... and please consider other former or currently-quasi Rs who are also exceptionally insightful and effective commentators, Matthew Dowd and Steve Schmidt, as well as Jonathan Lemire, whose bravery, clarity and stunning journalistic instincts were evident when he boldly challenged Putin and also asked Trump in Helsinki in 2018: “...who do you believe, Mr. President, Russia or your own intelligence agencies?”
Also, if you’re so inclined, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts about the civility and political importance of Biden’s complimentary prayer breakfast comments to McConnell.
I write in response to today’s newsletter discussions, first, of Abramowitz’s encouraging statistically insignificant findings regarding the impact of voter suppression measures in the 2016 and 2020 elections and, second, of Rachel Maddow’s deep dive into the creation of alternate slates of electors and the seizing of voting machines.
As to the former, please note the Brennan Center for Justice, between January 1st and June 17th of 2021, had reported that 17 states had enacted 38 new laws that restricted access to the vote, and, as we all know, more new restrictive laws since have followed. My point is that Abramowitz’s findings, though heartening, don’t account for these added restrictions. Perhaps more important, our most heroic activists, who have led the charge to overcome voter suppression and partisan gerrymandering by galvanizing voter turnout, are rightfully expressing that no amount of organizing can get us around state-level election subversion measures currently changing who can be in charge, how votes are counted, and how they’re certified. Though no one is giving up, acknowledging the near impossibility of surmounting these unprecedented obstacles ensures that those who stay in the fight will fight more effectively.
As for increased confidence that DOJ finally appears to have started investigations based on Maddow’s reporting, I would caution that for some time, despite sufficient factual predication for opening criminal investigations of those at the top, no one with connections to DOJ is aware of such. I believe, quoting Justice Correspondent Elie Mystal, if “slow-moving institutionalist” Merrick Garland has not already ginned up a full-blown criminal investigation, he should do so yesterday, if not yesterday, then tomorrow. Though the inevitable downsides of indictments in our politically charged climate, surely, are reason for concern, those decisions are for a later date. For now, the investigations must go full speed ahead, if only because when those at the top are being criminally investigated, and perhaps informed they’re possible targets, that the public’s attention tends to focus. And, indeed, the mind of the country needs to be focused on this, because, however important other things are, we nearly are running out the clock on democracy itself. If we don’t start holding everybody at the top accountable, at least to the point of being subject to full-blown criminal investigation, then we’re really giving up on protecting our key civic institutions that are premised on the principal that no one is above the law.
As a final point, I would note that it’s not nearly as easy to stonewall a grand jury as it is to stonewall a congressional committee.
It becomes increasingly clear that, while Mr. Garland might have become a good or great Justice, he was not the best choice in the current situation for AG. Perhaps an experienced prosecutor like Preet Bharara or Sally Yates should be appointed as a Special Prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election and related events. A grand jury being empaneled for that purpose is well overdue.
Dave, Good idea. I believe either the President or the A.G. is authorized to appoint a special counsel, in this case, one might argue, on the grounds that the allegations could involve a conflict of interest within the DOJ.
Only the AG or Congress can appoint a special counsel (although the congressional mechanism requires legislation and a three judge panel--a mechanism of dubious constitutionality.) So, unfortunately, Biden can't appoint a special counsel
One would like to think that Mr. Garland would, in recognition of his shortcomings in this area, take it upon himself. If it were me, I'd position it as further de-politicization (?) of the Department. I've learned something today; I wasn't aware that there was a congressional mechanism.
Dave, Though I was wrong about the President’s authority, I, too, would like to believe that public interest would be foremost in Garland’s mind and that appointing outside counsel would receive serious consideration. Meantime, because of comments from you and Bruce, my next round of letter writing will be far more astute and, presumably, more persuasive. So, thank you.
Special prosecutors are normally appointed where a potential conflict of interest might be involved. Special prosecutors have been used in the prosecution of sitting Presidents, Nixon and Trump are good examples of such cases. This is done as, in theory at least, the DOJ and thus all of its prosecutors are a part of the Executive branch of government and thus answerable to a sitting U.S. President. As Trump is no longer the current President (news flash for ignorant Republicans contending otherwise), DOJ and its prosecutors are no longer answerable to him in any way whatsoever.
Having said this there may be other reasons to appoint a special prosecutor and it should not be dismissed without considering those.
Agreed on the other reasons, please see Robert's comment below. I submitted your letter to the Post-Dispatch edited to meet a 250 word limit. Hopefully it will have some impact.
Hi, Barbara. Abramowitz looked at the only data available--the last two elections. He can't test elections that haven't happened regarding restrictions implemented since the last election. But some of the same restrictions were imposed between 2016 and 2020, so testing those changes--restrictions of drop boxes, adding mail ballots (rather than applications) provides useful information. Abramowitz isn't saying that voter suppression efforts don't matter or are neutral. He is saying that turnout can override suppression. That is a positive message that we should want people to hear. Saying that doesn't in any way minimize the discriminatory intent or unfair burdens placed on Black voters by voter suppression.
I agree with you about the DOJ's slow pace. My personal belief is that Garland is doing nothing to investigate Trump and that the only pressure he will feel will come from journalists and the Select Committee. DOJ alumni swear that I am wrong. I have worn out my welcome with readers on this topic. Time will tell. I hope I am wrong.
Our Unitarian Universalist congregation is cooperating with our local county Democrats by providing a venue to hold a Candidate Meet and Greet next week. In accordance with our venue's requirements, all attending in person will be required to wear a mask and be vaccinated. We will have every Democratic Candidate on our local ballots including Congressional and statewide candidates, even those for judicial positions. All of these candidates are putting themselves on the line for us. It is important for us to show them we are ready to put ourselves on the line for them by supporting them. Everyone is important, everyone must vote, and every vote must count.
Robert, Though the statistically insignificant impact of voter suppression measures in 2016 and 2020 is noteworthy, one ought not to dismiss 1) the 38+ restrictions enacted since January 1, 2021 and 2) more importantly, the deeply concerning, unprecedented election subversion measures currently being enacted. We can’t strategize effectively unless we fully are aware of all the obstacles we have to try and surmount.
As a final point, I would note that the “discriminatory intent or unfair burdens” are targeted not only against black voters but also against young voters and against every other group that tends to vote Democratic. Plainly stated, every GOP suppression and subversion measure diminishes yours and my ability to have our voices represented within the government.
Thank you for recognizing the very important work Rebecca Solnit is doing. I hope you heard her in conversation with Heather Cox Richardson, not long ago. I join HCR in recommending Ms. Solnit’s newest book, Orwell’s Roses, wholeheartedly. It’s a beauty.
Feb 4, 2022·edited Feb 4, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a Democratic majority of 5-2, so it is unlikely the Court will back the map proposed by the GOP-controlled legislature. But don’t expect a partisan result in favor of Democrats, either. Prior decisions by the Court in redistricting challenges have produced maps generally agreed to be fair to all concerned."
Rhetorical Question: If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had a Republican majority of 5-2, would the Court also produce "maps generally agreed to be fair to all concerned"???
The answer reflects one of the core differences between Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, excellent reporters. It is the headline writers who could use a slap on the wrist [editors?]. i am so proud of our President who is actually presidential! And I, too, believe that our main work lies in motivating turnout. It has ever been thus in the land of the apathetic voter!
I am currently reading “The Bully Pulpit” by Doris Kearns Goodwin and am struck by the similarities of between these two different eras. History certainly does rhyme. The press was as important then as it is today, but it wasn’t everyone in the press, but a few really thoughtful, hard-working members who took their role as reporters seriously. Good to be reminded of those people who continue in that tradition. I am grateful to them.
Have a great weekend. I disagree only with the description of "defund the police" as a messaging failure. The people who said it by and large meant it and people who heard them believed they would. That's successful by any measure. What it was and is is a stupid message that got a lot of headlines and, as you note, likely cost Democrats some seats at all levels. Mr. Biden has stepped up in foreign policy and the party needs to follow the advice of a former President and "don't do stupid stuff". Wouldn't hurt for the GOP to take that advice too.
"The Pennsylvania legislature and governor could not agree on a redistricting plan after being ordered to do so by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. So, with the primary season closing in, the Supreme Court has taken control of the redistricting process. See Talking Points Memo, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Takes Over Redistricting Due To Deadlock Over GOP-Drawn Map. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a Democratic majority of 5-2, so it is unlikely the Court will back the map proposed by the GOP-controlled legislature. But don’t expect a partisan result in favor of Democrats, either. Prior decisions by the Court in redistricting challenges have produced maps generally agreed to be fair to all concerned."
As former Attorney General Eric Holder said when interviewed on the Rachel Maddow Show on August 13, 2021, "We don't have to cheat. Republicans have to cheat in order to win."
Robert, thank you for taking the time to call out those members of the press and public who are defending democracy. A free press is the unofficial fourth branch of our government. We must do all we can to support their efforts (including writing letters of support to their publishers) and oppose those who abuse that freedom to propagate falsehoods and misinformation.
Regarding your ongoing look at Putin’s moves towards Ukraine, you might look at this opinion piece published in the NYTimes a couple days ago that looks mire closely at Putin’s longer range strategy/intent. Included at the finish is a link to another piece Fiona Hill wrote.
The reason I am commenting the first time is that I forwarded this piece to two friends here in Seattle. One ran the Jackson Foundation (created on the death of Senator Scoop Jackson) for 25 years which focuses on Russia. Her partner is a Russian. They both agreed with the assessment of Putin’s intentions outlined in the piece. It appears it is worth considerIng and perhaps sharing with your followers.
There are many complex interweaving threads brought up here preceding and leading up to Trump’s election and other events going on in Europe.
As always I salute your on-going efforts. Especially as you have expanded into your podcasts. Hearing directly from people has much greater impact than visiting a website. The sharing of stories is powerful as we know.
Thank you for listing the media heroes of our time, considering how negative in tone that US media tends to report the news. I do agree with someone else here who mentioned Nicole Wallace should also be praised for her work.
"Journalists like Maddow, Jennifer Rubin, Dahlia Lithwick, Eugene Robinson, Ezra Klein, Ian Milhiser, Josh Marshall, Philip Rotner, Rebecca Solnit, and Maggie Haberman, and commentators like Larry Tribe, Maya Wiley, Barbara McQuade, Jill Wine-Banks, and Joyce Vance, (to name only a few) are honoring the highest traditions of journalism and the First Amendment."
Jessica Craven, in Chop Wood Carry Water, recommended this as a fantastic article. The authors echo your discussions of optimism and encouragement of why and how Democrats can win in 2022. Possibly many readers will send this to you it is so good.
Don’t forget Nicole Wallace!!! Terrific commentary. Unrelenting focus!
Yes; good point. I was hoping that she would move into Rachel's slot during Rachel's hiatus.
... and please consider other former or currently-quasi Rs who are also exceptionally insightful and effective commentators, Matthew Dowd and Steve Schmidt, as well as Jonathan Lemire, whose bravery, clarity and stunning journalistic instincts were evident when he boldly challenged Putin and also asked Trump in Helsinki in 2018: “...who do you believe, Mr. President, Russia or your own intelligence agencies?”
Also, if you’re so inclined, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts about the civility and political importance of Biden’s complimentary prayer breakfast comments to McConnell.
I write in response to today’s newsletter discussions, first, of Abramowitz’s encouraging statistically insignificant findings regarding the impact of voter suppression measures in the 2016 and 2020 elections and, second, of Rachel Maddow’s deep dive into the creation of alternate slates of electors and the seizing of voting machines.
As to the former, please note the Brennan Center for Justice, between January 1st and June 17th of 2021, had reported that 17 states had enacted 38 new laws that restricted access to the vote, and, as we all know, more new restrictive laws since have followed. My point is that Abramowitz’s findings, though heartening, don’t account for these added restrictions. Perhaps more important, our most heroic activists, who have led the charge to overcome voter suppression and partisan gerrymandering by galvanizing voter turnout, are rightfully expressing that no amount of organizing can get us around state-level election subversion measures currently changing who can be in charge, how votes are counted, and how they’re certified. Though no one is giving up, acknowledging the near impossibility of surmounting these unprecedented obstacles ensures that those who stay in the fight will fight more effectively.
As for increased confidence that DOJ finally appears to have started investigations based on Maddow’s reporting, I would caution that for some time, despite sufficient factual predication for opening criminal investigations of those at the top, no one with connections to DOJ is aware of such. I believe, quoting Justice Correspondent Elie Mystal, if “slow-moving institutionalist” Merrick Garland has not already ginned up a full-blown criminal investigation, he should do so yesterday, if not yesterday, then tomorrow. Though the inevitable downsides of indictments in our politically charged climate, surely, are reason for concern, those decisions are for a later date. For now, the investigations must go full speed ahead, if only because when those at the top are being criminally investigated, and perhaps informed they’re possible targets, that the public’s attention tends to focus. And, indeed, the mind of the country needs to be focused on this, because, however important other things are, we nearly are running out the clock on democracy itself. If we don’t start holding everybody at the top accountable, at least to the point of being subject to full-blown criminal investigation, then we’re really giving up on protecting our key civic institutions that are premised on the principal that no one is above the law.
As a final point, I would note that it’s not nearly as easy to stonewall a grand jury as it is to stonewall a congressional committee.
It becomes increasingly clear that, while Mr. Garland might have become a good or great Justice, he was not the best choice in the current situation for AG. Perhaps an experienced prosecutor like Preet Bharara or Sally Yates should be appointed as a Special Prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election and related events. A grand jury being empaneled for that purpose is well overdue.
Dave, Good idea. I believe either the President or the A.G. is authorized to appoint a special counsel, in this case, one might argue, on the grounds that the allegations could involve a conflict of interest within the DOJ.
I hadn't thought about that, but, given Barr's involvement, you're quite right.
Only the AG or Congress can appoint a special counsel (although the congressional mechanism requires legislation and a three judge panel--a mechanism of dubious constitutionality.) So, unfortunately, Biden can't appoint a special counsel
One would like to think that Mr. Garland would, in recognition of his shortcomings in this area, take it upon himself. If it were me, I'd position it as further de-politicization (?) of the Department. I've learned something today; I wasn't aware that there was a congressional mechanism.
Dave, Though I was wrong about the President’s authority, I, too, would like to believe that public interest would be foremost in Garland’s mind and that appointing outside counsel would receive serious consideration. Meantime, because of comments from you and Bruce, my next round of letter writing will be far more astute and, presumably, more persuasive. So, thank you.
Special prosecutors are normally appointed where a potential conflict of interest might be involved. Special prosecutors have been used in the prosecution of sitting Presidents, Nixon and Trump are good examples of such cases. This is done as, in theory at least, the DOJ and thus all of its prosecutors are a part of the Executive branch of government and thus answerable to a sitting U.S. President. As Trump is no longer the current President (news flash for ignorant Republicans contending otherwise), DOJ and its prosecutors are no longer answerable to him in any way whatsoever.
Having said this there may be other reasons to appoint a special prosecutor and it should not be dismissed without considering those.
Agreed on the other reasons, please see Robert's comment below. I submitted your letter to the Post-Dispatch edited to meet a 250 word limit. Hopefully it will have some impact.
Thanks, our local paper here has a 400 word limit, no worries on the editing.
Love this, the molasses of justice seep at a snail’s pace. Not true of Republican evil.
Hi, Barbara. Abramowitz looked at the only data available--the last two elections. He can't test elections that haven't happened regarding restrictions implemented since the last election. But some of the same restrictions were imposed between 2016 and 2020, so testing those changes--restrictions of drop boxes, adding mail ballots (rather than applications) provides useful information. Abramowitz isn't saying that voter suppression efforts don't matter or are neutral. He is saying that turnout can override suppression. That is a positive message that we should want people to hear. Saying that doesn't in any way minimize the discriminatory intent or unfair burdens placed on Black voters by voter suppression.
I agree with you about the DOJ's slow pace. My personal belief is that Garland is doing nothing to investigate Trump and that the only pressure he will feel will come from journalists and the Select Committee. DOJ alumni swear that I am wrong. I have worn out my welcome with readers on this topic. Time will tell. I hope I am wrong.
Our Unitarian Universalist congregation is cooperating with our local county Democrats by providing a venue to hold a Candidate Meet and Greet next week. In accordance with our venue's requirements, all attending in person will be required to wear a mask and be vaccinated. We will have every Democratic Candidate on our local ballots including Congressional and statewide candidates, even those for judicial positions. All of these candidates are putting themselves on the line for us. It is important for us to show them we are ready to put ourselves on the line for them by supporting them. Everyone is important, everyone must vote, and every vote must count.
Robert, Though the statistically insignificant impact of voter suppression measures in 2016 and 2020 is noteworthy, one ought not to dismiss 1) the 38+ restrictions enacted since January 1, 2021 and 2) more importantly, the deeply concerning, unprecedented election subversion measures currently being enacted. We can’t strategize effectively unless we fully are aware of all the obstacles we have to try and surmount.
As a final point, I would note that the “discriminatory intent or unfair burdens” are targeted not only against black voters but also against young voters and against every other group that tends to vote Democratic. Plainly stated, every GOP suppression and subversion measure diminishes yours and my ability to have our voices represented within the government.
Thank you for recognizing the very important work Rebecca Solnit is doing. I hope you heard her in conversation with Heather Cox Richardson, not long ago. I join HCR in recommending Ms. Solnit’s newest book, Orwell’s Roses, wholeheartedly. It’s a beauty.
Rebecca Solnit interviewed by HCR:
https://www.facebook.com/559835551/videos/3203517459932139/
Solnit's writing in The Guardian over the last several months has been exceptional. That is how she came to my attention.
It was a wonderful interview!
Isn’t it nice to have a President again—an American President?
A good weekend to all, and thanks again, Robert, for all you do for us, and for the nation.
Wow. Doesn't it feel SO good to be proud of your President again?
"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a Democratic majority of 5-2, so it is unlikely the Court will back the map proposed by the GOP-controlled legislature. But don’t expect a partisan result in favor of Democrats, either. Prior decisions by the Court in redistricting challenges have produced maps generally agreed to be fair to all concerned."
Rhetorical Question: If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had a Republican majority of 5-2, would the Court also produce "maps generally agreed to be fair to all concerned"???
The answer reflects one of the core differences between Democrats and Republicans.
Sigh. You are 100% correct!
Ain’t that the truth…
Yes, excellent reporters. It is the headline writers who could use a slap on the wrist [editors?]. i am so proud of our President who is actually presidential! And I, too, believe that our main work lies in motivating turnout. It has ever been thus in the land of the apathetic voter!
So, yes, I need to continually call out the headline writers, who make a bad situation exponentially worse!
I am currently reading “The Bully Pulpit” by Doris Kearns Goodwin and am struck by the similarities of between these two different eras. History certainly does rhyme. The press was as important then as it is today, but it wasn’t everyone in the press, but a few really thoughtful, hard-working members who took their role as reporters seriously. Good to be reminded of those people who continue in that tradition. I am grateful to them.
A terrific book, indeed. Perhaps Rachel's middle name should be Ida?
Have a great weekend. I disagree only with the description of "defund the police" as a messaging failure. The people who said it by and large meant it and people who heard them believed they would. That's successful by any measure. What it was and is is a stupid message that got a lot of headlines and, as you note, likely cost Democrats some seats at all levels. Mr. Biden has stepped up in foreign policy and the party needs to follow the advice of a former President and "don't do stupid stuff". Wouldn't hurt for the GOP to take that advice too.
"The Pennsylvania legislature and governor could not agree on a redistricting plan after being ordered to do so by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. So, with the primary season closing in, the Supreme Court has taken control of the redistricting process. See Talking Points Memo, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Takes Over Redistricting Due To Deadlock Over GOP-Drawn Map. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a Democratic majority of 5-2, so it is unlikely the Court will back the map proposed by the GOP-controlled legislature. But don’t expect a partisan result in favor of Democrats, either. Prior decisions by the Court in redistricting challenges have produced maps generally agreed to be fair to all concerned."
As former Attorney General Eric Holder said when interviewed on the Rachel Maddow Show on August 13, 2021, "We don't have to cheat. Republicans have to cheat in order to win."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edKL-ZNlRGc
Robert, thank you for taking the time to call out those members of the press and public who are defending democracy. A free press is the unofficial fourth branch of our government. We must do all we can to support their efforts (including writing letters of support to their publishers) and oppose those who abuse that freedom to propagate falsehoods and misinformation.
Regarding your ongoing look at Putin’s moves towards Ukraine, you might look at this opinion piece published in the NYTimes a couple days ago that looks mire closely at Putin’s longer range strategy/intent. Included at the finish is a link to another piece Fiona Hill wrote.
The reason I am commenting the first time is that I forwarded this piece to two friends here in Seattle. One ran the Jackson Foundation (created on the death of Senator Scoop Jackson) for 25 years which focuses on Russia. Her partner is a Russian. They both agreed with the assessment of Putin’s intentions outlined in the piece. It appears it is worth considerIng and perhaps sharing with your followers.
There are many complex interweaving threads brought up here preceding and leading up to Trump’s election and other events going on in Europe.
As always I salute your on-going efforts. Especially as you have expanded into your podcasts. Hearing directly from people has much greater impact than visiting a website. The sharing of stories is powerful as we know.
Whoops forgot the link to the opinion piece:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/opinion/putin-russia-ukraine-europe.html
Thank you for listing the media heroes of our time, considering how negative in tone that US media tends to report the news. I do agree with someone else here who mentioned Nicole Wallace should also be praised for her work.
"Journalists like Maddow, Jennifer Rubin, Dahlia Lithwick, Eugene Robinson, Ezra Klein, Ian Milhiser, Josh Marshall, Philip Rotner, Rebecca Solnit, and Maggie Haberman, and commentators like Larry Tribe, Maya Wiley, Barbara McQuade, Jill Wine-Banks, and Joyce Vance, (to name only a few) are honoring the highest traditions of journalism and the First Amendment."
Jessica Craven, in Chop Wood Carry Water, recommended this as a fantastic article. The authors echo your discussions of optimism and encouragement of why and how Democrats can win in 2022. Possibly many readers will send this to you it is so good.
https://www.mikeluxmedia.com/single-post/why-democrats-can-win-in-2022-and-how-we-will-do-it
I often say the same thing: Thank you. Styra Avins Eisinger