Surprise!

July 28, 2022

          “It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” The origins of that statement are contested, but its self-evident truth is not. On Wednesday, Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer surprised everyone by resurrecting a deal on climate, taxes, and drug prices that was pronounced dead two weeks ago. Although a far cry from the ambitious Build Back Better bill, when measured against typical legislation, the cleverly named “Inflation Reduction Act” will be a significant achievement (if passed). Per CNN,

          While many details have not been disclosed, the measure would invest $369 billion into energy and climate change programs, with the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 40% by 2030, according to a one-page fact sheet. For the first time, Medicare would be empowered to negotiate the prices of certain medications, and it would cap out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 for those enrolled in Medicare drug plans. It would also extend expiring enhanced subsidies for Affordable Care Act coverage for three years.

          The nearly $400 billion investment in energy and climate is the largest in US history. Capping drug prices and out-of-pocket expenses under Medicare will improve the lives and health of tens of millions of Americans, as will extending ACA subsidies.

          Shockingly, the bill will be financed, in part, by imposing a minimum 15% tax on corporations with annual revenues greater than $1 billion. Per CNN, that provision “would raise $313 billion over a decade.” Negotiating drug prices will save billions more to help pay for the bill.

          Because the programs are part of a “reconciliation” spending package, the filibuster does not apply. Per Talking Points Memo, Kyrsten Sinema previously supported the most controversial proposal in the bill—the 15% corporate minimum tax on revenue greater than $1 billion.

          If the proposed bill passes, it will be a big deal. A really big deal. A “dancing in the streets” big deal. If it passes, Joe Biden’s legislative record in his first two years in office will surpass that of any president going back to FDR. In a fair media environment, the press would lavish praise on Biden for months and relentlessly repeat the “historic” nature of his achievement—just as the press (incorrectly) repeats that Biden’s favorability ratings are at “historic” lows. Don’t hold your breath. See Barry Bacon op-ed in WaPo, How media coverage drove Biden’s political plunge.

          Biden will get a well-deserved bump in praise from major media outlets, but it will not rival the incessant barrage of negative coverage that Biden endured during the nine months of negotiations over the Build Back Better bill. Oh, well! Life isn’t fair, especially if you are President of the United States. So, help spread the word about Biden’s singular achievement in the first two years of his tenure. Slowly, but surely, Biden is building a record of achievement second to none.

          [Late breaking update: Kyrsten Sinema was not involved in negotiations for the Inflation Reduction Act and may oppose some provisions of the bill. But without Manchin by her side to share the heat, it is less likely she will be the lone holdout. But nothing is certain until the bill is on Biden’s desk!]

Reflecting on this moment through the lens of Watergate.

          Many worry that Merrick Garland should not indict Trump because pursuing a former president “might tear this country apart.” See Media Matters, Lester Holt on Prospect of Prosecuting Trump: ‘Would Arguably Tear the Country Apart’. Indicting a former president would undoubtedly be traumatic for the country but failing to indict Trump (if supported by the facts) would be worse.

          On Wednesday, Jill Wine-Banks was interviewed on MSNBC about the prospect of a Trump indictment. She noted that she was part of the special prosecutor’s team for the Watergate scandal (headed by Leon Jaworski). She said that she urged Jaworski to indict Nixon both during his presidency and immediately after his resignation. Jaworski declined to do so, and President Ford quickly pardoned Nixon.

          If Leon Jaworski had followed Jill Wine-Banks’s advice, we might be in a different position today. Trump acted with impunity during his tenure because he knew that a sitting president cannot be indicted under the (erroneous) internal policy of the DOJ.  If Merrick Garland exercises his prosecutorial discretion not to indict Trump despite sufficient evidence to do so, Trump (and future presidents) will take the lesson that they are above the law.

          As Jill Wine-Banks noted, assuming that the evidence supports an indictment, issuing an indictment is a healthy and necessary step to guard against criminal conduct by all future presidents, not merely by Donald Trump. Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski should have listened to Jill Wine-Banks in 1974. Let’s hope that someone in the DOJ is heeding Wine-Banks’s wisdom today. Presidents must understand they are not above the law.

J6 Committee debunks lie about Trump calling for 10,000 National Guard troops.

          Trump and his enablers have repeatedly said that Trump called for 10,000 National Guard troops to be sent to the Capitol on January 6th. That claim is a lie, as was established in sworn testimony by acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller recently released by the J6 Committee. Miller testified under oath that he never received any order from Trump to send National Guard troops to defend the Capitol. See Media Matters, Sean Hannity’s main attack against the January 6 committee shatters amid new testimony.

          In sworn testimony before the Committee, Secretary Miller said that there was “no order” from Trump to send National Guard troops to the Capitol. But on Sean Hannity’s program, Secretary Miller said that Trump had ordered 10,000 National Guard troops to defend the Capitol. How to explain the contradictory statements by Miller? On Hannity’s program, Miller was not under oath; testifying before the J6 Committee, he was under oath.

          There is no penalty for Miller’s lies on Hannity’s program. But because Miller lied, Hannity repeated the lie 43 times on his cable show and 41 times on his radio show. It will be impossible to undo the damage caused by Chris Miller’s lie to Hannity’s viewers.

          I searched Fox News’s website to see if Fox has informed its viewers about Chris Miller’s testimony. As of Wednesday, July 28, 2022, Fox has not bothered to report on Chris Miller’s testimony refuting Trump’s lie, nor has Fox retracted the lies repeated more than 80 times on Sean Hannity’s programs. Fox News continues to pose a grave danger to American democracy by lying to its viewers.

The Secret Service Mess.

          The story relating to the deletion of Secret Service texts has become hopelessly complicated and incredible. Keeping the facts straight is impossible—assuming that the public is being told the truth! But Philip Rotner has penned a piece for The Bulwark that includes a detailed timeline of congressional requests for the texts and the actions (or omissions) by the Secret Service. See Philip Rotner in The Bulwark, The Secret Service’s Inexcusable Document Destruction. After reviewing the facts, Rotner concludes:

However the Secret Service tries to spin the facts, the timeline makes it clear that relevant texts were erased after, not before, the documents were requested by Congress.

          Rotner notes that the Secret Service has provided an explanation that “is more of a confession than a justification: Gross negligence, recklessness, and finger-pointing.” Rotner concludes that a DOJ investigation is an absolute necessity because the DHS Inspector General is “a core player and key witness.” Merrick Garland has his hands full. But a possible cover-up of criminal activity by the Secret Service or Trump cannot be ignored.

More evidence that DOJ is focused on Trump’s coup.

          One key to understanding Donald Trump’s corrupt conduct is the actions of his attorney, John Eastman. You will recall that Eastman authored a memo that laid out a plot to prevent the count of electoral ballots. Last month, the DOJ seized Eastman’s phone. Now, as noted by Professor Laurence Tribe, the DOJ has been granted authority to search the contents of that phone. Professor Tribe explains the significance of that development in his tweet:

          DOJ has now obtained a warrant to search John Eastman’s cellphone. DOJ has had the phone since June 22. Now it has judicial permission to search its contents. To get that warrant, DOJ had to specify the crimes it has good cause to believe the contents will reveal.

          The strong implication is that the DOJ has articulated crimes involving Eastman and/or Trump. Either way, the circle of criminal liability is tightening around Trump. Things are escalating quickly. Trump should be spending more of his time consulting defense lawyers and less of his time lying about January 6th.

Watch this video of Pete Buttigieg talking about his marriage.

          Marco Rubio claims that the proposed federal legislation to grant recognition to same-sex marriages is a “stunt” and a “waste of time.”  Jake Tapper of CNN asked Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg about Rubio’s comments. Buttigieg responded with an incredible description of how he tries to be a good parent to his two infant children. It is a remarkable show of humanity. Watch this video, beginning at the 1:15 mark. See YouTube, Buttigieg fires back at Rubio after his same-sex marriage remark.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Coda to the Max Boot discussion.

          In yesterday’s newsletter, I printed an exemplar of the many emails I received about Max Boot’s op-ed in the Washington Post. I selected that particular email because it was short and to the point. In today’s inbox, I received a follow-up email from that reader with personal background that he felt was relevant to my discussion yesterday. The reader is a 23-year-old US college graduate heading to grad school in Canada in the fall. He said that “I still have hope and will do my part to help bring the country back to a better place, . . but the current political situation is on my mind as I get ready to leave for grad school.”

          First, it is heartening to know that a 23-year-old is reading opinion pieces in the editorial pages of the Washington Post! Second, I felt a pang of conscience (or guilt) that my generation has allowed us to arrive at a moment where a 23-year-old looks to the future of his country with uncertainty and apprehension.

          In that regard, the 23-year-old reader is like many Americans looking for leadership, guidance, and reassurance during difficult and confusing times. There may be young people in your life who feel the same way. It might be time to listen to what they are thinking and feeling. Give them a sense of hope and confidence about America’s future. Use words if necessary.

          The most powerful way to communicate confidence about the future of America is by action. Demonstrate your willingness to do the hard work of preserving democracy. Children, family, and friends are watching when you sit around your kitchen table with others to write postcards for an election across the country. Or when you stand on a streetcorner in 95-degree heat to protest a decision by the Supreme Court. Or when you serve as a poll worker to ensure the orderly and peaceful unfolding of democracy.

          There are many reasons to be involved in political activism. For love of country, to promote values and interests that align with your political beliefs, and for self-preservation during a time when it is easy to feel helpless. But also, to model confidence and hope in the future. Whether we know it or not, the next generation is watching to see how we rise to this moment in history. Let’s show them the way forward in our actions, words, and sacrifice.

          Talk to you tomorrow!