John Eastman’s attorneys advised him not to testify in Georgia’s presidential election probe

The Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney’s office is demanding that John Eastman answer questions for the special grand jury investigating election tampering in the state in 2020. The former attorney for Donald Trump is pleading the Fifth.

According to USA TODAY, Eastman’s lawyers issued a statement stating that they had advised him to “assert attorney-client privilege and the constitutional right to remain silent where appropriate.”

“By all indications, the District Attorney’s Office has set itself on an unprecedented path of criminalizing controversial or disfavored legal theories, possibly in hopes that the federal government will follow its lead,” the statement reads. “Criminalization of unpopular legal theories is against every American tradition and would have ended the careers of John Adams, Ruth Ginsburg, Thurgood Marshall and many other now-celebrated American lawyers."

RELATED STORY: Lindsey Graham believes he’s above the law, tells judge that Georgia DA must explain her questioning

The attorney, infamously known for creating the bogus falsehood that Joe Biden didn’t actually win the election, is among such MAGA notables as former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and whiny Trump lapdog Sen. Lindsey Graham. All were called to testify in front of the Georgia grand jury and all have put up a fight—mostly to no avail.  

Eastman was behind the idea of sending a group of fake electors out into swing states in hopes of blocking the congressional certification of the 2020 election.

The New York Times reports that Eastman continued looking for election irregularities long after Trump was out of office. In one of a slew of previously uncovered emails, Eastman wrote, “A lot of us have now staked our reputations on the claims of election fraud, and this would be a way to gather proof… If we get proof of fraud on Jan. 5, it will likely also demonstrate the fraud on Nov. 3, thereby vindicating President Trump’s claims and serving as a strong bulwark against Senate impeachment trial.”

Kemp’s attorneys tried everything to save the incumbent governor from giving a sworn statement. But according to reporting from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Monday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney refused to allow the governor to skirt his testimony but did allow him to push it off until after the Nov. 8 midterm elections.

Giuliani tried to play the “too sick to testify” card but was staunchly shut down by McBurney and appeared in Atlanta on Aug. 17 to give testimony.

Graham is doing everything he can to avoid testifying to the special grand jury in Georgia, including filing a brief on Aug. 24 that reasons that the subpoena to testify is invalid based on a rarely used section of the U.S. Constitution.

“The Constitution guarantees that a Senator ‘shall not be questioned’ about his protected ‘Speech or Debate’—and yet the District Attorney insists that Senator Graham must submit to questioning to ascertain whether he can be questioned or is immune from questioning. That makes no sense,” Graham’s motion reads.

Eastman also pleaded the Fifth in refusing to answer questions from the House committee investigating the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, per USA TODAY.

Gubernatorial hopeful who failed Breonna Taylor as prosecutor awfully quiet amid word of plea deal

It's a shame Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron didn’t come to the same conclusion about a former Louisville police detective that she did about herself. That conclusion seems to be that Kelly Goodlett is guilty of helping falsify a no-knock search warrant for Breonna Taylor's home and filing a false report to cover it up. Goodlett will plead to one count of conspiring to violate Taylor's civil rights, ABC News reported on Friday. Taylor, a 26-year-old emergency medical technician, was killed on Mar. 13, 2020, in Louisville, Kentucky although she wasn't the subject of the warrant Goodlett allegedly helped falsify. The Black medical worker was sleeping when officers rammed through her door.

Still, Cameron didn’t even pretend to seek Goodlett’s prosecution or that of any other officer for Taylor’s death. It’s a fact that hopefully voters won’t soon forget amid his gubernatorial run.

RELATED STORY: 'Cannot tolerate this type of conduct': Finally, cops involved in Breonna Taylor's death are fired

Cameron attempted to make his case for why he should be the state’s next governor on Aug. 6 at the 142nd Fancy Farm Picnic. But demonstrators refused to let him have an unearned moment in the sun at the picnic in the unincorporated community in Graves County, Kentucky. They’ve watched him avoid holding officers involved in Taylor’s death accountable for more than two years now, and they refused to be silent while Cameron attempted to profit politically from his inaction.

“Breonna Taylor,” protesters shouted while Cameron raised his voice to compete with them.

He didn’t mention her name once in his speech, but he voiced support for law enforcement, telling them: “Know that we will always have your back, and we will always support the blue.”

Earlier in the day, Cameron told reporters two of the cops who shot Taylor, retired Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and former Detective Myles Cosgrove, didn't use excessive force the night of Taylor's death.

“I know folks have very strong feelings about this case ... but we have a responsibility to not give into any preferred narrative,” he said, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader. “We have a responsibility to do right by the laws of Kentucky and that’s what we did.”

Campaign Action

What was right to Cameron, who served as special prosecutor after Jefferson County Commonwealth’s Attorney Tom Wine recused himself, was to allow the officers involved with Taylor’s death to rest easy knowing they wouldn’t be held accountable by the state’s top prosecutor.

Cameron only sought charges against one cop, former Detective Brett Hankison, not for killing Taylor but for allegedly endangering her neighbors in the process.

It took the Department of Justice stepping in to charge former Louisville police Detective Joshua Jaynes, former Sgt. Kyle Meany, and Goodlett allegedly for violating Taylor’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The officers sought the warrant to search Taylor's home "knowing that the officers lacked probable cause for the search," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in remarks announcing the federal charges. Goodlett is set to appear in court to enter her plea on Aug. 22, ABC News reported.

The Department of Justice also charged Hankison "with two civil rights offenses alleging that he willfully used unconstitutionally excessive force” when he fired 10 shots through a window and a sliding glass door, “both of which were covered with blinds and curtains,” according to the Department of Justice. 

Cameron attempted to excuse his lack of action in a seven-part Twitter thread responding to the federal charges.

He said:

“As in every prosecution, our office supports the impartial administration of justice, but it is important that people not conflate what happened today with the state law investigation undertaken by our office. Our primary task was to investigate whether the officers who executed the search warrant were criminally responsible for Ms. Taylor’s death under state law.

"At the conclusion of our investigation, our prosecutors submitted the information to a state grand jury, which ultimately resulted in criminal charges being brought against Mr. Brett Hankison for wanton endangerment.

"I’m proud of the work of our investigators & prosecutors. This case and the loss of Ms. Taylor’s life have generated national attention. People across the country have grieved, and there isn’t a person I’ve spoken to across our 120 counties that isn’t saddened by her loss. There are those, however, who want to use this moment to divide Kentuckians, misrepresent the facts of the state investigation, and broadly impugn the character of our law enforcement community.

"I won’t participate in that sort of rancor. It’s not productive. Instead, I’ll continue to speak with the love and respect that is consistent with our values as Kentuckians."

Three grand jurors in the Taylor case filed a petition with the Kentucky House of Representatives calling for Cameron's impeachment for what they described as manipulation in his presentation to jurors. Kevin Glogower, the lawyer who represented the jurors, told the Courier-Journal: “Mr. Cameron continues to blatantly disregard the truth,” which was that he never even mentioned a homicide charge in his presentation to jurors.

RELATED STORY: Jurors take stand against Daniel Cameron for lying to protect cops who shot, killed Breonna Taylor

Another Republican Who Voted To Impeach Trump Goes Down – Trump Mocks Her For ‘Stupidly’ Playing Into Democrats’ Hands

Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House GOP lawmakers who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump, was forced to concede defeat in her primary race in Washington state’s 3rd Congressional District.

“Though my campaign came up short this time, I’m proud of all we’ve accomplished together for the place where I was raised and still call home,” she said in a statement.

Still, Beutler (WA) appeared content with her decision to vote for Trump’s impeachment based on his alleged role in the January 6 riot at the Capitol.

“I’m proud that I always told the truth, stuck to my principles, and did what I knew to be best for our country,” the soon-to-be former congresswoman said.

RELATED: Trump Celebrates Defeat of Rep. Peter Meijer, Who Voted For Impeachment: ‘7 Down, 3 to Go!’

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler Falls After Impeachment Vote

Jaime Herrera Beutler fell to Army Special Forces veteran Joe Kent, who received the endorsement of the former President and has been making a huge splash among America First conservatives.

Kent claimed he would be victorious in his race because “people are still furious” that Herrera Beutler voted to impeach Trump.

Now, she has become the first incumbent to be defeated in the 3rd Congressional District since 1994, ending her six-term House career.

Trump took to his Truth Social media platform to celebrate Kent’s victory and take a little jab at Jamie Herrera Beutler for her impeachment vote.

“Joe Kent just won an incredible race against all odds in Washington State,” he said in a statement. “Importantly, he knocked out yet another impeacher, Jaime Herrera Beutler, who so stupidly played right into the hands of the Democrats.”

RELATED: Liz Cheney’s Primary Opponent Harriet Hageman Mocks Her For Support From ‘Pretend Rancher’ Kevin Costner

Seven Down, Three to Go

Jamie Herrera Beutler joins seven other Republicans who voted to impeach Trump and subsequently put their careers on the scrap heap of political history.

Last week, as The Political Insider reported, Representative Peter Meijer lost his Michigan primary battle against John Gibbs. Gibbs, an official who served within the Trump administration, had the backing of the former President.

Meijer, like Beutler, did “not for a second” regret his impeachment vote, a personal stand which might get you a recurring contributor role on CNN but doesn’t make you suited as a Republican representative in Congress.

Additionally, Tom Rice was soundly defeated in the Republican primary for South Carolina’s 7th District in June, and Adam Kinzinger (IL), Anthony Gonzalez (OH), Fred Upton (MI), and John Katko (NY), all decided to flee Congress after voting to impeach Trump.

That’s seven down and three to go.

Next on the chopping block may very well be Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney, who has abandoned all pretense of even trying to win her primary next week, instead promoting her work on the January 6 anti-Trump committee and trotting out her even more unpopular father, Dick Cheney, to help prop her up.

The New York Times notes that Cheney has essentially abandoned Wyoming voters while polls show her “losing badly to her rival, Harriet Hageman, Mr. Trump’s vehicle for revenge.”

The two Republicans who voted to impeach and have thus far survived are Representative Dan Newhouse (R-WA), who managed to advance to the general election, and Representative David Valadao (R-CA), who fended off a primary challenge in June.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Another Republican Who Voted To Impeach Trump Goes Down – Trump Mocks Her For ‘Stupidly’ Playing Into Democrats’ Hands appeared first on The Political Insider.

GOP lawmakers out of their minds over search on their leader by Trump-appointed FBI director

Just when you thought things couldn’t get even more dystopian, former President Donald Trump confirmed Monday night that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) were at his Mar-a-Lago beachfront estate carrying out a search warrant. Trump described the raid as “dark times for our Nation” and said that his home was “under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents.”

Trump went on to release an extensive statement on the raid.

It didn’t take long for Trump’s most loyal MAGA lawmakers to proclaim their outrage over the audacity that their leader be investigated. After all, he’s above the law, they believe.  

RELATED STORY: Nancy Thompson’s MAGA train—Mothers Against Greg Abbott—may just run down the Texas governor

Sign if you agree: No one is above the law

Texas Republican Rep. Ronny Jackson tweeted, “Tonight the FBI officially became the enemy of the people!!”

Tonight the FBI officially became the enemy of the people!!!

— Ronny Jackson (@RonnyJacksonTX) August 9, 2022

Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene initially tweeted to “Defund the FBI,” then Tuesday morning called the raid “tyrannical” and suggested that the FBI’s search will only stoke GOP voters in November.

DEFUND THE FBI!

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) August 9, 2022

“I’ve talked a lot about the civil war in the GOP and I lean into it because America needs fearless & effective Republicans to finally put America First. Last night’s tyrannical FBI raid at MAR is unifying us in ways I haven’t seen. In January, we take on the enemy within.”

I’ve talked a lot about the civil war in the GOP and I lean into it because America needs fearless & effective Republicans to finally put America First. Last night’s tyrannical FBI raid at MAR is unifying us in ways I haven’t seen. In January, we take on the enemy within.

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) August 9, 2022

Indiana Rep. Jim Banks offered that “Republicans have a moral duty to fight back!”

Republicans have a moral duty to fight back!

— Jim Banks (@RepJimBanks) August 9, 2022

Florida Sen. Rick Scott claimed on Fox News that the FBI execution of the warrant was something you’d see from the “Gestapo” and the “Soviet Union and Latin America.”  

Rick Scott says the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago is like the Nazis and the Soviet Union and Latin American dictatorships pic.twitter.com/a0cFWl4kJM

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 9, 2022

Georgia Rep. Jody Hice met with Trump and Greene in 2020 to discuss plans to overturn the presidential election results. According to Georgia Democrats, “video surfaced of Hice promising that if elected, he would work to retroactively ‘decertify’ the 2020 election results.”

Monday night, Hice wrote on Twitter, “What does the FBI know about Hunter Biden?”

What does the FBI know about Hunter Biden?

— Rep. Jody Hice (@CongressmanHice) August 9, 2022

New York Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney accused the Department of Justice and the FBI of “being weaponized” and demanded that President Joe Biden and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland “answer immediately” for the Mar-a-Lago search.

“The DOJ & FBI are being weaponized like never before to target political opponents. This Admin has thrown the rule of law and faith in our democratic institutions out the door. Joe Biden and Merrick Garland must answer immediately for today’s raid against an American president.”

The DOJ & FBI are being weaponized like never before to target political opponents. This Admin has thrown the rule of law and faith in our democratic institutions out the door. Joe Biden and Merrick Garland must answer immediately for today’s raid against an American president.

— Rep. Claudia Tenney (@RepTenney) August 9, 2022

Republican Florida Rep. John Rutherford tweeted Monday night that he wanted to see the FBI search warrant and “probably cause.” Well, we don’t know the cause of the search, but it was “probably” because Trump has committed a crime—probably.

I want to see an immediate release of the search warrant and the "probably cause" used to obtain it. Release it Director Wray, NOW. (2/2)

— Rep. John Rutherford (@RepRutherfordFL) August 9, 2022

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania called the FBI search harassment of Trump and suggested that law enforcement should be focused on “terrorists at our southern border.”

“So far this year, CBP arrested more than 50 terrorists at our southern border but we have no idea how many evaded capture and entered our country. The FBI should be answering that question, not harassing a former president.”

So far this year, CBP arrested more than 50 terrorists at our southern border but we have no idea how many evaded capture and entered our country. The FBI should be answering that question, not harassing a former president.https://t.co/1hy8uavHTT

— Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (@GReschenthaler) August 9, 2022

Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert called the search something “Stalin would be proud of…”

We evolved to a #JusticeSystem that was the fairest in the world. Now, #DOJ & House Dems are taking us back 6-7 DECADES, approaching a Soviet-style justice system. Stalin would be proud of what they’re doing. It’s grossly unfair, grossly unjust. https://t.co/ojwjSFsxow

— Louie Gohmert (@replouiegohmert) August 8, 2022

Sen. Rand Paul called the search “outrageous and unjust, but predictable.” Paul is the same man who said he was “proud of the job Donald Trump has done,” and called Trump’s impeachment the “antithesis of unity.”

The @FBI raid on President Trump was approved by Director Wray, who also claimed that the illegal FISA warrants used to spy on Trump were constitutional. Today’s raid is outrageous and unjust, but predictable.

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) August 9, 2022

Sen. Marsha Blackburn referred to the “Obama FBI” and warned, “If they can do this to Trump, they will do it to you!” So try not to steal any classified documents from the White House, folks.

The Obama FBI began spying on President Trump as a candidate. This isn’t how a justice system should operate, and it should outrage every American. If they can do this to Trump, they will do it to you!

— Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) August 9, 2022

The head of the FBI is Christopher Wray. He became the eighth director on Aug. 2, 2017. He was formally nominated by Trump on June 26, 2017, and confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 2017.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy chose to put Garland on notice with a warning to the attorney general to “preserve your documents and clear your calendar.”

I swear, I thought that message was for Trump.

Attorney General Garland: preserve your documents and clear your calendar. pic.twitter.com/dStAjnwbAT

— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) August 9, 2022

While Republicans try to overturn elections and make it harder to vote, volunteer to help save democracy by encouraging people to cast their ballots. Click here to view hundreds of local and national Get Out the Vote opportunities on the Daily Kos Mobilize feed, and sign up to volunteer on a national campaign or one near you.

Trump Celebrates Defeat of Rep. Peter Meijer, Who Voted For Impeachment: ‘7 Down, 3 to Go!’

Representative Peter Meijer lost his Michigan primary battle against John Gibbs Tuesday, leading former President Donald Trump to celebrate the defeat of yet another Republican who voted in favor of his impeachment.

Meijer, who voted in favor of establishing a bipartisan commission to investigate the Capitol insurrection and said prior to the primary that he does “not for a second” regret his impeachment vote, conceded to Gibbs early Wednesday morning.

Gibbs, an official who served within the Trump administration, had the backing of the former President and received a congratulatory phone call following the victory.

“I’ll see you soon,” Trump told him. “I’m very proud of you. That’s a great job.”

RELATED: Three Republicans Who Voted to Impeach Trump Over Capitol Riot Fight For Their Political Lives in Tuesday’s Primaries

Peter Meijer Suffers Defeat, Trump Celebrates

Gibbs had described the primary defeat of Peter Meijer as “a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party,” noting that the Republican congressman “betrayed his voters” by voting in favor of impeachment just days after being sworn into Congress.

Nobody could have been happier about the result than Trump.

“Fantastic night in Michigan! Tudor Dixon will be a great Governor. John Gibbs WON with a big surge in the end,” he wrote on his Truth Social media platform. “Not a good time for Impeachers – 7 down, 3 to go!”

Dixon also earned an endorsement from the former President and will now face Democrat incumbent Gretchen Whitmer in the gubernatorial race in Michigan following her primary win.

“Endorsements don’t get any more powerful or conclusive than the Endorsements of last night,” Trump wrote in another post. “I wonder if anyone will write or report that? Just asking?”

Meijer joins Representatives Tom Rice, who was soundly defeated in the Republican primary for South Carolina’s 7th District in June, and Adam Kinzinger (IL), Anthony Gonzalez (OH), Fred Upton (MI), and John Katko (NY), who all decided to flee Congress after voting to impeach Trump, as six of the “7 down” referenced by the former President.

Trump may be counting on Liz Cheney’s (WY) ouster as well, as she trails her opponent by 22-points in a primary scheduled less than two weeks away.

RELATED: Liz Cheney’s Primary Opponent Harriet Hageman Mocks Her For Support From ‘Pretend Rancher’ Kevin Costner

Trump Still Holds Power in the GOP

While the rate of impeachment voters being ousted from Congress is fairly high, it hasn’t been perfect.

Representative David Valadao (R-CA) fended off a primary challenge in June, though Trump did not endorse any candidate in the race.

Meanwhile, Representatives Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) and Dan Newhouse (R-WA) managed to earn a place amongst the top two in their district’s crowded fields, besting their Trump-backed opponents and meaning they will survive and advance to the general election.

Still, as Fox News reports, Tuesday’s results show Trump’s “immense grip over the Republican Party remains firm.”

They cite as further evidence victories by Blake Masters, who won the GOP Arizona Senate primary, and Mark Finchem, who won the Republican nomination for Arizona Secretary of State.

Masters moves on to Democratic Senator Mark Kelly in November in a key battleground state race that may determine if Republicans are able to win back the Senate majority.

Kari Lake, the Trump-backed former TV news anchor leads her primary for Governor of Arizona, though the results are still too close to call.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Trump Celebrates Defeat of Rep. Peter Meijer, Who Voted For Impeachment: ‘7 Down, 3 to Go!’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Retiring Sen. Toomey: Trump ‘disqualified himself’ and GOP will have ‘stronger candidate’ in 2024

Why is it that, with a few notable exceptions, prominent Republicans almost always wait until they’re on their way out the door to slag off Donald Trump? They’re like B-movie ninjas who attack an enemy one at a time. Or, perhaps more accurately, they’re like doctors who watch the mole on your back gradually morph into a Rorschach blot over the course of six years before telling you, on the eve of their retirement, that you should probably think about getting that looked at.

Sen. Pat Toomey is one of these folks. While he voted to convict Donald Trump following his second impeachment (though not after the first)—and never really warmed up to the ocher arschloch during his reign of whatever-that-was—Toomey had already announced his retirement when he voted to dump Trump into the dustbin of history. So while his impeachment vote was more courageous than his compatriots’ votes to acquit, it wasn’t like he was risking his political future or anything.

That said, he's making his position perfectly clear before he rides off into the sunset to work at some noxious conservative think tank that will craft an elegant intellectual rationalization—based on time-honored Jeffersonian principles—for pushing Medicare recipients out to sea on ice floes.

But to his credit, he thinks Trump is garbage. Just listen to his very measured and dispassionate case, which he relayed toward the end of a recent Bloomberg TV interview:

Sen. Pat Toomey (R) Pennsylvania: “He disqualified himself from serving in public office by virtue of his post-election behavior.” He also thinks the Republican Party will have a stronger candidate than Donald Trump in the next presidential election https://t.co/qlvvI3zrft pic.twitter.com/qp32wpfbiz

— Bloomberg TV (@BloombergTV) June 30, 2022

TOOMEY: “I think he disqualified himself from serving in public office by virtue of his post-election behavior, especially leading right up to Jan. 6. I think the revelations from this committee make his path to even the Republican nomination much more tenuous. Never say never, and he decides whether to throw his hat in the ring, but I think we’ll have a stronger candidate.”

Okay, it’s nice of him to state the obvious and everything, but how about showing some urgency? How about dropping napalm like GOP Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are doing? Maybe he could out his fellow Republican senators who agree with him but are too craven to admit it lest Trump’s preternaturally wee Chucky Doll hands “Truth” out some scarcely comprehensible, ungrammatical, ALL-CAPS DIATRIBES to his flying monkeys in the heartland. It’s not like the future of our democracy is at stake or anything! Hello! McFly! 

Donald Trump is not more powerful than every single member of the GOP combined. They didn’t need the revelations from the House Jan. 6 committee to sink him. They could have done that literally dozens of times over the past year and a half by closing ranks with whatever pro-democracy forces managed to crawl out of the smoldering wreckage of Jan. 6.

But, well, a mealy closing statement about the GOP having “better candidates” than Trump is something, isn’t it? It’s not much, but it’s something

Of course the party has better candidates. No one on the face of God’s green globule could be a worse candidate. But what exactly are you going to do about it once you’re out of Congress, Toomey? Fire off a handful of press releases and call it a day?

We are at a crossroads. One fork of the road leads to Putin-style fascism, the other to a healthier and happier democracy that can continue to thrive on a planet that will at most be half Mad Max hellscape if we manage to reverse course in time.

The Republicans who know better—and I’d like to think there are a lot more than just Cheney, Toomey, and Kinzinger who do—need to do their sworn duty to our Constitution, or it will eventually be worth less than Donald Trump thinks it is.

Check out Aldous J. Pennyfarthing’s four-volume Trump-trashing compendium, including the finale, Goodbye, Asshat: 101 Farewell Letters to Donald Trump, at this link. Or, if you prefer a test drive, you can download the epilogue to Goodbye, Asshat for the low, low price of FREE.

Highlights from The Downballot: Ben Wikler on how Democrats can win big in Wisconsin

This week on The Downballot, hosts David Nir and David Beard recapped recent elections, including a special election for a congressional seat in Texas and primaries in South Carolina that saw one pro-impeachment Republican go down in defeat. The pair also discussed an unusual Saturday special election in Alaska for the seat that had been held for decades by the late Republican Rep. Don Young.

Nir and Beard welcomed the chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, Ben Wikler, as this week’s guest. Wikler shared more about what a state party like his does and the key races they're focusing on this November.

You can listen below or subscribe to The Downballot wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also find a transcript for this week right here. New episodes come out every Thursday!

Beard kicked off the program with the top headlines from Tuesday night.

Texas held a special election to fill the remaining term for Democratic Rep. Filemon Vela, who resigned earlier this year to take a job with a lobbying firm. Conservative activist Mayra Flores flipped this Rio Grande Valley-based district to the GOP, winning about 51% of the vote. There were four candidates on the ballot, but just one major Republican and one major Democrat. Flores won 51% of the vote, and the major Democratic candidate, former Cameron County commissioner Dan Sanchez won about 43% of the vote.

Beard noted that there wasn't a ton of investment in trying to hold this seat on the Democratic side and that Republicans noticed an opportunity and spent heavily on the race:

Republicans spent over a million dollars on this race. They really invested. Democrats only began airing TV ads in the final week. They didn't spend very much money. This district is changing a significant amount. Biden won the current district, which is still from the 2010 redistricting cycle, by a 52-48 margin, but Biden wins the new district that will go into effect this November by a 57-42 margin, so it's getting noticeably more Democratic.

“That being said, that's definitely a shift in the margin from 52-48 Biden to—if you combine the Democrats and the Republicans—about 53% voted Republican and 47% voted Democrat, so that's a noticeable shift. It's certainly in line with a more Republican-leaning year, which is what we've been seeing with the polling and with other information that's been coming in,” Beard added. “The other factor here that's certainly worth noting is that it was very, very low turnout, so that can also be a factor in why there was somewhat of a shift. So you don't want to take this and just say, ‘Oh, we saw this shift. It'll translate all the way to November in every way,’ but it's certainly a signal worth acknowledging that it is certainly a sign of a Republican-leaning environment right now.”

The hosts then recapped primaries in South Carolina, which some have framed as “Trump's revenge.” Trump did, in fact, exact revenge against a Republican congressman in the 7th district, Tom Rice, who was one of the ten GOP House members who voted for impeachment. Rice was soundly defeated by state Rep. Russell Fry, who beat him 51-25. “What was even more remarkable about this is there were five Republicans total challenging race so for Fry to get a majority of the vote was pretty unexpected. Even Fry claimed that his own polling showed the race going to a runoff,” Nir said.

The other South Carolina race that was really closely watched this week was in the 1st District, where Rep. Nancy Mace beat former state Rep. Katie Arrington 53-45, thus avoiding a runoff. Trump endorsed Arrington, as he was furious at a few of Mace’s critical comments of him after Jan. 6, even though she very quickly backed off.

On Saturday, Alaska held a special election for Alaska's at-large congressional seat, which has been vacant since GOP Rep. Don Young passed away earlier this year. Alaska has a fairly distinct electoral system: all of the candidates were on the ballot in this first round, and the top four candidates will advance to a second round on Aug. 16. That ballot will use ranked-choice voting to determine the winner. Ballots are still being counted, but the AP has declared three of the four candidates who will advance to the second round, the first being former Gov. Sarah Palin, who has a clear lead so far with about 30% of the vote.

Beard summarized the outcome so far:

Of course, Palin is a Republican, as is the so far second-place candidate, businessman Nick Begich, who has about 19% of the vote. And then independent Al Gross, who is also the former 2020 Democratic nominee for Senate but is running now as an Independent; he's also been called to advance. He has about 13% of the vote so far. And then, the fourth slot hasn't been called yet, but former Democratic state Rep. Mary Peltola is currently in that spot and will likely advance as well, unless late-breaking ballots are radically different than what's been counted so far.

Palin's strong first-round showing, getting over 30% of the vote, makes it likely that she will be one of the last two candidates standing when this ranked-choice voting takes place. The big question, Beard points out, is: Who is going to make it into that other slot where the fourth-place candidate and then the third-place candidate are eliminated?

While Palin has always been a polarizing figure, she has Donald Trump's endorsement, which makes it much more likely that Begich would pick up Independents and Democrats, if it is those two facing off against each other at the very end of the instant runoff tabulations.

At this point, Wikler joined the hosts to discuss the crucial work of the Wisconsin Democratic Party.

“Let's talk a little bit about what that rollercoaster ride has been like. I'm sure that some of our listeners are probably pretty plugged into their own state Democratic parties. But I'll bet that many folks aren't necessarily all that familiar with what their state parties do. And of course, the goal of any party organization is to get its candidates elected. But what exactly does the Wisconsin Democratic Party do to make that happen?” Nir asked.

The biggest part of the organization’s budget and its crown jewel, Wikler asserts, is its organization model, which allows it to reach voters in every corner of the state:

Our state party unusually uses the Obama campaign model, where our organizers actually build teams of volunteers that run door-to-door canvassing and phone banking operations in their own communities. And when you do that on a continuous basis, as we've done now since my predecessor, who launched these neighborhood teams in the spring of 2017, and we've built and built and built them; we now have hundreds across the state. When you do that continuously, you actually build momentum over time. So, every dollar you spend on organizing goes further, because you can have one organizer who's working with multiple teams to coach and support them and make sure they have the data they need.

A robust voter protection operation that is run on a year-round basis is now a mainstay of the organization’s work, as well. Wikler highlighted how the party has increasingly focused on voting rights over these last few years to make sure that local clerks aren't rolling back voting rights. The state Democratic Party also recruits and supports poll workers, poll observers, and lawyers who are able to help voters resolve issues. A voter protection hotline is also available for anyone in Wisconsin to call at 608-DEM-3232.

Last, but not least, the party’s data team helps make sure they’re figuring out where the voters they need to mobilize are and who they need to persuade.

Next, the trio delved into Wikler and his team’s plan to defeat Republican Sen. Ron Johnson this fall. As Wikler put it, “Ron Johnson is so, so appallingly extraordinarily bad”:

It’s not just that he says that COVID can be cured with mouthwash or says that the Jan. 6 insurrectionists were patriots who love their country and love law enforcement—which is something he actually said. He said he would've been scared if it had been Black Lives Matter protestors, but he wasn't scared with the protestors that were actually there. It's not just all that stuff. It's that he's profoundly self-serving. His claim to fame as a senator is that he insisted on an extra tax break on top of Trump's giant tax scam that personally benefited him and his biggest donor massively. It's one of the most regressive tax cuts ever passed through the United States Congress that he insisted on putting in, and that he's been billing taxpayers to fly him back to Congress from his vacation home in Florida.

So we've been making this case against him, and so many independent and grassroots organizations have done the same thing. His approval rating is now 36%, which is stunning in a year that's supposed to be tough for Democrats and good for Republicans. The Political Report called him the most vulnerable incumbent from either party in the Senate in 2022. And meanwhile, on the Democratic side, there's a contested primary. There's a bunch of candidates who've made the ballot, but we won't know our nominee until Aug. 9. And so this is a perfect kind of case in point for why having a strong party matters, because we have to build the whole general election apparatus before Aug. 9. It's like building a spaceship right on the launchpad. And then once we have the nominee, they jump into the cockpit and they hit ignition.

“Can you tell us a little bit more about this spaceship that you're building on the launchpad for the eventual Democratic nominee for the Senate race?” Nir asked.

Wikler discussed the intersection of the digital, the data, the organizing, the voter protection, the communications—all the different elements. He also mentioned that, due to state party rules, the Wisconsin Democratic Party is bound and committed to remaining neutral in the primary. “So we're not putting our thumb on the scale, but all the candidates have told us that once we have a nominee, they will work with the infrastructure that we've put in place,” he added. “As opposed to doing what has often happened in different states around the country, which is: you get a Senate nominee, and they decide they want to reshuffle all the staff and reshape how the program works and all this kind of stuff.”

As far as goals from the point of view of the state party for the state legislative elections that are coming in November, and candidates to highlight for those races, Wikler had the following to say:

Republicans have managed to re-gerrymander the maps, at least for now, with some help, I should mention, from the U.S. Supreme Court, which unlike in other states, decided to reach down and strike down our state legislative maps for reasons that will puzzle constitutional scholars for decades. So we have really, really tough maps this cycle.

Republicans are explicitly trying to get supermajorities in both chambers yet again, and we are explicitly determinedly working to stop them. We have great Democratic leaders in both chambers that we're working closely with: Greta Neubauer in the Assembly, Janet Bewley in the state Senate. We have strong candidates across the state. ...

Then next year, just to squeeze this in, in April of 2023, we have a state Supreme Court race. There will not be a lot happening across the country in elections that spring, but that race will be for the majority in Wisconsin state Supreme Court. If we can sustain the governor's veto and if we have a non-hyper right wing majority in our state Supreme court, that sets us up to have a secure and fair and legitimate election in 2024, when Wisconsin will probably be the tipping point state yet again.

Lastly, Beard asked Wikler how listeners could help: “So how can our Wisconsinite listeners get in touch with the Democratic Party in their state and get more involved?”

Wikler replied:

Wherever you might be, you can support Democrats and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in fighting for victory for Gov. Evers and defeating Ron Johnson. I think Dems up and down the ballot, including defeating Derek van Orden, who's an insurrectionist currently on probation for trying to bring a gun on a plane. He's running for Congress in the third congressional district, which is an open seat. We need help across the board, and you can get involved. You can become a monthly donor. That is the single, my favorite thing you can do.

If you go to wisdems.org/monthly, you can sign up to give a few bucks a month; that helps us to hire and know that we'll be able to keep our staff on month over month, year over year, and that in turn allows us to do the kind of deep, long term organizing, building neighborhood teams … that help us win, especially in these tough elections like the spring state Supreme Court race next year. And finally, I'll give the link wisdems.org/volunteer. You can join our virtual phone banks. You can join our volunteer operation to turn out every possible Democratic voter. Races here are so close, so often.

The Downballot comes out every Thursday everywhere you listen to podcasts. As a reminder, you can reach our hosts by email at thedownballot@dailykos.com. Please send in any questions you may have for next week's mailbag. You can also reach out via Twitter: @DKElections.

Liz Cheney had strong words for Republicans in first Jan. 6 committee hearing. Here’s a transcript

In case you missed Republican Rep. Liz Cheney’s powerful opening remarks as prepared for the Jan. 6 select committee’s initial public hearing Thursday evening, we’ve provided her full statement below, courtesy of Politico. 

The Wyoming congresswoman is the daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney; as one of only two Republicans on the committee, she serves as vice-chair. 

Almost every Republican has chosen to side with former President Trump’s version of events on that fateful day. Cheney is not one of them, and she is paying the price in her pursuit of the truth of what happened and who was behind the events of Jan. 6. 

In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Dana Milbank writes that “Republican members of Congress forced Cheney out of her party leadership position and are trying to oust her in a primary.” 

It’s worth noting that while we appreciate Cheney's presentation and performance last night, she remains diametrically opposed to a lot of progressive ideology and has actively worked (and voted) against racial and economic justice. 

RELATED STORY: Capitol Police Sergeant Gonell talks about Jan. 6 hearings and what really happened that day

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me echo those words about the importance of bipartisanship, and what a tremendous honor it is to work on this committee.

Mr. Chairman, at 6:01pm on January 6th, after he spent hours watching a violent mob besiege, attack and invade our Capitol, Donald Trump tweeted. But he did not condemn the attack. Instead he justified it:

“These are the things and events that happen,” he said, “when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.”

As you will see in the hearings to come, President Trump believed his supporters at the Capitol, and I quote, “were doing what they should be doing.” This is what he told his staff as they pleaded with him to call off the mob, to instruct his supporters to leave. Over a series of hearings in the coming weeks, you will hear testimony, live and on video, from more than a half dozen former White House staff in the Trump administration, all of whom were in the West Wing of the White House on January 6th. You will hear testimony that “The President didn’t really want to put anything out” calling off the riot or asking his supporters to leave. You will hear that President Trump was yelling, and “really angry at advisors who told him he needed to be doing something more.” And, aware of the rioters’ chants to “hang Mike Pence,” the President responded with this sentiment: “maybe our supporters have the right idea.” Mike Pence “deserves” it.

You will hear evidence that President Trump refused for hours to do what his staff, his family, and many of his other advisors begged him to do: immediately instruct his supporters to stand down and evacuate the Capitol.

Tonight, you will see never-before-seen footage of the brutal attack on our Capitol, an attack that unfolded while, a few blocks away, President Trump sat watching television in his dining room off the Oval Office. You will hear audio from the brave police officers battling for their lives and ours, fighting to defend our democracy, against a violent mob Donald Trump refused to call off.

Tonight and in the weeks to come, you will see evidence of what motivated this violence, including directly from those who participated in this attack. You will see video of them explaining what caused them to do it. You will see their posts on social media. We will show you what they have said in federal court. On this point, there is no room for debate. Those who invaded our Capitol and battled law enforcement for hours were motivated by what President Trump had told them: that the election was stolen, and that he was the rightful President. President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack.

You will also hear about plots to commit seditious conspiracy on January 6th, a crime defined in our laws as “conspir[ing] to overthrow, put down or destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority thereof.” Multiple members of two groups, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, have been charged with this crime for their involvement in the events leading up to and on January 6th. Some have pled guilty. The attack on our Capitol was not a spontaneous riot. Intelligence available before January 6th identified plans to “invade” the Capitol, “occupy” the Capitol, and take other steps to halt Congress’ count of Electoral Votes that day. In our hearings to come, we will identify elements of those plans, and we will show specifically how a group of Proud Boys led a mob into the Capitol building on January 6th.

Tonight I am going to describe for you some of what our committee has learned and highlight initial findings you will see this month in our hearings. As you hear this, all Americans should keep in mind this fact: On the morning of January 6th, President Donald Trump’s intention was to remain President of the United States despite the lawful outcome of the 2020 election and in violation of his Constitutional obligation to relinquish power. Over multiple months, Donald Trump oversaw and coordinated a sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power. In our hearings, you will see evidence of each element of this plan.

In our second hearing, you will see that Donald Trump and his advisors knew that he had, in fact, lost the election. But, despite this, President Trump engaged in a massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information – to convince huge portions of the U.S. population that fraud had stolen the election from him. This was not true.

Jason Miller was a senior Trump Campaign spokesman. In this clip, Miller describes a call between the Trump campaign’s internal data expert and President Trump a few days after the 2020 election:

A: I was in the Oval Office. At some point in the conversation, Matt Oczkowski who was the lead data person was brought on and I remember he delivered to the President in pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose.

Q: And that was based, Mr. Miller, on Matt and the data team’s assessment of this sort of county by county state by state results as reported?

A: Correct.

Alex Cannon was one of President Trump’s campaign lawyers. He previously worked for the Trump Organization. One of his responsibilities was to assess allegations of election fraud in November 2020. Here is one sample of his testimony -- discussing what he told White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows:

A: I remember a call with Mr. Meadows where Mr. Meadows was asking me what I was finding and if I was finding anything and I remember sharing with him that we weren’t finding anything that would be sufficient to um change the results in any of the key states.

Q: When was that conversation?

A: Probably in November, mid to late November, I think it was before my child was born.

Q: And what was Mr. Meadows’ reaction to that information?

A: I believe the words he used were “so there’s no there there.”

There’s no there there. The Trump Campaign’s General Counsel Matt Morgan gave similar testimony. He explained that all of the fraud allegations and the campaign’s other election arguments taken together and viewed in the best possible light for President Trump, could still not change the outcome of the election.

President Trump’s Attorney General Bill Barr also told Donald Trump his election claims were wrong:

A: And I repeatedly told the President in no uncertain terms that I did not see evidence of fraud, you know, that would have affected the outcome of the election. And frankly, a year and a half later, I haven’t seen anything to change my mind on that.

Attorney General Barr also told President Trump that his allegations about Dominion voting machines were groundless:

“I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations, but they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public that there was this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn’t count, and that these machines, controlled by somebody else, were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense. And it was being laid out there. And I told him that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on that and that it was doing great, great disservice to the country.”

But President Trump persisted, repeating the false Dominion allegations in public at least a dozen more times even after his Attorney General told him they were “complete nonsense.”

And after Barr’s resignation on December 23rd, the Acting Attorney General who replaced him, Jeff Rosen and the acting Deputy, Richard Donoghue told President Trump over and over again that the evidence did not support allegations he was making in public.

Many of President Trump’s White House staff also recognized that the evidence did not support the claims President Trump was making. This is the President’s daughter, commenting on Bill Barr’s statement that the Department found no fraud sufficient to overturn the election:

Q: How did that affect your perspective about the election when Attorney General Barr made that statement?

A: It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr so I accepted what he was saying.

As you will hear on Monday, the President had every right to litigate his campaign claims, but he ultimately lost more than 60 cases in state and federal courts. The President’s claims in the election cases were so frivolous and unsupported that the President’s lead lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, not only lost the lawsuits, his license to practice law was suspended. Here is what the court said of Mr. Giuliani:

Giuliani “communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020.”

As you will see in great detail in these hearings, President Trump ignored the rulings of our nation’s courts, he ignored his own campaign leadership, his White House staff, many Republican state officials, he ignored the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump invested millions of dollars of campaign funds purposely spreading false information, running ads he knew were false, and convincing millions of Americans that the election was corrupt and he was the true President. As you will see, this misinformation campaign provoked the violence on January 6th.

In our third hearing, you will see that President Trump corruptly planned to replace the Attorney General of the United States so the U.S. Justice Department would spread his false stolen election claims. In the days before January 6th, President Trump told his top Justice Department officials “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.” Senior Justice Department officials, men he had appointed, told him they could not do that, because it was not true. So President Trump decided to replace them.

He offered Jeff Clark, an environmental lawyer at the Justice Department, the job of Acting Attorney General. President Trump wanted Mr. Clark to take a number of steps, including sending this letter to Georgia and five other states, saying the U.S. Department of Justice had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election.” This letter is a lie. The Department of Justice had, in fact, repeatedly told President Trump exactly the opposite – that they had investigated his stolen election allegations and found no credible fraud that could impact the outcome of the election. This letter, and others like it, would have urged multiple states to withdraw their official and lawful electoral votes for Biden.

Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue described Jeff Clark’s letter this way: “This would be a grave step for the Department to take and could have tremendous constitutional, political and social ramifications for the country.” The Committee agrees with Mr. Donoghue’s assessment. Had Clark assumed the role of Attorney General in the days before January 6th and issued these letters, the ramifications could indeed have been grave. Mr. Donoghue also said this about Clark’s plan:

“And I recall towards the end saying, what you’re proposing is nothing less than the United States Justice Department meddling in the outcome of a Presidential Election.”

In our hearings, you will hear first-hand how the senior leadership of the Department of Justice threatened to resign, how the White House Counsel threatened to resign, and how they confronted Donald Trump and Jeff Clark in the Oval Office. The men involved, including Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, were appointed by President Trump. These men honored their oaths of office. They did their duty, and you will hear from them in our hearings.

By contrast, Jeff Clark has invoked his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. Representative Scott Perry, who was involved in trying to get Clark appointed as Attorney General, has refused to testify here. As you will see, Representative Perry contacted the White House in the weeks after January 6th to seek a Presidential Pardon. Multiple other Republican congressmen also sought Presidential Pardons for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

In our fourth hearing, we will focus on President Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th. Vice President Pence has spoken publicly about this:

“President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone. And frankly, there is no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.”

What President Trump demanded that Mike Pence do wasn’t just wrong, it was illegal and it was unconstitutional. You will hear this in great detail from the Vice President’s former General Counsel. Witnesses in these hearings will explain how the former Vice President and his staff informed President Trump over and over again that what he was pressuring Mike Pence to do was illegal.

As you will hear, President Trump engaged in a relentless effort to pressure Pence both in private and in public. You will see the evidence of that pressure from multiple witnesses live and on video. Vice President Pence demonstrated his loyalty to Donald Trump consistently over four years, but he knew that he had a higher duty – to the United States Constitution. This is testimony from the Vice President’s Chief of Staff:

A: I think the Vice President was proud of his four years of service and he felt like much had been accomplished in those four years. And I think he was proud to have stood beside the President for all that had been done. But I think he ultimately knew that his fidelity to the Constitution was his first and foremost oath, and that’s – that’s what he articulated publicly and I think that’s what he felt.

Q: His fidelity to the Constitution was more important than his fidelity to President Trump and his desire …

A: The oath he took, yes.

You will also hear about a lawyer named John Eastman. Mr. Eastman was deeply involved in President Trump’s plans. You will hear from former Fourth Circuit Federal Judge Michael Luttig, a highly respected leading conservative judge. John Eastman clerked for Judge Luttig. Judge Luttig provided counsel to the Vice President’s team in the days before January 6th. The Judge will explain how Eastman “was wrong at every turn.” And you will see the email exchanges between Eastman and the Vice President’s Counsel as the violent attack on Congress was underway. Mr. Jacob said this to Mr. Eastman: “And thanks to your bullshit, we are under siege.” You will also see evidence that John Eastman did not actually believe the legal position he was taking. In fact, a month before the 2020 election, Eastman took exactly the opposite view on the same legal issues.

In the course of the Select Committee’s work to obtain information from Mr. Eastman, we have had occasion to present evidence to a federal judge. The judge evaluated these facts and he reached the conclusion that President Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Pence to act illegally by refusing to count electoral votes likely violated two federal criminal statutes. And the judge also said this: “If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6th will repeat itself.” Every American should read what this federal judge has written. The same Judge, Judge Carter, issued another decision on Tuesday night, indicating that John Eastman and other Trump lawyers knew that their legal arguments had no real chance of success in court. But they relied on those arguments anyway to try to “overturn a democratic election.”

And you will hear that while Congress was under attack on January 6th and the hours following the violence, the Trump legal team in the Willard Hotel war room continued to work to halt the count of electoral votes.

In our fifth hearing, you will see evidence that President Trump corruptly pressured state legislators and election officials to change election results. You will hear additional details about President Trump’s call to Georgia officials urging them to “find” 11,780 voted – votes that did not exist, and his efforts to get states to rescind certified electoral slates without factual basis and contrary to law. You will hear new details about the Trump campaign and other Trump associates’ efforts to instruct Republican officials in multiple states to create intentionally false electoral slates, and transmit those slates to Congress, to the Vice President, and the National Archives, falsely certifying that Trump won states he actually lost.

In our final two June hearings, you will hear how President Trump summoned a violent mob and directed them, illegally, to march on the U.S. Capitol. While the violence was underway, President Trump failed to take immediate action to stop the violence and instruct his supporters to leave the Capitol.

As we present these initial findings, keep two points in mind. First, our investigation is still ongoing, so what we make public here will not be the complete set of information we will ultimately disclose. And second, the Department of Justice is currently working with cooperating witnesses, and has disclosed to date only some of the information it has identified from encrypted communications and other sources.

On December 18, 2020, a group including General Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and others visited the White House. They stayed late into the evening. We know that the group discussed a number of dramatic steps, including having the military seize voting machines and potentially rerun elections. You will also hear that President Trump met with that group alone for a period of time before White House lawyers and other staff discovered the group was there, and rushed to intervene.

A little more than an hour after Ms. Powell, Mr. Giuliani, General Flynn and the others finally left the White House, President Trump sent the tweet on the screen now, telling people to come to Washington on January 6th: “Be there,” he instructed them. “Will be Wild!”

As you will see, this was a pivotal moment. This tweet initiated a chain of events. The tweet led to the planning for what occurred on January 6th, including by the Proud Boys who ultimately led the invasion of the Capitol and the violence that day. The indictment of a group of Proud Boys alleges that they planned to “oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States.” And according to the Department of Justice:

“On Jan. 6, 2021, the defendants directed, mobilized and led members of the crowd onto the Capitol grounds and into the Capitol, leading to dismantling of metal barricades, destruction of property, breaching of the Capitol building, and assaults on law enforcement.”

Although certain former Trump officials have argued that they did not anticipate violence on January 6th, the evidence suggests otherwise. As you will see in our hearings, the White House was receiving specific reports in the days leading up to January 6th, including during President Trump’s Ellipse rally, indicating that elements in the crowd were preparing for violence at the Capitol. And, on the evening of January 5th, the President’s close advisor Steve Bannon said this on his podcast: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this, all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.

As part of our investigation, we will present information about what the White House and other intelligence agencies knew, and why the Capitol was not better prepared. But we will not lose sight of the fact that the Capitol Police did not cause the crowd to attack. And we will not blame the violence that day, violence provoked by Donald Trump, on the officers who bravely defended all of us.

In our final hearing, you will hear a moment-by-moment account of the hours-long attack from more than a half dozen White House staff, both live in the hearing room and via videotaped testimony. There is no doubt that President Trump was well aware of the violence as it developed. White House staff urged President Trump to intervene and call off the mob. Here is a document written while the attack was underway by a member of the White House staff advising what the President needed to say: “Anyone who entered the capitol without proper authority should leave immediately.”

This is exactly what his supporters on Capitol Hill and nationwide were urging the President to do. He would not. You will hear that leaders on Capitol Hill begged the President for help, including Republican Leader McCarthy, who was “scared” and called multiple members of President Trump’s family after he could not persuade the President himself.

Not only did President Trump refuse to tell the mob to leave the Capitol, he placed no call to any element of the U.S. government to instruct that the Capitol be defended. He did not call his Secretary of Defense on January 6th. He did not talk to his Attorney General. He did not talk to the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets. But Vice President Pence did each of those things. For example, here is what General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to this committee:

A: There were two or three calls with Vice President Pence. He was very animated, and he issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders. There was no question about that. And I can get you the exact quotes from some of our records somewhere. But he was very animated, very direct, very firm to Secretary Miller. Get the military down here, get the guard down here. Put down this situation, et cetera.

By contrast, here is General Milley’s description of his conversation with President Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on January 6th:

A: “He said: We have to kill the narrative that the Vice President is making all the decisions. We need to establish the narrative, you know, that the President is still in charge and that things are steady or stable, or words to that effect. I immediately interpreted that as politics. Politics. Politics. Red flag for me, personally. No action. But I remember it distinctly.”

And you will hear from witnesses how the day played out inside the White House, how multiple White House staff resigned in disgust, and how President Trump would not ask his supporters to leave the Capitol. It was only after multiple hours of violence that President Trump finally released a video instructing the riotous mob to leave, and as he did so, he said to them: “We love you. You’re very special.”

You will also hear that in the immediate aftermath of January 6th, members of the President’s family, White House staff and others tried to step in to stabilize the situation “to land the plane” before the Presidential Transition on January 20th. You will hear about members of the Trump cabinet discussing the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment, and replacing the President of the United States. Multiple Members of President Trump’s own Cabinet resigned immediately after January 6th. One member of the Cabinet suggested that remaining Cabinet Officers needed to take a more active role in running the White House and the Administration. But most emblematic of those days is this exchange of texts between Sean Hannity and former President Trump’s Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany. Sean Hannity wrote in part: “Key now, no more crazy people.” “No more stolen election talk.” “Yes, impeachment and 25th amendment are real, and many people will quit.” Ms. McEnany responded in part: “Love that. That’s the playbook.”

The White House staff knew that President Trump was willing to entertain and use conspiracy theories to achieve his ends. They knew the President needed to be cut off from all of those who had encouraged him. They knew that President Donald Trump was too dangerous to be left alone. At least until he left office on January 20th. These are important facts for Congress and the American people to understand fully.

When a President fails to take the steps necessary to preserve our union, or worse, causes a constitutional crisis, we are at a moment of maximum danger for our Republic. Some in the White House took responsible steps to try to prevent January 6th. Others egged the President on. Others, who could have acted, refused to do so. In this case, the White House Counsel was so concerned about potentially lawless activity, that he threatened to resign, multiple times. That is exceedingly rare and exceedingly serious. It requires immediate attention, especially when the entire team threatens to resign. However, in the Trump White House, it was not exceedingly rare and it was not treated seriously. This is a clip of Jared Kushner, addressing multiple threats by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his team of White House lawyers to resign in the weeks before January 6th.

Q: Jared, are you aware of instances where Pat Cipollone threatened to resign?

A: I kind of, like I said, my interest at that time was on trying to get as many pardons done, and I know that he was always, him and the team, were always saying oh we are going to resign. We are not going to be here if this happens, if that happens … So, I kind of took it up to just be whining, to be honest with you.

Whining. There is a reason why people serving in our Government take an oath to the Constitution. As our founding fathers recognized, democracy is fragile. People in positions of public trust are duty-bound to defend it – to step forward when action is required.

In our country, we don’t swear an oath to an individual, or a political party. We take our oath to defend the United States Constitution. And that oath must mean something. Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

Finally, I ask all of our fellow Americans as you watch our hearings over the coming weeks, please remember what’s at stake. Remember the men and women who have fought and died so that we can live under the Rule of Law, not the rule of men. I ask you to think of the scene in our Capitol rotunda on the night of January 6th. There, in, a sacred space in our constitutional republic, the place where our presidents lie in state, watched over by statues of Washington and Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant, Eisenhower, Ford and Reagan, against every wall that night encircling the room, there were SWAT teams, men and women in tactical gear with long guns deployed inside our Capitol building.

There in the rotunda, these brave men and women rested beneath paintings depicting the earliest scenes of our Republic, including one painted in 1824 depicting George Washington resigning his commission, voluntarily relinquishing power, handing control of the Continental Army back to Congress. With this noble act, Washington set the indispensable example of the peaceful transfer of power. What President Reagan called, “nothing less than a miracle.” The sacred obligation to defend this peaceful transfer of power has been honored by every American president...Except one.

As Americans, we all have a duty to ensure what happened on January 6th never happens again, to set aside partisan battles to stand together to perpetuate and preserve our great Republic.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Paul Ryan Campaigns For GOP Rep. Who ‘Had the Guts’ To Impeach Trump

Former House Speaker Paul Ryan campaigned for Representative Tom Rice on Wednesday, suggesting the South Carolina Republican’s vote to impeach Donald Trump was a gutsy call and railing against GOP “celebrities” trying to aid the former President’s “vengeance.”

The comments marked the first serious public rebuke of Trump by the former Speaker of the House, once considered the future of the GOP, in some time.

Rice was one of only 10 Republican lawmakers who voted in favor of impeaching Trump over his alleged role in inciting the January 6 riot at the Capitol.

Ryan praised his actions.

“There were a lot of people who wanted to vote like Tom but who just didn’t have the guts to do it,” Ryan said.

RELATED: Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Trump Are Already Facing Primary Challenges

Paul Ryan Rips Trump, GOP

Paul Ryan continued to attack the Republican Party during his campaign speech to aid embattled Representative Tom Rice, calling out lawmakers who dare to support Trump.

Ryan embraced Rice as a “man of conviction” whose vote to impeach was a “vote for the Constitution.”

“This is just such a crystal clear case where you have a hard-working, effective, senior member of Congress who deserves reelection vs. people who are just trying to be celebrities who may be trying to help Trump with his vengeance,” he added.

“That’s not who voters want, voters want people focused on their solutions, not on Trump’s vengeance and that to me is a really clear-cut case here,” said Ryan.

RELATED: ‘Never Trumpers’ Paul Ryan, John Boehner, And Adam Kinzinger Supporting Liz Cheney’s Reelection Bid

Pro-Impeachment Tom Rice is Struggling

It’s unclear if Paul Ryan’s campaign efforts for Tom Rice will yield results, as the incumbent is currently trailing in polls to Russell Fry, the South Carolina Legislature’s majority whip, who earned Trump’s endorsement.

Fry, in an interview with Breitbart News, said the former President’s endorsement had been a boon for his campaign.

“The energy’s incredible, you know. Prior to the Trump endorsement, we were tracking well, we were very firmly in a one versus one kind of race,” Fry said.

“There’s several people in the race, but the endorsement has been, like lights out. I mean, it’s just been incredible. The energy is real.”

An internal poll from Fry’s campaign shows Rice trails the Trump-endorsed candidate by double digits in their primary race.

Ryan meanwhile, has also hitched his wagon to another struggling horse in Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney.

Cheney is also one of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, and one who has made it a personal crusade to embellish the events at the Capitol over a year ago.

The Political Insider reported in September that Ryan had been donating money and support to Cheney’s re-election bid in the hopes that he could help in “exciting her own voters.”

Cheney, like Rice according to a new poll, is struggling, which is pretty exciting. She trails her primary opponent, Harriet Hageman, a Wyoming attorney who has the backing of Trump, by a whopping 30 percentage points.

Trump has referred to Ryan as a “curse to the Republican Party” after the former Speaker advised the GOP to steer clear of the “populist appeal of one personality.”

Paul Ryan also overdramatized the events of January 6th and Trump’s role, saying he found it “horrifying to see a presidency come to such a dishonorable and disgraceful end.”

“He has no clue as to what needs to be done for our Country, was a weak and ineffective leader, and spends all of his time fighting Republicans as opposed to Democrats who are destroying our Country,” Trump fired back.

The former President has said Tom Rice is a “coward who abandoned his constituents by caving to Nancy Pelosi and the Radical Left.”

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Paul Ryan Campaigns For GOP Rep. Who ‘Had the Guts’ To Impeach Trump appeared first on The Political Insider.

The Downballot: How MAGA candidates are blowing up the GOP (transcript)

If you haven’t already, please subscribe to The Downballot on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Are Republicans torching their chances in November by nominating ultra-extreme MAGA loons? They just might be! This week on The Downballot, Daily Kos Elections contributing editor Steve Singiser joins us to gawk at a bunch of GOP primaries across the nation where hardcore Trump worshippers with blemished resumes and disturbing views could prevail over more mainstream alternatives. On the docket are Pennsylvania's marquee contests for Senate and governor, House races in Michigan and North Carolina, and the secretary of state's race in Colorado—where a prominent Big Lie proponent was just barred by a judge from performing her duties as a local election clerk. 

Co-hosts David Nir and David Beard also review Tuesday's primaries, including the first incumbent-vs.-incumbent contest of the year in West Virginia; highlight a brand-new court ruling striking down a key component of Ron DeSantis' congressional gerrymander for undermining Black voters, and recap major elections in Northern Ireland and the Philippines.

David Beard:

Hello and welcome. I'm David Beard, contributing editor for Daily Kos Elections.

David Nir:

And I'm David Nir, political director of Daily Kos. The Downballot is a weekly podcast dedicated to the thousands of elections that take place below the presidency, from Senate to City Council. Thanks to your listenership, The Downballot has been growing leaps and bounds. You would be doing us a huge favor if you would rate us on Apple Podcasts. Just go to the Apple Podcasts app on your mobile device or desktop, type in The Downballot, and give us a five-star rating. And if you have a moment, please leave us a review.

David Beard:

We're into primary season. So what is on the docket for this week?

David Nir:

We are going to discuss some interesting results that came out of West Virginia and Nebraska, the two states that held primaries this week. There was also a favorable redistricting ruling for Democrats, believe it or not, in Florida. We have a couple of foreign elections on the docket on opposite ends of the world in Northern Ireland and the Philippines. And then we will be talking with longtime Daily Kos Elections contributing editor Steve Singiser about GOP primaries, where Republicans are at risk of nominating ultra-MAGA, crazy candidates who stand a chance of jeopardizing their chances in the general election.

David Beard:

Okay, well, let's dive in.

David Beard:

This week was a relatively quiet primary week for May, but we still had a couple of races that were competitive and we wanted to talk about. Nir, why don't you get us started in West Virginia?

David Nir:

You bet. So West Virginia was one of just three states in the entire country that lost population between 2010 and 2020. In fact, it lost the most of any state, 3% of its population. And as a result, the state lost a seat in reapportionment. It had three seats in the House and it had to go down to two and with three Republican members of Congress representing the state in the House, that meant almost certainly that we were going to wind up with our first incumbent versus incumbent matchup of the cycle. And this happens every redistricting year. The way things played out is that David McKinley and Alex Mooney, who represent the northern part of the state and the eastern part of the state, were thrown into one district together.

David Nir:

Mooney won pretty much in a landslide, 54-36. He'll go on to easily win reelection. This is a super red seat in November, and McKinley's congressional career, which has lasted a decade, is now over. But what brought us to Tuesday night was really a pretty fascinating contest. McKinley is a classic West Virginia politician. His family had been in the state for seven generations and he in fact had a big geographic advantage coming into the race because he represented two-thirds of the new district while Mooney only represented one-third of the new district. The rest of Mooney's seat wound up in west Virginia's other House seat where Congresswoman Carol Miller was easily securing renomination on Tuesday night. Mooney, by contrast, cut such a different profile from McKinley. He was a former state senator in Maryland. That's not West Virginia. And in fact, he even tried to run for Congress once in Maryland, but wasn't allowed on the ballot.

David Nir:

And so finally he decided in 2014 to hop across the state line and run for an open House seat in West Virginia, and he managed to win despite having really no ties to the state. In fact, once upon a time, he even ran for the state House in New Hampshire, I think when he was back in college. So really it would be hard to find someone with even weaker ties to West Virginia than Mooney. And to add to things, he was under investigation by congressional investigators for allegedly misusing both campaign funds and taxpayer funds to benefit himself. So this ordinarily would not seem like the kind of resume you'd want to pit against McKinley's, but we're operating in a totally different world these days. McKinley's biggest sin was probably voting for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which only a handful of Republicans wound up supporting. He also voted in favor of creating the January 6th Commission and Mooney ran a pure MAGA campaign and he won Trump's endorsement. McKinley had, believe it or not, the endorsement of Joe Manchin, who is quite popular these days with Republicans in West Virginia for obstructing most of the Democratic agenda in D.C. McKinley also had the support of Governor Jim Justice, a former Democrat turned Republican, who is in fact also a Trump favorite. And it just wasn't enough.

David Nir:

Really not all that long ago, someone like McKinley would really have been favored. We're talking about a seventh-generation West Virginian who excelled at bringing home the bacon against a Marylander who is under investigation. But while Trump has faced a number of setbacks in various primaries that he's gotten involved in, this really still is his Republican party. Mooney's big win shows exactly where the GOP electorate is. And in fact, maybe the most telling statistic comes from Bloomberg's Greg Giroux, who calculated that Mooney won his portion of the district, in other words, the one-third that he already represented, by an enormous 71-22 margin, and that's really not a surprise. But he also won the two-thirds of the district that McKinley had represented for a decade by a 46-42 margin. So even local ties and long familiarity with his constituents were simply not enough to overcome the MAGA-fication of West Virginia, its GOP, and really the GOP in general.

David Nir:

So like I said, McKinley now calls it a career and Mooney will go on almost certainly to another term in Congress.

David Beard:

And potentially a challenge to Joe Manchin in 2024 as has been rumored, and may have been one of the reasons that Manchin went against him and tried to see McKinley win this primary.

David Nir:

Definitely very possible. Obviously we will be keeping a close eye on that one. And also I should note, there are a bunch of other incumbent versus incumbent primaries coming up this year. They tend to be some of the most compelling races and we will definitely be keeping tabs on them and reporting back to you after each of those primaries.

David Beard:

So I'm going to take us to Nebraska, the other state that held a primary this week, where there was a Trump-endorsed candidate in the governor's race who didn't win, but it wasn't really evidence of Trump's weakness in that race, but some really extenuating circumstances around this candidate. University of Nebraska Regent Jim Pillen is the candidate who won the primary in a close race, 33-30 over Trump's pick, which was self-funding businessmen Charles Herbster. Pillen was the favorite of termed-out Governor Pete Ricketts, and there was a lot of money spent on Pillen's behalf. Herbster, of course, being self-funding had also had a ton of money spent. And then there was a third place candidate, Brett Lindstrom, who took 26%.

David Beard:

So Herbster, who was Trump's candidate, attended the January 6th Trump rally. And he actually led the race for a lot of March. Ricketts was running ads attacking Herbster as a Missouri millionaire and also airing ads that Lindstrom, that third candidate, was insufficiently conservative. But the race took a dark turn in April when eight women, including Republican State Senator Julie Slama, accused Herbster of sexual assault. And Herbster responded by running a TV ad pretty much directly attacking Slama and claiming her allegations were part of a scheme by Pillen and Ricketts to stop him from winning the primary. Trump of course, given his history, stood by Herbster, saying he's the most innocent human being in that typical Trump speak, but fortunately, enough Republican voters followed Ricketts' lead and voted for Pillen to barely keep Herbster out of winning the primary and probably the governor's office, because given how blood-red Nebraska is, I would not have been this surprised to see Herbster win the general election if he had been able to win this primary.

David Beard:

But Pillen is going to go on advance to the general. He faces Democratic state Senator Carol Blood in the general election, but he is the strong, strong favorite to win that race this fall.

David Nir:

And I would just add, we saw something happen like this in the Ohio Senate GOP primary last week. Just because a candidate might only win, say a third of the vote as Trump's pick, it doesn't mean that the rest of the primary electorate is anti-Trump. If anything, to the contrary. Lindstrom definitely was someone who deviated from conservative orthodoxies, but Pillen was not. And so you really have a Republican primary electorate that regardless of who actually wins is still heavily pro-Trump.

David Beard:

And you see in both of these states, there is a candidate Lindstrom here, Dolan in Ohio, who was the one who was the least Trumpy, who wasn't really going in the Trump direction—not that he was actively going against Trump, but was not a Trumpy candidate. And they both won somewhere in the twenties. They both did very well in the urban areas and really, really awful in most of the rest of the state. So I think that's a pattern I wouldn't be surprised to see continue. And the other part is really just depending on how many Trumpist candidates there are outside of that, which really is determining these things.

David Beard:

One race I did want to just briefly touch on, Nebraska's Second, where incumbent Republican Representative Don Bacon easily advanced to the general. The Democratic primary had State Senator Tony Vargas advance over mental health counselor Alicia Shelton, 69-31. So that's going to be a competitive race in November and one that Democrats are going to be looking to pick up since Biden won the seat 52-46 in 2020.

David Nir:

There was even a thought that Don Bacon could be in a little bit of trouble. Trump at a rally for Charles Herbster not long ago said that, he asked the audience to vote for quote, Steve, whoever the hell you are, but Bacon wound up winning 77-23. So Steve is still whoever the hell you are.

David Beard:

The best thing Republicans have going for them is when Trump doesn't even know their opponent's name. So it's hard to then advocate for voting for them if he doesn't know their name.

David Nir:

So we are going to do a little bit of a redistricting roundup because on Wednesday, Democrats got some excellent news in Florida where a state court judge struck down the GOP's new map. You might recall we talked about this on a recent episode of The Downballot. The most salient feature of this map, which was demanded by Ron DeSantis and passed by a totally supine GOP-run legislature, was to dismantle Florida's Fifth Congressional District. This is a safely blue, plurality-Black district that the State Supreme Court had blessed in a previous round of litigation several years ago. It runs from Jacksonville to Tallahassee and it has a Black plurality and is represented by a Black Democrat.

David Nir:

It has a Black plurality, and is represented by a Black Democrat who is, in legal parlance, the preferred candidate of the voters in this district. The problem for DeSantis is that Florida's Constitution forbids undermining or rolling back the voting power of minorities in the state. And this map clearly did that, there was no question.

David Nir:

In fact, DeSantis was open about his intentions. So the real question here was what the courts were going to do about this? Interestingly, the judge who said this district was unconstitutional, violated the state constitution, was a DeSantis appointee, and he imposed a remedial map that essentially restores the previous east-west Jacksonville to Tallahassee district that Democrat Al Lawson has represented for years.

David Nir:

We know that this is going to be appealed, and the Florida Supreme Court has gotten much more conservative over the years, thanks to appointments by DeSantis and his predecessor, Rick Scott. But the law is really quite clear, this anti-retrogression, to use the legal term, amendment.

David Nir:

So the Florida Supreme Court may well uphold this ruling. Certainly, Democrats have their fingers crossed that they will. And I should also add that a challenge is ongoing to other parts of the map, alleging that they are partisan gerrymanders, which are also outlawed by the Florida Constitution. Those challenges likely aren't going to be adjudicated this year.

David Nir:

There's also a chance that the appellate courts don't even rule on the substance of this decision striking down Florida's Fifth District. And instead, they say, "Oh, it's just too close to the primary, which is not until the end of August."

David Nir:

That would really be BS, but of course, we've seen many courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, pull that kind of ruling this year. So we will keep our fingers crossed that this ruling gets upheld on appeal, because it's not only good news for Democrats, but also, it is good news for the cause of Black representation in the state of Florida.

David Beard:

I'll just add that New York still doesn't have a map. We're still waiting on the special master on that front, and their election got moved to a similar time period as Florida's. So clearly, there's plenty of time for this new district to be implemented.

David Beard:

That is fair rather than saying that, "Oh, it's too late," but of course, expecting judicial consistency between New York and Florida? We'll see.

David Nir:

Yeah. In fact, New York's primary for congressional races, lets move to the exact same date, August 23rd, and we still don't have a map here in New York. So who knows?

David Beard:

Yeah. Anyway, I'm going to wrap up our weekly hits with a couple of international elections that took place in the past week. First, we're going to go over to Northern Ireland, which held their Assembly elections, as part of a broader U.K. local and regional elections that took place.

David Beard:

Just briefly, Northern Ireland is divided politically between predominantly Catholic nationalists, who want to leave the U.K. and unite with the rest of Ireland, and predominantly Protestant Unionists, who want to remain in the U.K. So Sinn Fein, the leading nationalist party, won the most seats for the first time under the current system.

David Beard:

But that was mostly as a result of the fragmentation of Unionist votes, rather than some sort of surge and support for Sinn Fein, or nationalism in general. They won the same number of seats, 27, as they did in 2017. And they were up one percentage point in the overall vote.

David Beard:

Meanwhile, the Democratic Unionist Party, who is the leading Unionist party, they lost nearly seven percentage points, and three seats, to fall from first place to second place. And that's important, because the first-place party gets to have the First Minister and the second place party of a different grouping, in this case, unionist versus nationalist, gets the Deputy First Minister position.

David Beard:

Now, of course, they have exactly equal responsibilities, but symbolically, of course, everyone cares about who gets to be First Minister, and who gets to be Deputy First Minister. The big winners were actually the non-aligned Alliance Party, which took third place, up 4.5 percentage points, and up nine seats, to go from eight seats to 17.

David Beard:

The Traditional Unionist Voice, which is sort of the hard-right Unionists, they gained five percentage points, largely from the DUP. They got up to 7.6%, but they only won one seat, because they weren't able to break through in Northern Ireland's election system.

David Beard:

In theory, there should be a government formed with Sinn Fein having the First Minister spot, and the DUP being the Deputy First Minister. But the DUP has said that they'll refuse to form this executive, until the Northern Ireland Protocol, which is the post-Brexit trading arrangements for Northern Ireland, is changed.

David Beard:

Because Brexit resulted in a lot of border checks between Northern Ireland and the U.K., because of a lot of complicated customs issues. The Unionists really hate it, because they feel it's separating them from the rest of the U.K.

David Beard:

So they're trying to get that change, and they've decided they're not going to allow the executive to form, which it can't without them, until this has changed through negotiations between the U.K. and the European Union.

David Beard:

Now, I'm going to take us all the way across the world to the Philippines, which had their presidential election. The presidency is for a six-year term in the Philippines. You can't run for re-election, and there's no runoff.

David Beard:

So just the candidate who gets the highest number of vote wins, which in the past has resulted in candidates with just a plurality winning, and not a majority. But in this case, wasn't an issue.

David Beard:

Ferdinand Marcos Jr., whose nickname is "Bongbong," easily won the race, defeating sitting Vice President Leni Robredo. He won with about 60% of the vote, so an easy majority.

David Beard:

Marcos is the son of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled the Philippines under mostly martial law, from 1972 until 1986, when he was overthrown by the People Power revolution, and fled the country. Now, Marcos Jr. also fled the country then, but he was allowed to return in 1989 after the death of his father, and has since been very involved in politics, serving as a congressman, senator, and in government in different times.

David Beard:

Now, the entire Marcos family was very involved in a ton of corruption, and was investigated, and there were a lot of legal issues. Marcos Jr. never went to jail, and never had to stop being involved in politics any in any way.

David Beard:

He actually ran for vice president six years ago, and narrowly lost to Robredo, but this year he had the support of outgoing president Rodrigo Duterte, and was allied with Duterte's daughter who was running for vice president.

David Beard:

She also easily won that race, and so they'll be moving into the presidency and vice presidency together. She is now obviously the favorite for this sort of family dynastic politics that's going on between these two families, to likely run for president six years from now.

David Beard:

As I said, there's a ton of corruption issues around Marcos, but it's possible that he may be slightly more moderate, actually, than outgoing president Duterte, just because Duterte was such an extreme right-winger. He advocated extrajudicial killings for drug traffickers. He has been very much on the far right.

David Beard:

So Marcos, as a more establishment figure, in some ways, may be a slightly more moderating force than Duterte was. That's not to take away from the corruption, or from the fact that he's never repudiated any of the killings and oppressions that went on during his father's reign, and is just, either not repudiated them, or just ignored the questions, refused to engage with them. So this is in no way a good thing, but he is a slightly different figure than Duterte is.

David Nir:

Well, that does it for our weekly hits. Up next, we are going to be talking with longtime Daily Kos Elections contributing editor Steve Singiser about MAGA candidates who may cost the GOP winnable elections, if they win their primaries over slightly more acceptable alternatives. Stay with us, after the break.

David Nir:

We are now joined by Daily Kos Elections contributing editor Steve Singiser, who has been with the site for many, many years. We are going to dive into the fun, crazy, and messy world of Republican primaries, particularly those that could jeopardize GOP chances this year, if Republicans wind up nominating their most MAGA-fied extremists.

David Nir:

And Steve, I want to start off with a race where some just totally wild and crazy news broke on the very day we were recording this episode on Wednesday, and it's a contest that definitely hasn't gotten as much attention as it should, because this kind of race never gets the sort of attention that it should.

David Nir:

But that's what we live to do here at Daily Kos Elections. And that is the Colorado Secretary of State race. So tell us what just went down there.

Steve Singiser:

Well, a judge has barred the Clerk of Mesa County, Tina Peters, who also happens to be a candidate for the statewide Secretary of State position, from adjudicating the Mesa County elections, which is, given the name, normally in her job description. But because she has committed so many acts of awfulness, for which she's under investigation, up to and including letting a complete stranger into their most sensitive hardware, because she is an avowed MAGA conspiracy theorist that the judge has now barred her from adjudicating elections, and has actually put it in the hands of someone appointed by the Secretary of State, who is a Democrat.

Steve Singiser:

Just one of many cases where it seems like the minimum criteria for being a Republican candidate for Secretary of State is a deep-seated affection for the Big Lie, and affinity for Donald Trump. And in this case, the odd thing is, as we saw this week in Nebraska, being deeply indebted to the Big Lie is not a barrier to getting nominated, it might be an advantage.

Steve Singiser:

The only thing that saved the incumbent there, who was someone who fought back against the Big Lie, was the fact that there were two pro-MAGA candidates who split the vote. He only got 44%.

Steve Singiser:

In Colorado, Ms. Peters, probably this charge against her, even though it costs her the basic job description that she has, will probably be an asset to her in her primary. Because as we know, Republican voters are very fond of the Big Lie.

Steve Singiser:

It's just a question of whether they can get the rest of the voters to follow suit. And in a state like Colorado, that's not exactly a high percentage play.

David Nir:

There was something pretty amusing, as well. Because Peters is under indictment, she recently wanted to travel to Mar-a-Lago, so that she could kneel at Trump's altar.

David Nir:

She had to get permission from the prosecutors in order to leave the state, which they actually granted to her. And she could very well wind up with Trump's formal seal of approval.

Steve Singiser:

The way that guy operates, I mean, it's a pretty upper percentage chance there, isn't it? Because she has paid her homage to him, both in person and indeed by, it's a whole different animal, if you'll allow, when somebody whose job it is to adjudicate elections is the one who is saying the elections are rigged.

Steve Singiser:

It's one thing for a whacked-out Marjorie Taylor Greene or Madison Cawthorn type, who's running for Congress, and wants to use it to electoral advantage to say. But when you're someone whose job it is to adjudicate elections? Boy, that, just to me, is just a little bit of a bridge too far ...

David Beard:

And while not a lawyer, I've obviously followed enough of these things to know judges do not like to tell elected officials that they can't do their jobs. That is an extreme measure. So the degree to which this judge had to be like, "No, there's no other choice. I literally cannot let you run an election," just goes to show how far outside normal sanity there is to have come to get to this point.

Steve Singiser:

Yeah. I mean, it's unreal that that is ... Like I said, that's pretty much her job description and they're like, "We can't quite trust you to do your job." And now she wants to do that same job not just in Mesa county in Western Colorado, but she wants to do it on the stage of the entire state of Colorado. It seems to be a pretty risky proposition.

David Nir:

And I should also add that in 2018, this was a big pickup when Democrats won the Colorado Secretary of State's office. Jena Griswold won that post in that year and she is going to be facing potentially a competitive reelection battle, even if the GOP winds up nominating someone crazy like Tina Peters.

David Beard:

Moving on to what might be MAGA central, at least in terms of top tier statewide races, is Pennsylvania, which has some very messy primaries for both governor and Senate on the Republican side. Let's start with the leader in the governor's Republican primary, which is Doug Mastriano. Tell us about him, Steve.

Steve Singiser:

Mastriano is an interesting case. For one thing, he describes himself as a Christian nationalist. He was present at January 6th at the Capitol. He is filmed actually going through breached barricades. I was laughing about this earlier today thinking about next week's primaries and when Lou Barletta is your moderate alternative in a race, how screwed are you officially? But with Mastriano in the race, that's actually accurate. He also is a guy who has spoken before QAnon conferences, conferences that have cast doubt on the September 11th attacks. I believe the conference's name was Patriots Arise for God and Country which is ... yeah.

Steve Singiser:

And so, here's a guy who is quite open about it. I think was also instrumental in trying to get the results reversed in 2020 in Pennsylvania from his perch in the state Senate. He represents sort of south central Pennsylvania, very rural, very MAGA territory. He is absolutely a guy that is so unelectable on any number of levels that Josh Shapiro has decided to go the Claire McCaskill route. Josh Shapiro, for those who do not know, is the likely Democratic nominee for governor, and the attorney general in the state of Pennsylvania. He's gone the McCaskill route and has actually run ads designed to kind of help Mastriano out, which is very similar to McCaskill in 2012 trying to boost Todd Akin knowing he was the least electable of the field.

Steve Singiser:

The situation in Pennsylvania's gotten so desperate that Jake Corman, who was sort of a mainstream garden variety member of the legislature there, who had been running kind of a quixotic campaign for governor that was going nowhere, is going to announce an endorsement of Lou Barletta. Which again, like I said, when Barletta is your moderate alternative, you don't have a moderate alternative.

Steve Singiser:

And the only guy that's got to be happy about this Republican field at this point's got to be Shapiro because it's a God-awful mess. And again, here's a guy who probably... Let's face it. And this is not a disrespect to legislators everywhere who many of whom work very hard, but garden-variety state senators, especially in a state like Pennsylvania where there's 50 of them and 203 House members, state legislators generally don't get a national profile and this guy has, and for one reason and one reason alone, and that is an almost sycophantic fealty to Donald Trump. And it'll probably propel him to the Republican nomination, but can it propel him to governor? That's another story altogether.

David Nir:

So Steve, you mentioned Lou Barletta. Tell us a little bit about him and why he's such a shock choice as the "moderate savior."

Steve Singiser:

Well, he was a former congressman from Northeastern Pennsylvania. And he came to public attention even before he was in the Senate as the mayor of Hazleton, which is in Northeastern Pennsylvania. And he was an absolutely vocal, to the point of being quite gross about it, anti-immigration crusader before Build the Wall was cool, but also from an electoral standpoint, he has had a tour on the big stage. He was the Republican Party Senate nominee in 2018 and got positively smashed by double digits. And so, again, if you're Shapiro, it's like on one end I got this state legislator who's best known for being in the Capitol on January 6th. And then over here, I got a guy who's already run statewide and lost by 15 points, but Barletta ran in 2018 as a staunch conservative, and really ran hand-in-glove sort of with Trump. A lot of good that did him here because Mastriano is getting that MAGA attention even though Trump has stayed out of the race, not unlike the Senate race, which I know we're going to get to in a minute, but in the governor's race, Mastriano is just seen as his guy because I mean the guy literally was there on January 6th. Can't say that, can you, Lou Barletta?

David Beard:

You got to take that extra step. You got to go to Mar-a-Lago. You got to be there on January 6th. That's what it's really about. Not any political position.

David Nir:

That really is exactly right. And there has been reporting in recent days that Republicans are doing their usual thing that they are fretting about Mastriano actually winning the nomination and worried about how that might set them back in the governor's race and perhaps even put it out of reach, but amazingly in really just the last few days, the Mastriano fretting has been going on, I think, for a few weeks. But in just the last few days, those worries have spilled over into Pennsylvania's other race. And of course, I'm talking about the Senate contest. So, what the hell is going on in that front?

Steve Singiser:

Well, it's one of those races where pretty much every big-money and somewhat-awful component of the Republican machine has their own candidate. All of a sudden you've got the Club for Growth getting behind Kathy Barnette, who was last seen getting ... again, I hate to use the same verb here, but smashed in Pennsylvania's Fourth District a couple years ago. And of course you have good old Dr. Oz, who was at a rally with Donald Trump just last week. And it's kind of in the same sense that we saw earlier in the week in Nebraska in the governor's race. It is a legit three-way race; you also have Rich McCormick. And again, if Barnette who couldn't even carry a House race gets the nomination ... or Oz who has a million problems, not the least of which is it's pretty well universally known dude does not live in Pennsylvania.

Steve Singiser:

Then again you have this downstream effect that I know you were talking about and you're right. Here's another factor that a lot of people aren't considering in Pennsylvania. The redistricting there is a rare state that went really well for Democrats to the point that both houses of the state legislature are nominally competitive. It seems more likely than not that Democrats could pick up seats in both just by the way that the seats were reconfigured, particularly, in the state House.

Steve Singiser:

Now, they have a higher climb in the state House, granted, but they already picked up two seats just by dint of the way the districts were redrawn pretty much. And those are both now like Biden plus 25 seats, or something that. So the point is if the head of their ticket is Mastriano and Barnette, my goodness, that could be a real anchor on them come November in this legislative race that could be very close. Anything could happen between now and November, of course, but they could wind up losing everything.

David Nir:

So, why does Barnette have Republicans so freaked out?

David Beard:

So it's actually really interesting. I've been thinking about this a lot because Dr. Oz is the endorsed Trump candidate. Trump endorsed Dr. Oz. There's a whole to-do about it. So you would think similar as we've seen in other places, that the MAGA support would go to Dr. Oz in line with Trump. But in this case, Barnette is really the ultra MAGA candidate almost sort of separate and beyond Trump, not to say obviously that she's not a big Trumpist in terms of who she supports and the way that she would act and govern, God forbid. But in the fact that she is almost sort of beyond sort of Trumpism into whatever the next stage of MAGA activism is. And so, those folks are drawn to her even though Dr. Oz is the one with the endorsements. So making it this very messy race where there's also, of course, as Steve mentioned, McCormick, who's just super rich guy who's sort of playing ... It seems a little bit like he's playing at Trumpism just because he wants to win. Not to say he is not very conservative, but it's the weird ways in which MAGA is beyond Trump in some ways. Not that he isn't, obviously, a major figure.

David Beard:

And the other factor is that Mastriano going back to the governor's race and Barnette have cross-endorsed each other so that they're pushing each other in these races and sort of building their support among the MAGA segment of the primary electorate to have them both win and move on to the general election, which would just create some really strange results in Pennsylvania looking towards November.

David Nir:

So, the Pennsylvania primaries are coming up very soon on May 17. That is this coming Tuesday. And also on the same day, another big swing state is going to be hosting its primaries and that's North Carolina. And there's one district I know, Steve, that you had some thoughts about in particular where Republicans could really be screwing themselves over if they nominate the wrong person. And that is North Carolina's 13th District. So, why don't you give us a little background on the district and the candidates there?

Steve Singiser:

Well, the North Carolina 13th is part of that big redraw in North Carolina and it has become a Biden-plus two district. So it's one of the classic swing districts come November. They have a well-funded, what we kind of call before-2020, traditional Republican in the form of Kelly Daughtry. She's a businesswoman, lawyer. Has raised something like $2 million. Some of it's self-funded. You go to look at her campaign website and it talks about fighting Bidenomics, which is the first time I've heard that particular phrase used, but also just your good traditional boiler plate that’s been Republican mantra for time immemorial. But her main opponent for that gig is a Trump-endorsed 26-year-old who managed just to look half that age who used to play football in North Carolina state named Bo Hines.

Steve Singiser:

If you go to Hines's website by contrast to Daughtry's, you don't even see a picture on the main screen. You got to scroll a little bit before you see a picture of the candidate. What you see first in very large is a picture of Donald Trump, and the fact that Donald Trump has endorsed Hines. He's been pretty thin on issues. His website says he's 100% pro-gun, pro freedom of speech, and pro-Trump, but he doesn't really say anything much more than that, and he's been criticized in some corners as being a bit thin on the issues, but what he's counting on quite clearly is that having Donald Trump's face front and center in his campaign will be the ticket to a primary win and in a multi-candidate field, it may well be. The threshold to get through the runoff in North Carolina is only 30%. So, with those two in the lead position, it's very likely that one of the two of them will win. So if Hines wins it, all of a sudden you have a very conservative, very closely tied-to-Trump candidate in a district that is ostensibly a 50-50 district.

David Beard:

And Hines, of course, is classically the candidate who went district shopping. As the maps changed, he started off running for Congress in more western districts, closer to Charlotte, and then eventually had to find a district, as he was continuing to run despite the districts changing, and found himself in this southern Raleigh district where he has no connections and just ended up running there because that was the open seat. But he still had Trump's endorsement in his back pocket, so that's what's pushing him along here.

David Nir:

Have Trump endorsement, will travel, I guess. Steve, who are the Democrats running here?

Steve Singiser:

So the danger for the Republicans is if Hines wins this seat as an ill-experienced, very MAGA-oriented candidate in a district that Biden actually got 50% of the vote in, the Democrats have a contested primary with legitimate candidates. State legislators and people who are reasonably well-funded will be at the fore ready to take advantage of the fact that they have this guy whose only real nominal reason for running was his closeness to Trump in a district that Trump didn't do all that well in.

David Beard:

So there's a race where this is even more clear-cut up in Michigan, where Trump is supporting a primary challenger to an incumbent Republican because, of course, it was one of the Republicans who voted to impeach him. So what's going on up in Michigan there?

Steve Singiser:

So in Michigan's third district, we have Peter Meijer. Meijer very notably voted for the impeachment of Donald Trump, had fashioned himself as something of a centrist Republican, and that would probably be a necessity in a district like his that in redistricting changed to be a fairly pro-Biden district. It was a 53-45 Biden district.

Steve Singiser:

Well, along comes Donald Trump, not happy about the fact that Peter Meijer went against him and probably not at this point happy about the fact that Peter Meijer exists, so he puts his weight behind one of his former administration officials, a guy by the name of John Gibbs. And that's one of his endorsees.

Steve Singiser:

Now the problem there for the Republicans is that's an even more Democratic district than the North Carolina district we were just referencing and, in fact, more Democratic than the state of Pennsylvania statewide. So if Gibbs replaces Meijer, who I think in part won that district because he was viewed as somebody who was not overly ideological and then went to prove his bona fides in that regard by one of his earliest votes being a vote to impeach Donald Trump... if that's the case, can John Gibbs run the same percentages in a district where Donald Trump only got 45% of the vote? It seems unlikely.

Steve Singiser:

So there is another seat that Republicans, in a normal year, could probably count on that if they lose this primary, they're going to have to sweat a little bit. And they're probably going to have to throw some money Gibbs' way because that's a district you've got to think the Democrats will gun for pretty hard.

David Nir:

And speaking of Democrats, their candidate from 2020 is running again, Hilary Scholten. She is certainly well-funded. And in a lot of these races, perhaps the difference between a Peter Meijer and a John Gibbs might only make a difference of one or two or three percentage points, but in a close contest, which we have so many of, that could really be all the difference in the world.

David Beard:

And particularly in this district, we've talked a lot about how this has the potential to be a very good Republican year, which hopefully obviously won't be, but we know that's something that's very possible. In a Biden-plus-eight district, that could still be a district that Republicans lose even in a good year because it has moved to the left thanks to the un-gerrymandering of Michigan. But Peter Meijer is the type of candidate who could hold a D+8 seat in a good Republican year. That combination is what you'd need to get a seat that Democratic, but John Gibbs is not that candidate. So this is really a race where it's most clearly where you're really, from the Republican point of view, potentially just throwing away a seat, just because Trump doesn't want anybody who opposes him around. He would be happy to throw away the seat to get rid of Meijer.

David Nir:

So another state that has had some extremely close elections recently that we really ought to talk about is Arizona. And there we have an open governor's race because the current incumbent, Doug Ducey, who Trump hates, is term limited. And Republicans once again have a multi-way primary to try to succeed Ducey, and one candidate in particular really stands out as a big time MAGA problem.

Steve Singiser:

Yeah, that would be Kari Lake. Kari Lake has been in Arizona news for a long time. She was an anchor on television news there. She's probably best known in recent vintage for being one of the most vocal Big Lie proponents in a state that literally built an entire investigation around the Big Lie, as we all know. She at one point called for the Democratic Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs, to be imprisoned for election crimes that were never quite specified, which would be something that could yield some fruit, given that the likely Democratic nominee, although the primaries are still into the future, is that same Katie Hobbs. Again, here is a candidate who's in the frontier in every poll whose only real merit in terms of political experience or resume is their closeness to Trump and their endorsement by Trump.

David Nir:

And I think, Beard, you made a really excellent point that Donald Trump absolutely doesn't care about electability. He thinks that any candidate he endorses in a primary is obviously going to win the general election. His understanding of electoral politics is, shall we say, extremely shallow. But as we so often caution, just because Republicans nominate a total whack job doesn't mean they can't win, and Donald Trump is the best example of that.

David Nir:

So we don't want to be smug about any of these races. We certainly can't sit back and say, "Oh, well, if the GOP nominates Doug Mastriano in the Pennsylvania governor's race, then Josh Shapiro will win in a walk." That absolutely isn't going happen. And Steve, earlier you mentioned the example of Claire McCaskill ratfucking the GOP primary in 2012 in Missouri to promote Todd Akin. Well, there still is a lot of work left to ruin Akin, though Akin did a huge job ruining himself with his “legitimate rape” remarks.

David Nir:

So none of these races will be over and done just because Republicans nominate their worst possible candidate on primary day. But the other point I'd like to make is we couldn't do a parallel episode like this with the Democratic Party. We just couldn't, and that's not because we're partisan hacks or because we think the Democratic Party is flawless. Far from it. You've heard us criticize Democrats plenty of times on this show. But for the most part, not even for the most part, really almost overall, there really just aren't any primaries out there where Democrats are at risk of nominating someone so far to the left that they put a race in jeopardy.

David Nir:

And in the few occasions where this kind of thing has happened, those candidates have tended to get crushed in the primaries. I remember Alan Grayson, the unhinged congressman from Florida who ran for Senate several years ago, he got smooshed, to use Steve's favorite word, in the Senate primary. So really it's just, to me, a remarkable lack of symmetry between the two parties. And this lack of symmetry, I think, is something that is poorly understood by the traditional media in particular that always wants to both-sides everything and assumes that because there are crazy Republicans, there's a commensurate number of crazy Democrats. And that just is not the case.

Steve Singiser:

Oh, I agree 100%. And what's more, to go to your first point, I want to reiterate, I agree with you completely that at the end of the day, what these possibilities of primaries putting the most MAGA-friendly candidate to the fore, in some cases that just means seats that probably the Democrats would have conceded as defeats they may take a second look at, Michigan’s 3rd being an example of that.

Steve Singiser:

I don't think they were ever going to concede the Pennsylvania or Arizona statewides, but every little bit helps. And where it also helps potentially is those very thin margins in those legislative races. If there is a legislative chamber besides Pennsylvania that the Democrats would love to get ahold of, it's Arizona, where the margins are also extremely close. So there's more than just the benefit of that individual race.

Steve Singiser:

But to your second point, my goodness, you could look across the board, and there are very few examples, even in the last 10 years, of Democrats basically disqualifying themselves from a major race because they nominated somebody that was wholly unelectable. Grayson put as much money and effort as he could into that race against Patrick Murphy a few years back, and it came all for naught. And you see examples of that over and over and over again.

Steve Singiser:

And so at the end of the day, you see examples, we've gone through half a dozen or more just this cycle, of Republicans having to beat back what would be viewed as extremist challenges and clearly trying to, in some cases, Mastriano being perhaps the most clear example in this campaign cycle, but you just don't see those on the Democratic side. And I think that's notable in the age of Trump, because as we've all mentioned over the course of the past few minutes, it seems now the biggest litmus test in the Republican party is no longer ideological. It's personal. It's do you stand with Trump? And there's just nothing like that on the Democratic side. Fealty to Joe Biden is not considered a requirement to be a Democratic office holder.

David Beard:

Well, it's almost a negative.

Steve Singiser:

Nor does he demand it, to his credit.

David Nir:

We have been talking Republican primaries, MAGA candidates who might harm GOP chances in November with longtime Daily Kos Elections contributing editor, Steve Singiser. Steve, thank you so much for joining us.

Steve Singiser:

It's been a pleasure. Thank you both.

David Beard:

That's all from us this week. Thanks to Steve Singiser for joining us. The Downballot comes out every Thursday everywhere you listen to podcasts. You can reach us by email at thedownballotat@dailykos.com. And if you haven't already, please like and subscribe to The Downballot and leave us a five-star rating and review. Thanks to our producer, Cara Zelaya, and editor, Tim Einenkel. We'll be back next week with a new episode.