Today’s Edition: Trump’s attempted coup.

August 2, 2021

          Last Friday evening, the NYTimes reported that Trump asked the Department of Justice to join a plot to overturn the 2020 election results. Per the Times, Trump asked Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen to “Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me.” See NYTimes, “Trump Pressed Justice Dept. to Declare Election Results Corrupt, Notes Show.” The statement was recorded in notes taken by Deputy Attorney General Richard P. Donoghue that have been provided to the House Oversight and Reform Committee. Trump’s response to the disclosure conceded that he made the statement, arguing that Donoghue’s notes show Trump was attempting to “uphold the integrity and honesty of the election.”

          It is impossible to overstate the significance of this revelation. And yet, by Sunday evening, the story had disappeared from the news. We must fight with every ounce of outrage we can muster to ensure that Trump’s effort to overturn the constitutional order is not forgotten, dismissed, or minimized. The man who attempted a coup d'état in December 2020 is the leading GOP contender for the 2024 presidential nomination. He belongs in prison, not at the top of the Republican ticket. We cannot let this issue fade. Trump may be back. If he succeeds, he will be emboldened by our complacency. We must demand action by the administration to protect the rule of law now, before it is too late.

          Let’s reflect for a moment on Trump’s statement to Rosen and Donoghue. They had just told Trump that there was no fraud in the 2020 election. Trump didn’t care whether there was fraud. Instead, he cared only that the DOJ would “say” that the election was corrupt. Asking the DOJ to lie about the election was the first step in a planned coup. The DOJ would then “leave the rest to Trump.” In short, Trump asked the DOJ to commit a corrupt act, which would serve as a predicate for preventing the lawful inauguration of Joe Biden as president.

          Trump’s request to the DOJ is shocking. Why, then, are politicians in both parties reacting to the revelation with indifference? Answer: Because Trump and the GOP have succeeded in normalizing Trump’s attempt to overturn the election. With every new and disturbing revelation, Trump and the GOP respond by saying the election of Biden was based on widespread fraud—just as Trump responded to the Times’ latest disclosure. To help overcome the mind-numbing effect of this constant repetition of widespread fraud, let’s engage in a thought experiment.

          Imagine that Trump had asked Attorney General Rosen to have the FBI arrest Joe Biden before the inauguration. (We can imagine darker scenarios, but I don’t feel comfortable putting them in writing.) After Attorney General Rosen tells Trump that Biden has committed no crime that would justify his arrest, Trump says, “Just say he committed a crime, and leave the rest to me.” Is there any doubt that Trump’s request to arrest Biden on fabricated charges would be part of criminal conspiracy by Trump? It is no different with Trump’s request for the DOJ to lie about the integrity of the 2020 election. In both instances, Trump was asking the DOJ to join a criminal conspiracy to prevent the lawful operation of the Constitution.

          There are many shocking aspects to this story. Let’s hope the media, the DOJ, and Congress pursue this development with vigor in the coming months. Here are some aspects of the aspects of the story that bother me:

• Why was Trump comfortable asking the DOJ to join a criminal conspiracy? Had he done so previously without pushback or consequence?

• Why did the DOJ (under Rosen) do nothing about Trump’s invitation to join a criminal conspiracy (other than to put the notes of the conversation in a file)?

• Why was Trump so confident that the lie by the DOJ would be enough for him to overturn the election? Did he have support from key members of the GOP?

• Why has the DOJ (under Garland) done nothing (so far as we know) to investigate this attempted coup by Trump?

          At this point in the newsletter, I assume some readers are rolling their eyes and saying, “Hubbell is off the rails today!” If so, ask yourself what would have happened if Attorney General Rosen had complied with Trump’s request to say the election was “corrupt.” If the DOJ had made that statement, it is reasonable to assume that the assault on January 6th would have been larger, more violent, and more organized. In other words, it may have succeeded in preventing the count of the Electoral ballots.

          Trump was serious about his effort to overturn the election by any means possible. If you have any doubt, read this article: HuffPo, “Mark Meadows Says He's Meeting With Trump And Shadow 'Cabinet Members' On 'Real Plans'.” Per HuffPo, Trump’s former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said the following over the weekend:  

    [Trump is] a president who is fully engaged, highly focused and remaining on task. We met with several of our Cabinet members tonight, we actually had a follow-up . . . meeting with some of our Cabinet members, and . . . we’re looking at what does come next.

          In his interview, Meadows refers to Trump as “the” president who continues to meet with “his cabinet.” And the reference to “what comes next” is ominous given the widespread QAnon theory that Trump will be “reinstated” as president on August 16th. Yes, these conspiracy theories are the ravings of madmen, but they captured the White House once and did everything they could to prevent Joe Biden from taking office. Trump’s invitation to the DOJ to join a criminal conspiracy should be investigated and prosecuted by the DOJ as a crime—not as an internal investigation by the DOJ Inspector General. Anything else is a grave dereliction of duty by the DOJ.

Status of the infrastructure bill: Clear as mud.

The status of the infrastructure bill is unclear as of Sunday evening, despite confident predictions to the contrary. There are two parallel storylines and the participants in each storyline seem to ignore the existence of the players in the other.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Schumer announced that the text of the bipartisan infrastructure bill has been finalized. Senators Manchin and Collins announced that they  have enough votes to pass the bill, filibuster notwithstanding. Sounds swell, right? Nope.

          After Senator Manchin convinced his Democratic colleagues to vote for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, he promptly announced that he wasn’t certain there were enough votes to pass the larger reconciliation bill. See Business Insider, “Joe Manchin says he 'can't really guarantee anybody' that the Democratic-led reconciliation package will pass the Senate.” Because Speaker Pelosi has explicitly linked the bipartisan bill and the reconciliation bill, Manchin’s bucket of cold water on the reconciliation bill portends rough sailing in the House.

In the House, as everyone should have expected, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced that the progressive caucus has enough votes to defeat the bipartisan bill in the House if the reconciliation bill is not passed in the Senate. See The Hill, “Ocasio-Cortez: 'More than enough' votes to prevent infrastructure from passing without reconciliation bill.” Rep. Ocasio-Cortez suggested there may be as many as 90 votes in the House to oppose the bipartisan bill if it is not accompanied by the reconciliation bill.

          All of this raises several obvious questions: What the heck are Democrats doing? Is anyone in charge? Are Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi talking to one another? Has the Senate just wasted three months negotiating over an illusory bipartisan bill? I don’t know the answers to those questions, but the messaging from the Democratic party could use some fine tuning. Like many Democrats, I anxiously await clarification from Democratic leadership on Monday. In the meantime, Senator Machin isn’t helping things with his messaging of “I got what I wanted, good luck finding enough votes for your bill.”

Biden administration allows expiration of eviction moratorium.

          Speaking of poor messaging, the Biden administration has allowed an eviction ban to expire for housing subsidized by federal agencies. The move caught Congress off guard. This is a complicated and unfortunate turn of events that will impose unnecessary hardship on hundreds of thousands of families.

          The situation is unfortunate because it was entirely expected. On June 24, 2021, the Administration announced it was extending the moratorium for “a final month”—i.e., to July 31st, 2021. Apparently, Congress didn’t believe the reference to the “final month” of the extension and assumed the Administration would extend the moratorium again. Moreover, dozens of eviction bans on non-subsidized rental housing were imposed by state and local authorities at the urging of the Administration. To entice state and local governments to suspend evictions, the Administration authorized $46 billion in emergency aid to tenants and landlords. But so far, the states and municipalities have claimed only $3 billion of the $46 billion in authorized rent relief. See PBS News Hour, Biden to allow eviction moratorium to expire Saturday.”

          So, there is a massive amount of rent relief available that remains untapped by state and local governments—which have the power to leave eviction moratoriums in place despite the Administration’s decision not to extend the eviction moratorium. The situation is unacceptable and reflects a lack of coordination between the Administration and Congress. Perhaps they were both distracted by the elusive bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Concluding Thoughts.  

           Despite the critical tone of some of my commentary tonight, I acknowledge that it is tough to govern, especially when the opposition party is not operating in good faith. Moreover, criticizing the execution and implementation of well-intentioned policies is a far cry from condemning the mean-spirited policies of the prior administration. Despite stumbles and lack of communication, the Biden Administration continues on a strong path in its first year. If the infrastructure and reconciliation bills pass, the Administration will have a record that exceeds that of most modern first-year presidents. Most importantly, the Administration is committed to the rule of law and democratic norms. That fact alone is enough to warrant our unqualified and enthusiastic support against a party that may seek to re-elect a man who tried to engineer a coup. We must never forget that fact, and we must work tirelessly to ensure that Democrats are elected up and down the ballot—criticisms and disappointments notwithstanding. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

          Talk to you tomorrow!