washingtonmonthly--2020-07-23--Everything We Need to Know About Trump We Learned in 2016

I don ’ t know about you , but between the ravages of a pandemic and Trump ’ s embrace of fascist policies , I ’ m having trouble sleeping these days for fear of how much worse things could get over the next three to six months .
As David Shipler wrote , we should all “ beware of a cornered Trump ” because “ the closer defeat looms , the more deranged his administration will become.
” On a more rational level , however , none of this should surprise us .
The benefit of 20/20 hindsight tells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know about Donald Trump before he was elected ( via the Electoral College ) .
While not an exhaustive list , here are some examples .
There was a lot of evidence pointing to this one .
But suffice it to say that Trump launched himself onto the national political stage by claiming that this country ’ s first African American president wasn ’ t a citizen .
Frankly , I ’ ve lost count of how many women accused Trump of sexual assault prior to the election .
But in addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s radio show , we all heard the tape of him bragging about being able to “ grab p*ssy.
” Nuff said .
Trump launched his presidential campaign by saying that Mexican immigrants are “ drug dealers , criminals , and rapists.
” During the campaign , he talked about instituting a Muslim ban on entry into the United States .
Even after we all knew that Russia handed their hacked emails over the Wikileaks in order to make them public , Trump praised the organization over 141 times on the campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work for him .
During the 2016 Republican primary , USA Today published a thorough report on the fact that over three decades , Trump was involved in over 4,095 lawsuits .
Most of them involved his habit of stiffing contractors he hired to work on his properties .
Trump has no concept of justice .
Before the Central Park Five had ever stepped foot in a courtroom , Trump placed full-page ads calling for their execution in several newspapers .
They were eventually exonerated , but during the 2016 campaign , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his rush to condemn them with zero evidence .
“ Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday , but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn ’ t seem to be fully understood , ” Schwartz told me .
“ It ’ s implicit in a lot of what people write , but it ’ s never explicit—or , at least , I haven ’ t seen it .
And that is that it ’ s impossible to keep him focussed on any topic , other than his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few minutes , and even then .
.
.
” Schwartz trailed off , shaking his head in amazement .
He regards Trump ’ s inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate .
“ If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room , it ’ s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time , ” he said… But Schwartz believes that Trump ’ s short attention span has left him with “ a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why he so prefers TV as his first news source—information comes in easily digestible sound bites.
” He added , “ I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life.
” During the eighteen months that he observed Trump , Schwartz said , he never saw a book on Trump ’ s desk , or elsewhere in his office , or in his apartment .
Anyone who doesn ’ t demonstrate total loyalty to Trump is viewed as an enemy and attacked mercilessly .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign trail , but most prominent were his attacks on Senator John McCain , a Muslim Gold Star family , and a disabled reporter .
During just one debate with Hillary Clinton , David Leonardt documented that Trump told 26 lies .
Here is how Glenn Kessler summarized some of the biggest whoppers Trump told during the campaign .
This video captures what Trump said at campaign rallies better than any verbal description .
I ’ m sure there are more things we learned about Trump during the 2016 campaign , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone who actually paid attention shouldn ’ t be shocked by what we are witnessing these days from the president .
What is shocking is that 63 million Americans voted for him anyway .
It now looks like we ’ re stuck with Trump for another six months no matter what he does because our founders only gave us three options for how to get rid of a president .
• Impeachment in the House followed by a trial in the Senate , • The 25th amendment , whereby a president can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress because he is “ unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office , ” and • An election every four years .
Because Trump ’ s enablers in Congress and the Cabinet have been unwilling to exercise their authority in the first and second option , it will be up to voters to do so in November .
The one thing we should all take from this nightmare is to let it be a resounding affirmation of the fact that elections matter .
And as Maya Angelou might say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are the first time , believe them .
”

I don’t know about you, but between the ravages of a pandemic and Trump’s embrace of fascist policies, I’m having trouble sleeping these days for fear of how much worse things could get over the next three to six months. As David Shipler wrote, we should all “beware of a cornered Trump” because “the closer defeat looms, the more deranged his administration will become.”
On a more rational level, however, none of this should surprise us. The benefit of 20/20 hindsight tells us that we knew all we needed to know about Donald Trump before he was elected (via the Electoral College). While not an exhaustive list, here are some examples.
Trump is a racist.
There was a lot of evidence pointing to this one. But suffice it to say that Trump launched himself onto the national political stage by claiming that this country’s first African American president wasn’t a citizen.
Trump is a serial sexual abuser.
Frankly, I’ve lost count of how many women accused Trump of sexual assault prior to the election. But in addition to his crude machinations on Howard Stern’s radio show, we all heard the tape of him bragging about being able to “grab p*ssy.” Nuff said.
Trump is a xenophobe.
Trump launched his presidential campaign by saying that Mexican immigrants are “drug dealers, criminals, and rapists.” During the campaign, he talked about instituting a Muslim ban on entry into the United States.
Trump welcomes foreign interference in U.S. elections.
Even after we all knew that Russia handed their hacked emails over the Wikileaks in order to make them public, Trump praised the organization over 141 times on the campaign trail.
Trump consistently abuses people who work for him.
During the 2016 Republican primary, USA Today published a thorough report on the fact that over three decades, Trump was involved in over 4,095 lawsuits. Most of them involved his habit of stiffing contractors he hired to work on his properties.
Trump has no concept of justice.
Before the Central Park Five had ever stepped foot in a courtroom, Trump placed full-page ads calling for their execution in several newspapers. They were eventually exonerated, but during the 2016 campaign, Trump refused to acknowledge their innocence or apologize for his rush to condemn them with zero evidence.
Trump is an ignorant narcissist.
In July 2016, Jane Mayer published a mea culpa from Trump’s ghostwriter Tony Schwartz.
“Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn’t seem to be fully understood,” Schwartz told me. “It’s implicit in a lot of what people write, but it’s never explicit—or, at least, I haven’t seen it. And that is that it’s impossible to keep him focussed on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . ” Schwartz trailed off, shaking his head in amazement. He regards Trump’s inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate. “If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it’s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time,” he said… But Schwartz believes that Trump’s short attention span has left him with “a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance.” He said, “That’s why he so prefers TV as his first news source—information comes in easily digestible sound bites.” He added, “I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life.” During the eighteen months that he observed Trump, Schwartz said, he never saw a book on Trump’s desk, or elsewhere in his office, or in his apartment.
Trump is a bully.
Anyone who doesn’t demonstrate total loyalty to Trump is viewed as an enemy and attacked mercilessly. There were numerous examples of this on the campaign trail, but most prominent were his attacks on Senator John McCain, a Muslim Gold Star family, and a disabled reporter.
Trump is a serial liar.
During just one debate with Hillary Clinton, David Leonardt documented that Trump told 26 lies. Here is how Glenn Kessler summarized some of the biggest whoppers Trump told during the campaign.
Trump repeatedly made claims that boggled the imagination. He said the unemployment rate was 42 percent when it was actually 5 percent. He claimed there were 92 million “jobless Americans,” which included everyone who did not want to work, such as retirees and students. He even claimed that he could save $300 billion a year from a Medicare prescription drug program that only costs $78 billion.
Trump incites violence against protesters.
This video captures what Trump said at campaign rallies better than any verbal description.
I’m sure there are more things we learned about Trump during the 2016 campaign, but the point I want to make is that anyone who actually paid attention shouldn’t be shocked by what we are witnessing these days from the president. What is shocking is that 63 million Americans voted for him anyway.
It now looks like we’re stuck with Trump for another six months no matter what he does because our founders only gave us three options for how to get rid of a president.
Impeachment in the House followed by a trial in the Senate, The 25th amendment, whereby a president can be removed from office by his Cabinet and Congress because he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” and An election every four years.
Because Trump’s enablers in Congress and the Cabinet have been unwilling to exercise their authority in the first and second option, it will be up to voters to do so in November. The one thing we should all take from this nightmare is to let it be a resounding affirmation of the fact that elections matter. And as Maya Angelou might say, “When a candidate tells you who they are the first time, believe them.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-23--The Case for Susan Rice

The Case for Susan Rice

Yes , President Trump still has time to stage a comeback but the new state of the race suggests that Joe Biden is free to shift from a tactical to a strategic approach in choosing his running mate .
Biden ’ s longstanding prerequisite —a “ strong ” vice president who is “ ready to be president on Day One ” —should now be more than a platitude .
Biden would still be well-advised to choose a woman of color ; two whites atop the ticket is a bad look for Democrats in 2020 .
Among black women candidates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best help him face an overwhelmingly difficult governing challenge next year .
There ’ s no time to build a relationship and no room to risk selecting a dud who can ’ t shoulder a big load .
By that standard , Susan Rice is his best option .
He already knows and trusts her ( their offices were next door in the West Wing during Obama ’ s second term ) and she possesses a cool , commanding gaffe-free public presence that can fairly be called “ presidential.
” Trump has alienated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemies , and the clean-up operation—while a long-term project—needs to begin immediately .
Pinned down at home by COVID-19 and too old for extensive travel , Biden must be represented by someone extremely knowledgeable about the world .
The challenges posed by China and Russia alone could dominate his presidency .
He needs someone who can confront not just Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping but Jair Bolsonaro , whose rapid destruction of the Amazon rain forest may be the single biggest threat the world faces .
Biden ’ s secretary of state can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands full rescuing the State Department , which is in tatters .
Rice , a former ambassador to the UN and national security adviser under President Obama , is by far the best qualified VP candidate for this enormous task .
At home , the next vice-president will need to play enforcer with the White House staff and the agencies Trump gutted , compensating for Biden , who is by several accounts too nice a guy to run a tight ship by himself .
Again , Rice is the only candidate with critically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where those who worked with her under Obama demonstrates that she was tough but also possessed an affable , collegial temperament .
What ’ s more , Capitol Hill experience will be less important next year because of Biden ’ s own deep relationships there .
There are , essentially , three arguments against putting Rice on the Democratic ticket .
None bear scrutiny .
The first is Benghazi .
In 2012 , after the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack on the U.S. mission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News ’ Face the Nation and inaccurately reported that the attack was a spontaneous response to a hateful video .
After an exhaustive inquiry , the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee found that Rice was working off of CIA talking points and had not intentionally misled the public .
How many Americans voters will think , “ Oh , I was planning to vote for Biden over Trump until I found out about that Face the Nation interview ” ?
Benghazi is not only a dead end for Trump ; the brief back-and-forth on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s old and useless ) is potentially a positive for Biden .
Every day Trump shouts “ Benghazi !
” is a day he won ’ t have for something more potent .
Meanwhile , Rice would attack Trump for ignoring the pandemic playbook she prepared while at the NSC and for looking the other way when the Russians offered bounties to the Taliban to kill American troops in Afghanistan .
The second objection to Rice is that she has never run for elective office .
But experience on the campaign trail giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irrelevant in this strange election year .
Rice has plenty of experience facing hard question on television , which is where the fall campaign will be fought .
Besides , being a non-politician is refreshing for many voters , as it was in 2016 with Trump .
Finally , some Democrats are unhappy that Rice ’ s son , John Rice-Cameron , is president of Stanford Republicans and helped organize a demonstration celebrating Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation .
But it ’ s hard to imagine this would keep them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reinforces that—unlike Trump— Biden would be the president of all Americans , however much they disagree .
Many voters with friends and relatives who are Trump supporters may find Rice ’ s situation with her son human and relatable .
When I interviewed Rice recently , she would not discuss the vice presidency .
She did note that she had “ a proven ability to throw a punch as well as take one ” —a critical requirement for a VP candidate .
Calling herself a “ pragmatic progressive , ” she described her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden is.
” She explained that “ our adversaries have come to see us as suckers and incompetent ” and argued how important it is “ to rebuild the confidence of our allies.
” This is exactly where Biden is—deeply worried about how to restore America ’ s leadership in the world .
He knows the repair job must begin on January 21 .
Susan Rice by Biden ’ s side can help him do it .
And that would let the rest of us sleep easier should anything happen to him @

Yes, President Trump still has time to stage a comeback but the new state of the race suggests that Joe Biden is free to shift from a tactical to a strategic approach in choosing his running mate. Biden’s longstanding prerequisite —a “strong” vice president who is “ready to be president on Day One”—should now be more than a platitude.
Biden would still be well-advised to choose a woman of color; two whites atop the ticket is a bad look for Democrats in 2020. Among Black women candidates, he should focus on which one can best help him face an overwhelmingly difficult governing challenge next year. There’s no time to build a relationship and no room to risk selecting a dud who can’t shoulder a big load.
By that standard, Susan Rice is his best option. He already knows and trusts her (their offices were next door in the West Wing during Obama’s second term) and she possesses a cool, commanding gaffe-free public presence that can fairly be called “presidential.”
Trump has alienated America’s friends and emboldened its enemies, and the clean-up operation—while a long-term project—needs to begin immediately. Pinned down at home by COVID-19 and too old for extensive travel, Biden must be represented by someone extremely knowledgeable about the world. The challenges posed by China and Russia alone could dominate his presidency. He needs someone who can confront not just Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping but Jair Bolsonaro, whose rapid destruction of the Amazon rain forest may be the single biggest threat the world faces. Biden’s secretary of state can help but will have his or her hands full rescuing the State Department, which is in tatters. Rice, a former ambassador to the UN and national security adviser under President Obama, is by far the best qualified VP candidate for this enormous task.
At home, the next vice-president will need to play enforcer with the White House staff and the agencies Trump gutted, compensating for Biden, who is by several accounts too nice a guy to run a tight ship by himself. Again, Rice is the only candidate with critically important experience in the executive branch. Those who worked with her under Obama said she was tough but also possessed an affable, collegial temperament. What’s more, Capitol Hill experience will be less important next year because of Biden’s own deep relationships there.
There are, essentially, three arguments against putting Rice on the Democratic ticket. None bear scrutiny. The first is Benghazi. In 2012, after the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Rice went on CBS News’ Face the Nation and inaccurately reported that the attack was a spontaneous response to a hateful video. After an exhaustive inquiry, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee found that Rice was working off of CIA talking points and had not intentionally misled the public.
How many Americans voters will think, “Oh, I was planning to vote for Biden over Trump until I found out about that Face the Nation interview”? Benghazi is not only a dead end for Trump; the brief back-and-forth on it (before Republicans realize it’s old and useless) is potentially a positive for Biden. Every day Trump shouts “Benghazi!” is a day he won’t have for something more potent. Meanwhile, Rice would attack Trump for ignoring the pandemic playbook she prepared while at the NSC and for looking the other way when the Russians offered bounties to the Taliban to kill American troops in Afghanistan.
The second objection to Rice is that she has never run for elective office. But experience on the campaign trail giving rousing speeches and working rope lines is irrelevant in this strange election year. Rice has plenty of experience facing hard questions on television, which is where the fall campaign will be fought. Besides, being a non-politician is refreshing for many voters, as it was in 2016 with Trump.
Finally, some Democrats are unhappy that Rice’s son, John Rice-Cameron, is president of Stanford Republicans and helped organize a demonstration celebrating Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. But it’s hard to imagine this would keep them from voting against Trump. And it reinforces that—unlike Trump— Biden would be the president of all Americans, however much they disagree. Many voters with friends and relatives who are Trump supporters may find Rice’s situation with her son human and relatable.
When I interviewed Rice recently, she would not discuss the vice presidency. She did note that she had “a proven ability to throw a punch as well as take one”—a critical requirement for a VP candidate. Calling herself a “pragmatic progressive,” she described her politics as “very close to where Joe Biden is.” She explained that “our adversaries have come to see us as suckers and incompetent” and argued how important it is “to rebuild the confidence of our allies.”
This is exactly where Biden is—deeply worried about how to restore America’s leadership in the world. He knows the repair job must begin on January 21. Susan Rice by Biden’s side can help him do it. And that would let the rest of us sleep easier should anything happen to him.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-23--Of Course, Democrats Should Welcome the Help of Never Trumpers

When the Associated Press reported that former Governor John Kasich had been asked to endorse Biden in a speech at the Democratic Convention , a bit of a controversy broke out over whether that was a good idea .
It then broadened into a discussion about the wisdom of welcoming the assistance of Never Trumpers in electing the former vice president .
Especially given the fact that the convention will be virtual , I don ’ t think it is all that important whether a Republican is given a platform to speak .
But Charles Pierce made the case against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy differences between Kasich and the Democratic Party : Most of the critique of Never Trumpers , however , has focused on the Lincoln Project , a political action committee formed by George T. Conway III , Steve Schmidt , John Weaver and Rick Wilson .
As I ’ ve pointed out before , they are hardly the only ones .
Other groups of Republicans who have formed to defeat Trump include the Right Side PAC , 43 Alumni for Biden , and Republican Voters Against Trump .
I suspect that the reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is because the ads they have produced have gone viral on social media and the group has successfully lodged themselves in Trump ’ s head—which is actually one of their goals .
The criticism of the Lincoln Project has varied .
It goes from a suggestion that the people involved are only in it for the money , to a claim that they are ineffective , to the fact that they have focused on negative ads , which are harmful to our politics .
But perhaps the most important criticism to consider is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit for electing Biden and then attempt to use that to influence his policies .
That is the case made by Jeet Heer—specifically as it relates to militarism in foreign policy : Heer ’ s assumptions about Biden are not born out by the fact that the former vice president ’ s “ support ” for the Iraq War was complicated and that in every case where the Obama administration considered military action , Biden was the voice against doing so .
The suggestion that the founders of the Lincoln Project will attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question of what motivates the Never Trumpers and what their vision is for the future of the Republican Party .
I suspect that varies from person to person .
One thing to keep in mind about the Lincoln Project is that Trump isn ’ t the only target of their ire .
I would remind you that they are the ones that produced this video : What that ad suggests is that they aren ’ t just working to elect Joe Biden , they are attempting to ensure that he has a solid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real battle will be over a Democratic agenda .
It is worth reading Greg Sargent ’ s summary of his conversation with John Weaver about the Lincoln Project .
When it comes to their vision of the future of the Republican Party , this is the crux of the matter : But will the Lincoln Project remain committed to concrete expansions of voting rights after Trump is gone ?
Weaver said yes , noting it will keep advocating for automatic voter registration and a restored Voting Rights Act , and continue fighting efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people or poor people to vote.
” “ No more of that , ” Weaver said .
But for the Lincoln Project , this is also a means of rescuing the GOP from itself .
This will force it to “ actually compete for votes , ” Weaver told me , adding that the GOP will be a “ better party for the country if everyone participates.
” If not , Weaver said , “ it will die.
” If Weaver is to be trusted , that is a hint that he recognizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anti-democratic strategies — designed to allow a minority party to stay in power — must be rejected .
In order to take the next step , Weaver would have to articulate an actual agenda that didn ’ t rely on post-truth politics and instead , actually competes for votes in the arena of ideas .
No one in this group has been more clear about the need for that than Stuart Stevens , a Republican consultant who has been affiliated with the Lincoln Project .
Another Never Trumper , Max Boot , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says in his book , It Was All a Lie : How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump : As a reminder that , no matter what these Never Trumpers do in the future , there are deep policy differences that exist between their positions and those of the Democratic Party , Bill Kristol recently tweeted this : Actually , the most meaningful way to address the Iranian threat is to reinstate the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration and our allies that stopped Iran ’ s development of nuclear weapons—which Biden has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcome a broad coalition to defeat both Donald Trump and his congressional enablers , there will be plenty of room for disagreement once that goal is accomplished .
As Adam Gopnik wrote , right now there is a need to distinguish between honest opponents and toxic enemies : It is possible that Democrats could sway enough independents to beat Trump in November .
But to ensure that things like voter suppression and foreign interference aren ’ t enough to question the results — and to deal a major blow to Trumpism — we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect the tenets of our democracy .
Once that is done , if Never Trumpers can actually present as “ honest opponents , ” then we can talk .

When the Associated Press reported that former Governor John Kasich had been asked to endorse Biden in a speech at the Democratic Convention, a bit of a controversy broke out over whether that was a good idea. It then broadened into a discussion about the wisdom of welcoming the assistance of Never Trumpers in electing the former vice president.
Especially given the fact that the convention will be virtual, I don’t think it is all that important whether a Republican is given a platform to speak. But Charles Pierce made the case against doing so. He points out the policy differences between Kasich and the Democratic Party:
[H]is politics don’t belong within an area code of any Democratic convention. He’s radically anti-choice, radically anti-union, and a career-long adherent to the worst idea in American politics, the Balanced Budget Amendment. He opposed marriage equality; the Hodges in Obergefell v. Hodges was a Kasich appointee in Ohio. He’s a fan of private prisons, despite the customary problems.
Most of the critique of Never Trumpers, however, has focused on the Lincoln Project, a political action committee formed by George T. Conway III, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver and Rick Wilson. As I’ve pointed out before, they are hardly the only ones. Other groups of Republicans who have formed to defeat Trump include the Right Side PAC, 43 Alumni for Biden, and Republican Voters Against Trump. I suspect that the reason the Lincoln Project is being singled out is because the ads they have produced have gone viral on social media and the group has successfully lodged themselves in Trump’s head—which is actually one of their goals.
The criticism of the Lincoln Project has varied. It goes from a suggestion that the people involved are only in it for the money, to a claim that they are ineffective, to the fact that they have focused on negative ads, which are harmful to our politics. But perhaps the most important criticism to consider is the idea that the group will claim credit for electing Biden and then attempt to use that to influence his policies. That is the case made by Jeet Heer—specifically as it relates to militarism in foreign policy:
This suggests that these ads should be seen as an attempt to stake a claim in Joe Biden’s victory so that if he becomes president he’ll give hawkish Republicans a seat at the table. Biden already has a tropism toward bipartisanship, especially in foreign policy. He voted for the Iraq War and has been criticizing Trump from the right for not being sufficiently hard-line on Venezuela and China.
Heer’s assumptions about Biden are not born out by the fact that the former vice president’s “support” for the Iraq War was complicated and that in every case where the Obama administration considered military action, Biden was the voice against doing so.
The suggestion that the founders of the Lincoln Project will attempt to influence a Democratic president raises the question of what motivates the Never Trumpers and what their vision is for the future of the Republican Party. I suspect that varies from person to person. One thing to keep in mind about the Lincoln Project is that Trump isn’t the only target of their ire. I would remind you that they are the ones that produced this video:
What that ad suggests is that they aren’t just working to elect Joe Biden, they are attempting to ensure that he has a solid majority in the Senate—which is where the real battle will be over a Democratic agenda.
It is worth reading Greg Sargent’s summary of his conversation with John Weaver about the Lincoln Project. When it comes to their vision of the future of the Republican Party, this is the crux of the matter:
But will the Lincoln Project remain committed to concrete expansions of voting rights after Trump is gone? Weaver said yes, noting it will keep advocating for automatic voter registration and a restored Voting Rights Act, and continue fighting efforts to “make it difficult for black people or poor people to vote.” “No more of that,” Weaver said. But for the Lincoln Project, this is also a means of rescuing the GOP from itself. This will force it to “actually compete for votes,” Weaver told me, adding that the GOP will be a “better party for the country if everyone participates.” If not, Weaver said, “it will die.”
If Weaver is to be trusted, that is a hint that he recognizes that the Republican Party’s embrace of anti-democratic strategies — designed to allow a minority party to stay in power — must be rejected. In order to take the next step, Weaver would have to articulate an actual agenda that didn’t rely on post-truth politics and instead, actually competes for votes in the arena of ideas.
No one in this group has been more clear about the need for that than Stuart Stevens, a Republican consultant who has been affiliated with the Lincoln Project. Another Never Trumper, Max Boot, gives us some idea of what Stevens says in his book, It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump:
He calls the GOP “a white grievance party,” and writes that “there is an ugly history of code words and dog whistles in the party.” The rest of the Republican platform he dismisses as a convenient fiction: “How do you abandon deeply held beliefs about character, personal responsibility, foreign policy, and the national debt in a matter of months? You don’t. The obvious answer is those beliefs weren’t deeply held.… [I]t had always been about power. The rest? The principles? The values? It was all a lie.”
As a reminder that, no matter what these Never Trumpers do in the future, there are deep policy differences that exist between their positions and those of the Democratic Party, Bill Kristol recently tweeted this:
Actually, the most meaningful way to address the Iranian threat is to reinstate the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration and our allies that stopped Iran’s development of nuclear weapons—which Biden has promised to do.
While Democrats should welcome a broad coalition to defeat both Donald Trump and his congressional enablers, there will be plenty of room for disagreement once that goal is accomplished. As Adam Gopnik wrote, right now there is a need to distinguish between honest opponents and toxic enemies:
What’s needed against Trump now is … not an ideologically narrow, politically focussed opposition but the widest possible coalition of people who genuinely value the tenets of democracy, meaning no more than the passionate desire to settle differences by debate and argument, rather than by power and cruelty and clan.
It is possible that Democrats could sway enough independents to beat Trump in November. But to ensure that things like voter suppression and foreign interference aren’t enough to question the results — and to deal a major blow to Trumpism — we’ll need that broad coalition to protect the tenets of our democracy. Once that is done, if Never Trumpers can actually present as “honest opponents,” then we can talk.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-23--How Conservative Ideology Twists the Republican Party in Knots

With the 2020 elections only a little more than three months away , now is not the time to be giving the Republican Party advice , but I am willing to question their judgment in one respect .
With 30-40 million Americans out of work , why are they obsessed with the idea that someone might get paid more to stay at home than to take a job ?
Let me put it this way .
If someone has a job to offer , that job is going to get filled in half a second .
If the government wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own jobs .
That ’ s what FDR did when unemployment was through the roof and the private sector was on its knees .
Instead , we get this , as reported by the Washington Post : Republicans have continually argued that the enhanced benefits create a disincentive for people to return to work , because many can make more on unemployment .
Mnuchin said Thursday that the GOP plan would include 70 percent wage replacement , which could reduce the $ 600-per-week payment to closer to $ 200 per week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ re not going to continue in its current form because we ’ re not going to pay people more money to stay at home than work , ” Mnuchin said on CNBC .
“ We want to make sure that the people out there who can ’ t find jobs do get a reasonable wage replacement — so it will be based on approximately 70 percent wage replacement.
” The issue here is the expiration at the end of July of a $ 600 federal enhancement of notoriously stingy state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrap this payment completely , but now they ’ re coalescing around a reduced benefit closer to $ 200 .
People are going to notice that change and it ’ s not going to make them more likely to vote for a Republican .
It ’ s true that there are some people who have a little more money in their pockets right now than they would have had if there had never been a global pandemic .
That said , a few stray rays of sunshine are better than unrelenting misfortune .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then why are the Republicans for sending out another round of stimulus checks ?
According to the Post : The payroll tax cut was a moronic idea on every level , and especially because you need a job in order to see any benefit .
Just writing everyone a check regardless of need is the bluntest of instruments , but it ’ s way more progressive and stimulative than cutting taxes .
It also has the advantage that people will notice .
This approach is better policy and it ’ s smarter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do away with the problem of some folks having more money while they ’ re unemployed than they had when they were working .
This whole debate is a good example of the way ideology twists the Republican Party in knots .
They wind up worried that they ’ re disincentivizing work when no one can find work .
Then they settle on paying people for nothing because they prefer that to creating a government job .

With the 2020 elections only a little more than three months away, now is not the time to be giving the Republican Party advice, but I am willing to question their judgment in one respect. With 30-40 million Americans out of work, why are they obsessed with the idea that someone might get paid more to stay at home than to take a job?
Let me put it this way. If someone has a job to offer, that job is going to get filled in half a second. If the government wants people to work, they should create their own jobs. That’s what FDR did when unemployment was through the roof and the private sector was on its knees.
Instead, we get this, as reported by the Washington Post:
Republicans have continually argued that the enhanced benefits create a disincentive for people to return to work, because many can make more on unemployment. Mnuchin said Thursday that the GOP plan would include 70 percent wage replacement, which could reduce the $600-per-week payment to closer to $200 per week, although the precise details were unclear. “We’re not going to continue in its current form because we’re not going to pay people more money to stay at home than work,” Mnuchin said on CNBC. “We want to make sure that the people out there who can’t find jobs do get a reasonable wage replacement — so it will be based on approximately 70 percent wage replacement.”
The issue here is the expiration at the end of July of a $600 federal enhancement of notoriously stingy state unemployment benefits. The Republicans wanted to scrap this payment completely, but now they’re coalescing around a reduced benefit closer to $200. People are going to notice that change and it’s not going to make them more likely to vote for a Republican.
It’s true that there are some people who have a little more money in their pockets right now than they would have had if there had never been a global pandemic. That said, a few stray rays of sunshine are better than unrelenting misfortune. If this is such in intolerable injustice, then why are the Republicans for sending out another round of stimulus checks? According to the Post:
In recent days, Trump had insisted that he might not sign an eventual bill if it did not include the payroll tax cut, but the plan was extremely unpopular with Republicans. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on CNBC on Thursday morning that the White House still liked the idea and could pursue it in potential future legislation — although McConnell has repeatedly indicated that the legislation taking shape now will be Congress’s last major coronavirus relief bill. “It won’t be in the base bill,” Mnuchin conceded. He said the decision was made to instead focus on sending another round of stimulus checks to Americans, because that approach would put money in people’s pockets more quickly. “Let me be clear: We think the payroll tax cut is a very good pro-growth policy, but the president’s focus is he wants to get money into people’s pockets now,” Mnuchin said.
The payroll tax cut was a moronic idea on every level, and especially because you need a job in order to see any benefit. Just writing everyone a check regardless of need is the bluntest of instruments, but it’s way more progressive and stimulative than cutting taxes. It also has the advantage that people will notice. This approach is better policy and it’s smarter politics. But it doesn’t do away with the problem of some folks having more money while they’re unemployed than they had when they were working. This whole debate is a good example of the way ideology twists the Republican Party in knots. They wind up worried that they’re disincentivizing work when no one can find work. Then they settle on paying people for nothing because they prefer that to creating a government job.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-24--The Most Bizarre Senate Race Is Happening in Kansas

The state of Kansas holds its primary on August 4th and a whopping eleven candidates are vying for the Republican nomination to fill the senate seat vacated by the retirement of Pat Roberts .
As a result , money from outside groups is pouring into the race , but not in the ways we ’ ve come to expect .
For example , a group with ties to Mitch McConnell is running ads that accuse one of the frontrunners , Kris Kobach , of having ties to white nationalists ( fact check : true ) .
Meanwhile , another frontrunner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with ties to Kansas Democrats .
The Sunflower State PAC is accusing Roger Marshall—who has been endorsed by McConnell , as well as the Chamber of Commerce—of being a swamp creature .
While it ’ s rare for Democrats to weigh in on a Republican Senate primary , it has happened before in the neighboring state of Missouri .
To make matters even more interesting , one of the other eleven Republican candidates is Bob Hamilton , the owner of a prosperous plumbing company .
He is self-financing his campaign and running as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump stand on this one ?
You might remember that the president appointed Kobach to be one of the co-chairs of his failed voter fraud commission .
He also endorsed Kobach in the 2018 governor ’ s race .
But this time , Trump is singing a different tune—behind the scenes .
And after he endorsed Kris Kobach , the firebrand Republican , in the 2018 Kansas governor ’ s race only to see him lose the general election in a deeply red state , Mr. Trump has played a hands-on role in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a Senate seat .
Last month , the president called David McIntosh , the head of the conservative Club for Growth , and persuaded him to have the group take down its ads attacking a rival to Mr. Kobach , Representative Roger Marshall , who is favored by many establishment-aligned Republicans .
Still , Mr. Trump has not gone as far as endorsing Mr. Marshall , telling allies he did not want to anger his own voters by openly spurning Mr. Kobach .
All of this explains why McConnell spent months practically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the ring for this Senate seat .
But for whatever reason , Pompeo wanted to stick to his job as Secretary of State .
There has been very little polling for this primary .
Everyone agrees that Kobach was initially the favorite , but in May a Republican polling firm found that Marshall had a seven point lead ( 33-26 ) over Kobach .
The rest of the crowded field was in single digits .
One last twist in this race is that whoever wins the Republican primary will face off against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of three Kansas state legislators who switched parties back in 2018 .
Here ’ s what she said when she announced that decision : At this point , Bollier looks to be in a 40-40 tie with either Kobach or Marshall .
Without a primary challenger , she ’ s been busy raising money for the general election .
Kansas state Sen. Barbara Bollier ( D ) raised $ 3.7 million in the second quarter for her Senate campaign as Democrats seek to make the contest competitive .
The haul is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any race in Kansas history .
The campaign said in a press release Wednesday that it has over $ 4 million in cash on hand and that nearly 91 percent of the second-quarter donations were for under $ 200 .
Nearly 81 percent of those who gave to the campaign from April-June were first-time donors .
So in a state that hasn ’ t had a Democratic senator since 1932 and went for Trump by over 20 points in 2016 , this race could very well be a toss-up no matter which @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The state of Kansas holds its primary on August 4th and a whopping eleven candidates are vying for the Republican nomination to fill the senate seat vacated by the retirement of Pat Roberts. As a result, money from outside groups is pouring into the race, but not in the ways we’ve come to expect.
For example, a group with ties to Mitch McConnell is running ads that accuse one of the frontrunners, Kris Kobach, of having ties to white nationalists (fact check: true).
Meanwhile, another frontrunner is actually facing attacks from a group with ties to Kansas Democrats. The Sunflower State PAC is accusing Roger Marshall—who has been endorsed by McConnell, as well as the Chamber of Commerce—of being a swamp creature.
While it’s rare for Democrats to weigh in on a Republican Senate primary, it has happened before in the neighboring state of Missouri.
It worked in 2012 when Democrats intervened in Missouri’s Republican U.S. Senate primary to help Todd Akin. Running from the party’s right wing, Aikin won the nomination. But controversial statements about abortion cost him in the general election, which he lost to incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill.
To make matters even more interesting, one of the other eleven Republican candidates is Bob Hamilton, the owner of a prosperous plumbing company. He is self-financing his campaign and running as a Trump mine-me.
In a television ad that’s airing frequently in the closing weeks of the campaign, Hamilton aligns himself with President Trump and says career politicians like Kobach and Marshall can’t help shake-up the establishment because “they are the establishment.”
So where does Trump stand on this one? You might remember that the president appointed Kobach to be one of the co-chairs of his failed voter fraud commission. He also endorsed Kobach in the 2018 governor’s race. But this time, Trump is singing a different tune—behind the scenes.
And after he endorsed Kris Kobach, the firebrand Republican, in the 2018 Kansas governor’s race only to see him lose the general election in a deeply red state, Mr. Trump has played a hands-on role in attempting to deny Mr. Kobach the nomination for a Senate seat. Last month, the president called David McIntosh, the head of the conservative Club for Growth, and persuaded him to have the group take down its ads attacking a rival to Mr. Kobach, Representative Roger Marshall, who is favored by many establishment-aligned Republicans. Still, Mr. Trump has not gone as far as endorsing Mr. Marshall, telling allies he did not want to anger his own voters by openly spurning Mr. Kobach.
All of this explains why McConnell spent months practically begging Mike Pompeo to throw his hat in the ring for this Senate seat. But for whatever reason, Pompeo wanted to stick to his job as Secretary of State.
There has been very little polling for this primary. Everyone agrees that Kobach was initially the favorite, but in May a Republican polling firm found that Marshall had a seven point lead (33-26) over Kobach. The rest of the crowded field was in single digits.
One last twist in this race is that whoever wins the Republican primary will face off against state senator Barbara Bollier. She is one of three Kansas state legislators who switched parties back in 2018. Here’s what she said when she announced that decision:
“I’ve been a proud Kansas Republican for 43 years,” said Bollier. “I always embraced the common-sense policies of Governor Bill Graves, US Senator Nancy Kassebaum, and President Eisenhower. But during the last eight years, I’ve grown increasingly uncomfortable with Republican leaders’ hardline rhetoric, contempt for compromise, and obsession with putting political power before children and families. With this recent election it has become clear that the majority of the Republican Party does not accept moderate Republicans any longer.”
At this point, Bollier looks to be in a 40-40 tie with either Kobach or Marshall. Without a primary challenger, she’s been busy raising money for the general election.
Kansas state Sen. Barbara Bollier (D) raised $3.7 million in the second quarter for her Senate campaign as Democrats seek to make the contest competitive. The haul is the largest reported single-quarter fundraising of any candidate in any race in Kansas history. The campaign said in a press release Wednesday that it has over $4 million in cash on hand and that nearly 91 percent of the second-quarter donations were for under $200. Nearly 81 percent of those who gave to the campaign from April-June were first-time donors.
So in a state that hasn’t had a Democratic senator since 1932 and went for Trump by over 20 points in 2016, this race could very well be a toss-up no matter which Republican wins the primary on August 4th.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-24--Investors are Doing Great Under Trump, But What About the Rest of Us?

Welcome to Crony Capitalism 2.0 , brought to America by the Trump administration and the COVID-19 pandemic .
Washington ’ s current approach to rescue the economy has made investors in stocks and bonds whole , even as incomes fall for most Americans .
Now , only Congress can lessen that injustice — and the suffering of millions of people — only by going big .
Until the crisis ends , everyone who needs them should receive checks from the government every six weeks , the expanded jobless benefits should stay in place , and small businesses that need another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For the top 10 percent of American households that own 91 percent of all financial assets , the economic impacts of the pandemic crisis are virtually over .
After an 11-year bull run for stocks , the S & P 500 reached a historic high on February 19 , 2020 and then slid 34 percent as the economy fell off a cliff in March and April .
Yet even as GDP was falling sharply throughout the second quarter ( April-May-June ) , the S & P 500 was back within five percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Five weeks later , as COVID-19 ’ s second spike spread across much of the country , the S & P 500 was barely three percent off its record high on July 22 .
The story is much the same for corporate bonds .
The largest fund for investment grade corporate paper , the LQD “ Exchange Traded Fund , ” or ETF , peaked on March 6 before falling 22 percent over two weeks .
By July 15 , it had regained all of that ground and set a new record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise .
The gravity-defying recovery of non-investment grade or “ junk ” bonds , issued by companies already in deep trouble before the pandemic , is even more remarkable .
As expected , the largest ETF for junk bonds ( HYG ) lost 29 percent of its value from February 20 to March 23—and then erased 95 percent of those losses by June 8 .
As businesses re-closed in many states , junk bonds on July 22 were less than three percent below their February high .
For everyone else , the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wages and salaries from March through May fell three percent after taking account of the assistance Congress passed in the April CARES Ac .
That ’ s despite the checks to households , the PPP support for small businesses , and the expanded unemployment benefits .
Setting aside those transfers , wage and salary income plummeted a record-breaking 7.8 percent , equivalent to an average pay cut of $ 4,831 for a median-income household .
Given those sober facts , Congress should be prepared to provide more rounds of all of the financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passes .
Otherwise , tens of millions of households will face historically hard times .
We ’ ve been here before .
The government ’ s response to the 2008 financial crisis followed a similar path .
That time , Congress and both the Bush and Obama administrations spent trillions of dollars to stabilize capital markets—good for investors but also the right move for everyone .
They also spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars bailing out financial institutions and their shareholders .
Most disturbingly , they virtually ignored the crisis in housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes and left tens of millions of households poorer .
Then , as predicted , stocks began to turn around by August 2009 and fully recovered by early 2011 .
The value of people ’ s homes , the primary asset of nearly two-thirds of all households , fell for five more years and did not fully recover until 2018 .
Combined with the Great Recession , this left most Americans less well-off , so they spent less and business investment was sluggish .
All of that produced the slow and uneven recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today , much like the last time , the extraordinary measures used to boost the stock and bond markets are unfolding in plain sight .
But since the main mechanisms are the esoteric operations of the Federal Reserve , it ’ s hard for most people to sort them out .
It ’ s actually pretty straightforward , though .
From March through June ( our latest data ) , the Fed flooded the financial markets with capital by buying up $ 2.8 trillion in Treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities and some corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vastly expand credit in the form of loans to businesses at easy terms and large stock and bond purchases by institutional investors .
The official term for this approach is quantitative easing ( QE ) , operations pioneered by the Fed for the last financial crisis and used again now — but now on steroids The current purchases have increased the Fed ’ s total holdings by two-thirds over four months , documented in the Fed ’ s public balance sheet : From March 2 to June 30 , the Fed ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jumped from $ 4.2 trillion to $ 7.0 trillion .
For a sense of the scale of these operations , the Fed ’ s QE purchases in the first four months of the 2008 crisis totaled $ 1.4 trillion , or half as much .
Adjusted for inflation , the QE operations from March to June this year outpaced those in the first four months of the financial crisis by $ 1 trillion .
The Fed has gone even further to support bond investors by declaring its readiness to directly buy the corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual purchases of corporate bonds have been small , its pledge to support the market for those bonds stopped the normal downward pressures on their prices , especially for junk bonds .
That ’ s why private investors have dived back into that market and bid up the prices of corporate bonds to nearly their recent historic highs .
And many of the country ’ s biggest corporations are taking full advantage of this implicit government guarantee for their debts : The New York Times reports that through late June “ giant U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in bond markets this year , double the pace from last year.
” Their shareholders will accrue most of the benefits .
In any economic meltdown , the government has to support the country ’ s capital markets .
It should surprise no one that the Trump administration has gone about it with no sense of equality or proportion .
With investors already made whole , Congress should look out for the millions of Americans now facing effective bankruptcy and the hundreds of millions more looking at hard times , perhaps for years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Welcome to Crony Capitalism 2.0, brought to America by the Trump administration and the COVID-19 pandemic. Washington’s current approach to rescue the economy has made investors in stocks and bonds whole, even as incomes fall for most Americans. Now, only Congress can lessen that injustice — and the suffering of millions of people — only by going big. Until the crisis ends, everyone who needs them should receive checks from the government every six weeks, the expanded jobless benefits should stay in place, and small businesses that need another round of payroll supports should get them.
For the top 10 percent of American households that own 91 percent of all financial assets, the economic impacts of the pandemic crisis are virtually over. After an 11-year bull run for stocks, the S&P 500 reached a historic high on February 19, 2020 and then slid 34 percent as the economy fell off a cliff in March and April. Yet even as GDP was falling sharply throughout the second quarter (April-May-June), the S&P 500 was back within five percent of its historic high by June 8. Five weeks later, as COVID-19’s second spike spread across much of the country, the S&P 500 was barely three percent off its record high on July 22.
The story is much the same for corporate bonds. The largest fund for investment grade corporate paper, the LQD “Exchange Traded Fund,” or ETF, peaked on March 6 before falling 22 percent over two weeks. By July 15, it had regained all of that ground and set a new record high. It has since continued to rise. The gravity-defying recovery of non-investment grade or “junk” bonds, issued by companies already in deep trouble before the pandemic, is even more remarkable. As expected, the largest ETF for junk bonds (HYG) lost 29 percent of its value from February 20 to March 23—and then erased 95 percent of those losses by June 8. As businesses re-closed in many states, junk bonds on July 22 were less than three percent below their February high.
For everyone else, the most recent data show that personal income from wages and salaries from March through May fell three percent after taking account of the assistance Congress passed in the April CARES Ac. That’s despite the checks to households, the PPP support for small businesses, and the expanded unemployment benefits. Setting aside those transfers, wage and salary income plummeted a record-breaking 7.8 percent, equivalent to an average pay cut of $4,831 for a median-income household. Given those sober facts, Congress should be prepared to provide more rounds of all of the financial assistance for average Americans until the crisis passes. Otherwise, tens of millions of households will face historically hard times.
We’ve been here before. The government’s response to the 2008 financial crisis followed a similar path. That time, Congress and both the Bush and Obama administrations spent trillions of dollars to stabilize capital markets—good for investors but also the right move for everyone. They also spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars bailing out financial institutions and their shareholders. Most disturbingly, they virtually ignored the crisis in housing markets that cost millions of families their homes and left tens of millions of households poorer.
Then, as predicted, stocks began to turn around by August 2009 and fully recovered by early 2011. The value of people’s homes, the primary asset of nearly two-thirds of all households, fell for five more years and did not fully recover until 2018. Combined with the Great Recession, this left most Americans less well-off, so they spent less and business investment was sluggish. All of that produced the slow and uneven recovery that eventually helped elect Donald Trump.
Today, much like the last time, the extraordinary measures used to boost the stock and bond markets are unfolding in plain sight. But since the main mechanisms are the esoteric operations of the Federal Reserve, it’s hard for most people to sort them out. It’s actually pretty straightforward, though. From March through June (our latest data), the Fed flooded the financial markets with capital by buying up $2.8 trillion in Treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities and some corporate bonds. These purchases enabled banks to vastly expand credit in the form of loans to businesses at easy terms and large stock and bond purchases by institutional investors. The official term for this approach is quantitative easing (QE), operations pioneered by the Fed for the last financial crisis and used again now — but now on steroids
The current purchases have increased the Fed’s total holdings by two-thirds over four months, documented in the Fed’s public balance sheet: From March 2 to June 30, the Fed’s assets (the securities it purchased) jumped from $4.2 trillion to $7.0 trillion. For a sense of the scale of these operations, the Fed’s QE purchases in the first four months of the 2008 crisis totaled $1.4 trillion, or half as much. Adjusted for inflation, the QE operations from March to June this year outpaced those in the first four months of the financial crisis by $1 trillion.
The Fed has gone even further to support bond investors by declaring its readiness to directly buy the corporate paper. While the Fed’s actual purchases of corporate bonds have been small, its pledge to support the market for those bonds stopped the normal downward pressures on their prices, especially for junk bonds. That’s why private investors have dived back into that market and bid up the prices of corporate bonds to nearly their recent historic highs. And many of the country’s biggest corporations are taking full advantage of this implicit government guarantee for their debts: The New York Times reports that through late June “giant U.S. corporations had borrowed roughly $850 billion in bond markets this year, double the pace from last year.” Their shareholders will accrue most of the benefits.
In any economic meltdown, the government has to support the country’s capital markets. It should surprise no one that the Trump administration has gone about it with no sense of equality or proportion. With investors already made whole, Congress should look out for the millions of Americans now facing effective bankruptcy and the hundreds of millions more looking at hard times, perhaps for years and through no fault of their own.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-24--The GOP Hypocrisy on Cancel Culture

The GOP Hypocrisy on Cancel Culture

In the 1960s , the term “ politically correct ” was used by both Democrats and Republicans in a non-derisive way .
But as Joshua Florence noted , things changed in the 1990s : Republicans believed the anti-war protests during the late ’ 60s to be “ politically incorrect ” and Democrats considered support for civil rights legislation to be “ politically correct.
” … The late 1990s saw another shift in the phrase and it was soon “ used every which way—straight , ironically , satirically , interrogatively.
” Political correctness was no longer a compliment , but a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the left and despised by the right … Conservatism , according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary , is a tendency or disposition “ to maintain existing views , conditions , or institutions , ” including , but not limited to the American vernacular .
Conversely , liberalism is a “ belief in the value of social and political change in order to achieve progress.
” It therefore makes sense that those with liberal ideologies continue to institute new rules of language and speech .
As women and people of color asserted their equal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and white supremacy began to be challenged .
Those committed to the status quo were threatened , and eventually started to complain about the burden of having to be “ politically correct.
” During the 2016 presidential election , Donald Trump ’ s claim to be politically incorrect was his way of signaling his ties to those who wanted to express their racism and sexism openly .
But we don ’ t hear much about political correctness these days .
That ’ s because there is a new name for the same thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these terms have in common is that they are used derisively to condemn liberals who call out racism or sexism .
Critics claim that their constitutional right to free speech is being infringed upon when their views are challenged .
But the 1st Amendment is pretty specific : Congress is prohibited from passing laws that abridge the freedom of speech .
But private citizens and companies are nowhere prohibited from taking action against any form of speech—as long as it is legal .
In other words , punching someone because they say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal , but for a private news organization to refuse to publish offensive screeds is not an infringement of the 1st Amendment ’ s guarantee of free speech .
What often goes without comment is the fact that it isn ’ t just liberals who demand political correctness or engage in cancel culture .
For example , Republicans launched their whole narrative about Barack Obama not loving America because he wouldn ’ t used their preferred term : “ radical Islamic terrorism.
” There were also issues when , in 2009 , Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Notre Dame : Those are just two examples from the Obama years .
But in a blatant display of hypocrisy , one of the biggest critics of cancel culture is engaging in it himself .
Here is an announcement from Senator Tom Cotton ( Republican-Arkansas ) on Thursday .
Senator Tom Cotton ( R-Arkansas ) introduced the Saving American History Act of 2020 , a bill that would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the 1619 Project by K-12 schools or school districts .
Schools that teach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for federal professional-development grants … “ The New York Times ’ s 1619 Project is a racially divisive , revisionist account of history that denies the noble principles of freedom and equality on which our nation was founded .
Not a single cent of federal funding should go to indoctrinate young Americans with this left-wing garbage , ” said Cotton .
Cotton ’ s statement about the 1619 Project is a lie .
Here is what Nikole Hannah-Jones , who oversaw the project , wrote in the very first essay ( emphasis mine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation founded on both an ideal and a lie .
Our Declaration of Independence , approved on July 4 , 1776 , proclaims that “ all men are created equal ” and “ endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
” But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst .
“ Life , Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ” did not apply to fully one-fifth of the country .
Yet despite being violently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , black Americans believed fervently in the American creed .
Through centuries of black resistance and protest , we have helped the country live up to its founding ideals .
And not only for ourselves — black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle , including women ’ s and gay rights , immigrant and disability rights .
Without the idealistic , strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans , our democracy today would most likely look very different — it might not be a democracy at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tom Cotton want to cancel the ability of schools to teach the history contained in the 1619 Project , he also wants to cancel the experience of African Americans in this country — and their contribution to perfecting our union .
I doubt that Cotton ’ s bill will go anywhere , because the senator is more interested in laying claim to be Donald Trump ’ s successor than he is in actually passing this piece of legislative crap .
But it ’ s a good reminder that the party that denies not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a major purveyor of cancel culture .

In the 1960s, the term “politically correct” was used by both Democrats and Republicans in a non-derisive way. But as Joshua Florence noted, things changed in the 1990s:
Republicans believed the anti-war protests during the late ’60s to be “politically incorrect” and Democrats considered support for civil rights legislation to be “politically correct.”… The late 1990s saw another shift in the phrase and it was soon “used every which way—straight, ironically, satirically, interrogatively.” Political correctness was no longer a compliment, but a term laced with partisan feeling, owned by the left and despised by the right … Conservatism, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is a tendency or disposition “to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions,” including, but not limited to the American vernacular. Conversely, liberalism is a “belief in the value of social and political change in order to achieve progress.” It therefore makes sense that those with liberal ideologies continue to institute new rules of language and speech.
As women and people of color asserted their equal rights, cultural norms related to patriarchy and white supremacy began to be challenged. Those committed to the status quo were threatened, and eventually started to complain about the burden of having to be “politically correct.” During the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump’s claim to be politically incorrect was his way of signaling his ties to those who wanted to express their racism and sexism openly.
But we don’t hear much about political correctness these days. That’s because there is a new name for the same thing: cancel culture. The thing both of these terms have in common is that they are used derisively to condemn liberals who call out racism or sexism. Critics claim that their constitutional right to free speech is being infringed upon when their views are challenged. But the 1st Amendment is pretty specific:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress is prohibited from passing laws that abridge the freedom of speech. But private citizens and companies are nowhere prohibited from taking action against any form of speech—as long as it is legal. In other words, punching someone because they say something you don’t like is illegal, but for a private news organization to refuse to publish offensive screeds is not an infringement of the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.
What often goes without comment is the fact that it isn’t just liberals who demand political correctness or engage in cancel culture. For example, Republicans launched their whole narrative about Barack Obama not loving America because he wouldn’t used their preferred term: “radical Islamic terrorism.” There were also issues when, in 2009, Obama was invited to give the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame:
Protests continued through the night at the United States’ foremost Roman Catholic university, as demonstrators object to the school’s decision to invite President Obama to give the commencement address this afternoon, given his stands on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. Anti-abortion activists promise to disrupt the president’s appearance on Sunday at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., where he also will receive an honorary degree.
Those are just two examples from the Obama years. But in a blatant display of hypocrisy, one of the biggest critics of cancel culture is engaging in it himself. Here is an announcement from Senator Tom Cotton (Republican-Arkansas) on Thursday.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) introduced the Saving American History Act of 2020, a bill that would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the 1619 Project by K-12 schools or school districts. Schools that teach the 1619 Project would also be ineligible for federal professional-development grants … “The New York Times’s 1619 Project is a racially divisive, revisionist account of history that denies the noble principles of freedom and equality on which our nation was founded. Not a single cent of federal funding should go to indoctrinate young Americans with this left-wing garbage,” said Cotton.
Cotton’s statement about the 1619 Project is a lie. Here is what Nikole Hannah-Jones, who oversaw the project, wrote in the very first essay (emphasis mine):
The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie. Our Declaration of Independence, approved on July 4, 1776, proclaims that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” did not apply to fully one-fifth of the country. Yet despite being violently denied the freedom and justice promised to all, black Americans believed fervently in the American creed. Through centuries of black resistance and protest, we have helped the country live up to its founding ideals. And not only for ourselves — black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle, including women’s and gay rights, immigrant and disability rights. Without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different — it might not be a democracy at all.
In other words, not only does Tom Cotton want to cancel the ability of schools to teach the history contained in the 1619 Project, he also wants to cancel the experience of African Americans in this country — and their contribution to perfecting our union.
I doubt that Cotton’s bill will go anywhere, because the senator is more interested in laying claim to be Donald Trump’s successor than he is in actually passing this piece of legislative crap. But it’s a good reminder that the party that denies not only science, but history too, is a major purveyor of cancel culture.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-24--A Dam Breaks As Whites Abandon the GOP

A Dam Breaks As Whites Abandon the GOP

There are a few odd but interesting things in Nate Cohn ’ s analysis of recent polls .
For example , Joe Biden is now close to erasing the Republicans ’ traditional advantage with white voters , but he ’ s underperforming with Black and Hispanic people compared to Hillary Clinton .
While it ’ s been widely reported that Biden is winning with voters over 65 , ordinarily the GOP ’ s strongest demographic , he actually hasn ’ t made any new ground with them since May .
His recent gains are coming from improvement with younger voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise me and I predicted that young supporters of Bernie Sanders would get over their hurt feelings well before November .
They are still more reluctant than older voters to give Biden positive favorable numbers , but that should also continue to improve .
As for the over 65 crowd , it could be that Biden just maxed out .
If I have a possible explanation for why Biden isn ’ t doing as well with minorities , it might be that polls show they simply aren ’ t as engaged or “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as white people .
As Election Day nears , everyone will be engaged , and it ’ s likely that undecided Black and Hispanic people will solidify behind the former vice-president .
What appears to be the most consequential change is Republicans ’ dwindling advantage with white voters .
As Cohn points out , this could lead to previously unimaginable losses for the GOP in congressional and Senate races .
It could turn states like Texas , Kansas , and Alaska blue .
But I also think it ’ s part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change on white supremacy in general .
It helps explain why Confederate statues are coming down and Congress just passed a defense spending bill mandating that Confederate names are removed from military bases and ships .
It helps explain why police unions are suddenly on the defensive against demands for reform .
And , I think , it also behind a lot of folks feeling that they ’ re being “ canceled.
” David Brooks is whining in the New York Times that people like Andrew Sullivan are suddenly unemployable , but this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left suddenly becoming intolerant of diverse viewpoints .
That ’ s like arguing that police chokeholds are being banned because the left suddenly discovered that they kill people .
What actually happened is that public opinion finally tipped in the left ’ s direction , and a practice that was formerly tolerated because white people supported it , is no longer tolerated because they changed their mind .
The same can be said for publishing people who argue for the inherent superiority of whites .
The same can be said for naming your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having a racist mascot like the Cleveland Indians ’ Chief Wahoo .
These things were “ normal ” and accepted only so long as whites accepted them in large numbers .
Trump ’ s excesses have jolted enough white people to not only lose him support , but to lose support for many of the structurally racist things that have gone unexamined outside of leftist circles .
The change can manifest in simple ways , like people losing jobs they previously would have kept after saying or doing racist things .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predict .
What we ’ re seeing is a lot of people who were previously safe and comfortable now getting called out for holding certain beliefs .
It ’ s not a surprise that they howl like a scalded cat when they suddenly get burned .
This change in public opinion is going to reshape the country .
The base and sports name changes are a precursor for the political realignment that ’ s coming in the election .
Once political power resides on the left , we ’ ll see more transformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @

There are a few odd but interesting things in Nate Cohn’s analysis of recent polls. For example, Joe Biden is now close to erasing the Republicans’ traditional advantage with white voters, but he’s underperforming with Black and Hispanic people compared to Hillary Clinton. While it’s been widely reported that Biden is winning with voters over 65, ordinarily the GOP’s strongest demographic, he actually hasn’t made any new ground with them since May. His recent gains are coming from improvement with younger voters.
This last point doesn’t surprise me and I predicted that young supporters of Bernie Sanders would get over their hurt feelings well before November. They are still more reluctant than older voters to give Biden positive favorable numbers, but that should also continue to improve. As for the over 65 crowd, it could be that Biden just maxed out. If I have a possible explanation for why Biden isn’t doing as well with minorities, it might be that polls show they simply aren’t as engaged or “paying attention” at the same rate as white people. As Election Day nears, everyone will be engaged, and it’s likely that undecided Black and Hispanic people will solidify behind the former vice-president.
What appears to be the most consequential change is Republicans’ dwindling advantage with white voters. As Cohn points out, this could lead to previously unimaginable losses for the GOP in congressional and Senate races. It could turn states like Texas, Kansas, and Alaska blue. But I also think it’s part of the reason we’re seeing a mood change on white supremacy in general. It helps explain why Confederate statues are coming down and Congress just passed a defense spending bill mandating that Confederate names are removed from military bases and ships. It helps explain why police unions are suddenly on the defensive against demands for reform. And, I think, it also behind a lot of folks feeling that they’re being “canceled.”
David Brooks is whining in the New York Times that people like Andrew Sullivan are suddenly unemployable, but this isn’t an example of the left suddenly becoming intolerant of diverse viewpoints. That’s like arguing that police chokeholds are being banned because the left suddenly discovered that they kill people. What actually happened is that public opinion finally tipped in the left’s direction, and a practice that was formerly tolerated because white people supported it, is no longer tolerated because they changed their mind. The same can be said for publishing people who argue for the inherent superiority of whites. The same can be said for naming your sports team the “Redskins” or having a racist mascot like the Cleveland Indians’ Chief Wahoo.
These things were “normal” and accepted only so long as whites accepted them in large numbers. Trump’s excesses have jolted enough white people to not only lose him support, but to lose support for many of the structurally racist things that have gone unexamined outside of leftist circles.
The change can manifest in simple ways, like people losing jobs they previously would have kept after saying or doing racist things. But the overall impact is complex and hard to predict. What we’re seeing is a lot of people who were previously safe and comfortable now getting called out for holding certain beliefs. It’s not a surprise that they howl like a scalded cat when they suddenly get burned.
This change in public opinion is going to reshape the country. The base and sports name changes are a precursor for the political realignment that’s coming in the election. Once political power resides on the left, we’ll see more transformation, and a lot more howling.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-27--Trump Is Wrong Again: U.S. Manufacturing Is Not Recovering

The headline from the Commerce Department ’ s new report on the economy is that new shipments and new orders of durable goods by U.S .manufacturers increased at healthy rates in June – by 15 percent and 7 percent respectively .
Larry Kudlow almost certainly will herald the numbers as proof that American manufacturing is back , and good times are just around the corner .
Don ’ t believe it .
Only one industry , motor vehicles and parts , was responsible for almost all of the gains .
June shipments of motor vehicles and parts jumped 80 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and new orders increased 87 percent .
Set aside that industry , however , and U.S. durable goods manufacturers treaded water or worse in June .
Their shipments were up less than 4 percent , and their new orders fell more than 6 percent .
The story is the same for the capital goods that businesses order and buy to maintain or expand operations : In June , shipments by capital goods manufacturers increased 3.5 percent and their new orders fell 16.5 percent .
As everyone in the industrial Midwest knows , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operate at depressed levels .
American manufacturers of all durable goods shipped 8.5 percent less in June than in February , before the pandemic and the Trump administration ’ s mishandling of it .
Their new orders were 16 percent lower in June compared to February .
Despite the bounce back in June by manufacturers of motor vehicles and their parts , these companies still shipped 12 percent less in June than in February , and their new orders were 11 percent lower .
Finally , manufacturers of capital goods shipped 7.5 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their new orders were 28 percent lower in June than February .
The question for Americans during the campaign is one Ronald Reagan asked the electorate forty years ago : Are you better off now than you were both four years ago ?
Actually , it ’ s : Are you better off now than you were four months ago ?
The answer is clear .

The headline from the Commerce Department’s new report on the economy is that new shipments and new orders of durable goods by U.S .manufacturers increased at healthy rates in June – by 15 percent and 7 percent respectively. Larry Kudlow almost certainly will herald the numbers as proof that American manufacturing is back, and good times are just around the corner.
Don’t believe it. Only one industry, motor vehicles and parts, was responsible for almost all of the gains. June shipments of motor vehicles and parts jumped 80 percent from their abysmal levels in May, and new orders increased 87 percent. Set aside that industry, however, and U.S. durable goods manufacturers treaded water or worse in June. Their shipments were up less than 4 percent, and their new orders fell more than 6 percent.
The story is the same for the capital goods that businesses order and buy to maintain or expand operations: In June, shipments by capital goods manufacturers increased 3.5 percent and their new orders fell 16.5 percent.
As everyone in the industrial Midwest knows, all parts of durable goods manufacturing continue to operate at depressed levels. American manufacturers of all durable goods shipped 8.5 percent less in June than in February, before the pandemic and the Trump administration’s mishandling of it. Their new orders were 16 percent lower in June compared to February.
Despite the bounce back in June by manufacturers of motor vehicles and their parts, these companies still shipped 12 percent less in June than in February, and their new orders were 11 percent lower. Finally, manufacturers of capital goods shipped 7.5 percent less in June than February, and their new orders were 28 percent lower in June than February.
The question for Americans during the campaign is one Ronald Reagan asked the electorate forty years ago: Are you better off now than you were both four years ago? Actually, it’s: Are you better off now than you were four months ago? The answer is clear.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-27--How Far Will Bill Barr Go to Promote a Lie?

Not long after William Barr assigned John Durham to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation , the president gave the attorney general the power to declassify information pertaining to the investigation .
As I wrote at the time , what that really meant was that Barr would be able to selectively release classified information that bolstered his charge that the previous administration had spied on the Trump campaign .
According to the New York Times , that is exactly what is happening .
Not long after the early 2017 publication of a notorious dossier about President Trump jolted Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the F.B.I .
he had been one of its key sources , drawing on his contacts to deliver information that would make up some of the most salacious and unproven assertions in the document .
The F.B.I .
had approached the expert , a man named Igor Danchenko , as it vetted the dossier ’ s claims .
He agreed to tell investigators what he knew with an important condition , people familiar with the matter said — that the F.B.I .
keep his identity secret so he could protect himself , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia .
But his hope of remaining anonymous evaporated last week after Attorney General William P. Barr directed the F.B.I .
to declassify a redacted report about its three-day interview of Mr. Danchenko in 2017 and hand it over to Senator Lindsey Graham , Republican of South Carolina and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee .
Mr. Graham promptly made the interview summary public while calling the entire Russia investigation “ corrupt.
” The NYT report goes on to say that , while Danchenko ’ s name was redacted in the released document @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days before “ online sleuths ” ( Russian agents ? )
were able to identify him based on clues left visible in the declassified document .
Trump ’ s enablers immediately engaged in a smear campaign against Danchenko and his one-time employer , the Brookings Institution .
Not only does all of that put Danchenko and his family at risk , it sends a message to potential intelligence sources that the United States can ’ t be trusted to keep their word .
But while the attorney general demonstrates that he is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than he is in this country ’ s national security , it is important to keep in mind that this whole charade is based on a lie .
From the beginning , efforts to defend the president have been based on convincing everyone that the entire Trump-Russia investigation was based on the Steele dossier .
Therefore , Trump and his enablers believe that if that document can be discredited , it shows that the whole thing was a hoax—or even an attempted coup .
So it is once again time to review the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the FBI investigation was launched when they received word that George Papadopoulos ( a Trump campaign advisor ) told an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton .
That is the same conclusion reached in the bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee and the investigation conducted by Inspector General Michael Horowitz .
Here is what the latter reported ( emphasis mine ) .
In other words , no matter how often Trump and his enablers say that the Trump-Russia investigation was launched based on the Steele dossier , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Crossfire Hurricane team didn ’ t even see the dossier until September , two months after the investigation was launched .
By then , not only did the team know about what Papadopoulos has been bragging about , they knew that Trump had hired Paul Manafort to be his campaign manager and Michael Flynn to be his senior foreign policy advisor—both of whom had ties to the Russian government .
The question this whole obsession with the Steele dossier raises is why Trump and his enablers continue to lie about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When the Attorney General of the United States and the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee are willing to risk national security in furtherance of a lie , are they simply trying to punish the president ’ s accusers or are they attempting to cover up something much more serious ?
Perhaps both .

Not long after William Barr assigned John Durham to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, the president gave the attorney general the power to declassify information pertaining to the investigation. As I wrote at the time, what that really meant was that Barr would be able to selectively release classified information that bolstered his charge that the previous administration had spied on the Trump campaign. According to the New York Times, that is exactly what is happening.
Not long after the early 2017 publication of a notorious dossier about President Trump jolted Washington, an expert in Russian politics told the F.B.I. he had been one of its key sources, drawing on his contacts to deliver information that would make up some of the most salacious and unproven assertions in the document. The F.B.I. had approached the expert, a man named Igor Danchenko, as it vetted the dossier’s claims. He agreed to tell investigators what he knew with an important condition, people familiar with the matter said — that the F.B.I. keep his identity secret so he could protect himself, his sources and his family and friends in Russia. But his hope of remaining anonymous evaporated last week after Attorney General William P. Barr directed the F.B.I. to declassify a redacted report about its three-day interview of Mr. Danchenko in 2017 and hand it over to Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Graham promptly made the interview summary public while calling the entire Russia investigation “corrupt.”
The NYT report goes on to say that, while Danchenko’s name was redacted in the released document, it was just a matter of days before “online sleuths” (Russian agents?) were able to identify him based on clues left visible in the declassified document.
Trump’s enablers immediately engaged in a smear campaign against Danchenko and his one-time employer, the Brookings Institution. Not only does all of that put Danchenko and his family at risk, it sends a message to potential intelligence sources that the United States can’t be trusted to keep their word.
But while the attorney general demonstrates that he is more interested in punishing Trump’s accusers than he is in this country’s national security, it is important to keep in mind that this whole charade is based on a lie. From the beginning, efforts to defend the president have been based on convincing everyone that the entire Trump-Russia investigation was based on the Steele dossier. Therefore, Trump and his enablers believe that if that document can be discredited, it shows that the whole thing was a hoax—or even an attempted coup.
So it is once again time to review the evidence. According to the Mueller report, the FBI investigation was launched when they received word that George Papadopoulos (a Trump campaign advisor) told an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. That is the same conclusion reached in the bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee and the investigation conducted by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Here is what the latter reported (emphasis mine).
Although Trump and his supporters have repeatedly insisted that the investigation was built on the back of an uncorroborated dossier, the report categorically states that the dossier was not part of the July 2016 decision to open the investigation. In fact, the team responsible for the investigation didn’t even get copies of his reports until two months later.
In other words, no matter how often Trump and his enablers say that the Trump-Russia investigation was launched based on the Steele dossier, that is a lie—and they know it. The Crossfire Hurricane team didn’t even see the dossier until September, two months after the investigation was launched. By then, not only did the team know about what Papadopoulos has been bragging about, they knew that Trump had hired Paul Manafort to be his campaign manager and Michael Flynn to be his senior foreign policy advisor—both of whom had ties to the Russian government.
The question this whole obsession with the Steele dossier raises is why Trump and his enablers continue to lie about how it was used by the investigators. When the Attorney General of the United States and the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee are willing to risk national security in furtherance of a lie, are they simply trying to punish the president’s accusers or are they attempting to cover up something much more serious? Perhaps both.