Glamour:

‘These Embryos Are Five Years Worth of Money, Sadness, and Hope. I Just Want to Be a Mom.’

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled last week that frozen embryos are legally considered children, which effectively banned IVF treatment in the state. Here’s how the decision impacts one couple.

Crain, a journalist and artist who lives in Birmingham, has spent the past several years reporting on the loss of women’s rights to their own bodies in Alabama while dealing with the mental and physical toll of her own private fertility journey. She and her husband had been preparing to transfer their frozen embryos from their latest egg retrieval when she heard the news about the Supreme Court’s decision.

“It's insane,” she says. “While I don't view my embryos as scared children sitting in the freezer calling for their mommy, I do feel that they are mine and no one else's. And right now I can't, can't touch them physically, mentally, spiritually, if I wanted to. I legally can't.”

Eric Garcia/Independent:

CPAC celebrates the Alabama IVF ruling – while Trump and Republicans distance themselves

Republican candidates and the GOP’s presumptive presidential candidate have come out opposing restrictions to IVF. But some conservatives at CPAC celebrated the Alabama ruling

Republicans have begun to sense that the ruling is unpopular. Last year, the Pew Research Center found that 42 per cent of Americans have either used fertility treatments or knew someone who has, particularly as women continue to have children older. On Friday, Mr Tuberville posted on X/Twitter that he had spoken with Alabama’s speaker of the house, saying that the legislature will take up a bill to protect IVF.

“We want everyone to have the opportunity to have kids,” he said. “IVF will remain legal and available in Alabama.”

Similarly, National Review reported that the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent a memo to Republican candidates for Senate instructing them to “clearly state your support for IVF and fertility-related services as blessings for those seeking to have children.”

Two of the candidates for Senate in swing states who appeared at CPAC – David McCormick in Pennsylvania and Kari Lake in Arizona – both put out statements saying they opposed restrictions to IVF.

John Archibald/Al.com:

Alabama Supreme Court is a theocracy

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice Tom Parker was downright gleeful.

He quoted Genesis in his sermon — I’m sorry, his concurring opinion — in the Alabama ruling that turned in vitro fertilization on its head by defining frozen embryos as children.

He quoted 17th century Dutch theologian Petrus Van Mastricht. Ya know, good ole Van Mastricht. He quoted a 16th century Bible – because older is closer to God, maybe – and quoted the Sixth Commandment, thou shalt not kill.

He quoted Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin and one of Roy Moore’s old pals at the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery. He wrote of the “wrath of God.”

The people of Alabama, he said, decided all this was public policy.

“It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you.’”

Did I say it wasn’t a sermon? It was definitely a sermon.

Context for the above CNN video (the indictment remarks are at 00:41, listen to his reaction about conviction):

There’s too much out there on Biden’s weaknesses, not enough on Trump’s. So, here’s two more on Trump, starting with Dan Pfeiffer/”Message Box” on Substack:

Yet Another Underwhelming Trump Primary Win

Trump is on the glide path to the nomination, but he isn't improving his performance with swing voters

However, the real story is that Trump underperformed expectations and failed to expand his coalition. Once again, despite another dominant primary victory, the results highlighted Trump's vulnerabilities and offered a roadmap for defeating him in November.

Based on the exit polls, Trump’s campaign team should be popping some Xanax with the champagne over his win in South Carolina.

You cannot win the White House with the coalition that Trump is getting in these primaries. He must expand his coalition, persuade people who aren’t already on board, and get beyond the Big Lie-believing MAGA base. Through three primary contests, Trump has gained no ground.

Many here don’t believe it and don’t trust GOP voters. But they often have more sense than their candidates, at least if they aren’t white evangelical voters in South Carolina:

Walter Shapiro/The New Republic:

How Nikki Haley Can Beat Trump

She won’t win the Republican nomination, but by staying in the race she’s lowering Donald Trump’s chances of returning to the White House.

In a Tuesday speech giving her full-throated justification for staying in the race beyond her home state’s primary, Haley said, “Like most Americans, I have a handful of serious concerns about the former president. But I have countless serious concerns about the current president.” That line alone virtually guarantees that Haley will not magically appear as a surprise guest at the August Democratic convention.

Although the plucky Haley portrays herself as a loyal Republican, her limited—but scorching—attacks on Trump are worth examining in detail. She is appealing to a dwindling band of Reagan Republicans, suburban moderates and up-for-grabs independents. There are probably not enough of these voters to hand Haley a primary victory, but these are constituencies that the Joe Biden campaign will also target in November. Haley, in effect, is offering a crash course in how to woo swing voters who do not automatically assume that Trump is a racist and fascist out to trample the Constitution.  

Biden is building an anti-Trump coalition, not a pro-Biden one. every message that keeps folks in that coalition is a good one, every entity that peels off voters (third party) is a bad one (see Sarah Longwell above).

David Rothkopf/Daily Beast:

A Vote for Trump Is a Vote for Putin—and a World in Danger

Global peace, Europe’s future, and our security are on the ballot in November. The final word on Ukraine’s future, NATO’s future, and Putin’s future will come from American voters.

It is time to remove from our analytical lexicon the terms that are commonly used to minimize the dangers associated with the Trump-MAGA-Putin alliance. After more than eight years of compiling evidence that demonstrates Russia’s efforts to co-opt the American right is perhaps the most successful intelligence operation of our time, we have to reject the transparent vocabulary of keyboard warriors that still cry “hoax” every time new and irrefutable evidence of GOP-Russia ties is presented.

In the past two weeks alone, there has been the evidence that the core of the GOP sham impeachment effort against President Biden turned on the testimony of a man with ties to Russian intelligence; Trump’s invitation to Putin to do “whatever the hell he wants” with Europe; the MAGA right’s decision to postpone further even considering aid to Ukraine; Tucker Carlson’s jaunt to Moscow to amplify the Kremlin’s lies about itself; the refusal of Trump to condemn the murder of Alexei Navalny in Russian prison; and the arrest of yet another American for no good reason in Russia.

Thomas Zimmer/”Democracy Americana” on Substack:

“Project 2025” Promises Revenge, Oppression, and Autocratic Rule

The Right’s plans for a return to power are driven by a radicalizing siege mentality and a desperate desire to restore dominance

One of the more frustrating aspects of studying and talking about American politics is that if you simply trace the radicalization of the Right and the Republican Party, there is a good chance a mainstream audience will dismiss you as a leftwing conspiracy theorist or an unhinged “activist.” Donald Trump’s outrageousness notwithstanding, it is difficult to convey to people who don’t pay much attention to politics how much the power centers of conservative politics have been taken over by anti-democratic extremism. One way to deal with this problem is to get people to actually read and listen to what emanates from the Right. If you don’t believe and can’t trust my (lefty / liberal) assessment, maybe you can believe them? In that spirit, I think it’s worth spending time diving deep into Kevin Roberts’ “Promise to America” – with lots of extensive quotes, as it is important to get a sense of what these people sound like when they are not being sanitized and normalized by mainstream media coverage. This will serve as Part I of my dissection of “Project 2025,” focusing on the worldview and ideas that are guiding the plans on the Right; there will also be a Part II in which I will look more closely at what those plans entail, and the strategies for how to realize them and turn America into the kind of society the reactionary Right desires.

ProPublica:

New Details Suggest Senior Trump Aides Knew Jan. 6 Rally Could Get Chaotic

Text messages and interviews show that Stop the Steal leaders fooled the Capitol police and welcomed racists to increase their crowd sizes, while White House officials worked to both contain and appease them.

On Dec. 19, President Donald Trump blasted out a tweet to his 88 million followers, inviting supporters to Washington for a “wild” protest.

Earlier that week, one of his senior advisers had released a 36-page report alleging significant evidence of election fraud that could reverse Joe Biden’s victory. “A great report,” Trump wrote. “Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

The tweet worked like a starter’s pistol, with two pro-Trump factions competing to take control of the “big protest.”

From Cliff Schecter on John Oliver’s Clarence Thomas offer:

Brian Beutler/”Off Message” on Substack:

Will Democrats Really Shrug Off The GOP's Latest, Biggest Betrayal?

Republicans teamed up with Russian intelligence to smear Joe Biden; they inflicted serious political damage on him over YEARS; Democrats can't let bygones be bygones

To recap quickly: Last week, David Weiss, the Trump-appointed prosecutor who has investigated, charged, and jerked around Hunter Biden, indicted Alexander Smirnov, the one witness who claimed to have evidence that the younger Biden really was trotting the globe soliciting bribes on behalf of his father. Turns out, Smirnov made it all up!

That development, taken in isolation and at face value, was a huge, embarrassing blow to Weiss and to congressional Republicans, who have plastered Smirnov’s allegations all over the media and used them to justify a decision they’d already made, at Donald Trump’s behest, to impeach Joe Biden.

But that wasn’t the end of it. DOJ then took the surprising step of trying to keep Smirnov confined before trial, and when a judge got in the way, prosecutors revealed that Smirnov’s lies stemmed from his work as a Russian intelligence agent. It’s not just that Republicans (in DOJ and on Capitol Hill) tried to frame Biden based on lies. It’s that the lies were part of a familiar Russian operation, encouraged and abetted by Trump himself for nearly a decade now, to slime his opponents ahead of elections.

Today it’s the 2024 election, but Smirnov first seeded his lies ahead of the 2020 election, when DOJ was controlled by Trump, and his corrupt attorney general Bill Barr.

Somehow Smirnov’s Russian intelligence contacts eluded all of these Republicans for four years. Unless of course they didn’t.

Smirnov, via a California judge, is back in custody. This, after a Nevada judge temporarily freed him.

A bit of advice:

Running for election makes you do interesting things. But once you win …?

Dan Froomkin/Press Watch:

The Hunter Biden story has done a total 180 but the MSM is in denial

The real story is that the ludicrous Republican impeachment investigation has now been exposed as a Russian intelligence op. This, even as Republicans do Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bidding by blocking support for Ukraine and only a few short years after Trump aides welcomed Russian moves to help the Trump campaign in 2016.

But the political reporters at our most esteemed newsrooms who went to great lengths to portray the Biden impeachment investigation as a serious inquiry seem unable to change gears.

I’m not surprised. It  would require them to admit they were wrong. They don’t do that.

POLITICO:

Biden impeachment effort on the brink of collapse

A wide swath of House Republicans are acknowledging they likely won’t have the votes, especially given their struggle to recommend booting Alejandro Mayorkas.

The House GOP’s push to impeach Joe Biden appears close to stalling out for good.

First, the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas scraped through on the narrowest of margins — and took two tries, raising serious doubts about Republicans’ appetite for an even bigger impeachment fight. Then, a high-profile informant making bribery allegations against the Biden family was not only indicted, but has now linked some of his information to Russian intelligence.

See also Axios: House Republicans see Biden impeachment slipping out of reach

Some musings about what SCOTUS could be up to when it comes to Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim:

Derek Thompson/The Atlantic:

The Americans Who Need Chaos

They’re embracing nihilism and upending politics.

The researchers came up with a term to describe the motivation behind these all-purpose conspiracy mongers. They called it the “need for chaos,” which they defined as “a mindset to gain status” by destroying the established order. In their study, nearly a third of respondents demonstrated a need for chaos, Petersen said. And for about 5 percent of voters, old-fashioned party allegiances to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party melted away and were replaced by a desire to see the entire political elite destroyed—even without a plan to build something better in the ashes.

“These [need-for-chaos] individuals are not idealists seeking to tear down the established order so that they can build a better society for everyone,” the authors wrote in their conclusion. “Rather, they indiscriminately share hostile political rumors as a way to unleash chaos and mobilize individuals against the established order that fails to accord them the respect that they feel they personally deserve.” To sum up their worldview, Petersen quoted a famous line from the film The Dark Knight: “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

Conor Sen/Bloomberg:

Boy, This Economy Is Hard to Read. Mea Culpa.

I’m now sorry that I described recent signs of recovery as akin to a “dead cat bounce” that would eventually be swamped by high interest rates.

The catalyst is the growing confidence among consumers and businesses alike, ironically driven by the slowdown in inflation the Fed has been working to engineer. Monetary policy remains tight — look no further than the struggles in the automobile and commercial property sectors or affordability challenges for homebuyers — but, for now, there are too many industries showing signs of resilience or acceleration to believe that the central bank’s stance will cause the labor market or economy to unravel.

Daniel Nichanian/Bolts magazine:

Judges Play Musical Chairs on Arkansas’ Highest Court

Four members of the state supreme court are trying to jump to different seats on the bench, a situation that could empower the conservative governor by granting her more appointments.

The only two candidates not already on the court face tough odds, crushed by their opponents’ name recognition and fundraising. Each told Bolts that they’re concerned about the prospect of the governor shaping the court’s membership when justices are supposed to be chosen by voters.

Many states select justices via elections, but then stretch the spirit of that approach. Justices in other states routinely resign before their term is up, enabling governors to name a replacement; in Minnesota, for instance, all current justices owe their seat to an appointment despite the state’s election system. As Bolts has reported, a loophole in Georgia law has even allowed state justices and other officials to maneuver to outright cancel some judicial elections.

In Arkansas, the reasons for this situation are very different across the two elections. One of the two open supreme court races this year is to replace Chief Justice John Dan Kemp, who is retiring rather than seek a new term. Three of the court’s associate justices—Karen Baker, Barbara Webb, and Rhonda Wood—are running for the open chief justice position, which is akin to seeking a promotion, since the chief justice has broad responsibilities over supervising the state’s judicial system.

Ryan Burge/”Graphs About Religion” on Substack:

Has Christian Nationalism Intensified or Faded?

Comparing Survey Data from 2007 and 2021

It's all happened so fast that it's hard to get our arms around a pretty basic question in the discussion about Christian Nationalism - are those sentiments increasing or decreasing in the general public? Well, now I can answer that with a great deal of specificity.

If one is looking for the empirical foundations of the Christian Nationalism debate, it’s in a series of statements that were posed to respondents in the Baylor Religion Survey back in 2007 - Wave II. They are as follows:

1. The federal government should advocate Christian values
2. The federal government should allow prayer in public schools
3. The federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces
4. The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation
5. The federal government should enforce strict separation of church and state
6. The success of the United States is part of God’s plan.

Response options ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The middle option is undecided. I know that there's a lively debate about defining Christian Nationalism and whether these questions are tapping that concept accurately. I am going to sidestep that discussion entirely here. The authors I mentioned above are much more well-versed in those debates than I am. My focus here is narrow - I just want to see how responses to those questions have changed over time….

I think it's fair to say that the results point to the fact that Christian Nationalism is fading in the general population. That's evident in a number of these statements. For instance, in 2007, 55% of folks said that the government should advocate Christian values. In 2021, that share had dropped to just 38%. That's substantial.

My argument would be that extremism makes things less popular with the general public. Same with scandals, same with overreaching.

Cliff Schecter on Lindsey Graham:

POLITICO Playbook:

What the GOP would prefer not to discuss

Already, Republicans are being forced to answer for a policy that is not only out of step with public opinion on IVF but has very personal and potentially devastating consequences for the one in six Americans who struggle with fertility issues. The decision not only risks alienating swing voters but highlights how the consequences of Dobbs continue to crush Republicans up and down the ballot....

The issue is already rearing its head on the campaign trail. Yesterday, 2024 hopeful NIKKI HALEY — who’s been open about her own struggles having children, used artificial insemination to conceive and lectured Republican for being too harsh on women who’ve had abortions — told she NBC she agrees with the Alabama ruling: “Embryos, to me, are babies.”

Democrats, meanwhile, are on the attack. DCCC spokesperson NEBEYATT BETRE told Playbook that voters are “tired of Republicans’ dangerous and blatantly anti-woman agenda,” and vowed that House Dem candidates will “make sure to continue holding Republicans accountable for their disastrous impact on women’s rights.”

“This [Alabama] decision is yet another proofpoint that extremists are hellbent on stripping women of our reproductive freedoms and privacy any way possible,” Betre said.

Easily forgotten is that NY 3 had a winning message on Dobbs for Tom Suozzi (D-he's back) in the recent special election. Now throw in IVF, and East Egg will vote D in November.

POLITICO:

‘Another hot potato’: Alabama’s IVF ruling risks political, legal backlash

Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are people. The GOP could pay for it in November.

The decision not only threatens GOP efforts to court suburban women and other constituencies uneasy about abortion bans, but also complicates the party’s standing with millions of people who may oppose abortion but support — and in many cases use — in-vitro fertilization and other forms of fertility care. The ruling also demonstrates how the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made previously theoretical policy and legal battles over the most intimate aspects of American life far more immediate and high-stakes.

Dan Pfeiffer/”The Message Box” on Substack:

Alert: Trump's Vision for a Christian Nationalist U.S. Revealed

A new report shows the danger of sending Trump back to the White House

It is possible you missed the critically important story that appeared in Politico yesterday morning. According to reporting from Alex Ward and Heidi Pryzbla:

An influential think tank close to Donald Trump is developing plans to infuse Christian nationalist ideas in his administration should the former president return to power, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.

Spearheading the effort is Russell Vought, who served as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget during his first term and has remained close to him. Vought, who is frequently cited as a potential chief of staff in a second Trump White House, is president of The Center for Renewing America think tank, a leading group in a conservative consortium preparing for a second Trump term.

Vought was an influential advisor to Trump during his presidency and is one of few Trump Administration alums who has remained in the former President’s circle of advisors. His involvement is a giant warning sign that the threat is very real.

Few voters have heard Trump’s NATO comments, and even fewer heard about Trump’s fraud verdict, but I would bet none of them have read a single word of this Politico story. I would also bet my life that the prospect of the Trump Administration implementing extreme Christian Nationalist policies would be more concerning to swing voters than the NATO comments or the fraud.

Matthew D Taylor/X via Threadreader:

The sharp-eyed folks at @mmfa noticed that Alabama Supr. Court Chief Justice Tom Parker gave an interview to NAR prophet Johnny Enlow, published the same day as the court's recent decision that embryos count as ppl. Parker references the "Seven Mountains." This is very important.

During a recent interview with a QAnon conspiracy theorist, the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice indicated that he is a proponent of the “Seven Mountain Mandate,” which calls on Christians to impose fundamentalist values on all aspects of American life https://t.co/fvIaVqET0l

— Media Matters (@mmfa) February 21, 2024

As I showed in Charismatic Revival Fury, ep. 3, the Seven Mountain Mandate is a charismatic (e.g., rooted in modern prophecy & miracles) program intent upon achieving Christian supremacy. It originated in 2000 with NAR prophet/apostle Lance Wallnau.

While Wallnau came up with the concept, the entire New Apostolic Reformation infrastructure (created by C. Peter Wagner) of tight-knit apostles & prophets amplified the Seven Mountains idea & spread it around the nondenominational charismatic world starting around 2007-2008. 3/ 

Johnny Enlow's book The Seven Mountains Prophecy (2008) was the 1st book that explicitly used the Seven Mountains frame.

POLITICO:

In South Carolina, Haley is running hard on Russia

The former U.N. ambassador is seizing on Alexei Navalny’s death as a persistent line of attack on Donald Trump.

“Trump is siding with a dictator who kills his political opponents,” Haley said. “Trump sided with an evil man over our allies who stood with us on 9/11. Think about what that told them.”

Haley is turning Russia — and Putin, specifically — into a cudgel at a crucial moment in the Republican presidential primary. She’s running far behind Trump. And the former South Carolina governor is poised to get blown out in her home state’s primary on Saturday.

Meanwhile, Oliver Darcy describes the Hunter Biden/Burisma story as "imploding in spectacular fashion". It’s a national security issue. It’s a campaign issue. Republicans don’t want to talk about it. But it’s not going away. 

Oh, and guess what? It’s not a hoax.

jerusalem Demsas/The Atlantic:

Something’s Fishy About the ‘Migrant Crisis’

The federal government’s dysfunction leaves immigrant-friendly cities feeling overwhelmed.

What ensured the quiet assimilation of displaced Ukrainians? Why has the arrival of asylum seekers from Latin America been so different? And why have some cities managed to weather the so-called crisis without any outcry or political backlash? In interviews with mayors, other municipal officials, nonprofit leaders, and immigration lawyers in several states, I pieced together an answer stemming from two major differences in federal policy. First, the Biden administration admitted the Ukrainians under terms that allowed them to work right away. Second, the feds had a plan for where to place these newcomers. It included coordination with local governments, individual sponsors, and civil-society groups. The Biden administration did not leave Ukrainian newcomers vulnerable to the whims of Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who since April 2022 has transported 37,800 migrants to New York City, 31,400 to Chicago, and thousands more to other blue cities—in a successful bid to push the immigration debate rightward and advance the idea that immigrants are a burden on native-born people.

I'm sure Meghan McCain has thoughts.

Oh. Well, have a nice day, everyone.

Marcy Wheeler/emptywheel:

DAVID WEISS WAS PLANNING ON USING ALEXANDER SMIRNOV’S CLAIMS AGAINST THE BIDENS UNTIL HE WASN’T ANYMORE

The reason why David Weiss reneged on a plea deal was to chase this bribery claim. The reason why David Weiss charged Hunter Biden with a bunch of felonies rather than resolving this in a diversion and misdemeanors was because he wanted to chase the false claims floated by someone dallying with Russian spies.

And I’d be willing to bet that if Lowell hadn’t asked for discovery that may expose that fact, David Weiss would never have indicted Alexander Smirnov.

Lawrence O’Donnell with a master class on how to pronounce Roosevelt (and says a few other things brilliantly as well):

Dan Pfeiffer/”The Message Box” on Substack:

The Real Reason Trump Bows Down to Putin

Trump’s comments about NATO and his silence on Navalny have made his relationship with Russia a major issue (again)

Speculating about Trump’s friendship with Putin has been a cottage industry since his 2016 win. Were Trump and Putin in cahoots to defeat Hillary Clinton? Is Trump a Russian sleeper agent? Is this all a play to get a Trump Tower Moscow built? Or, my personal favorite theory, Trump is just worried that Putin will one day release the infamous “pee tape.”

All of these may have elements of truth (especially the “pee tape”), however, I think the correct answer is much simpler. Trump bows down to Putin for the same reasons he bows down to other dictators: he is a weak man. A coward who is scared of confrontation. He would rather preemptively surrender to protect himself than fight to protect others.

He’s the exact opposite of Navalny.

That there is what you call Russian interference.  Or, as Trump puts it, a “hoax”. But I do not think think that word means what he thinks it means.

And I think the voters will care about it when the time comes.

Brian Beutler/Off Message:

Trump's Huge Fraud Verdict Is A Watershed Moment for Accountability—And New Corruption

Democrats and the media need to pay close attention to what happens next.

Democrats, meanwhile, barely talk about Trump’s legal woes at all. The Biden campaign’s Twitter account, a generally spirited rapid-response operation, didn’t mention either verdict.

But the corruption I’m talking about, that I hope Democrats finally take pains to scrutinize aggressively, isn’t the retrospective corruption of a fraudulent businessman who believes he can assault women with impunity.

It’s the corruption he will engage in going forward to avoid the consequences of these verdicts.

Oliver Darcy/CNN:

The Burisma Beginnings: The Burisma bribery narrative pushed by right-wing media against President Joe Biden took an alarming twist on Tuesday after it imploded in spectacular fashion last week. The informant at the center of the narrative, who was charged last week for allegedly lying to the FBI, admitted during an interview with law enforcement that "officials associated with Russian intelligence were involved in passing" along dirt about Hunter Biden. That's according to documents Special Counsel David Weiss filed in court Tuesday. As Todd Zwillich put it on X: "Just so everyone's clear: This would mean that Russia successfully used [Chuck] Grassley, [James] Comer, Fox News and others to damage the President of the United States and make fake info about him an article of faith on the right." In the court filing, Weiss also underscored the weight of Alexander Smirnov's alleged lies: "The false information he provided was not trivial. It targeted the presumptive nominee of one of the two major political parties in the United States," Weiss wrote. "The effects of Smirnov’s false statements and fabricated information continue to be felt to this day." CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz has more here.

David Cay Johnston/DC Report:

Trump’s Next Legal Move: Personal Bankruptcy

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones did it two years ago. Rudolph Giuliani did it just before Christmas. Now there’s a very good chance that before March 12, Donald Trump will join them in filing personal bankruptcy.

Trump would do so for the same reason as Jones and Giuliani — to delay paying court-ordered awards for defamation.

Trump has never filed personal bankruptcy, as I will show below. Doing so now might seem at first blush to ruin his brand, his polished image as a multi-billionaire, a modern Midas who turns to gold all that he touches.

But spinning a bankruptcy filing to his advantage would be easy. Trump will tell his cultish believers that he is as rich as ever, but he was forced to seek refuge in Bankruptcy Court by the Marxist-Fascist-Corrupt-Deep State-Liberal-Radical cabal he blames for his legal woes.

Speaking of weak politicians, here’s Berny Belvedere/The UnPopulist on Tim Scott:

Tim Scott Offers His Honor For a Shot at Trump’s Veepstakes

He is the most disappointing politician in America at the moment

A couple of weeks ago, Trump brought Scott on stage with him during his New Hampshire victory party to undergo a humiliation ritual in which he publicly mused about how much Scott “must hate” Haley since he’s chosen to endorse Trump and not her even though she appointed him to the Senate. It wasn’t a secret that Scott’s decision to endorse Trump ahead of the New Hampshire primary, the most critically important contest for Haley’s chances of overcoming Trump, was meant to assist Trump’s plot to cut her down to size. But instead of mitigating the personal fallout between the two that Scott’s endorsement would inevitably create, Trump deliberately stoked it with his remarks.

We know Trump is like this. But far more significant was Scott’s unprompted response (since Trump’s question was more rhetorical than anything): Instead of grimacing in distaste or looking crestfallen, he moved forward toward the lectern and indicated he wanted to say something. Then, turning to look at Trump face to face, and with uncomfortably deep meaning in his eyes and a broad smile, he said, “I just love you.”

Scott has learned to love Trump—a significantly different posture than appreciating things Trump has done (like appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court) but through gritted teeth the way we might characterize Haley’s stance. No, this now is love. Scott no longer merely shares a party with Trump, but an agenda.

Dahlia Lithwick/Slate:

The Real Way to Think About Biden’s Age This Run

We’re in a Biden-Trump rematch. And the media is focusing on this?

So now Americans face the problem that Biden is old, while Trump is an authoritarian who wants to “create a private red-state army under the president’s command.” The purpose of this army, per Stephen Miller, is to deport as many as 10 million “foreign-national invaders” who he claims have entered the country under Biden, and the plan, as Ron Brownstein describes it, is to “go around the country arresting illegal immigrants in large-scale raids.” Then, he would build “large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas,” to serve as internment camps for migrants designated for deportation.

One can certainly see why the two stories would weigh the same.

Perhaps one way to navigate yourself through this seemingly insoluble morass would be to ask yourself why Biden, who is stipulated #Old, has managed to helm the most successful presidency in modern history. Booming economy, eye-popping jobs reports, first gun violence reduction bill in decades, $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan plus COVID relief, Inflation Reduction Act, infrastructure prioritized, judges seated. Pick your metric—there have been a lot of wins. And the reason this old man who sometimes forgets things like dates has gotten all this done? He has, for the most part, surrounded himself with experts, genuine scientists, respected economists, and effective governmental actors and advisers.

Well, there’s that.

POLITICO:

Trump allies prepare to infuse ‘Christian nationalism’ in second administration

Spearheading the effort is Russell Vought, president of The Center for Renewing America, part of a conservative consortium preparing for Trump’s return to power.

The documents obtained by POLITICO do not outline specific Christian nationalist policies. But Vought has promoted a restrictionist immigration agenda, saying a person’s background doesn’t define who can enter the U.S., but rather, citing Biblical teachings, whether that person “accept[ed] Israel’s God, laws and understanding of history.”

[…]

While speaking in September at American Moment’s “ Theology of American Statecraft: The Christian Case for Immigration Restriction” on Capitol Hill in September, Vought defended the widely-criticized practice of family separation at the border during the Trump years, telling the audience “the decision to defend the rule of law necessitates the separation of families.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 offers more visibility into what policy agenda a future Trump administration might pursue. It says policies that support LGBTQ+ rights, subsidize “single-motherhood” and penalize marriage should be repealed because subjective notions of “gender identity” threaten “Americans’ fundamental liberties.”

Dan Shafer/”The Recombobulation Area” on Substack:

'It’s a new day in Wisconsin.' Your votes made that happen.

RIP to The Gerrymander.

This is a victory not for any one political party, but a victory for Wisconsin, for democracy, and for fair representation. The Gerrymander has divided Wisconsin for so many years. It has greatly limited competition in state legislative districts, making it tremendously difficult to hold legislators accountable by way of the ballot box. That part is over now.

I distinctly believe that the end of The Gerrymander in Wisconsin will make for a healthier political process in this state. That legislators having to compete and earn our votes instead of having them handed to them through an unfairly tilted map will bring about better representation across the political spectrum. That this will make legislators more responsive to their constituents, to majority public opinion on key issues, and more respectful and cooperative with each other as lawmakers. That this will bring about a genuine change to our truly toxic legislative branch.

And yet, many of the same people will still be there in the state legislature, of course, so this “new day” will still have many of the same old faces. Many of the same intractable problems will continue to exist. Fixing the deeply broken institution of the Wisconsin State Legislature after more than a decade under the control of Robin Vos and this group of state Republicans is going to take some time.

Celebrate, Badger State! Your activism made it happen. And/but everything is a multi-step process, from reviving Wisconsin Democrats, to electing a fair-minded Wisconsin Supreme Court, to proposing and signing the new maps.

For an argument against incrementalism, here’s David Rothkopf and Alon Pinkas/The New Republic:

How One Error May Haunt Biden’s Foreign Policy Legacy

The president’s foolish trust in Netanyahu was a terrible mistake. It’s not too late to correct—barely—but tough medicine is required.

Netanyahu is untrustworthy. He has a proven record of manipulation, deceit, and mendacity. He is a sworn enemy of peace in the region. He has treated Palestinians with disdain and disrespect ever since he entered politics. And the extremists in his coalition are even worse—rabid theocratic nationalists who believe that Israeli lives are infinitely more valuable than those of their closest neighbors.

The secondary error that the Biden team is now making is that, after the catastrophic consequences of its policy have become painfully clear, it is seeking to fix the mistake not by undoing it but by augmenting its policy with incremental measures. You can’t fine-tune a massive error into being a success. That is a lesson the United States learned in Vietnam, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.

Cliff Schecter highlights Texas Democrat Jasmine Crockett:

The New York Times: 

Judge Sets Trial Date in Trump’s Manhattan Criminal Case

Ruling that the case against Donald J. Trump can proceed, Justice Juan M. Merchan said he planned to begin the trial on March 25.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

In fiery testimony, Willis defends herself against accusations of misconduct

Ex-employee claims relationship began earlier than acknowledged

Add to this the expectation that Judge Arthur Engoron will make public his judgment in the real estate fraud case, and the possibility of a SCOTUS decision on an immunity challenge. 

Philip Bump/Washington Post:

Remember the ‘Biden bribe’ allegation? DOJ now says it was made up.

It is hard to overstate how much energy Republicans and their allies in the right-wing media invested in the idea that this was credible. When he announced the launch of an impeachment probe of Biden in September, then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) invoked the Smirnov allegation…

Fox News has mentioned Biden in the context of “bribe” or “bribery” more than 2,600 times over the past 12 months. A Media Matters review of host Sean Hannity’s efforts to bolster the Republican impeachment effort tallied at least 85 segments focused on the allegation and the FBI form that documented it — despite the complete dearth of evidence supporting the idea.

On Sept. 7, Comer was asked by a Fox Business host about the lack of movement on the bribery allegation. Comer suggested there had been a “coverup” by the government.

It appears that Comer was wrong.

Jake Sherman/X:

THE DISASTER THAT IS HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP

Just this week, @SpeakerJohnson has:

• → Seen Democrats win a special election in New York, narrowing the already minuscule GOP majority to two votes.
• → Lost a sixth rule vote on the House floor — a measure that would’ve allowed an increase in the state-and-local tax (SALT) deduction — when 18 Republicans bucked their own leadership and voted no. This Republican majority has lost more rule votes than any other majority in five decades, a stunning sign of weakness.
• → Abruptly pulled a bill to overhaul FISA due to Republican infighting. The GOP leadership said the House would vote on the bill before locking down the votes, despite some senior Republicans raising internal objections. This is the second time Johnson had to pull a FISA bill this Congress.
• → Seen another committee chair announce his resignation. @RepMarkGreen, chair of the Homeland Security Committee, is leaving Congress after only six years. The 59-year-old Green — the fourth committee chair to retire — just led the impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
• → Decided against putting a bill on the floor to provide billions of dollars in new aid to Israel without offsets. Just a week ago, Johnson allowed a vote on Israel aid that he knew was going to fail.
• → Provided absolutely no insight to rank-and-file lawmakers on how he’ll handle the Senate’s bipartisan $95 billion foreign aid package. Johnson said the bill isn’t a priority because the federal government is scheduled to shut down in a few weeks.
• → Witnessed the House Intelligence Committee chair issue a dire public warning about a “serious national security threat” to the country, only to have Senate Intelligence Committee leaders and the White House downplay the issue.

It may not be predictive of a November win, but it’s something of a roadmap for how to get there. It’s well worth your time.

Jill Lawrence/The Bulwark:

Whatever Donald Wants, Donald Gets

Trump’s march through the GOP is leaving it in ruins.

Right now, Trump has far too much control over Republicans who should know better, using a disconcerting but effective combination of brute force and sinister charm.

He’s rampaging through U.S. politics like a modern-day William T. Sherman on his Atlanta-to-Savannah March to the Sea. Gen. Sherman’s goal was to foster fear, inflict pain, and get Georgians to ditch the Confederate cause. Trump has adopted his own fear-and-pain approach on his march toward ever-greater domination of the GOP House, the Republican National Committee (he wants it run by an election denier and his daughter-in-law, nothing to see here), and, of course, the Republican presidential primary season and 2024 nomination.

He’ll get there before Nikki Haley, methinks.

Joe Perticone/The Bulwark:

The Biden Impeachment Has Been Great for Joe Biden

But this week, the House Oversight Committee deposed [Hunter Biden associate Tony] Bobulinski as part of its ongoing haphazard impeachment inquiry into the president. What happened the moment the deposition concluded felt quite familiar to those who have followed the inquiry:

• Oversight Chairman James Comer issued a declarative statement, unencumbered by evidence or specific details, that President Biden is corrupt.

• Fox News reporter Brooke Singman published EXCLUSIVE bombshell reports recounting Bobulinski’s story that Biden “enabled” the sale of access to “dangerous adversaries” and that Biden is “the big guy,” along with other words in liability-limiting “scare quotes.”

• What Bobulinski actually offered Oversight members inside the room turned out to be more of what he’s been trying to sell lawmakers and journalists for years: more conjecture and underwhelming, questionable testimony. The result is as familiar as the process: The impeachment inquiry, though shaking and whirring loudly, remains stuck in the hyperpartisan muck.

From Cliff Schecter:

Washington Post:

Senate votes to advance Ukraine-Israel package after border deal fails

GOP senators have been deeply divided on how to proceed on the foreign aid package, with some critics arguing that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) led them into a political box canyon where Democrats have claimed the political edge on border security after they voted down the border deal they initially demanded. A vocal faction of McConnell critics have grown louder over the past week, with a handful even calling for his ouster, as Senate Republicans have gathered in meeting after meeting and argued about the uncomfortable political situation they find themselves in.

“The Republicans wanted something and then decided that they didn’t want that thing," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), referring to border security provisions. “Now, some of them want it again, and I think the adults are just moving on.”

But ultimately McConnell was joined by 17 fellow Republicans to advance the deal...

So what did all the drama over the border bill get the GOP? Bipartisan reprobation from their colleagues, international scorn, bad press, and in the end the bill Democrats wanted.

Associated Press:

Abandoned by his colleagues after negotiating a border compromise, GOP senator faces backlash alone

As the Republican quietly watched from a floor above, briefly the outsider after defending his legislation in a last Senate floor speech, fellow negotiator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona was down on the floor excoriating the Republicans who had abandoned Lankford, one by one, after insisting on a border deal and asking him to negotiate a compromise on one of the country’s most intractable issues.

“Less than 24 hours after we released the bill, my Republican colleagues changed their minds,” said Sinema, a former Democrat turned Independent. “Turns out they want all talk and no action. It turns out border security is not a risk to our national security. It’s just a talking point for the election.”

Poland’s Prime Minister:

Rick Hasen/Slate:

A Grand Bargain Is Emerging in the Supreme Court’s Trump Cases, But Chaos May Be Ahead

After oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, a grand bargain that appears to make practical sense as a compromise is beginning to come into view: The Supreme Court unanimously, or nearly so, holds that Colorado does not have the power to remove Donald Trump from the ballot, but in a separate case it rejects his immunity argument and makes Trump go on trial this spring or summer on federal election subversion charges. Depending upon how the court writes its opinion, however, it could leave the door open for chaos in January, if Donald Trump appears to win the 2024 election and a Democratic Congress rejects Electoral College votes for him on grounds he’s disqualified. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, may have seen this danger and found a way around it. If the court’s going to side with Trump in the disqualification case, it should embrace Justice Jackson’s rationale, even if it is not the most legally sound one.

I’ll take that bargain.

Kevin Lind/Columbia Journalism Review:

Q&A: Dahlia Lithwick on the Colorado case, the election, and the press

I don’t think this is the vehicle that the Supreme Court will use to decide the outcome of the 2024 election. My sense is that this is both an intensely political case about the branches checking each other, and there are legitimate claims that the underlying process in the Colorado courts didn’t afford due process to Trump. In other words, if you’re going to do something that is the death penalty for a presidential election, you can’t do it with this little process. My instinct is that there are five votes on the current Supreme Court, at least, who do not want to see Donald Trump as the president in 2024—if he legitimately hasn’t won—and I don’t think this is the vehicle that they would choose to do it. It is the biggest, most dramatic intervention, and it would have the biggest fallout.

New York Times:

Johnson Stumbles, Deepening Republican Disarray and His Own Challenges

Little more than 100 days into his tenure, the speaker who was handed an impossible job has only made it more difficult for himself, baffling his colleagues.

The back-to-back defeats highlighted the litany of problems Mr. Johnson inherited the day he was elected speaker and his inexperience in the position, roughly 100 days after being catapulted from the rank and file to the top job in the House. Saddled with a razor-thin margin of control, and a deeply divided conference that has proved repeatedly to be a majority in name only, he has struggled to corral his unruly colleagues and made a series of decisions that only added to his own challenges.

Nancy Pelosi thought bubble: count the votes, and then bring it to the floor for a vote, not the other way around. 

Washington Post:

GOP leaders face unrest amid chaotic, bungled votes

Former president Donald Trump has used his perch as the GOP front-runner to bend Congress to his political whims

Moments before pandemonium broke out on the House floor on Tuesday evening, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer approached Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who had assumed a leisurely slouch in a rickety wooden chair in the back of the House chamber, for what appeared to be a quick chat.

...

“Speaker Johnson never called me,” Buck said. “[Former speaker Kevin McCarthy] would have yelled — Mike knows me well enough not to yell. And [former speaker John A.] Boehner would have broken my arm. It’s gotten easier as I’ve been here.”

This goes along with Biden remarks at his brief press conference last evening about Israel going ‘over the top’.

David Bier/The UnPopulist:

Secretary Mayorkas Is Being Impeached for Following the Law on Border Enforcement

Republicans are the ones making unconstitutional demands

Mayorkas would have been the first government official to be impeached for actually staying within the bounds of the Constitution. In fact, it is the Republicans who are making unconstitutional demands.

In the impeachment articles they drafted, they alleged that Mayorkas failed to block immigrants entering not just illegally but also legally and detain them—in inhumane and unconstitutional conditions—rather than release them. Even more absurd than the allegations is the fact that in the process of making them, Republicans repeatedly misstated the law, quoted overturned court decisions, and, hilariously, confused DHS Secretary Mayorkas’ actions with those of Secretary of State Antony Blinken and others.

All of this proves just how Orwellian our political discourse on immigration has become.

Let’s go through their allegations.

And just for fun, this from Walter Shapiro/Roll Call was from late January:

Will voters punish total incompetence? House Republicans are about to find out Evidence is scant that voters would punish blundering ineptitude

So what if Johnson is poised to reject the first serious effort in years to control the chaos on our southern border? So what if Johnson is willing to let aid to Ukraine go down the tubes as part of a package deal on immigration?

The House Republicans are living in a fairy tale world. Alas, the fairy tale is taken from the Grimm Brothers and the Republicans are emulating Rumpelstiltskin, stomping their feet through the ground when they don’t get their way.

Reality check: There is no coherent strategy for House Republicans to prevail, with their fragile three-vote majority, when the Democrats control the Senate and the White House. That may explain why they are banking on divine intervention in the form of a second Trump presidency.

Cliff Schecter with a musical/political interlude:

ABC News:

Appeals court rejects Trump's immunity claim in federal election interference case

Trump had wanted the case dismissed based on his claim of "absolute immunity."

"We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power -- the recognition and implementation of election results," wrote the judges. "Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count."

"At bottom, former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches," they wrote

Happy "no blanket presidential immunity" day for those who celebrate. As Joe Biden probably said to his staff, this is a BFD. Trump has until Monday to appeal.

See also SCOTUSBlog for a cert explainer, since that’s where this is headed.

PBS/NPR/Marist poll suggests the public agrees with the decision:

Trump should not get immunity, 2 out of 3 Americans say

About two-thirds of U.S. adults do not think former President Donald Trump should have immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he took while president, according to a PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll to be released Wednesday. The majority of Americans are aligned with a new federal appeals court ruling that found Trump can stand trial on charges tied to a plot to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

On the immigration issue, Catherine Rampell/Washington Post writes:

The GOP dog caught the car. Again.

Unlike the Obamacare repeal debacle, the passage of the Senate border bill would not be so terrible. I maintain serious concerns about its Title 42-like powers, as well as some other provisions relating to asylum. But much of the bill would make useful changes that should, theoretically, receive robust bipartisan support.

For example, it would invest much-needed resources in the border. It would give our Afghan allies — people who’ve already been vetted and are here in the United States but stuck in legal limbo — a pathway to permanent legal status. And for the first time, it would mandate that vulnerable, unaccompanied children seeking asylum receive legal counsel.

The White House and the bill’s Senate negotiators are now trying to defend it against myriad falsehoods about open borders and the like. But the burden of proving — or disproving — the merits of this hard-fought deal should be on the speaker: What, exactly, is Johnson’s objection to doing so many things his party ran for office to do?

Michael Tomasky/The New Republic:

The GOP Owns the Border Now. Here’s How Democrats Make Sure of It.

Hard-right Republicans killed the Senate immigration deal out of fealty to Trump. That’s the perfect opening for Biden to go on the attack.

Last week, momentarily and evidently naïvely, I was actually impressed that some number of Republican senators, apparently a majority of them, was going to stand up to Trump and defy his wishes by voting for this bill. That was how it looked last Thursday. I almost devoted my newsletter last Friday to the topic, telling readers to take note of this moment, because it may signal a new willingness on the part of some prominent Republicans to stand up to Trump.

Some reflex deep inside me counseled that I might live to regret putting the words “Republicans” and “principles” in the same sentence. The angel on my shoulder knew better.

Marc Jacob/”Stop the Presses” on Substack:

A dozen reasons Trump’s dictator threat is real

The short-attention-span media need to dwell on the danger

The news media aren’t talking enough about Donald Trump’s dictatorial ambitions. Sure, they quote his praise of despots and his dreams of “retribution,” but they need to make his stated intentions a major theme of campaign coverage.

In virtually every story about the campaign, they need to include at least a background sentence or two to remind people that he aims to be an autocrat if he wins. Repetition matters, as the right has long known and mainstream media often forget.

Brian Beutler/Off Message:

The Mainstream Media Should Be Honest About Trump’s Border Sabotage

And Joe Biden should bully them into it

One of my first pieces for Off Message encouraged President Biden to (as we say in the business) “work the media refs” more consistently. Their doom-laden coverage of his Afghanistan withdrawal and the economy’s recovery from the pandemic left Americans badly misinformed and, relatedly, helped tank his public approval. A bit of grabbing the bull by the horns was thus in order and badly needed.

Well, it still is, and the House GOP’s seemingly successful effort to sabotage the Senate’s bipartisan border security and foreign aid bill presents another great opportunity: Everyone knows House Republicans took orders from Donald Trump, and Trump’s been quite clear that he wants to kill the Senate bill so that the border remains overwhelmed, and he can blame the disorder on Biden during the campaign.

But Trump’s self-interested angle on this bill is often omitted from or buried in news reports, when it’s really the whole story. And unless this pattern of subterfuge is widely understood, Trump’s plan could work

And now for a musical interlude...

Jonathan Weiler/”Jonathan’s Quality Kvetching Newsletter” on Substack:

Why has Taylor Swift driven the rightwing crazy on the eve of the Super Bowl? A modest proposal :)

Enter Taylor Swift. For a quick refresher, she began dating KC tight end, Travis Kelce, during the 2023 season. Kelce is Mahomes’ favorite receiving target and is widely regarded as one of the best pass catching tight ends of all time, a key cog in the Chiefs’ two Super Bowl victories in the past four seasons. All of this was true and uncontroversial before last fall. But once his relationship with the planet's biggest pop star became public, and that pop star began regularly attending Kansas City games, the hype machines around both Swift and the NFL kicked into overdrive.1

That was a source of deep resentment for rightwing media even before last week. Swift has been a bane on the right for years now, especially since she endorsed Joe Biden in 2020. And Kelce has served as a pitchman for Pfizer's Covid vaccine which, you know….

John Fugelsang/X via Threadreader on the heels of Tracy Chapman’s Grammy duet with Luke Combs:

I can name TONS of great Tracy Chapman songs. (a somewhat outraged thread) (1) -"Baby Can I Hold You" was covered by everybody from Pavarotti to George Michael to Neil Diamond to Nicki Minaj -Clapton covered "Gimme One Reason" -Neil Young played on Tracy Chapman's 2nd album

Do we induct people into the rock ‘n’ roll Hall of Fame because of their sexuality? I thought it was about the music they produced. Can you name three Tracy Chapman songs? If you do… You googled it.

— Bill Miller (@MelaninDeficien) February 6, 2024

Read the whole thread, or just watch this:

USA Today:

For President Biden, the economy goes from election liability to a potential strength in 2024

The recession that many economists predicted hasn't happened.

Consumer confidence is surging.

The stock market has soared to all-time highs.

And on Friday came a robust jobs report, with the U.S. economy adding 353,000 jobs in January, according to the Labor Department − nearly twice what was projected.

Here are some headlines on the good news:

The New York Times: 

January Jobs Report

U.S. Job Growth Surges

The labor market added 353,000 jobs in January, far more than expected, in a sign that economic growth remains vigorous.

The Wall Street Journal:

Jobs Growth of 353,000 Blasts Past Expectations as Labor Market Stays Hot

Unemployment was 3.7% as labor market defies predictions of significant slowdown

The Washington Post:

Labor market grew 353,000 in January, soaring past expectations

The unemployment rate has now been below 4 percent for two years -- the longest stretch since the 1960s

The economy is undeniably good. Want more proof? Look at this guy:

Or her:

Meanwhile …

POLITICO Magazine:

30 Things Joe Biden Did as President You Might Have Missed

Drone armies, expanded overtime pay and over-the-counter birth control pills are just some of the new things Biden has ushered in as president that you might not have heard about.

Most of the work of government doesn’t go viral on social media or become fodder for TV talking heads. Every president’s administration makes changes both significant and trivial that largely escape the public’s attention — yet many have long-lasting impact.

So we asked POLITICO’s newsroom, including the reporters who track the minutiae of government policy, to tell us about the major but under-the-radar changes made so far during Biden’s tenure that most of us might have missed. And there was a lot, from building drone armies to making birth control pills available in drug stores to lowering overdraft fees and loosening restrictions on marijuana. His administration even made a big decision on the colors for Air Force One, the president’s official aircraft.

Here’s what they said. (And if you’re curious, here’s a similar list we compiled for Donald Trump’s presidency.)

The Daily Mail:

Mayorkas impeachment in doubt as outgoing Republican Ken Buck says he will vote AGAINST it: GOP facing disaster if one more member rejects probe over border chaos

• 'It's maladministration. He's terrible, the border is a disaster, but that's not impeachable,' Buck told reporters
• 'The people that I'm talking to on the outside, constitutional experts, former members, agree that this just isn't an impeachable offense,' Buck said

CNN:

House GOP skeptical Biden inquiry leads to impeachment as election draws near

A growing number of senior House Republicans are coming to terms with a stark realization: It is unlikely that their monthslong investigation into Joe Biden will actually lead to impeaching the president.

Top Republicans are not expected to make an official decision on whether to pursue impeachment articles until after a pair of high-stakes depositions later this month with Hunter Biden and the president’s brother, James. But serious doubts are growing inside the GOP that they will be able to convince their razor-thin majority to back the politically perilous impeachment effort in an election-year, according to interviews with over a dozen Republican lawmakers and aides, including some who are close to the probe.

While no formal whip count ahas been conducted, one GOP lawmaker estimated there are around 20 House Republicans who are not convinced there is evidence for impeachment, and Republicans can only lose two votes in the current House margins.

Charlie Sykes/The Bulwark:

The GOP’s Sop to Cerberus

Grassley’s comment wasn’t a gaffe.

Even as the resident senior citizen around here, I find myself wishing that I could write off Iowa Senator Chuck Grasley’s latest gaucherie as the result of senility. But no such luck.

When Grassley raised doubts about a bipartisan tax cut bill because it would make President Biden “look good,” and make it harder for Donald Trump to regain the White House, the remark hardly qualified as a gaffe in today’s GOP.

To be sure, the octogenarian seemed confused about some of the details. “Passing a tax bill that makes the president look good — mailing out checks before the election — means he could be re-elected, and then we won’t extend the 2017 tax cuts,” Grassley said. There are, however, no checks in this bill. It’s a tax credit. For children.1 The bill is also packed with goodies for businesses, making it exactly the sort of thing that Republicans from the Before Times would have enthusiastically embraced.

The legislation is so popular that it passed a bitterly divided House by a huge margin — 357-70. Now it goes to the Senate where it faces Grassley. And Trump.

At this point, the details of the bill aren’t really that important here. What Grassley was saying was that helping Trump is more important than that passing any legislation. And, despite the House vote, he reflected the central dynamic of the GOP in 2024.

• It’s why Republicans will likely kill a border bill that includes almost everything they want.

• It’s why they have tanked proposals to aid Ukraine and Israel.

• It’s why they consistently opt for chaos over the more mundane business of actual governing.

It’s just the GOP’s latest sop to Cerberus.

Cliff Schecter reviews how to do a proper interview:

Brian Beutler/Off Message:

This Is Why Trump Is So Desperate To End The GOP Primary

He's winning handily, but he's in for a ton of bad news before Haley's last stand in South Carolina

The jury awarded Carroll a mere high-eight figures in damages. But Judge Arthur Engoron’s verdict in Trump’s civil fraud case is still due imminently, as is a DC Circuit Court of Appeals’s decision rejecting Trump’s claim to immunity for all crimes he committed as president. Trump will appeal all of these, but they each give Haley real fodder to confront Republican voters with the immense risk they’d be taking by nominating Trump for a third time: He’s impulsively crooked and consequences will catch up with him before the election.

Haley still won’t put it as bluntly as possible, still won’t warn Republicans that Trump, as a crook, could end up justifiably imprisoned later this year. But she’s moving in that direction.

“I absolutely trust the jury,” she told Meet the Press on Sunday. “And I think that they made their decision based on the evidence.” It’s not a hoax; it’s not a witch hunt.

Brian Beutler/Off Message:

Taylor Swift Exposed The GOP Freakshow By Being Normal

Maybe Republicans should wonder why all the attractive, likable people hate them?

There’s nothing terribly interesting underlying this bizarre freakout. Swift has millions of devoted fans and is also a liberal who endorsed Biden in 2020. Since this year’s election is shaping up as a 2020 rematch, she’s likely to endorse Biden again. If that’s interesting for any reason it’s because it exposes the intentionality behind the Big Lie: The same propagandists who apparently fear Swift’s mobilizing powers also claim Trump won in 2020—if their “rigged election” conspiracy theories were sincerely held, they wouldn’t fear that Swift’s endorsement might make Biden unbeatable.

David Rothkopf/Daily beast:

A Gaza Ceasefire Deal Is the Only Way to Avoid a Wider War

If the war between Israel and Hamas rages on indefinitely, the conflict will spread. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Republicans calling for massive attacks against Iran and its proxies—like Sens. Tom Cotton, Roger Wicker, Lindsey Graham, and John Cornyn—argue that this attack was just one among over 160 that have targeted U.S. personnel stationed in the region, arguing that U.S. deterrence strategies have been unsuccessful.

That said, calls for direct attacks against Iran, long a goal of Iran hawks, must be weighed not against past grievances, but against the consequences those attacks would have.

Such attacks could trigger a full-scale region-wide war that would put thousands of U.S. forces at risk and could necessitate deployments that would put even more members of the U.S. armed services in harm’s way. The U.S. and our allies must also be cognizant of the fact that an ill-considered or badly timed response could cause Iran to seek to derail talks between its proxy, Hamas, the Israelis, the U.S,. and intermediaries like Qatar.

Because the war in Gaza is the proximate cause of much of the heightened tension in the region (although admittedly far from all of it) and, therefore, because producing a ceasefire or moving toward a longer-term settlement in that war is one of the best ways of reducing risks to U.S. troops and facilities—as well as those of our allies—and because we appear to be at a very delicate point in negotiations to release Israeli hostages that might produce at least a ceasefire of some meaningful duration, the wrong kind of response could produce the opposite of the effect we seek.

On the domestic front, you can read the details here on the sham impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas from David J Bier, but this will give you the gist of it:

Jamelle Bouie/New York Times:

If It Walks Like an Insurrection and Talks Like an Insurrection …

I’ve argued, relying on evidence drawn from an amicus brief to the Colorado Supreme Court, that the former president’s actions make him an insurrectionist by any reasonable definition of the term and certainly as it was envisioned by the drafters of the 14th Amendment, who experienced insurrection firsthand. If that isn’t persuasive, consider the evidence marshaled by the legal scholars Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar in a more recent amicus brief. They argue that top of mind for the drafters of the 14th Amendment were the actions of John B. Floyd, the secretary of war during the secession crisis of November 1860 to March 1861.

During the crucial weeks after the election of Abraham Lincoln, as pro-slavery radicals organized secession conventions throughout the South, Floyd, “an unapologetic Virginia slaveholder,” Amar and Amar write, used his authority to, in the words of Ulysses S. Grant, distribute “the cannon and small arms from Northern arsenals throughout the South so as to be on hand when treason wanted them.” When it became clear that President James Buchanan would not surrender Fort Sumter to South Carolina, in late December, Floyd resigned to join the Confederacy.

What’s more, the Amars note, “the insurrectionary betrayals perpetrated by Floyd and other top officials in the lame-duck Buchanan administration went far beyond the abandonment of Southern forts. They also involved, through both actions and inactions of Floyd and his allies, efforts to prevent President-elect Lincoln from lawfully assuming power at his inauguration.”

Adam Bass/Third Party Crashers:

No champions for No Labels means yes problems

How a lack of eager candidates is threatening the political organizations chances of making an impact in the 2024 election

[Nikki] Haley and her former 2024 rival, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R), have quashed the idea of joining No Labels once Trump becomes the nominee. While Christie's reason for not joining the organization is unknown, it is likely that Haley sees another opening in 2028 as the next generation of Republican leadership after Trump. While this scenario is unlikely due to the GOP becoming more Trump-like by the day, Haley's reasoning has some merit, as she is almost certain she will become the runner-up in the primaries.

No Labels's problem also extends to non-presidential candidates.

Utah Senator Mitt Romney (R) and former Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman (R) have also declined to run on the presumptive ticket. Huntsman, a supporter of No Labels who joined Senator Joe Manchin for a listening session in New Hampshire last year, told Deseret News that it was "unlikely" he would run for office again, even on a No Labels ticket.

Considering that most of No Labels's supporters are Republicans disillusioned with their party, the number of politicians saying they would not be interested in running on the unity ticket is startling.

So why is this happening?

Michael Harriot/The Grio:

The lazy, stupid analysis of the ‘Black vote’ obscures the most important political issue of our time

OPINION: If the future of American democracy is really on the ballot, why aren’t we discussing the one issue hovering over the upcoming election?

Let’s get this out of the way: Black people are not going to vote for a Republican. It ain’t gonna happen.

Nearly a century has passed since a Republican presidential nominee even came close to winning a majority of the Black vote (Herbert Hoover in 1928 was the last). It is asinine, bordering on malpractice, for a journalist to publicly suggest that one of the most vociferously anti-Black candidates could achieve what no Republican has done in the last 96 years. Setting aside the media’s lazy, inexplicably stupid exercise in speculative fiction, one wonders why the mainstream media narrative seems to intentionally avoid the one topic that — when it comes to presidential elections — is more important and more mathematically relevant.

What about the white voters?

I haven’t seen the insurrection polling data or the turnout from Trump rallies but judging from the hyperbolic handwringing on cable news, you’d almost think that Black people make up the majority of voters in this country. The same organization (Pew Research) that said that thing about the “important role” of Black voters in 2024 knows that 55% of non-Hispanic whites voted for Trump in 2020, while 92% of Black voters, 59% of Hispanics and 7% of Asians voted for his opponent. Political scientists concede that white voters of both parties are more likely to switch parties when the candidate is Black. The New York Times article about Black voters drifting to the GOP didn’t even mention white people!

Republicans gamble on border politics

Democrats, meanwhile, see political opportunity in Republicans’ divisions whether or not the bill passes.

Maybe Trump’s opposition to a deal leads Republicans to walk away from it. If that happens: “I think we know who to blame,” said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who represents a crucial swing state. “The person that orchestrates it and then the individuals that follow him.”

• “It puts the Republicans in a really, really bad position if they’re saying, ‘We’re not going to do a deal here because we want to play election-year politics because we think it’s going to help Donald Trump,’” said Ian Russell, a former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee political director who is now a consultant. “That has the potential to really blow up in their face.”

On the other hand, if Congress manages to pass a border bill that President Biden signs into law, Biden and House and Senate Democrats can run on the accomplishment in November.

Greg Sargent/The New Republic:

How Trump’s Unhinged Immunity Demand Could Unleash a Second-Term Crime Spree

If the courts decide that insurrection merits immunity, and Trump wins back the presidency, what might he feel emboldened to do in term two?

This has been widely depicted as a Hail Mary effort to scuttle special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for conspiracy to obstruct the official proceeding of Congress’s count of presidential electors—otherwise known for nearly 250 years in this country as the peaceful transfer of power.

But there’s another way to understand Trump’s move: It’s about what comes next. If he wins on this front, he’d be largely unshackled in a second presidential term, free to pursue all manner of corrupt designs with little fear of legal consequences after leaving office again.

That Trump might attempt such moves is not idle speculation. He’s telling us so himself. He is openly threatening a range of second-term actions—such as prosecuting political enemies with zero basis in evidence—that would almost certainly strain the boundaries of the law in ugly new ways.

Let’s hear from some law professors on this, starting with Randall Eliason/Sidebars:

D.C. Circuit Skeptical of Trump's Immunity Claims

Judges highlight the extreme consequences of Trump's argument

Early in Sauer’s argument, Judge Pan hit him with a great series of questions that highlighted the extreme consequences of his position. Trump is arguing that the impeachment judgment clause in the Constitution means that a former president may only be criminally prosecuted if he or she was impeached and convicted for the same or similar conduct.

The impeachment judgment clause provides:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Trump’s argument is that because this clause refers only to the “party convicted” at impeachment being subject to later prosecution, that means, by negative implication, that a party who is not convicted after impeachment cannot be prosecuted.

Lee Kovarsky/X via Threadreader:

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON TODAY’S DC CIRCUIT (CADC) ARGUMENTS ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY (PI) (LAYPERSON FRIENDLY). Today, CADC heard oral arguments on whether DJT has PI for 1/6, in specific reference to Jack Smith’s prosecution in DC. Trump almost certainly lost 3-0.

The judges were Henderson (R-appointed), Childs (Biden), and Pan (Biden). The major issues were as follows.

Jonathan V Last/The Bulwark:

This Might Be the High-Water Mark of Trumpism

An argument for why Trump’s numbers can’t get much better and Biden’s numbers are likely to improve.

[Mark] Halperin then says that Biden’s three big problems are:

1. That he’s playing from behind as an incumbent, which sets a media narrative against him.

2. That Republicans have quickly and decisively rallied to Trump.

3. That parts of the Obama coalition—black, Hispanic, and young voters—have not (yet?) rallied to Biden.

I slightly disagree with Halperin on the importance of #1 and what he calls the Dominant Media. My own view is that journalists tend to overdetermine the influence of the media in electoral politics.

But however much weight you want to give this factor, Halperin is directionally correct: Because Biden is trailing Trump, the media slant is always something like, “Unemployment is 3.9%; Here’s Why That’s Bad for Biden.”

And the only way that’s going to flip is if Biden moves ahead in the polling.

As for #2 and #3, those are vectors along which Biden can reasonably hope to improve and Trump probably cannot.

For instance: I would posit to you that, over the next month, we will be approaching the high-water mark for Trump’s poll numbers.

Brian Beutler/Off Message:

We Can't Afford Weak-Kneed Liberalism In The Trump Era Sincere objections to disqualifying Trump from the ballot are reasoned backward from misplaced fear

The glaring weakness here is that Republicans are real adults, making decisions for themselves, with a mix of real and fake information, and the fact that their leader engaged in insurrection and might thus be disqualified from office was not hidden from them at any point. They called it an insurrection. They acknowledged Trump’s culpability. Then they decided to reanoint him as their leader. This strikes me as Their Problem, not Our Problem.

Marc Jacob/”Stop The Presses” on Substack:

Media play dumb and amplify Jan. 6 lies

When journalists sidestep the truth, MAGA disinformation wins

On Thursday, the Associated Press wrote this both-sides headline: “One attack, two interpretations: Biden and Trump both make the Jan. 6 riot a political rallying cry.”

On Sunday, USA Today chimed in with this outrageous lead: “For Donald Trump, Jan. 6, 2021, was ‘a beautiful day.’ For Joe Biden, it was the day ‘we nearly lost America.’” And then USA Today proceeded with a story that acted as if it didn’t know which view was more valid.

In between those two examples of performative ignorance, the New York Times weighed in with its own “dueling realities” spin:

These news outlets know who’s telling the truth and who’s lying. But they’re afraid to tell the public directly. In the Times’ case, its headline got roasted on social media (including by me), and was later rewritten:

Here are your dueling New Hampshire polls:

Ron Desantis is tanking in the polls. But, of course, the only polls that matter are on election day. Losers always say that before they lose.