A moment of truth.

June 6, 2022

[Audio version here]

          The hearing scheduled this coming Thursday at 8:00 PM Eastern by the January 6th Committee will likely dominate the week’s news—and remind many Americans that Trump came perilously close to preventing the transfer of power to his legitimate successor. Rep. Adam Schiff implied that the Committee would reveal additional “bombshells,” while Rep. Liz Cheney  described the Committee’s findings as “chilling.”  Finally, a moment of truth about Trump.

          Trump and the GOP are planning a counterprogramming blitz to delegitimize the hearings as a partisan effort to smear the former president. Participants in the counterprogramming efforts include the RNC, Kevin McCarthy, and leading seditionists in the House (Jim Jordan and Elise Stefanik). The RNC’s involvement demonstrates that insurrection and election denialism have become part of its DNA. A leaked memo obtained by Vox reveals that a key RNC talking point will be that “Democrats are the real election deniers.” What?! That talking point makes perfect sense, but only if you are a third-grader on the playground invoking the childhood taunt, “I am rubber, you are glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” (My apologies to third graders everywhere for comparing them to the RNC.)

          So, as the January 6th Committee engages in the serious business of documenting the first attempted coup by a sitting president, the nation will be deluged with more of the delusional and dangerous lies that fueled the first insurrection attempt. And here is the worst part: Many mainstream media outlets will amplify those lies in a misguided effort to “present both sides” of the story. Or rather, they will amplify the lies because it is good for ratings. If you see your favorite news outlet engaging in unthinking “both-siderism,” let them know how you feel!

          In the run-up to the hearings, the DOJ again failed to live up to its mission, “To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law.” Late last week, the DOJ informed the January 6th Committee that it would not indict Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino for contempt of Congress, both of whom refused to provide testimony to the Committee. The DOJ’s letter informing the Committee of its decision failed to provide reasons for declining to prosecute two key aides with direct knowledge of Trump’s actions and intentions on January 6th. Rep. Adam Schiff called the development a “deeply troubling” precedent that would encourage other witnesses to “simply refuse to show up” in response to a congressional subpoena.

          Both Meadows and Scavino claimed they were protecting Donald Trump’s assertions of executive privilege in refusing to appear. But Donald Trump does not control the claim of executive privilege—the current president does. (The privilege belongs to the Office of the President, not to a particular person.) And Joe Biden informed the January 6th Committee and Mark Meadows that he would not assert executive privilege over the written communications between Meadows, Scavino, and Trump or related testimony about those communications.

          For example, a White House lawyer wrote to an attorney for Mark Meadows as follows:

          Consistent with President Biden’s determination that an assertion of privilege is not justified with respect to testimony and documents relating to these particular subjects, he has determined that he will not assert executive privilege with respect to your client’s deposition testimony on these subjects, or any documents your client may possess that bear on them.

          Given that President is not asserting executive privilege over Meadows’ written communications with Trump or related testimony, the decision by the DOJ to refuse to prosecute Meadows seems irrational. But it appears capricious given that the DOJ indicted Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro for refusing to appear before the Committee. Like Meadows, Navarro claims he is protecting Trump’s assertion of executive privilege. As with Meadows, Biden said he would not assert executive privilege over communications between Navarro and Trump (and related testimony). 

          The DOJ is creating a crisis of confidence over its inaction, minimalist prosecutions of the January 6th insurrectionists, long delays in deciding matters of great national interest, and inconsistent decisions. Merrick Garland owes an explanation to the American people. If he hopes to rebuild public trust in the Department, he should not require Americans to play “twenty questions” to discern whether the DOJ is acting to “defend the interests of the United States according to the law.” He owes the January 6th Committee—and the American people—an explanation of why some Trump aides seem to be above the law that applies to all other Americans.

Congressional negotiations on “gun safety” legislation.

          Senator Chris Murphy is saying that negotiations in the Senate are “serious” about making “meaningful changes to our gun laws.” He and Senator Cornyn are apparently working under a one-week deadline imposed by Chuck Schumer to bring legislation forward for consideration by the full Senate.

          I hope that Senator Murphy’s negotiations are successful in bringing about meaningful change, but I fear that he is being used by Republicans to distract and delay long enough for the outrage over Buffalo and Uvalde to subside. As reported by Senator Murphy, there appear to be no “changes to our gun laws” under consideration. Instead, the negotiations include “encouraging” states to enact red-flag laws, increasing security at schools, “investing in mental health,” and “improving” existing background checks.

          Notice anything missing from that list? Guns. Not one item is under discussion to regulate, limit, or ban guns, ammunition, or accessories. Instead, Democrats in the Senate appear to be adopting the Republican demagogic framework that the “real” problem is lax security at schools and “too many mentally ill people with access to guns.”

          I understand incrementalism and the practical necessity of accepting the modest changes we can negotiate during the weeks following the massacres in Uvalde and Buffalo. But we cannot be satisfied with the crumbs thrown our way by Mitch McConnell. No one, especially not Chris Murphy, should mischaracterize what is happening in the Senate.

          If the Senate passes a bill that includes only the above provisions, none of them constitute “meaningful changes to our gun laws.” If we describe the small, incremental changes as “meaningful,” we will give Republicans a rhetorical gift that they will exploit on the campaign trail. GOP advertisements will proclaim that after Uvalde and Buffalo, they passed “meaningful changes to our gun laws,” citing Chris Murphy. In truth, no guns will be affected by the legislation currently under consideration in the Senate. It is time for us to speak plainly and honestly. We owe it to the victims of Uvalde and Buffalo.

 Recommended reading after Uvalde and Buffalo.

          If you are feeling overwhelmed, you are not alone. As a nation, we are experiencing tragedy, disappointment, heartache, and anxiety over events that seem to be coming at us with every increasing velocity and frequency. How do we keeping fighting when we barely have time to recover between events that seem to shake us to the core? Dahlia Lithwick has written a beautiful essay on her quest to find a word that expresses “the need for action and hope, when we are broken and struggling to even move.” See Dahlia Lithwick in Slate, In wake of the Uvalde shooting, politics is both the poison and the cure.

          Lithwick finally found the word (in Yiddish, “tzebrokhnkayt”) which she explains as follows:

          Let’s not be ok. Let’s find power in not being ok. Let’s honor our brokenness – and the brokenness of our country – by finding the collective strength to fight for change.

          What does it mean, the opposing imperative of honoring the feeling of being shattered, while gathering up whatever is left to work harder?

          Lithwick’s prescription is correct. We will likely be in a state “brokenness” for a long time, but we must nonetheless continue to fight. If that is true, we must look to our feeling of brokenness as a source of strength. I urge you to read Lithwick’s article if any of this resonates with your feelings at this moment in time.

          I would like to add my own gloss onto Lithwick’s analysis. Many Democrats are feeling a sense of dread about what the future may bring. They are right to be worried about the threats to our democracy. But we must avoid the trap of collapsing every potential catastrophe into the present moment. The future unfolds at its own pace, and not every catastrophe will materialize. But if and when they do, we will have time to react, absorb, and respond. In Lithwick’s words, we can then “gather up whatever is left to work harder” and “find the collective strength to fight for change.” And remember, it’s not all on your shoulders. It’s on us, “we the people.”

Conversation with a progressive.

          You may (or may not) be surprised to learn that I receive lots of email disagreeing with my views. Centrist Democrats tell me I favor progressives, progressive Democrats tell me I favor centrists. One reader, Seth Michael Donsky, has been a subscriber to the newsletter since 2017 and has corresponded with me for the last five years. During that time, he migrated from viewing himself as a “moderate” or “centrist” Democrat to a “progressive.” Along the way, he became increasingly disappointed in my defense of Biden and other Democratic leaders. After much correspondence, we concluded that we should bring our discussion to the Today’s Edition Podcast so other readers could hear our dialog. Check it out: A view from the progressive wing. | Today’s Edition with Robert Hubbell.

Concluding Thoughts.

          This headline in Politico made me happy: Biden wants to get out more, seething that his standing is now worse than Trump’s. Good! Biden needs to get mad to get motivated. He has been kept on a short leash by his advisers, traveling in a 100-mile radius of the White House. He is best when he is interacting with people—which is hard to do from behind a podium in the Rose Garden. Will he make gaffes? Sure! Will the cross-country travel be too demanding? Maybe, but if so, isn’t that something we need to know?

          I am 100% behind Biden’s effort to free himself from his handlers and reconnect with the American people. Many of the problems dragging down his favorability ratings are beyond his control. So, there is nothing to do except take to the road and remind people why they voted for him over Trump only 19 months ago. Despite all of the problems besetting the nation, it is a good bet that the American people would do so again. Go get ‘em, Joe!

          Talk to you tomorrow!