thebulwark--2020-07-13--Ten Ways to (Actually) Drain the Swamp

Ten Ways to (Actually) Drain the Swamp

For the better part of the last two decades , hyper-partisanship and dysfunction have gripped the federal government .
The only time when significant policies have been enacted into law is during the brief periods of unified control when one party controlled the House , the Senate , and the White House .
But even these periods have been suboptimal , because during these times of single-party control , policy debate is minimal and negotiation takes place only at the margins .
If this dynamic continues so that one-sided government is our only vehicle for problem solving , then we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ride .
Because good governance is best established through debate between honest actors .
The process of negotiation is the process of removing the extreme and impractical , and amending the shortsighted––it is key to producing sound solutions .
And none of that has really existed in Washington for almost a generation .
Why ?
There ’ s a pretty good reason , actually : Our political system is driven by inequitable laws that govern our elections , corrupt rules that regulate the crossroads between money and power , and partisan dictatorial processes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If we want to change the dynamic of the federal government , we have to reform the political system itself .
Here ’ s how we start .
( 1 ) Lifetime ban on lobbying for former members of Congress , the president , Senate-confirmed appointees , and all senior staff for said offices .
Jack Abramoff , the disgraced Republican lobbyist , told CBS in 2012 , “ when we would become friendly with an [ elected official ] I would say… ‘ you know , when you ’ re done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.
’ The moment I said that… we owned them.
” “ We owned them ” is the definition of corruption .
Even if an elected official is not directly engaged by an Abramoff-like figure , everyone knows the game .
How one votes and conducts business on the Hill has a huge impact on future job prospects .
A rough average of 60 percent of all elected officials and staff transfer to lobbying after Congress , with an average pay increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressmen .
Take away that career path and the considerations on how to vote on any given legislation changes overnight––a positive change for the American people .
( 2 ) Prohibit anyone who is paid to lobby the president of the United States or Congress from contributing , bundling contributions , or holding fundraisers for federal candidates or PACs .
Elections are won and lost on fundraising .
Not only does a sizable war chest buy things like TV advertisements , but it wards off potential challengers and perpetuates power .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold a fundraiser that will raise $ 50,000 for an elected official and that lobbyist has a “ friendly ” chat with staff about an upcoming bill , then everyone knows the score .
In every consideration the question is whether the elected official has more to gain from pleasing a special interest or pleasing a majority of voters .
Take away the ability of lobbyists to reward members of Congress and you take a significant step toward giving the influence back to the voters .
Protecting First Amendment rights is of vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firewall to stop special interest groups from using campaign donations to buy votes .
( 3 ) Eliminate the loophole that allows former members of Congress to operate as shadow lobbyists .
According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act , to be a lobbyist one must spend “ 20 percent or more of his or her time in services [ of a ] client over any three-month period.
” That means a person could work 2.5 weeks straight influencing policy , then do nothing else for the client during the quarter—and not have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of shadow lobbying is detailed in a 2013 paper by political scientists Tim LaPira and Herschel Thomas .
Their key findings ?
Less than half of all lobbying is reported .
If an individual is advocating to influence public policy in any meaningful way , they should be forced to register as a lobbyist .
( 4 ) Prohibit Congress from all fundraising activities , Monday through Saturday , 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. , while Congress is in session .
Elected leaders spend dozens of hours every week making calls to donors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBS in 2016 that both the Democratic and Republican parties tell newly elected members to spend 30 hours each week making fundraising calls after they arrive in Washington .
Former Congressman and Republican David Jolly echoed similar sentiments , saying he was expected to raise $ 18,000 every single day .
Repeat : That ’ s $ 18,000 from calls .
Every .
Single .
Day .
That is madness .
Is it any wonder nothing gets done in DC ?
( 5 ) Political campaigns and organizations—including 501 ( c ) ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or more to a publicly accessible website every day .
Today , most donations are not disclosed for months .
Some are never made available online .
And others aren ’ t disclosed until after an election .
There is no reason that donations ( or aggregated donations ) of $ 250 or more can ’ t be made public on a website within 24 hours of receipt of the donation .
Americans have a right to know who is funding a campaign and determine for themselves what the motivation is for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PACs that have no restriction on how their funds are used .
Leadership PACs are used by virtually every member of Congress .
Their special sauce is that they have no restrictions on how money is spent .
In layman ’ s terms , they ’ re slush funds .
Need to spend $ 4,500 on limousines in Rome ?
Rand Paul ’ s Leadership PAC can help with that .
How about $ 15,000 on Celtics tickets for your people ?
No problem , you ’ re sitting courtside with Devine Nunes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Country club dues ?
Yep , your Leadership PAC is here to help .
The legal intent for these PACs is to make contributions to other caucus members .
The practice was brought to Washington by Democrat Henry Waxman as a means to essentially buy votes from other members so as to gain enough votes for a desired committee assignment .
But since Republicans passed rules in 1994 that gave party leadership the authority to appoint committee assignments , the role of Leadership PACs has changed .
Today the PAC ’ s main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dine big donors , bundlers , and other Washington insiders .
( 7 ) Provide a $ 250 tax write-off for contributions to political campaigns for Americans who make less than $ 100,000 .
If money is power , then let ’ s give people greater incentive to put skin in the game .
And if politicians can count on more small dollar donations , then perhaps they will have greater motivation to ignore the big-dollar special interest groups and lobbyists .
( 8 ) Place in a blind trust all stock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointees who require Senate confirmation .
Americans who are leading the government and creating legislation should not have their votes , debate position , or any type of recommendations influenced by personal monetary considerations .
It ’ s not just about insider trading , it ’ s about knowing which stocks are owned and how legislation ( or a specific provision ) will affect share price .
Blind trusts will create more honest decision making and foster greater trust between elected officials and the people .
( 9 ) Term limits of 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate , with no more than 20 years total years in Congress .
Mitch McConnel has been in Congress for 35 years .
Nancy Pelosi 33 years .
Pat Leahy 45 years .
Chuck Grassley 45 years .
Chuck Schumer 39 years .
On the one hand , institutional knowledge is good .
On the other hand , being bubbled-in and obstinate with an inflated idea of self-worth is bad .
Term limits would not only help to remove feuding personalities and instill new energy into policy making , but most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big money in politics and the time that politicians devote to cultivating relationships with mega donors .
Because if there is a firm end to service , staying in the good graces of lobbyists and special interest groups isn ’ t as important .
Working in tandem with banning lobbying jobs after Congress , a finite number of years in Washington will serve as motivation to create a legacy of problem solving .
( 10 ) Reform the Federal Election Commission by making it a completely independent body .
The FEC is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insiders .
Over the last 12 months there has been one month––repeat , one month––in which the body has had a quorum to do business .
It is a six-person commission , with only three commissioners presently serving .
Of those three , one is a devout Republican insider and the other two have served 12 years and 6 years past their term expirations .
The commission needs a complete overhaul that not only fixes the systemic problems , but also asserts the regulatory body as a strong , independent agency .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is predominantly made up of party insiders and made into a body composed solely of Americans who are not only independent of Republican and Democratic politics , but also have no connection to lobbying or special interest groups .
The number of commissioners should be reduced from six to five so as to negate deadlocks .
And it should make use of impartial administrative law judges to decide enforcement proceedings .
Until America reforms the political system itself , the federal government will continue to operate spasmodically , at best .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 250-odd years , then we the people must aggressively and loudly back leaders who will fight to enact policies which transform the way Washington conducts its business .
Apathy to political reform , is apathy to future liberty , security , and prosperity .

For the better part of the last two decades, hyper-partisanship and dysfunction have gripped the federal government. The only time when significant policies have been enacted into law is during the brief periods of unified control when one party controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. But even these periods have been suboptimal, because during these times of single-party control, policy debate is minimal and negotiation takes place only at the margins.
If this dynamic continues so that one-sided government is our only vehicle for problem solving, then we are all in for a very rough ride. Because good governance is best established through debate between honest actors. The process of negotiation is the process of removing the extreme and impractical, and amending the shortsighted––it is key to producing sound solutions.
And none of that has really existed in Washington for almost a generation. Why? There’s a pretty good reason, actually: Our political system is driven by inequitable laws that govern our elections, corrupt rules that regulate the crossroads between money and power, and partisan dictatorial processes that guide the legislative process in Congress.
If we want to change the dynamic of the federal government, we have to reform the political system itself. Here’s how we start.
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…
(1) Lifetime ban on lobbying for former members of Congress, the president, Senate-confirmed appointees, and all senior staff for said offices.
Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, told CBS in 2012, “when we would become friendly with an [elected official] I would say… ‘you know, when you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.’ The moment I said that… we owned them.”
“We owned them” is the definition of corruption.
Even if an elected official is not directly engaged by an Abramoff-like figure, everyone knows the game. How one votes and conducts business on the Hill has a huge impact on future job prospects. A rough average of 60 percent of all elected officials and staff transfer to lobbying after Congress, with an average pay increase of more than $2.4 million for congressmen.
Take away that career path and the considerations on how to vote on any given legislation changes overnight––a positive change for the American people.
(2) Prohibit anyone who is paid to lobby the president of the United States or Congress from contributing, bundling contributions, or holding fundraisers for federal candidates or PACs.
Elections are won and lost on fundraising. Not only does a sizable war chest buy things like TV advertisements, but it wards off potential challengers and perpetuates power.
So, if a lobbyist has the ability to hold a fundraiser that will raise $50,000 for an elected official and that lobbyist has a “friendly” chat with staff about an upcoming bill, then everyone knows the score.
In every consideration the question is whether the elected official has more to gain from pleasing a special interest or pleasing a majority of voters. Take away the ability of lobbyists to reward members of Congress and you take a significant step toward giving the influence back to the voters.
Protecting First Amendment rights is of vital importance, but there must be a firewall to stop special interest groups from using campaign donations to buy votes.
(3) Eliminate the loophole that allows former members of Congress to operate as shadow lobbyists.
According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, to be a lobbyist one must spend “20 percent or more of his or her time in services [of a] client over any three-month period.”
That means a person could work 2.5 weeks straight influencing policy, then do nothing else for the client during the quarter—and not have to register as a lobbyist.
The extent of shadow lobbying is detailed in a 2013 paper by political scientists Tim LaPira and Herschel Thomas. Their key findings? Less than half of all lobbying is reported.
If an individual is advocating to influence public policy in any meaningful way, they should be forced to register as a lobbyist.
(4) Prohibit Congress from all fundraising activities, Monday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., while Congress is in session.
Elected leaders spend dozens of hours every week making calls to donors. Former Democratic Congressman Rick Nolan told CBS in 2016 that both the Democratic and Republican parties tell newly elected members to spend 30 hours each week making fundraising calls after they arrive in Washington. Former Congressman and Republican David Jolly echoed similar sentiments, saying he was expected to raise $18,000 every single day. Repeat: That’s $18,000 from calls. Every. Single. Day.
That is madness. Is it any wonder nothing gets done in DC?
(5) Political campaigns and organizations—including 501(c)(4) nonprofits—report contributions of $250 or more to a publicly accessible website every day.
Today, most donations are not disclosed for months. Some are never made available online. And others aren’t disclosed until after an election.
There is no reason that donations (or aggregated donations) of $250 or more can’t be made public on a website within 24 hours of receipt of the donation. Americans have a right to know who is funding a campaign and determine for themselves what the motivation is for that donation.
(6) Prohibit Leadership PACs that have no restriction on how their funds are used.
Leadership PACs are used by virtually every member of Congress. Their special sauce is that they have no restrictions on how money is spent. In layman’s terms, they’re slush funds.
Need to spend $4,500 on limousines in Rome? Rand Paul’s Leadership PAC can help with that. How about $15,000 on Celtics tickets for your people? No problem, you’re sitting courtside with Devine Nunes. Need to pay a mistress? Country club dues? Yep, your Leadership PAC is here to help.
The legal intent for these PACs is to make contributions to other caucus members. The practice was brought to Washington by Democrat Henry Waxman as a means to essentially buy votes from other members so as to gain enough votes for a desired committee assignment. But since Republicans passed rules in 1994 that gave party leadership the authority to appoint committee assignments, the role of Leadership PACs has changed. Today the PAC’s main use—besides the personal slush fund—is to wine and dine big donors, bundlers, and other Washington insiders.
(7) Provide a $250 tax write-off for contributions to political campaigns for Americans who make less than $100,000.
If money is power, then let’s give people greater incentive to put skin in the game. And if politicians can count on more small dollar donations, then perhaps they will have greater motivation to ignore the big-dollar special interest groups and lobbyists.
(8) Place in a blind trust all stock holdings of federally elected leaders and federal appointees who require Senate confirmation.
Americans who are leading the government and creating legislation should not have their votes, debate position, or any type of recommendations influenced by personal monetary considerations. It’s not just about insider trading, it’s about knowing which stocks are owned and how legislation (or a specific provision) will affect share price.
Blind trusts will create more honest decision making and foster greater trust between elected officials and the people.
(9) Term limits of 14 years in the House and 18 years in the Senate, with no more than 20 years total years in Congress.
Mitch McConnel has been in Congress for 35 years. Nancy Pelosi 33 years. Pat Leahy 45 years. Chuck Grassley 45 years. Chuck Schumer 39 years. On the one hand, institutional knowledge is good. On the other hand, being bubbled-in and obstinate with an inflated idea of self-worth is bad.
Term limits would not only help to remove feuding personalities and instill new energy into policy making, but most importantly, would diminish the influence of big money in politics and the time that politicians devote to cultivating relationships with mega donors. Because if there is a firm end to service, staying in the good graces of lobbyists and special interest groups isn’t as important.
Working in tandem with banning lobbying jobs after Congress, a finite number of years in Washington will serve as motivation to create a legacy of problem solving.
(10) Reform the Federal Election Commission by making it a completely independent body.
The FEC is a toothless body that is manipulated by political insiders.
Over the last 12 months there has been one month––repeat, one month––in which the body has had a quorum to do business. It is a six-person commission, with only three commissioners presently serving. Of those three, one is a devout Republican insider and the other two have served 12 years and 6 years past their term expirations.
The commission needs a complete overhaul that not only fixes the systemic problems, but also asserts the regulatory body as a strong, independent agency.
The FEC should be transformed from a body that is predominantly made up of party insiders and made into a body composed solely of Americans who are not only independent of Republican and Democratic politics, but also have no connection to lobbying or special interest groups. The number of commissioners should be reduced from six to five so as to negate deadlocks. And it should make use of impartial administrative law judges to decide enforcement proceedings.
Until America reforms the political system itself, the federal government will continue to operate spasmodically, at best.
If our nation is to endure for another 250-odd years, then we the people must aggressively and loudly back leaders who will fight to enact policies which transform the way Washington conducts its business.
Apathy to political reform, is apathy to future liberty, security, and prosperity.


Trump’s Commutation Corruption

President Trump ’ s commutation of Roger Stone ’ s criminal sentence is a reminder of the risks and dangers associated with the Constitution ’ s assignment of the sole power “ to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States ” to the president .
In a constitutional framework committed to the separation of powers and to checks and balances , that power stands out as an anomaly .
Stone , who was scheduled to start a 40-month prison sentence on July 14 , is one of the president ’ s long-time cronies .
He was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2016 election .
Among other things , he coordinated the WikiLeaks release of documents ( provided by the Russians ) that were damaging to Hillary Clinton .
Stone was found guilty of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his contact with WikiLeaks and of threatening to harm one of his associates if the associate cooperated with the Russia investigation .
President Trump offered clemency to Stone despite Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s recent defense of the fairness of Stone ’ s sentence .
What makes the Stone commutation so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unjustness of it , but rather the circumstances of the conviction .
It is noteworthy because Stone was being sent to jail for refusing to cooperate with investigations of the president himself .
Which creates then an ongoing problem : Trump has sent a message to anyone else who has potentially damaging evidence against him : Keep quiet and he ’ ll take care of you .
Mitt Romney called this act “ unprecedented , historic corruption.
” And he is correct .
Stone made the forthcoming quid pro quo explicit shortly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told an interviewer that the president “ knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him .
It would have eased my situation considerably .
But I didn ’ t .
They wanted me to play Judas .
I refused.
” Last month Stone told another interviewer that his biggest fear of going to prison ( other than concerns about his health ) was “ that I may not be free to do everything within my power to re-elect this president.
” That Trump took the unusual step of calling Stone personally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further signals the corruption on display .
President Trump has long talked about how much he loves the clemency power .
It comes closest to fulfilling his monarchical pretension that as president he can do whatever he wants .
As he has often noted , “ all agree the U.S. president has the complete power to pardon.
” But while Trump is not quite a student of America ’ s history , his characterization of the clemency power as absolute is correct .
The original plans that provided the framework of debate at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pardons , but the Framers eventually came around to the views of thinkers such as John Locke and William Blackstone , who had written in defense of such a power .
Locke said that in a good government the rulers “ should have a power .
.
.
to mitigate the severity of the law and pardon some offenders , ” a power to “ act according to discretion , for the public good , and without the prescription of the law.
” Blackstone , while worrying about whether such discretion would work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ necessary to soften the rigour of the general law.
” Alexander Hamilton supported giving the president what he recognized as a monarchical privilege because he thought it would be useful to heal the wounds caused by criminal prosecutions and by “ insurrection and rebellion.
” Without clemency , he wrote , “ justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.
” Like Locke and Blackstone , Hamilton said “ the benign prerogative of pardoning…should be as little as possible fettered.
” Throughout American history , courts have lent their support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1833 , United States v. Wilson became the first challenge to the president ’ s clemency power to reach the Supreme Court .
Siding with President Andrew Jackson , Chief Justice John Marshall described that power as a kind of “ grace , proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws.
” Twenty years later , in Ex Parte Wells , the Court echoed Marshall ’ s view .
“ Without such a power of clemency , ” it said , the Constitution would be “ most imperfect and deficient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attribute of Deity whose judgments are always tempered with mercy.
” In the 1866 case Ex Parte Garland , the Court went even further .
It held that the president ’ s clemency power was “ unlimited ” and that the “ benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him can not be fettered by legislative restrictions.
” And these sentiments have been repeated many times since .
State and federal courts have recognized that “ the very nature of clemency is that it is grounded in the will of the dispenser .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denying it.
” They have also affirmed that “ an executive may grant a pardon for good reasons , or bad , or for any reason at all , and his act is final and irrevocable.
” In 1998 , Chief Justice William Rehnquist explained that the exercise of the president ’ s clemency power could not be constrained by “ any sort of procedural requirements.
” The Founders , and the judges who have interpreted their words , understood the gamble they were taking in giving so much power to the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidence that , as former Supreme Court Justice William Howard Taft once put it , presidents would “ not abuse it.
” They relied on the people to choose presidents whose commitments to fairness and to constitutional democracy would be strong enough to guide their judicious use of the clemency power .
Following Hamilton , they hoped that giving such awesome power to one person also would inspire “ scrupulousness and caution ” in its use .
But the Founders did not foresee a president such as Donald Trump—a man who is willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and caution to the wind in the service of his own corrupt ends .
For all of the damage Trump has done , it is not the constitutional design that needs repair .
Repairing it is up to the citizens who vote .

President Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone’s criminal sentence is a reminder of the risks and dangers associated with the Constitution’s assignment of the sole power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States” to the president. In a constitutional framework committed to the separation of powers and to checks and balances, that power stands out as an anomaly.
Stone, who was scheduled to start a 40-month prison sentence on July 14, is one of the president’s long-time cronies. He was a key player in Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Among other things, he coordinated the WikiLeaks release of documents (provided by the Russians) that were damaging to Hillary Clinton.
Stone was found guilty of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his contact with WikiLeaks and of threatening to harm one of his associates if the associate cooperated with the Russia investigation.
President Trump offered clemency to Stone despite Attorney General Bill Barr’s recent defense of the fairness of Stone’s sentence.
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…
What makes the Stone commutation so important, however, isn’t the unjustness of it, but rather the circumstances of the conviction. It is noteworthy because Stone was being sent to jail for refusing to cooperate with investigations of the president himself. Which creates then an ongoing problem: Trump has sent a message to anyone else who has potentially damaging evidence against him: Keep quiet and he’ll take care of you.
Mitt Romney called this act “unprecedented, historic corruption.” And he is correct.
Stone made the forthcoming quid pro quo explicit shortly before the clemency was announced when he told an interviewer that the president “knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t. They wanted me to play Judas. I refused.”
Last month Stone told another interviewer that his biggest fear of going to prison (other than concerns about his health) was “that I may not be free to do everything within my power to re-elect this president.”
That Trump took the unusual step of calling Stone personally to inform him of the commutation only further signals the corruption on display.
President Trump has long talked about how much he loves the clemency power. It comes closest to fulfilling his monarchical pretension that as president he can do whatever he wants. As he has often noted, “all agree the U.S. president has the complete power to pardon.”
But while Trump is not quite a student of America’s history, his characterization of the clemency power as absolute is correct.
The original plans that provided the framework of debate at the Constitutional Convention included no provisions for pardons, but the Framers eventually came around to the views of thinkers such as John Locke and William Blackstone, who had written in defense of such a power.
Locke said that in a good government the rulers “should have a power . . . to mitigate the severity of the law and pardon some offenders,” a power to “act according to discretion, for the public good, and without the prescription of the law.”
Blackstone, while worrying about whether such discretion would work well in a democracy, defended it as “necessary to soften the rigour of the general law.”
Alexander Hamilton supported giving the president what he recognized as a monarchical privilege because he thought it would be useful to heal the wounds caused by criminal prosecutions and by “insurrection and rebellion.” Without clemency, he wrote, “justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” Like Locke and Blackstone, Hamilton said “the benign prerogative of pardoning…should be as little as possible fettered.”
Throughout American history, courts have lent their support to Hamilton’s vision. In 1833, United States v. Wilson became the first challenge to the president’s clemency power to reach the Supreme Court. Siding with President Andrew Jackson, Chief Justice John Marshall described that power as a kind of “grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws.”
Twenty years later, in Ex Parte Wells, the Court echoed Marshall’s view. “Without such a power of clemency,” it said, the Constitution would be “most imperfect and deficient in its political morality and in that attribute of Deity whose judgments are always tempered with mercy.”
In the 1866 case Ex Parte Garland, the Court went even further. It held that the president’s clemency power was “unlimited” and that the “benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by legislative restrictions.”
And these sentiments have been repeated many times since.
State and federal courts have recognized that “the very nature of clemency is that it is grounded in the will of the dispenser. He need give no reasons for granting or denying it.” They have also affirmed that “an executive may grant a pardon for good reasons, or bad, or for any reason at all, and his act is final and irrevocable.” In 1998, Chief Justice William Rehnquist explained that the exercise of the president’s clemency power could not be constrained by “any sort of procedural requirements.”
The Founders, and the judges who have interpreted their words, understood the gamble they were taking in giving so much power to the president. They did so because they had confidence that, as former Supreme Court Justice William Howard Taft once put it, presidents would “not abuse it.”
They relied on the people to choose presidents whose commitments to fairness and to constitutional democracy would be strong enough to guide their judicious use of the clemency power.
Following Hamilton, they hoped that giving such awesome power to one person also would inspire “scrupulousness and caution” in its use.
But the Founders did not foresee a president such as Donald Trump—a man who is willing to shred the Constitution and throw scrupulousness and caution to the wind in the service of his own corrupt ends.
For all of the damage Trump has done, it is not the constitutional design that needs repair.
Repairing it is up to the citizens who vote.


thebulwark--2020-07-13--Dr. Fauci Was Doomed from the Start

Dr. Fauci Was Doomed from the Start

It was only a matter of time before Anthony Fauci would be history .
The earnest , public-spirited infectious disease specialist , who had helped to guide the nation through previous public health challenges ranging from AIDS to Zika to Ebola , was a perfect contrast to this president .
On one hand you had professionalism , modesty , and integrity .
On the other—well , let ’ s put it this way , they are such diametrically opposed types that it ’ s amazing they were able to stand on the same platform without causing a matter/anti-matter explosion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the way to handle the administration ’ s response to the virus was to make Drs .
Fauci , Birx , and other professionals the public face .
The president ’ s ideal role would be to work , mostly behind the scenes , with governors , health experts , educators , military and business leaders , close allies , and the Congress to craft creative solutions to supply and other issues .
The president ’ s most important public role would be modeling seriousness about the threat ( by social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and highlighting the work of others .
Trump was incapable of following that script .
Instead , he made himself the star of the daily briefings , with results that will surely be remembered as among the most mortifying in presidential history .
Research has shown that Americans living abroad actually shrank several inches in height after each presidential health tutorial .
The strain began to tell on Fauci early .
Challenged in March to explain why he didn ’ t correct the president ’ s false statements , Fauci replied with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jump in front of the microphone and push him down.
” He kept his job despite that—though close observers started the countdown clock .
In the long weeks that followed , Fauci attempted to do his best .
While offering hope of an early vaccine , he refused to engage in happy talk .
Tiptoeing around the chief executive , he kept his dignity , seemingly focused on conveying accurate information to the public .
It was an intricate verbal dance .
Trump would say something cracked and eyes would turn to Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a way that everyone with an IQ above 90 would understand but Trump would miss .
A June poll found that 76 percent of Americans trusted Dr. Fauci for accurate information about the coronavirus versus 26 percent who trusted Trump .
At the end of June , Dr. Fauci testified before Congress that we were in deep trouble .
Warning that we could soon see 100,000 cases per day , he acknowledged , “ Clearly we are not in control right now.
” That could not have been well-received in the West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , clearly concluding that the jig was up , he went further , telling the Financial Times that “ I have a reputation , as you probably have figured out , of speaking the truth at all times and not sugar-coating things .
And that may be one of the reasons why I haven ’ t been on television very much lately.
” That did it .
But Trump didn ’ t fire Fauci , he fired at him , through leaks .
The press office circulated an opposition research document with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made early on .
The good doctor had recommended against mask-wearing !
Yes , but he later acknowledged the error .
Well , they say , the hoity toity Fauci said on February 29 that there was “ no need to change anything you ’ re doing.
” Yes , but what the oppo dump left out was that he added that his advice “ could change if we see community spread , ” which we did soon thereafter .
People of good character who attempt to tell the truth and conduct themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this administration .
This president exalts Roger Stone , Michael Flynn , Paul Manafort , Rudi Giuliani , and Steve Bannon .
He attempts to destroy Alexander Vindman , Marie Yovanovich , and James Mattis .
Fauci was doomed from the start because he is serious , sober , dedicated , and independent , not a lackey for the Bad Orange Man .
Above all , he was doomed because he tells the truth .
And this administration is one continuing lie .

It was only a matter of time before Anthony Fauci would be history. The earnest, public-spirited infectious disease specialist, who had helped to guide the nation through previous public health challenges ranging from AIDS to Zika to Ebola, was a perfect contrast to this president. On one hand you had professionalism, modesty, and integrity. On the other—well, let’s put it this way, they are such diametrically opposed types that it’s amazing they were able to stand on the same platform without causing a matter/anti-matter explosion.
It was obvious to everyone except Trump that the way to handle the administration’s response to the virus was to make Drs. Fauci, Birx, and other professionals the public face. The president’s ideal role would be to work, mostly behind the scenes, with governors, health experts, educators, military and business leaders, close allies, and the Congress to craft creative solutions to supply and other issues. The president’s most important public role would be modeling seriousness about the threat (by social distancing, wearing a mask, etc.) and highlighting the work of others.
Trump was incapable of following that script. Instead, he made himself the star of the daily briefings, with results that will surely be remembered as among the most mortifying in presidential history. Research has shown that Americans living abroad actually shrank several inches in height after each presidential health tutorial.
The strain began to tell on Fauci early. Challenged in March to explain why he didn’t correct the president’s false statements, Fauci replied with exasperation, “I can’t jump in front of the microphone and push him down.”
He kept his job despite that—though close observers started the countdown clock.
In the long weeks that followed, Fauci attempted to do his best. While offering hope of an early vaccine, he refused to engage in happy talk. Tiptoeing around the chief executive, he kept his dignity, seemingly focused on conveying accurate information to the public. It was an intricate verbal dance. Trump would say something cracked and eyes would turn to Fauci, who would try to contradict him in a way that everyone with an IQ above 90 would understand but Trump would miss.
A June poll found that 76 percent of Americans trusted Dr. Fauci for accurate information about the coronavirus versus 26 percent who trusted Trump.
At the end of June, Dr. Fauci testified before Congress that we were in deep trouble. Warning that we could soon see 100,000 cases per day, he acknowledged, “Clearly we are not in control right now.” That could not have been well-received in the West Wing. Then, on July 10, clearly concluding that the jig was up, he went further, telling the Financial Times that “I have a reputation, as you probably have figured out, of speaking the truth at all times and not sugar-coating things. And that may be one of the reasons why I haven’t been on television very much lately.”
That did it. But Trump didn’t fire Fauci, he fired at him, through leaks. The press office circulated an opposition research document with “bullet points” showing errors Fauci had made early on. The good doctor had recommended against mask-wearing! Yes, but he later acknowledged the error. Well, they say, the hoity toity Fauci said on February 29 that there was “no need to change anything you’re doing.” Yes, but what the oppo dump left out was that he added that his advice “could change if we see community spread,” which we did soon thereafter.
People of good character who attempt to tell the truth and conduct themselves as honorable public servants cannot survive in this administration. This president exalts Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rudi Giuliani, and Steve Bannon. He attempts to destroy Alexander Vindman, Marie Yovanovich, and James Mattis. Fauci was doomed from the start because he is serious, sober, dedicated, and independent, not a lackey for the Bad Orange Man. Above all, he was doomed because he tells the truth. And this administration is one continuing lie.


thebulwark--2020-07-14--Presidential Pardons and the Spirit of Clemency

Donald Trump ’ s commutation of Roger Stone ’ s prison sentence brings to mind another occasion , nearly a century ago , when a conservative Republican president commuted a convict ’ s sentence—not out of self-interest , as in Trump ’ s pardon of Stone , but out of concern for what he thought was right for the country .
The prisoner in this case had been serving time for violation of the Espionage and Sedition Acts passed during the administration of Democratic president Woodrow Wilson .
Given the widespread resistance to the United States entering the war then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed the Espionage Act , which prohibited interference with American armed forces in wartime .
The next year , Congress added onto it with the Sedition Act , which prohibited “ disloyal , profane , scurrilous , or abusive language about the form of government of the United States ” or that would bring government , the Constitution , the military , or the flag “ into contempt , scorn , contumely , or disrepute.
” Convicted violators could be punished with “ a fine of not more than $ 10,000 ” —that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s money—or “ imprisonment for not more than twenty years , or both.
” The man convicted and sent to prison for violating this law was the leader of the American Socialist Party , Eugene V. Debs .
In a speech he gave in Canton , Ohio on June 16 , 1918 , Debs spoke out against U.S. participation in the war , which he believed was an unnecessary one waged on behalf of bankers and business leaders .
“ As a Socialist , ” Debs told the crowd of about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learned how to stand alone.
” Corporate leaders , he said , “ are today wrapped up in the American flag ” and “ make the claim that they are the only patriots.
” What particularly offended government officials who were there listening to the speech was Debs ’ s defense of the radical syndicalists of the self-proclaimed revolutionary union movement , the IWW .
The U.S. attorney general , upon reading a transcript of the speech , concluded that Debs was “ close to , if not over , the line , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution .
After all , anyone who read the speech immediately saw that Debs had never advocated draft resistance or any other overtly militant and illegal action .
The U.S. attorney for northern Ohio , however , obtained a grand jury indictment of Debs on June 29 , charging him with violations of the Espionage and Sedition Acts .
Debs admitted to all he was accused of having said except for one thing : He stressed that he never favored violence or violent revolution , but opposed capitalism and war profiteers .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Debs explained in the courtroom .
“ American institutions are on trial here before a court of American citizens.
” Sentencing him to ten years in prison , the judge condemned those “ who would strike the sword from the hand of this nation while she is engaged in defending herself against a foreign and brutal power.
” Civil libertarians and labor and progressive activists flooded the White House with demands for his release .
Woodrow Wilson simply turned down every request he received and was adamant that he would not pardon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader .
While serving out his sentence in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta , Debs ran for president in 1920 on the Socialist Party ticket—and received an astonishing 913,000 write-in votes .
Debs had been imprisoned for two years when a new Republican president , Warren G. Harding , was elected .
He was known as a staunch conservative , and progressive publications like the Nation and the New Republic predicted that his election would be catastrophic for the country .
The last thing they expected was any sympathy on his part for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his victory , though , Harding quietly began to reassess the cases of many of those arrested for their opposition to the war in the Wilson years .
He decided that he would commute the sentences of those imprisoned if they met certain criteria : that they had not committed any criminal or destructive act in connection with their anti-war activities , and had not advocated violence .
Of all the self-proclaimed “ political prisoners , ” Debs was the most prominent .
At Harding ’ s instructions , the new U.S. attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daugherty , arranged to have Debs let out of prison for a few days , so he could travel on his own—without any guards—to come to Washington , D.C , to meet with Daugherty on March 24 , 1921 to discuss his case .
Daugherty had only good things to write about Debs .
He wrote in his memoir of the Harding years , published in 1932 , that he and Debs talked for most of the day .
Debs told him his ideas on government , religion , and socialism , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he wrote that “ a more eloquent and fascinating recital I never heard fall from the lips of any man.
” He proclaimed Debs to have “ a charming personality , with a deep love for his fellow man.
” Yet Daugherty advised the president not to pardon Debs or commute his sentence .
( He claimed the opposite in his memoir , but the evidence contradicts him . )
Harding originally had planned to free Debs at year ’ s end , but he changed it to December 24 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Debs could “ eat his Christmas dinner with his wife.
” But before Debs returned home , Harding insisted that upon leaving prison , he come to Washington , D.C. , and meet with him at the White House , a meeting that took place December 26 , 1921 .
Harding was widely petitioned on behalf of the other wartime political prisoners as well .
He “ would never , as long as he was President , ” according to a July 19 , 1922 White House statement , “ pardon any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destruction of the Government by force.
” But most of the remaining prisoners were , like Debs , peaceful , and Harding would go on to free nearly all of them .
Harding ’ s commutation of Debs ’ s sentence had received strong opposition from patriotic groups .
The American Legion led nationwide protests , as did other pro-war groups .
In their eyes , Debs ’ s stance simply could not be forgiven .
The New York Times warned Harding that “ the majority of the American people will not approve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the journalist Malcolm Jennings , wrote Harding , “ I don ’ t know what led you to do it.
” He was shocked at Harding ’ s decision , as were other conservative and patriotic Republicans .
Harding had also gotten protests from the left , whose leaders demanded that Debs be freed .
Debs ’ s successor as head of the Socialist Party , Norman Thomas—a pastor and Princeton graduate who knew Harding from Marion , Ohio , where Thomas also was born—met with the president at the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Thomas revealed that Harding “ pointed very dramatically to a pile of pardon applications on his desk and told me that a lot of people were in jail for political reasons .
.
.
who should be free.
” Turning to Debs in particular , the president told Thomas “ he would pardon him when he could get as much ” sentiment for doing so as much as “ had been manifest .
.
.
against such action.
” Why did , then , Warren G. Harding , a confirmed conservative , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Debs ?
The first answer is that , unlike our current president , Harding knew that with the end of the war , the country wanted reconciliation and an end to division .
As he wrote a friend , Ben Myers , on August 30 , 1921 , Harding believed Debs “ was within his rights in supporting and promoting the theory to which he subscribes .
We can not punish men in America , ” he stressed , “ for their exercise of their freedom in political and religious belief.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideology , he made clear , “ but I recognize his right to his belief and I think him wholly sincere.
” Moreover , other nations had freed their political prisoners , and he found that course “ the magnanimous one.
” His main object was , he added , “ to restore good feeling and get our feet on normal paths again.
” Harding ’ s main explanation came in a lengthy letter written to Malcolm Jennings on January 6 , 1922 .
Even if taking an unpopular stance meant losing re-election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would vastly prefer a limited career with the consciousness of having done the right thing.
” He thought he would encounter criticism no matter which path he took .
The matter “ was given very serious and earnest study , ” and even his wife , he confided , was opposed to freeing Debs .
“ However , ” he wrote , “ I was persuaded that it was the right thing to do.
” Attorney General Daugherty too advised against clemency , but “ I did not think it wise to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote these remarkable words : In fact , Harding wrote , he could pick out a half-dozen of them in both the House and Senate , he wrote , “ who deserved quite as much to be in the penitentiary as did Debs.
” Finally , as the new postwar president , “ I thought the spirit of clemency was quite in harmony with the things we were trying to do in Washington ; that Debs had never been guilty of any overt act ; that he never countenanced destruction of government by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to become a factor in contributing to tranquility throughout the land.
” It is difficult to imagine , in these divided and troubling days , that our nation once had a conservative Republican president who believed that a socialist like Debs was just an American citizen with whom he disagreed , not an enemy who ought to be destroyed .
It would do well for Donald Trump to take a leaf from Warren G. Harding and work to bring the country together , instead of working so hard to divide us .

Donald Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone’s prison sentence brings to mind another occasion, nearly a century ago, when a conservative Republican president commuted a convict’s sentence—not out of self-interest, as in Trump’s pardon of Stone, but out of concern for what he thought was right for the country.
The prisoner in this case had been serving time for violation of the Espionage and Sedition Acts passed during the administration of Democratic president Woodrow Wilson. Given the widespread resistance to the United States entering the war then raging in Europe, in 1917 Congress passed the Espionage Act, which prohibited interference with American armed forces in wartime. The next year, Congress added onto it with the Sedition Act, which prohibited “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States” or that would bring government, the Constitution, the military, or the flag “into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute.” Convicted violators could be punished with “a fine of not more than $10,000”—that’s over $150,000 in today’s money—or “imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.”
The man convicted and sent to prison for violating this law was the leader of the American Socialist Party, Eugene V. Debs. In a speech he gave in Canton, Ohio on June 16, 1918, Debs spoke out against U.S. participation in the war, which he believed was an unnecessary one waged on behalf of bankers and business leaders.
“As a Socialist,” Debs told the crowd of about a thousand, “I have long since learned how to stand alone.” Corporate leaders, he said, “are today wrapped up in the American flag” and “make the claim that they are the only patriots.” What particularly offended government officials who were there listening to the speech was Debs’s defense of the radical syndicalists of the self-proclaimed revolutionary union movement, the IWW. The U.S. attorney general, upon reading a transcript of the speech, concluded that Debs was “close to, if not over, the line,” but recommended against his arrest and prosecution. After all, anyone who read the speech immediately saw that Debs had never advocated draft resistance or any other overtly militant and illegal action.
The U.S. attorney for northern Ohio, however, obtained a grand jury indictment of Debs on June 29, charging him with violations of the Espionage and Sedition Acts. Debs admitted to all he was accused of having said except for one thing: He stressed that he never favored violence or violent revolution, but opposed capitalism and war profiteers.
“I am not on trial here,” Debs explained in the courtroom. “American institutions are on trial here before a court of American citizens.”
Sentencing him to ten years in prison, the judge condemned those “who would strike the sword from the hand of this nation while she is engaged in defending herself against a foreign and brutal power.”
Civil libertarians and labor and progressive activists flooded the White House with demands for his release. Woodrow Wilson simply turned down every request he received and was adamant that he would not pardon or commute the sentence of the socialist leader. While serving out his sentence in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Debs ran for president in 1920 on the Socialist Party ticket—and received an astonishing 913,000 write-in votes.
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…
Debs had been imprisoned for two years when a new Republican president, Warren G. Harding, was elected. He was known as a staunch conservative, and progressive publications like the Nation and the New Republic predicted that his election would be catastrophic for the country. The last thing they expected was any sympathy on his part for Debs and other political prisoners.
After his victory, though, Harding quietly began to reassess the cases of many of those arrested for their opposition to the war in the Wilson years. He decided that he would commute the sentences of those imprisoned if they met certain criteria: that they had not committed any criminal or destructive act in connection with their anti-war activities, and had not advocated violence.
Of all the self-proclaimed “political prisoners,” Debs was the most prominent. At Harding’s instructions, the new U.S. attorney general, a Harding crony named William Daugherty, arranged to have Debs let out of prison for a few days, so he could travel on his own—without any guards—to come to Washington, D.C, to meet with Daugherty on March 24, 1921 to discuss his case.
Daugherty had only good things to write about Debs. He wrote in his memoir of the Harding years, published in 1932, that he and Debs talked for most of the day. Debs told him his ideas on government, religion, and socialism, and while Daugherty judged them “woefully wrong,” he wrote that “a more eloquent and fascinating recital I never heard fall from the lips of any man.” He proclaimed Debs to have “a charming personality, with a deep love for his fellow man.” Yet Daugherty advised the president not to pardon Debs or commute his sentence. (He claimed the opposite in his memoir, but the evidence contradicts him.)
Harding originally had planned to free Debs at year’s end, but he changed it to December 24, so that, as he later said, Debs could “eat his Christmas dinner with his wife.” But before Debs returned home, Harding insisted that upon leaving prison, he come to Washington, D.C., and meet with him at the White House, a meeting that took place December 26, 1921.
Harding was widely petitioned on behalf of the other wartime political prisoners as well. He “would never, as long as he was President,” according to a July 19, 1922 White House statement, “pardon any criminal who was guilty of preaching the destruction of the Government by force.” But most of the remaining prisoners were, like Debs, peaceful, and Harding would go on to free nearly all of them.
Harding’s commutation of Debs’s sentence had received strong opposition from patriotic groups. The American Legion led nationwide protests, as did other pro-war groups. In their eyes, Debs’s stance simply could not be forgiven. The New York Times warned Harding that “the majority of the American people will not approve this commutation.” Harding’s friend, the journalist Malcolm Jennings, wrote Harding, “I don’t know what led you to do it.” He was shocked at Harding’s decision, as were other conservative and patriotic Republicans.
Harding had also gotten protests from the left, whose leaders demanded that Debs be freed. Debs’s successor as head of the Socialist Party, Norman Thomas—a pastor and Princeton graduate who knew Harding from Marion, Ohio, where Thomas also was born—met with the president at the White House several times. Writing to a friend, Thomas revealed that Harding “pointed very dramatically to a pile of pardon applications on his desk and told me that a lot of people were in jail for political reasons . . . who should be free.” Turning to Debs in particular, the president told Thomas “he would pardon him when he could get as much” sentiment for doing so as much as “had been manifest . . . against such action.”
Why did, then, Warren G. Harding, a confirmed conservative, free the socialist radical, Eugene V. Debs? The first answer is that, unlike our current president, Harding knew that with the end of the war, the country wanted reconciliation and an end to division. As he wrote a friend, Ben Myers, on August 30, 1921, Harding believed Debs “was within his rights in supporting and promoting the theory to which he subscribes. We cannot punish men in America,” he stressed, “for their exercise of their freedom in political and religious belief.” He had no sympathy for Debs’s ideology, he made clear, “but I recognize his right to his belief and I think him wholly sincere.” Moreover, other nations had freed their political prisoners, and he found that course “the magnanimous one.” His main object was, he added, “to restore good feeling and get our feet on normal paths again.”
Harding’s main explanation came in a lengthy letter written to Malcolm Jennings on January 6, 1922. Even if taking an unpopular stance meant losing re-election, he wrote Jennings, “I would vastly prefer a limited career with the consciousness of having done the right thing.” He thought he would encounter criticism no matter which path he took. The matter “was given very serious and earnest study,” and even his wife, he confided, was opposed to freeing Debs. “However,” he wrote, “I was persuaded that it was the right thing to do.” Attorney General Daugherty too advised against clemency, but “I did not think it wise to make a martyr of Debs.” He then wrote these remarkable words:
I recalled that he had been several times a presidential nominee, but personally he is of a very clean and lovable character, and I am sure I have heard men in Congress say things worse than the utterances upon which he was convicted and the men in Congress, of course, went scot-free.
In fact, Harding wrote, he could pick out a half-dozen of them in both the House and Senate, he wrote, “who deserved quite as much to be in the penitentiary as did Debs.”
Finally, as the new postwar president, “I thought the spirit of clemency was quite in harmony with the things we were trying to do in Washington; that Debs had never been guilty of any overt act; that he never countenanced destruction of government by force, and probably I could persuade him to become a factor in contributing to tranquility throughout the land.”
It is difficult to imagine, in these divided and troubling days, that our nation once had a conservative Republican president who believed that a socialist like Debs was just an American citizen with whom he disagreed, not an enemy who ought to be destroyed. It would do well for Donald Trump to take a leaf from Warren G. Harding and work to bring the country together, instead of working so hard to divide us.


thebulwark--2020-07-14--Is the Republican Party a Lost Cause?

Is the Republican Party a Lost Cause?

Is the Republican Party a lost cause ?
Let me be definitive and unequivocal : I don ’ t know .
On the one hand , with embarrassingly few exceptions at every level , the Republican party is Donald Trump ’ s party .
So in many ways it deserves to be a lost cause .
On the other hand , after November 3 , the GOP may stop—more or less suddenly , and more or less convincingly—being Donald Trump ’ s party .
It might even stop being the party of Trumpism .
On the third hand , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s party .
And that moral and political stain can ’ t , and shouldn ’ t , simply be wished away .
On the fourth hand : It would be good for the country if there were a conservative party that wasn ’ t a nativist / proto-authoritarian / nationalist-populist party .
This would be the case for not giving up on the GOP , but rather fighting to save it .
But on the fifth hand , wishing for a sound conservative party won ’ t make it so .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it so , either .
It may be that American conservatism has been so damaged that a “ new center ” —whether as a party or some sort of cross-partisan coalition—is a better way to go than trying to save the GOP .
On the sixth hand ( I know , we ’ re in octopus territory here ) : Maybe we should root for the GOP to be salvaged , while acknowledging it won ’ t be saved by us people like us .
After all , if the GOP is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be done by people who have been complicit in Trumpism .
Because one thing that is certain is that the Republican apostates will never be forgiven by their erstwhile colleagues .
Not because we were wrong about Trump , but because we were right .
So Never Trumpers will be personae non gratae .
The only people who will be afforded the opportunity to save the GOP are the ones who helped wreck it .
Which doesn ’ t mean it shouldn ’ t happen , of course .
But it may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to happen .
And perhaps less likely to succeed .
Who knows ?
So many hands , so little clarity !
Such is politics sometimes ; such is life sometimes .
In these cases , often the best one can do is to stop planning for a triple-bankshot inside-straight at some point in the unspecified future , and instead simply to fight for an outcome that is right and just in the short term .
While at the same time keeping an open mind for the medium and long term .
I will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is with “ the Republican party is a lost cause ” faction .
But then my still somewhat conservative mind remembers the admonition of T.S .
Eliot : “ If we take the widest and wisest view of a Cause , there is no such thing as a Lost Cause because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause.
” On the other hand , maybe Pascal trumps Eliot : “ The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of.
” Heart or mind ?
Lost cause or worth trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Is the Republican Party a lost cause?
Let me be definitive and unequivocal: I don’t know.
On the one hand, with embarrassingly few exceptions at every level, the Republican party is Donald Trump’s party. So in many ways it deserves to be a lost cause.
On the other hand, after November 3, the GOP may stop—more or less suddenly, and more or less convincingly—being Donald Trump’s party. It might even stop being the party of Trumpism.
On the third hand, it will still have been Donald Trump’s party. And that moral and political stain can’t, and shouldn’t, simply be wished away.
On the fourth hand: It would be good for the country if there were a conservative party that wasn’t a nativist / proto-authoritarian / nationalist-populist party. This would be the case for not giving up on the GOP, but rather fighting to save it.
But on the fifth hand, wishing for a sound conservative party won’t make it so. And even fighting for one may not make it so, either. It may be that American conservatism has been so damaged that a “new center”—whether as a party or some sort of cross-partisan coalition—is a better way to go than trying to save the GOP.
On the sixth hand (I know, we’re in octopus territory here): Maybe we should root for the GOP to be salvaged, while acknowledging it won’t be saved by us people like us. After all, if the GOP is to be rebuilt, it will likely have to be done by people who have been complicit in Trumpism. Because one thing that is certain is that the Republican apostates will never be forgiven by their erstwhile colleagues. Not because we were wrong about Trump, but because we were right.
So Never Trumpers will be personae non gratae. The only people who will be afforded the opportunity to save the GOP are the ones who helped wreck it. Which doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen, of course. But it may suggest that the attempt is less likely to happen. And perhaps less likely to succeed.
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…
Who knows? So many hands, so little clarity!
Such is politics sometimes; such is life sometimes. In these cases, often the best one can do is to stop planning for a triple-bankshot inside-straight at some point in the unspecified future, and instead simply to fight for an outcome that is right and just in the short term. While at the same time keeping an open mind for the medium and long term.
I will admit that my heart, today, is with “the Republican party is a lost cause” faction.
But then my still somewhat conservative mind remembers the admonition of T.S. Eliot:
“If we take the widest and wisest view of a Cause, there is no such thing as a Lost Cause because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause.”
On the other hand, maybe Pascal trumps Eliot: “The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of.”
Heart or mind? Lost cause or worth trying to save? I don’t know.


thebulwark--2020-07-14--The Tale of Vindman and Stone

The Tale of Vindman and Stone

Two days after Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman retired from the U.S. Army , President Donald Trump commuted Roger Stone ’ s prison sentence .
Vindman told the truth , and for that he was punished .
Stone lied , and for that he was rewarded .
A jury convicted Stone of seven felonies , including witness tampering and lying to Congress , all relating to his dealings with WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign in 2016 .
He committed these crimes to protect Trump .
“ I will never roll on Donald Trump , ” Stone said in 2018 .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Howard Fineman , “ [ President Trump ] knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him .
It would have eased my situation considerably .
But I didn ’ t. ” The next day , Trump said Stone had been treated “ horribly , ” “ very unfairly , ” and “ very badly , ” even though , three days earlier , Attorney General Bill Barr said that Stone ’ s sentence was “ fair ” and called his prosecution “ righteous.
” Trump has granted fewer pardons and commutations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high percentage of them have gone to personal friends and political allies : 31 of 36 , according to Harvard Law School Professor Jack Goldsmith and Lawfare ’ s Matt Gluck .
John Barrett , a former Iran-Contra prosecutor , called Trump ’ s use of the pardon power “ almost transactionally criminal.
” It ’ s very quid pro quo : Trump will scratch your back if you don ’ t stab his .
The president ’ s pardon power exists to remedy injustices , not to inflict them .
What is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become , under Trump , a cynical act of self-protection .
Alexander Hamilton thought that because the pardon power was so expansive it “ would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution.
” He did not expect someone as bereft of scruples and caution as Donald Trump to become president .
When Trump pardoned former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio in August 2017 , he did so without consulting the Justice Department and for clearly political reasons .
He thought it would please his base .
It did .
The reason for the pardon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ fuck you , leftists.
” We have seen Trump use , or try to use , the law as a weapon—against political opponents , private companies , media organizations , and civil servants .
And we have seen him use it as a shield—to protect himself and his associates from the legal consequences of their actions .
He asked Jeff Sessions to investigate Hillary Clinton , and he asked the Ukrainian and Chinese governments to launch sham investigations of Joe Biden .
He wanted to prosecute Vindman for telling the truth under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but succeeded in forcing Vindman into early retirement by preventing him from being promoted .
Vindman ’ s “ crime ” was not committing a crime to protect the president .
People who contract COVID-19 do not elicit Trump ’ s sympathy .
The only people who do are those who support him , lie for him , and go , or almost go , to prison for him .
Because Trump is a pathological liar who always sees himself as the victim , he naturally sees criminals who lie for him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House released a statement calling Stone “ a victim of the Russia Hoax that the Left and its allies in the media perpetuated for years in an attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency.
” Meanwhile , the president said that James Comey , Andrew McCabe , Peter Strzok , Lisa Page , Joe Biden , and Barack Obama “ are the people that should be in trouble.
” None of those people have been convicted of felonies .
There ’ s a logic to Trump ’ s perverted ethics .
As I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way he wants to be treated and non-criminals the way he deserves to be treated .
Executive clemency , as Charles Krauthammer once observed , is an acknowledgement of failure .
It should be used only rarely , when ordinary legal procedures malfunction .
Trump extends clemency not when the system fails but when it works , not to right obvious wrongs but to cover them up .
By commuting Stone ’ s sentence , the president proved once again that he is incapable of using his powers without abusing them .

Two days after Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman retired from the U.S. Army, President Donald Trump commuted Roger Stone’s prison sentence.
Vindman told the truth, and for that he was punished.
Stone lied, and for that he was rewarded.
A jury convicted Stone of seven felonies, including witness tampering and lying to Congress, all relating to his dealings with WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign in 2016. He committed these crimes to protect Trump. “I will never roll on Donald Trump,” Stone said in 2018. On Friday, he told NBC’s Howard Fineman, “[President Trump] knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t.”
Hours later, Trump granted Stone’s request for clemency.
The next day, Trump said Stone had been treated “horribly,” “very unfairly,” and “very badly,” even though, three days earlier, Attorney General Bill Barr said that Stone’s sentence was “fair” and called his prosecution “righteous.”
Trump has granted fewer pardons and commutations than his predecessors, but an astoundingly high percentage of them have gone to personal friends and political allies: 31 of 36, according to Harvard Law School Professor Jack Goldsmith and Lawfare’s Matt Gluck. John Barrett, a former Iran-Contra prosecutor, called Trump’s use of the pardon power “almost transactionally criminal.”
It’s very quid pro quo: Trump will scratch your back if you don’t stab his.
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…
The president’s pardon power exists to remedy injustices, not to inflict them. What is supposed to be an act of compassion has become, under Trump, a cynical act of self-protection.
Alexander Hamilton thought that because the pardon power was so expansive it “would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution.” He did not expect someone as bereft of scruples and caution as Donald Trump to become president.
When Trump pardoned former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio in August 2017, he did so without consulting the Justice Department and for clearly political reasons. He thought it would please his base. It did. The reason for the pardon, according to one conservative columnist, was “fuck you, leftists.”
We have seen Trump use, or try to use, the law as a weapon—against political opponents, private companies, media organizations, and civil servants. And we have seen him use it as a shield—to protect himself and his associates from the legal consequences of their actions.
He asked Jeff Sessions to investigate Hillary Clinton, and he asked the Ukrainian and Chinese governments to launch sham investigations of Joe Biden. He wanted to prosecute Vindman for telling the truth under oath. He failed to do so, but succeeded in forcing Vindman into early retirement by preventing him from being promoted.
Vindman’s “crime” was not committing a crime to protect the president.
People who contract COVID-19 do not elicit Trump’s sympathy. The only people who do are those who support him, lie for him, and go, or almost go, to prison for him.
Because Trump is a pathological liar who always sees himself as the victim, he naturally sees criminals who lie for him as victims, too. The White House released a statement calling Stone “a victim of the Russia Hoax that the Left and its allies in the media perpetuated for years in an attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency.”
Meanwhile, the president said that James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama “are the people that should be in trouble.” None of those people have been convicted of felonies.
There’s a logic to Trump’s perverted ethics. As I’ve noted before, Trump treats criminals the way he wants to be treated and non-criminals the way he deserves to be treated.
Executive clemency, as Charles Krauthammer once observed, is an acknowledgement of failure. It should be used only rarely, when ordinary legal procedures malfunction.
Trump extends clemency not when the system fails but when it works, not to right obvious wrongs but to cover them up. By commuting Stone’s sentence, the president proved once again that he is incapable of using his powers without abusing them.


thebulwark--2020-07-14--Joe Biden Should Not Mess with Texas

Joe Biden Should Not Mess with Texas

News broke over the weekend that Democrats are pushing the Biden campaign to expand their map of target states to include Texas and Georgia .
Per Jonathan Martin in the New York Times : In a series of phone calls , Democratic lawmakers and party officials have lobbied Mr. Biden and his top aides to seize what they believe could be a singular opportunity not only to defeat Mr. Trump but to rout him and discredit what they believe is his dangerous style of racial demagogy .
This election , the officials argue , offers the provocative possibility of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states like Georgia and Texas , and a chance to install a generation of lawmakers who can cement Democratic control of Congress and help redraw legislative maps following this year ’ s census .
The Biden campaign trying to make a strong play in Texas is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons .
A parable : Texas is the football .
Lucy is the Republicans .
And Dems are Charlie Brown thinking that this time , things will be different .
We went through this exercise with Beto O ’ Rourke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beto out-raised Ted Cruz an unthinkable $ 70 million to $ 33 million and Cruz still won by more than 2 percentage points .
And it ’ s not like Cruz is popular in the state .
Cruz ’ s approval rating in June of 2018 was a dismal 39 percent .
So with more than twice the money , against an unpopular incumbent , a popular Democrat with a national following who got all of the earned media in the world still couldn ’ t pull of a win in Texas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s another thing about Texas .
It ’ s enormous .
It has 30 million people .
That ’ s more than the combined populations of the three states that handed Trump the presidency by 77,000 votes in 2016 , Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin .
Playing seriously in a state that large means spending a vast amount of resources .
And while Joe Biden ’ s fundraising has picked up over the past couple of months , he ’ s still far behind Trump in terms of overall cash on hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigns and the largest outside groups , Politifact reported on July 8 that Biden had raised $ 491 million to Trump ’ s $ 726 million .
Biden is sitting with the small stack , which means that he needs to play his hand accordingly .
There ’ s no reason for him to push that many chips into the center of the table to take a run at a state that Trump won by 9 points and where a Democrat presidential candidate hasn ’ t won since 1976 .
The good news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s position is so precarious that he ’ s going to have to spend money just playing defense in Georgia , Ohio , and Texas—all states that he should be able to take 100 percent for granted .
And while Trump has a money advantage , his resources are still finite .
Every dollar he spends trying to shore up Texas is a dollar that can ’ t be spent in Pennsylvania .
The real calculation for Democrats is this : Are they playing to a win , or gambling for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going into Texas would be a gamble unless Democratic donors can find an additional $ 300 million in the couch cushions in July .
Because that ’ s the kind of financial juice it would take for Dems to try and push the boundaries on the electoral map without sacrificing their chances in swing states where they hold real , but small , leads .
Pushing into Texas would mean that Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin are all sewn up with no chance of flipping back .
Anyone who sees the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memory .
Those states were Hillary Clinton ’ s “ blue wall.
” And while Biden ’ s polling currently looks stronger in those states than Clinton ’ s was , there is still a lot of time on the clock .
This weekend Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin—who flipped a house seat in 2018 in a district that Trump won by 7 points—talked with Tim Alberta and warned her fellow Democrats about being confident in the current polls : Speaking of not believing polling , there was a Dallas Morning News/UT Tyler poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 5 points in Texas .
Well , that polling outfit gets a B/C rating from FiveThirtyEight .
Recent results from more highly rated pollsters , such as Fox News , show a much tighter race with Biden up by only 1 point .
Which is to say : Biden isn ’ t leading at all .
He ’ s just within the margin of error .
Is it crazy that the Democrat is within the margin of error against an incumbent Republican president in Texas ?
Yes it is .
Is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump continues his death spiral ?
Yes .
And the Biden campaign should be pleased , because it ’ s a sign of how strong his position is nationally .
But you play to win the game .
And in this case , winning the game means getting to 270 Electoral College votes first .
And if the blue wave is strong enough to flip Texas on its own , then great .
But you don ’ t get any extra electors for style points .
This isn ’ t to say Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Lakes states or decline to press their advantage against a historically unpopular president .
But they ought to be smart about it .
Why put all of your chips on one number , where it ’ s winner-take-all , instead of spreading out your bets across the table ?
Biden has a bunch of pick up opportunities in states that are more realistic for Democrats , such as Arizona , Ohio , North Carolina , and Florida .
Every one of those states is , as a baseline , more favorable ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by putting chips into each of them , they get four chances to win electoral votes , even if the pots are smaller .
And the truth is , while Texas has been the Democrats ’ white whale for a generation , the real opportunity to break Trump ’ s back is in Florida where the pandemic is raging , seniors are frightened , and Biden is leading Trump by 9 points according to a Fox News poll from late June .
Florida is a big prize .
Because while Biden has multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump simply can not win without it .
If Democrats want to bet big on realignment , then Florida is where they should do it .
And if Democratic donors do somehow find that extra $ 300 million in July , there are still smarter places to invest it than Texas .
Like Georgia .
Because Georgia is not only theoretically gettable for Biden , but it has two competitive Senate races , too .
Dramatic over-performance by Biden could help help flip two Senate seats , making a Democratic takeover of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Democrats would then only need to flip two seats from Arizona , Maine , and Colorado . )
Meanwhile in Texas , most of the good polling still has Republican Senator John Cornyn up by double digits over his potential Democratic challenger ( even if he is looking more wobbly this cycle ) .
Democrats have their eye on a potential landslide victory , a reality most Republican operatives now understand is a genuine possibility .
But there are smart ways to go hunting for a big win .
And there @ @ @ @

News broke over the weekend that Democrats are pushing the Biden campaign to expand their map of target states to include Texas and Georgia. Per Jonathan Martin in the New York Times:
In a series of phone calls, Democratic lawmakers and party officials have lobbied Mr. Biden and his top aides to seize what they believe could be a singular opportunity not only to defeat Mr. Trump but to rout him and discredit what they believe is his dangerous style of racial demagogy. This election, the officials argue, offers the provocative possibility of a new path to the presidency through fast-changing states like Georgia and Texas, and a chance to install a generation of lawmakers who can cement Democratic control of Congress and help redraw legislative maps following this year’s census.
The Biden campaign trying to make a strong play in Texas is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons.
A parable: Texas is the football. Lucy is the Republicans. And Dems are Charlie Brown thinking that this time, things will be different.
We went through this exercise with Beto O’Rourke and the Senate race in 2018. Beto out-raised Ted Cruz an unthinkable $70 million to $33 million and Cruz still won by more than 2 percentage points. And it’s not like Cruz is popular in the state. Cruz’s approval rating in June of 2018 was a dismal 39 percent.
So with more than twice the money, against an unpopular incumbent, a popular Democrat with a national following who got all of the earned media in the world still couldn’t pull of a win in Texas.
Do you know why?
Because it’s Texas.
Here’s another thing about Texas. It’s enormous. It has 30 million people. That’s more than the combined populations of the three states that handed Trump the presidency by 77,000 votes in 2016, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Playing seriously in a state that large means spending a vast amount of resources. And while Joe Biden’s fundraising has picked up over the past couple of months, he’s still far behind Trump in terms of overall cash on hand.
Looking at total fundraising for the campaigns and the largest outside groups, Politifact reported on July 8 that Biden had raised $491 million to Trump’s $726 million. Biden is sitting with the small stack, which means that he needs to play his hand accordingly. There’s no reason for him to push that many chips into the center of the table to take a run at a state that Trump won by 9 points and where a Democrat presidential candidate hasn’t won since 1976.
That’s just a bad bet, pure and simple.
The good news for the Biden campaign is that Trump’s position is so precarious that he’s going to have to spend money just playing defense in Georgia, Ohio, and Texas—all states that he should be able to take 100 percent for granted. And while Trump has a money advantage, his resources are still finite. Every dollar he spends trying to shore up Texas is a dollar that can’t be spent in Pennsylvania.
The real calculation for Democrats is this: Are they playing to a win, or gambling for a chance at a realigning election?
Because going into Texas would be a gamble unless Democratic donors can find an additional $300 million in the couch cushions in July. Because that’s the kind of financial juice it would take for Dems to try and push the boundaries on the electoral map without sacrificing their chances in swing states where they hold real, but small, leads.
Pushing into Texas would mean that Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are all sewn up with no chance of flipping back. Anyone who sees the race that way must have an awfully short memory.
Those states were Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall.” And while Biden’s polling currently looks stronger in those states than Clinton’s was, there is still a lot of time on the clock.
This weekend Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin—who flipped a house seat in 2018 in a district that Trump won by 7 points—talked with Tim Alberta and warned her fellow Democrats about being confident in the current polls:
“I don’t believe it,” Slotkin says matter of factly. “Listen, if anyone tells me they can accurately predict what major events are coming in the remainder of 2020, I’ll give them a thousand dollars. I mean, this has been the year of black swans…I don’t for one minute think this [presidential] race is safe in anyone’s column. I’ve been literally begging people to ignore those polls. They are a snapshot in time. And if 2020 has taught us anything, it’s that we have no idea what’s coming next.”
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…
Speaking of not believing polling, there was a Dallas Morning News/UT Tyler poll this weekend that showed Biden leading Trump by 5 points in Texas. Well, that polling outfit gets a B/C rating from FiveThirtyEight. Recent results from more highly rated pollsters, such as Fox News, show a much tighter race with Biden up by only 1 point. Which is to say: Biden isn’t leading at all. He’s just within the margin of error.
Is it crazy that the Democrat is within the margin of error against an incumbent Republican president in Texas? Yes it is. Is it possible Biden could win the state if Trump continues his death spiral? Yes. And the Biden campaign should be pleased, because it’s a sign of how strong his position is nationally.
But you play to win the game.
And in this case, winning the game means getting to 270 Electoral College votes first. And if the blue wave is strong enough to flip Texas on its own, then great.
But you don’t get any extra electors for style points.
This isn’t to say Democrats should focus only on the three key Great Lakes states or decline to press their advantage against a historically unpopular president. But they ought to be smart about it.
Why put all of your chips on one number, where it’s winner-take-all, instead of spreading out your bets across the table? Biden has a bunch of pick up opportunities in states that are more realistic for Democrats, such as Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida. Every one of those states is, as a baseline, more favorable ground for Democrats than Texas is. And by putting chips into each of them, they get four chances to win electoral votes, even if the pots are smaller.
And the truth is, while Texas has been the Democrats’ white whale for a generation, the real opportunity to break Trump’s back is in Florida where the pandemic is raging, seniors are frightened, and Biden is leading Trump by 9 points according to a Fox News poll from late June.
Florida is a big prize. Because while Biden has multiple pathways to 270, even without Florida, Trump simply cannot win without it. If Democrats want to bet big on realignment, then Florida is where they should do it.
And if Democratic donors do somehow find that extra $300 million in July, there are still smarter places to invest it than Texas. Like Georgia. Because Georgia is not only theoretically gettable for Biden, but it has two competitive Senate races, too. Dramatic over-performance by Biden could help help flip two Senate seats, making a Democratic takeover of the upper chamber very much within reach. (Democrats would then only need to flip two seats from Arizona, Maine, and Colorado.)
Meanwhile in Texas, most of the good polling still has Republican Senator John Cornyn up by double digits over his potential Democratic challenger (even if he is looking more wobbly this cycle).
Why?
Because it’s Texas!
Democrats have their eye on a potential landslide victory, a reality most Republican operatives now understand is a genuine possibility.
But there are smart ways to go hunting for a big win. And there are risky ways.
Don’t mess with Texas.


thebulwark--2020-07-15--Elder Abuse at the White House

Elder Abuse at the White House

What did we just see ?
And who thought this would be a good idea ?
Donald Trump is sinking in the polls , failing spectacularly at the worst crisis of his presidency , dogged by recurring scandal , betrayed by his closest aides and family members .
And amazingly , in the midst of this , someone suggested he give this press conference .
The president of the United States , ladies and gentlemen , was in full Mad King mode , rambling , confused , disjointed , parading his grievances with barely a wave from afar at coherence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of buzzwords exploded in his head : statues , boats , vandalism , socialism , suburbs .
It is hard to write this display without using the word “ impaired.
” Because it wasn ’ t just the disjointed word salad .
It was the delivery .
Trump was somnolent , as if he ’ d pulled an all-nighter watching Fox & Friends or maybe his VCR tapes of Shark Week .
Imagine the covfefe tweet come to life .
The Rose Garden event was ostensibly about China , but quickly disintegrated into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a stream of broken consciousness , and a rambling oppo dump .
Perhaps the president really misses campaign rallies .
Or maybe he just got confused .
Someone on his staff gave him a summary of horrible things that he might someday be able to craft into a campaign attack on Joe Biden .
.
.
and so he just stood there and read the whole thing .
Here are some things the president of the United States said , in his weird , halting inflections : But if we had listened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of additional lives would have been lost .
And if you look at the job he did on swine flu , I looked at a poll .
They have polls on everything nowadays and they got very bad marks on the job they did on the swine flu .
H1N1 , he calls it N1H1 .
H1N1 got very poor marks from Gallup on the job they did on swine flu .
And they stopped very early on , testing .
They totally stopped it .
They just said stop .
And frankly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you wouldn ’ t have all the headlines because we ’ re showing cases .
There was more .
Biden wants to “ abolish the suburbs.
” The Wall was “ so timely ” because it stopped people coming in “ from heavily infected areas of Mexico .
If we had that we ’ d be in trouble like you wouldn ’ t believe .
You wouldn ’ t believe.
” And so on .
After the rant ended a reporter noted that he had just spent an hour railing against Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an underdog ?
“ No , ” Trump said .
And then he explained : “ I think we have really good poll numbers .
They ’ re not suppression polls , they ’ re real polls .
You look at the intercostal in Florida , you look at the Lakes , you see thousands of boats with Trump signs , American signs , you ’ ve got the Trump Pence sign all over.
” But we had in 2016 something even more so , but we got in and we had 306 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a tremendous margin of difference .
You remember , they all said , “ He can not get to 270.
” I went to Maine a number of times , where we just freed up lobster fishing and fishing .
They took away 5,000 square miles from Maine .
I just opened it up and I just got rid of tariffs in China .
And we ’ re working on European Union , which charge our fishermen tariffs , and I said , “ You ’ re not going to do that.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maine , but if you take a look , we went up there recently .
There were crowds ; thousands of people lined up going over to a factory where we were opening up for… We ’ re making swabs .
A beautiful big , new factory making swabs .
Just one point , in case you got lost in there with the “ suppression polls ” and Maine lobsters and China and the beautiful big new factory making swabs : In 2016 Donald Trump got 304 Electoral College votes and Hillary Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never seem to remember these numbers even though they ’ re so important to him .
The reviews were not stellar : But here ’ s the thing .
The election is 112 days away and this is what Americans are seeing in their White House .
We have zoomed past embarrassing and into territory that is genuinely alarming .
There was no reassurance that Trump was on the case ; no sense of either empathy or a plan .
Imagine being Cory Gardner , or Susan Collins , or Martha McSally—or any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall—and watching this shit show .
You have tied your political career to this man .
You made compromises and sold out your values because you believed that he had some magic political powers that you couldn ’ t access that would pull you across the finish line .
You didn ’ t like it .
It wasn ’ t your first choice .
But better to win with dishonor than lose with your integrity intact .
And this is what you get .
You must now realize that what you have coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the guy in the White House couldn ’ t care less .
As one Republican operative texted Rick Wilson : “ Fuck me .
Seriously .
REDACTED needed this like a hole in the head.
” The Trump campaign has signaled that they intend to spend a few hundred million dollars talking about the cognitive decline of Joe Biden .

What did we just see? And who thought this would be a good idea?
Donald Trump is sinking in the polls, failing spectacularly at the worst crisis of his presidency, dogged by recurring scandal, betrayed by his closest aides and family members.
And amazingly, in the midst of this, someone suggested he give this press conference.
Watch live: President Trump gives a press conference at the White House
Watch this video on YouTube
Summaries do not suffice.
The president of the United States, ladies and gentlemen, was in full Mad King mode, rambling, confused, disjointed, parading his grievances with barely a wave from afar at coherence. It was as if a hive of buzzwords exploded in his head: statues, boats, vandalism, socialism, suburbs.
It is hard to write this display without using the word “impaired.” Because it wasn’t just the disjointed word salad. It was the delivery. Trump was somnolent, as if he’d pulled an all-nighter watching Fox & Friends or maybe his VCR tapes of Shark Week.
Imagine the covfefe tweet come to life.
The Rose Garden event was ostensibly about China, but quickly disintegrated into something between one of his improvisational stump performances, a stream of broken consciousness, and a rambling oppo dump. Perhaps the president really misses campaign rallies. Or maybe he just got confused.
Someone on his staff gave him a summary of horrible things that he might someday be able to craft into a campaign attack on Joe Biden . . . and so he just stood there and read the whole thing.
Here are some things the president of the United States said, in his weird, halting inflections:
But if we had listened to Joe Biden, hundreds of thousands of additional lives would have been lost. And if you look at the job he did on swine flu, I looked at a poll. They have polls on everything nowadays and they got very bad marks on the job they did on the swine flu. H1N1, he calls it N1H1. H1N1 got very poor marks from Gallup on the job they did on swine flu. And they stopped very early on, testing. They totally stopped it. They just said stop. And frankly, if we didn’t test, you wouldn’t have all the headlines because we’re showing cases.
There was more. Biden wants to “abolish the suburbs.” The Wall was “so timely” because it stopped people coming in “from heavily infected areas of Mexico. If we had that we’d be in trouble like you wouldn’t believe. You wouldn’t believe.”
“Fake news.”
And so on.
After the rant ended a reporter noted that he had just spent an hour railing against Biden. Did the president see himself as an underdog?
“No,” Trump said. And then he explained:
“I think we have really good poll numbers. They’re not suppression polls, they’re real polls. You look at the intercoastal in Florida, you look at the Lakes, you see thousands of boats with Trump signs, American signs, you’ve got the Trump-Pence sign all over.”
Also:
But we had in 2016 something even more so, but we got in and we had 306 to, I guess, 223, which was a tremendous margin of difference. You remember, they all said, “He cannot get to 270.” I went to Maine a number of times, where we just freed up lobster fishing and fishing. They took away 5,000 square miles from Maine. I just opened it up and I just got rid of tariffs in China. And we’re working on European Union, which charge our fishermen tariffs, and I said, “You’re not going to do that.” So we freed it up for Maine, but if you take a look, we went up there recently. There were crowds; thousands of people lined up going over to a factory where we were opening up for . . . We’re making swabs. A beautiful big, new factory making swabs.
Just one point, in case you got lost in there with the “suppression polls” and Maine lobsters and China and the beautiful big new factory making swabs:
In 2016 Donald Trump got 304 Electoral College votes and Hillary Clinton got 227.
Odd that he can never seem to remember these numbers even though they’re so important to him.
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…
The reviews were not stellar:
President Trump’s press conference has the stream-of-consciousness feel of the third hour of AM talk radio. Only it's being delivered from the Rose Garden at the White House, with all the austerity and platform it provides. — Matt Viser (@mviser) July 14, 2020
But here’s the thing. The election is 112 days away and this is what Americans are seeing in their White House.
We have zoomed past embarrassing and into territory that is genuinely alarming.
There was no reassurance that Trump was on the case; no sense of either empathy or a plan.
Imagine being Cory Gardner, or Susan Collins, or Martha McSally—or any Republican on a ballot beneath Trump this fall—and watching this shit show. You have tied your political career to this man. You made compromises and sold out your values because you believed that he had some magic political powers that you couldn’t access that would pull you across the finish line.
You didn’t like it. It wasn’t your first choice. But better to win with dishonor than lose with your integrity intact.
And this is what you get.
You must now realize that what you have coming is defeat, but with dishonor. And the guy in the White House couldn’t care less.
As one Republican operative texted Rick Wilson: “Fuck me. Seriously. REDACTED needed this like a hole in the head.”
The Trump campaign has signaled that they intend to spend a few hundred million dollars talking about the cognitive decline of Joe Biden.
Good luck with that.