Democrats fight back!

March 7, 2023

          Democrats have been frustrated by the asymmetry between GOP disinformation and bad-faith political tactics on the one hand and Democratic messaging and political responses on the other. The feelings of unfairness are aggravated by the complicity of the news media, which defaults to a worldview in which all political disagreements are mere “squabbles,” a view that does not apply when one of the parties to the “squabble” seeks nothing less than the end of democracy. But with a few moments of reflection and a dollop of perspective, we can see that Democrats are doing a credible job of fighting back. The J6 hearings were a triumph, as was Joe Biden’s State of the Union address.

          In this edition, I want to highlight two instances in which Democrats are pushing back hard—and not getting the publicity they deserve. You can help with that. But first, let’s look at two instances where Democrats are doing exactly what you want and expect.

Democrats offer devastating “prebuttal” to Jim Jordan’s “Weaponization” Committee.

          Representative Jim Jordan promised to “blow the roof off the deep state” with hearings before his “Weaponization of Government” Subcommittee. For months, Jordan broadly hinted about devastating testimony from “dozens and dozens of whistleblowers.” But after the first depositions of those alleged whistleblowers, Jordan produced only three witnesses—all of whom have ties to Trump and are known for pushing deep-state conspiracy theories.

          Jordan’s failure to deliver the goods is bad. See Axios, Jim Jordan scrambles amid assertions that “weaponization” probe is a dud. He overpromised and undelivered because he was unprepared. Not so for the Democratic staffers on the Weaponization Committee who delivered a jaw-dropping, gob-smacking “prebuttal” report on the testimony of Jordan’s faux whistleblowers. The report is devastating for Jordan and will make it difficult for him to recover his momentum in the hearings. Republican critics are already pleading with Jordan to “deliver the goods.” Jesse Waters said on Fox News, “Make me feel better, guys. Tell me this is going somewhere.”

          The 315-page report by the Democratic staffers is here: House Judiciary.gov, GOP Witnesses: What Their Disclosures Indicate About the  State of the Republican Investigations. While it is unreasonable to expect that you will read the 315 pages, the two-page “Executive Summary” lays out the substance of the report as follows (in part):

First, the three individuals we have met are not, in fact, “whistleblowers.” These individuals, who put forward a wide range of conspiracy theories, did not present actual evidence of any wrongdoing at the Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Second, the transcribed interviews we have held thus far refute House Republican narrative about “bias” at the Department of Justice. We urge Chairman Jordan to schedule the public testimony of these individuals without delay. The American public should be able to judge for themselves whether these witnesses or their allegations are remotely credible.

Third, these interviews also reveal the active engagement and orchestration of disturbing outside influence on the witnesses and, potentially, the Republican members of the Select Subcommittee. A network of organizations, led by former Trump administration officials like Kash Patel and Russell Vought, appears to have identified these witnesses, provided them with financial compensation, and found them employment after they left the FBI. . . .

Fourth, . . . the witnesses. . . are tied together by the attacks of January 6, 2021. The [FBI “whistleblower”] witnesses whom we have met objected to the arrest of individuals suspected to have laid siege to the United States Capitol. Others of the “dozens and dozens,” we suspect, participated directly in the riot.

          What follows in the next 313 pages is a systematic dismantling of the first three witnesses who were identified, compensated, and promised employment by Kash Patel—a bottom-feeder in Trumpworld. Here is an example of the Democratic staffers’ analysis of the credibility of one former FBI witness:

George Hill claimed, among other things, that the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was “a set up,” that it was “a larger #Democrat plan using their enforcement arm, the #FBI,” and that rioter Ashli Babbit was “murdered” by a Capitol Police officer. He also described the FBI as “the Brown Shirt enforcers of the @DNC,” an apparent reference to Nazi Storm Troopers. He has publicly stated that “there needs to take place a reeducation” and that Americans should embrace the risk of dying by terrorism rather than accept the domestic intelligence programs that keep them safe.

          Humiliated, Jordan’s response is to claim that he needs a $15 million “reserve fund” to run his investigation with a $2 million annual retainer for staff. In other words, “he’s got nothing” and is scrambling to cover his asinine statement in which he promised “dozens and dozens of whistleblowers” who evidently do not exist.

          We should not underestimate the ability of Republicans to cause mischief with bad-faith hearings. However, in the first round, the Democratic staffers dominated the narrative by producing a prodigious and compelling report. In the process, they made Jordan look like the fool he is. Tell a friend!

Lawyers Defending American Democracy files ethics complaint against Trumpworld lawyer who represented Cassidy Hutchinson.

          You may (or may not) remember the drama surrounding Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony before the J6 Committee. Hutchinson was a 24-year-old staffer when she was subpoenaed to testify before the Committee. She could not afford an attorney and floated a request among friends in the administration to see if counsel could be provided to her. Attorney Stefan Passantino called her out of the blue, introduced himself as her lawyer, and declined her request to sign an engagement letter. It was all downhill from there.

          Hutchinson eventually fired Passantino, but not before he (allegedly) urged her to lie to the J6 Committee, telling her at one point that the objective of her testimony was to “protect Trump.” Uh, no. The objective of sworn testimony is always “Tell the truth.”

          Enter Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), a group co-founded by Scott Harshbarger and Gary Ratner. LDAD describes itself as “members of the legal community [who believe] we have a unique responsibility to defend the Constitution and values on which our democracy depends.”

          LDAD filed an ethics complaint against Stefan Passantino before the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the DC Court of Appeals, which is responsible for regulating attorneys who practice in DC. See NYTimes, Group Seeks Disbarment of a Trump-Aligned Lawyer for a Key Jan. 6 Witness.

          The ethics complaint is a compelling and disturbing story of a member of the legal profession who (allegedly) betrayed his oath to the Constitution. Read it in its entirety if you can: Ethics-Complaint-against-Stefan-Passantino.pdf (ldad.org).

          Among other allegations, the complaint recites the following:

In a prominent example, as they emerged from a Committee hearing, Mr. Passantino told [Hutchinson] that she should ignore her concern that she had committed perjury moments earlier when she told the Committee under oath that she did not recall an incident she did in fact recall. Beyond that, Mr. Passantino repeatedly suggested that financial gain in the form of employment security might follow if Ms. Hutchinson cooperated with ongoing efforts to conceal some of the activities that occurred within the White House in advance of and during the assault on the United States Capitol

[Passantino said,] “But the less you remember, the better. I don’t think that you should be filling in any calendars or anything.”

[Passantino said,] “We just want to focus on protecting the President.”

Passantino said, “Well, if you had just overheard conversations that happened, you don’t need to testify to that.” She responded by saying, “If I overheard it from a Member, do I have to?” To which he said, “it’s circumstantial. We can talk about it.”

          If the allegations are true, Passantino is looking at serious discipline from the DC Court of Appeals. Should this matter to you? Yes! Trumpworld attorneys engaged in a systematic effort to convince witnesses to evade subpoenas and frustrate the search for truth by claiming (falsely) that they did not remember some of the most dramatic moments in American history. If Passantino is disbarred or suspended, it will help vindicate the rule of law and dissuade other attorneys from engaging in similar tactics in the future.

          LDAD is on the front lines in seeking to hold attorneys accountable who turned their backs on the Constitution and promoted Trump’s interests over those of the American people. LDAD is working in the background, doing exactly what you want and expect. Everyone should take comfort and satisfaction that dedicated groups of public servants and volunteers are working tirelessly to fight back against the corruption and bad faith of Trump and his enablers.

The debate over the national debt.

          The debate over “Who is responsible?” for the national debt is complex, confusing, and unending. The Washington Post published an informative, clear, and easy-to-communicate explanation of the major components of our $31 trillion in national debt. This debate will figure prominently in the 2024 presidential election, so I suggest you read and bookmark this article: WaPo, See how the national debt grew to $31 trillion. (This link should allow you to read the article even though it is behind a paywall.)

          The bottom line to a very complicated analysis is that the national debt grew by about $8 trillion under Trump and $2.4 trillion under Biden (so far). In fairness, a significant portion of the increases under both Trump and Biden related to Covid recovery—a once-in-a-century occurrence. But any way you slice the pie, Trump’s tax cuts increased the debt far more than Biden’s infrastructure, energy, and inflation reduction legislation did. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Walgreens refuses to dispense legal medication to end pregnancies.

          Walgreens has caved to pressure by Republican attorneys general who sent the mass pharmacy letters threatening to sue Walgreens under an ancient and unenforceable statute. The background is explained in detail in Judd Legum’s excellent post, Popular Information, How Walgreens supports the anti-abortion movement. I will write more on this topic in future newsletters—especially if there is an organized boycott against Walgreens. For now, Legum’s article is the place to start.

          In a significant development, California’s governor has said that the state will cut ties with Walgreens and that “all relationships between Walgreens and California are now under review.” WaPo, California to cut ties with Walgreens over abortion pill sales, Newsom says.

Following developments in the Georgia legislature.

          I received a flurry of anxious emails on Monday evening about a bill in the Georgia legislature that appears headed to the Governor’s office for signature. The bill would appoint a legislative commission with the power to supervise and remove district attorneys—which includes District Attorney Fani Willis, who is currently investigating Donald Trump.

          Many Democrats are concerned that the bill is a stalking horse to allow the Georgia legislature to remove Willis if she moves to indict Trump. That fear is understandable and reasonable, considering voter suppression legislation passed by the Georgia legislature.

          But the language of the bill does not seem to match the description of its potential effects. Below is the latest version of the operative language of the GA SB 92 (as of 10:00 PM. Pacific on 3/6/23). The commission would be authorized to remove or force the retirement of district attorneys as follows:

(1) Mental or physical incapacity interfering with the performance of his or her duties which is, or is likely to become, permanent;

(2) Willful misconduct in office;

(3) With respect to district attorneys, willful and persistent failure to carry out duties pursuant to [the representation of the state in juvenile court cases].

          The bill provides the following regarding the establishment of the commission:

The commission shall commence by October 1, 2023, and the rules and regulations promulgated by such commission shall be established no later than April 1, 2024. No complaint shall be filed before July 1, 2024. The commission shall not receive complaint submissions regarding misconduct that occurred prior to July 1, 2023, unless such alleged misconduct is related to a continuous pattern of conduct that continues beyond that date.

          Given the requirement of “willful misconduct” and the prohibition of the filing of a complaint until July 1, 2024, it seems unlikely that the statute can be used to remove Fani Willis for indicting Trump—especially if the special grand jury recommended the indictment (as seems to be the case here). Willis’s current term in office expires in December 2024, so her prosecution of Trump will be subject to review by voters before a complaint against her can be filed, adjudicated, and appealed.

          The statute does include within the “willful misconduct” definition a charging decision based on “undue bias or prejudice against the accused,” so it is possible for someone to state a claim against Willis. But the commission would have to find that Willis acted with “undue” bias or prejudice to satisfy the “willful misconduct” standard. Not impossible, but a very heavy lift.

          While we should not assume good faith on the part of Republicans in implementing the statute, it does not appear to me that immediate panic about the Georgia bill is justified. If Fani Willis obtains an indictment of Trump in the next few months, she will have a year to prosecute the case before a complaint can be filed against her.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Indivisible is one of the most effective grassroots organizations to emerge in the wake of Trump’s 2016 victory. It grew organically from local protests to a well-run, national powerhouse organization that is still focused on local action directed at members of Congress.

          Rachel Maddow interviewed the co-founder of Indivisible, Ezra Levin, on Monday evening. The interview is here: Activists set sights on House Republicans in Biden-won districts (msnbc.com). The interview is six minutes in length but is well worth the investment of time. Indeed, I guarantee that watching the interview will make you more hopeful and confident about Democratic prospects heading into 2024.

          Levin highlights the updated Practical Guide to Defeating MAGA, a terrific resource for anyone interested in taking effective, local action to effect change in Congress. Check it out, even if you do not belong to an Indivisible Chapter.

          One final point: Isolation can make the current political environment unbearable. Community is the answer. Indivisible provides community (as do many other grassroots organizations). If you are suffering in silence, seek out your local Indivisible chapter (or any of the organizations regularly highlighted in this newsletter). There is strength in numbers, and working in common cause with like-minded people will remind you that the burden of making things right is shared by tens of millions of Americans. That realization should give you confidence that we will prevail in the long run. It is only a matter of time!

          Talk to you tomorrow!