thebulwark--2020-12-18--MAGA Mutiny in the GOP

MAGA Mutiny in the GOP

After electors from all 50 states and D.C. met earlier this week , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell congratulated President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris for their victory .
The MAGAverse went bananas : The deep-state coward McConnell had caved .
A Newsweek headline read , “ QAnon Supporters Vow to Leave GOP After Mitch McConnell Accepts Election Result.
” Kyle Becker , a conservative media figure formerly with Fox News , tweeted that McConnell had purposefully blocked election security bills ( that much is true ) to help rig the elections in Biden ’ s favor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ RINOS ” who allowed “ the Democrats to so blatantly cheat , ” to which Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow and Pizzagate conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec responded , “ Take over the party directly and remove all RINOs.
” Julie Kelly , who has a history of blaming sexual abuse on the victim , tweeted , “ these people do not deserve to keep power , ” referring to congressional Republicans .
She even appeared to endorse returning the Senate to Democratic control : “ Demote them [ congressional Republicans ] then primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News host Mark Levin also denounced McConnell and called for “ fresh thinking and new blood.
” In this case , Twitter reflects real life .
The Arizona and Texas Republican parties , both run by cranks , have been in a neck-and-neck race toward insanity .
The Arizona GOP attacked the Republican governor , Doug Ducey , for certifying the election .
In this endeavor , they were joined by the president himself , who lambasted Ducey , retweeting an account under the name “ Paul A. Szypula , US Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the handle @ Bubblebathgirl ( so you know he ’ s serious ) : On his radio show , former Trump White House official Seb Gorka issued a call to “ drain the GOP.
” His guest , newspaper-publisher/peer-of-the-realm/pardoned-felon/authentic-populist Conrad Black , called Georgia Governor Brian Kemp , also a Republican Trump-ally-turned-target , a “ Never Trump governor.
” If only .
Ducey is rumored to be running for Senate in 2022 , and Kemp is up for re-election that year .
Arizona and Georgia are both now swing states , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support .
If the MAGAverse abandons them , their 2022 hopes could be over before they even launch their campaigns .
White nationalist provocateur Nick Fuentes held a rally in Washington , D.C. , where the crowd chanted “ destroy the GOP.
” He has been tweeting along the same lines , calling for a boycott of the Senate races in Georgia .
In American Greatness , Kelly shared similar sentiments .
There , too , she complained about McConnell , but she went further : She exempted Sens .
Ted Cruz , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They must be so proud .
On Tuesday , Johnson , chair of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee , held a hearing on election fraud to show his loyalty .
During the hearing , Paul said in the Senate that the elections were stolen .
More infamously , Cruz offered to represent Texas ’ s bogus lawsuit before the Supreme Court .
Johnson and Paul are both up for re-election in 2022 ( although Johnson promised to retire after his second term and might run for governor instead ) , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the White House in 2024 .
The leaders of the Republican party made a bet : They staked the future of their party on their ability to have a transactional relationship with Trump , getting their judges and marginal policy victories , and in return looking the other way while Trump trampled everything they claimed to stand for .
They stayed quiet to save their seats .
The few outwardly Trump-hostile members of Congress , like Sens .
Jeff Flake and Bob Corker and Reps. Mia Love and Mark Sanford were all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like Sen. Ben Sasse and Rep. Will Hurd , found a way to keep their true thoughts to themselves when speaking out mattered most .
The GOP thought that if they survive these four years , they could relax .
But by accommodating Trump , they joined his revolution out of fear , and the revolution is now eating its own .
There is now an anti-GOP coalition on the right that wants the party to lose the Senate to send a message to the GOP .
It includes Never Trumpers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Never Trumpers might want to burn it down , but they can ’ t .
They are not radicalized revolutionaries .
MAGA people are the real existential threat to the GOP .
The question that Republicans face is how much longer loyalty to Trump will be the prerequisite for power in the party .
The question for everyone else is , if the MAGA lunatics succeed in commandeering the Republican party , will that doom it to electoral irrelevance at the national level ?
Or will , say , 74.3ish million Americans @ @ @ @ @

After electors from all 50 states and D.C. met earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell congratulated President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris for their victory. The MAGAverse went bananas: The deep-state coward McConnell had caved.
A Newsweek headline read, “QAnon Supporters Vow to Leave GOP After Mitch McConnell Accepts Election Result.” Kyle Becker, a conservative media figure formerly with Fox News, tweeted that McConnell had purposefully blocked election security bills (that much is true) to help rig the elections in Biden’s favor. President Trump himself tweeted to complain about “RINOS” who allowed “the Democrats to so blatantly cheat,” to which Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow and Pizzagate conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec responded, “Take over the party directly and remove all RINOs.” Julie Kelly, who has a history of blaming sexual abuse on the victim, tweeted, “these people do not deserve to keep power,” referring to congressional Republicans. She even appeared to endorse returning the Senate to Democratic control: “Demote them [congressional Republicans] then primary from place of weakness in 2022.” Fox News host Mark Levin also denounced McConnell and called for “fresh thinking and new blood.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
In this case, Twitter reflects real life. The Arizona and Texas Republican parties, both run by cranks, have been in a neck-and-neck race toward insanity. The Arizona GOP attacked the Republican governor, Doug Ducey, for certifying the election. In this endeavor, they were joined by the president himself, who lambasted Ducey, retweeting an account under the name “Paul A. Szypula, US Senate Candidate for NY in ’22” with the handle @Bubblebathgirl (so you know he’s serious):
On his radio show, former Trump White House official Seb Gorka issued a call to “drain the GOP.” His guest, newspaper-publisher/peer-of-the-realm/pardoned-felon/authentic-populist Conrad Black, called Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, also a Republican Trump-ally-turned-target, a “Never Trump governor.” If only.
Ducey is rumored to be running for Senate in 2022, and Kemp is up for re-election that year. Arizona and Georgia are both now swing states, and both men need the base’s support. If the MAGAverse abandons them, their 2022 hopes could be over before they even launch their campaigns.
White nationalist provocateur Nick Fuentes held a rally in Washington, D.C., where the crowd chanted “destroy the GOP.” He has been tweeting along the same lines, calling for a boycott of the Senate races in Georgia.
In American Greatness, Kelly shared similar sentiments. There, too, she complained about McConnell, but she went further:
like so many battles over the past four years, the president is fighting with little support from Senate Republicans. Most seem ready if not eager for Trump to vacate the Oval Office so they can play ball with Biden…. there’s little reason to trust that this crop of Republican senators will provide a strong line of defense against the Biden/Harris team.
She exempted Sens. Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, and Rand Paul. They must be so proud.
On Tuesday, Johnson, chair of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, held a hearing on election fraud to show his loyalty. During the hearing, Paul said in the Senate that the elections were stolen. More infamously, Cruz offered to represent Texas’s bogus lawsuit before the Supreme Court. Johnson and Paul are both up for re-election in 2022 (although Johnson promised to retire after his second term and might run for governor instead), and Ted Cruz is likely gearing another shot at the White House in 2024.
The leaders of the Republican party made a bet: They staked the future of their party on their ability to have a transactional relationship with Trump, getting their judges and marginal policy victories, and in return looking the other way while Trump trampled everything they claimed to stand for. They stayed quiet to save their seats. The few outwardly Trump-hostile members of Congress, like Sens. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker and Reps. Mia Love and Mark Sanford were all pushed out of their seats. Others, like Sen. Ben Sasse and Rep. Will Hurd, found a way to keep their true thoughts to themselves when speaking out mattered most.
The GOP thought that if they survive these four years, they could relax. But by accommodating Trump, they joined his revolution out of fear, and the revolution is now eating its own.
There is now an anti-GOP coalition on the right that wants the party to lose the Senate to send a message to the GOP. It includes Never Trumpers and the MAGAverse. But the truth is that Never Trumpers might want to burn it down, but they can’t. They are not radicalized revolutionaries. MAGA people are the real existential threat to the GOP. The question that Republicans face is how much longer loyalty to Trump will be the prerequisite for power in the party.
The question for everyone else is, if the MAGA lunatics succeed in commandeering the Republican party, will that doom it to electoral irrelevance at the national level? Or will, say, 74.3ish million Americans go along with it?


Trump’s Last Stand

Now that the Electoral College has voted , President Donald Trump ’ s last stand is anticipated to take place on January 6 , 2021 , when Congress convenes to officially count the votes of the electors .
This final step in the election process is given apparent gravity by a provision of an ancient statute called the Electoral Count Act of 1887 ( the “ ECA ” ) .
The ECA authorizes members of Congress to object to a state ’ s results and creates a process for resolving any such objections by votes in both the House and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ houses affirm the objection , the ECA provides that the state ’ s electoral votes will be rejected .
If enough electoral votes are rejected to prevent any candidate from getting to 270 votes , the Twelfth Amendment throws the election to the House for a state-by-state vote .
Since the Republican party controls more state delegations than Democrats do , Trump presumably would be the winner .
For a host of reasons , it is almost unthinkable that Trump ’ s supporters will be able to get an objection through Congress on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as opposed to the electors , really have the last word in deciding who won this presidential election ?
The answer is no , at least not in any meaningful way .
Most observers of the 2020 election , citing the ECA , take it for granted that Congress gets the last word .
In the narrowest , most literal sense , one might concede that Congress has a final say , of sorts .
The Twelfth Amendment says : The emphasis there is mine .
Because if the process of the electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final pre-inauguration act in selecting a president , then you might say that Congress has the final say—because the Constitution makes Congress the final “ vote counter.
” Yet being the “ counter ” isn ’ t much of a final say .
That ’ s like saying that PriceWaterhouseCoopers—not the voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences—decides who wins the Oscar for Best Picture .
But the accountants don ’ t choose the winners .
They merely certify and count the votes of the academy ’ s members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more of a say than Congress does in the Twelfth Amendment , because PwC actually certifies the ballots , in addition to counting them .
Congress only counts .
The states and the electors have already certified the electoral votes .
Some may contend that the ECA gives Congress more than the ministerial authority to “ count ” the certified electoral votes .
By granting members of Congress a right to object to the already-certified votes , the argument goes , the ECA implicitly gives Congress a subjective role in the decision-making process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitution .
Although the scope of the authority granted to Congress by the ECA has never been addressed by the courts , it seems clear that the ECA would be held to be unconstitutional as applied to the kind of objections the Trump ’ s dead-enders plan to make , because it reads into the Constitution ideas that are plainly not in the text .
The Constitution says only that the president of the Senate ( Vice President Mike Pence in this case ) shall “ open all the certificates ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counted.
” There is no provision for objections , or for any congressional role in the process other than “ opening ” and “ counting ” the certified electoral votes .
As written , that constitutional provision leaves little room for congressional input .
It is perhaps conceivable that there could be some irregularity in the mundane processes of opening or counting the votes of the electors .
I suppose Pence could open the wrong envelope , triggering howls of objection from both houses of Congress .
Or he could refuse to count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there could be a genuine dispute over which votes have been certified .
In those circumstances , the ECA might be understood to be nothing more than an exercise of congressional authority designed to ensure that Congress has properly discharged its constitutional mandate to count the votes .
But that ’ s not what ’ s going on here .
In this case , Trump and his allies are not claiming that the certified electoral votes have been miscounted .
Rather , Trump ’ s argument is that certain state election results should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the electors should not have voted in accordance with the certified results in their respective states .
( Because of alleged irregularities in the voting process . )
But these objections do not concern errors in the counting of votes of the electors .
They are , instead , a sweeping , substantive objection to the electoral process itself .
For which the Twelfth Amendment provides no remedy .
So , unless you interpret “ counting ” to mean something far different from merely counting , then recognizing the kind of objections that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceed the Constitution ’ s narrow grant of authority to Congress to “ count ” the votes .
Meaning : It would be unconstitutional .
Because I haven ’ t found any scholarly or judicial writing on this specific issue , I checked in with Laurence Tribe , the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard .
Professor Tribe was kind enough to offer this unqualified , definitive response : Still , believe it or not , there is some academic debate over the meaning of the word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , if you ’ re looking for proof that not a single word of the U.S. Constitution is immune from legal pettifogging , I offer the following as Exhibit A .
One commentator writing in the North Carolina Law Review frames the debate this way : Does the ECA ’ s requirement that the electoral votes be “ counted ” give Congress “ substantive decision-making authority over which votes should be counted ” [ emphasis mine ] or only ministerial authority to count the votes as certified ?
If the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the power to object would arguably be constitutional in this situation .
If , however , “ counted ” simply means “ counted , ” then a statute allowing Congress to object to anything other than the count itself would be unconstitutional .
That said , the idea that the word “ count ” could imply some kind of verification or certification process beyond , simply .
.
.
you know .
.
.
counting might pass the giggle test if the Constitution didn ’ t already place the certification process somewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution placed the final certification process squarely on the electors , not on Congress .
The constitutional language on this job is clear : The “ electors ” shall “ sign and certify ” the results to Congress .
If the Framers had intended to add yet another layer of certification and to grant that authority to Congress , they were more than capable of doing so in plain English .
After all , they were up to the task of stating explicitly that the “ electors ” shall “ certify ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grant Congress a similar right , they would have said so .
But they didn ’ t .
So count means count .
The Constitution doesn ’ t say “ verify ” or “ certify.
” Those processes have already been done elsewhere , initially by the states and finally by the electors .
What all of this means is not only that the objections threatened by Trump ’ s supporters would have no chance of getting through Congress , but also that they would be constitutionally invalid even if they did .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ word in this election doesn ’ t go to Congress in any meaningful way .
The last word goes , instead , to the Constitution .
The ECA may seem to give Trump ’ s supporters the right to object to alleged irregularities in the voting process on January 6 , but the Constitution doesn ’ t .
Earth to Congress : Shut up and count .

Now that the Electoral College has voted, President Donald Trump’s last stand is anticipated to take place on January 6, 2021, when Congress convenes to officially count the votes of the electors.
This final step in the election process is given apparent gravity by a provision of an ancient statute called the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (the “ECA”). The ECA authorizes members of Congress to object to a state’s results and creates a process for resolving any such objections by votes in both the House and the Senate. If majorities of both houses affirm the objection, the ECA provides that the state’s electoral votes will be rejected. If enough electoral votes are rejected to prevent any candidate from getting to 270 votes, the Twelfth Amendment throws the election to the House for a state-by-state vote. Since the Republican party controls more state delegations than Democrats do, Trump presumably would be the winner.
For a host of reasons, it is almost unthinkable that Trump’s supporters will be able to get an objection through Congress on January 6.
But does Congress, as opposed to the electors, really have the last word in deciding who won this presidential election?
The answer is no, at least not in any meaningful way.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Most observers of the 2020 election, citing the ECA, take it for granted that Congress gets the last word.
In the narrowest, most literal sense, one might concede that Congress has a final say, of sorts. The Twelfth Amendment says:
The president of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates [recording the votes of the electors of each state], and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed . . .
The emphasis there is mine. Because if the process of the electoral votes being “counted” is the final pre-inauguration act in selecting a president, then you might say that Congress has the final say—because the Constitution makes Congress the final “vote counter.”
Yet being the “counter” isn’t much of a final say. That’s like saying that PriceWaterhouseCoopers—not the voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences—decides who wins the Oscar for Best Picture.
But the accountants don’t choose the winners. They merely certify and count the votes of the academy’s members. And the Oscar accountants have even more of a say than Congress does in the Twelfth Amendment, because PwC actually certifies the ballots, in addition to counting them. Congress only counts. The states and the electors have already certified the electoral votes.
Some may contend that the ECA gives Congress more than the ministerial authority to “count” the certified electoral votes. By granting members of Congress a right to object to the already-certified votes, the argument goes, the ECA implicitly gives Congress a subjective role in the decision-making process.
But that interpretation runs afoul of the Constitution. Although the scope of the authority granted to Congress by the ECA has never been addressed by the courts, it seems clear that the ECA would be held to be unconstitutional as applied to the kind of objections the Trump’s dead-enders plan to make, because it reads into the Constitution ideas that are plainly not in the text.
The Constitution says only that the president of the Senate (Vice President Mike Pence in this case) shall “open all the certificates” and that “the votes shall then be counted.” There is no provision for objections, or for any congressional role in the process other than “opening” and “counting” the certified electoral votes.
As written, that constitutional provision leaves little room for congressional input.
It is perhaps conceivable that there could be some irregularity in the mundane processes of opening or counting the votes of the electors.
I suppose Pence could open the wrong envelope, triggering howls of objection from both houses of Congress. Or he could refuse to count some of the certified votes. Or there could be a genuine dispute over which votes have been certified.
In those circumstances, the ECA might be understood to be nothing more than an exercise of congressional authority designed to ensure that Congress has properly discharged its constitutional mandate to count the votes.
But that’s not what’s going on here.
In this case, Trump and his allies are not claiming that the certified electoral votes have been miscounted.
Rather, Trump’s argument is that certain state election results should not have been certified, and that the electors should not have voted in accordance with the certified results in their respective states. (Because of alleged irregularities in the voting process.)
But these objections do not concern errors in the counting of votes of the electors. They are, instead, a sweeping, substantive objection to the electoral process itself. For which the Twelfth Amendment provides no remedy.
So, unless you interpret “counting” to mean something far different from merely counting, then recognizing the kind of objections that Trump’s supporters are threatening would exceed the Constitution’s narrow grant of authority to Congress to “count” the votes.
Meaning: It would be unconstitutional.
Because I haven’t found any scholarly or judicial writing on this specific issue, I checked in with Laurence Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard. Professor Tribe was kind enough to offer this unqualified, definitive response:
[T]he 1887 Electoral Count Act cannot be regarded as an even arguably constitutional path along which the special Joint Session of Congress called for in the Twelfth Amendment might opt to engage in substantive second-guessing of how any given State chose to conduct its Article II function of appointing Electors.
This sounds like case closed.
Still, believe it or not, there is some academic debate over the meaning of the word “count” in the Twelfth Amendment. So, if you’re looking for proof that not a single word of the U.S. Constitution is immune from legal pettifogging, I offer the following as Exhibit A.
One commentator writing in the North Carolina Law Review frames the debate this way: Does the ECA’s requirement that the electoral votes be “counted” give Congress “substantive decision-making authority over which votes should be counted” [emphasis mine] or only ministerial authority to count the votes as certified? If the former, then the ECA’s grant of the power to object would arguably be constitutional in this situation. If, however, “counted” simply means “counted,” then a statute allowing Congress to object to anything other than the count itself would be unconstitutional.
That said, the idea that the word “count” could imply some kind of verification or certification process beyond, simply . . . you know . . . counting might pass the giggle test if the Constitution didn’t already place the certification process somewhere else.
But it did.
The Constitution placed the final certification process squarely on the electors, not on Congress.
The constitutional language on this job is clear: The “electors” shall “sign and certify” the results to Congress. If the Framers had intended to add yet another layer of certification and to grant that authority to Congress, they were more than capable of doing so in plain English. After all, they were up to the task of stating explicitly that the “electors” shall “certify” the votes. If they had intended to grant Congress a similar right, they would have said so. But they didn’t.
So count means count. The Constitution doesn’t say “verify” or “certify.” Those processes have already been done elsewhere, initially by the states and finally by the electors.
What all of this means is not only that the objections threatened by Trump’s supporters would have no chance of getting through Congress, but also that they would be constitutionally invalid even if they did.
In the final analysis, the last word in this election doesn’t go to Congress in any meaningful way. The last word goes, instead, to the Constitution.
The ECA may seem to give Trump’s supporters the right to object to alleged irregularities in the voting process on January 6, but the Constitution doesn’t.
Earth to Congress: Shut up and count.


Taking ‘The Stand’

Sometime in 1978 or 1979 , a fat package rolled through the front door of my parents ’ home in Sherwood , Oregon containing the latest installment from the Book-of-the-Month Club .
My father , an avid reader of just about anything but unfamiliar with the book ’ s author , Stephen King , picked it up and had a terrible time setting it down .
For a couple weeks , he ( and later my mom ) would emerge from their room in the morning bleary-eyed and shaken by what they ’ d read .
Inquiring teenage minds wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thus began my own encounter with The Stand—and the beginning of a life-long fascination with all things viral .
For fans of the King oeuvre , The Stand—what king calls his “ tale of dark Christianity ” —tells how a military bioweapon wipes out 99 percent of humanity , ushering in a post-apocalyptic struggle between the forces of spiritual good and evil .
The book typically ranks at or near the top in popularity of his books .
King himself says that while it isn ’ t his personal favorite it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about most frequently .
He initially had trouble persuading his publisher , Doubleday , to print it due its length , scrapping nearly 400 pages of original manuscript before its first publication .
As readership grew ( and grew ) Doubleday “ looped back , ” as they say , suggesting that he might want to restore that material so that millions of devoted readers would part with their cash a second time .
There are now 4.5 million copies of The Stand in circulation .
( Note to editors : trust the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editors are right even when they are wrong . )
As with any mega-successful book , opportunities for screen adaptations came calling .
The first two Godfathersnotwithstanding , it is just about impossible to produce a film version that can keep up with a popular book .
The longer the book the more difficult the task becomes .
( I ’ ll never forget how much I loved Gone With the Wind on first viewing and how disappointing it seemed after I read the book , even though it is a very well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or triple for a book like The Stand with its sprawling ( a philistine might say obese or unwieldy ) , plot that plays out against a backdrop that practically spans the coasts of continental America .
The scope of the challenge resulted in two disappointing-to-unwatchable television productions along with several false starts in the world of feature films .
Non-masochists could hardly be blamed for refusing to take on or see to completion an apparently impossible project .
Until now .
CBS All Access launched a new , 10-hour adaptation of The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first episode is representative , there ’ s much to look forward to .
Someone has spent a lot of dough on screenwriting , casting , and sets .
First , there ’ s the cast which includes James Marsden , Whoopi Goldberg , Alexander Skarsgard , Greg Kinnear , and Heather Graham .
Money can solve casting , set , and special effects challenges but those aren ’ t the main problems with getting The Stand right .
It ’ s figuring out how to contain the book ’ s sprawling plot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that can scare the bejesus out of viewers without winding up as a four-season series and/or bankrupting the production company .
Writer-producers Josh Boon ( The New Mutants , The Fault in Our Stars ) and Benjamin Cavell ( Homeland , Justified ) seem to have put together a program that has polished production values , is respectful of the book ’ s fan-base , and comprehensible to those unfamiliar with the story .
The first episode moves smoothly back and forth in time to help viewers understand the essence of plot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a satisfying breaking point in the story within the allotted 58 minutes .
The last minute or so , which are not part of the book but are an inspired bit of screenwriting , make the tiny hairs on the neck stand up .
And heck : They might even make money on it since the only way to see The Stand is to buy a couple months of CBS All Access at $ 9.95 per month .
In the providence of Hollywood , now may be the perfect time for a big-budget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confluence of COVID , Trump , and a renewed interest in Manichean thought .
One exec pulled the plug on a movie adaptation with the argument that no one wanted to watch a show about the end of the world .
Has anyone ever been so wrong ?
There ’ s a reason The Walking Dead is one of the most popular cable shows of all time : decades of terrorism , foreign wars , economic strife , and now literal deadly disease have primed viewers to … well , maybe not enjoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chance to say , “ Could be worse .
”

Sometime in 1978 or 1979, a fat package rolled through the front door of my parents’ home in Sherwood, Oregon containing the latest installment from the Book-of-the-Month Club. My father, an avid reader of just about anything but unfamiliar with the book’s author, Stephen King, picked it up and had a terrible time setting it down. For a couple weeks, he (and later my mom) would emerge from their room in the morning bleary-eyed and shaken by what they’d read. Inquiring teenage minds wanted to know what this was all about. Thus began my own encounter with The Stand—and the beginning of a life-long fascination with all things viral.
For fans of the King oeuvre, The Stand—what king calls his “tale of dark Christianity”—tells how a military bioweapon wipes out 99 percent of humanity, ushering in a post-apocalyptic struggle between the forces of spiritual good and evil. The book typically ranks at or near the top in popularity of his books. King himself says that while it isn’t his personal favorite it is the novel that his fans ask him about most frequently. He initially had trouble persuading his publisher, Doubleday, to print it due its length, scrapping nearly 400 pages of original manuscript before its first publication. As readership grew (and grew) Doubleday “looped back,” as they say, suggesting that he might want to restore that material so that millions of devoted readers would part with their cash a second time. There are now 4.5 million copies of The Stand in circulation. (Note to editors: trust the talent. Note to writers: sometimes editors are right even when they are wrong.)
As with any mega-successful book, opportunities for screen adaptations came calling. The first two Godfathersnotwithstanding, it is just about impossible to produce a film version that can keep up with a popular book. The longer the book the more difficult the task becomes. (I’ll never forget how much I loved Gone With the Wind on first viewing and how disappointing it seemed after I read the book, even though it is a very well made film.)
This goes double or triple for a book like The Stand with its sprawling (a philistine might say obese or unwieldy), plot that plays out against a backdrop that practically spans the coasts of continental America. The scope of the challenge resulted in two disappointing-to-unwatchable television productions along with several false starts in the world of feature films. Non-masochists could hardly be blamed for refusing to take on or see to completion an apparently impossible project. Until now.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
CBS All Access launched a new, 10-hour adaptation of The Stand this week, and if the first episode is representative, there’s much to look forward to. Someone has spent a lot of dough on screenwriting, casting, and sets.
First, there’s the cast which includes James Marsden, Whoopi Goldberg, Alexander Skarsgård, Greg Kinnear, and Heather Graham. Money can solve casting, set, and special effects challenges but those aren’t the main problems with getting The Stand right. It’s figuring out how to contain the book’s sprawling plot and how to stage it in a way that can scare the bejesus out of viewers without winding up as a four-season series and/or bankrupting the production company. Writer-producers Josh Boon (The New Mutants, The Fault in Our Stars) and Benjamin Cavell (Homeland, Justified) seem to have put together a program that has polished production values, is respectful of the book’s fan-base, and comprehensible to those unfamiliar with the story. The first episode moves smoothly back and forth in time to help viewers understand the essence of plot and laying foundations for characters while reaching a satisfying breaking point in the story within the allotted 58 minutes. The last minute or so, which are not part of the book but are an inspired bit of screenwriting, make the tiny hairs on the neck stand up.
And heck: They might even make money on it since the only way to see The Stand is to buy a couple months of CBS All Access at $9.95 per month.
In the providence of Hollywood, now may be the perfect time for a big-budget adaptation of The Stand, given the confluence of COVID, Trump, and a renewed interest in Manichean thought. One exec pulled the plug on a movie adaptation with the argument that no one wanted to watch a show about the end of the world. Has anyone ever been so wrong? There’s a reason The Walking Dead is one of the most popular cable shows of all time: decades of terrorism, foreign wars, economic strife, and now literal deadly disease have primed viewers to … well, maybe not enjoy seeing such travails onscreen but perhaps have a chance to say, “Could be worse.”


Medals of Democracy

Michelle Obama ’ s 2016 credo , “ When they go low , we go high ” has never been more relevant than in this season of post-election lunacy .
Soon to be Ex-President Donald Trump is still peddling bizarre conspiracy theories aimed at overturning a decisive loss.. Next , almost surely , Trump will roll out a wave of presidential pardons for a posse of long-time cronies whose felonies and perjury struck at the heart of American democracy .
When it comes to “ going low ” Trump has no equal .
President-elect Biden has wisely “ gone high.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has calmly proceeded to create a new government leadership team of—imagine this—actually qualified people .
While Trump tweets , golfs , schemes and whines , Biden and his professionals are laying out plans to cope with America ’ s twin crises of COVID-19 and a still-struggling economy .
The contrast between Trump ’ s sad pathology and Biden ’ s steady leadership becomes starker by the day .
But it ’ s not soon for Joe Biden to begin thinking about another way to “ go high ” —acknowledging this very real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resisted it .
Biden should make plans to award our nation ’ s highest civilian distinction—The Presidential Medal of Freedom —to a select group of true American heroes .
These are men and women , members of both major parties , who risked their jobs , their careers , and even their lives , to defend American democracy in the 2020 election .
Here are six utterly deserving candidates .
• Lt .
Colonel Alexander Vindman , the son of political refugees from Soviet tyranny , helped expose Trump ’ s attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of Joe Biden by withholding military aid authorized by Congress .
Vindman endured scathing criticism to tell Congress the truth , never wavering under tough probing .
He was then hounded out of office by Trump and , in essence , forced to resign from the Army he loved and served in heroically .
• Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch , of immigrants from the USSR , defied the President ’ s attempts to stonewall Congress and confirmed the essence of Trump ’ s extortion plot in Ukraine .
She endured and surmounted intense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convey the facts of the Ukraine plot to Congress and to all Americans .
• Professor Fiona Hill , an immigrant from England who rose to become the National Security Council ’ s top Russia expert , confirmed and deepened the damning evidence of Trump ’ s Ukraine machinations .
Like the other witnesses in the Trump impeachment hearings , she was subjected to a wave of criticism , lies and death threats .
• Christopher Krebs , A lifelong Republican , appointed by Trump to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than two years to protect America ’ s electoral systems from foreign penetration .
Days after the 2020 presidential election , Krebs publicly affirmed the security of these systems and the validity of the result , undercutting Trump ’ s fraud claims at the root .
Trump promptly fired Krebs for that act of truth-telling .
Krebs was then assaulted on social media and Trump ’ s sometime lawyer , Joe DeGenova , viciously suggested on talk radio that he be “ shot ” and/or “ drawn and quartered.
” • Gabriel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working for Georgia ’ s Secretary of State affirmed the validity of Biden ’ s victory in that state .
He passionately warned that President Trump ’ s bogus fraud claims were inspiring death threats to Georgia state election officials and even to young IT techs , and would get “ somebody killed ” if they did not stop .
Sterling , like others , has endured an avalanche of social media assault and death threats to himself and family members .
• Aaron Van Langevelde Republican appointee to Michigan ’ s board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resisted pressure from his party and the President to deny Joe Biden ’ s thumping 150,000-vote victory in that key state .
While his other GOP colleague recused himself , Van Langevelde cast the deciding vote to affirm Michigan ’ s voters ’ choice .
The response from Trump backers on social media was so potentially violent that he and his family are now under police protection .
Bringing these brave citizens together for national recognition should be a proud moment , a ceremonial occasion for President Biden to lay out a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for public servants— and for all Americans .
As Donald Trump has so brutally taught us , American democracy depends , at its most crucial moments , not just on “ checks and balances ” but on individual men and women brave enough to risk careers they ’ ve worked their whole lives for—to preserve , protect and defend something greater than themselves—and Keep America Great .
To anyone who might say that such an award ceremony would be too partisan a way to use the Medal of Freedom , I suggest you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the award to Rush Limbaugh—in the middle of his last State of the Union Address on national TV .
Limbaugh is a man whose entire career has been defined by vicious partisan vitriol and is now climaxing in full-throated backing of Trump ’ s mad election fraud claims and floating notions of “ secession.
” Republicans , clearly , are not shy about partisanship .
And if any Republican does criticize Biden for honoring these truth-tellers and defenders of the rule of law , Democrats should welcome that .
That would tell our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump ’ s party has fallen morally than any attack on these genuine American heroes .
As to the timing of the ceremony , what better date than February 12 , 2021 , the birthday of our greatest president , Abe Lincoln ?
The first Republican president , the man who crushed the most treasonous conspiracy the United States has ever seen .
Like him , these men and women understood the stakes at play when democracy itself is assaulted .
They all took real risks to ensure that “ government of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the people , shall not perish.
” All Americans are in their debt .
Let us now “ go high ” —and honor them .

Michelle Obama’s 2016 credo, “When they go low, we go high” has never been more relevant than in this season of post-election lunacy. Soon to be Ex-President Donald Trump is still peddling bizarre conspiracy theories aimed at overturning a decisive loss.. Next, almost surely, Trump will roll out a wave of presidential pardons for a posse of long-time cronies whose felonies and perjury struck at the heart of American democracy. When it comes to “going low” Trump has no equal.
President-elect Biden has wisely “gone high.” Ignoring Trump’s antics, he has calmly proceeded to create a new government leadership team of—imagine this—actually qualified people. While Trump tweets, golfs, schemes and whines, Biden and his professionals are laying out plans to cope with America’s twin crises of COVID-19 and a still-struggling economy. The contrast between Trump’s sad pathology and Biden’s steady leadership becomes starker by the day.
But it’s not soon for Joe Biden to begin thinking about another way to “go high”—acknowledging this very real assault on democracy while honoring those who resisted it.
Biden should make plans to award our nation’s highest civilian distinction—The Presidential Medal of Freedom —to a select group of true American heroes. These are men and women, members of both major parties, who risked their jobs, their careers, and even their lives, to defend American democracy in the 2020 election. Here are six utterly deserving candidates.
Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, the son of political refugees from Soviet tyranny, helped expose Trump’s attempt to extort Ukraine into announcing an “investigation” of Joe Biden by withholding military aid authorized by Congress. Vindman endured scathing criticism to tell Congress the truth, never wavering under tough probing. He was then hounded out of office by Trump and, in essence, forced to resign from the Army he loved and served in heroically.
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, the daughter of immigrants from the USSR, defied the President’s attempts to stonewall Congress and confirmed the essence of Trump’s extortion plot in Ukraine. She endured and surmounted intense criticism, including death threats, to convey the facts of the Ukraine plot to Congress and to all Americans.
Professor Fiona Hill, an immigrant from England who rose to become the National Security Council’s top Russia expert, confirmed and deepened the damning evidence of Trump’s Ukraine machinations. Like the other witnesses in the Trump impeachment hearings, she was subjected to a wave of criticism, lies and death threats.
Christopher Krebs , A lifelong Republican, appointed by Trump to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Krebs worked for more than two years to protect America’s electoral systems from foreign penetration. Days after the 2020 presidential election, Krebs publicly affirmed the security of these systems and the validity of the result, undercutting Trump’s fraud claims at the root. Trump promptly fired Krebs for that act of truth-telling. Krebs was then assaulted on social media and Trump’s sometime lawyer, Joe DeGenova, viciously suggested on talk radio that he be “shot” and/or “drawn and quartered.”
Gabriel Sterling, A top Election Security official working for Georgia’s Secretary of State affirmed the validity of Biden’s victory in that state. He passionately warned that President Trump’s bogus fraud claims were inspiring death threats to Georgia state election officials and even to young IT techs, and would get “somebody killed” if they did not stop. Sterling, like others, has endured an avalanche of social media assault and death threats to himself and family members.
Aaron Van Langevelde , a 40-year old Republican appointee to Michigan’s board of state election canvassers, Van Langevelde resisted pressure from his party and the President to deny Joe Biden’s thumping 150,000-vote victory in that key state. While his other GOP colleague recused himself, Van Langevelde cast the deciding vote to affirm Michigan’s voters’ choice. The response from Trump backers on social media was so potentially violent that he and his family are now under police protection.
Bringing these brave citizens together for national recognition should be a proud moment, a ceremonial occasion for President Biden to lay out a new vision of patriotism, accountability and courage for public servants— and for all Americans. As Donald Trump has so brutally taught us, American democracy depends, at its most crucial moments, not just on “checks and balances” but on individual men and women brave enough to risk careers they’ve worked their whole lives for—to preserve, protect and defend something greater than themselves—and Keep America Great.
To anyone who might say that such an award ceremony would be too partisan a way to use the Medal of Freedom, I suggest you recall Trump’s own granting of the award to Rush Limbaugh—in the middle of his last State of the Union Address on national TV. Limbaugh is a man whose entire career has been defined by vicious partisan vitriol and is now climaxing in full-throated backing of Trump’s mad election fraud claims and floating notions of “secession.”
Republicans, clearly, are not shy about partisanship. And if any Republican does criticize Biden for honoring these truth-tellers and defenders of the rule of law, Democrats should welcome that. That would tell our fellow citizens more about how “low” Trump’s party has fallen morally than any attack on these genuine American heroes.
As to the timing of the ceremony, what better date than February 12, 2021, the birthday of our greatest president, Abe Lincoln? The first Republican president, the man who crushed the most treasonous conspiracy the United States has ever seen. Like him, these men and women understood the stakes at play when democracy itself is assaulted. They all took real risks to ensure that “government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish.” All Americans are in their debt.
Let us now “go high”—and honor them.


thebulwark--2020-12-20--The Origins of a Warning from Voltaire

The Origins of a Warning from Voltaire

“ Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
” I ’ ve been thinking a lot lately about that famous quote , ordinarily attributed to Voltaire .
When I brought up the quote on Twitter the other day , I was taken aback when a reader challenged its authenticity , citing this French-language Swiss source in which a Voltaire biographer writes it off as an internet myth .
Had I , along with hundreds of others , gotten the origin of “ absurdities .
.
.
atrocities ” wrong ?
Misattribution of famous quotes is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much including the better-known line attributed to Voltaire , “ I disapprove of what you say , but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
” That most excellent maxim is best described as a paraphrase ( rather than a translation ) of the French philosopher ’ s views as rendered by English writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1906 .
So I looked into the provenance of the “ absurdities .
.
.
atrocities ” line , and here is what I found .
It appears to have originated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Voltaire ’ s ‘ Questions sur les miracles ’ ( 1765 ) .
The original is on the right page here , last paragraph , the one that begins “ Il y a eu des gens qui ont dit autrefois .
.
.
” The sentence in question is , “ Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde est en droit de vous rendre injuste.
” The English version—note that it differs slightly in wording from most internet versions—conventionally appears as part of the following longer paragraph translating the above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were those who said : You believe things that are incomprehensible , inconsistent , impossible because we have commanded you to believe them ; go then and do what is injust because we command it .
Such people show admirable reasoning .
Truly , whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities .
If the God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible , then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your soul has been dominated , other faculties will follow as well .
And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world .
Which still leaves the question : where did the English translation come from ?
All sources I have seen attribute it to Norman Lewis Torrey , Les Philosophes : The Philosophers of the Enlightenment and Modern Democracy ( 1961 ) .
While I am in no way a French scholar , I don ’ t see how the slightly longer version of the sentence associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more terse and aphoristic original .
And it is the context of the full paragraph that explains why : the person who has been led into absurdity of belief is led to be unjust not in some incidental , random , or trivial way , but because he or she falls under a kind of external “ command ” or domination that results in a “ demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart , ” from which follow “ crimes.
” In my view , the widely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very much what Voltaire was trying to warn us about in this passage .
And as warnings go , this is one that remains timely at all places and times , including the United States as the year 2020 draws to a close .

“Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about that famous quote, ordinarily attributed to Voltaire. When I brought up the quote on Twitter the other day, I was taken aback when a reader challenged its authenticity, citing this French-language Swiss source in which a Voltaire biographer writes it off as an internet myth. Had I, along with hundreds of others, gotten the origin of “absurdities . . . atrocities” wrong? Misattribution of famous quotes is rife online, after all, very much including the better-known line attributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That most excellent maxim is best described as a paraphrase (rather than a translation) of the French philosopher’s views as rendered by English writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1906.
So I looked into the provenance of the “absurdities . . . atrocities” line, and here is what I found.
It appears to have originated as a loose translation of a passage from Voltaire’s ‘Questions sur les miracles’ (1765). The original is on the right page here, last paragraph, the one that begins “Il y a eu des gens qui ont dit autrefois. . .” The sentence in question is, “Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde est en droit de vous rendre injuste.”
The English version—note that it differs slightly in wording from most internet versions—conventionally appears as part of the following longer paragraph translating the above [italics added]:
Formerly there were those who said: You believe things that are incomprehensible, inconsistent, impossible because we have commanded you to believe them; go then and do what is injust because we command it. Such people show admirable reasoning. Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. If the God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world.
Which still leaves the question: where did the English translation come from? All sources I have seen attribute it to Norman Lewis Torrey, Les Philosophes: The Philosophers of the Enlightenment and Modern Democracy (1961).
While I am in no way a French scholar, I don’t see how the slightly longer version of the sentence associated with the Torrey volume misrepresents the somewhat more terse and aphoristic original. And it is the context of the full paragraph that explains why: the person who has been led into absurdity of belief is led to be unjust not in some incidental, random, or trivial way, but because he or she falls under a kind of external “command” or domination that results in a “demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart,” from which follow “crimes.”
In my view, the widely encountered internet quote does check out as very much what Voltaire was trying to warn us about in this passage. And as warnings go, this is one that remains timely at all places and times, including the United States as the year 2020 draws to a close.


thebulwark--2020-12-21--Biden Should Call for a Commission to Investigate the 2020 Election

Some Republican leaders are finally admitting the obvious : We will have a new president on January 20 , 2021 and his name is Joseph Biden .
They took a long time reaching this point because President Trump and his allies insisted that they pretend that Trump had won—or was going to win , once his lawsuits alleging a massive conspiracy to steal the election got their chances before the courts .
Many rank-and-file Republicans believed—or at least purported to believe—in this conspiracy theory despite the weak evidentiary basis for it , and many GOP leaders went along for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happy while the Georgia Senate run-offs were in play .
Others did so presumably because of the party base , or to buy some cheap insurance against getting primaried : Pretending to be willing to defend Trump ’ s “ victory ” to the death was a hedge against Trump supporting a primary opponent in the next election cycle .
But having made this deal , congressional Republicans are now stuck .
It is in the interests of no one—other than Trump , his hangers-on , and certain media outlets with die-hard audiences—for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep pretending that Biden won a “ stolen victory.
” Democrats do not want it , because they will need Republican cooperation to govern effectively .
Even if Republicans do not hold the Senate after the Georgia run-off , the Democratic majorities in both chambers will be razor thin and they will need support .
Republicans , meanwhile , should not want their party to cling to the conspiracy theory .
No party can thrive if its animating principle rests on such shaky ground .
But even if they thought it was true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not want to remain stuck there because they can not achieve anything without Biden .
They need him to sign legislation ; how do they work with him without addressing their claim that he pulled off the biggest fraud in American history ?
Even if they wanted to ignore it , would Trump let them ?
Republicans can not pull themselves out of this hole without help .
Help is available , in the form of a time-honored mechanism that has lifted American leaders out of other political pits so that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governing , with all the normal political haggling associated therewith .
I speak of the “ blue-ribbon commission ” —a gathering of respected leaders from both parties , generally beyond the point of having their own further career ambitions , tasked with investigating what happened and reporting back to the American people with recommendations on how to fix whatever problems they discovered .
Both governmental and nongovernmental commissions have been convened after contentious elections in the past .
Following the 2000 election and its suspenseful Florida recount , a National Commission on Federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , academics , and think tankers ; prominent out-of-office Republicans and Democrats , including former presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter , were involved in that effort , which resulted in a report with a slate of recommendations .
Following the 2004 election , a later iteration of that commission—chaired by Carter and former secretary of state James Baker—issued a report making recommendations about the use of voter IDs .
President Obama , after the 2012 election that returned him to office , issued an executive order establishing a Presidential Commission on Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in early 2014 , offered a number of recommendations regarding the efficient management of polling places .
What ’ s called for this time around , though , is something different , since what is needed is not a discussion of recommendations based on facts that are widely understood , but rather an investigation by trusted figures into a swirl of unsettled allegations .
For that kind of problem , another model of commission is appropriate .
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11 , 2001 , political Washington flirted with a debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Did more blame for the attack rest with the Bush administration , on whose watch it occurred and who received the most recent , albeit ambiguous , warnings ?
Or did more blame rest with the Clinton administration , which had bequeathed the Bush administration a stovepiped warning system , had watched fecklessly as the threat from Osama bin Laden emerged , and on whose watch most of the planning for the terrorist attack had occurred ?
Had political leaders been preoccupied with pointing fingers , they could not have joined hands to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the terrorists to justice .
And there was another , even more insidious threat in play : “ Truther ” conspiracy theories quickly poisoned the debate about 9/11 with absurd tales of an “ inside job ” in which the U.S. government attacked itself so as to .
.
.
well , there never was a plausible explanation for why the government would do something like that .
The truther conspiracy theory was the most implausible notion about a national crisis until Sidney Powell started advancing the thought that pro-Communist sympathizers in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , George Soros , and Republican Georgia Governor Brian Kemp to give that state ’ s electoral votes to Biden .
Enter the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States , which was created in late 2002 and released its findings in July 2004 .
The report of the 9/11 Commission stands today as one of the most impressive pieces of careful investigation .
It pulled no punches—finding fault with the actions of all parts of the U.S. government and both parties—but it also provided a comprehensive rebuttal of the conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never entirely disappeared , but they had no real political purchase after 2004—and nor did the most partisan of interpretations of culpability .
The country was able to move forward .
President-elect Biden should call for a similar bipartisan commission of worthies to investigate the claims of irregularities in the 2020 election and to report back any reforms that are needed .
This commission should be governmental , created either by executive order or via legislation signed by Biden .
Like the 9/11 Commission—and unlike previous electoral commissions—it should have a robust investigatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he believes there is no credible evidence of fraud ?
The question answers itself : Why should he not , if he is confident there is no credible evidence the election was stolen ?
Would a commission lend credibility to bogus claims that have already been debunked numerous times in the media ?
Perhaps—but it would also create a clear record of definitive rebuttals , and would allow more responsible concerns to get fully aired as well .
Fair-minded observers have already identified ways in which the election process could be improved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counting mail-in ballots , for instance .
This arcane procedure is entirely to blame for the “ surprise ” that Trump seemed to be winning and then suddenly saw his advantage disappear with “ dumps ” of votes .
Likewise , there are always ways to improve on election management , such as urging states to adopt more standardized procedures .
It would appropriate , too , since many millions more Americans voted by mail than ever before because of the pandemic , to include a detailed study of how well that process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And , in the wake of recent news that Russian cyber units conducted the most grievous hack of sensitive government networks in history , perhaps it is not unreasonable to take another look at how robust our election processes are to foreign interference .
Trump would have been well served to adopt this mechanism in January 2017 , as a way of dealing with the concerns raised about Russian interference in the 2016 election .
His failure to do so goes some distance to explaining why the Russian collusion question hung over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a chance to park this issue where it will do minimal harm .
The fact that the issue is being looked at by a National Commission on 2020 Electoral Concerns—chaired by , say , former Senators Lamar Alexander and Carl Levin—would give Republicans a reason not to insist that Congress take up the issue of investigative hearings on day one , saving Democrats from the distraction of defending against pointless partisan show trials .
Otherwise , that is the trap Republicans will have sprung on themselves .
Having claimed for weeks that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throw the entire outcome in doubt , how can they drop the charge and start engaging with Biden on normal , albeit partisan , terms ?
They can return to normal politics only if they can credibly point to a vehicle that is addressing those concerns .
Biden should build it for them .

Some Republican leaders are finally admitting the obvious: We will have a new president on January 20, 2021 and his name is Joseph Biden. They took a long time reaching this point because President Trump and his allies insisted that they pretend that Trump had won—or was going to win, once his lawsuits alleging a massive conspiracy to steal the election got their chances before the courts.
Many rank-and-file Republicans believed—or at least purported to believe—in this conspiracy theory despite the weak evidentiary basis for it, and many GOP leaders went along for the simple reason of wanting to keep Trump happy while the Georgia Senate run-offs were in play. Others did so presumably because of the party base, or to buy some cheap insurance against getting primaried: Pretending to be willing to defend Trump’s “victory” to the death was a hedge against Trump supporting a primary opponent in the next election cycle.
But having made this deal, congressional Republicans are now stuck.
It is in the interests of no one—other than Trump, his hangers-on, and certain media outlets with die-hard audiences—for a significant number of Republican legislators to keep pretending that Biden won a “stolen victory.” Democrats do not want it, because they will need Republican cooperation to govern effectively. Even if Republicans do not hold the Senate after the Georgia run-off, the Democratic majorities in both chambers will be razor thin and they will need support.
Republicans, meanwhile, should not want their party to cling to the conspiracy theory. No party can thrive if its animating principle rests on such shaky ground. But even if they thought it was true, or might be true, they do not want to remain stuck there because they cannot achieve anything without Biden. They need him to sign legislation; how do they work with him without addressing their claim that he pulled off the biggest fraud in American history? Even if they wanted to ignore it, would Trump let them?
Republicans cannot pull themselves out of this hole without help.
Help is available, in the form of a time-honored mechanism that has lifted American leaders out of other political pits so that they can get back to the business of governing, with all the normal political haggling associated therewith. I speak of the “blue-ribbon commission”—a gathering of respected leaders from both parties, generally beyond the point of having their own further career ambitions, tasked with investigating what happened and reporting back to the American people with recommendations on how to fix whatever problems they discovered.
Both governmental and nongovernmental commissions have been convened after contentious elections in the past. Following the 2000 election and its suspenseful Florida recount, a National Commission on Federal Election Reform was privately convened by foundations, academics, and think tankers; prominent out-of-office Republicans and Democrats, including former presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, were involved in that effort, which resulted in a report with a slate of recommendations. Following the 2004 election, a later iteration of that commission—chaired by Carter and former secretary of state James Baker—issued a report making recommendations about the use of voter IDs. President Obama, after the 2012 election that returned him to office, issued an executive order establishing a Presidential Commission on Election Administration; its final report, released in early 2014, offered a number of recommendations regarding the efficient management of polling places.
What’s called for this time around, though, is something different, since what is needed is not a discussion of recommendations based on facts that are widely understood, but rather an investigation by trusted figures into a swirl of unsettled allegations. For that kind of problem, another model of commission is appropriate.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, political Washington flirted with a debate that could have paralyzed the government: Did more blame for the attack rest with the Bush administration, on whose watch it occurred and who received the most recent, albeit ambiguous, warnings? Or did more blame rest with the Clinton administration, which had bequeathed the Bush administration a stovepiped warning system, had watched fecklessly as the threat from Osama bin Laden emerged, and on whose watch most of the planning for the terrorist attack had occurred? Had political leaders been preoccupied with pointing fingers, they could not have joined hands to do the hard work of actually bringing the terrorists to justice.
And there was another, even more insidious threat in play: “Truther” conspiracy theories quickly poisoned the debate about 9/11 with absurd tales of an “inside job” in which the U.S. government attacked itself so as to . . . well, there never was a plausible explanation for why the government would do something like that. The truther conspiracy theory was the most implausible notion about a national crisis until Sidney Powell started advancing the thought that pro-Communist sympathizers in the CIA collaborated with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez, George Soros, and Republican Georgia Governor Brian Kemp to give that state’s electoral votes to Biden.
Enter the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which was created in late 2002 and released its findings in July 2004. The report of the 9/11 Commission stands today as one of the most impressive pieces of careful investigation. It pulled no punches—finding fault with the actions of all parts of the U.S. government and both parties—but it also provided a comprehensive rebuttal of the conspiracy theorists. Of course, the myths never entirely disappeared, but they had no real political purchase after 2004—and nor did the most partisan of interpretations of culpability. The country was able to move forward.
President-elect Biden should call for a similar bipartisan commission of worthies to investigate the claims of irregularities in the 2020 election and to report back any reforms that are needed. This commission should be governmental, created either by executive order or via legislation signed by Biden. Like the 9/11 Commission—and unlike previous electoral commissions—it should have a robust investigatory capacity.
Why should Biden bother, if he believes there is no credible evidence of fraud? The question answers itself: Why should he not, if he is confident there is no credible evidence the election was stolen? Would a commission lend credibility to bogus claims that have already been debunked numerous times in the media? Perhaps—but it would also create a clear record of definitive rebuttals, and would allow more responsible concerns to get fully aired as well. Fair-minded observers have already identified ways in which the election process could be improved. It makes no sense to delay counting mail-in ballots, for instance. This arcane procedure is entirely to blame for the “surprise” that Trump seemed to be winning and then suddenly saw his advantage disappear with “dumps” of votes. Likewise, there are always ways to improve on election management, such as urging states to adopt more standardized procedures. It would appropriate, too, since many millions more Americans voted by mail than ever before because of the pandemic, to include a detailed study of how well that process worked and how it could be improved.
And, in the wake of recent news that Russian cyber units conducted the most grievous hack of sensitive government networks in history, perhaps it is not unreasonable to take another look at how robust our election processes are to foreign interference.
Trump would have been well served to adopt this mechanism in January 2017, as a way of dealing with the concerns raised about Russian interference in the 2016 election. His failure to do so goes some distance to explaining why the Russian collusion question hung over his administration for so long.
Biden has a chance to park this issue where it will do minimal harm. The fact that the issue is being looked at by a National Commission on 2020 Electoral Concerns—chaired by, say, former Senators Lamar Alexander and Carl Levin—would give Republicans a reason not to insist that Congress take up the issue of investigative hearings on day one, saving Democrats from the distraction of defending against pointless partisan show trials.
Otherwise, that is the trap Republicans will have sprung on themselves. Having claimed for weeks that the election was riddled with problems that throw the entire outcome in doubt, how can they drop the charge and start engaging with Biden on normal, albeit partisan, terms? They can return to normal politics only if they can credibly point to a vehicle that is addressing those concerns. Biden should build it for them.


thebulwark--2020-12-21--Lou Dobbs Debunks Himself

Lou Dobbs Debunks Himself

Two news organizations issued corrections recently .
One was the New York Times .
The other was Fox Business .
One concerned an honest mistake .
At considerable embarrassment to itself , the Times admitted to having been scammed by the subject of one its podcast series .
Fox Business did not admit to anything , but instead ran an interview that directly contradicted some—actually a small fraction—of the false , hysterical , and malevolent conspiracy theories about election fraud the network has been pushing .
If you were watching Lou Dobbs Tonight on December 18 , you saw something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who hosts the top-rated “ business ” show on TV ( which is a commentary on the audience , but never mind ) , has been peddling outright misinformation for a very long time .
Before he moved to Fox , he was a fixture on CNN , where he reported , falsely , that immigrants were causing a huge spike of leprosy cases .
Dobbs has a perhaps sincere , but nonetheless maniacal fear and hatred of immigrants .
He pumped out baseless allegations that the LDS church was purposely violating immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and said that one-third of prison inmates were illegal aliens ( not even close ) .
But nothing has topped his recent fulminations about the election .
When Attorney General William Barr said he had not seen evidence of voter fraud significant enough to affect the outcome of the election , Dobbs sailed off the rationality cliff altogether : So the December 18 segment must have taken some of Dobbs ’ s 300,000 or so viewers by surprise .
It was a pre-taped interview with Edward Perez of the Open Source Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) asked Perez questions about vote fraud such as “ Have you seen any evidence of Smartmatic sending U.S. votes to be tabulated in foreign countries ?
” Perez had not .
Fox Business News has not had a sudden attack of conscience , nor has it concluded that its reputation depends upon some semblance of fact-checking .
No , this uncharacteristic moment of candor was in response to a 20-page demand letter from lawyers for Smartmatic , one of the companies Dobbs and other Fox figures have been slandering as tools of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s paw for a dead Venezuelan dictator , and so forth .
Smartmatic is credibly threatening to sue Fox .
The letter makes for bracing reading : The letter follows up with page after page of verbatim quotes from Rudy Giuliani , Sidney Powell , Maria Bartiromo , and Dobbs spreading lies about the election that include allegations about Smartmatic .
The reason this is no ordinary Fox lie is that Smartmatic is not a public figure .
Since New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964 , it has been pretty much impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
Plaintiffs must show not just that the news story was wrong , but that it showed “ reckless disregard for the truth or falsity ” of the content .
Though this policy permits the public square to be saturated with lies , it is considered worth the price to maintain uninhibited debate about matters of public importance .
The standard for private persons , or in this case companies , is different .
There is no public purpose to be served by letting a newspaper falsely report without fear of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an embezzler .
Most state laws require a plaintiff to show mere negligence on the part of a news organization or other defendant .
The plaintiff must also show damages , namely that the defamatory content harms its capacity to do business .
Smartmatic ’ s business is running elections .
They may have a strong case .
As Ben Smith notes in today ’ s New York Times , the Smartmatic founder , Antonio Mugica , has hired the lawyer who “ won the largest settlement in the history of American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t the only potential plaintiff ” : Dominion Voting Systems , similarly smeared by the president and his media allies , is in a comparable legal position .
So no surprise that Fox Business has taken the precaution of airing the segment of “ clarifications ” not just on Lou Dobbs Tonight but also on Maria Bartiromo ’ s and Jeanine Pirro ’ s programs .
So much for Exhibit A.
Here ’ s Exhibit B .
The New York Times issued a retraction of its award-winning series “ Caliphate , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shehroze Chaudhry who claimed to have joined ISIS and to have committed crimes in Syria .
On September 25 , 2019 , Canadian police arrested Chaudhry and charged him with perpetrating a terror hoax .
In a podcast mea culpa , Times executive editor Dean Baquet acknowledged error : Later in the podcast , probed by Michael Barbaro about why the Times failed its own standards in this case , Baquet admitted that “ confirmation bias ” played a role .
“ Good journalism comes from some sort of internal debate over whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story is more powerful than the stuff that refutes the story .
.
.
.
[ W ] e just didn ’ t listen hard enough to the stuff that challenged the story.
” The Times returned the Peabody Award the series had received .
In short , the paper did the right thing .
A little late ?
Yes .
In its own story about the failure , the Times acknowledges that Chaudhry gave an interview to the CBC in 2018 recanting what he had told the Times .
And critics of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gnawing matter of the Pulitzer prize the Times received for Walter Duranty ’ s false reporting from the USSR in the 1930s denying the Terror-Famine .
The Times eventually ( in 2003 ) acknowledged that Duranty ’ s reports were false , but has oddly sidestepped the question of returning the Pulitzer .
Still , there is a yawning chasm between the Times and Fox ( and its imitators at OANN and Newsmax , who have also been named by Smartmatic ’ s attorneys ) .
For all its faults and biases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It holds itself to standards and acknowledges error .
Fox et al .
are propagandists and provocateurs .
Who was harmed by the Times ’ s error ?
Only the Times itself .
ISIS certainly has no reputation to damage , and Chaudhry is not an injured party , he appears to be a scam artist .
Who was harmed by the Fox crowd ’ s lies ?
An individual company sure , but also faith in democracy itself .
Most people assume that where there ’ s smoke , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of misinformation from Donald Trump and his enablers , millions of Americans have had their confidence in the most basic institution of democracy—free and fair elections—badly shaken .
The lawyer-extracted corrections are welcome , but they can not begin to undo the damage these pernicious liars have perpetrated .

Two news organizations issued corrections recently. One was the New York Times. The other was Fox Business. One concerned an honest mistake. At considerable embarrassment to itself, the Times admitted to having been scammed by the subject of one its podcast series. Fox Business did not admit to anything, but instead ran an interview that directly contradicted some—actually a small fraction—of the false, hysterical, and malevolent conspiracy theories about election fraud the network has been pushing.
If you were watching Lou Dobbs Tonight on December 18, you saw something jarring—a dose of reality. Dobbs, who hosts the top-rated “business” show on TV (which is a commentary on the audience, but never mind), has been peddling outright misinformation for a very long time. Before he moved to Fox, he was a fixture on CNN, where he reported, falsely, that immigrants were causing a huge spike of leprosy cases. Dobbs has a perhaps sincere, but nonetheless maniacal fear and hatred of immigrants. He pumped out baseless allegations that the LDS church was purposely violating immigration laws to smuggle Mexicans into the country, and said that one-third of prison inmates were illegal aliens (not even close). But nothing has topped his recent fulminations about the election. When Attorney General William Barr said he had not seen evidence of voter fraud significant enough to affect the outcome of the election, Dobbs sailed off the rationality cliff altogether:
For the attorney general to make that statement, he is either a liar or a fool or both. He may be, perhaps, compromised. He may be simply unprincipled. Or he may be personally distraught or ill. But in no way can he honestly stand up before the American people and say that the FBI has, with any integrity or intensity, investigated voter fraud in this country—and then say it did not amount to anything.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
So the December 18 segment must have taken some of Dobbs’s 300,000 or so viewers by surprise. It was a pre-taped interview with Edward Perez of the Open Source Election Technology Institute. Someone (not Dobbs) asked Perez questions about vote fraud such as “Have you seen any evidence of Smartmatic sending U.S. votes to be tabulated in foreign countries?” Perez had not.
Fox Business has not had a sudden attack of conscience, nor has it concluded that its reputation depends upon some semblance of fact-checking. No, this uncharacteristic moment of candor was in response to a 20-page demand letter from lawyers for Smartmatic, one of the companies Dobbs and other Fox figures have been slandering as tools of the deep state, a cat’s paw for a dead Venezuelan dictator, and so forth. Smartmatic is credibly threatening to sue Fox. The letter makes for bracing reading:
Fox News stated and implied that (1) Smartmatic has a corporate relationship with Dominion Voting Systems (“Dominion”), (2) Smartmatic has a corrupt relationship with the Venezuelan government, including Hugo Chávez, (3) Smartmatic’s technology and software were designed and used to fix elections, (4) Smartmatic’s technology and software were widely used in the 2020 U.S. election, (5) Smartmatic’s technology and software were used to fix the 2020 U.S. election, (6) Smartmatic sent votes to foreign countries for tabulation, (7) Smartmatic’s technology has been banned from certain jurisdictions, (8) Smartmatic has ties to the Democratic party and George Soros, and (9) Smartmatic’s technology and software has numerous security weaknesses. All these statements and implications are false and defamatory.
The letter follows up with page after page of verbatim quotes from Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Maria Bartiromo, and Dobbs spreading lies about the election that include allegations about Smartmatic.
The reason this is no ordinary Fox lie is that Smartmatic is not a public figure. Since New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, it has been pretty much impossible to defame a public figure in the United States. Plaintiffs must show not just that the news story was wrong, but that it showed “reckless disregard for the truth or falsity” of the content. Though this policy permits the public square to be saturated with lies, it is considered worth the price to maintain uninhibited debate about matters of public importance.
The standard for private persons, or in this case companies, is different. There is no public purpose to be served by letting a newspaper falsely report without fear of a libel suit that Mr. Joe Smith is an embezzler. Most state laws require a plaintiff to show mere negligence on the part of a news organization or other defendant. The plaintiff must also show damages, namely that the defamatory content harms its capacity to do business. Smartmatic’s business is running elections. They may have a strong case.
As Ben Smith notes in today’s New York Times, the Smartmatic founder, Antonio Mugica, has hired the lawyer who “won the largest settlement in the history of American media defamation.” And “Mugica isn’t the only potential plaintiff”: Dominion Voting Systems, similarly smeared by the president and his media allies, is in a comparable legal position.
So no surprise that Fox Business has taken the precaution of airing the segment of “clarifications” not just on Lou Dobbs Tonight but also on Maria Bartiromo’s and Jeanine Pirro’s programs.
So much for Exhibit A. Here’s Exhibit B. The New York Times issued a retraction of its award-winning series “Caliphate,” which featured interviews with a Canadian named Shehroze Chaudhry who claimed to have joined ISIS and to have committed crimes in Syria. On September 25, 2019, Canadian police arrested Chaudhry and charged him with perpetrating a terror hoax. In a podcast mea culpa, Times executive editor Dean Baquet acknowledged error:
When the New York Times does deep, big, ambitious journalism in any format, we put it to a tremendous amount of scrutiny at the upper levels of the newsroom. We did not do that in this case. And I think that I or somebody else should have provided that same kind of scrutiny, because it was a big, ambitious piece of journalism. And I did not provide that kind of scrutiny, nor did my top deputies with deep experience in examining investigative reporting.
Later in the podcast, probed by Michael Barbaro about why the Times failed its own standards in this case, Baquet admitted that “confirmation bias” played a role. “Good journalism comes from some sort of internal debate over whether or not the stuff that supports the story is more powerful than the stuff that refutes the story. . . . [W]e just didn’t listen hard enough to the stuff that challenged the story.” The Times returned the Peabody Award the series had received. In short, the paper did the right thing. A little late? Yes. In its own story about the failure, the Times acknowledges that Chaudhry gave an interview to the CBC in 2018 recanting what he had told the Times. And critics of the Gray Lady have trouble forgetting the gnawing matter of the Pulitzer prize the Times received for Walter Duranty’s false reporting from the USSR in the 1930s denying the Terror-Famine. The Times eventually (in 2003) acknowledged that Duranty’s reports were false, but has oddly sidestepped the question of returning the Pulitzer.
Still, there is a yawning chasm between the Times and Fox (and its imitators at OANN and Newsmax, who have also been named by Smartmatic’s attorneys). For all its faults and biases, the Times is in the news business. It holds itself to standards and acknowledges error. Fox et al. are propagandists and provocateurs. Who was harmed by the Times’s error? Only the Times itself. ISIS certainly has no reputation to damage, and Chaudhry is not an injured party, he appears to be a scam artist.
Who was harmed by the Fox crowd’s lies? An individual company sure, but also faith in democracy itself. Most people assume that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Subjected to a deluge of misinformation from Donald Trump and his enablers, millions of Americans have had their confidence in the most basic institution of democracy—free and fair elections—badly shaken.
The lawyer-extracted corrections are welcome, but they cannot begin to undo the damage these pernicious liars have perpetrated.