As I sit here reading your newsletter (one day late) there is a flash announcement on my computer: The Supreme Court just overturned Roe v Wade! I find it hard to be even a tiny bit optimistic after that.. What can we do now?
Kudos and thanks to Shaye and her Mother! Trump’s behavior is, as always, atrocious 😱
PS I read today that the Supremes are adding another day, Friday, for the announcement of their decisions…..I’m guessing that means we’ll hear about Roe on Friday. Guess they’re trying to bury it on the Friday nite weekend news! VOTING BECOMES MORE CRITICAL EVERY !!
The money is great, but I think she and her daughter and the grandmother also need personal support. People to keep in touch with them, go walking with them, helping them to feel and be safe. And now, of course, some people will be trying to get money from them!
I just listened to the Washington Post reporter who broke the story about rich Democratic donors banding together to combat the Republican plan to take over all the power in key states in the 2022 election in order to change the laws in 2023 so they can win the 2024 presidential election. He was on on the Rachel Maddow Show Wednesday night.
This reporter said part of the plan is to have people talking to voters about abortion rights, minimum wage and unions because that is what the polling has shown these Democratic donors that voters care about most.
HOWEVER, just today on an earlier MSNBC show, well-known, experienced Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher said just the opposite. He said if Democrats want to win, they need to run on saving our Democracy from the far right Republican plan to put their party in office permanently. Belcher said it's hard to pry Democrats off of their notion that they should be running on a list of issues that they believe voters care about most, but that is not a winning strategy. He insisted they have to run on saving Democracy to win.
I'm confused because Cornell Belcher is a very experienced, widely respected pollster. His advice made sense given how existential the crisis is in national politics. But I would think a bunch of super rich Democrats would have enough savvy to research this issue and come up with the best answer.
I know people have different opinions and approaches to politics. But in this case, it seems Republicans win with big, somewhat meaningless slogans like "Make America Great Again." Or Ronald Reagan's original version "Let's Make America Great Again." And the idea that our country is in serious danger of being taken over by fascist Republicans seems like a great and simple motivator for voters.
Someone needs to organize a support group for Lady Ruby and her daughter. They need good people to keep in touch with them, bring them groceries, take them out to safe places for walks. These women don’t have endless resources. It’s on us to help them since they are suffering as a result of their service to all of us. Just like veterans.
Hi Roslyn, I don't know if you saw tonight, but it was reported that Lady Ruby requested $30,000 on what looked like a "Go Fund Me" sort of format. They said so far she has received a little more than $237,000. I have a feeling it will increase. Good for her.
I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that those who testified yesterday and many other electeds and lower level election workers had their civil rights violated by Trump (i.e. the US government) and his enablers. Is this a legal strategy that could be pursued with any traction?
I join those who were justifiably moved by the lifelong elections service and brave testimony of Shaye Moss and her mother, "Lady Ruby" Freeman.
They—and other election workers who have stepped in to replace those who, out of fear, have resigned from their positions—deserve ongoing police protection from those who still confront and intimidate them. Why are threats to Kavanaugh taken seriously and those to election workers not?
Your excellent newsletter on yesterday’s hearing did not mention one item I found important. During Rattensparger’s testimony he mentioned this past year he traveled the entire state of Georgia and found that 28,000 ballots were cast with no selection for President. He also found that Republican Federal Representatives received 33,000 more votes than Trump. Basic mathematics helped him determine why Trump lost Georgia.
You wrote: "Haberman and Schmidt seem to accept the premise that the DOJ must prove that “Trump intended to commit a crime” by showing that he knew the election was not stolen but sought to overturn it nonetheless."
I have dismissed Haberman long ago, but Schmidt keeps coming back on MSNBC to offer his (usually uninformed) opinions. I submit that both of them are licking this old bone to death because they're trying to keep their "stories" alive.
If I had more time, I would have criticized their article at length. But Luppen did a superb job. It was filled with basic errors--which were delivered courtesy of their attorney-sources. The claim that prosecutors must "prove Trump intended to commit a crime" is ludicrous on its face. I was shocked when I read that sentence. If that was the standard for criminal intent, every criminal could contend, "I didn't intend to commit murder; I just meant to kill the victim."
Appreciate your newsletter today. I am saddened that I just read where Rusty Bowers would vote for Trump again if he is the Republican candidate. Can this be????
I rarely disagree with anything substantial in the Newsletter, and your commentary on the Committee hearings is spot on. Establishing a personal profile in courage is Mr. Attorney General Garland’s primary responsibility right now; I remain convinced that as long as the former president is outside and has ready access to the media, he will continue the scam that he started in 2015.
In respect of the gun problem, however, I disagree that what was done is the “bare minimum”; the bill, if it passes, is a piece of performatory pap designed to let Senators go to recess able to say that they “took bipartisan action” in response to the killings in Uvalde, Buffalo and elsewhere. What they did may be laudable, but there is nothing in the bill as presented that will have an immediate impact on the ability of anyone to procure the weaponry used in those murders. At minimum, there should have been limits on the capacity of magazines and the type of ammunition available in the civilian market and universal mandatory background checks prior to purchase. Senators will probably take a victory lap for this but far too many of their constituents and future constituent won’t be able to join them because they died of legislative inaction while doing nothing more than attend school, shop, or worship.
I also disagree with the prevailing analysis of the Court decision in Carson; as I understand the issue, the law established a different set of standards for private school funding based on religious affiliation and the Court was asked to set this aside. Treating a class of organizations equally under the law doesn’t establish a religious affiliation for the state and doesn’t challenge anyone’s ability to practice or not practice their religious beliefs. Much of this country was establishmentarian in its early days, and the results of that are well known and formed the basis for the 1st Amendment restriction. A much better argument would be that the state ought not fund any private schools at all and thereby end the discussion but that would require legislative rather than judicial action which we’re unlikely to see.
Your closing remarks today and the testimony of the women from Georgia hit home because I’ll be an election judge for the MO primary on Aug. 2 and, although that’s a very different job from working for the County Clerk or Secretary of State’s office where votes are counted, it would be reassuring to know that I’ll be secure in doing so and that everyone else who fills a similar role will be too. I’m waiting to hear and see a joint press conference featuring the President, Congressional leaders of both parties and the two party chairpeople where all violence of any kind in a political situation is disavowed and a promise is made to prosecute violators to the fullest extent of the law and in a reasonable time frame. This too will pass, and it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the passage is peaceful and positive.
I agree with your analysis of the "gun safety" bill. But many mainstream gun safety organizations disagree with me and you. I was trying to be polite.
I don't think the Maine statute established a "different set of standards" for religious vs. secular schools. it simply said that public funds could not be used to fund religious schools--an interpretation of the First Amendment that stretches back two centuries. It is the US Constitution that sets up that prohibition--not the Maine statute. If treating organizations equally under the law "establishes" a religion, then equal treatment is prohibited by the Constitution.
I do have a hard time being polite in situations like this, glad you agree with my thinking on the gun bill.
In respect of Maine, my argument is based on the theory presented in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer from 2017 and comes down to the idea that a particular religion is not being established simply because public funds are used for a particular purpose that doesn't involve the religious work of the school. There are excellent arguments against that interpretation, including the ones you present which is why I'd rather not see any public money supporting private schools at all. If memory serves, this discussion revved up when vouchers became popular because there were objections to their use at religious schools.
We'll probably not resolve the issue here, but it's an interesting learning experience and I appreciate your comments.
Props for being involved in a real and tangible way beyond 'voting' in your state's election process. You definitely have my respect for that, as you do for the many articulate and well-reasoned comments I see from you here and elsewhere.
As to your observations about 'the gun problem', as a gun owner myself who's more than angry about the loss of life to gun violence in our country, I think you're pretty spot on. Weak tea at best. And I'll be surprised if, by some chance, an actual law comes out of this that it isn't even weaker still by the time it gets through the House and ends up on Biden's desk, if that actually does happen.
I would very much like to see a lot more done along the lines you mentioned. No reason for any victory laps by anyone over this. It wasn't a very strenuous race, or at least it shouldn't have been. But considering the political atmosphere in which this was produced, I'm surprised anything came out of it at all. I think, all things considered, the real opportunities for meaningful action now lie at the state level in some places for the near term, and I hope that more progress will be made there.
I guess I'd say that I'm disappointed by this paltry offering at the federal level, but not completely disheartened. If you're dying of thirst, a small glass of weak tea is better than nothing in the short run. And nothing is what we've gotten for about 3 decades now. And if this action keeps only a handful of innocents from dying, well, that's not nothing and definitely worth it.
This is going to be a marathon effort to get meaningful and effective reform 'at scale' across the country. We have to keep the pressure on. But we have to take what we can get in the way of a drink along the way, I think.
It's guys like you who are willing to get involved and get their hands dirty in trying to make our country a better place in one way or another that we owe a lot more thanks to than the guys who will no doubt take a turn or two around the track over this 20 yard sprint.
Thanks, both for the electoral support and your comments. Your weak tea analogy is very appropriate because, since tea is a diuretic, while it will relieve thirst in the short run, in the longer term it will take water out of the body. I'm afraid that's what will happen at the federal level if/when this bill, such as it is and, as you note, may become, passes. We'll all need to follow your advice and work at the state and even local level on this and many other issues.
Ha! Couldn't think of a way to work in the diuretic / short term thing without making my comment a lot longer than it needed to be. Figured what I said was enough. Glad you caught it.
And props again for not just sittin' on the sidelines. Things here in the Wolverine state are pretty darned crazy, but I don't know...MO, Greitens and the like...ya'll pretty much got your work cut out for yourselves, don't ya'?!
We do indeed and a steeper climb than you have even with the Devos family in residence. I think that there's a fair chance Greitens will get the nomination and lose the general but it depends on a lot of Democrats getting their acts together pretty quickly. John Danforth is talking up a 3rd party candidate who could take enough GOP votes to elect the Dem.
Quick question—to attorneys out there. Can Shaye and Lady Ruby sue DT and his minion Giuliani for defamation of character? Seems pretty simple with the video/audio recordings???!
As I listen to and read various commentators discuss whether Trump should be prosecuted because if the DOJ does decide to do so, one of the reasons given for not doing so is that it will break this country even more than it already is. And yes, that's a legitimate fear.
But I reflect back on the issues facing this country when Lincoln was voted in and if he hadn't the fortitude to do what was right because of the fear of dividing this country, than we would never have started down the road of doing away with one of the greatest evils of all time--enslavement of another human being.
I fear that if Trump and his minions are allowed to escape the legal consequences of sedition, then our country may not be worth the energies we need to keep us going forward. This man has escaped the consequences of his behaviors for so long--and to listen to the witnesses recount how he set mobs of violence against them as they simply did their jobs is like listening to the witnesses who described the KKK and lynchings of our not-too-distant past.
My fears for this country are greater if we do nothing then if we try to uphold our constitutional responsibilities.
It’s hard for me to say or even imagine—but we actually do need to recognize that if it weren’t for (some) John Q Citizen, republicans who took their oath to the constitution and not a man, our democracy could have been lost! To them I say thank you from the depths of my heart! Too bad the GOP’ers in present administrative power now, don’t have the same philosophy and/or fortitude!
Something that got moved past too quickly without enough emphasis was the proposal in text writing by Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows to send Georgia election investigators "POTUS stuff” including coins and autographed MAGA hats. It is a clear attempt at bribery and/or reward. A characteristically cheap one, but one nonetheless.
Yesterday's hearing was moving and inspirational as you have so beautifully expressed. I was inspired to sign up as a poll worker, which I have done.
I would also like to thank the heroes who testified yesterday for standing up for democracy. As I am sure their contact information is private (and should be) would you be willing to serve as a clearing house to collect the messages of thanks from your readers and send them along in bulk. Thanks.
As I sit here reading your newsletter (one day late) there is a flash announcement on my computer: The Supreme Court just overturned Roe v Wade! I find it hard to be even a tiny bit optimistic after that.. What can we do now?
Kudos and thanks to Shaye and her Mother! Trump’s behavior is, as always, atrocious 😱
PS I read today that the Supremes are adding another day, Friday, for the announcement of their decisions…..I’m guessing that means we’ll hear about Roe on Friday. Guess they’re trying to bury it on the Friday nite weekend news! VOTING BECOMES MORE CRITICAL EVERY !!
Marcia Herman LA
The money is great, but I think she and her daughter and the grandmother also need personal support. People to keep in touch with them, go walking with them, helping them to feel and be safe. And now, of course, some people will be trying to get money from them!
I'm confused.
I just listened to the Washington Post reporter who broke the story about rich Democratic donors banding together to combat the Republican plan to take over all the power in key states in the 2022 election in order to change the laws in 2023 so they can win the 2024 presidential election. He was on on the Rachel Maddow Show Wednesday night.
This reporter said part of the plan is to have people talking to voters about abortion rights, minimum wage and unions because that is what the polling has shown these Democratic donors that voters care about most.
HOWEVER, just today on an earlier MSNBC show, well-known, experienced Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher said just the opposite. He said if Democrats want to win, they need to run on saving our Democracy from the far right Republican plan to put their party in office permanently. Belcher said it's hard to pry Democrats off of their notion that they should be running on a list of issues that they believe voters care about most, but that is not a winning strategy. He insisted they have to run on saving Democracy to win.
I'm confused because Cornell Belcher is a very experienced, widely respected pollster. His advice made sense given how existential the crisis is in national politics. But I would think a bunch of super rich Democrats would have enough savvy to research this issue and come up with the best answer.
I know people have different opinions and approaches to politics. But in this case, it seems Republicans win with big, somewhat meaningless slogans like "Make America Great Again." Or Ronald Reagan's original version "Let's Make America Great Again." And the idea that our country is in serious danger of being taken over by fascist Republicans seems like a great and simple motivator for voters.
So who is making more sense?
Someone needs to organize a support group for Lady Ruby and her daughter. They need good people to keep in touch with them, bring them groceries, take them out to safe places for walks. These women don’t have endless resources. It’s on us to help them since they are suffering as a result of their service to all of us. Just like veterans.
Hi Roslyn, I don't know if you saw tonight, but it was reported that Lady Ruby requested $30,000 on what looked like a "Go Fund Me" sort of format. They said so far she has received a little more than $237,000. I have a feeling it will increase. Good for her.
I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that those who testified yesterday and many other electeds and lower level election workers had their civil rights violated by Trump (i.e. the US government) and his enablers. Is this a legal strategy that could be pursued with any traction?
what happened to the election workers and public officials is likely a crime or a violation of their civil rights. It is up to the DOJ to pursue both.
Can't the individuals file suit? Does it have to originate out of DOJ?
I join those who were justifiably moved by the lifelong elections service and brave testimony of Shaye Moss and her mother, "Lady Ruby" Freeman.
They—and other election workers who have stepped in to replace those who, out of fear, have resigned from their positions—deserve ongoing police protection from those who still confront and intimidate them. Why are threats to Kavanaugh taken seriously and those to election workers not?
Your excellent newsletter on yesterday’s hearing did not mention one item I found important. During Rattensparger’s testimony he mentioned this past year he traveled the entire state of Georgia and found that 28,000 ballots were cast with no selection for President. He also found that Republican Federal Representatives received 33,000 more votes than Trump. Basic mathematics helped him determine why Trump lost Georgia.
You wrote: "Haberman and Schmidt seem to accept the premise that the DOJ must prove that “Trump intended to commit a crime” by showing that he knew the election was not stolen but sought to overturn it nonetheless."
I have dismissed Haberman long ago, but Schmidt keeps coming back on MSNBC to offer his (usually uninformed) opinions. I submit that both of them are licking this old bone to death because they're trying to keep their "stories" alive.
If I had more time, I would have criticized their article at length. But Luppen did a superb job. It was filled with basic errors--which were delivered courtesy of their attorney-sources. The claim that prosecutors must "prove Trump intended to commit a crime" is ludicrous on its face. I was shocked when I read that sentence. If that was the standard for criminal intent, every criminal could contend, "I didn't intend to commit murder; I just meant to kill the victim."
Appreciate your newsletter today. I am saddened that I just read where Rusty Bowers would vote for Trump again if he is the Republican candidate. Can this be????
The lead of my newsletter this evening!
I rarely disagree with anything substantial in the Newsletter, and your commentary on the Committee hearings is spot on. Establishing a personal profile in courage is Mr. Attorney General Garland’s primary responsibility right now; I remain convinced that as long as the former president is outside and has ready access to the media, he will continue the scam that he started in 2015.
In respect of the gun problem, however, I disagree that what was done is the “bare minimum”; the bill, if it passes, is a piece of performatory pap designed to let Senators go to recess able to say that they “took bipartisan action” in response to the killings in Uvalde, Buffalo and elsewhere. What they did may be laudable, but there is nothing in the bill as presented that will have an immediate impact on the ability of anyone to procure the weaponry used in those murders. At minimum, there should have been limits on the capacity of magazines and the type of ammunition available in the civilian market and universal mandatory background checks prior to purchase. Senators will probably take a victory lap for this but far too many of their constituents and future constituent won’t be able to join them because they died of legislative inaction while doing nothing more than attend school, shop, or worship.
I also disagree with the prevailing analysis of the Court decision in Carson; as I understand the issue, the law established a different set of standards for private school funding based on religious affiliation and the Court was asked to set this aside. Treating a class of organizations equally under the law doesn’t establish a religious affiliation for the state and doesn’t challenge anyone’s ability to practice or not practice their religious beliefs. Much of this country was establishmentarian in its early days, and the results of that are well known and formed the basis for the 1st Amendment restriction. A much better argument would be that the state ought not fund any private schools at all and thereby end the discussion but that would require legislative rather than judicial action which we’re unlikely to see.
Your closing remarks today and the testimony of the women from Georgia hit home because I’ll be an election judge for the MO primary on Aug. 2 and, although that’s a very different job from working for the County Clerk or Secretary of State’s office where votes are counted, it would be reassuring to know that I’ll be secure in doing so and that everyone else who fills a similar role will be too. I’m waiting to hear and see a joint press conference featuring the President, Congressional leaders of both parties and the two party chairpeople where all violence of any kind in a political situation is disavowed and a promise is made to prosecute violators to the fullest extent of the law and in a reasonable time frame. This too will pass, and it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the passage is peaceful and positive.
I agree with your analysis of the "gun safety" bill. But many mainstream gun safety organizations disagree with me and you. I was trying to be polite.
I don't think the Maine statute established a "different set of standards" for religious vs. secular schools. it simply said that public funds could not be used to fund religious schools--an interpretation of the First Amendment that stretches back two centuries. It is the US Constitution that sets up that prohibition--not the Maine statute. If treating organizations equally under the law "establishes" a religion, then equal treatment is prohibited by the Constitution.
I do have a hard time being polite in situations like this, glad you agree with my thinking on the gun bill.
In respect of Maine, my argument is based on the theory presented in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer from 2017 and comes down to the idea that a particular religion is not being established simply because public funds are used for a particular purpose that doesn't involve the religious work of the school. There are excellent arguments against that interpretation, including the ones you present which is why I'd rather not see any public money supporting private schools at all. If memory serves, this discussion revved up when vouchers became popular because there were objections to their use at religious schools.
We'll probably not resolve the issue here, but it's an interesting learning experience and I appreciate your comments.
Dave...2 things:
Props for being involved in a real and tangible way beyond 'voting' in your state's election process. You definitely have my respect for that, as you do for the many articulate and well-reasoned comments I see from you here and elsewhere.
As to your observations about 'the gun problem', as a gun owner myself who's more than angry about the loss of life to gun violence in our country, I think you're pretty spot on. Weak tea at best. And I'll be surprised if, by some chance, an actual law comes out of this that it isn't even weaker still by the time it gets through the House and ends up on Biden's desk, if that actually does happen.
I would very much like to see a lot more done along the lines you mentioned. No reason for any victory laps by anyone over this. It wasn't a very strenuous race, or at least it shouldn't have been. But considering the political atmosphere in which this was produced, I'm surprised anything came out of it at all. I think, all things considered, the real opportunities for meaningful action now lie at the state level in some places for the near term, and I hope that more progress will be made there.
I guess I'd say that I'm disappointed by this paltry offering at the federal level, but not completely disheartened. If you're dying of thirst, a small glass of weak tea is better than nothing in the short run. And nothing is what we've gotten for about 3 decades now. And if this action keeps only a handful of innocents from dying, well, that's not nothing and definitely worth it.
This is going to be a marathon effort to get meaningful and effective reform 'at scale' across the country. We have to keep the pressure on. But we have to take what we can get in the way of a drink along the way, I think.
It's guys like you who are willing to get involved and get their hands dirty in trying to make our country a better place in one way or another that we owe a lot more thanks to than the guys who will no doubt take a turn or two around the track over this 20 yard sprint.
Thanks, both for the electoral support and your comments. Your weak tea analogy is very appropriate because, since tea is a diuretic, while it will relieve thirst in the short run, in the longer term it will take water out of the body. I'm afraid that's what will happen at the federal level if/when this bill, such as it is and, as you note, may become, passes. We'll all need to follow your advice and work at the state and even local level on this and many other issues.
Ha! Couldn't think of a way to work in the diuretic / short term thing without making my comment a lot longer than it needed to be. Figured what I said was enough. Glad you caught it.
And props again for not just sittin' on the sidelines. Things here in the Wolverine state are pretty darned crazy, but I don't know...MO, Greitens and the like...ya'll pretty much got your work cut out for yourselves, don't ya'?!
We do indeed and a steeper climb than you have even with the Devos family in residence. I think that there's a fair chance Greitens will get the nomination and lose the general but it depends on a lot of Democrats getting their acts together pretty quickly. John Danforth is talking up a 3rd party candidate who could take enough GOP votes to elect the Dem.
Quick question—to attorneys out there. Can Shaye and Lady Ruby sue DT and his minion Giuliani for defamation of character? Seems pretty simple with the video/audio recordings???!
Yes!
Wondering why it hadn’t started?
I was just going to pose the same question in these comments. Isn't this why defamation law was created?!!!!!
As I listen to and read various commentators discuss whether Trump should be prosecuted because if the DOJ does decide to do so, one of the reasons given for not doing so is that it will break this country even more than it already is. And yes, that's a legitimate fear.
But I reflect back on the issues facing this country when Lincoln was voted in and if he hadn't the fortitude to do what was right because of the fear of dividing this country, than we would never have started down the road of doing away with one of the greatest evils of all time--enslavement of another human being.
I fear that if Trump and his minions are allowed to escape the legal consequences of sedition, then our country may not be worth the energies we need to keep us going forward. This man has escaped the consequences of his behaviors for so long--and to listen to the witnesses recount how he set mobs of violence against them as they simply did their jobs is like listening to the witnesses who described the KKK and lynchings of our not-too-distant past.
My fears for this country are greater if we do nothing then if we try to uphold our constitutional responsibilities.
It’s hard for me to say or even imagine—but we actually do need to recognize that if it weren’t for (some) John Q Citizen, republicans who took their oath to the constitution and not a man, our democracy could have been lost! To them I say thank you from the depths of my heart! Too bad the GOP’ers in present administrative power now, don’t have the same philosophy and/or fortitude!
Something that got moved past too quickly without enough emphasis was the proposal in text writing by Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows to send Georgia election investigators "POTUS stuff” including coins and autographed MAGA hats. It is a clear attempt at bribery and/or reward. A characteristically cheap one, but one nonetheless.
Yesterday's hearing was moving and inspirational as you have so beautifully expressed. I was inspired to sign up as a poll worker, which I have done.
I would also like to thank the heroes who testified yesterday for standing up for democracy. As I am sure their contact information is private (and should be) would you be willing to serve as a clearing house to collect the messages of thanks from your readers and send them along in bulk. Thanks.
Thanks for signing up to be a poll worker!