thebulwark--2020-06-17--The Generals Are Fighting Back

The Generals Are Fighting Back

On June 1 , General Mark Milley , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , was instructed to accompany President Trump and some cabinet and White House officials on what he assumed was a visit to National Guard troops deployed near the White House .
The general wore camouflage fatigues , a break from the tradition of not donning combat uniforms in the White House .
In a picture taken en route , the president , General Milley , and other senior officials are seen walking through an area that had just been cleared , violently , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a presidential photo op .
It was a setup .
General Milley was unaware that protesters had been dispersed with tear gas , and it is worth investigating why he showed up at the White House in battle fatigues .
We do not know the reason , but given how unusual this is , Milley should answer for it .
When the president ’ s intent became apparent , General Milley withdrew .
His absence from a subsequent photo on the steps of St. John ’ s Church is notable .
He should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such an overtly political display in the first place .
For that , he apologized .
During remarks to a class of graduating officers , he said , “ I should not have been there.
” He reaffirmed the military ’ s apolitical nature , and stressed the need to maintain “ a keen sense of situational awareness.
” For many veterans , the use of that term was striking .
Situational awareness , or “ SA , ” is a ubiquitous phrase in the military .
It refers to the importance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-threat activities .
As a young Navy pilot , every training flight I flew was graded , and included this criterion : “ SNA [ student naval aviator ] maintains situational awareness.
” That the chairman of the Joint Chiefs would apply this term to a walk with the president is astonishing .
But it fits .
Sadly , the White House has become a threat-rich environment for our uniformed leaders .
At its core , the military is conditioned to be nonpartisan .
For three and a half years , it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saluted smartly , and obeyed .
Even when Donald Trump minimized the sacrifices of those in uniform , pardoned war criminals convicted by military juries , and abandoned allies fighting alongside U.S. troops , the military took it on the chin .
At every turn , it has done its best to respect the primacy of civilian control .
That contract , which has survived every president since Lincoln , is now broken .
As protests swept the nation , Donald Trump called upon governors to deploy national guard troops to “ dominate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so , the president said he would “ deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.
” For General Milley , President Trump ’ s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act was a bridge too far .
And it provoked some of America ’ s most revered generals and admirals to speak out .
James Mattis , the retired Marine general who resigned quietly as secretary of defense in 2019 after the president abandoned key U.S. allies , delivered this rebuke : “ When I joined the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution .
Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief , with military leadership standing alongside.
” For Mattis , the final straw was not the dishonor Trump brought upon the military , but the threat to turn it against his fellow citizens .
Mattis ’ s voice joins a chorus of others .
Generals Powell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allen , and Admirals Mullen and McRaven have warned about the dangers this president poses to the nation .
These retired officers command enormous respect within the military , and their influence cascades downwards .
If America is to survive the next few months without the military shedding civilian blood , the example set by these leaders is essential .
But there is a hidden signal , one that concerns the preservation of democracy itself .
By reminding those in uniform that their loyalty lies with the Constitution , and not with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military ’ s leadership has affirmed that it will stand with the American people through the ultimate test—the peaceful transition of power .
Since the Civil War , our nation has never had to worry about this .
Now , we have a president who openly flirts with the idea of staying in office beyond his constitutionally allowed term .
At a fundraising event , he said this about Chinese Premier Xi Jinping : “ He ’ s now president for life .
.
.
.
I think it ’ s great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give that a shot someday.
” On a separate occasion , he said that he would like to remain president for “ at least for 10 or 14 years.
” While such instances may have been poor attempts at humor , Donald Trump ’ s assaults on the integrity of our elections are no joking matter .
He is laying the groundwork to delegitimize any unfavorable outcome , claiming that mail-in voting will lead to widespread fraud in November .
He supports policies that result in massive voter suppression , as was recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Until the generals spoke out , it seemed President Trump was attempting to set the stage to remain in power even if the majority of Americans wanted him gone .
He seems to have received the generals ’ message , at least for now .
Last week , President Trump stated that he would leave peacefully if Joe Biden wins .
There is always a danger that he will purge anyone he deems disloyal , including those in positions of military authority .
And the question remains open about what National Guard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chains of command , typically reporting to governors .
Trump might call upon political allies to activate these units to defend his presidency , as he did to quell protests .
Let ’ s hope not .
It seems unlikely that any governor would deploy guardsmen against active-duty military units , merely to defend a defeated president .
To be sure , many in uniform still support him .
Though his approval within the military is astonishingly low for a Republican in the midst of a national crisis , many will surely vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institution , however , has made clear that it will not tolerate turning against American citizens , or undermining the Constitution .
It should not have come to this .
When active-duty forces become democracy ’ s last line of defense , something fundamental has failed .
The inability of civilian officials to effectively counter the president ’ s assault on our Constitution will reverberate for generations .
At this critical moment , where were Secretaries Esper and Pompeo , or the cabal of obsequious Republican senators ?
Their dereliction of duty means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least democratic institution to rescue democracy itself .
In an extraordinary memo sent last week to every service chief , General Milley wrote : “ Every member of the U.S. military swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution and the value embedded within it .
.
.
.
Please remind all of our troops and leaders that we will uphold the values of our nation.
” To the typed memo , he added this by hand : “ We all committed our lives to the idea that is America—we will stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people.
” In the moments leading up to his walk with the president , General Milley ’ s situational awareness may have lapsed .
But in the aftermath , the military expressed loud and clear where its ultimate loyalty lies , and communicated that throughout the chain of command .
If voters in November elect a new commander-in-chief , Donald Trump may indeed have another photo op with a general at his side .
But this time , that officer will , perhaps , have a firm grip on the former president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House .

On June 1, General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was instructed to accompany President Trump and some cabinet and White House officials on what he assumed was a visit to National Guard troops deployed near the White House. The general wore camouflage fatigues, a break from the tradition of not donning combat uniforms in the White House. In a picture taken en route, the president, General Milley, and other senior officials are seen walking through an area that had just been cleared, violently, of peaceful protesters, to make way for a presidential photo op.
It was a setup. General Milley was unaware that protesters had been dispersed with tear gas, and it is worth investigating why he showed up at the White House in battle fatigues. We do not know the reason, but given how unusual this is, Milley should answer for it. When the president’s intent became apparent, General Milley withdrew. His absence from a subsequent photo on the steps of St. John’s Church is notable. He should have known better than to participate in such an overtly political display in the first place. For that, he apologized. During remarks to a class of graduating officers, he said, “I should not have been there.” He reaffirmed the military’s apolitical nature, and stressed the need to maintain “a keen sense of situational awareness.”
For many veterans, the use of that term was striking. Situational awareness, or “SA,” is a ubiquitous phrase in the military. It refers to the importance of staying vigilant when engaged in high-risk, high-threat activities. As a young Navy pilot, every training flight I flew was graded, and included this criterion: “SNA [student naval aviator] maintains situational awareness.” That the chairman of the Joint Chiefs would apply this term to a walk with the president is astonishing. But it fits. Sadly, the White House has become a threat-rich environment for our uniformed leaders.
At its core, the military is conditioned to be nonpartisan. For three and a half years, it has accepted the president’s insults, saluted smartly, and obeyed. Even when Donald Trump minimized the sacrifices of those in uniform, pardoned war criminals convicted by military juries, and abandoned allies fighting alongside U.S. troops, the military took it on the chin. At every turn, it has done its best to respect the primacy of civilian control.
That contract, which has survived every president since Lincoln, is now broken. As protests swept the nation, Donald Trump called upon governors to deploy national guard troops to “dominate the streets.” If they failed to do so, the president said he would “deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.” For General Milley, President Trump’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act was a bridge too far. And it provoked some of America’s most revered generals and admirals to speak out.
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…
James Mattis, the retired Marine general who resigned quietly as secretary of defense in 2019 after the president abandoned key U.S. allies, delivered this rebuke: “When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”
For Mattis, the final straw was not the dishonor Trump brought upon the military, but the threat to turn it against his fellow citizens. Mattis’s voice joins a chorus of others. Generals Powell, McChrystal, McCaffrey, Hayden, and Allen, and Admirals Mullen and McRaven have warned about the dangers this president poses to the nation. These retired officers command enormous respect within the military, and their influence cascades downwards.
If America is to survive the next few months without the military shedding civilian blood, the example set by these leaders is essential. But there is a hidden signal, one that concerns the preservation of democracy itself. By reminding those in uniform that their loyalty lies with the Constitution, and not with the current occupant of the White House, the military’s leadership has affirmed that it will stand with the American people through the ultimate test—the peaceful transition of power.
Since the Civil War, our nation has never had to worry about this. Now, we have a president who openly flirts with the idea of staying in office beyond his constitutionally allowed term. At a fundraising event, he said this about Chinese Premier Xi Jinping: “He’s now president for life. . . . I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday.” On a separate occasion, he said that he would like to remain president for “at least for 10 or 14 years.”
While such instances may have been poor attempts at humor, Donald Trump’s assaults on the integrity of our elections are no joking matter. He is laying the groundwork to delegitimize any unfavorable outcome, claiming that mail-in voting will lead to widespread fraud in November. He supports policies that result in massive voter suppression, as was recently seen in Georgia’s primary election. Until the generals spoke out, it seemed President Trump was attempting to set the stage to remain in power even if the majority of Americans wanted him gone.
He seems to have received the generals’ message, at least for now. Last week, President Trump stated that he would leave peacefully if Joe Biden wins. There is always a danger that he will purge anyone he deems disloyal, including those in positions of military authority. And the question remains open about what National Guard units might do. They follow separate chains of command, typically reporting to governors. Trump might call upon political allies to activate these units to defend his presidency, as he did to quell protests. Let’s hope not.
It seems unlikely that any governor would deploy guardsmen against active-duty military units, merely to defend a defeated president. To be sure, many in uniform still support him. Though his approval within the military is astonishingly low for a Republican in the midst of a national crisis, many will surely vote for him. The military as an institution, however, has made clear that it will not tolerate turning against American citizens, or undermining the Constitution.
It should not have come to this.
When active-duty forces become democracy’s last line of defense, something fundamental has failed. The inability of civilian officials to effectively counter the president’s assault on our Constitution will reverberate for generations. At this critical moment, where were Secretaries Esper and Pompeo, or the cabal of obsequious Republican senators? Their dereliction of duty means America may have to depend on its least democratic institution to rescue democracy itself.
In an extraordinary memo sent last week to every service chief, General Milley wrote: “Every member of the U.S. military swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution and the value embedded within it. . . . Please remind all of our troops and leaders that we will uphold the values of our nation.” To the typed memo, he added this by hand: “We all committed our lives to the idea that is America—we will stay true to that oath and the American people.”
In the moments leading up to his walk with the president, General Milley’s situational awareness may have lapsed. But in the aftermath, the military expressed loud and clear where its ultimate loyalty lies, and communicated that throughout the chain of command. If voters in November elect a new commander-in-chief, Donald Trump may indeed have another photo op with a general at his side. But this time, that officer will, perhaps, have a firm grip on the former president’s elbow, escorting him from the White House.


thebulwark--2020-06-17--Michigan May be a Nightmare for the GOP

Michigan May be a Nightmare for the GOP

Simon & Garfunkel sang “ Michigan seems like a dream to me now ” as they went off to look for America .
That lyric could well be running through the noggins of those in the Trump campaign and the Republican apparatus come fall , as they hope to reprise Trump ’ s shocking victory in the state in 2016 .
A state that was on very few people ’ s radar in 2016 has become the center of the political universe this year , as our governor , Gretchen Whitmer , feuds with the president and as legions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s diners in an attempt to understand what they missed the last time around .
The problem with this renewed focus on Michigan ?
There ’ s not much evidence that the hype is real .
As it stands today , Trump ’ s 2016 victory is looking more and more like a fluke , with every intervening election and the 2020 polls looking like a MAGA nightmare .
The result is a situation where political campaigns and journalists are fighting the last war out of fear of being embarrassed again , rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exists today .
If Donald Trump does win reelection , it is unlikely that his path will again run through my home state .
Let ’ s look at why that is .
For about as long as I ’ ve been practicing politics here—which is to say , since 1990—Michigan has tilted blue in presidential years .
However , if you look at its voting patterns in the right light and from just the right angle , a brilliant shade of purple is revealed , marbled with red and blue hues .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan in 1988 , no other Republican even really tried .
The younger Bush waged contested battles in the state as a diversionary tactic to distract Al Gore and John Kerry from neighboring Ohio .
( Note : Bush garnered more total votes in 2004 while losing Michigan than Trump did when he won here in 2016 . )
Bill Clinton won big in both 1992 and 1996 , Gore and Kerry both carried Michigan relatively comfortably , and Barack Obama did too , twice—even against native Michigander Mitt Romney , the son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is a bipolar aspect to Michigan ’ s voting patterns between presidential election years and gubernatorial ones .
Beginning in the early 1960s with Gov .
George Romney ’ s three consecutive election victories and counting through the turn of the century , Republicans held the governor ’ s mansion in Lansing in nine out of eleven elections .
But in the five gubernatorial elections since 2000 , Democrats have held a slight lead over the GOP : three wins to two .
Republicans have also controlled the state senate since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Engler ( 1991-2003 ) , then the minority leader , adroitly orchestrated the recall of two Democratic senators and voters then replaced them with Republicans in special elections .
The Michigan Senate is elected entirely in non-presidential years .
The Republicans ’ iron grip on the chamber had grown to a veto-proof supermajority of 27-11 before the 2018 anti-Trump midterm cost the GOP five seats .
Republicans have held control of both houses of the Michigan legislature for 22 of the past 30 years—also having a GOP governor in 16 of those 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in the drawing of both the legislative and congressional maps adopted in 2001 and 2011 . )
But Michigan Republicans have had little success electing one of their own to the U.S. Senate , winning only one election ( that of future energy secretary Spencer Abraham in 2000 ) since 1972 .
Much of these off-year and localized GOP gains were offset following Trump ’ s victory in 2016 .
In the 2018 midterms , Democrats captured all the statewide offices for the first time since 1986 , flipped two congressional seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the state legislature , and gained scores of county and local offices .
Traditional GOP strongholds in suburban Detroit and Grand Rapids shifted to the Democrats .
Gretchen Whitmer , a former state legislator , bested then-Attorney General Bill Schuette in a landslide , even winning Kent County ( Grand Rapids ) , which had voted for a Democrat for governor just once since the founding of the Republican party in 1856 .
Rejection of Trump and Trumpism by Michigan voters in the 2018 midterm election left the Republicans at their lowest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though the GOP retained slim control of both chambers of the legislature .
Part of the reason that Michigan Republicans were able to have success in the past in this blue-leaning state is the ability to attract suburban swing voters with candidates known for personal decency and a willingness to cross the aisle .
( It ’ s underappreciated on this count that Trump ran as an “ Art of the Deal ” heterodox Republican in 2016 and that , in some polls , voters reported perceiving him as more moderate than Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appreciated in the national media . )
Among the Michigan Republicans known for their crossover appeal , Gov .
George Romney was vaulted to national front pages , like his son Mitt was last week , when in 1965 he walked with black civil rights protesters in Detroit .
George Romney ’ s successor , Gov .
Bill Milliken , U.S. Sen. Bob Griffin , and Congressman and National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Guy Vander Jagt had similarly deserved reputations for being tough politicians and gracious men .
The Michigan Republican Party during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elly Peterson , the first woman in America to head a Republican state party organization , and Mel Larsen , whose name is part of Michigan ’ s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act .
And the era of pragmatic Republican conservatism that John Engler ushered in dominated Michigan government and politics from about 1990 until the rise of the Tea Party .
The year 2010 was a foreboding one for Republicans in Michigan and nationally .
It just wasn ’ t fully realized at the time .
Running with the slogan “ One Tough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gateway Computers CEO Rick Snyder emerged from a tough four-way primary against well-heeled establishment Republicans , including a retiring congressman , the state ’ s attorney general , and the elected sheriff of a county with a population of 1.2 million people .
Snyder was the anti-politician , but quite different from Trump .
Snyder was seen as civil , non-partisan , honest , and competent ( and some would argue with more liquid capital than Trump ) .
Snyder ’ s ascent was concurrent with the rise of the Tea Party .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ evangelicals two decades prior , many new activists appeared at GOP meetings across Michigan , ultimately making up significant portions of those chosen to be delegates at the Republican nominating convention that selected Snyder ’ s running mate and the nominees for attorney general and secretary of state .
The Tea Partiers were feeling their oats and decided to flex their muscles by thwarting Snyder ’ s preferred choice for lieutenant governor , little-known two-term state representative Brian Calley .
The running-mate selection , typically a perfunctory voice vote by delegates at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate for governor , was thrown into chaos when Calley ’ s nomination was loudly jeered by naysayers , who then moved for a tallied vote instead of acclamation .
The party muckety-mucks behind the convention stage curtain shared a collective “ Oh fuck ” moment and then set about putting the genie back in the bottle .
Threats were made , favors promised , pants shat , commitments exchanged , and ultimately deals were solidified and Calley was nominated .
The Snyder-Calley ticket went on to a landslide victory in November .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party that had been growing and lurking during Democrat Jennifer Granholm ’ s two terms ( 2003-2011 ) .
In 2012 , racist homophobe Dave Agema defeated incumbent Saul Anuzis ( now head of 60 Plus , the GOP ’ s counter to the AARP ) , for a coveted seat on the Republican National Committee .
The MIGOP state committee , essentially a board of directors , became populated with miscreants and several actual convicted felons , including one who served time for extortion and conspiracy , another for financial fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still another mini-Bernie Madoff felon who was ordered to pay $ 285 million in restitution at his sentencing , and yet another , this one elected a party vice-chair , who had been convicted after shooting a man and also previously faced two counts of assault with intent to commit murder in a separate incident .
Tea Party gadfly Todd Courser went on in 2014 to win election to the Michigan House of Representatives where his service ended in less than a year : He was expelled following a bizarre sex scandal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his staff to create rumors of his involvement with a male prostitute to distract from an affair he was having with a female GOP state representative .
Courser was charged with four felonies , tried on two , and ultimately pleaded to a misdemeanor and lost his law license .
Not every up-and-coming figure in the state GOP was quite this bad , of course , but in the years after 2010 , the state party came to be defined not by its sensible conservative moderation but by its unhinged populism and ethically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown Trump consistently trailing Joe Biden in the mitten state , including a survey released last week showing Trump trailing Biden by a 15-point margin ( 50 to 35 percent ) .
Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer has only increased her popularity .
Her approval numbers during the COVID-19 crisis , which has hit Michigan disproportionately hard , have remained in the mid-60s , while Trump ’ s have been mired in the low 40s .
Whitmer gave her support to Biden at a pivotal moment in advance of his win over Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the speculation about Biden ’ s choice of a running mate .
While Whitmer won ’ t be on the ballot in Michigan this year ( unless Biden picks her ) , she ’ s in much better position to sway swing voters up and down the ballot than Trump or any Republican is .
These disastrous top-of-the-ticket numbers are sure to be an anchor for Republicans down-ballot—suggesting that the 2020 election will continue to hollow out the party in the state .
For example , Republicans have an exemplary candidate challenging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
John James , a black 39-year-old Iraq War veteran Army combat helicopter pilot , is the CEO of an international logistics company with annual revenue exceeding $ 100 million .
James ran against three-term Sen. Debbie Stabenow in 2018 , losing a surprisingly close race and running well ahead of the GOP ’ s gubernatorial candidate .
James has tried to thread the needle of not alienating Trump and Trumpists while also endeavoring to not repel college-educated white voters who increasingly see Trump as less desirable than chlamydia .
This needle is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows James trailing Peters 48 to 32 percent .
Freshman Democratic Reps. Elissa Slotkin ( who defeated an incumbent Republican ) and Haley Stevens ( who flipped a GOP open seat ) both face weak opponents and are likely to coast to re-election in their suburban Detroit districts .
In the southwest corner of Michigan , bordering South Bend , Indiana—where the Chicago TV market penetrates—moderate Republican Fred Upton , first elected in 1986 , faces extinction at the hands of Democratic state representative Jon Hoadley .
Upton eked out the narrowest victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively weak and little-known opponent .
Democrats also seem poised to break the GOP ’ s ten-year hold on the Michigan House of Representatives ( state senators are not on the ballot this year ) and either hold gains they made at the county and local levels in 2018 or add to them .
Michigan adopted a new independent citizens ’ commission to conduct redistricting after the 2020 census and the Democrats may well enter 2022 in their strongest political position since the mid-1980s to seize even more congressional seats and capture control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time since 1984 .
Most Republicans in Michigan seem oblivious to this reality .
What they have in front of them is the opportunity to do something pretty rare in politics , make a bold move that is both smart politically and the ethical thing to do .
In this case : throw Donald Trump and his 35 percent ballot number overboard to try to save themselves .
There have been more than enough bright neon signs flashing out their warnings that a big blue wave has been forming .
John James flashing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Times Square .
But the message isn ’ t breaking through .
Instead , inexplicably , the MIGOP cult continues to bow and pray to the great orange god they made .
And so the sound most likely to emit from Republicans on the night of November 3 , will not be silence—but a loud and collective wailing of defeat and despair .

Simon & Garfunkel sang “Michigan seems like a dream to me now” as they went off to look for America. That lyric could well be running through the noggins of those in the Trump campaign and the Republican apparatus come fall, as they hope to reprise Trump’s shocking victory in the state in 2016.
A state that was on very few people’s radar in 2016 has become the center of the political universe this year, as our governor, Gretchen Whitmer, feuds with the president and as legions of political reporters travel to our state’s diners in an attempt to understand what they missed the last time around.
The problem with this renewed focus on Michigan? There’s not much evidence that the hype is real. As it stands today, Trump’s 2016 victory is looking more and more like a fluke, with every intervening election and the 2020 polls looking like a MAGA nightmare. The result is a situation where political campaigns and journalists are fighting the last war out of fear of being embarrassed again, rather than looking at the battlefield as it exists today.
If Donald Trump does win reelection, it is unlikely that his path will again run through my home state.
Let’s look at why that is.
For about as long as I’ve been practicing politics here—which is to say, since 1990—Michigan has tilted blue in presidential years. However, if you look at its voting patterns in the right light and from just the right angle, a brilliant shade of purple is revealed, marbled with red and blue hues.
After George H.W. Bush easily won Michigan in 1988, no other Republican even really tried. The younger Bush waged contested battles in the state as a diversionary tactic to distract Al Gore and John Kerry from neighboring Ohio. (Note: Bush garnered more total votes in 2004 while losing Michigan than Trump did when he won here in 2016.) Bill Clinton won big in both 1992 and 1996, Gore and Kerry both carried Michigan relatively comfortably, and Barack Obama did too, twice—even against native Michigander Mitt Romney, the son of a onetime governor, George Romney.
There is a bipolar aspect to Michigan’s voting patterns between presidential election years and gubernatorial ones. Beginning in the early 1960s with Gov. George Romney’s three consecutive election victories and counting through the turn of the century, Republicans held the governor’s mansion in Lansing in nine out of eleven elections. But in the five gubernatorial elections since 2000, Democrats have held a slight lead over the GOP: three wins to two.
Republicans have also controlled the state senate since 1984, after future three-term governor John Engler (1991-2003), then the minority leader, adroitly orchestrated the recall of two Democratic senators and voters then replaced them with Republicans in special elections. The Michigan Senate is elected entirely in non-presidential years. The Republicans’ iron grip on the chamber had grown to a veto-proof supermajority of 27-11 before the 2018 anti-Trump midterm cost the GOP five seats.
Republicans have held control of both houses of the Michigan legislature for 22 of the past 30 years—also having a GOP governor in 16 of those 22 years. (I played a significant role in the drawing of both the legislative and congressional maps adopted in 2001 and 2011.) But Michigan Republicans have had little success electing one of their own to the U.S. Senate, winning only one election (that of future energy secretary Spencer Abraham in 2000) since 1972.
Much of these off-year and localized GOP gains were offset following Trump’s victory in 2016. In the 2018 midterms, Democrats captured all the statewide offices for the first time since 1986, flipped two congressional seats, netted five seats in both chambers of the state legislature, and gained scores of county and local offices. Traditional GOP strongholds in suburban Detroit and Grand Rapids shifted to the Democrats. Gretchen Whitmer, a former state legislator, bested then-Attorney General Bill Schuette in a landslide, even winning Kent County (Grand Rapids), which had voted for a Democrat for governor just once since the founding of the Republican party in 1856. Rejection of Trump and Trumpism by Michigan voters in the 2018 midterm election left the Republicans at their lowest ebb in the state since 1986, though the GOP retained slim control of both chambers of the legislature.
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…
Part of the reason that Michigan Republicans were able to have success in the past in this blue-leaning state is the ability to attract suburban swing voters with candidates known for personal decency and a willingness to cross the aisle. (It’s underappreciated on this count that Trump ran as an “Art of the Deal” heterodox Republican in 2016 and that, in some polls, voters reported perceiving him as more moderate than Hillary Clinton, something that wasn’t appreciated in the national media.)
Among the Michigan Republicans known for their crossover appeal, Gov. George Romney was vaulted to national front pages, like his son Mitt was last week, when in 1965 he walked with black civil rights protesters in Detroit. George Romney’s successor, Gov. Bill Milliken, U.S. Sen. Bob Griffin, and Congressman and National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Guy Vander Jagt had similarly deserved reputations for being tough politicians and gracious men. The Michigan Republican Party during this era was chaired by figures like Elly Peterson, the first woman in America to head a Republican state party organization, and Mel Larsen, whose name is part of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
And the era of pragmatic Republican conservatism that John Engler ushered in dominated Michigan government and politics from about 1990 until the rise of the Tea Party.
The year 2010 was a foreboding one for Republicans in Michigan and nationally. It just wasn’t fully realized at the time. Running with the slogan “One Tough Nerd,” venture capitalist and former Gateway Computers CEO Rick Snyder emerged from a tough four-way primary against well-heeled establishment Republicans, including a retiring congressman, the state’s attorney general, and the elected sheriff of a county with a population of 1.2 million people. Snyder was the anti-politician, but quite different from Trump. Snyder was seen as civil, non-partisan, honest, and competent (and some would argue with more liquid capital than Trump).
Snyder’s ascent was concurrent with the rise of the Tea Party. Talk about apples and oranges. Like evangelicals two decades prior, many new activists appeared at GOP meetings across Michigan, ultimately making up significant portions of those chosen to be delegates at the Republican nominating convention that selected Snyder’s running mate and the nominees for attorney general and secretary of state. The Tea Partiers were feeling their oats and decided to flex their muscles by thwarting Snyder’s preferred choice for lieutenant governor, little-known two-term state representative Brian Calley.
The running-mate selection, typically a perfunctory voice vote by delegates at the convention to affirm the selection of the candidate for governor, was thrown into chaos when Calley’s nomination was loudly jeered by naysayers, who then moved for a tallied vote instead of acclamation. The party muckety-mucks behind the convention stage curtain shared a collective “Oh fuck” moment and then set about putting the genie back in the bottle. Threats were made, favors promised, pants shat, commitments exchanged, and ultimately deals were solidified and Calley was nominated. The Snyder-Calley ticket went on to a landslide victory in November.
The incident laid bare the divisions in the party that had been growing and lurking during Democrat Jennifer Granholm’s two terms (2003-2011). In 2012, racist homophobe Dave Agema defeated incumbent Saul Anuzis (now head of 60 Plus, the GOP’s counter to the AARP), for a coveted seat on the Republican National Committee. The MIGOP state committee, essentially a board of directors, became populated with miscreants and several actual convicted felons, including one who served time for extortion and conspiracy, another for financial fraud that included theft from his mother, still another mini-Bernie Madoff felon who was ordered to pay $285 million in restitution at his sentencing, and yet another, this one elected a party vice-chair, who had been convicted after shooting a man and also previously faced two counts of assault with intent to commit murder in a separate incident.
Tea Party gadfly Todd Courser went on in 2014 to win election to the Michigan House of Representatives where his service ended in less than a year: He was expelled following a bizarre sex scandal that gained national attention when Courser illegally used his staff to create rumors of his involvement with a male prostitute to distract from an affair he was having with a female GOP state representative. Courser was charged with four felonies, tried on two, and ultimately pleaded to a misdemeanor and lost his law license.
Not every up-and-coming figure in the state GOP was quite this bad, of course, but in the years after 2010, the state party came to be defined not by its sensible conservative moderation but by its unhinged populism and ethically challenged characters.
Polling through mid-2020 has shown Trump consistently trailing Joe Biden in the mitten state, including a survey released last week showing Trump trailing Biden by a 15-point margin (50 to 35 percent).
Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has only increased her popularity. Her approval numbers during the COVID-19 crisis, which has hit Michigan disproportionately hard, have remained in the mid-60s, while Trump’s have been mired in the low 40s. Whitmer gave her support to Biden at a pivotal moment in advance of his win over Bernie Sanders in Michigan and she is included in the speculation about Biden’s choice of a running mate. While Whitmer won’t be on the ballot in Michigan this year (unless Biden picks her), she’s in much better position to sway swing voters up and down the ballot than Trump or any Republican is.
These disastrous top-of-the-ticket numbers are sure to be an anchor for Republicans down-ballot—suggesting that the 2020 election will continue to hollow out the party in the state. For example, Republicans have an exemplary candidate challenging Democratic freshman U.S. Senator Gary Peters. John James, a black 39-year-old Iraq War veteran Army combat helicopter pilot, is the CEO of an international logistics company with annual revenue exceeding $100 million. James ran against three-term Sen. Debbie Stabenow in 2018, losing a surprisingly close race and running well ahead of the GOP’s gubernatorial candidate. James has tried to thread the needle of not alienating Trump and Trumpists while also endeavoring to not repel college-educated white voters who increasingly see Trump as less desirable than chlamydia. This needle is proving unthreadable: The most recent poll shows James trailing Peters 48 to 32 percent.
Freshman Democratic Reps. Elissa Slotkin (who defeated an incumbent Republican) and Haley Stevens (who flipped a GOP open seat) both face weak opponents and are likely to coast to re-election in their suburban Detroit districts.
In the southwest corner of Michigan, bordering South Bend, Indiana—where the Chicago TV market penetrates—moderate Republican Fred Upton, first elected in 1986, faces extinction at the hands of Democratic state representative Jon Hoadley. Upton eked out the narrowest victory of his career in 2018 against a relatively weak and little-known opponent.
Democrats also seem poised to break the GOP’s ten-year hold on the Michigan House of Representatives (state senators are not on the ballot this year) and either hold gains they made at the county and local levels in 2018 or add to them. Michigan adopted a new independent citizens’ commission to conduct redistricting after the 2020 census and the Democrats may well enter 2022 in their strongest political position since the mid-1980s to seize even more congressional seats and capture control of the Michigan Senate for the first time since 1984.
Most Republicans in Michigan seem oblivious to this reality.
What they have in front of them is the opportunity to do something pretty rare in politics, make a bold move that is both smart politically and the ethical thing to do. In this case: throw Donald Trump and his 35 percent ballot number overboard to try to save themselves.
There have been more than enough bright neon signs flashing out their warnings that a big blue wave has been forming. John James flashing 32 percent might as well be posted in Times Square.
But the message isn’t breaking through.
Instead, inexplicably, the MIGOP cult continues to bow and pray to the great orange god they made.
And so the sound most likely to emit from Republicans on the night of November 3, will not be silence—but a loud and collective wailing of defeat and despair.


thebulwark--2020-06-17--The Democratic People’s Republic of CHAZ

What does “ defund the police ” mean in practice ?
We may be getting a little rehearsal in miniature with the establishment of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone , endearingly nicknamed CHAZ .
This is the product of anti-police protests in Seattle that led the mayor to order the abandonment of one of the city ’ s downtown police precincts , ceding a six-block area of Seattle ’ s downtown to the protesters , who have turned it into a kind of anarcho-socialist utopia , with free food , free music , no cops , and lots of peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re starting to see cracks in utopia already .
It ’ s not as if this is the first time it ’ s been tried , after all , and this one seems to be on schedule to teach us all of the same old lessons over again .
CHAZ certainly set a record for socialist utopias when it comes to running out of food .
Within the first day , they were already sending out the alarm : “ The homeless people we invited took away all the food at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more food to keep the area operational .
Please if possible bring vegan meat substitutes , fruits , oats , soy products , etc.—anything to help us eat.
” I ’ ve checked to see whether this is parody , and as far as I can tell , it ’ s not .
This is an urban area with no farmland of its own , so it ’ s no surprise that it is dependent on supplies from the outside .
As one wag put it , how autonomous are they if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area where they are well ahead of schedule for a socialist utopia is in putting up walls and establishing checkpoints with internal passports .
When the police retreated , instead of demolishing the barriers erected against them , the protesters rearranged them , setting them up as barriers against the outside , with armed men at checkpoints making people prove they belonged there .
Good thing we got rid of the police , because they might be intrusive and oppressive and stop people arbitrarily to ask them for their identification .
This leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ autonomous zone ” : Whose “ autonomy ” is it ?
Certainly , it ’ s not the autonomy of the people who actually live there , who did not invite the protesters and never had the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to reject the protection of the Seattle PD and establish new protectors .
One of the protest groups issued a statement with a ridiculous list of demands , which includes a recognition that “ we stand on land already once stolen from the Duwamish People , the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it offers no recognition of the present-day residents and business owners of the district .
The people who live there were never asked whether they wanted to be part of an autonomous zone run by people who don ’ t live there .
Then again , another of the protesters ’ demands is “ the de-gentrification of Seattle , ” so they have already taken upon themselves the prerogative of deciding who should and should not be allowed to live in the city .
As to their new protectors , notice that residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose those protectors—nor do they have any way of holding them accountable .
This all began with complaints about “ police brutality ” and the police being insufficiently accountable for their misconduct .
But now you have armed and masked men patrolling the streets and manning the checkpoints .
The guy in that photo , by the way , is the same one photoshopped into misleading images on Fox New ( which increasingly seems like an operation designed to discredit the right ) .
But he was a real guy from a June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and there are a lot of others like him .
These armed men are different from the Seattle PD in only one respect : They have no badges , no identification , no body cameras , no chain of command—no means of identifying them , recording their activity , or bringing them to account if they use excessive force .
But these are a bunch of mellow hippies who wouldn ’ t harm anybody , right ?
I ’ m sure some of them are .
Then there are guys like Solomon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ activist ” whose crew was filmed assaulting a graffiti artist because he painted over somebody else ’ s graffiti .
Simone has been called CHAZ ’ s “ warlord , ” which seems a bit overwrought—conservatives pouncing , as they tend to do .
But it was his own gang who were filmed shouting , in the moments before this assault , “ We are the police of this community now , ” and , “ We are the leaders of this community now.
” Oh , yeah ?
Well who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for grabs , CHAZ is the scene of sporadic petty scuffles , which activists are asking people not to film because it might make them look bad .
Yes , well , I ’ m sure the Minneapolis PD felt the same way .
Seriously , this whole thing started because of a violent act whose perpetrators could only be held accountable because it was captured on video by a bystander ’ s cellphone .
And now the protesters want to prevent bystanders from capturing video of violent acts .
And since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to protest , surely the folks at CHAZ will be respectful of the rights of dissenters who protest against them , right ?
Yeah , you already knew the answer to that one .
My favorite description of CHAZ is from a Seattle Times article which says it has “ mostly been peaceful.
” That ’ s a favorite bit of journalistic spin .
“ Mostly peaceful ” is how you describe something that ’ s violent when you don ’ t want the reader to draw that conclusion .
Put all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get ?
We have an “ autonomous zone ” whose permanent residents have no say over who runs it , who polices it , or what they are allowed to say in public .
Not much autonomy for them , I guess .
This is the paradox of protest in a free society with a representative government .
Protests can be an effective means of drawing attention to an agenda and convincing politicians that there is a constituency for it .
But when it comes to actually implementing political change , you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behalf of “ the people ” without asking them at the ballot box .
Yet that is precisely what happens when you empower a gang of “ activists ” marching in the street to impose your agenda .
Seattle already has a city government that represents its citizens .
To replace that with a new entity is to replace it with one that is not representative .
The loudness with which CHAZ trumpets the idea of “ autonomy ” without providing any actual mechanism for the people to control it reminds me of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a country that has the words “ Democratic ” or “ People ’ s ” or “ Republic ” in its name is almost certain not to be democratic , not to be a republic , and not to be accountable to the people .
It looks like that ’ s a lesson we ’ re going to have to learn all over again from the Democratic People ’ s Republic of CHAZ .

What does “defund the police” mean in practice? We may be getting a little rehearsal in miniature with the establishment of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, endearingly nicknamed CHAZ.
This is the product of anti-police protests in Seattle that led the mayor to order the abandonment of one of the city’s downtown police precincts, ceding a six-block area of Seattle’s downtown to the protesters, who have turned it into a kind of anarcho-socialist utopia, with free food, free music, no cops, and lots of peace and love, man.
But we’re starting to see cracks in utopia already. It’s not as if this is the first time it’s been tried, after all, and this one seems to be on schedule to teach us all of the same old lessons over again.
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…
CHAZ certainly set a record for socialist utopias when it comes to running out of food. Within the first day, they were already sending out the alarm: “The homeless people we invited took away all the food at the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. We need more food to keep the area operational. Please if possible bring vegan meat substitutes, fruits, oats, soy products, etc.—anything to help us eat.” I’ve checked to see whether this is parody, and as far as I can tell, it’s not.
This is an urban area with no farmland of its own, so it’s no surprise that it is dependent on supplies from the outside. As one wag put it, how autonomous are they if they have to order in pizza?
Another area where they are well ahead of schedule for a socialist utopia is in putting up walls and establishing checkpoints with internal passports. When the police retreated, instead of demolishing the barriers erected against them, the protesters rearranged them, setting them up as barriers against the outside, with armed men at checkpoints making people prove they belonged there.
Some residents in the neighborhood say access to their buildings is blocked. “It’s a bit stressful. It’s like checking in with somebody to get into your own home,” said Mckenzie Diamond, who lives in the “Autonomous Zone.”
Good thing we got rid of the police, because they might be intrusive and oppressive and stop people arbitrarily to ask them for their identification.
This leads us to the big question about the “autonomous zone”: Whose “autonomy” is it? Certainly, it’s not the autonomy of the people who actually live there, who did not invite the protesters and never had the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to reject the protection of the Seattle PD and establish new protectors.
One of the protest groups issued a statement with a ridiculous list of demands, which includes a recognition that “we stand on land already once stolen from the Duwamish People, the first people of Seattle.” But notice that it offers no recognition of the present-day residents and business owners of the district. The people who live there were never asked whether they wanted to be part of an autonomous zone run by people who don’t live there. Then again, another of the protesters’ demands is “the de-gentrification of Seattle,” so they have already taken upon themselves the prerogative of deciding who should and should not be allowed to live in the city.
As to their new protectors, notice that residents of the Capitol Hill neighborhood did not choose those protectors—nor do they have any way of holding them accountable.
This all began with complaints about “police brutality” and the police being insufficiently accountable for their misconduct. But now you have armed and masked men patrolling the streets and manning the checkpoints. The guy in that photo, by the way, is the same one photoshopped into misleading images on Fox New (which increasingly seems like an operation designed to discredit the right). But he was a real guy from a June 10 Getty photo taken at Capitol Hill, and there are a lot of others like him.
These armed men are different from the Seattle PD in only one respect: They have no badges, no identification, no body cameras, no chain of command—no means of identifying them, recording their activity, or bringing them to account if they use excessive force.
But these are a bunch of mellow hippies who wouldn’t harm anybody, right?
I’m sure some of them are. Then there are guys like Solomon “Raz” Simone, a rapper and “activist” whose crew was filmed assaulting a graffiti artist because he painted over somebody else’s graffiti. Simone has been called CHAZ’s “warlord,” which seems a bit overwrought—conservatives pouncing, as they tend to do. But it was his own gang who were filmed shouting, in the moments before this assault, “We are the police of this community now,” and, “We are the leaders of this community now.” Oh, yeah? Well who voted for them?
With leadership seemingly up for grabs, CHAZ is the scene of sporadic petty scuffles, which activists are asking people not to film because it might make them look bad. Yes, well, I’m sure the Minneapolis PD felt the same way.
Seriously, this whole thing started because of a violent act whose perpetrators could only be held accountable because it was captured on video by a bystander’s cellphone. And now the protesters want to prevent bystanders from capturing video of violent acts.
And since this is all about securing the unobstructed right to protest, surely the folks at CHAZ will be respectful of the rights of dissenters who protest against them, right? Yeah, you already knew the answer to that one.
My favorite description of CHAZ is from a Seattle Times article which says it has “mostly been peaceful.” That’s a favorite bit of journalistic spin. “Mostly peaceful” is how you describe something that’s violent when you don’t want the reader to draw that conclusion.
Put all these pieces together and what do we get? We have an “autonomous zone” whose permanent residents have no say over who runs it, who polices it, or what they are allowed to say in public. Not much autonomy for them, I guess.
This is the paradox of protest in a free society with a representative government. Protests can be an effective means of drawing attention to an agenda and convincing politicians that there is a constituency for it. But when it comes to actually implementing political change, you cannot claim to be doing it on behalf of “the people” without asking them at the ballot box. Yet that is precisely what happens when you empower a gang of “activists” marching in the street to impose your agenda. Seattle already has a city government that represents its citizens. To replace that with a new entity is to replace it with one that is not representative.
That’s not a protest, it’s a putsch.
The loudness with which CHAZ trumpets the idea of “autonomy” without providing any actual mechanism for the people to control it reminds me of the old Cold War joke about how a country that has the words “Democratic” or “People’s” or “Republic” in its name is almost certain not to be democratic, not to be a republic, and not to be accountable to the people.
It looks like that’s a lesson we’re going to have to learn all over again from the Democratic People’s Republic of CHAZ.


thebulwark--2020-06-17--John Bolton Tells the Truth

John Bolton Tells the Truth

Twice over the last few years , I ’ ve met with individuals who had recently departed the Trump administration after serving at very senior levels .
I ’ d known these individuals before Donald Trump descended his escalator five years ago .
I hadn ’ t been in touch with them during their time in the administration so as not to cause complications for them if somehow it became known we ’ d talked .
I believed these individuals had chosen to serve this problematic president with good intentions , and probably accomplished more good—or , more precisely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realized .
When these individuals left , I was led to understand through intermediaries that they would not resist , they might even welcome , an invitation to talk .
So talk we did , at some length , privately .
I can report one exchange I had with both individuals .
I said to each of them : “ You know I ’ m alarmed by President Donald Trump .
If I ’ d seen what you saw up close , would I be a bit reassured—or even more alarmed ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be more alarmed.
” The other simply said , “ Twice.
” I was a bit befuddled and asked him what he meant .
“ You ’ d be twice as alarmed , ” he explained .
So I ’ m not particularly surprised by John Bolton ’ s revelations .
( I should make clear that neither of the individuals described above was Bolton . )
But whether or not one is surprised by what Bolton reports , no one should really doubt the truth of it .
I have no doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not simply because of my two , as it were , generally corroborating sources .
But because I ’ ve known John Bolton a long time , and John Bolton is an honest man .
He tells the truth .
John Bolton is neither a liar nor a fantasist .
John Bolton may not be the epitome of warmth , humor , or even kindness .
But he is honest .
Nor is he the type to get confused .
He is a meticulous note-taker .
When we read Bolton ’ s book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nearest thing to the truth about the Trump administration that we ’ re likely to get before historians have a chance to get inside the administration ’ s archives .
Here is what is relevant for Republican elites going forward : They have known John Bolton for a long time , too .
Almost every Republican elected official , every influential Washington conservative , and many Republican donors know John Bolton .
And they , too , know he ’ s honest .
So what do they have to say about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pleads for re-election help from an enemy dictator , and routinely subordinates the national interest to personal and political considerations ?
How can they continue to support this president ?
I ’ m sure they will find ways .
But those who continue to support Trump need to accept that they ’ re supporting a man who has done what Bolton says Trump has done .
And those who support a Trump second term need to accept that they are supporting four more years in office for a president who has done what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who continue to keep silent are keeping silent from us , their fellow citizens , their judgment of a president who has done what Bolton says Trump has done .
Enough .
Bolton has spoken .
Surely there are others who will now dare to disturb the sound of silence .

Twice over the last few years, I’ve met with individuals who had recently departed the Trump administration after serving at very senior levels. I’d known these individuals before Donald Trump descended his escalator five years ago. I hadn’t been in touch with them during their time in the administration so as not to cause complications for them if somehow it became known we’d talked. I believed these individuals had chosen to serve this problematic president with good intentions, and probably accomplished more good—or, more precisely, prevented more harm—than many on the outside realized.
When these individuals left, I was led to understand through intermediaries that they would not resist, they might even welcome, an invitation to talk. So talk we did, at some length, privately.
I can report one exchange I had with both individuals. I said to each of them: “You know I’m alarmed by President Donald Trump. If I’d seen what you saw up close, would I be a bit reassured—or even more alarmed?”
Both answered promptly.
One responded, “You’d be more alarmed.”
The other simply said, “Twice.”
I was a bit befuddled and asked him what he meant. “You’d be twice as alarmed,” he explained.
So I’m not particularly surprised by John Bolton’s revelations. (I should make clear that neither of the individuals described above was Bolton.)
But whether or not one is surprised by what Bolton reports, no one should really doubt the truth of it. I have no doubt that Bolton is telling the truth. Not simply because of my two, as it were, generally corroborating sources. But because I’ve known John Bolton a long time, and John Bolton is an honest man. He tells the truth.
Full stop.
John Bolton is neither a liar nor a fantasist. John Bolton may not be the epitome of warmth, humor, or even kindness. But he is honest.
Nor is he the type to get confused. He is a meticulous note-taker. When we read Bolton’s book, we will almost certainly be reading the nearest thing to the truth about the Trump administration that we’re likely to get before historians have a chance to get inside the administration’s archives.
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…
Here is what is relevant for Republican elites going forward: They have known John Bolton for a long time, too. Almost every Republican elected official, every influential Washington conservative, and many Republican donors know John Bolton. And they, too, know he’s honest.
So what do they have to say about a president who blesses Chinese concentration camps, pleads for re-election help from an enemy dictator, and routinely subordinates the national interest to personal and political considerations?
How can they continue to support this president?
I’m sure they will find ways. But those who continue to support Trump need to accept that they’re supporting a man who has done what Bolton says Trump has done. And those who support a Trump second term need to accept that they are supporting four more years in office for a president who has done what Bolton says Trump has done.
And those who continue to keep silent are keeping silent from us, their fellow citizens, their judgment of a president who has done what Bolton says Trump has done.
Enough. Bolton has spoken. Surely there are others who will now dare to disturb the sound of silence.


thebulwark--2020-06-18--Abolish the Death Penalty

Abolish the Death Penalty

The millions of Americans protesting to achieve racial justice in the wake of George Floyd ’ s brutal killing in Minneapolis have a lot on their plate .
But there is one issue , in particular , that seems to be slipping through the cracks despite the increasingly broad agenda being pursued by the Black Lives Matter movement .
Except for a few signs held by protesters , that agenda has included little about the racial injustice of America ’ s death penalty .
Spurred on by the horrifying images of what Floyd ’ s brother called “ a modern-day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are rightly pushing to reform policing and make long-needed changes in legal doctrines like qualified immunity .
But the legal executions of black men , though less visible than Floyd ’ s death , are as tainted by racism and a history of lynching as the extrajudicial deaths at hands of the police .
While uprisings continue to upend prejudiced systems that have long evaded change , this moment also is an opportunity to call for the death penalty ’ s abolition .
Earlier this month the North Carolina Supreme Court reminded Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the insidious ways racial discrimination plays out in capital punishment .
The court ruled that the state ’ s repeal of its Racial Justice Act could not stop death row inmates , sentenced prior to that repeal , from using statistical evidence to prove under state law that systemic and structural racism affected their cases .
When North Carolina enacted the Racial Justice Act in 2009 , it became only the second state to allow courts to consider such evidence .
But soon after Republicans took control of the state legislature in 2011 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did so by requiring defendants wanting to get off death row to identify someone who acted in a discriminatory way in their particular trial .
Two years later they repealed the Racial Justice Act altogether , denying its protections to the state ’ s heavily black , death row population .
Today , as has long been the case , America ’ s death penalty is disproportionately applied to persons of color .
It is most frequently used in Southern states where , in the nineteenth century , lynching was prevalent , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from that history and its legacy of racial terror .
For almost fifty years , courts and legislatures have been called on to repudiate that legacy .
But they have not found a way successfully to end racial discrimination in the death penalty In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to do so when it determined that capital punishment was being meted out in a manner that opened the door for arbitrariness and discrimination .
In Furman v Georgia , Justice William Douglas noted , “ There is evidence that the imposition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispensing power by the courts and the executive follow discriminatory patterns .
The death sentence is disproportionately imposed , and carried out on the poor , the Negro , and the members of unpopular groups.
” Four years later , the Court brought capital punishment back .
In Gregg v Georgia , it decided that death penalty statutes enacted after Furman that limited and guided discretion passed constitutional muster .
Laws identifying specific factors that would make someone death-eligible , like murdering a police officer or torturing someone before murdering them , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the jury ’ s attention on the particularized nature of the crime and the particularized characteristics of the individual defendant ” and ensure that race played no part in death sentencing .
The Gregg decision launched an “ experiment ” to see if limiting discretion would prevent discrimination , but the decision really represented the triumph of hope over experience .
The hollowness of that hope was quickly exposed .
Research published seven years after Gregg showed that blacks who killed whites were 22 times more likely to get a death sentence than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set the stage for still another legal challenge to capital punishment and its racist legacy .
In its decision in that case , however , the Supreme Court completely turned its back on Furman ’ s call to eliminate racial discrimination from the death sentencing .
In McCleskey v Kemp the Court acknowledged the reality of racial disparity .
However , it ruled that statistical evidence , which was then commonly used to prove discrimination in housing , employment , and other areas , could not prove a violation of the 14th Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
Writing for the majority , Justice Lewis Powell said that jury decisions were too complex to be accurately understood through a statistical lens .
And , in a preview of what happened in North Carolina in 2011 , he wrote that defendants would have to show “ intentional discrimination ” in their own cases in order to successfully challenge death sentences .
Because bias is often implicit and not all racism is as overt as it was in George Floyd ’ s killing , it is often impossible to provide the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet we know that discrimination in death sentences not only has persisted , it has gotten worse over time .
In the decade following Gregg , 46 percent of those sentenced to die were people of color ; today that figure is 60 percent .
Not long after he retired , Justice Powell was asked if there was any case in which he wished he could change his vote .
“ Yes , McCleskey v. Kemp , ” he replied .
Other justices have expressed no such second thoughts .
Although the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the criminal justice system “ must be confronted , ” it has shown no interest in revisiting McCleskey and addressing the death penalty ’ s systemic racism .
Moreover , since 1994 , federal legislative reform efforts of the kind that produced North Carolina ’ s Racial Justice Act have gone nowhere .
In that year , the House of Representatives passed a federal Racial Justice Act as an amendment to the infamous Omnibus Crime Bill .
But it was removed by President Bill Clinton and Senate Republicans before it was enacted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s attention focused on racial injustice , now is the time to confront the death penalty ’ s troubling racial history .
Tools like those made available in North Carolina ’ s Racial Justice Act are needed to allow victims of discrimination in death sentencing to effectively make their case .
But , in the end , even those tools can not save capital punishment .
America will never achieve racial justice until it ends the death penalty and stops what Reverend Jesse Jackson has rightly branded “ legal lynching .
”

The millions of Americans protesting to achieve racial justice in the wake of George Floyd’s brutal killing in Minneapolis have a lot on their plate. But there is one issue, in particular, that seems to be slipping through the cracks despite the increasingly broad agenda being pursued by the Black Lives Matter movement. Except for a few signs held by protesters, that agenda has included little about the racial injustice of America’s death penalty.
Spurred on by the horrifying images of what Floyd’s brother called “a modern-day lynching in broad daylight,” protesters are rightly pushing to reform policing and make long-needed changes in legal doctrines like qualified immunity. But the legal executions of black men, though less visible than Floyd’s death, are as tainted by racism and a history of lynching as the extrajudicial deaths at hands of the police.
While uprisings continue to upend prejudiced systems that have long evaded change, this moment also is an opportunity to call for the death penalty’s abolition.
Earlier this month the North Carolina Supreme Court reminded Americans, if they needed reminding, of the insidious ways racial discrimination plays out in capital punishment.
The court ruled that the state’s repeal of its Racial Justice Act could not stop death row inmates, sentenced prior to that repeal, from using statistical evidence to prove under state law that systemic and structural racism affected their cases.
When North Carolina enacted the Racial Justice Act in 2009, it became only the second state to allow courts to consider such evidence. But soon after Republicans took control of the state legislature in 2011, they gutted that act. They did so by requiring defendants wanting to get off death row to identify someone who acted in a discriminatory way in their particular trial. Two years later they repealed the Racial Justice Act altogether, denying its protections to the state’s heavily black, death row population.
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…
Today, as has long been the case, America’s death penalty is disproportionately applied to persons of color. It is most frequently used in Southern states where, in the nineteenth century, lynching was prevalent, and it is impossible to decouple capital punishment from that history and its legacy of racial terror.
For almost fifty years, courts and legislatures have been called on to repudiate that legacy. But they have not found a way successfully to end racial discrimination in the death penalty
In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to do so when it determined that capital punishment was being meted out in a manner that opened the door for arbitrariness and discrimination.
In Furman v Georgia, Justice William Douglas noted, “There is evidence that the imposition of the death sentence and the exercise of dispensing power by the courts and the executive follow discriminatory patterns. The death sentence is disproportionately imposed, and carried out on the poor, the Negro, and the members of unpopular groups.”
Douglas added, “Discretionary statutes are…pregnant with discrimination….”.
Four years later, the Court brought capital punishment back. In Gregg v Georgia, it decided that death penalty statutes enacted after Furman that limited and guided discretion passed constitutional muster.
Laws identifying specific factors that would make someone death-eligible, like murdering a police officer or torturing someone before murdering them, would, the Court observed, focus “the jury’s attention on the particularized nature of the crime and the particularized characteristics of the individual defendant” and ensure that race played no part in death sentencing.
The Gregg decision launched an “experiment” to see if limiting discretion would prevent discrimination, but the decision really represented the triumph of hope over experience.
The hollowness of that hope was quickly exposed. Research published seven years after Gregg showed that blacks who killed whites were 22 times more likely to get a death sentence than whites who killed blacks. It also set the stage for still another legal challenge to capital punishment and its racist legacy.
In its decision in that case, however, the Supreme Court completely turned its back on Furman’s call to eliminate racial discrimination from the death sentencing.
In McCleskey v Kemp the Court acknowledged the reality of racial disparity. However, it ruled that statistical evidence, which was then commonly used to prove discrimination in housing, employment, and other areas, could not prove a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee in death cases.
Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis Powell said that jury decisions were too complex to be accurately understood through a statistical lens. And, in a preview of what happened in North Carolina in 2011, he wrote that defendants would have to show “intentional discrimination” in their own cases in order to successfully challenge death sentences.
Because bias is often implicit and not all racism is as overt as it was in George Floyd’s killing, it is often impossible to provide the kind of proof that Powell demanded.
Yet we know that discrimination in death sentences not only has persisted, it has gotten worse over time. In the decade following Gregg, 46 percent of those sentenced to die were people of color; today that figure is 60 percent.
Not long after he retired, Justice Powell was asked if there was any case in which he wished he could change his vote. “Yes, McCleskey v. Kemp,” he replied.
Other justices have expressed no such second thoughts. Although the Supreme Court said in 2017 that racial bias in the criminal justice system “must be confronted,” it has shown no interest in revisiting McCleskey and addressing the death penalty’s systemic racism.
Moreover, since 1994, federal legislative reform efforts of the kind that produced North Carolina’s Racial Justice Act have gone nowhere. In that year, the House of Representatives passed a federal Racial Justice Act as an amendment to the infamous Omnibus Crime Bill. But it was removed by President Bill Clinton and Senate Republicans before it was enacted into law.
With the nation’s attention focused on racial injustice, now is the time to confront the death penalty’s troubling racial history. Tools like those made available in North Carolina’s Racial Justice Act are needed to allow victims of discrimination in death sentencing to effectively make their case.
But, in the end, even those tools cannot save capital punishment.
America will never achieve racial justice until it ends the death penalty and stops what Reverend Jesse Jackson has rightly branded “legal lynching.”


thebulwark--2020-06-18--Trump Defenders Tie Themselves in Knots Over Bolton Book

On the eve of its release , John Bolton ’ s book The Room Where It Happened : A White House Memoir sits in warehouses across the country , just awaiting the order to be shipped .
The Trump administration has filed an eleventh-hour legal challenge , seeking a restraining order to prevent the book ’ s release .
But the revelations in the book by President Trump ’ s former national security advisor have already started to enter the nation ’ s political bloodstream .
Copies of the book have found their way to reporters , who are sharing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and publicity interviews .
One revelation in particular seems to be roiling the president ’ s most ardent defenders , the anti-anti-Trumpers , and his run-of-the-mill media fanboys : Bolton ’ s characterization of President Trump ’ s dealings with Chinese president Xi Jinping .
The most damaging detail is not that Trump apparently “ pleaded ” with China to help him win re-election , bad though that is .
Nor is it that he used our “ great patriot farmers ” as cannon fodder for a trade war he lost .
Rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internment camps .
Back in 2016 there was a meme of a photoshopped campaign poster that read : TRUMP : Probably no internment camps .
Now , in the fourth season of Trump , the Presidency , the writers have willed this meme into reality .
According to the Washington Post , Bolton recounts that at a meeting between Trump and Xi at the G20 , the question of China ’ s massive detainment camps containing perhaps a million Uighurs came up , and Xi defended them .
Bolton says that Trump praised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our interpreter .
.
.
Trump said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps , which Trump thought was exactly the right thing to do.
” It ’ s hard to say how much more we ’ re going to find out about this claim : Presumably only Xi and Trump and their interpreters are privy to what , exactly , was said .
Bolton and his aides getting the rundown from the interpreter and the president ( who we all know is not a reliable narrator ) might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably unlikely that anyone else in-the-know at the time is going to start weighing in publicly .
In an appearance last night on Sean Hannity ’ s Fox program , Trump denied Bolton ’ s China claims but indicated that Bolton ’ s book revealed classified information .
Trump also told the Wall Street Journal that Bolton “ is a liar.
” Wait , which is it ?
Is Bolton exposing classified information or is he a lying liar who lies ?
It ’ s hard to see how both claims hang together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also possible that at some point Trump could very well just confirm that what Bolton said is true .
How many times have we seen this movie before ?
Team Orange Man Good rushes to discredit anyone reporting or claiming negative things about President Trump—only to have him ultimately say : “ Yeah , and I ’ d do it again !
” Still , the initial reaction on the right to Bolton ’ s account of the Trump-Xi conversation about the Uighurs has been one of horror—not horror because of what Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might mean for his 2020 chances .
As Patrick Chovanec observes : “ Once again , not a single person is saying ‘ The Donald Trump I know wouldn ’ t do that.
’ ” This too shall pass , and in short order the Trump apologists will slink back to telling us why Joe Biden is a compromised socialist with declining mental faculties—but while the Bolton book dominates the news cycle , it ’ s worth commemorating some of the best of the worst takes on it .
Breitbart editor-at-large and writer/director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump right now.
” But wait—is Trump “ blowing a layup ” or is this all just a Deep State conspiracy ?
Sometimes occasional glimmers of reality will briefly shine through the layers of self-delusion one must accept to be a professional Trump defender—only to be occluded by a conspiracy theory a few hours later .
“ Let us not just make this *all* about Trump.
” Bethany Mandel , a writer , had a thread where she moved through the stages of Trump defense pretty quickly , anticipating people would accuse her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was pretty much the entire point of it .
And to Mandel ’ s credit , she skipped over the part where you spend the first phase discrediting and doubting the person making the allegations .
Alas , this is all about the Bad Orange Man .
Mandel thinks “ China is too big and powerful to deal with ” and every world leader knew and did nothing .
Fine .
But this is an election year and it ’ s Donald Trump on the ballot here , not Angela Merkel .
John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he read the book ?
Who knows .
But please , elaborate : Alrighty then !
I guess we ’ ll just have to wait and see what that ’ s all about .
Meanwhile in Federalist land , Mollie Hemingway ( a consistent critic of Bolton ) spent the afternoon suggesting Bolton was not credible , citing former President Bush and others across the aisle to paint a picture that he ’ s a guy not to be trusted .
It really says something that Hemingway thinks hiring Bolton was Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many other hiring mistakes he has made over the years.. No word on whether detention camps are good or bad , Mollie is playing the Trump defense game more slowly than , say , Bethany Mandel , who fast-forwards to the end .
The inevitable pattern of the Trump defense .
If you ’ re in the conservative media ecosystem of punditry , the Trump defense game goes like this : Eventually , the game ends when the person playing it accepts that , yes , Orange Man is bad , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ —bad stuff before .
But senators and congressmen have a different game .
As Steve Vladeck put it , here ’ s how we can expect most GOP members of Congress to respond when they ’ re asked about Bolton : That ploy can only last so long .
And you ’ re going to get a lot more of these questions as Congress gets back into full swing before the election and reporters follow members of both chambers walking to the floor for votes .
( Maybe Republican senators will change their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , be safe from COVID-19 . )
And the Republican senators can ’ t say they don ’ t want to reward Bolton for not testifying during impeachment because they were against having witnesses at the trial .
It might seem like the only three options available to Trump ’ s congressional enablers are ( 1 ) to say Bolton is lying ; ( 2 ) to deflect by saying that Bolton was violating the law regarding classified information ( an argument that ’ s in tension with the idea that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to say that none of the Bolton revelations matter .
Unlike their media brethren , the Trump-enabling elected officials ( except the tactically dumb ) will probably not accuse Bolton of lying .
As Vladeck says , their approach will be one of strategic silence , followed by “ I didn ’ t read it.
” ( If only John Bolton starred in Hellboy , then you know Ted Cruz would have read it . )
And , because the Bolton story involves China , the GOP is in a very weird @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historic views of that country ’ s Communist regime .
The Senate just last month passed a bill called the “ Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act ” and President Trump signed it into law on Wednesday , the same day Bolton ’ s revelations dropped .
It passed the Senate unanimously .
On the trade front , vulnerable senators have to be careful about the Bolton revelations because most incumbent Republicans facing voters this fall come from states with big farming industries .
If , as Bolton alleges , Trump asked Xi to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products after his trade war failed , what do these senators tell voters who might feel like they were used as props ?
Republican voters have shown a high threshold for abuse by Trump and the GOP , but gambling with their livelihoods for political gain might cause some trouble .
Had Republican senators done the right thing and pushed for Bolton to testify during impeachment , they might not be in this tough position today .
( Especially had they removed Trump , of course . )
But by tying themselves to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made matters worse for their electoral future .

On the eve of its release, John Bolton’s book The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir sits in warehouses across the country, just awaiting the order to be shipped.
The Trump administration has filed an eleventh-hour legal challenge, seeking a restraining order to prevent the book’s release. But the revelations in the book by President Trump’s former national security advisor have already started to enter the nation’s political bloodstream. Copies of the book have found their way to reporters, who are sharing the book’s bombshells in previews and publicity interviews.
One revelation in particular seems to be roiling the president’s most ardent defenders, the anti-anti-Trumpers, and his run-of-the-mill media fanboys: Bolton’s characterization of President Trump’s dealings with Chinese president Xi Jinping. The most damaging detail is not that Trump apparently “pleaded” with China to help him win re-election, bad though that is. Nor is it that he used our “great patriot farmers” as cannon fodder for a trade war he lost. Rather, the really horrible detail is the internment camps.
Yes, internment camps.
Back in 2016 there was a meme of a photoshopped campaign poster that read: TRUMP: Probably no internment camps. Now, in the fourth season of Trump, the Presidency, the writers have willed this meme into reality.
According to the Washington Post, Bolton recounts that at a meeting between Trump and Xi at the G20, the question of China’s massive detainment camps containing perhaps a million Uighurs came up, and Xi defended them. Bolton says that Trump praised Xi for this decision: “According to our interpreter . . . Trump said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which Trump thought was exactly the right thing to do.”
It’s hard to say how much more we’re going to find out about this claim: Presumably only Xi and Trump and their interpreters are privy to what, exactly, was said. Bolton and his aides getting the rundown from the interpreter and the president (who we all know is not a reliable narrator) might be argued about, but it’s probably unlikely that anyone else in-the-know at the time is going to start weighing in publicly.
In an appearance last night on Sean Hannity’s Fox program, Trump denied Bolton’s China claims but indicated that Bolton’s book revealed classified information. Trump also told the Wall Street Journal that Bolton “is a liar.” Wait, which is it? Is Bolton exposing classified information or is he a lying liar who lies? It’s hard to see how both claims hang together.
Of course, it’s also possible that at some point Trump could very well just confirm that what Bolton said is true. How many times have we seen this movie before? Team Orange Man Good rushes to discredit anyone reporting or claiming negative things about President Trump—only to have him ultimately say: “Yeah, and I’d do it again!”
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…
Still, the initial reaction on the right to Bolton’s account of the Trump-Xi conversation about the Uighurs has been one of horror—not horror because of what Trump allegedly said but horror at what it might mean for his 2020 chances.
As Patrick Chovanec observes: “Once again, not a single person is saying ‘The Donald Trump I know wouldn’t do that.’”
This too shall pass, and in short order the Trump apologists will slink back to telling us why Joe Biden is a compromised socialist with declining mental faculties—but while the Bolton book dominates the news cycle, it’s worth commemorating some of the best of the worst takes on it.
He’s blowing a layup.
Breitbart editor-at-large and writer/director John Nolte is “thoroughly disgusted with Trump right now.”
Here’s why:
…get in his head. People dying, the economy crashing, cities on fire, and he's holding marathon grudge matches with the media, trolling with a dead intern… Unbelievable. — Let's Start Our Own MAGA CHAZ! (@NolteNC) June 17, 2020
But wait—is Trump “blowing a layup” or is this all just a Deep State conspiracy?
Biden is most vulnerable on China and the Deep State just accused Trump of being in China’s pocket. Little too neat. Little too perfect. — Let's Start Our Own MAGA CHAZ! (@NolteNC) June 17, 2020
Sometimes occasional glimmers of reality will briefly shine through the layers of self-delusion one must accept to be a professional Trump defender—only to be occluded by a conspiracy theory a few hours later.
“Let us not just make this *all* about Trump.”
Bethany Mandel, a writer, had a thread where she moved through the stages of Trump defense pretty quickly, anticipating people would accuse her of making excuses for Trump, which was pretty much the entire point of it.
Is this when we talk about the horrors of modern-day concentration camps? Did you know that North Korea has a concentration camp the size of Los Angeles? Do you know the conditions of the ppl who make 80% of the crap in our houses? Let us not just make this *all* about Trump. — Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) June 17, 2020
And to Mandel’s credit, she skipped over the part where you spend the first phase discrediting and doubting the person making the allegations.
As for this quote, I'm pretty surprised that Xi just came out and discussed them, but overall, Bolton is a guy who I don't think would make this up. I'm curious to see more reporting. I don't doubt that Trump would be okay with cozying up with a bad guy, given … everything. — Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) June 17, 2020
Alas, this is all about the Bad Orange Man. Mandel thinks “China is too big and powerful to deal with” and every world leader knew and did nothing. Fine. But this is an election year and it’s Donald Trump on the ballot here, not Angela Merkel.
John Bolton was mean to me.
Federalist publisher Ben Domenech writes:
I would not be basing anything on the validity of John Bolton’s book given its numerous serious factual flaws. No offense to those of you who thought he was super trustworthy.
Has he read the book? Who knows. But please, elaborate:
Literally lies about something as personal as it gets for me and my wife. — Ben Domenech (@bdomenech) June 17, 2020
Alrighty then! I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what that’s all about.
Hiring Bolton was Trump’s biggest error after. . .
Meanwhile in Federalist land, Mollie Hemingway (a consistent critic of Bolton) spent the afternoon suggesting Bolton was not credible, citing former President Bush and others across the aisle to paint a picture that he’s a guy not to be trusted.
But yes, other than President George W. Bush, President Donald Trump, 36 sitting senators, a sitting AG, Robert Lighthizer, JOHN BOLTON HIMSELF, and countless others, nobody has ever said John Bolton does not tell the truth. — Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 17, 2020
It really says something that Hemingway thinks hiring Bolton was Trump’s second-biggest mistake as president, considering how many other hiring mistakes he has made over the years..
Hiring Bolton was Trump's biggest error after not firing Comey on Day 1. Anyone else trusting Bolton's judgment or his rather absurd stories — about Bush, Trump, Barr, Pompeo, etc., — is really failing more of an intelligence test than anything else at this late date. — Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 18, 2020
No word on whether detention camps are good or bad, Mollie is playing the Trump defense game more slowly than, say, Bethany Mandel, who fast-forwards to the end.
The inevitable pattern of the Trump defense.
If you’re in the conservative media ecosystem of punditry, the Trump defense game goes like this:
Going to enjoy watching Trump’s toadies try to thread the “he never said that and it was classified when he did” needle. — FinlandOrMaybeRussiaHat (@Popehat) June 18, 2020
Eventually, the game ends when the person playing it accepts that, yes, Orange Man is bad, but others have done the same—or worse!—bad stuff before.
But senators and congressmen have a different game.
As Steve Vladeck put it, here’s how we can expect most GOP members of Congress to respond when they’re asked about Bolton:
They won’t say they don’t believe Bolton; they’ll say they haven’t read the book. https://t.co/mU2kHbBRNy — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 17, 2020
That ploy can only last so long. And you’re going to get a lot more of these questions as Congress gets back into full swing before the election and reporters follow members of both chambers walking to the floor for votes. (Maybe Republican senators will change their mind on remote voting to, ya know, be safe from COVID-19.) And the Republican senators can’t say they don’t want to reward Bolton for not testifying during impeachment because they were against having witnesses at the trial.
It might seem like the only three options available to Trump’s congressional enablers are (1) to say Bolton is lying; (2) to deflect by saying that Bolton was violating the law regarding classified information (an argument that’s in tension with the idea that he was lying); or (3) to say that none of the Bolton revelations matter.
Unlike their media brethren, the Trump-enabling elected officials (except the tactically dumb) will probably not accuse Bolton of lying. As Vladeck says, their approach will be one of strategic silence, followed by “I didn’t read it.” (If only John Bolton starred in Hellboy, then you know Ted Cruz would have read it.)
And, because the Bolton story involves China, the GOP is in a very weird position, given the party’s historic views of that country’s Communist regime. The Senate just last month passed a bill called the “Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act” and President Trump signed it into law on Wednesday, the same day Bolton’s revelations dropped. It passed the Senate unanimously.
On the trade front, vulnerable senators have to be careful about the Bolton revelations because most incumbent Republicans facing voters this fall come from states with big farming industries. If, as Bolton alleges, Trump asked Xi to bail him out electorally by buying American products after his trade war failed, what do these senators tell voters who might feel like they were used as props? Republican voters have shown a high threshold for abuse by Trump and the GOP, but gambling with their livelihoods for political gain might cause some trouble.
Had Republican senators done the right thing and pushed for Bolton to testify during impeachment, they might not be in this tough position today. (Especially had they removed Trump, of course.) But by tying themselves to the mast of Trumpism, they have made matters worse for their electoral future.