Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

Reading this forum I get a sense that Bridge is all about money in the USA (true for all sports) and has little to do with leisure and meeting friends.

 

Michael Lewis' book 'Moneyball' captures this attitude perfectly: when leisure is solely about making money a society loses its soul.

'Moneyball' ends with Billy Beane turning down Boston's offer of $12+ million, so perhaps there is a case for optimism?

[pilowsky]

'Moneyball' ends with Billy Beane turning down Boston's offer of $12+ million, so perhaps there is a case for optimism?

 

Seriously? That's what you took away from that book?

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

Hoping not to sound like a raving maniac, is there any likelihood that certiorari was granted in Moore v Harper for the sole reason to give the insurrectionists some degree of legitimacy?

[Evies Dad]

Reading this forum I get a sense that Bridge is all about money in the USA (true for all sports) and has little to do with leisure and meeting friends.

Michael Lewis' book 'Moneyball' captures this attitude perfectly: when leisure is solely about making money a society loses its soul.

I thought it was a book about about trying to take on the might of Baseball tradition and doctrine.

Yes, it was a small market team where this opera was played out, but that was largely incidental to the point of the story.

[y66]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-07-15/the-justice-department-should-indict-donald-trump?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=220715&utm_campaign=author_18529680

 

As former President Donald Trump moves toward formally announcing his 2024 candidacy for another term in the White House, it’s becoming more and more obvious that he should be prosecuted for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

 

This isn’t something that should be undertaken lightly. Attempting to imprison a former president — especially one who is a leading candidate for the presidential nomination of his party — is something that should be reserved for the gravest circumstances. People will say that the rule of law requires presidents to be prosecuted just as any other citizen would be, but it really is more complicated than that.

 

The Justice Department says that it investigates crimes, not people, and that’s the way it should be. Nobody should want the Justice Department to be turned against the leaders of out-parties for offenses that would never have been charged against anyone else. The justice system depends on prosecutors using their discretion properly, so that the immense power of the government isn’t used to hound people over trivial or technical details, and that really needs to apply even more to political leaders — especially from the party that does not control the White House.

 

That’s why it’s so awful that Trump encourages chants to “lock up” his political opponents.

 

I’m also only somewhat impressed by arguments about deterring future presidents from committing crimes. It’s not clear to me that the possibility of prosecution and imprisonment would ever be the main thing keeping presidents from breaking the law. Political consequences are paramount to most presidents, who have spent most of their lives trying to reach the White House. Trump may not care that he was impeached twice and provoked the first-ever same-party conviction votes in the Senate, but if so he’s probably unique among presidents in that way. I suspect that Richard Nixon cared more that he was driven out of the presidency and politically humiliated than he would have been about a prison term.

 

And yet …

 

Trump didn’t commit ordinary crimes (well, he probably did, and that weighs on all of this too, but it’s not the main thing). He attempted to overturn an election that he had lost, and used the presidency to do so. That’s become clearer and clearer as the House committee investigating the assault on the US Capitol of Jan. 6, 2021 has presented its case.

 

Experts seem to believe that the evidence is there and that conviction is likely for Trump’s efforts to pressure election officials to falsify results, to gin up slates of fake electors and to provoke the Capitol mob. And it’s highly relevant that Trump to this day, long after the election, continues to try to overturn the legitimate result. Prosecutors should take it into account if a person constantly takes to the biggest stages and in effect brags about his crimes and promises to commit them again if he has the chance.

 

The possibility that Trump supporters would respond to an indictment with violence or political sabotage should not constrain prosecutors. It’s one thing to work hard to preserve the ideal of equal justice under the law. It’s another to be cowed by extra-constitutional threats.

 

There’s a fair argument that the proper venue for all of this was Congress, and that impeachment, conviction and disqualification from holding further office would have been sufficient. But whether it’s correct or not, that ship has sailed.

 

If all of this sounds as if the ultimate decision by the Justice Department will be political in nature … well, that’s correct. Prosecutors have to balance the threat to the nation from indicting a former president against the threat to the nation of not doing so. Given the facts we’ve seen, it’s just not that hard a choice. Trump’s crimes are too important, and too dangerous, to ignore.

[y66]

Thursday July 14

 

Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Joseph Cuffari, a Trump appointee, yesterday sent a surprising letter to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and its House counterpart. The letter said that the Department of Homeland Security had notified Cuffari’s office that “many U.S. Secret Service (USSS) text messages, from January 5 and 6, 2021, were erased as part of a device-replacement program. The USSS erased those text messages after OIG [Office of Inspector General] requested records of electronic communications from the USSS, as part of our evaluation of events at the Capitol on January 6.” Further, the letter said, DHS personnel had repeatedly refused to produce records without first showing them to attorneys, which had created long delays and confusion over “whether all records had been produced.”

 

In other words, an inspector general thought the Secret Service had deleted texts from agents on January 5 and 6 after being instructed to produce them. Representative Bennie Thompson (D-MS) chairs both the House Homeland Security committee and the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. Cuffari’s letter sent the information about deleted texts directly to the top.

 

The Secret Service immediately responded that “the insinuation that the Secret Service maliciously deleted text messages following a request is false. In fact, the Secret Service has been fully cooperating with the OIG in every respect—whether it be interviews, documents, emails, or texts.”

 

But this information raises questions about the role of Secret Service members in the events of January 6. Trump blurred the lines between the Secret Service and the presidency when he appointed Secret Service assistant director Anthony Ornato his deputy chief of staff in December 2019. We know Vice President Mike Pence refused to get into a car driven by a Secret Service agent on January 6, apparently concerned that the driver might not follow his instruction, and that President-elect Biden had to be assigned a new Secret Service team out of concerns that the presidential detail was allied with Trump. And last week, the Trump-appointed director of the Secret Service, James Murray, resigned.

 

The only good news here for Republicans is that the outrage over these deleted (or lost) texts has distracted from the firestorm over the 10-year-old child from Ohio forced to travel to Indiana for an abortion after being raped. That story, reported by the doctor who performed the abortion, was picked up by national news and by President Joe Biden, who asked people to “imagine being that little girl” in a speech about abortion rights.

 

Ohio’s attorney general Dave Yost told the Fox News Channel that he doubted the story because he had not heard that there had been any report of a rape, although as journalist Magdi Semrau noted on Twitter, sexual assault, especially sexual assault of a child, is rarely reported. Yost later said “there is not a damn scintilla of evidence” that such a thing happened. Right-wing media immediately began to assert that the story was false, and the Indiana attorney general, Todd Rokita, went further, telling Fox News Channel host Jesse Watters that his office would investigate the doctor who provided abortion care to the child, suggesting she had not filed a report on the case as legally required.

 

Today, law enforcement officers in Columbus, Ohio, arrested a 27-year-old man who confessed to raping the child. In addition, Politico found the required report filed correctly. A lawyer for the doctor released a statement saying the doctor “took every appropriate and proper action in accordance with the law and both her medical and ethical training as a physician. She followed all relevant policies, procedures, and regulations in this case, just as she does every day to provide the best possible care for her patients. She has not violated any law, including patient privacy laws, and she has not been disciplined by her employer. We are considering legal action against those who have smeared my client.”

[Winstonm]

Given the facts we've seen, it's just not that hard a choice. Trump's crimes are too important, and too dangerous, to ignore.

Let's not forget Steve Bannon, either.

[Winstonm]

A new campaign motto for Joe Manchin: The best Republican Democratic donors can buy.

[y66]

This assumes that Joe Manchin will work in good faith with the Democrats. Or knows how to.

 

Of course, it also assumes that the Democrats know how to understand English when it is spoken by anyone. Or can recognize the second (thousandth) time someone tries to pull the wool over their eyes.

 

Seriously, I can't tell if they're terminally naïve, literally incapable of learning from experience, or just assuming the public is. Or, literally don't care as long as their life isn't affected, I guess.

I concede that Manchin has not been working in good faith with fellow Dems. I understand why he refuses to support a lot of stuff Dems want. I don't understand why he won't say upfront what he will and won't support when the stakes are so high except as a cynical ploy to gain leverage for the next round.

[Winstonm]

I concede that Manchin has not been working in good faith with fellow Dems. I understand why he refuses to support a lot of stuff Dems want. I don't understand why he won't say upfront what he will and won't support when the stakes are so high except as a cynical ploy to gain leverage for the next round.

Until he gets more details he doesn’t know who to squeeze for “contributions”.

[pilowsky]

Our World In Data have just released a Data Explorer showing the development of electoral democracy on a scale of 0-1 around the world.

From none 200 years ago (apparently) to much more now.

In 1900 AUstralia and New Zealand were the only two.

Canada and others in 1928.

The USA in 1966/7 - but oscillates a bit from there.

 

The definition of democracy is unsurprisingly open to interpretation.

[kenberg]

We vote tomorrow in Maryland and I thought I would give my fwiw thoughts. Here is from the NYT

https://www.nytimes....-wes-moore.html

 

Tuesday's primary elections for Maryland governor come at a moment when Democrats are jittery, unsure of the future and perhaps willing to bet on a flashy, unproven commodity.

 

That could be a real problem for Tom Perez.

 

As he did in early 2017, when he won a contest among party insiders at the dawn of the Trump era to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Mr. Perez is pitching himself as the safe establishment choice.

 

But polling in the Democratic race for governor shows a dead heat between Mr. Perez and Wes Moore, a best-selling author, television show host and nonprofit executive who has been endorsed by Oprah Winfrey. Peter Franchot, the state comptroller and a fixture of Maryland politics since the 1980s, is close behind.

 

 

I probably surprise no one by saying the safe establishment choice of Tom Perez will get my vote. Some friends and I were chatting at lunch Saturday and their choices were varied.

 

 

Also from the NYT:

Republicans will choose between Kelly Schulz, a former cabinet secretary for the departing Gov. Larry Hogan, who is term-limited, and Dan Cox, a first-term state delegate who has been endorsed by former President Donald J. Trump and who wrote on Twitter during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol that Vice President Mike Pence was a traitor.

 

I am very much hoping that Kelly Schulz wins that race. It is usually described s close. There was a story a while back, I think in WaPo, that there is some Dem effort to help Cox since he should be easy to beat in the general election. A video was available shown with the Dems denouncing Cox by saying he was supported by Trump and that Cox supported gun rights, the thought was that this sort of "denunciation" was designed to encourage right-wing support from Cox. The Dem response was that of curse they were doing no such thing they just wanted to get an early start on campaigning against Cox. Perhaps so. But Larry Hogan, a Republican, is finishing his second term as governor in 'deep blue" Maryland. Many Dems, including me, voted for Hogan and would consider voting for Schulz. I can see why the Dems might be far more worried about Schultz than about Cox. I would very much like to see a fall contest between two strong candidates, one D, one R. No jerks, no idiots.

 

I still have to figure out who to vote for to be on the school board. This used to be easier. But I will manage.

 

And I have been "re-districted". I'll cope.

[Winstonm]

We vote tomorrow in Maryland and I thought I would give my fwiw thoughts. Here is from the NYT

https://www.nytimes....-wes-moore.html

 

[/size][/font]

 

I probably surprise no one by saying the safe establishment choice of Tom Perez will get my vote. Some friends and I were chatting at lunch Saturday and their choices were varied.

 

 

Also from the NYT:

[/color][/font]

 

I am very much hoping that Kelly Schulz wins that race. It is usually described s close. There was a story a while back, I think in WaPo, that there is some Dem effort to help Cox since he should be easy to beat in the general election. A video was available shown with the Dems denouncing Cox by saying he was supported by Trump and that Cox supported gun rights, the thought was that this sort of "denunciation" was designed to encourage right-wing support from Cox. The Dem response was that of curse they were doing no such thing they just wanted to get an early start on campaigning against Cox. Perhaps so. But Larry Hogan, a Republican, is finishing his second term as governor in 'deep blue" Maryland. Many Dems, including me, voted for Hogan and would consider voting for Schulz. I can see why the Dems might be far more worried about Schultz than about Cox. I would very much like to see a fall contest between two strong candidates, one D, one R. No jerks, no idiots.

 

I still have to figure out who to vote for to be on the school board. This used to be easier. But I will manage.

 

And I have been "re-districted". I'll cope.

 

In normal times I would have no quibble with a crossover vote to a Republican candidate; these are not normal times. The dangers are real and significant and must be crushed.

[Winstonm]

It occurs to me that nothing happens in a political vacuum, meaning Trump did not create Trump supporters; demagogues like Trump offer a justification only, and the supporters in their minds are vindicated of their suppressed grudges and emotions. In other words, the support is a visceral expression of resentment for society forcing constraint on unacceptable beliefs.

 

Meaning, these are normal times exposed as normally constrained.

[kenberg]

In normal times I would have no quibble with a crossover vote to a Republican candidate; these are not normal times. The dangers are real and significant and must be crushed.

 

As strategy, one could argue in the other direction: I would very much like to see the R party return to normal, so voting for a good R candidate might encourage movement n the desired direction. But really, my voting is rarely if ever strategic. I usually vote D, but if I think the R candidate is clearly preferable then I vote for the R candidate. I think many people, including all of those at the lunch I mentioned, follow this general approach. Again speaking strategically, it could be a warning to D strategists not to take us for granted. But I keep it simple, I vote based on preference, not on strategy.

 

I still have to review the school board candidates. In my childhood my mother's view was that the schools should teach me to read, she would teach me how to behave. I still see it roughly that way. Quadratic equations and iambic tetrameter are for the school, behavioral guidelines are for the home. That oversimplifies, but it reflects my general approach. And, I think, the approach of many. Teachers have plenty to do just getting the academic stuff done. Anyway, I need to go read some stuff, the school board is now very important.

 

Added: Ok, we got it done. It was very quick. We voted and then went thru Burger King for a Whopper and got back home in not much more than half an hour. They are saying there was a lot of confusion, first there was redistricting, then a court challenge to redistricting, and that took a while so the primary day got re-scheduled etc. Anyway, more workers and more machines than there were voters so in and out. Vote totals might be low. Now we wait to see if we are outliers or mainliners. It's expected to take a few days because of mail-ins. Becky had a pleasant chat with a woman handing our R flyers. Plenty of time.

[y66]

The most depressing thing about the demise of the Biden administration’s social-policy agenda — other than the demise itself, of course — was the atmosphere of sheer economic illiteracy that surrounded it. Critics of the measure, ultimately including Joe Manchin himself, made arguments against it that were not so much misguided as lacking any elemental grasp of the basic principles involved (“not even wrong”).

 

The main argument used against Biden’s plan was that it would worsen inflation. Most of them scolded Biden for ignoring the sage insights of Larry Summers. Here, to take just one example, is conservative pundit Marc Thiessen: Biden signed an economic stimulus in March 2021 “despite warnings from even liberal economists, such as former Treasury secretary Lawrence H. Summers, who cautioned the president that his plan would ‘set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation,’” Thiessen scolds. “The first rule of holes is: When you are in one, stop digging. So, when you are in a hole of spiraling inflation, the obvious first step is: stop spending.”

 

Later in the same column, Thiessen switches metaphors, scolding again, “But instead of trying to tamp down the flames, Biden keeps trying to pour gasoline on the inferno, with more spending and more free money from Washington.” The tone of this column, like many of the right-wing polemics, is one of incredulous condescension. Biden is such a blithering idiot that he is ignoring the obvious conclusion and instead digging holes and pouring gasoline or whatever.

 

Whatever the case against Build Back Better, this was not it. The American Rescue Plan did contribute to inflation. Its purpose was to stimulate demand by injecting deficit-financed spending into the economy. Build Back Better had a different purpose: to address social needs over a long period of time and finance that spending through taxation.

 

Spending financed by new taxes is not inflationary. That is why Summers himself endorsed Build Back Better. Yet conservatives spent the better part of a year citing Summers as the authority on why Biden’s long-term plans would cause inflation, oblivious to the fact that any economist, very much including Summers, would say otherwise.

 

In deference to public concerns about inflation, Manchin ultimately reshaped the last version of the bill as an anti-inflationary measure. The plan would have raised $1 trillion in new revenue (or reduced spending) and used half the proceeds for deficit reduction. This would not have had a large effect on inflation, but there is no question that, directionally, it would place downward pressure on prices.

 

Conservatives simply refused to acknowledge this aspect of the plan at all. In the end, even Manchin himself abandoned his own plan, which was designed in part to reduce inflation, on account of inflation, which is like deciding not to cut greenhouse-gas emissions because it’s too hot.

 

Playbook reports, via a source close to Manchin, “when the 9.1% inflation number was released Manchin just said to Schumer, ‘Why can’t we wait a month to see if the numbers come down structurally? How do you pour $1 trillion on that tempo with inflation?’”

 

Remember, $1 trillion is not the size of the spending in the bill; $1 trillion is the size of the revenue. That’s the pay-for aspect of the bill Manchin insisted on maintaining in order to fight inflation. The $1 trillion would not be poured onto economic growth. It would be poured out of economic growth.

 

In the end, Biden’s attempt to enact permanent social change died in an atmosphere in which the most ignorant fallacies carried the day.

[Winstonm]

Hooray for Washington! That screwy ballyhooey Washington!

[Winstonm]

• Dr. Marcy Wheeler is an independent journalist who resides in Ireland.

IF YOU NEED TO PANIC ABOUT DOJ'S INVESTIGATION INTO JANUARY 6, PANIC FIRST ABOUT DOUG MASTRIANO

IF YOU NEED TO PANIC ABOUT DOJ'S INVESTIGATION INTO JANUARY 6, PANIC FIRST ABOUT DOUG MASTRIANO

July 19, 2022/33 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2022 Mid-Term Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheelYesterday, Rachel Maddow reported the exciting news that Merrick Garland released the same memo that Attorneys General always do during election years.

 

"As in prior election cycles, I am issuing this memorandum to remind you of the Department's existing policies with respect to political activities." Rachel was really upset that Garland integrated the requirement for prior approval that was already the norm, but which Barr put into writing (which arose, in part, out of Michael Horowitz's IG Report on Carter Page, which showed that not everyone had learned of the investigation into Trump's flunkies in timely fashion). After months and months of inflammatory commentary suggesting that the decision on whether or not to investigate Trump rested exclusively with Garland (and not, as is the reality, a hierarchy of DOJ personnel, starting with a team of career AUSAs), Rachel wailed that the memo requires Garland to do what everyone has long assumed was true: that Garland would have to approve any investigation into Trump.

 

In response to her irresponsible sensationalism, people immediately concluded that by releasing the memo, Garland had nixed any further indictments before the election.

 

One reason I'm certain that's not true is because after Garland released this memo, DOJ arrested declared candidate for Governor of Michigan, Ryan Kelley. Kelley never entered the Capitol on January 6. But in addition to charging him with entering restricted grounds (that is, entering inside the barricades set up around the Capitol), DOJ also charged him with vandalizing the scaffolding set up in advance of the Inauguration. The charging documents also cited some of his other efforts to undermine democracy in the lead-up and aftermath of the 2020 election.

 

In October of 2020, KELLEY attended the "American Patriot Council Nationwide Freedom March" in Allendale, Michigan. During that event, KELLEY wore a blue shirt, a black coat, a watch with a red watch band, and aviator sunglasses. Parts of this attire were also worn by KELLEY in photos and videos from the U.S. Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021. KELLEY appears at this event in the image below.

 

In November of 2020, KELLEY was a featured speaker and introduced by name at a "Stop the Steal" rally at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing. During that event, KELLEY indicated that those attending the rally should stand and fight, with the goal of preventing Democrats from stealing the election.

 

He gave a speech while wearing a name tag and stated "Covid-19 was made so that they can use the propaganda to control your minds so that you think, if you watch the media, that Joe Biden won this election. We're not going to buy it. We're going to stand and fight for America, for Donald Trump. We're not going to let the Democrats steal this election".

 

Kelley was arrested on June 9, technically within the 60 day window in advance of the August 2 primary. But DOJ did arrest the gubernatorial candidate in time for voters to learn of his actions during the insurrection (it even was an issue at a recent debate), without creating last minute news before an election like Jim Comey did against Hillary Clinton in 2016.

 

Kelley's not the only one against whom DOJ has taken overt investigative steps in the wake of the memo, either. DOJ seized the phones of a number of high ranking subjects in the fake electors plot, including the Chair of Nevada's Republican Party, Michael McDonald. Indeed, the likelihood a number of subjects of the fake elector plot would be covered by the DOJ policy may be why the January 6 Committee is finally making an exception regarding their refusal to share interview transcripts for that part of DOJ's investigation: while they've been refusing, the window on pre-election indictments for fake elector plotters is closing.

 

Besides, all this panic-mongering seems really, really badly targeted.

 

I'm impatient to have some accountability for Trump and his flunkies, just like everyone else (even if, because I've followed the investigation, I know that DOJ is investigating Trump's flunkies). I think, for the reasons I laid out here, a hypothetical Trump indictment wouldn't come for some time yet, but I'm also confident that if the investigation isn't open now or soon, Trump's campaign roll-out would do nothing to thwart opening an investigation. It would require the same Garland approval that would be obtained in any case. Trump wouldn't even be affected by the DOJ policy on pre-election actions, because he's not on the ballot this year.

 

But there is a key player in January 6, someone known to have been under investigation, for whom the window to prosecute is closing as the election draws near, someone who presents a far more immediate threat to democracy than Trump: Doug Mastriano, the GOP candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania.

 

Mastriano technically could be charged, just for his actions on January 6. Like some other political figures — in addition to Kelley, Couy Griffin, and key influencers like Owen Shroyer and Brandon Straka (though Straka's original complaint included civil disorder) — Mastriano appears to have been at the Capitol, inside the barriers, but did not enter the building.

 

The images, shared with NBC News,

appear

to show Mastriano holding up his cellphone as rioters in the front of the mob face off with police at the Capitol steps. Reconstructed timelines and other videos filmed nearby show rioters would breach this police line within minutes, ripping away a crowd control rope line and rushing past officers up the stairs. The timelines and videos, including unedited versions, that show Mastriano in the crowd were reviewed by NBC News.

 

A man who appears to be Doug Mastriano takes photos or video with his cellphone near the steps of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.@MichaelCoudrey via TwitterOnline sleuths also identified a video

posted

by "Stop the Steal" organizer Mike Coudrey on Jan. 6 that appears to show Mastriano taking photos or video with his cellphone as rioters face off with police on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. Coudrey's tweet celebrated the mob, which he said "broke through 4 layers of security at the Capitol building.

 

Mastriano's campaign did not respond to NBC News' request for comment. Mastriano previously said that he "respected all police lines as I came upon them" and that he never stepped foot on the Capitol stairs. One of his campaign aides,

Grant Clarkson

, was near the front of the mob, NBC previously reported. There has been no evidence that Clarkson entered the Capitol that day and he has insisted he did not.

 

Mastriano has had ties with a number of the people charged for more serious roles in the insurrection, most notably Sam Lazar, who was arrested a year ago on charges of civil disorder and assaulting cops.

 

And perhaps to an even greater extent than some other influencers who were arrested for their presence inside the barricades at the Capitol, Mastriano spent the months leading up to the insurrection laying the foundation for it, actions that might make him susceptible to an obstruction charge. This article describes his key role in sowing The Big Lie, most notably arranging for the quasi-official hearing at which Rudy

. Mastriano also spoke at the "Jericho March" on December 12, 2020, which was a key networking event in advance of the insurrection.

 

As laid out in the SJC Report on the topic, Mastriano also pressured DOJ to intervene to overturn the election. When Trump complained to DOJ that they were ignoring fraud claims on December 27, for example, Mastriano was — along with Jim Jordan and Scott Perry — one of the people whose complaints he directed Jeffrey Rosen to attend to.

 

Trump twice calls Rosen. During the second call, Rosen conferences in Donoghue, who takes extensive notes on Trump's claims that the "election has been stolen out from under the American people" and that DOJ is failing to respond. Trump mentions efforts made by Pennsylvania Representative Scott Perry, Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, and Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano, and asks Rosen and Donoghue to "just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen." Trump also references Jeffrey Clark and potentially replacing DOJ's leadership.

 

Mastriano also paid $3,000 to bus people into the event.

 

On paper, then, Mastriano is the kind of influencer-organizer that DOJ has been investigating for some time, but he has not yet been charged.

 

The FBI have carried out investigative steps with regards to Mastriano. A CNN report from last month says he was interviewed last summer (and sat for an interview with the January 6 Committee).

 

The FBI has been conducting an expansive investigation into the January 6 riot and questioned Mastriano last summer after photos emerged of him on Capitol grounds that day, according to the source familiar with the interview, which has not been previously reported.

 

Mastriano has not been accused of committing any crimes and cooperated fully with the FBI, according to the source. Asked about Mastriano's interview, an FBI spokesperson told CNN that the bureau "cannot confirm the existence of an investigation or comment on details."

 

The lapsed time since his FBI interview doesn't mean he won't be charged; such delays, even longer ones, are common for those arrested for January 6. Plus, Mastriano is someone whose communications, including with Rudy and probably John Eastman and Ali Alexander, have likely shown up in materials seized or subpoenaed by DOJ.

 

But if DOJ is going to charge Mastriano, they have slightly more than 50 days to do so in order to comply with the DOJ guidelines.

 

And when I say he poses a more urgent threat to democracy right now than Trump, that's not just about the impending election. In addition to regressive policies that are typical of the GOP these days, such as a no-exception ban on abortion, he poses an immediate threat to democracy itself. He has publicly committed to attacking democracy itself.

 

Those concerns are made especially acute in Pennsylvania by the fact that the governor has the unusual authority to directly appoint the secretary of state, who serves as chief elections officer and must sign off on results. If he or she refuses, chaos could follow.

 

"The biggest risk is a secretary of state just saying, 'I'm not going to certify the election, despite what the court says and despite what the evidence shows, because I'm concerned about suspicions,'" said Clifford Levine, a Democratic election lawyer in Pennsylvania. "You would start to have a breakdown in the legal system and the whole process."

 

Mastriano's backers appear well aware of the stakes. A video posted to Telegram by election denial activist Ivan Raiklin from Mastriano's victory party on Tuesday showed the candidate smiling as Raiklin congratulated him on his win and added, with a thumb's up, "20 electoral votes as well," a reference to the state's clout in the electoral college.

 

"Oh yeahhhh," Mastriano responded.

 

Mastriano did not respond to a voice mail or an email sent to a campaign account for media.

 

But Mastriano told Stephen K. Bannon, a former adviser to Trump who now hosts a podcast popular on the right, that he had already selected the person he would appoint as secretary of state if elected.

 

"As far as cleaning up the election, I mean, I'm in a good position as governor," he said in

the April 23 appearance

on Bannon's "War Room" podcast. "I have a voting-reform-minded individual who's been traveling the nation and knows voting reform extremely well. That individual has agreed to be my secretary of state."

 

Mastriano has been buying followers from the far-right social media site, Gab. And he has ties to Russian-backed far-right propagandists.

 

A number of people have said, with no exaggeration, that a Mastriano win would virtually guarantee no Democratic candidate could win the state's presidential votes in 2024.

 

If DOJ is going to expand its prosecutions to those who laid the groundwork for January 6, they are going to be charging people like Doug Mastriano. There's little doubt that Mastriano, as much as anyone who went inside the building on January 6, as much as Trump, was trying to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

 

Yet DOJ only has seven weeks left to charge Mastriano before DOJ's election guidelines would prevent that from happening.

 

If you want to panic, panic first about Mastriano. Because the threat he poses to democracy is far more imminent than the very real threat Trump poses.

 

Update: Politico has a piece on Mastriano talking about how close it is in PA, and NYT has a piece using Mastriano as illustration of the increasing embrace of conspiracism on the far-right.

[kenberg]

The results from the Maryland Republican primary are not yet final but Cox is way ahead and the presumed winner. This from WaPo;

 

Maryland Republicans picked Del. Dan Cox, a first-term delegate who embraced Donald Trump’s rhetoric and tried to impeach Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, as their nominee for governor Tuesday, according to an Associated Press projection, elevating him into a contentious fight to keep control of the governor’s mansion in a deeply Democratic state.

 

The Republican primary race for governor tested the potency of the former president’s influence in a state that’s also backed the pragmatic conservatism of term-limited Hogan, who won twice by appealing to independents and Democrats. Outside Democratic groups flooded the airwaves with ads tying Cox to Trump in the final days of the race, hoping it would boost a candidate they viewed as ultimately easier to defeat.

 

 

 

The boldface is mine. The claim seems like a conspiracy claim, I guess it is a conspiracy claim, but I gather that the effort really was not hidden. I find such a strategic effort to be unforgivable. Pathetic and unforgivable. We all benefit from having the two major parties put up their best candidates and then have the voters choose. I guess those who make their living as political strategists see it otherwise. That's too bad for the rest of us. The strategy might work, and with Cox as the R candidate, we have little choice but to hope that it does work. Truly repulsive strategies have been known to backfire. Maybe it's time to move.

 

[Winstonm]

The results from the Maryland Republican primary are not yet final but Cox is way ahead and the presumed winner. This from WaPo;

 

[/size][/font][/color]

 

 

The boldface is mine. The claim seems like a conspiracy claim, I guess it is a conspiracy claim, but I gather that the effort really was not hidden. I find such a strategic effort to be unforgivable. Pathetic and unforgivable. We all benefit from having the two major parties put up their best candidates and then have the voters choose. I guess those who make their living as political strategists see it otherwise. That's too bad for the rest of us. The strategy might work, and with Cox as the R candidate, we have little choice but to hope that it does work. Truly repulsive strategies have been known to backfire. Maybe it's time to move.

 

[/font]

Move or expatriate?

[kenberg]

Move or expatriate?

 

Oh, I don't really suppose that I will do either. Probably Toronto is about as expatriated as can imagine being, and I don't expect to be doing that. Apparently, the Democratic Governor's Association has followed a strategy of trying to tilt R primary elections toward Trump supporters in a number of states. A very cynical move. I have thought for some time that Dems often take some perverse pleasure with Trumpism but I have only recently become aware of it becoming a strategy. I find it repulsive, I expect many find it repulsive, and that could mean the results will not be quite as good for Dems as they expect. Idealism can be naive. So can extreme cynicism.

[Winstonm]

Oh, I don't really suppose that I will do either. Probably Toronto is about as expatriated as can imagine being, and I don't expect to be doing that. Apparently, the Democratic Governor's Association has followed a strategy of trying to tilt R primary elections toward Trump supporters in a number of states. A very cynical move. I have thought for some time that Dems often take some perverse pleasure with Trumpism but I have only recently become aware of it becoming a strategy. I find it repulsive, I expect many find it repulsive, and that could mean the results will not be quite as good for Dems as they expect. Idealism can be naive. So can extreme cynicism.

 

Here is something I don't understand. I posted above about Doug Mastriano, Republican candidate for governor in Pennsylvania. Mastriano is a retired U.S. Army Colonel. He served for 31 years. Presumably, he, like me, was educated and raised in the United States. He, like me, would have been introduced over and over the notion that the fascists and Nazis were the enemies of freedom and democracy. I still believe this is so. Apparently, somewhere along the way Mastriano changed his mind and now embraces Trumpian fascism and denounces the democratic process that risks producing results of which he disagrees. He would prefer to do away with the elections as called for by the Constitution and instead hand-pick electors for the electoral college who would then cast Pennsylvania's 20 votes for the candidates for whom he subscribes.

 

This is a totally un-American viewpoint. He has-in his mind and worldview-found something more important to him the American democracy. This is most likely either white entitlement or Christian Nationalism, which tend to overlap anyway. There are candidates like him all over the country, many in local elections that will eventually be able to pick electors. The goal is to overturn the will of the voters.

 

I don't care how they are defeated. If it takes dirty tricks I don't care. These are not normal times. I submit you are trying to be a gentleman and bring boxing gloves to a gunfight.

[pilowsky]

Where did you get the strange notion that "Americans" prime motivation when approaching their posture in world affairs was opposition to Fascism?

The motto on the Presidential seal doesn't say "for the good of the people" or "care for all", it says "from many comes one".

This may mean to some that that one person will emerge from the primordial slime and care for the poor, feed the hungry and vaccinate people that tend to vote conservative: but to others it means something quite different.

 

To many it means the freedom to get away with whatever they can in order to acquire as much wealth possible.

The United States was not constituted with the objective of providing a pluralistic democracy.

A reasonable semblance of democracy in the United States was not achieved until 1965.

Since that time Democracy in the USA has been drying its wings in the sun and struggling to find a tailwind.

 

So long as government in the USA permits one small group to make laws that prevent ordinary people from having a modicum of self-governance (abortion rights, marriage rights, right to be educated and purchase basic needs without fear of being shot by disaffected teenagers with automatic rifles) then its citizens cannot be described as "free".

[Winstonm]

Where did you get the strange notion that "Americans" prime motivation when approaching their posture in world affairs was opposition to Fascism?

The motto on the Presidential seal doesn't say "for the good of the people" or "care for all", it says "from many comes one".

This may mean to some that that one person will emerge from the primordial slime and care for the poor, feed the hungry and vaccinate people that tend to vote conservative: but to others it means something quite different.

 

To many it means the freedom to get away with whatever they can in order to acquire as much wealth possible.

The United States was not constituted with the objective of providing a pluralistic democracy.

A reasonable semblance of democracy in the United States was not achieved until 1965.

Since that time Democracy in the USA has been drying its wings in the sun and struggling to find a tailwind.

 

So long as government in the USA permits one small group to make laws that prevent ordinary people from having a modicum of self-governance (abortion rights, marriage rights, right to be educated and purchase basic needs without fear of being shot by disaffected teenagers with automatic rifles) then its citizens cannot be described as "free".

 

As usual, excellent points. However, what I decry is the blatant attacks on the fundamental processes of the republic, especially as those attacks are coming from many who wore a military uniform and swore to protect the republic from all enemies foreign and domestic.

 

We used to look back at Mussolini and Franco and say it could happen here.

Now we have to say it is happening here.

[Winstonm]

Question of the day: when did Rosemary Wood start training the Secret Service