th congressional district is even more conservative than the 14th , and Mr. Clyde will be joining Ms. Greene in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2021 .
They now represent the post-Trump future of the Republican Party .
They will be among many of the current president ’ s lasting gifts to the nation @

With everyone justifiably focused on the announcement that Kamala Harris will be Joe Biden’s running mate, you may have missed that Georgians effectively elected a QAnon supporter to the United States Congress last night. Marjorie Taylor Greene won a Republican primary runoff against a neurosurgeon and will now in all likelihood coast to victory in November, since the 14th District is one of the most Republican districts in the country.
If you aren’t familiar with the QAnon phenomenon, it’s a crackpot theory that “says that Donald Trump is waging a secret war against elite Satan-worshipping paedophiles in government, business and the media.” And if you’re wondering how someone believing such nonsense could win a Republican primary, Media Matters can explain that for you:
As of July 7, 2020, President Donald Trump has amplified tweets from accounts promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory at least 185 times via at least 114 individual accounts, some of them more than once. (Since the novel coronavirus pandemic began in the United States, he has amplified QAnon Twitter accounts at least 90 times via 49 individual accounts.) Additionally, members of Trump’s family, his personal attorney, current and former campaign staffers, and even some current and former Trump administration officials have also repeatedly amplified QAnon supporters and their content.
Ms. Greene isn’t just a QAnon supporter, however. As Politico can tell you, she is so much more.
The candidate, Marjorie Taylor Greene, suggested that Muslims do not belong in government; thinks black people “are held slaves to the Democratic Party”; called George Soros, a Jewish Democratic megadonor, a Nazi; and said she would feel “proud” to see a Confederate monument if she were black because it symbolizes progress made since the Civil War.
As for the president, he praised her victory and wrote that she is “strong on everything.”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293525010523578375?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1293525010523578375%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-us-canada-53747851
The House leadership was hoping that her opponent John Cowan would prevail, but his main critique of Greene was that her construction business doesn’t do enough to prevent Latinos from finding employment in Georgia.
On Tuesday, there was also a Republican run-off in Georgia’s 9th congressional district. That contest was won by a gun shop owner named Andrew Clyde, “a first-time candidate who has emphasized his military career and his successful battle against the IRS after it seized close to $1 million from him in 2013.” The tax scofflaw prevailed against State Rep. Matt Gurtler who was supported by the Club for Growth despite being recently photographed at “an event hosted by a local white supremacist.”
With only tax-cheats, klan-sympathizers, anti-Semites, and crackpots to choose from, it was inevitable that we’d see some troubling results. The 9th congressional district is even more conservative than the 14th, and Mr. Clyde will be joining Ms. Greene in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2021. They now represent the post-Trump future of the Republican Party.
They will be among many of the current president’s lasting gifts to the nation.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-12--The 1996 Black Lesbian Film That Became Essential Viewing for 2020

The coronavirus pandemic has come with an odd paradox for the movie business .
Efforts to stop the spread of the virus have shut down theaters across the country—putting to a sudden halt the way films are supposed to be experienced : on a big screen and in the company of others—just as Americans have been hungrier than ever for film and television entertainment to keep them occupied while physical distancing .
Naturally , the new reality led to a surge in new subscriptions in streaming services .
Then , at the same time that people found themselves locked inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minneapolis police officer brutally killed George Floyd , igniting a worldwide social justice movement that demanded an end to police brutality and systemic racism .
That pivotal moment of national introspection has also led to an increased appetite for aesthetic representations of marginalized people .
Netflix unleashed a Black Lives Matter collection .
The Criterion Channel put out a retrospective of pioneering Black filmmakers .
Their logic made sense : Art is perhaps the greatest instrument through which we can understand the human experience .
No wonder , then , it is where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation ’ s social unrest .
That has come with an added benefit .
Filmmakers who were once relatively obscure are now getting the attention they have long deserved .
Just ask Cheryl Dunye .
More than two decades after its release , her groundbreaking arthouse film , The Watermelon Woman , has been making something of a mainstream comeback .
News outlets like Vanity Fair and Complex are writing think pieces on the film ’ s significance .
The Criterion Channel included her semi-autobiographical 1996 film in its Black cinema spotlight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 Pride month lineup .
That ’ s because the movie depicted intersectional struggle before “ intersectionality ” was even considered a thing : the story follows a Black lesbian filmmaker named Cheryl who works at a video rental store and who is making a documentary about a Black lesbian actress from the 1930s .
“ Putting myself into my work is something that I was already doing even before The Watermelon Woman , ” she told me in a recent interview .
“ I went to art school , got an MFA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of where I started putting myself into my own pictures .
I think that that ’ s something that I ’ ve always wanted to do with my own personal ideasAs a Black lesbian , being out and queer and doing a different thing , it was definitely a long time before I got to this point where I am now , but I was able to work more independently.
” The Watermelon Woman is widely recognized as the first film directed by a Black lesbian , with Dunye starring in its lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among cinephiles and Black and queer communities almost immediately after its release .
The movie received critical praise and won a Teddy Award for Best Feature Film at the Berlin International Film Festival and Audience Award for Outstanding Narrative Feature at L.A. Outfest .
But it has never quite gotten as much attention as it is now .
That ’ s partly because , even in the years since its release , there hasn ’ t been a great surge in more movies portraying queer people of color .
Most of the LGBTQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By Your Name , Brokeback Mountain , The Favorite—feature white queer couples without any black or brown characters in sight .
Director Clea Duvall ’ s upcoming holiday-themed lesbian romantic comedy , starring Kristen Stewart , features a similarly homogenous looking cast .
Television shows have done better .
According to GLAAD ’ s annual “ Where We Are in TV ” report , 2018 was the first year that people of color made up more than half of the queer characters on TV—up from 24 percent 10 years ago .
“ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit , ” Dunye told me .
“ There are strides , and there is a big effort all over .
But there aren ’ t a lot of people doing it at that level , there are just a few.
” The question now , however , is whether a newfound interest in Dunye ’ s work—and the demands of a growing societal awareness over the plight racial and sexual minorities—will make films about queer people of color more of a norm than an outlier .
That starts with who is given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shape our culture .
A 2015 study from the Director ’ s Guild of America revealed that only three percent of television episodes from 2014-2015 were directed by minority females .
In other words , Black lesbian directors like Dunye aren ’ t as likely to receive opportunities as their white counterparts .
A Washington Post analysis of the 2015 Academy of Motion Pictures Awards found that among the 317 male directors , who “ rank among Hollywood ’ s most powerful decision makers , ” only 50 weren ’ t white .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wields “ unmistakable power behind the scenes , by deciding which projects get funded , which actors get cast–and which stories get ignored.
” Even lists of the top gay and lesbian directors in the industry show white men are overrepresented compared to women and persons of color .
The good news is , people are starting to recognize that .
“ There are conversations happening now about the lack of black and brown folks in queer culture production , ” Dunye said .
As the Black director Steve McQueen wrote in The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more Black and Minority Experience ( BAME ) employees working behind the camera .
“ It felt like I had walked out of one environment , the London I was surrounded by , into another , a place that was alien to me , ” McQueen wrote .
“ I could not believe the whiteness of the set.
” The critical resurrection of The Watermelon Woman should inspire Hollywood to fix this problem .
The film ’ s lasting success proves that films about Black lesbians are not micro-targeted exclusively to Black lesbian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touch on universally appealing themes that resonate with and interest broader audiences .
The Watermelon Woman , after all , is about the struggle to understand one ’ s identity .
Who doesn ’ t relate to that ?
Today , Dunye is working on a TV pilot , which is slated to be released later this year but doesn ’ t yet have a premiere date .
She is also trying to expand a previously made short film , Black is Blue—about a Black trans security guard—into a larger , full-length production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and appreciating the attention her first film is getting now , she ’ s not dwelling on it .
Rather , she ’ s using it as an engine to spur future work .
“ [ That ’ s something ] I had to get over a long time ago , about this sense of what I am owed and what the universe has given me , ” Dunye said .
“ To receive that visibility now , I ’ m not going say , ‘ Oh , it ’ s been out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen the work.
’ That ’ s what being an artist is about , ya know .
It ’ s about inspiring a movement.
” Lucky for us all , Dunye might just be doing that .