thebulwark--2020-10-29--Me, Joe, and the Worst Phone Call in the World

More than 225,000 Americans have now died from COVID-19 , a tragedy so vast that it ’ s hard to comprehend .
Some people have searched for understanding by noting that the death toll is greater than the number of U.S. deaths in our last five wars combined , others have equated it to experiencing 9/11 on 70 consecutive days .
But when I hear there have been 225,000 deaths , I think about the 225,000 families who have had to receive the worst phone call in the world .
I know what that ’ s like , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the call was from my mother telling me that my dad , Chris Hixon , had been shot in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Florida—where he worked as the athletic director—while heroically trying to save the students he loved so much .
Hours later , I learned he had died .
For Joe , the call came in 1972 , not long after he won his first Senate race , when he was told that his wife and daughter had been killed in a car accident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tree .
Losses like that change you forever , and it ’ s not hard to see what type of person Joe Biden has become since that day nearly half a century ago : a man who has worked tirelessly to channel his grief into helping others .
You don ’ t have to take my word for it .
Just watch the video that went viral this week of Vice President Biden hugging and comforting my brother after the loss of our dad .
Now read the tales of him reaching out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get emotional while speaking to a pastor who lost his wife in the tragic Charleston shooting .
That grief is raw and real—stemming not just from the loss of Joe ’ s family in 1972 , but the loss of his son Beau 45 years later .
It has molded into empathy and kindness , over and over again .
This may seem like a small thing , but it ’ s not .
This is a moment where we need a leader who feels deep empathy and love , both for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pairs it with action .
Joe Biden does that .
Not only has he spoken to families like mine who have lost loved ones to gun violence , but he ’ s also beaten the NRA and passed some of the only common-sense gun safety laws in the past 30 years ; not only has he met with Ady Barkan , a heroic healthcare activist who himself is dying of ALS , but he ’ s helped pass the Affordable Care Act ; and not only has he grieved with families who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he ’ s running on police reform and tackling systemic racism in this country .
Every time , Joe ’ s compassion comes with a plan .
Our country needs leadership like that today—someone who doesn ’ t care only about votes , but about the people casting them .
Nowhere is that more evident than with COVID-19 .
At the beginning of the pandemic , the American people were told that the virus is no worse than the flu , despite the administration knowing how dangerous it actually was .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an “ effective political strategy ” because they believed it may kill more people in blue states than in red states and that Trump would “ own the reopening ” of the economy .
Unfortunately , the stark contrast between Joe Biden ’ s empathy and the current administration stretches beyond COVID-19 .
When it comes to gun violence , an estimated 145,000 Americans have been killed by guns over the last four years , but rather than finding common sense bipartisan solutions , Republican leadership has actively blocked gun safety legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing to address racial injustice in America or prevent killings like those of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor .
As commander-in-chief , Joe Biden would never refer to the Marines I served with and the sailors my dad served alongside as “ suckers ” and “ losers ” for risking their lives for our country .
Joe Biden has proven time and time again that he has the empathy to understand what we ’ re going through in this dark American moment and the strength to lead us out of it .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserve .
So I ask you to consider the options before us from the perspective of someone like me and Joe .
People who have been on the receiving end of the worst phone call in the world .
Get out and vote for compassion , empathy , and character .
Because in this time when so many American families are receiving that call , they should be confident that their leaders know what that feels like and know how to help .

More than 225,000 Americans have now died from COVID-19, a tragedy so vast that it’s hard to comprehend. Some people have searched for understanding by noting that the death toll is greater than the number of U.S. deaths in our last five wars combined, others have equated it to experiencing 9/11 on 70 consecutive days.
But when I hear there have been 225,000 deaths, I think about the 225,000 families who have had to receive the worst phone call in the world.
I know what that’s like, and so does Joe Biden.
For me, the call was from my mother telling me that my dad, Chris Hixon, had been shot in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida—where he worked as the athletic director—while heroically trying to save the students he loved so much. Hours later, I learned he had died.
For Joe, the call came in 1972, not long after he won his first Senate race, when he was told that his wife and daughter had been killed in a car accident on their way to buy a Christmas tree.
Losses like that change you forever, and it’s not hard to see what type of person Joe Biden has become since that day nearly half a century ago: a man who has worked tirelessly to channel his grief into helping others.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Just watch the video that went viral this week of Vice President Biden hugging and comforting my brother after the loss of our dad.
I'm one of those who frets that the election will be much closer than the polls indicate. That in a world where non-voters are never targeted by Dems, huge turnout could contain multitudes. So I'm dropping some old footage of Joe Biden here: pic.twitter.com/74UROClgbh — Arun Chaudhary (@ArunChaud) October 21, 2020
Now read the tales of him reaching out to grieving families, or watch him get emotional while speaking to a pastor who lost his wife in the tragic Charleston shooting. That grief is raw and real—stemming not just from the loss of Joe’s family in 1972, but the loss of his son Beau 45 years later. It has molded into empathy and kindness, over and over again.
This may seem like a small thing, but it’s not. This is a moment where we need a leader who feels deep empathy and love, both for this country and the people in it, and pairs it with action. Joe Biden does that. Not only has he spoken to families like mine who have lost loved ones to gun violence, but he’s also beaten the NRA and passed some of the only common-sense gun safety laws in the past 30 years; not only has he met with Ady Barkan, a heroic healthcare activist who himself is dying of ALS, but he’s helped pass the Affordable Care Act; and not only has he grieved with families who have been hurt by unchecked police actions, but he’s running on police reform and tackling systemic racism in this country. Every time, Joe’s compassion comes with a plan.
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…
Our country needs leadership like that today—someone who doesn’t care only about votes, but about the people casting them. Nowhere is that more evident than with COVID-19. At the beginning of the pandemic, the American people were told that the virus is no worse than the flu, despite the administration knowing how dangerous it actually was. And they reportedly referred to the pandemic as an “effective political strategy” because they believed it may kill more people in blue states than in red states and that Trump would “own the reopening” of the economy.
Unfortunately, the stark contrast between Joe Biden’s empathy and the current administration stretches beyond COVID-19. When it comes to gun violence, an estimated 145,000 Americans have been killed by guns over the last four years, but rather than finding common sense bipartisan solutions, Republican leadership has actively blocked gun safety legislation. This administration has done less than nothing to address racial injustice in America or prevent killings like those of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.
As commander-in-chief, Joe Biden would never refer to the Marines I served with and the sailors my dad served alongside as “suckers” and “losers” for risking their lives for our country.
Joe Biden has proven time and time again that he has the empathy to understand what we’re going through in this dark American moment and the strength to lead us out of it. That’s the kind of leadership we deserve.
So I ask you to consider the options before us from the perspective of someone like me and Joe. People who have been on the receiving end of the worst phone call in the world. Get out and vote for compassion, empathy, and character. Because in this time when so many American families are receiving that call, they should be confident that their leaders know what that feels like and know how to help.


thebulwark--2020-10-29--Election Preview: Snapchat Edition

Election Preview: Snapchat Edition

On the latest episode of The Bulwark ‘ s Snapchat show , Not My Party , we break down what @ @ @ @ @ .
Subscribe here !

Tim Miller is The Bulwark’s writer-at-large and the author of the best-selling book Why We Did It: A Travelogue from the Republican Road to Hell . He was previously political director for Republican Voters Against Trump and communications director for Jeb Bush 2016.


thebulwark--2020-10-30--The Breathtaking Hypocrisy of Rudy Giuliani

Over the last two weeks , president Trump ’ s personal lawyer , former prosecutor and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani , has retailed a sensational story about a crooked foreign oligarch involved in the energy business seeking to intervene in a potential prosecution of his activities by a democratic government .
The Ukrainian oligarch in question reportedly grew rich as a result of his unsavory ties to a ruthless dictator and to the Ukrainian government ’ s oil and gas sector .
Giuliani claims that the oligarch ’ s energy company engaged in an influence-peddling operation by providing monthly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , to run interference with “ the big guy ” and stymie any potential prosecution .
The unnamed “ big guy , ” the scandalmongers imply , is former Vice President Joe Biden .
Ironically , since 2019 , Rudy Giuliani has himself reportedly engaged in a far-reaching influence-peddling operation to prevent a crooked foreign oligarch involved in the energy business from being prosecuted by the government of the United States .
The foreign oligarch , Alejandro Betancourt-López , grew rich as a result of his unsavory ties to Venezuela ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giuliani ’ s lobbying efforts involve multiple U.S. law enforcement agencies , including the U.S. Department of Justice , the Southern District of New York , the Department of Homeland Security , and the U.S. Treasury .
Rudy Giuliani , self-declared enemy of corruption in Ukraine—meet Rudy Giuliani , monthly-retainer-seeking friend of corrupt Venezuelan oligarchs !
The parallels between what Giuliani claims Hunter Biden was doing and what Giuliani himself allegedly did are staggering ( and by this we do not mean hotel-room frolics ) .
The difference is that whereas Giuliani has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice , Giuliani has apparently stymied U.S. government prosecutions .
In his case , the targets of the investigation aren ’ t Ukrainian oligarchs with ties to a former government but instead the head of a Venezuelan crime syndicate who has ties to the current government of Venezuela and who stands accused not just of overbilling and defrauding the government of Venezuela of billions of dollars but also , more recently , of participating in the laundering of more than $ 1.2 billion through U.S. banks and paying bribes directly to the Maduro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breathtaking .
We are personally familiar with Giuliani ’ s client , Mr. Betancourt , as a result of a lawsuit one of us ( Halvorssen ) filed against him , from which he was dismissed on legal technicalities including lack of jurisdiction .
Betancourt is the star in one of the most widely known cases of sleaze in Venezuela , stemming from a company he founded , Derwick Associates .
Imagine a group of twentysomething American-educated Venezuelans who have never had any experience whatsoever in government contracting , let alone building power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his brothers , and his cousin obtained a dozen contracts to build electric power plants for the Venezuelan government .
They got an American company to build shoddy , nonfunctioning power plants and then they overbilled Venezuela ’ s government more than $ 2 billion .
They brazenly bribed government officials .
Their antics—and spending habits that rival those of Ukrainian oligarchs—earned them the sobriquet “ Chavezkids ” ( Bolichicos ) .
This nickname , “ Bolichico , ” is a household insult in Venezuela ( the hashtag , on Twitter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And what did Betancourt and his associates do with the stolen money ?
They used U.S. , Andorran , and Swiss banks to launder and conceal their ill-gotten wealth .
Then , they devoted themselves to a jetsetter lifestyle that includes purchasing real estate all over the world , including a $ 30 million hunting estate in Spain , a penthouse across from Rockefeller Center at the Olympic Tower , beachfront condos in Miami , apartments in Paris—as well as million-dollar colts in Saratoga horse auctions ; a Maserati , BMW , Ferrari @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 20 million passenger jet .
Federal and New York City prosecutors opened criminal investigations into Betancourt and eventually indicted his partner and cofounder , Francisco Convit ( who remains a fugitive from American justice , hiding out in Venezuela under Maduro ’ s protection ) , but Betancourt has evaded any consequences for his crime spree .
Granted , Rudy Giuliani hasn ’ t been alone in helping Betancourt .
Betancourt ’ s payroll has also included Giuliani ’ s former personal lawyer , Jon A .
Sale , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Al Cárdenas ; Washington lobbyist Brian Ballard ; former Executive Assistant District Attorney of New York Adam S. Kaufmann ; and a bevy of former prosecutors , PR consultants , and the Fusion GPS “ communications ” firm .
If Rudy Giuliani wants to argue that Hunter Biden ’ s conduct in Ukraine and other jurisdictions calls for further scrutiny , it would behoove Giuliani to come clean about his own ongoing efforts to stop American justice from doing its job .

Over the last two weeks, president Trump’s personal lawyer, former prosecutor and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, has retailed a sensational story about a crooked foreign oligarch involved in the energy business seeking to intervene in a potential prosecution of his activities by a democratic government. The Ukrainian oligarch in question reportedly grew rich as a result of his unsavory ties to a ruthless dictator and to the Ukrainian government’s oil and gas sector. Giuliani claims that the oligarch’s energy company engaged in an influence-peddling operation by providing monthly retainers to several individuals, including Hunter Biden, to run interference with “the big guy” and stymie any potential prosecution. The unnamed “big guy,” the scandalmongers imply, is former Vice President Joe Biden.
Ironically, since 2019, Rudy Giuliani has himself reportedly engaged in a far-reaching influence-peddling operation to prevent a crooked foreign oligarch involved in the energy business from being prosecuted by the government of the United States. The foreign oligarch, Alejandro Betancourt-López, grew rich as a result of his unsavory ties to Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. Mr. Giuliani’s lobbying efforts involve multiple U.S. law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the Southern District of New York, the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Treasury.
Rudy Giuliani, self-declared enemy of corruption in Ukraine—meet Rudy Giuliani, monthly-retainer-seeking friend of corrupt Venezuelan oligarchs!
The parallels between what Giuliani claims Hunter Biden was doing and what Giuliani himself allegedly did are staggering (and by this we do not mean hotel-room frolics). The difference is that whereas Giuliani has accused Biden of trying to influence Ukrainian justice, Giuliani has apparently stymied U.S. government prosecutions. In his case, the targets of the investigation aren’t Ukrainian oligarchs with ties to a former government but instead the head of a Venezuelan crime syndicate who has ties to the current government of Venezuela and who stands accused not just of overbilling and defrauding the government of Venezuela of billions of dollars but also, more recently, of participating in the laundering of more than $1.2 billion through U.S. banks and paying bribes directly to the Maduro family. Giuliani’s hypocrisy is breathtaking.
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…
We are personally familiar with Giuliani’s client, Mr. Betancourt, as a result of a lawsuit one of us (Halvorssen) filed against him, from which he was dismissed on legal technicalities including lack of jurisdiction. Betancourt is the star in one of the most widely known cases of sleaze in Venezuela, stemming from a company he founded, Derwick Associates. Imagine a group of twentysomething American-educated Venezuelans who have never had any experience whatsoever in government contracting, let alone building power plants. In fourteen months, Betancourt, his brothers, and his cousin obtained a dozen contracts to build electric power plants for the Venezuelan government. They got an American company to build shoddy, nonfunctioning power plants and then they overbilled Venezuela’s government more than $2 billion. They brazenly bribed government officials. Their antics—and spending habits that rival those of Ukrainian oligarchs—earned them the sobriquet “Chavezkids” (Bolichicos). This nickname, “Bolichico,” is a household insult in Venezuela (the hashtag, on Twitter, is legendary for that reason).
And what did Betancourt and his associates do with the stolen money? They used U.S., Andorran, and Swiss banks to launder and conceal their ill-gotten wealth. Then, they devoted themselves to a jetsetter lifestyle that includes purchasing real estate all over the world, including a $30 million hunting estate in Spain, a penthouse across from Rockefeller Center at the Olympic Tower, beachfront condos in Miami, apartments in Paris—as well as million-dollar colts in Saratoga horse auctions; a Maserati, BMW, Ferrari, and Range Rover; and a $20 million passenger jet.
Federal and New York City prosecutors opened criminal investigations into Betancourt and eventually indicted his partner and cofounder, Francisco Convit (who remains a fugitive from American justice, hiding out in Venezuela under Maduro’s protection), but Betancourt has evaded any consequences for his crime spree. Granted, Rudy Giuliani hasn’t been alone in helping Betancourt. Betancourt’s payroll has also included Giuliani’s former personal lawyer, Jon A. Sale, as well as the former Florida Republican party head, Al Cárdenas; Washington lobbyist Brian Ballard; former Executive Assistant District Attorney of New York Adam S. Kaufmann; and a bevy of former prosecutors, PR consultants, and the Fusion GPS “communications” firm.
If Rudy Giuliani wants to argue that Hunter Biden’s conduct in Ukraine and other jurisdictions calls for further scrutiny, it would behoove Giuliani to come clean about his own ongoing efforts to stop American justice from doing its job.


thebulwark--2020-10-30--Cleaning Up Trump’s Immigration Mess

Cleaning Up Trump’s Immigration Mess

In an America in which more than 220,000 people have died from COVID , nearly 5 million are facing long-term joblessness , and 8 million have been impoverished , the sad fate of 545 children may not stand out .
But it should because , unlike the effects on people ’ s lives of Donald Trump ’ s bungled response to a deadly pandemic , the Trump administration is directly responsible for orphaning 545 children .
The children were among the 5,512 the Trump administration separated from their parents at the border from July 2017 to December 2019 , sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The intent was to terrorize families seeking refuge in the United States to stop them from coming .
“ We need to take away the children , ” then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions told a group of prosecutors who balked at enforcing the president ’ s “ zero tolerance ” order , which forced criminal ( as opposed to civil ) prosecution of allunauthorized immigrants , including parents with children in tow .
Lest anyone think the administration would make exceptions for separating parents from very young children or babies , then-Deputy Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas in a follow-up call that it didn ’ t matter how young they were , which is how 594 children under 10 years old ended up in the government ’ s “ care.
” Faced with court orders demanding a halt , Trump signed an executive order modifying the policy in June 2018 , which still subjects adults to criminal prosecution but detains families together “ where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources.
” Most of the children separated from their parents were reunited with parents or other family , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were essentially lost in the system is a staggering rebuke to the callousness of this administration ’ s immigration policies .
On Thursday , Joe Biden announced that should he become president , one of the very first acts he will undertake is to appoint a task force to find the missing parents of Trump ’ s lost children .
It is a good first step , but not nearly enough .
There are literally tens of thousands of asylum seekers who failed to gain entry to the U.S. during the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in Mexico awaiting their fate under the administration ’ s remain-in-Mexico policy , which required them to stay on the southern side of the border until their applications can be filed and a determination made whether they qualify .
( The legality of this order is still in question , pending a ruling by the Supreme Court . )
Many if not most of these asylum seekers are families .
Some 4,000 are stuck in Matamoros , Mexico—just across the border from Brownsville , Texas—many of them living in a squalid camp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something we would expect in Syria or Kenya , not a short walk from the U.S. A new administration will face an immediate crisis on what to do about these people .
And that is even before dealing with the larger immigration issue , including what to do about the status of 11 million undocumented people living here now .
Immigration policy has roiled American politics for at least two decades .
It would be a mistake to think that one election will dramatically change the fraught nature of the immigration battle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
It is unimaginable that a new administration would go back to putting children in cages , but it is useful to remember that President Obama was derided as “ deporter in chief ” during his 2012 campaign , and that ICE arrests in the interior of the U.S. were actually higher under Obama than under Trump .
If the Senate changes control , it may be easier to pass immigration reform in a new Congress , but what the outlines of that reform will look like is anyone ’ s guess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase the number of legal immigrants admitted each year—it has fallen precipitously under Trump .
But pressure from unions and a desire to hold on to working-class voters of all races and ethnicities may incline some Democrats to oppose a guest worker component of immigration reform and favor tougher penalties against employers who hire unauthorized workers .
Politics aside , though , if the economy is to recover fully , immigration reform will be essential to growth .
An aging U.S. population and falling births among non-Hispanic whites means we will need more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are to create and fill enough jobs in the United States just to keep pace with our current standard of living .

In an America in which more than 220,000 people have died from COVID, nearly 5 million are facing long-term joblessness, and 8 million have been impoverished, the sad fate of 545 children may not stand out. But it should because, unlike the effects on people’s lives of Donald Trump’s bungled response to a deadly pandemic, the Trump administration is directly responsible for orphaning 545 children. The children were among the 5,512 the Trump administration separated from their parents at the border from July 2017 to December 2019, sometimes ripping babies from their mothers’ arms. The intent was to terrorize families seeking refuge in the United States to stop them from coming.
“We need to take away the children,” then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions told a group of prosecutors who balked at enforcing the president’s “zero tolerance” order, which forced criminal (as opposed to civil) prosecution of allunauthorized immigrants, including parents with children in tow. Lest anyone think the administration would make exceptions for separating parents from very young children or babies, then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told federal prosecutors from Texas in a follow-up call that it didn’t matter how young they were, which is how 594 children under 10 years old ended up in the government’s “care.”
Faced with court orders demanding a halt, Trump signed an executive order modifying the policy in June 2018, which still subjects adults to criminal prosecution but detains families together “where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources.” Most of the children separated from their parents were reunited with parents or other family, but the sheer number of those who were essentially lost in the system is a staggering rebuke to the callousness of this administration’s immigration policies.
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…
On Thursday, Joe Biden announced that should he become president, one of the very first acts he will undertake is to appoint a task force to find the missing parents of Trump’s lost children. It is a good first step, but not nearly enough. There are literally tens of thousands of asylum seekers who failed to gain entry to the U.S. during the Trump administration. As many as 60,000 of them are in Mexico awaiting their fate under the administration’s remain-in-Mexico policy, which required them to stay on the southern side of the border until their applications can be filed and a determination made whether they qualify. (The legality of this order is still in question, pending a ruling by the Supreme Court.) Many if not most of these asylum seekers are families. Some 4,000 are stuck in Matamoros, Mexico—just across the border from Brownsville, Texas—many of them living in a squalid camp without proper sanitation. It looks like something we would expect in Syria or Kenya, not a short walk from the U.S.
A new administration will face an immediate crisis on what to do about these people. And that is even before dealing with the larger immigration issue, including what to do about the status of 11 million undocumented people living here now.
Immigration policy has roiled American politics for at least two decades. It would be a mistake to think that one election will dramatically change the fraught nature of the immigration battle, especially in the wake of a global pandemic. It is unimaginable that a new administration would go back to putting children in cages, but it is useful to remember that President Obama was derided as “deporter in chief” during his 2012 campaign, and that ICE arrests in the interior of the U.S. were actually higher under Obama than under Trump.
If the Senate changes control, it may be easier to pass immigration reform in a new Congress, but what the outlines of that reform will look like is anyone’s guess. Democrats may be more willing to increase the number of legal immigrants admitted each year—it has fallen precipitously under Trump. But pressure from unions and a desire to hold on to working-class voters of all races and ethnicities may incline some Democrats to oppose a guest worker component of immigration reform and favor tougher penalties against employers who hire unauthorized workers.
Politics aside, though, if the economy is to recover fully, immigration reform will be essential to growth. An aging U.S. population and falling births among non-Hispanic whites means we will need more immigrants, not fewer, if we are to create and fill enough jobs in the United States just to keep pace with our current standard of living.


thebulwark--2020-10-30--Hannity, Tucker, and Me

Hannity, Tucker, and Me

Donald Trump will lose in four days .
Or in five days .
Or in six days .
But he will lose .
And when he loses , everyone in the conservative media world will have a decision to make .
If past is prologue , the vast majority of these folks on Fox News and in conservative talk radio will continue to feed their audience what they think their audience wants to hear .
The vast majority will continue to be sycophants for Donald Trump and Trumpism .
When Trump came on the scene five years ago , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then became president , people in the conservative media world—like me—had the exact same decision to make .
Where would we stand on Trump ?
Most chose the Sean Hannity road : complete Trump toadyism .
Trump is the greatest , he walks on water , he can do no wrong .
Those in this camp made the conscious decision to never ever say a bad word about Trump .
A fellow talk radio host colleague of mine at Salem Media Group told me directly at that time that he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his show even if it was warranted .
Some chose the Tucker Carlson road : Embrace Trumpism , but do your best to avoid talking about Trump himself .
The difference between the Hannity and the Tucker paths is that when Trump does something wrong or stupid , Hannity denies it and claims that what Trump did was actually exactly right and brilliant .
Tucker , on the other hand simply blames someone else for Trump ’ s stupidity .
Or changes the subject to talk about gypsies , or Deep State parcel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of high school boys showering in the girls locker room .
It might sound ridiculous—it is ridiculous—but as a business model , it might be even more robust than the Hannity option .
And it requires the host to lie less , which isn ’ t nothing .
The other road—the one less taken—was to say out loud what you believe and think about Donald Trump , no matter what .
If you ’ ll forgive me I ’ ll just call this the “ Joe Walsh ” road .
It has proven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to making a ton of money and getting big cable rating .
Four years ago , I voted for Donald Trump .
Not because I liked him , but because he wasn ’ t Hillary Clinton .
I criticized him often during that campaign , so much so that he blocked me on Twitter .
I did not pay sufficient attention to Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign .
That ’ s on me .
I ’ ve publicly apologized for that .
Three years ago , I decided to continue calling it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I pretty much abandoned the career path I was on .
I was a national talk radio host who logged a lot of time on Fox .
But when Trump got elected , the company I worked for , Salem Media Group , made clear that all of their syndicated talk show hosts had to fully be on “ team Trump.
” And most all of the hosts—Dennis Prager , Hugh Hewitt , etc.—fell in line .
To his credit , Michael Medved didn ’ t , and so he was soon gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thus began three years of corporate browbeating , and the loss of listeners and affiliates .
Because the more I paid attention to Donald Trump , the clearer it became that he was everything our Founders feared .
And because I believed it , I said it .
Two years and four months ago , I officially became a “ Never Trumper ” —I think , the last remaining Never Trumper in the conservative talk radio world .
In the end , it was the Helsinki Putin-Trump summit that pushed me over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world , the American president stood with a Russian dictator against our own intelligence folks .
I went on the radio later that day and said that ’ s it , that ’ s the greatest act of disloyalty I ’ ve ever seen in an American president .
I told my radio audience that I could never support Trump ’ s reelection .
And from that point on I was basically an invisible man with Salem .
Last year , I officially gave up everything to mount a Don Quixote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost my radio show when I announced my candidacy—though it was a radio show I was well on my way to losing anyways .
Because—unlike most Never Trumpers—I came from the world of the Trump supporters , I lost all of my supporters , all of my followers , and a lot of my friends .
I got death threats on a regular basis .
I know : I never had a prayer , I ran head first into the Trump cult and 22 cancelled Republican primaries and caucuses .
Hannity , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignored my primary challenge and wouldn ’ t have me on .
Tucker Carlson ?
He was open to having me on his show but , in typical Tucker fashion , only if I agreed not to talk about Trump .
This year , with my primary challenge ending after the Iowa caucuses , I jumped back into the world of conservative talk radio—though with a much smaller audience—trying to convince Republicans and conservatives to oppose Trump .
The jury is out as to whether a conservative anti-Trump voice can make it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m going to give it a try .
This week , I will vote against Donald Trump and do something I ’ ve never ever done before : vote for a Democrat for president .
Donald Trump will lose in the next few days and Hannity and Tucker will keep killing it .
They ’ ll keep raking in the cash and getting gonzo ratings .
Every night , Hannity washes Donald Trump ’ s feet and rubs his forehead .
And every night , Tucker Carlson finds someone else to blame for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says and does .
( And then he attacks CNN . )
The bottom line is : Hannity and Tucker decided , in different ways , to not say what they truly believe .
And they are doing well not in spite of this fundamental dishonesty , but because of it .
Saying what you believe , on the other hand , is a professional liability in conservative media .
Maybe it always was , and I didn ’ t realize it .
I don ’ t know .
What I do know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the big money .
And I ’ m starting over on my career again .
But I ’ m content .
I ’ m at peace .
I can sleep at night .
And , hopefully one day , I ’ ll be able to look my grandkids in the eyes and say I defended their country against a great threat , I placed the interests of their country ahead of my own personal interests , and that I kept my integrity .

Donald Trump will lose in four days. Or in five days. Or in six days. But he will lose. And when he loses, everyone in the conservative media world will have a decision to make. If past is prologue, the vast majority of these folks on Fox News and in conservative talk radio will continue to feed their audience what they think their audience wants to hear. The vast majority will continue to be sycophants for Donald Trump and Trumpism.
When Trump came on the scene five years ago, and then went on to the Republican nomination, and then became president, people in the conservative media world—like me—had the exact same decision to make. Where would we stand on Trump? Most chose the Sean Hannity road: complete Trump toadyism. Trump is the greatest, he walks on water, he can do no wrong.
Those in this camp made the conscious decision to never ever say a bad word about Trump. A fellow talk radio host colleague of mine at Salem Media Group told me directly at that time that he would “never criticize” Donald Trump on his show even if it was warranted.
Some chose the Tucker Carlson road: Embrace Trumpism, but do your best to avoid talking about Trump himself. The difference between the Hannity and the Tucker paths is that when Trump does something wrong or stupid, Hannity denies it and claims that what Trump did was actually exactly right and brilliant.
Tucker, on the other hand simply blames someone else for Trump’s stupidity. Or changes the subject to talk about gypsies, or Deep State parcel delivery problems, or the growing epidemic of high school boys showering in the girls locker room. It might sound ridiculous—it is ridiculous—but as a business model, it might be even more robust than the Hannity option. And it requires the host to lie less, which isn’t nothing.
The other road—the one less taken—was to say out loud what you believe and think about Donald Trump, no matter what. If you’ll forgive me I’ll just call this the “Joe Walsh” road. It has proven to be pretty lonely and not conducive to making a ton of money and getting big cable rating.
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…
Four years ago, I voted for Donald Trump. Not because I liked him, but because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton. I criticized him often during that campaign, so much so that he blocked me on Twitter. I did not pay sufficient attention to Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. That’s on me. I’ve publicly apologized for that.
Three years ago, I decided to continue calling it like I see it with Trump and I pretty much abandoned the career path I was on. I was a national talk radio host who logged a lot of time on Fox.
But when Trump got elected, the company I worked for, Salem Media Group, made clear that all of their syndicated talk show hosts had to fully be on “team Trump.” And most all of the hosts—Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, etc.—fell in line.
To his credit, Michael Medved didn’t, and so he was soon gone. I didn’t either, and thus began three years of corporate browbeating, and the loss of listeners and affiliates. Because the more I paid attention to Donald Trump, the clearer it became that he was everything our Founders feared. And because I believed it, I said it.
Two years and four months ago, I officially became a “Never Trumper”—I think, the last remaining Never Trumper in the conservative talk radio world. In the end, it was the Helsinki Putin-Trump summit that pushed me over the edge, where, in front of the world, the American president stood with a Russian dictator against our own intelligence folks.
I went on the radio later that day and said that’s it, that’s the greatest act of disloyalty I’ve ever seen in an American president. I told my radio audience that I could never support Trump’s reelection. And from that point on I was basically an invisible man with Salem.
Last year, I officially gave up everything to mount a Don Quixote Republican primary challenge to Trump. I lost my radio show when I announced my candidacy—though it was a radio show I was well on my way to losing anyways. Because—unlike most Never Trumpers—I came from the world of the Trump supporters, I lost all of my supporters, all of my followers, and a lot of my friends. I got death threats on a regular basis.
I know: I never had a prayer, I ran head first into the Trump cult and 22 cancelled Republican primaries and caucuses. Hannity, and the rest of Fox News, basically ignored my primary challenge and wouldn’t have me on. Tucker Carlson? He was open to having me on his show but, in typical Tucker fashion, only if I agreed not to talk about Trump.
This year, with my primary challenge ending after the Iowa caucuses, I jumped back into the world of conservative talk radio—though with a much smaller audience—trying to convince Republicans and conservatives to oppose Trump. The jury is out as to whether a conservative anti-Trump voice can make it in conservative talk radio. But I’m going to give it a try.
This week, I will vote against Donald Trump and do something I’ve never ever done before: vote for a Democrat for president.
Donald Trump will lose in the next few days and Hannity and Tucker will keep killing it. They’ll keep raking in the cash and getting gonzo ratings. Every night, Hannity washes Donald Trump’s feet and rubs his forehead. And every night, Tucker Carlson finds someone else to blame for all the stupid, illegal shit Trump says and does. (And then he attacks CNN.)
The bottom line is: Hannity and Tucker decided, in different ways, to not say what they truly believe. And they are doing well not in spite of this fundamental dishonesty, but because of it.
Saying what you believe, on the other hand, is a professional liability in conservative media. Maybe it always was, and I didn’t realize it. I don’t know.
What I do know is this: I don’t have the big money. And I’m starting over on my career again. But I’m content. I’m at peace. I can sleep at night.
And, hopefully one day, I’ll be able to look my grandkids in the eyes and say I defended their country against a great threat, I placed the interests of their country ahead of my own personal interests, and that I kept my integrity.


You’re Fired?

The presidential polling in the last fortnight of the 2020 campaign has fallen into two buckets .
In one bucket is the majority of polls , which show Joe Biden ahead by somewhere between +8 and +11 nationally , which would give Donald Trump no clear path to victory .
A a smaller bucket of polls put Biden ’ s lead is in the +3 to +5 percent range—which opens the door for the possibility of Trump getting to 270 votes in the Electoral College .
When you look at the national averages , you see Biden at +7.7 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both averages have Biden over 51 percent and both averages show the race much closer—in the +4 range—in battleground states .
So if you want to hang your hat on a bearish scenario for Biden , one exists : If the averages are off by the maximum margin of error , and you squint a little , you can see your way to Trump getting 280 Electoral votes .
On the other hand , should the margin of error go in the Democrats ’ direction—as it did in 2012 , then not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but his party will also pick up 12 to 14 seats in the House and between 5 and 7 Senate seats .
In other words : Even with normal polling error , we have a wide range of outcomes on offer .
So instead of making predictions , let ’ s talk about the factors that will determine what happens .
First : If turnout surges from the 137 million votes cast in 2016 , towards something close to 155 million , then Democrats will have a clear advantage .
The higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will be powered by the votes of younger , minority , and single female voters .
And also , the more likely the polling averages are to be accurate .
If turnout were to be under 140 million votes , that would favor Trump .
The fulcrum point on this turnout advantage lies in whether or not it crosses 150 million votes .
As of right now , seeing the early vote in some counties surpass their total 2016 vote , the safe bet would be to take the over .
Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19 infection heading into Sunday November 1 , especially in swing states ?
When voters sit down in their kitchens for their coffee and breakfast on the last Sunday morning of the campaign , what is the number of Covid deaths reported both on the front pages of the papers and on the news shows playing in the background ?
This is the infection map as of Friday , October 30 : Note that Wisconsin has the worst outbreak in America at this moment .
Matters are only slightly better in Michigan and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone expected in Iowa .
Biden ’ s lead in Michigan seems insurmountable .
And if Trump loses Wisconsin he has to run the table with every remaining battleground state .
Third : What will the weather be like on November 3 , especially along Florida ’ s Gulf Coast and the Panhandle , in the Carolinas , and on the coastal regions of Georgia and Texas ?
Trump ’ s assault on mail-in voting has left Republicans especially dependent on in-person voting .
In a race where the the candidates are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided by a few thousand votes .
And when it comes to numbers that small , any exogenous input can make a difference .
Tropical Storm Zeta moved through the Mid-Atlantic this week .
There is currently a tropical disturbance in the Caribbean which NOAA rates has having a 20 percent chance of developing into a storm .
Keep one eye on that while you ’ re looking at polls .
So where does all that leave us ?
With a couple of bedrock facts : Donald Trump is the incumbent president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the polling average since March .
Normally , incumbents panic when they are under 50 percent going into an election .
Trump is currently at 43 percent .
This decline is due to the fact Trump has been hemorrhaging support from his base—seniors and whites with only a high school education .
At the same time , he ’ s been losing the swing voters who broke for him late in 2016 : Independents , suburban women , and whites with a college education .
Also , Trump is on the wrong side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominant issue in this campaign for half a year .
The public has a clear yearning for a practical plan to protect them from the ravages of this pandemic , as a precursor for restarting sustainable economic growth and ultimately a return to normalcy .
Trump has not only misread that desire in the electorate , but has rejected that approach at every turn , vacillating instead between wishing COVID away and pretending that it was already gone .
And then there is enthusiasm .
If you go only by social media and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump as the greatest enthusiasm of any politician in our lifetimes .
But you also have to look at breadth of those repulsed by Trump and the way they have acted in the voting booths over the last three years .
From 2017 to the 2018 midterms to the 2019 special elections , we have seen sky-high voting levels for Democrats , even when Trump was not on the ballot .
In generational terms , Trump has maneuvered himself into an electoral cul-de-sac where he is simultaneously losing younger voters by a to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly 10 percent .
Put this all together the picture you have is of a divide-and-conquer strategy that alienated too many coalitions .
There are a lot of white men with only a high school education between the ages of 45 and 64 .
But there probably aren ’ t enough of them to put Trump over the top again , even in a scenario where nearly everything breaks his way .
Come next week , America ’ s apprentice president is likely to be fired .

The presidential polling in the last fortnight of the 2020 campaign has fallen into two buckets.
In one bucket is the majority of polls, which show Joe Biden ahead by somewhere between +8 and +11 nationally, which would give Donald Trump no clear path to victory.
A a smaller bucket of polls put Biden’s lead is in the +3 to +5 percent range—which opens the door for the possibility of Trump getting to 270 votes in the Electoral College.
When you look at the national averages, you see Biden at +7.7 in RealClear Politics and +8.8 at 538. Both averages have Biden over 51 percent and both averages show the race much closer—in the +4 range—in battleground states.
So if you want to hang your hat on a bearish scenario for Biden, one exists: If the averages are off by the maximum margin of error, and you squint a little, you can see your way to Trump getting 280 Electoral votes.
On the other hand, should the margin of error go in the Democrats’ direction—as it did in 2012, then not only will Joe Biden be the next president, but his party will also pick up 12 to 14 seats in the House and between 5 and 7 Senate seats.
In other words: Even with normal polling error, we have a wide range of outcomes on offer.
So instead of making predictions, let’s talk about the factors that will determine what happens.
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…
First: If turnout surges from the 137 million votes cast in 2016, towards something close to 155 million, then Democrats will have a clear advantage.
The higher the vote, the more likely that it will be powered by the votes of younger, minority, and single female voters. And also, the more likely the polling averages are to be accurate. If turnout were to be under 140 million votes, that would favor Trump. The fulcrum point on this turnout advantage lies in whether or not it crosses 150 million votes.
As of right now, seeing the early vote in some counties surpass their total 2016 vote, the safe bet would be to take the over.
Second: What is the rate of Covid 19 infection heading into Sunday November 1, especially in swing states? When voters sit down in their kitchens for their coffee and breakfast on the last Sunday morning of the campaign, what is the number of Covid deaths reported both on the front pages of the papers and on the news shows playing in the background?
This is the infection map as of Friday, October 30:
Note that Wisconsin has the worst outbreak in America at this moment. Matters are only slightly better in Michigan and Iowa.
The race is closer than anyone expected in Iowa. Biden’s lead in Michigan seems insurmountable. And if Trump loses Wisconsin he has to run the table with every remaining battleground state.
Third: What will the weather be like on November 3, especially along Florida’s Gulf Coast and the Panhandle, in the Carolinas, and on the coastal regions of Georgia and Texas? Trump’s assault on mail-in voting has left Republicans especially dependent on in-person voting. In a race where the the candidates are in statistical ties, the outcome could be decided by a few thousand votes. And when it comes to numbers that small, any exogenous input can make a difference.
Tropical Storm Zeta moved through the Mid-Atlantic this week. There is currently a tropical disturbance in the Caribbean which NOAA rates has having a 20 percent chance of developing into a storm. Keep one eye on that while you’re looking at polls.
So where does all that leave us? With a couple of bedrock facts:
Donald Trump is the incumbent president and has not been over 45 percent in the polling average since March. Normally, incumbents panic when they are under 50 percent going into an election. Trump is currently at 43 percent.
This decline is due to the fact Trump has been hemorrhaging support from his base—seniors and whites with only a high school education. At the same time, he’s been losing the swing voters who broke for him late in 2016: Independents, suburban women, and whites with a college education.
Also, Trump is on the wrong side of COVID, which has been the dominant issue in this campaign for half a year. The public has a clear yearning for a practical plan to protect them from the ravages of this pandemic, as a precursor for restarting sustainable economic growth and ultimately a return to normalcy. Trump has not only misread that desire in the electorate, but has rejected that approach at every turn, vacillating instead between wishing COVID away and pretending that it was already gone.
And then there is enthusiasm. If you go only by social media and boat parades, you would believe that Trump as the greatest enthusiasm of any politician in our lifetimes.
But you also have to look at breadth of those repulsed by Trump and the way they have acted in the voting booths over the last three years. From 2017 to the 2018 midterms to the 2019 special elections, we have seen sky-high voting levels for Democrats, even when Trump was not on the ballot.
In generational terms, Trump has maneuvered himself into an electoral cul-de-sac where he is simultaneously losing younger voters by a to 2-to-1 margin while also losing seniors by nearly 10 percent.
Put this all together the picture you have is of a divide-and-conquer strategy that alienated too many coalitions. There are a lot of white men with only a high school education between the ages of 45 and 64.
But there probably aren’t enough of them to put Trump over the top again, even in a scenario where nearly everything breaks his way. Come next week, America’s apprentice president is likely to be fired.


thebulwark--2020-10-30--Trump DOJ Accused of Trying to Commandeer Walmart Pharmacists

After judges , regulatory reform has been the Trump administration ’ s main conservative policy goal .
On the campaign trail , the president trumpets regulatory cutbacks and warns that Joe Biden , if elected president , would regulate American life “ into oblivion.
” So why is President Trump ’ s Justice Department levying regulatory threats against one of America ’ s most prominent companies on the eve of the election ?
Last week , Walmart filed a remarkable lawsuit in federal court .
It accused the Justice Department of making lawless demands of the company : attempting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deputy law enforcement officers against opioid abuse , without any basis in federal law .
And it asked a federal judge to declare that the Justice Department can not force Walmart to pay immense financial settlements to avoid indictment .
The complaint contains explosive allegations : that federal prosecutors offered no evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing by Walmart yet “ declared their intention to ‘ embarrass ’ Walmart ” with a criminal indictment “ to pressure the company into paying a massive civil penalty ” ; that a federal prosecutor cited Walmart ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year as evidence of what Walmart could afford to pay the Justice Department ; and that the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas threatened to send a prosecutor around the country lobbying other prosecutors to file other cases against Walmart if the company didn ’ t pay up .
These are just allegations , of course , and any lawsuit ’ s allegations should not be taken at face value .
But at least two aspects of this case suggest that these allegations should be taken seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not normally in the business of filing preemptive lawsuits against the government , especially ones that preannounce that the company faces a risk of criminal indictment ; and second , the lawsuit was co-signed by Michael Carvin , one of the nation ’ s most prominent conservative constitutional litigators , at a firm that also employs President Trump ’ s former White House counsel , Don McGahn , and his former solicitor general , Noel Francisco .
According to the lawsuit , the Trump Justice Department is pressuring Walmart to require its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prescriptions for opioids .
Specifically , Walmart alleges that federal prosecutors demand that Walmart ’ s pharmacies should investigate doctors ’ opioid prescriptions , and refuse to fill the prescriptions pending those private investigations , based on “ red flag ” factors that the Drug Enforcement Agency “ believes may indicate that a prescription might not have been issued for a legitimate medical purpose.
” These “ red flags ” are not actually laws—not statutes , and not even regulations .
They ’ re simply the stuff of agency “ guidance ” —informal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many of these “ red flags ” were simply “ identified by DEA in a series of slideshow presentations delivered at industry conferences , ” according to Walmart .
The actual law defining pharmacists ’ duties is very different .
The Controlled Substances Act states that controlled substances may not be “ dispensed ” by a pharmacy “ without the written prescription of a practitioner.
” And the regulations promulgated by the DOJ and DEA make more specific requirements : An order for drugs that is “ issued not in the usual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and authorized research ” does not qualify as a lawful “ prescription ” ; and , most importantly for Walmart ’ s purposes , a person who “ knowingly ” fills an illegitimate prescription is liable for criminal penalties .
That is the key term , for this federal law : knowingly .
Pharmacists must not fill prescriptions that they know are illegitimate .
Short of that limited standard , pharmacists are not required by federal law to intervene in the doctor-patient relationship ; they certainly are not required to act as deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not meet that narrow requirement of federal law .
Indeed , to micromanage doctors ’ prescriptions would open up Walmart to violations of state law for the unauthorized practice of medicine , as the Wall Street Journal notes in an editorial .
In its lawsuit , Walmart protests that its pharmacies already undertake “ stewardship ” practices beyond the narrow requirements of the Controlled Substances Act and DEA regulations , to train pharmacists and educate patients .
And Walmart freely agrees that opioid abuse is a “ public health crisis ” crying out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s and DOJ ’ s duty is to keep those drugs off the streets and to find and punish the criminals who push them.
” But Walmart accuses the law enforcement agencies of trying to “ outsource ” the job that they themselves have “ failed to do.
” These allegations of abusive conduct by federal agencies would be explosive in any administration .
But they are particularly ironic during this particular administration .
For four years , the Justice Department has taken the lead in a laudable effort to promote regulatory reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse of “ guidance ” documents .
It has promulgated regulations limiting the agency ’ s own use of non-legal “ guidance ” documents in law enforcement .
And it recently published the proceedings from a Justice Department “ summit ” on regulatory reform , in which leading DOJ officials called for regulatory reform , and calling on other agencies to follow the DOJ ’ s “ efforts to combat inappropriate uses of guidance , including by instituting a policy that Department attorneys would not use their civil or criminal enforcement authority to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have the force or effect of law ” —that is , precisely the kind of abuse that Walmart now accuses the DOJ ’ s own prosecutors of perpetrating .
Walmart ’ s complaint is replete with other abuses that conservative regulatory reformers often criticized in the Obama administration .
For example , the federal agencies here are eagerly disregarding federalism , trying to steamroll state regulators ’ own longstanding power to regulate the practice of medicine within their respective borders .
But most worrisome is the federal prosecutors ’ eagerness to commandeer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tool of government—from a retailer to a regulatory chokepoint .
Indeed , the conduct alleged in Walmart ’ s complaint resembles the Obama Justice Department ’ s “ Operation Choke Point , ” in which the DOJ and financial regulators leveraged regulatory threats against banks , trying to force the banks to execute Obama administration policies against gun dealers and payday lenders .
We already have seen the Justice Department file one politicized lawsuit , U.S. v. Google , on the eve of the presidential election ; a lawsuit against Walmart , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims , would mark a trend .
The Trump administration began with a call to “ deconstruct ” the administrative state , but might end with an effort to weaponize it .

After judges, regulatory reform has been the Trump administration’s main conservative policy goal. On the campaign trail, the president trumpets regulatory cutbacks and warns that Joe Biden, if elected president, would regulate American life “into oblivion.” So why is President Trump’s Justice Department levying regulatory threats against one of America’s most prominent companies on the eve of the election?
Last week, Walmart filed a remarkable lawsuit in federal court. It accused the Justice Department of making lawless demands of the company: attempting to commandeer the company’s pharmacists as deputy law enforcement officers against opioid abuse, without any basis in federal law. And it asked a federal judge to declare that the Justice Department cannot force Walmart to pay immense financial settlements to avoid indictment.
The complaint contains explosive allegations: that federal prosecutors offered no evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing by Walmart yet “declared their intention to ‘embarrass’ Walmart” with a criminal indictment “to pressure the company into paying a massive civil penalty”; that a federal prosecutor cited Walmart’s $1 billion in charitable giving last year as evidence of what Walmart could afford to pay the Justice Department; and that the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas threatened to send a prosecutor around the country lobbying other prosecutors to file other cases against Walmart if the company didn’t pay up.
These are just allegations, of course, and any lawsuit’s allegations should not be taken at face value. But at least two aspects of this case suggest that these allegations should be taken seriously: First, a company like Walmart is not normally in the business of filing preemptive lawsuits against the government, especially ones that preannounce that the company faces a risk of criminal indictment; and second, the lawsuit was co-signed by Michael Carvin, one of the nation’s most prominent conservative constitutional litigators, at a firm that also employs President Trump’s former White House counsel, Don McGahn, and his former solicitor general, Noel Francisco.
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…
According to the lawsuit, the Trump Justice Department is pressuring Walmart to require its pharmacists to investigate and police doctors’ prescriptions for opioids. Specifically, Walmart alleges that federal prosecutors demand that Walmart’s pharmacies should investigate doctors’ opioid prescriptions, and refuse to fill the prescriptions pending those private investigations, based on “red flag” factors that the Drug Enforcement Agency “believes may indicate that a prescription might not have been issued for a legitimate medical purpose.” These “red flags” are not actually laws—not statutes, and not even regulations. They’re simply the stuff of agency “guidance”—informal nonbinding statements of agency policy; indeed, many of these “red flags” were simply “identified by DEA in a series of slideshow presentations delivered at industry conferences,” according to Walmart.
The actual law defining pharmacists’ duties is very different. The Controlled Substances Act states that controlled substances may not be “dispensed” by a pharmacy “without the written prescription of a practitioner.” And the regulations promulgated by the DOJ and DEA make more specific requirements: An order for drugs that is “issued not in the usual course of professional treatment or in legitimate and authorized research” does not qualify as a lawful “prescription”; and, most importantly for Walmart’s purposes, a person who “knowingly” fills an illegitimate prescription is liable for criminal penalties.
That is the key term, for this federal law: knowingly. Pharmacists must not fill prescriptions that they know are illegitimate. Short of that limited standard, pharmacists are not required by federal law to intervene in the doctor-patient relationship; they certainly are not required to act as deputy DEA agents, investigating prescriptions that do not meet that narrow requirement of federal law. Indeed, to micromanage doctors’ prescriptions would open up Walmart to violations of state law for the unauthorized practice of medicine, as the Wall Street Journal notes in an editorial.
In its lawsuit, Walmart protests that its pharmacies already undertake “stewardship” practices beyond the narrow requirements of the Controlled Substances Act and DEA regulations, to train pharmacists and educate patients. And Walmart freely agrees that opioid abuse is a “public health crisis” crying out for greater law enforcement—“DEA’s and DOJ’s duty is to keep those drugs off the streets and to find and punish the criminals who push them.” But Walmart accuses the law enforcement agencies of trying to “outsource” the job that they themselves have “failed to do.”
These allegations of abusive conduct by federal agencies would be explosive in any administration. But they are particularly ironic during this particular administration. For four years, the Justice Department has taken the lead in a laudable effort to promote regulatory reform and curb regulatory abuse, especially the abuse of “guidance” documents. It has promulgated regulations limiting the agency’s own use of non-legal “guidance” documents in law enforcement. And it recently published the proceedings from a Justice Department “summit” on regulatory reform, in which leading DOJ officials called for regulatory reform, and calling on other agencies to follow the DOJ’s “efforts to combat inappropriate uses of guidance, including by instituting a policy that Department attorneys would not use their civil or criminal enforcement authority to convert other agencies’ guidance into rules that have the force or effect of law”—that is, precisely the kind of abuse that Walmart now accuses the DOJ’s own prosecutors of perpetrating.
Walmart’s complaint is replete with other abuses that conservative regulatory reformers often criticized in the Obama administration. For example, the federal agencies here are eagerly disregarding federalism, trying to steamroll state regulators’ own longstanding power to regulate the practice of medicine within their respective borders.
But most worrisome is the federal prosecutors’ eagerness to commandeer Walmart, turning the private company into a tool of government—from a retailer to a regulatory chokepoint. Indeed, the conduct alleged in Walmart’s complaint resembles the Obama Justice Department’s “Operation Choke Point,” in which the DOJ and financial regulators leveraged regulatory threats against banks, trying to force the banks to execute Obama administration policies against gun dealers and payday lenders.
We already have seen the Justice Department file one politicized lawsuit, U.S. v. Google, on the eve of the presidential election; a lawsuit against Walmart, demanding huge financial payments on dubious regulatory claims, would mark a trend. The Trump administration began with a call to “deconstruct” the administrative state, but might end with an effort to weaponize it.


thebulwark--2020-10-30--Revisiting ‘The Wicker Man’

Revisiting ‘The Wicker Man’

The protagonist of Robin Hardy and Anthony Shaffer ’ s 1973 horror classic The Wicker Man , a Scottish police sergeant named Neil Howie , is a devout Christian .
Early in the film , we see him attending church , taking Communion .
At work , his subordinates mock him behind his back for his humorlessness , his strictness .
Howie is so devout , in fact , that even in the early 1970s , when a more uninhibited United Kingdom should have been in full swing , he has chosen to remain a virgin until marriage .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the actor who expertly plays Howie , was 43 when the film came out—he is , outwardly at least , content with this arrangement , despite the temptation all around .
He ’ s devout to the point of rudeness , as if those who don ’ t share his faith and moral certainty are nothing more than hindrances on his personal road to Heaven .
Howie is investigating the disappearance of a young girl named Rowan Morrison .
He ’ s received an anonymous letter asking for his help , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coast of Scotland , where the little girl lives .
There begins an immediately combative relationship with the citizens of Summerisle .
He barks orders at them , and is horrified that none of them share his Christian values ( though at this point you ’ d think he ’ d be used to it ) .
At one point , after he learns from the schoolteacher ( Diane Cilento ) that Rowan , the girl he has come to the island to find , is dead and buried in the grounds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer , a Christian church , he finds the burial plot and puts a crudely made cross in a place where he believes there should be one .
That this is not the wish of anyone related to Rowan Morrison makes no difference to him .
His beliefs override the beliefs of anyone else .
And anyway , by this point , he ’ s pretty fed up with the flaunting of the islanders ’ beliefs—which are not merely not Christian , but full-throated paganism—and their modern , blunt , free-wheeling sexuality .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britt Ekland ) , by whom Howie is badly tempted , and with whom he will eventually share a kind of psychic seduction , with Willow dancing nude on the other side of a wall of the room at the inn where Howie is sleeping , while Howie spends a sweaty , trembling few minutes trying to pretend he doesn ’ t want what he so clearly wants .
The viewer senses that Howie has never come this close to cracking before .
For most people , if not literally everybody , Sgt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like .
In their general attitudes , the islanders are his opposite : friendly , welcoming , seemingly tolerant of his antagonistic religious beliefs .
They ’ re certainly more tolerant of his than he is of theirs—not only does he go around handing out crosses nobody asked for , he actively destroys pagan religious symbols .
Howie seems incapable of taking anything in stride : at dinner in the local pub , he orders an apple for dessert , but is told by Willow , his waitress , that there are no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its apples , and apparently the crops failed .
But Howie reacts to the news as though this were happening to him .
Nothing is ever shrugged off by Howie ; for all the ostensible optimism at the heart of his faith , there is no light in him .
Meanwhile , the patriarch of the island and its people , Lord Summerisle ( Christopher Lee ) , is nothing but light .
Howie meets with Lord Summerisle several times in the course of his investigation , and never misses a chance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Lord Summerisle not only allows to flourish on his island , but encourages .
At one point , Howie is furious when he sees young girls dancing nude around a maypole on Lord Summerisle ’ s property , and tells him so .
Summerisle , for his part , remains calm and smiling , explaining gently what he considers a healthy , earthy , pagan approach to sexuality .
Howie is so angry he ’ s about to have an aneurysm , while Lord Summerisle is so relaxed in the face of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an easy chair with a pipe and some tea .
It ’ s now somewhat fashionable , for all the reasons stated above , to view Howie as the villain of The Wicker Man .
He ’ s acerbic , cold , unkind .
Even his dealings with children on the island range from a warm playfulness that is clearly a put-on , something he has to pretend to be in order to do his job , and calling them “ despicable little liars.
” He forces his religion on others , almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrogant , unpleasant .
Why root for someone who you wouldn ’ t even want to share an elevator with ?
On the other hand , who is looking for Rowan Morrison ?
Who else cares about her ?
No one on Summerisle seems to , not even her family .
Only Howie cares .
And there ’ s nothing hidden or nefarious about his concern .
It ’ s not a self-serving pursuit , he simply wants to first find , and later save ( after he ’ s become certain that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a little girl from an island full of people who , happy and fun-loving though they may be , are quite obviously very strange , the joyousness they project eventually taking on an air of unmistakable menace .
So why root against Howie ?
From the point of view of Anthony Shaffer , who wrote The Wicker Man , and Robin Hardy , who directed , there is a little bit of “ we ’ re not so different , you and I ” going on between Howie and Lord Summerisle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only up to a point .
Besides , that it ’ s there at all would never be recognized or acknowledged by either one .
Yet each man clings fiercely to their faith , and each man experiences doubts at the end .
When the truth about what is actually going on in the story is revealed—that all along Howie was Summerisle ’ s sacrificial lamb , lured to the island on purpose ( Rowan Morrison is fine and was never in danger ) so that he , a virgin , could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wicker man ( “ Oh God !
” Howie screams , not prayerfully , upon seeing it .
“ Oh Jesus Christ !
” ) , along with many pigs , birds , and other animals , in the belief , the hope , that this will save the next apple crop—Howie attempts to save himself by pointing out , no doubt correctly , that his death will change nothing , the crop will still fail , and who will they sacrifice then , more than a flicker of doubt , of fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Lord Summerisle .
And while Howie attempts to sing “ Onward Christian Soldiers ” in defiance of his fate , that singing turns to screams once the flames reach him .
But Howie was trying , simply , to save a child he believed was in danger .
How can he be entirely unsympathetic ?
How can he be , as the new thinking about the film goes , the villain ?
In 1978 , Shaffer and Hardy co-wrote a novelization of The Wicker Man , and during the early stages of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they write : [ Howie ’ s ] mission in coming to this infernal island had been to find a child .
If he could only save some of the increasingly terrified birds he could see in the Wicker Man ’ s arm he might not count his police mission here an entire failure .
Just as long as he can save something .
He goes on to imagine—or rather , to try not to imagine—the life he will not now be able to enjoy with Mary , the woman he was going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will suffer at his death .
And in the book , his faith seems less tenuous in the face of torturous death .
Not so the Howie of the film , or anyway , that ’ s not how it seems to me .
In Woodward ’ s performance of Howie in these final moments , as he stares wildly out of the wicker man and down at the islanders dancing and singing joyfully , there is something of the mental breakdown into genuine insanity that makes Marilyn Burns ’ s performance in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Texas Chainsaw Massacre so indelible .
In both films , the protagonist is faced with a horror that is not merely frightening and dangerous , but so bizarre , so unearthly yet grounded , neither of them can find a handle on it , and their minds fly apart as a result .
Howie , at least , has some context , some warning , but when it comes down to it nothing about what is happening to him—not just the physical reality of it , but the visual component , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burning above celebrating pagans—makes any sense .
The film feels like an attempt to slam two types of zealotry against each other , as hard as it can ; it would be a stretch to describe the picture as pro-Christianity .
What The Wicker Man does not do , however , is traffic in lazy , contemptible moral relativism .
And this is where the efforts to turn the policeman into a villain , a stooge who deserves his fate , falter .
Sgt .
Howie can be fairly described as kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to save a life .
The citizens of Summerisle just wanted apples .

The protagonist of Robin Hardy and Anthony Shaffer’s 1973 horror classic The Wicker Man, a Scottish police sergeant named Neil Howie, is a devout Christian. Early in the film, we see him attending church, taking Communion. At work, his subordinates mock him behind his back for his humorlessness, his strictness. Howie is so devout, in fact, that even in the early 1970s, when a more uninhibited United Kingdom should have been in full swing, he has chosen to remain a virgin until marriage. Even at his age—about 40; Edward Woodward, the actor who expertly plays Howie, was 43 when the film came out—he is, outwardly at least, content with this arrangement, despite the temptation all around. He’s devout to the point of rudeness, as if those who don’t share his faith and moral certainty are nothing more than hindrances on his personal road to Heaven.
(Plot points from this 47-year-old movie shall be discussed in this essay, including the ending, so please consider yourself warned of spoilers.)
Howie is investigating the disappearance of a young girl named Rowan Morrison. He’s received an anonymous letter asking for his help, so he flies to Summerisle, off the coast of Scotland, where the little girl lives. There begins an immediately combative relationship with the citizens of Summerisle. He barks orders at them, and is horrified that none of them share his Christian values (though at this point you’d think he’d be used to it). At one point, after he learns from the schoolteacher (Diane Cilento) that Rowan, the girl he has come to the island to find, is dead and buried in the grounds of what once was, but is no longer, a Christian church, he finds the burial plot and puts a crudely made cross in a place where he believes there should be one. That this is not the wish of anyone related to Rowan Morrison makes no difference to him. His beliefs override the beliefs of anyone else.
And anyway, by this point, he’s pretty fed up with the flaunting of the islanders’ beliefs—which are not merely not Christian, but full-throated paganism—and their modern, blunt, free-wheeling sexuality. The latter is personified by Willow (Britt Ekland), by whom Howie is badly tempted, and with whom he will eventually share a kind of psychic seduction, with Willow dancing nude on the other side of a wall of the room at the inn where Howie is sleeping, while Howie spends a sweaty, trembling few minutes trying to pretend he doesn’t want what he so clearly wants. The viewer senses that Howie has never come this close to cracking before.
For most people, if not literally everybody, Sgt. Howie is a hard man to like. In their general attitudes, the islanders are his opposite: friendly, welcoming, seemingly tolerant of his antagonistic religious beliefs. They’re certainly more tolerant of his than he is of theirs—not only does he go around handing out crosses nobody asked for, he actively destroys pagan religious symbols. Howie seems incapable of taking anything in stride: at dinner in the local pub, he orders an apple for dessert, but is told by Willow, his waitress, that there are no apples available. Summerisle is known for its apples, and apparently the crops failed. But Howie reacts to the news as though this were happening to him. Nothing is ever shrugged off by Howie; for all the ostensible optimism at the heart of his faith, there is no light in him. Meanwhile, the patriarch of the island and its people, Lord Summerisle (Christopher Lee), is nothing but light. Howie meets with Lord Summerisle several times in the course of his investigation, and never misses a chance to make known his feelings about the paganism that Lord Summerisle not only allows to flourish on his island, but encourages. At one point, Howie is furious when he sees young girls dancing nude around a maypole on Lord Summerisle’s property, and tells him so. Summerisle, for his part, remains calm and smiling, explaining gently what he considers a healthy, earthy, pagan approach to sexuality. Howie is so angry he’s about to have an aneurysm, while Lord Summerisle is so relaxed in the face of it that he might be relaxing in an easy chair with a pipe and some tea.
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…
It’s now somewhat fashionable, for all the reasons stated above, to view Howie as the villain of The Wicker Man. He’s acerbic, cold, unkind. Even his dealings with children on the island range from a warm playfulness that is clearly a put-on, something he has to pretend to be in order to do his job, and calling them “despicable little liars.” He forces his religion on others, almost literally. He’s smug, arrogant, unpleasant. Why root for someone who you wouldn’t even want to share an elevator with? On the other hand, who is looking for Rowan Morrison? Who else cares about her? No one on Summerisle seems to, not even her family. Only Howie cares. And there’s nothing hidden or nefarious about his concern. It’s not a self-serving pursuit, he simply wants to first find, and later save (after he’s become certain that she is not in fact dead), a little girl from an island full of people who, happy and fun-loving though they may be, are quite obviously very strange, the joyousness they project eventually taking on an air of unmistakable menace.
So why root against Howie? From the point of view of Anthony Shaffer, who wrote The Wicker Man, and Robin Hardy, who directed, there is a little bit of “we’re not so different, you and I” going on between Howie and Lord Summerisle, but just a little bit, and only up to a point. Besides, that it’s there at all would never be recognized or acknowledged by either one. Yet each man clings fiercely to their faith, and each man experiences doubts at the end. When the truth about what is actually going on in the story is revealed—that all along Howie was Summerisle’s sacrificial lamb, lured to the island on purpose (Rowan Morrison is fine and was never in danger) so that he, a virgin, could be sacrificed, burned alive in the terrifying wicker man (“Oh God!” Howie screams, not prayerfully, upon seeing it. “Oh Jesus Christ!”), along with many pigs, birds, and other animals, in the belief, the hope, that this will save the next apple crop—Howie attempts to save himself by pointing out, no doubt correctly, that his death will change nothing, the crop will still fail, and who will they sacrifice then, more than a flicker of doubt, of fear, can been seen shadowing the face of Lord Summerisle. And while Howie attempts to sing “Onward Christian Soldiers” in defiance of his fate, that singing turns to screams once the flames reach him.
But Howie was trying, simply, to save a child he believed was in danger. How can he be entirely unsympathetic? How can he be, as the new thinking about the film goes, the villain? In 1978, Shaffer and Hardy co-wrote a novelization of The Wicker Man, and during the early stages of the burning of the wicker man, they write:
[Howie’s] mission in coming to this infernal island had been to find a child. If he could only save some of the increasingly terrified birds he could see in the Wicker Man’s arm he might not count his police mission here an entire failure.
Just as long as he can save something. He goes on to imagine—or rather, to try not to imagine—the life he will not now be able to enjoy with Mary, the woman he was going to marry, or the grief she will suffer at his death. And in the book, his faith seems less tenuous in the face of torturous death.
Not so the Howie of the film, or anyway, that’s not how it seems to me. In Woodward’s performance of Howie in these final moments, as he stares wildly out of the wicker man and down at the islanders dancing and singing joyfully, there is something of the mental breakdown into genuine insanity that makes Marilyn Burns’s performance in the final minutes of 1974’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre so indelible. In both films, the protagonist is faced with a horror that is not merely frightening and dangerous, but so bizarre, so unearthly yet grounded, neither of them can find a handle on it, and their minds fly apart as a result. Howie, at least, has some context, some warning, but when it comes down to it nothing about what is happening to him—not just the physical reality of it, but the visual component, the gigantic man-shaped wicker cage, towering and burning above celebrating pagans—makes any sense.
The film feels like an attempt to slam two types of zealotry against each other, as hard as it can; it would be a stretch to describe the picture as pro-Christianity. What The Wicker Man does not do, however, is traffic in lazy, contemptible moral relativism. And this is where the efforts to turn the policeman into a villain, a stooge who deserves his fate, falter. Sgt. Howie can be fairly described as kind of a jerk. But his goal was to save a life.
The citizens of Summerisle just wanted apples.


Trump the Fly-Catcher

In a few days it will all be over—or it won ’ t .
And while it seems like Donald Trump is on his farewell tour , threatening to disappear or leave the country , the polls show things are still not yet decided .
It has been an election cycle filled with rage , anger , and tears .
As the coronavirus rages , and the president claims “ we ’ ve turned the corner ” on the pandemic , he ’ s also told people in Iowa and Minnesota he ’ ll never be back their way again—if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the coming election .
On the tarmac in Iowa : “ I may never have to come back here again if I don ’ t get Iowa , ” he said .
“ I ’ ll never be back.
” In Pennsylvania this week he openly mused about hopping into a truck and driving away because his life was “ great ” before becoming president .
In a video news conference earlier this week with Trump ’ s niece Mary Trump , actress Patti LuPone was in tears describing how the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country and how set designers , costume designers , and others working in the industry have been left out in the cold in stimulus packages .
“ We just want to be included , ” she said .
But inclusion isn ’ t the Donald ’ s way .
Ruth Ben-Ghiat , a historian who specializes in fascism and authoritarianism , said in the same streaming news conference that the damage Trump has done is consistent with authoritarian rule .
“ We ’ re in the middle of it , ” she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , media independence doesn ’ t exist .
There is no neutral .
You ’ re either for him or against him .
The destruction of a free press and the tainting of the news is exactly what Trump has attempted—and he has been successful to the point that many of his supporters and even some of those who would never support him doubt the written word about him .
First Amendment attorney Anne Champion , who represented Mary Trump , Jim Acosta , and me in legal actions against Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vital task of informing the public and now uses its communications office as a propaganda arm .
The Trump administration believes itself to be at war with the press , and has been since his campaign .
“ I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me , no one will believe you , ” Trump told Lesley Stahl during the 2016 campaign .
From the first day of his administration , when Trump came out and boldly lied about the size @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been one lie after another .
It has never stopped .
Even supporters say a second Trump term will change the face of the United States forever—the supporters just think that ’ ll be a good thing .
“ Draining the swamp , ” they call it .
But Trump ’ s recent actions in trying to gut the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act , which has governed the federal civil service since the government ended the spoils system under Chester A. Arthur in 1883 , shows just where this country is headed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ path wasn ’ t already obvious .
Far from draining the swamp , Trump wants to stock it full of creatures friendly to him .
He wants to be the swamp master , a king of the amphibians .
And if he isn ’ t defeated , this is what we ’ ll get .
Politics indeed makes for strange bedfellows and some say it has never been stranger .
Republicans and Democrats fighting together to get rid of Trump the frog king isn ’ t nearly as strange as those who support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who can not stand Trump , but will vote for him .
I ’ m not the first one to ask why .
I ’ m sure not the first one to laugh at the incongruity of this allegiance .
But I have to ask : If your faith is so important to you that you sacrifice common decency to vote for Donald Trump , then perhaps you ’ re not faithful enough to your Christianity .
Do unto others as you would have them do to you .
The Sermon on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take these things in stride , and have read the Bible , then there is no way you can fit Donald Trump ’ s words and deeds into any known Christian philosophy .
Donald Trump isn ’ t poor in spirit .
He may be absent in spirit .
He doesn ’ t mourn , he isn ’ t meek , he doesn ’ t hunger or thirst for righteousness .
He isn ’ t merciful or pure in heart and he ’ s definitely not a peacemaker .
He isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rich and well fed .
And his followers speak very well of him .
“ For that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets , ” the Bible reminds us .
In short , there is nothing notably Christian about Donald Trump ’ s supposed Christianity and no reason a Christian would see him as such .
His evangelical supporters ’ ability to turn a blind eye to his massive lack of piety is incredible .
He spends most of his Sundays on the back nine at his favorite self-owned golf clubs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic because he doesn ’ t know how to handle it and is reduced to letting it rage in a futile attempt to obtain “ herd immunity ” at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dead Americans .
While Jesus told us those who live by the sword will die by the sword , modern evangelicals support a president who lives by “ might makes right , ” whose government caged children and reportedly forced hysterectomies on undocumented immigrants .
Many of these evangelicals have been showing up for the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last weeks of the election .
They were among those this week who were stranded in the freezing cold at an Ohio rally and passed out under the hot sun in a Florida rally .
Not since William Jennings Bryan—another famous “ fly-catcher , ” as H.L .
Mencken lampooned him—has an American politician so successfully conned the nation .
But while Donald Trump ’ s cons are obvious and abhorrent to many , they are just as easily believed and easily embraced by others .
Next week it will be put up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States of America .

In a few days it will all be over—or it won’t.
And while it seems like Donald Trump is on his farewell tour, threatening to disappear or leave the country, the polls show things are still not yet decided.
It has been an election cycle filled with rage, anger, and tears.
As the coronavirus rages, and the president claims “we’ve turned the corner” on the pandemic, he’s also told people in Iowa and Minnesota he’ll never be back their way again—if he doesn’t carry their states in the coming election.
On the tarmac in Iowa: “I may never have to come back here again if I don’t get Iowa,” he said. “I’ll never be back.”
In Pennsylvania this week he openly mused about hopping into a truck and driving away because his life was “great” before becoming president.
In a video news conference earlier this week with Trump’s niece Mary Trump, actress Patti LuPone was in tears describing how the coronavirus has ravaged the theater community across the country and how set designers, costume designers, and others working in the industry have been left out in the cold in stimulus packages.
“We just want to be included,” she said.
But inclusion isn’t the Donald’s way.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian who specializes in fascism and authoritarianism, said in the same streaming news conference that the damage Trump has done is consistent with authoritarian rule. “We’re in the middle of it,” she said. And under strongman rule, she said, media independence doesn’t exist. There is no neutral. You’re either for him or against him.
The destruction of a free press and the tainting of the news is exactly what Trump has attempted—and he has been successful to the point that many of his supporters and even some of those who would never support him doubt the written word about him.
First Amendment attorney Anne Champion, who represented Mary Trump, Jim Acosta, and me in legal actions against Donald Trump, says the White House has abandoned the vital task of informing the public and now uses its communications office as a propaganda arm. The Trump administration believes itself to be at war with the press, and has been since his campaign. “I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you,” Trump told Lesley Stahl during the 2016 campaign.
From the first day of his administration, when Trump came out and boldly lied about the size of his inaugural crowd, it has been one lie after another. It has never stopped.
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…
Even supporters say a second Trump term will change the face of the United States forever—the supporters just think that’ll be a good thing. “Draining the swamp,” they call it.
But Trump’s recent actions in trying to gut the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which has governed the federal civil service since the government ended the spoils system under Chester A. Arthur in 1883, shows just where this country is headed under four more years of Trump—if the path wasn’t already obvious.
Far from draining the swamp, Trump wants to stock it full of creatures friendly to him. He wants to be the swamp master, a king of the amphibians. And if he isn’t defeated, this is what we’ll get.
Politics indeed makes for strange bedfellows and some say it has never been stranger. Republicans and Democrats fighting together to get rid of Trump the frog king isn’t nearly as strange as those who support this fly-catching lump.
I know evangelicals who cannot stand Trump, but will vote for him. I’m not the first one to ask why. I’m sure not the first one to laugh at the incongruity of this allegiance. But I have to ask: If your faith is so important to you that you sacrifice common decency to vote for Donald Trump, then perhaps you’re not faithful enough to your Christianity.
Do unto others as you would have them do to you. The Sermon on the Mount. The Beatitudes. If you take these things in stride, and have read the Bible, then there is no way you can fit Donald Trump’s words and deeds into any known Christian philosophy.
Donald Trump isn’t poor in spirit. He may be absent in spirit. He doesn’t mourn, he isn’t meek, he doesn’t hunger or thirst for righteousness. He isn’t merciful or pure in heart and he’s definitely not a peacemaker. He isn’t persecuted for his righteousness.
He is rich and well fed. And his followers speak very well of him. “For that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets,” the Bible reminds us.
In short, there is nothing notably Christian about Donald Trump’s supposed Christianity and no reason a Christian would see him as such. His evangelical supporters’ ability to turn a blind eye to his massive lack of piety is incredible.
He spends most of his Sundays on the back nine at his favorite self-owned golf clubs. He ignores the ravages of the coronavirus pandemic because he doesn’t know how to handle it and is reduced to letting it rage in a futile attempt to obtain “herd immunity” at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
While Jesus told us those who live by the sword will die by the sword, modern evangelicals support a president who lives by “might makes right,” whose government caged children and reportedly forced hysterectomies on undocumented immigrants.
Many of these evangelicals have been showing up for the Trump tent revival traveling road show in the last weeks of the election. They were among those this week who were stranded in the freezing cold at an Ohio rally and passed out under the hot sun in a Florida rally.
Not since William Jennings Bryan—another famous “fly-catcher,” as H.L. Mencken lampooned him—has an American politician so successfully conned the nation.
But while Donald Trump’s cons are obvious and abhorrent to many, they are just as easily believed and easily embraced by others.
Next week it will be put up or shut up time for the United States of America.