MELTDOWN

Anyone who was looking forward to tonight ’ s debate hoping for greater clarity on the issues surely walked away disappointed .
But anyone watching to better understand the contrast in character between the two men saw all they needed to see .
Donald Trump behaved during the first presidential debate the same way he has behaved throughout his business and political career : running roughshod over norms , standards , morality , and any sense of decency .
And the American people noticed : a CNN post-debate poll showed Biden winning 60 % to 28 % , while a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller 7-point margin , but with significantly worse internals for Trump .
After agreeing to the debate format giving each candidate two minutes to speak on each question , Trump tried to bully , bluster , and interrupt at every moment , rarely giving Biden a chance to finish a sentence .
Debate moderator Chris Wallace seemed stunned and incapable of handling the situation , waiting until the debate was halfway gone before telling Trump , who behaved like a toddler , to observe the rules .
Wallace became increasingly exasperated as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was so abominable that much of the debate wasn ’ t between Biden and Trump , but between Trump and Wallace , as Wallace tried without success to shame Trump into observing any sense of adult behavior .
Trump ’ s hardcore supporters will no doubt be ecstatic , as they have thrilled to similar behavior over the course of his presidency .
But Trump is currently well behind in the polls : he needs to do more than tickle the worst instincts of his base .
He needs to win over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and there is no evidence he came close to accomplishing the task .
There wasn ’ t much of substance to report from the debacle , but a few moments stood out : 1 ) Trump not only refused to condemn white supremacist violence , he actively encouraged racist extremists .
When Wallace directly asked Trump if he would condemn the actions of white supremacists and racist agitators in response to police violence protests , Trump refused to do so .
Trump then mentioned the racist terrorist group The Proud Boys by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and asked them to “ stand back and stand by.
” The Proud Boys are celebrating in response .
When Biden mentioned that Trump ’ s own FBI considered white supremacist groups by far the biggest threat in the United States , Trump insisted that his own FBI was wrong .
There are few words to express how disgusting , appalling , and unacceptable this is from any candidate for any office anywhere , much less the sitting President of the United States .
2 ) Trump brazenly insisted that the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , and falsely claimed that he paid millions of dollars in taxes .
It went almost unnoticed in the general hubbub , but this was an incredibly dangerous moment for the president .
The Times can presumably prove that Trump ’ s taxes are in fact his taxes ; the New York Attorney General has more Trump organization taxes as well .
And the Times will have even more stories coming out soon .
It will be extremely difficult for Trump to try to stonewall this story through the election , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front of an enormous audience from which it will be very difficult to retreat .
3 ) Trump lied with reckless abandon about mail-in voting and encouraged his supporters to intimidate people at the polls .
Americans want to have confidence in our election system , and tens of millions of Americans have voted by mail for years .
During the campaign ’ s final moments , Trump went off on an unhinged litany of lies about mail-in voting , in an attempt to delegitimize the entire election process .
Post-debate focus groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go over well .
But Trump also encouraged “ his people ” to illegally go to polling places to intimidate voters all across America , and complained that state elections officials were not allowing them to do so .
America will be very lucky if Trump ’ s exhortations to the worst elements of his base do not result in election-related violence .
4 ) Trump ’ s stomping on Biden ’ s moment of grief over his son Beau was an appalling act of sociopathy and gave Biden an opportunity for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , Trump tried to turn the conversation to Hunter Biden , making a series of exaggerated or false claims about Biden ’ s son .
Turning to Trump ’ s reported statements disparaging those in military service , the former Vice President began speaking from his heart about his deceased son , Beau .
Trump interrupted and stomped on his moment by yelling again about Hunter ’ s history of drug use , refusing to offer even the barest shred of sympathy for the Biden family ’ s tragedy .
Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that his son Hunter had suffered from drug addiction–much like millions of people in the opioid-ravaged areas of America that Trump pretends to champion .
Trump ’ s behavior was monstrous , unworthy of even a basic human being in society much less a sitting president .
Biden ’ s was deeply sympathetic .
5 ) Biden stayed mostly above the fray , except to dismiss Trump at his most outrageous .
For the most part , Biden simply smiled and shook his head as Trump played the fool .
But perhaps the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Will you shut up , man ?
” Many seized on this as a mistake in which Biden lost his cool .
But Biden may have known something his critics didn ’ t .
There are many voters who may prefer conservative policies overall , but can not stand Trump ’ s demeanor , tweets , and bullying .
They would like him , in layman ’ s terms , to just shut up already .
Biden has many flaws as a candidate , but his greatest strength is connecting with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking in plain language unused by most politicians .
It ’ s part of why his “ gaffes ” don ’ t sink him : they make Biden all the more charming .
And while it may have offended some for Biden to “ come down ” to Trump ’ s level , it was almost certainly refreshing to many–and not just liberal clap-back celebrants–who yearned to see someone say that to Trump to his face .
There ’ s an innate joy for most people in seeing someone stand up to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just that .
6 ) Trump appears to be so desperate that he spent a large amount of time trying to split Biden from the left .
Time and again , Trump tried to pretend that Biden was a Fox News caricature of Bernie Sanders .
Then , when Biden insisted that he be judged on his own record and plans , Trump insisted that he had “ lost the left.
” Trump advisor Kelly-Anne Conway continued the strategy after the debate , only for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to deliver a humiliating rejoinder in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leftists on Twitter were foolishly convinced that Trump was dominating the debate–thus betraying both a lack of familiarity with the concerns of undecided voters and their own strange fetish for authoritarian personalities–the vast majority of the actual American left , including the vast majority of Democratic socialists and Green New Deal progressives , know that Trump ’ s pratfall in the debate negated his trolling .
That Trump would even attempt it , much less spend so much time doing so , is a mark of his own campaign ’ s desperation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ go from here .
The conventional wisdom going into the debate was that it wouldn ’ t likely change much , with very few undecided voters left .
That conventional wisdom likely remains correct .
But it ’ s also true that it was Trump who needed a big win tonight .
He is far behind in most polling , including in the tipping-point swing states .
The debates are one of the last opportunities to change the conversation , and it ’ s clear that he not only failed to accomplish the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position .
Even Fox News ’ commentators chose to spend most of their time excoriating their own colleague Wallace than pretending that Trump has performed well .
Trump himself tweeted an image implying that he had to debate both Biden and Wallace–the self-pitying whine of a loser who knows he lost , and all the more pathetic from a man who attempted to bully his opponent off the stage and is attempting to bully his opponent ’ s voters out of participating in the election .
It ’ s also a challenge for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold a legitimate debate if one of the debaters refuses to follow any of the rules .
The moderators of the next debates will need to be much more forceful than Wallace ; they may even need to consider cutting the microphones of the candidates to prevent interruptions .
But it ’ s also true that traditionally , the second and third debates have mattered far less to the eventual result than the first .
If this was Trump ’ s last gasp at trying to actually win the election without cheating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his presidency : four years of ugly , bigoted , bullying , sociopathic tantrums ending in a final meltdown on the biggest stage in politics .

Anyone who was looking forward to tonight’s debate hoping for greater clarity on the issues surely walked away disappointed. But anyone watching to better understand the contrast in character between the two men saw all they needed to see. Donald Trump behaved during the first presidential debate the same way he has behaved throughout his business and political career: running roughshod over norms, standards, morality, and any sense of decency. And the American people noticed: a CNN post-debate poll showed Biden winning 60% to 28%, while a CBS/YouGov poll showed Biden winning by a smaller 7-point margin, but with significantly worse internals for Trump.
After agreeing to the debate format giving each candidate two minutes to speak on each question, Trump tried to bully, bluster, and interrupt at every moment, rarely giving Biden a chance to finish a sentence. Debate moderator Chris Wallace seemed stunned and incapable of handling the situation, waiting until the debate was halfway gone before telling Trump, who behaved like a toddler, to observe the rules. Wallace became increasingly exasperated as the night continued. Trump’s behavior was so abominable that much of the debate wasn’t between Biden and Trump, but between Trump and Wallace, as Wallace tried without success to shame Trump into observing any sense of adult behavior.
Trump’s hardcore supporters will no doubt be ecstatic, as they have thrilled to similar behavior over the course of his presidency. But Trump is currently well behind in the polls: he needs to do more than tickle the worst instincts of his base. He needs to win over the moderate and undecided voters he has lost, and there is no evidence he came close to accomplishing the task.
There wasn’t much of substance to report from the debacle, but a few moments stood out:
1) Trump not only refused to condemn white supremacist violence, he actively encouraged racist extremists. When Wallace directly asked Trump if he would condemn the actions of white supremacists and racist agitators in response to police violence protests, Trump refused to do so. Trump then mentioned the racist terrorist group The Proud Boys by name, refused to denounce them, and asked them to “stand back and stand by.” The Proud Boys are celebrating in response. When Biden mentioned that Trump’s own FBI considered white supremacist groups by far the biggest threat in the United States, Trump insisted that his own FBI was wrong. There are few words to express how disgusting, appalling, and unacceptable this is from any candidate for any office anywhere, much less the sitting President of the United States.
2) Trump brazenly insisted that the New York Times story on his taxes was made up, and falsely claimed that he paid millions of dollars in taxes. It went almost unnoticed in the general hubbub, but this was an incredibly dangerous moment for the president. The Times can presumably prove that Trump’s taxes are in fact his taxes; the New York Attorney General has more Trump organization taxes as well. And the Times will have even more stories coming out soon. It will be extremely difficult for Trump to try to stonewall this story through the election, and he laid down a marker tonight in front of an enormous audience from which it will be very difficult to retreat.
3) Trump lied with reckless abandon about mail-in voting and encouraged his supporters to intimidate people at the polls. Americans want to have confidence in our election system, and tens of millions of Americans have voted by mail for years. During the campaign’s final moments, Trump went off on an unhinged litany of lies about mail-in voting, in an attempt to delegitimize the entire election process. Post-debate focus groups on television suggested that it did not go over well. But Trump also encouraged “his people” to illegally go to polling places to intimidate voters all across America, and complained that state elections officials were not allowing them to do so. America will be very lucky if Trump’s exhortations to the worst elements of his base do not result in election-related violence.
4) Trump’s stomping on Biden’s moment of grief over his son Beau was an appalling act of sociopathy and gave Biden an opportunity for a striking moment of empathy. Time and again, Trump tried to turn the conversation to Hunter Biden, making a series of exaggerated or false claims about Biden’s son. Turning to Trump’s reported statements disparaging those in military service, the former Vice President began speaking from his heart about his deceased son, Beau. Trump interrupted and stomped on his moment by yelling again about Hunter’s history of drug use, refusing to offer even the barest shred of sympathy for the Biden family’s tragedy. Joe Biden then turned to the camera and said that his son Hunter had suffered from drug addiction–much like millions of people in the opioid-ravaged areas of America that Trump pretends to champion. Trump’s behavior was monstrous, unworthy of even a basic human being in society much less a sitting president. Biden’s was deeply sympathetic.
5) Biden stayed mostly above the fray, except to dismiss Trump at his most outrageous. For the most part, Biden simply smiled and shook his head as Trump played the fool. But perhaps the most memorable moment came when Biden said, “Will you shut up, man?” Many seized on this as a mistake in which Biden lost his cool. But Biden may have known something his critics didn’t. There are many voters who may prefer conservative policies overall, but cannot stand Trump’s demeanor, tweets, and bullying. They would like him, in layman’s terms, to just shut up already. Biden has many flaws as a candidate, but his greatest strength is connecting with both white and non-white working-class voters, speaking in plain language unused by most politicians. It’s part of why his “gaffes” don’t sink him: they make Biden all the more charming. And while it may have offended some for Biden to “come down” to Trump’s level, it was almost certainly refreshing to many–and not just liberal clap-back celebrants–who yearned to see someone say that to Trump to his face. There’s an innate joy for most people in seeing someone stand up to a bully with dignity, and Biden did just that.
6) Trump appears to be so desperate that he spent a large amount of time trying to split Biden from the left. Time and again, Trump tried to pretend that Biden was a Fox News caricature of Bernie Sanders. Then, when Biden insisted that he be judged on his own record and plans, Trump insisted that he had “lost the left.” Trump advisor Kelly-Anne Conway continued the strategy after the debate, only for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to deliver a humiliating rejoinder in solidarity with Biden. While a few leftists on Twitter were foolishly convinced that Trump was dominating the debate–thus betraying both a lack of familiarity with the concerns of undecided voters and their own strange fetish for authoritarian personalities–the vast majority of the actual American left, including the vast majority of Democratic socialists and Green New Deal progressives, know that Trump’s pratfall in the debate negated his trolling. That Trump would even attempt it, much less spend so much time doing so, is a mark of his own campaign’s desperation.
It is hard to know where we go from here. The conventional wisdom going into the debate was that it wouldn’t likely change much, with very few undecided voters left. That conventional wisdom likely remains correct.
But it’s also true that it was Trump who needed a big win tonight. He is far behind in most polling, including in the tipping-point swing states. The debates are one of the last opportunities to change the conversation, and it’s clear that he not only failed to accomplish the task: he damaged his already precarious position. Even Fox News’ commentators chose to spend most of their time excoriating their own colleague Wallace than pretending that Trump has performed well. Trump himself tweeted an image implying that he had to debate both Biden and Wallace–the self-pitying whine of a loser who knows he lost, and all the more pathetic from a man who attempted to bully his opponent off the stage and is attempting to bully his opponent’s voters out of participating in the election.
It’s also a challenge for future debates. It’s impossible to hold a legitimate debate if one of the debaters refuses to follow any of the rules. The moderators of the next debates will need to be much more forceful than Wallace; they may even need to consider cutting the microphones of the candidates to prevent interruptions. But it’s also true that traditionally, the second and third debates have mattered far less to the eventual result than the first.
If this was Trump’s last gasp at trying to actually win the election without cheating, it was a perfect capstone to his presidency: four years of ugly, bigoted, bullying, sociopathic tantrums ending in a final meltdown on the biggest stage in politics.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-30--Donald Trump vs. The Suckers Who Pay Their Fair Share of Income Taxes

We need a reality check .
The news earlier this week that Donald Trump , who earned $ 434 million in 2018 , paid little or no federal income taxes for years was staggering .
And those revelations are even more shocking when we compare what Trump paid in federal income taxes to other Americans .
Even when he paid a small income tax in 2016 and 2017 , it was less than the taxes paid by nearly 90 million American households with incomes greater than $ 25,000 When Trump filed his 1040 forms in 10 of the 15 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group comprised mainly of working poor families that owe no federal income tax .
And when he paid $ 750 in income tax in 2016 and 2017 , he joined Americans who earned on average $ 20,000 to $ 25,000 , including fast-food workers , amusement park attendants , and gambling dealers .
In every instance , Trump leveraged real estate write-offs and losses to zero out all or virtually all of his taxes on incomes of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars – and went to court countless times to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the enormity of Trump ’ s tax dodges requires a deep dive into IRS databases .
They show that in 2019 , the IRS received 153,774,296 income tax returns from American individuals , couples , families , and households for income earned in 2018 .
That number doesn ’ t include most poor and very modest income Americans who didn ’ t have to file a 1040 form , because they earned less than the standard deduction of $ 12,200 for individuals and $ 24,400 for couples .
The number does include 53,359,786 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their income tax forms even though they reported no taxable income .
It also includes Donald Trump in 10 out of 15 years .
Everyone else ?
They were mainly working-poor families who filed a 1040 in order to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit , plus those with incomes just above the standard deduction , but not enough to owe income tax after taking account of tax credits for their children , child care , and perhaps some small savings .
In 2016 and 2017 , as noted , Donald Trump did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the IRS .
Those tax payments put him in the lower half of the IRS group of 5,131,634 households with taxable incomes of $ 20,000 to $ 25,000 , who paid an average of $ 994 in income tax .
Again , for perspective , $ 20,000 to $ 25,000 was the average wage income last year of cashiers and theater ushers as well as cooks and dishwashers at Taco Bell and McDonald ’ s .
That leaves 87,416,451 American households who had taxable income incomes greater than $ 25,000 and so paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you were one of the 19,121,652 individuals , couples , or families whose taxable income in 2018 was $ 50,000 to $ 75,000 – the average for flight attendants , correctional officers , postal service workers , and athletic trainers last year — you paid on average $ 4,688 in federal income tax .
That was 6.3 times as much as Donald Trump .
If you were one of the 13,149,633 American households with taxable incomes of $ 75,000 to $ 100,000 in 2018 – the average for dental hygienists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loan officers – you paid almost ten times as much in federal income tax as Donald Trump .
It will take investigators a long time to determine whether Trump legally avoided or illegally evaded tax bills on hundreds of millions of dollars in income .
Whichever it was will not change this bottom line : As president of the United States , Donald Trump demonstrates his contempt for many tens of millions of American taxpayers who pay more for the nation ’ s defense and welfare than their billionaire chief executive .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .

We need a reality check. The news earlier this week that Donald Trump, who earned $434 million in 2018, paid little or no federal income taxes for years was staggering. And those revelations are even more shocking when we compare what Trump paid in federal income taxes to other Americans. Even when he paid a small income tax in 2016 and 2017, it was less than the taxes paid by nearly 90 million American households with incomes greater than $25,000
When Trump filed his 1040 forms in 10 of the 15 years from 2000 to 2015, he joined a group comprised mainly of working poor families that owe no federal income tax. And when he paid $750 in income tax in 2016 and 2017, he joined Americans who earned on average $20,000 to $25,000, including fast-food workers, amusement park attendants, and gambling dealers. In every instance, Trump leveraged real estate write-offs and losses to zero out all or virtually all of his taxes on incomes of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars – and went to court countless times to keep it secret.
To fully grasp the enormity of Trump’s tax dodges requires a deep dive into IRS databases.
They show that in 2019, the IRS received 153,774,296 income tax returns from American individuals, couples, families, and households for income earned in 2018. That number doesn’t include most poor and very modest income Americans who didn’t have to file a 1040 form, because they earned less than the standard deduction of $12,200 for individuals and $24,400 for couples. The number does include 53,359,786 Americans with very modest incomes who filed their income tax forms even though they reported no taxable income. It also includes Donald Trump in 10 out of 15 years. Everyone else? They were mainly working-poor families who filed a 1040 in order to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, plus those with incomes just above the standard deduction, but not enough to owe income tax after taking account of tax credits for their children, child care, and perhaps some small savings.
In 2016 and 2017, as noted, Donald Trump did ante up a miserly $750 for the IRS. Those tax payments put him in the lower half of the IRS group of 5,131,634 households with taxable incomes of $20,000 to $25,000, who paid an average of $994 in income tax. Again, for perspective, $20,000 to $25,000 was the average wage income last year of cashiers and theater ushers as well as cooks and dishwashers at Taco Bell and McDonald’s.
That leaves 87,416,451 American households who had taxable income incomes greater than $25,000 and so paid more federal income tax than Donald Trump.
If you were one of the 19,121,652 individuals, couples, or families whose taxable income in 2018 was $50,000 to $75,000 – the average for flight attendants, correctional officers, postal service workers, and athletic trainers last year — you paid on average $4,688 in federal income tax. That was 6.3 times as much as Donald Trump.
If you were one of the 13,149,633 American households with taxable incomes of $75,000 to $100,000 in 2018 – the average for dental hygienists, registered nurses, accountants, and bank loan officers – you paid almost ten times as much in federal income tax as Donald Trump.
It will take investigators a long time to determine whether Trump legally avoided or illegally evaded tax bills on hundreds of millions of dollars in income. Whichever it was will not change this bottom line: As president of the United States, Donald Trump demonstrates his contempt for many tens of millions of American taxpayers who pay more for the nation’s defense and welfare than their billionaire chief executive. Here are the pertinent IRS data that prove it.
Taxable Income Number of returns Average Tax Ratio to $750 $20,000 under $25,000 5,131,634 $994 1.3 $25,000 under $30,000 5,365,983 $1,369 1.8 $30,000 under $40,000 10,584,232 $2,057 2.7 $40,000 under $50,000 9,693,8668 $2,859 3.8 $50,000 under $75,000 19,121,652 $4,688 6.3 $75,000 under $100,000 13,149,633 $7,390 9.9 $100,000 under $200,000 20,976,903 $15,277 20.4 $200,000 under $500,000 6,882,287 $47,559 63.4 $500,000 under $1,000,000 1,104,444 $156,431 208.6 $1,000,000 under $1,500,000 241,068 $313,160 417.7 $1,500,000 under $2,000,000 98,248 $464,253 619.0 $2,000,000 under $5,000,000 141,489 $816,360 1,088.5 $5,000,000 under $10,000,000 34,646 $1,872,196 2,496.3 $10,000,000 and more 22,010 $7,386,572 9,848.8 All Incomes 100,414,509 $15,322 20.4


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-30--Republicans Are Slowing Down Mailed-In Vote Counts in Key Swing States

By now , the nightmare scenario is well established .
Because President Donald Trump has scared off Republicans from voting by mail , many of them flock to polling places on Election Day instead .
Democrats , meanwhile , stick with their plans to vote from home .
( Out of nine million voters who requested mail ballots in several battleground states as of this week , 52 percent are Democrats while just 28 percent are Republican . )
As a consequence , the early returns are misleading .
Come Election Night , with just the in-person votes recorded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , even though the vast majority of votes were cast absentee and have not yet been counted .
That night , and in the days that follow , as absentee ballots are still being processed and tabulated , Trump prematurely claims victory , accuses mailed-in ballots of being fraudulent , and sues to stop the counting .
The litigation makes its way through the courts , eventually reaching the Supreme Court , which , with a newly installed conservative justice having replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg , rules in favor of the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Tuesday night ’ s debate , Trump said he would be “ counting ” on the court to “ look at the ballots.
” ) The good news , though , is that there ’ s a way for states to counter the playbook Trump has already signaled he will follow : Allow elections officials to begin processing absentee ballots early .
The Bipartisan Policy Center recommends that states permit at least seven days of processing before Election Day .
That merely means opening the outer envelope , sorting the ballots into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and preparing them to go through a vote-counting machine .
That way , on Election Day , all you need do is put the ballots through the machine to know the results .
It ’ s a system already in place in states that have a long history of older and rural voters who routinely vote absentee , including in Florida and Ohio .
In Florida , for instance , elections officials begin processing and counting absentee ballots as early as 22 days before Election Day .
Ohio allows for the ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day , but the results can not be disclosed until after the polls close .
It makes sense , then , that a number of other states have adopted similar procedures .
The bad news is that Republican officials in three swing states , Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin , are blocking legislation that could allow for the early processing of absentee ballots—purposefully making it take longer to get the election results .
In other words , they are engineering the absentee vote counting delays that Trump is already planning to complain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these states , current law allows absentee vote processing to begin either on or after Election Day .
Over the last several months , county clerks and advocates have pushed for that period to be extended , all to enable elections officials to begin processing the votes more quickly , so there is less of a delay in announcing the outcome to the public .
But in each of those states , such bills have been blocked by Republican leadership in the state houses .
All of those states have a Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing for such bills , but Republicans control the legislatures .
In Pennsylvania , legislation was introduced in June to begin processing and counting ballots early , but it went nowhere .
In Wisconsin , Democrats introduced a bill in May to begin processing ballots early , but not tabulate them until after the polls closed .
That , too , faced GOP resistance .
In Michigan , there has been slightly more progress .
After months of advocacy by county clerks , including Republicans , to give elections officials the ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots , the Michigan state house passed a bill last week after sitting on it for months to extend early absentee vote processing—by just one day .
That ’ s better than nothing , but it ’ s hardly enough time to meet the needs of elections officials .
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson told me it only gives elections officials 10 hours to start processing ballots on Election Day , which includes additional administrative work .
Some clerks have estimated that they would only net three hours that day for processing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were initially ready to embrace a much longer period of early processing months ago .
A source familiar with the matter told me that Michigan Speaker Lee Chatfield supported the idea when it was first being floated .
“ He was like , ‘ Yeah , this shouldn ’ t be a big deal , it shouldn ’ t be partisan , ’ ” the source said .
“ And then the president started tweeting.
” Trump has frequently tweeted lies and misinformation about vote by mail , including that it leads to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of his anger at Michigan .
He threatened to cut off funding to the state after Benson sent all voters an absentee ballot application .
He has also complained about other states taking long periods of time to complete their vote count , such as New York .
Because of Trump ’ s attempts to politicize and discredit vote by mail , any efforts to enhance or expand the option have had to be treated delicately .
In Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin , Democrats brought forward the legislation to extend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reject the proposal out of pocket , but largely left the lobbying work to county clerks and elections officials to try to convince GOP lawmakers how desperately they needed the change .
That strategy worked in Georgia and Iowa , both of which passed laws to process ballots early—Georgia will allow the process to begin two weeks and a day before Election Day ; Iowa will start the Saturday before Election Day .
But since that hasn ’ t worked in three of the most hotly-contested states in the upcoming presidential election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists with power and influence to start raising hell about it now—in the weeks before the election—alerting the public about the tactic GOP officials are using to slow down the vote count .
Republicans are not responding to their stated concerns about vote by mail by making it easier to count absentee ballots quickly ; they are making it harder .
By doing so , they may well be purposefully manufacturing the crisis that Trump wants to use to contest the election results .

By now, the nightmare scenario is well established. Because President Donald Trump has scared off Republicans from voting by mail, many of them flock to polling places on Election Day instead. Democrats, meanwhile, stick with their plans to vote from home. (Out of nine million voters who requested mail ballots in several battleground states as of this week, 52 percent are Democrats while just 28 percent are Republican.)
As a consequence, the early returns are misleading. Come Election Night, with just the in-person votes recorded, Trump appears to have won in swing states, even though the vast majority of votes were cast absentee and have not yet been counted. That night, and in the days that follow, as absentee ballots are still being processed and tabulated, Trump prematurely claims victory, accuses mailed-in ballots of being fraudulent, and sues to stop the counting. The litigation makes its way through the courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court, which, with a newly installed conservative justice having replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg, rules in favor of the president, thereby handing him re-election. (In Tuesday night’s debate, Trump said he would be “counting” on the court to “look at the ballots.”)
The good news, though, is that there’s a way for states to counter the playbook Trump has already signaled he will follow: Allow elections officials to begin processing absentee ballots early. The Bipartisan Policy Center recommends that states permit at least seven days of processing before Election Day. That merely means opening the outer envelope, sorting the ballots into the correct precinct, verifying the signatures, and preparing them to go through a vote-counting machine. That way, on Election Day, all you need do is put the ballots through the machine to know the results.
It’s a system already in place in states that have a long history of older and rural voters who routinely vote absentee, including in Florida and Ohio. In Florida, for instance, elections officials begin processing and counting absentee ballots as early as 22 days before Election Day. Ohio allows for the ballots to be processed and counted before Election Day, but the results cannot be disclosed until after the polls close. It makes sense, then, that a number of other states have adopted similar procedures.
The bad news is that Republican officials in three swing states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, are blocking legislation that could allow for the early processing of absentee ballots—purposefully making it take longer to get the election results. In other words, they are engineering the absentee vote counting delays that Trump is already planning to complain about and sue over.
In each of these states, current law allows absentee vote processing to begin either on or after Election Day. Over the last several months, county clerks and advocates have pushed for that period to be extended, all to enable elections officials to begin processing the votes more quickly, so there is less of a delay in announcing the outcome to the public. But in each of those states, such bills have been blocked by Republican leadership in the state houses. All of those states have a Democratic governor and a Democratic secretary of state pushing for such bills, but Republicans control the legislatures. In Pennsylvania, legislation was introduced in June to begin processing and counting ballots early, but it went nowhere. In Wisconsin, Democrats introduced a bill in May to begin processing ballots early, but not tabulate them until after the polls closed. That, too, faced GOP resistance.
In Michigan, there has been slightly more progress. After months of advocacy by county clerks, including Republicans, to give elections officials the ability to get a head start on processing absentee ballots, the Michigan state house passed a bill last week after sitting on it for months to extend early absentee vote processing—by just one day. That’s better than nothing, but it’s hardly enough time to meet the needs of elections officials.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson told me it only gives elections officials 10 hours to start processing ballots on Election Day, which includes additional administrative work. Some clerks have estimated that they would only net three hours that day for processing ballots.
GOP leaders, however, were initially ready to embrace a much longer period of early processing months ago. A source familiar with the matter told me that Michigan Speaker Lee Chatfield supported the idea when it was first being floated. “He was like, ‘Yeah, this shouldn’t be a big deal, it shouldn’t be partisan,’” the source said. “And then the president started tweeting.”
Trump has frequently tweeted lies and misinformation about vote by mail, including that it leads to widespread voter fraud, he has directed much of his anger at Michigan. He threatened to cut off funding to the state after Benson sent all voters an absentee ballot application. He has also complained about other states taking long periods of time to complete their vote count, such as New York.
Because of Trump’s attempts to politicize and discredit vote by mail, any efforts to enhance or expand the option have had to be treated delicately. In Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Democrats brought forward the legislation to extend absentee ballot processing periods, leading Republicans to reject the proposal out of pocket, but largely left the lobbying work to county clerks and elections officials to try to convince GOP lawmakers how desperately they needed the change.
That strategy worked in Georgia and Iowa, both of which passed laws to process ballots early—Georgia will allow the process to begin two weeks and a day before Election Day; Iowa will start the Saturday before Election Day.
But since that hasn’t worked in three of the most hotly-contested states in the upcoming presidential election, it will be on Democrats and activists with power and influence to start raising hell about it now—in the weeks before the election—alerting the public about the tactic GOP officials are using to slow down the vote count.
Republicans are not responding to their stated concerns about vote by mail by making it easier to count absentee ballots quickly; they are making it harder. By doing so, they may well be purposefully manufacturing the crisis that Trump wants to use to contest the election results.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-30--The Method to Trump’s Madness

The Method to Trump’s Madness

President Trump ’ s critics see him as impulsive , willfully ignorant , devoted to immediate self-gratification , and even mentally deranged .
He is all of that .
But he is something more , too .
He is canny and calculating , more skillful at playing the long game than generally recognized .
Even as he appears candid and unscripted , Trump has cleverly laid the groundwork in managing both public opinion and government for enhancing his power and shielding himself from the consequences of his ethical and legal corruption .
And for an heir to moneyed privilege , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and grievances that have driven millions of working-class Americans into his cult of personality .
Many thought they were voting for a non-politician , but they got a president with the political instincts of a marksman—at least when they are his target .
In his first significant play , beginning even before his election , he took a hammer and chisel to chip away at whatever trust Americans retained for news organizations that inform citizens on the workings of society and government .
“ Fake news !
” he cries whenever a press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigotry , self-dealing , spasmodic policies , defiance of law , and the like .
“ The enemy of the American people !
” he brands the news media , reviving the wording employed by Mao , Lenin , Hitler ’ s Joseph Goebbels , and Stalin .
To anyone who knows history , the phrase is chilling , for millions of Russians under Stalin went into the Gulag or before firing squads after conviction of the charge “ enemy of the people.
” Trump , who is ahistorical , seems untroubled by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by his own account .
His anti-press rhetoric may be partly inspired by momentary exasperation , but its serious aim is to groom the public ’ s skepticism , he told Leslie Stahl of CBS in 2016 .
“ You know why I do it ?
” she quoted him as saying off-camera .
“ I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me , no one will believe you.
” In this , he has been shrewd enough to push on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the news media declining sharply , from 55 percent in 1999 to 32 percent in 2017 .
Earlier this year , Gallup found , newspapers were trusted by only 24 percent of surveyed Americans , and television by 18 percent .
Trump has helped this decline along , but so have some major news outlets by sliding deeply into the pitfall of politicization , where viewers and readers interested in straight , unbiased reporting can only despair .
This defect is one of the country ’ s most harmful , and Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his denunciations of the press with lies frequent and expansive enough to make facts and truth disappear behind a veil of uncertainty , rendering reality ethereal .
The technique makes one wonder whether he has , after all , read Orwell .
If anyone wrote a how-to Manual on Dictatorship , hobbling the press would be a prominent step .
In country after country , the free flow of information , so inconvenient to autocratic rule , is cured by censorship , imprisonment , or outright government ownership of the print and broadcast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong country , has no such draconian options , so far .
The constitutional system still restrains him , to a point .
So he has words instead—his own negative press-bashing on the one hand , and on the other , his supporting megaphones of Fox News , Rush Limbaugh , and other rightwing propagandists .
These are calculated to demolish the credibility of the indictments against him by investigative reporting and insider books .
As already witnessed in the nonchalant reaction to The New York Times ’ s blockbuster expose of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy succeeds with a very large minority of the citizenry .
In other areas , too , Trump has been more methodical than he appears on the surface of his invective .
Although he told Bob Woodward that he played down the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic to avoid creating panic , it seems clear that his playbook included an effort to keep the stock market rising and the economy booming for the sake of his reelection , and then to blame others for the deadly spread ( China , the World Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states ) .
It was in line with his usual practice of scapegoating .
He thereby set the stage for several hoped-for results : One , to avoid responsibility for whatever failures his administration committed .
Two , to project the society ’ s severe political and cultural polarization onto the pandemic , so that Democrats would be vilified for shutting down the economy .
Three , perhaps initially unforeseen , to scare those who took the pandemic seriously—more Democrats than Republicans—from going to the polls .
That led to another obvious example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy to undermine public confidence in the accuracy , honesty , and therefore legitimacy of elections , the jewel in our crown of democracy .
Broadcasting fears of ballot fraud in advance , without a scintilla of evidence , he and his Republican operatives poison the nation ’ s mindset into distrusting and perhaps even disregarding the final counts .
This is done as the Republicans themselves are corrupting the balloting by suppressing votes , silencing parts of the citizenry , and thus laying the building blocks of anti-democratic maneuvers to distort and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ design is to create an atmosphere of doubt on both sides , to foster a mood that tolerates extraordinary and unprecedented measures , which might end with some states ’ legislatures choosing electors or , finally , at the Supreme Court with Trump ’ s new conservative justice on the bench .
Or , it must be warned , goading his rightwing , heavily armed supporters to resort to insurrection in some form : “ policing ” polling places , threatening voters , even gathering in Washington with their guns if election results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has given them a wink and a nod and a blessing , explicitly in the first presidential debate , when he told the right-wing Proud Boys to “ stand back and stand by , ” which the organization immediately adopted as a slogan In refusing to promise a peaceful transition of power , in slandering the election in advance and preparing the ground to dismiss it if he loses , he journeys close to sedition , unprecedented for a president of the United States .
The wheels of pluralistic democracy are greased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for facts , shared beliefs in institutional legitimacy , and the civil balance of competing interests .
Donald Trump has found that his narrowest interest in growing and preserving his power are best served by eroding these principles .
He is not doing so as erratically as his tweets suggest .
Watch him .
He is progressing step by deliberate step .

President Trump’s critics see him as impulsive, willfully ignorant, devoted to immediate self-gratification, and even mentally deranged. He is all of that. But he is something more, too. He is canny and calculating, more skillful at playing the long game than generally recognized.
Even as he appears candid and unscripted, Trump has cleverly laid the groundwork in managing both public opinion and government for enhancing his power and shielding himself from the consequences of his ethical and legal corruption. And for an heir to moneyed privilege, he is remarkably perceptive about the anxieties and grievances that have driven millions of working-class Americans into his cult of personality. Many thought they were voting for a non-politician, but they got a president with the political instincts of a marksman—at least when they are his target.
In his first significant play, beginning even before his election, he took a hammer and chisel to chip away at whatever trust Americans retained for news organizations that inform citizens on the workings of society and government. “Fake news!” he cries whenever a press report exposes his lies, incompetence, bigotry, self-dealing, spasmodic policies, defiance of law, and the like. “The enemy of the American people!” he brands the news media, reviving the wording employed by Mao, Lenin, Hitler’s Joseph Goebbels, and Stalin. To anyone who knows history, the phrase is chilling, for millions of Russians under Stalin went into the Gulag or before firing squads after conviction of the charge “enemy of the people.”
Trump, who is ahistorical, seems untroubled by the parallel. He has another purpose, by his own account. His anti-press rhetoric may be partly inspired by momentary exasperation, but its serious aim is to groom the public’s skepticism, he told Leslie Stahl of CBS in 2016. “You know why I do it?” she quoted him as saying off-camera. “I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.”
In this, he has been shrewd enough to push on an open door. Polls showed faith in the news media declining sharply, from 55 percent in 1999 to 32 percent in 2017. Earlier this year, Gallup found, newspapers were trusted by only 24 percent of surveyed Americans, and television by 18 percent. Trump has helped this decline along, but so have some major news outlets by sliding deeply into the pitfall of politicization, where viewers and readers interested in straight, unbiased reporting can only despair.
This defect is one of the country’s most harmful, and Trump has exploited it. He has coupled his denunciations of the press with lies frequent and expansive enough to make facts and truth disappear behind a veil of uncertainty, rendering reality ethereal. The technique makes one wonder whether he has, after all, read Orwell.
If anyone wrote a how-to Manual on Dictatorship, hobbling the press would be a prominent step. In country after country, the free flow of information, so inconvenient to autocratic rule, is cured by censorship, imprisonment, or outright government ownership of the print and broadcast media.
Trump, born in the wrong country, has no such draconian options, so far. The constitutional system still restrains him, to a point. So he has words instead—his own negative press-bashing on the one hand, and on the other, his supporting megaphones of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and other rightwing propagandists. These are calculated to demolish the credibility of the indictments against him by investigative reporting and insider books. As already witnessed in the nonchalant reaction to The New York Times’s blockbuster expose of his tax evasion and debt-ridden finances, the strategy succeeds with a very large minority of the citizenry.
In other areas, too, Trump has been more methodical than he appears on the surface of his invective. Although he told Bob Woodward that he played down the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic to avoid creating panic, it seems clear that his playbook included an effort to keep the stock market rising and the economy booming for the sake of his reelection, and then to blame others for the deadly spread (China, the World Health Organization, various health officials and Democratic-run states). It was in line with his usual practice of scapegoating. He thereby set the stage for several hoped-for results: One, to avoid responsibility for whatever failures his administration committed. Two, to project the society’s severe political and cultural polarization onto the pandemic, so that Democrats would be vilified for shutting down the economy. Three, perhaps initially unforeseen, to scare those who took the pandemic seriously—more Democrats than Republicans—from going to the polls.
That led to another obvious example of Trump’s methodology: his strategy to undermine public confidence in the accuracy, honesty, and therefore legitimacy of elections, the jewel in our crown of democracy. Broadcasting fears of ballot fraud in advance, without a scintilla of evidence, he and his Republican operatives poison the nation’s mindset into distrusting and perhaps even disregarding the final counts. This is done as the Republicans themselves are corrupting the balloting by suppressing votes, silencing parts of the citizenry, and thus laying the building blocks of anti-democratic maneuvers to distort and manipulate the electoral process. The clear design is to create an atmosphere of doubt on both sides, to foster a mood that tolerates extraordinary and unprecedented measures, which might end with some states’ legislatures choosing electors or, finally, at the Supreme Court with Trump’s new conservative justice on the bench.
Or, it must be warned, goading his rightwing, heavily armed supporters to resort to insurrection in some form: “policing” polling places, threatening voters, even gathering in Washington with their guns if election results are disputed. Trump, their idol, has given them a wink and a nod and a blessing, explicitly in the first presidential debate, when he told the right-wing Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by,” which the organization immediately adopted as a slogan
In refusing to promise a peaceful transition of power, in slandering the election in advance and preparing the ground to dismiss it if he loses, he journeys close to sedition, unprecedented for a president of the United States.
The wheels of pluralistic democracy are greased by consensus, goodwill, common respect for facts, shared beliefs in institutional legitimacy, and the civil balance of competing interests. Donald Trump has found that his narrowest interest in growing and preserving his power are best served by eroding these principles. He is not doing so as erratically as his tweets suggest. Watch him. He is progressing step by deliberate step.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-30--Is the Durham October Surprise Fizzling?

As we head into the last month of the election season , we approach the time when political analysts expect a so-called “ October surprise.
” One possibility that has been bandied about stems from Attorney General William Barr ’ s assertion that he won ’ t wait until after the election to release the findings of U.S. Attorney John Durham ’ s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe .
But recent events are sending mixed messages about the status of the investigation that began in May 2019 .
According to multiple news reports , the Durham investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicized the intelligence that eventually led the FBI to launch a probe into possible coordination between Moscow and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election .
That puts the former head of the CIA at the heart of Durham ’ s investigation .
According to Brennan ’ s spokesperson , Nick Shapiro , the former CIA director was interviewed by Durham for eight hours last month .
Shapiro also stated that , while “ Brennan expressed appreciation for the professional manner in which Mr. Durham and his team conducted the interview , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the repeated efforts of Donald Trump and William Barr to politicize Mr. Durham ’ s work have been appalling and have tarnished the independence and integrity of the Department of Justice.
” This interview with the person who has been the focus of the investigation signals that the probe is in its final stages and that a report should be imminent .
Mr. Shapiro ’ s account indicates that the interview was conducted in a spirit of mutual respect , but that Durham got an earful from Brennan about the way his investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dannehy , who had worked with Durham for decades , was recruited to join the investigation soon after it was launched .
In reporting on her resignation , the Hartford Courant noted that her colleagues said that it was “ at least partly out of concern that the investigative team is being pressed for political reasons to produce a report before its work is done.
” So one of Durham ’ s most trusted associates confirmed what he heard from Brennan : the investigation is being politicized .
Two senior U.S. intelligence officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-wing reporter – September 24 , 2020 Paul Sperry is the reporter at RealClearPolitics who was the first journalist to out the whistleblower in the Ukraine matter that ultimately led to Trump ’ s impeachment .
According to his most recent report at RCP , Sperry was the recipient of leaks from “ senior U.S. intelligence officials ” claiming that Brennan “ overruled dissenting analysts who concluded Russia favored Clinton.
” The so-called “ evidence ” Sperry points to includes that a Brennan protege , Andrea Kendall-Taylor , was involved in writing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 2016 exposing Putin ’ s motives for interfering in the 2020 election .
Taylor ’ s other supposedly spurious ties are that she donated to Hillary Clinton ’ s presidential campaign and had worked with the person Sperry outed as a whistleblower .
The intelligence officials who leaked this information to Sperry also claim that Putin favored Clinton in the 2016 election because , while serving as Secretary of State , she was involved in the “ reset ” of relations with Russia .
What they fail to mention is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still president of Russia and the endeavor soured when Putin was elected yet again in 2012 .
Competent intelligence officials would be aware of this rather dramatic turnaround , which was captured in detail by Barack Obama ’ s ambassador to Russia at the time , Michael McFaul .
Especially coming within days of Dannehy ’ s resignation , this leak to Sperry indicates that there are those involved in this probe who were disturbed by the implications of her announcement and responded by doing what they could to continue spreading disinformation about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times reported that Durham is looking into the Clinton Foundation – September 24 , 2020 Based on information from “ people familiar with the matter , ” the New York Times reported that Durham “ has sought documents and interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled an investigation around the same time into allegations of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation.
” U.S. Attorney John Huber was tasked by former Attorney General Sessions with investigating the claims made by Trump campaign manager Steve Bannon and “ Clinton Cash ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Clinton Foundation .
Given that he “ found nothing worth pursuing , ” this appears to be a move to find something—or anything—with which to tarnish Trump ’ s opponents .
Maria Bartiromo announced that the Durham report isn ’ t likely to be released prior to the election – September 27 , 2020 .
Fox News host Bartiromo claims that a report isn ’ t likely to become public prior to the election , but the investigation is significant and is expanding to include the Clinton Foundation .
It is difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemingly contradictory events .
One possible explanation is that there is dissension in the ranks of the Durham investigation that goes beyond Dannehy ’ s recent resignation .
Based on everything from the Mueller report to investigations conducted by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz and the Senate Intelligence Committee , we know that the FBI would have been derelict in their duty had they not launched an investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Moscow .
Professional civil servants who are involved in the current investigation are likely to have found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Durham himself .
That will pose a problem for those like Attorney General Barr who are intent on finding ways to punish Trump ’ s opponents .
Barr ’ s calculation might be that it is better to keep Trump supporters speculating on the nefarious deeds of members of the Obama-Biden administration than to release a report exonerating a Trump critic like Brennan of wrongdoing .
If that is the case , it would be somewhat reassuring to know that there are still civil servants in the Department of Justice who refuse @ @ @ @

As we head into the last month of the election season, we approach the time when political analysts expect a so-called “October surprise.” One possibility that has been bandied about stems from Attorney General William Barr’s assertion that he won’t wait until after the election to release the findings of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. But recent events are sending mixed messages about the status of the investigation that began in May 2019.
Durham interviewed former CIA Director John Brennan – August 22, 2020
According to multiple news reports, the Durham investigation has focused on a claim that Brennan politicized the intelligence that eventually led the FBI to launch a probe into possible coordination between Moscow and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. That puts the former head of the CIA at the heart of Durham’s investigation.
According to Brennan’s spokesperson, Nick Shapiro, the former CIA director was interviewed by Durham for eight hours last month. Shapiro also stated that, while “Brennan expressed appreciation for the professional manner in which Mr. Durham and his team conducted the interview,” he “also told Mr. Durham that the repeated efforts of Donald Trump and William Barr to politicize Mr. Durham’s work have been appalling and have tarnished the independence and integrity of the Department of Justice.”
This interview with the person who has been the focus of the investigation signals that the probe is in its final stages and that a report should be imminent. Mr. Shapiro’s account indicates that the interview was conducted in a spirit of mutual respect, but that Durham got an earful from Brennan about the way his investigation is being politicized.
Durham’s top aid resigned from the investigation – September 11, 2020
Federal prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who had worked with Durham for decades, was recruited to join the investigation soon after it was launched. In reporting on her resignation, the Hartford Courant noted that her colleagues said that it was “at least partly out of concern that the investigative team is being pressed for political reasons to produce a report before its work is done.” So one of Durham’s most trusted associates confirmed what he heard from Brennan: the investigation is being politicized.
Two senior U.S. intelligence officials leaked information about the investigation to a right-wing reporter – September 24, 2020
Paul Sperry is the reporter at RealClearPolitics who was the first journalist to out the whistleblower in the Ukraine matter that ultimately led to Trump’s impeachment. According to his most recent report at RCP, Sperry was the recipient of leaks from “senior U.S. intelligence officials” claiming that Brennan “overruled dissenting analysts who concluded Russia favored Clinton.”
The so-called “evidence” Sperry points to includes that a Brennan protege, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, was involved in writing the intelligence community assessment that was released in January 2016 exposing Putin’s motives for interfering in the 2020 election. Taylor’s other supposedly spurious ties are that she donated to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and had worked with the person Sperry outed as a whistleblower.
The intelligence officials who leaked this information to Sperry also claim that Putin favored Clinton in the 2016 election because, while serving as Secretary of State, she was involved in the “reset” of relations with Russia. What they fail to mention is that the reset was launched while Dmitry Medvedev was still president of Russia and the endeavor soured when Putin was elected yet again in 2012. Competent intelligence officials would be aware of this rather dramatic turnaround, which was captured in detail by Barack Obama’s ambassador to Russia at the time, Michael McFaul.
Especially coming within days of Dannehy’s resignation, this leak to Sperry indicates that there are those involved in this probe who were disturbed by the implications of her announcement and responded by doing what they could to continue spreading disinformation about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.
The New York Times reported that Durham is looking into the Clinton Foundation – September 24, 2020
Based on information from “people familiar with the matter,” the New York Times reported that Durham “has sought documents and interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled an investigation around the same time into allegations of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation.”
U.S. Attorney John Huber was tasked by former Attorney General Sessions with investigating the claims made by Trump campaign manager Steve Bannon and “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer about corruption related to the Clinton Foundation. Given that he “found nothing worth pursuing,” this appears to be a move to find something—or anything—with which to tarnish Trump’s opponents.
Maria Bartiromo announced that the Durham report isn’t likely to be released prior to the election – September 27, 2020.
Fox News host Bartiromo claims that a report isn’t likely to become public prior to the election, but the investigation is significant and is expanding to include the Clinton Foundation.
It is difficult to determine what to make of these seemingly contradictory events. One possible explanation is that there is dissension in the ranks of the Durham investigation that goes beyond Dannehy’s recent resignation.
Based on everything from the Mueller report to investigations conducted by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz and the Senate Intelligence Committee, we know that the FBI would have been derelict in their duty had they not launched an investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Professional civil servants who are involved in the current investigation are likely to have found the same thing, which could extend to Durham himself. That will pose a problem for those like Attorney General Barr who are intent on finding ways to punish Trump’s opponents.
Barr’s calculation might be that it is better to keep Trump supporters speculating on the nefarious deeds of members of the Obama-Biden administration than to release a report exonerating a Trump critic like Brennan of wrongdoing. If that is the case, it would be somewhat reassuring to know that there are still civil servants in the Department of Justice who refuse to abide corruption.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-01--This Woman Could Be the First Democratic Senator From Kansas Since 1932

Kansas Republicans celebrated when the so-called “ establishment candidate , ” Rep. Roger Marshall won the Senate primary against Kris Kobach , a Trump mini-me who lost the 2018 governor ’ s race in that state .
But recent polls show that Marshall is in a dead heat with his opponent , Barbara Bollier .
Back in 2004 , Thomas Frank put Kansas on the modern-day political map with his book , What ’ s the Matter With Kansas ?
In his telling , “ conservatives won the heart of America ” by convincing Kansans to vote against their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional cultural values against the bicoastal elites .
Does Frank ’ s analysis still apply ?
We know that Trump ’ s Republican Party , now that it ’ s passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy , has no agenda other than the so-called “ culture wars , ” as is represented by their attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade , end affirmative action , and demonize immigrants .
That ’ s what animates the Republican base of nostalgia voters , including those in Kansas .
It should have propelled Kobach to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s race .
But it didn ’ t .
Prior to running as the Democratic nominee for Senate , Bollier was one of four Kansas state legislators who left the Republican Party in 2019 .
All four were women representing suburban districts just outside Kansas City .
Each of their districts was in the congressional district which elected Sharice Davids .
As one of three openly lesbian women currently serving in Congress ( all Democrats ) , Davids ’ s resume demonstrates that Kansas really is changing .
She is a Native American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Obama administration and has competed as a mixed martial arts fighter .
Explaining her decision to switch parties , Bollier pointed out how Republicans have reacted to these changes when she said , “ Conservatives , or the further-right faction of the Republican Party , have continued and continued and continued to try to force those of us of the moderate mind out of the party.
” With that kind of shift going on in the Kansas suburbs , it is important to look at the rural areas of the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his wife Deborah spent time in small-town western Kansas in 2016 , where Hispanic immigrants now make up over half of the population .
They asked everyone they met one question : “ How has Kansas handled this shift in demography ?
” Here ’ s what they heard : Every single person we have spoken with — Anglo and Latino and other , old and young , native-born and immigrant , and so on down the list — every one of them has said : We need each other !
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all need to do .
We can choose to embrace the world , or we can fade and die .
And we choose to embrace it .
None of that means that Kansas is likely to go blue anytime soon , but it ’ s not Kobach country either .
Trump ’ s 20-point win in the state in 2016 is down to under nine points , according to the polling aggregate at FiveThirtyEight .
What worries Kansas Republicans are the ticket splitters who support the president but plan to vote for Bollier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recent television ad .
That message won ’ t please progressive Democrats , but it ’ s worth remembering that Kansas elected the first woman to serve a full term in the Senate without her husband having previously served in Congress .
Nancy Kassebaum , a truly moderate Republican , held this Senate seat from 1978 to 1997 and recently endorsed Bollier saying , “ I ’ ve known Barbara for many years , and she has the character , know-how , and compassion to represent all communities in our state.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Science at the College of Liberal Arts and Science at the University of Kansas , wrote , Marshall is the true radical .
Especially given that both candidates are doctors ( Bollier an anesthesiologist and Marshall an OB-GYN ) , healthcare is a major issue in this race .
Polls have shown that significant majorities of Kansans support the expansion of Medicaid .
But Marshall helped lead the fight to repeal Obamacare in 2017 and continues to campaign on a “ repeal and replace ” health care platform , which he justifies by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing to oppose Obamacare .
But anyone with an ounce of humanity would be offended by a politician using the Bible to suggest that poor people don ’ t want health care .
This Senate race is rated as “ likely Republican ” by both the Cook Political Report and Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball .
Sure , other Senate seats are more likely to flip , including the races in Arizona , Colorado , Maine , Iowa , and North Carolina .
But Bollier actually has a shot , which is astounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democrat to the Senate since 1932 , the year Kassebaum ’ s father , Alf Landon , ran against Franklin Roosevelt .
We ’ re not in old Kansas anymore .

Kansas Republicans celebrated when the so-called “establishment candidate,” Rep. Roger Marshall won the Senate primary against Kris Kobach, a Trump mini-me who lost the 2018 governor’s race in that state. But recent polls show that Marshall is in a dead heat with his opponent, Barbara Bollier.
Back in 2004, Thomas Frank put Kansas on the modern-day political map with his book, What’s the Matter With Kansas? In his telling, “conservatives won the heart of America” by convincing Kansans to vote against their own economic interests in an effort to defend traditional cultural values against the bicoastal elites. Does Frank’s analysis still apply?
We know that Trump’s Republican Party, now that it’s passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy, has no agenda other than the so-called “culture wars,” as is represented by their attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade, end affirmative action, and demonize immigrants. That’s what animates the Republican base of nostalgia voters, including those in Kansas. It should have propelled Kobach to victory in the 2018 Kansas governor’s race. But it didn’t.
Prior to running as the Democratic nominee for Senate, Bollier was one of four Kansas state legislators who left the Republican Party in 2019. All four were women representing suburban districts just outside Kansas City. Each of their districts was in the congressional district which elected Sharice Davids. As one of three openly lesbian women currently serving in Congress (all Democrats), Davids’s resume demonstrates that Kansas really is changing. She is a Native American graduate of Cornell Law School who served in the Obama administration and has competed as a mixed martial arts fighter. Explaining her decision to switch parties, Bollier pointed out how Republicans have reacted to these changes when she said, “Conservatives, or the further-right faction of the Republican Party, have continued and continued and continued to try to force those of us of the moderate mind out of the party.”
With that kind of shift going on in the Kansas suburbs, it is important to look at the rural areas of the state. While anecdotal, journalist James Fallows and his wife Deborah spent time in small-town western Kansas in 2016, where Hispanic immigrants now make up over half of the population. They asked everyone they met one question: “How has Kansas handled this shift in demography?” Here’s what they heard:
Every single person we have spoken with — Anglo and Latino and other, old and young, native-born and immigrant, and so on down the list — every one of them has said: We need each other! There is work in this community that we all need to do. We can choose to embrace the world, or we can fade and die. And we choose to embrace it.
None of that means that Kansas is likely to go blue anytime soon, but it’s not Kobach country either. Trump’s 20-point win in the state in 2016 is down to under nine points, according to the polling aggregate at FiveThirtyEight. What worries Kansas Republicans are the ticket splitters who support the president but plan to vote for Bollier. She captured some of that in a recent television ad.
That message won’t please progressive Democrats, but it’s worth remembering that Kansas elected the first woman to serve a full term in the Senate without her husband having previously served in Congress. Nancy Kassebaum, a truly moderate Republican, held this Senate seat from 1978 to 1997 and recently endorsed Bollier saying, “I’ve known Barbara for many years, and she has the character, know-how, and compassion to represent all communities in our state.”
As Burdett Loomis, Professor of Political Science at the College of Liberal Arts and Science at the University of Kansas, wrote, Marshall is the true radical. Especially given that both candidates are doctors (Bollier an anesthesiologist and Marshall an OB-GYN), healthcare is a major issue in this race. Polls have shown that significant majorities of Kansans support the expansion of Medicaid. But Marshall helped lead the fight to repeal Obamacare in 2017 and continues to campaign on a “repeal and replace” health care platform, which he justifies by quoting the Bible.
“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.
It is one thing to oppose Obamacare. But anyone with an ounce of humanity would be offended by a politician using the Bible to suggest that poor people don’t want health care.
This Senate race is rated as “likely Republican” by both the Cook Political Report and Sabato’s Crystal Ball. Sure, other Senate seats are more likely to flip, including the races in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Iowa, and North Carolina. But Bollier actually has a shot, which is astounding given that Kansans haven’t sent a Democrat to the Senate since 1932, the year Kassebaum’s father, Alf Landon, ran against Franklin Roosevelt. We’re not in old Kansas anymore.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-01--Actually, It Was a Good Debate. Seriously.

I thought the debate was great .
And Chris Wallace was outstanding , too .
Since I know pretty much everyone is saying that both the debate and the moderator were global embarrassments , let me explain .
The purpose of a debate is to reveal useful things about the candidates .
We pretend that we learn by observing a careful exchange of policy positions , and sometimes that happens .
But has there ever been a debate where one of the candidates revealed more about himself than this one ?
Wasn ’ t it far more clarifying than most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that reason , pretty perfect .
He inserted himself enough to clarify that Trump was breaking the rules .
That was hard to do ; he defiantly , on the spot , did not engage in false equivalence .
That Trump blew right past him was great for the country—because we got to see Trump in his rawest , truest sense .
We didn ’ t learn about the differences in approaches to health policy—but we did learn about character , temperament , and personality .
We also got to see how Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly showed self-restraint and calm .
Isn ’ t that more telling than a few more minutes of him explaining his buy America procurement rules ?
Debates should help voters make their decisions .
This one provided a deluge of useful information .
Journalists are sometimes criticized for not ‘ nailing ’ the subjects that they interview .
That misunderstands the journalist ’ s role .
The job is often to reveal not rebut .
If I ’ m really honest , I have to admit that when I do interviews , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let subjects continue to say stupid or offensive things , without challenge—because that is far more revealing than if I pointed out their stupidity and thereby prompted them to clarify .
I feel the same way about debates .
The point is not to catch the candidates ; it ’ s to reveal them .
In that sense , this was the best debate in modern American history .

I thought the debate was great. And Chris Wallace was outstanding, too.
Since I know pretty much everyone is saying that both the debate and the moderator were global embarrassments, let me explain. The purpose of a debate is to reveal useful things about the candidates. We pretend that we learn by observing a careful exchange of policy positions, and sometimes that happens. But has there ever been a debate where one of the candidates revealed more about himself than this one? Wasn’t it far more clarifying than most debates?
And Wallace was, for that reason, pretty perfect. He inserted himself enough to clarify that Trump was breaking the rules. That was hard to do; he defiantly, on the spot, did not engage in false equivalence. That Trump blew right past him was great for the country—because we got to see Trump in his rawest, truest sense. We didn’t learn about the differences in approaches to health policy—but we did learn about character, temperament, and personality.
We also got to see how Biden handled such a volatile situation. He mostly showed self-restraint and calm. Isn’t that more telling than a few more minutes of him explaining his buy America procurement rules?
Debates should help voters make their decisions. This one provided a deluge of useful information.
Journalists are sometimes criticized for not ‘nailing’ the subjects that they interview. That misunderstands the journalist’s role. The job is often to reveal not rebut. If I’m really honest, I have to admit that when I do interviews, especially for print publications, I will intentionally let subjects continue to say stupid or offensive things, without challenge—because that is far more revealing than if I pointed out their stupidity and thereby prompted them to clarify.
I feel the same way about debates. The point is not to catch the candidates; it’s to reveal them. In that sense, this was the best debate in modern American history.