If Republican panic about ‘Hunter Biden’ is any clue, a new Trump indictment is about to drop

A rough measure of how close House and Senate Republicans believe Donald Trump is to new criminal charges can be summed up by two words: Hunter Biden. The volume of Republican screeching about "Hunter Biden" seems to reach its peak in the days just before each new Trump indictment. If past is prologue, then House Republicans are currently expecting Trump to be indicted in Georgia for everything from a conspiracy to corruptly overturn the results of an election to a conspiracy to block every McDonald's toilet from Rome to Augusta.

House Republicans are currently freaking the entire hell out, seemingly inventing new Biden conspiracy theories by the hour after the latest of their supposed star witnesses–the one who was to accuse President Joe Biden of a great many things and seize all the news cycles from now until 2025–delivered a big fat zero. Rep. Greg Steube is the latest to go Full Freakout, and it's ... honestly, it's more pathetic than anything else. In a hilariously overhyped Newsmax "exclusive," the Florida congresscritter says he's going to file a new resolution calling for Biden's impeachment for "bribery, for extortion, obstruction of justice, fraud, financial involvement in drugs and prostitution." That there is no evidence of this is at best a side note. Steube promises he'll provide proof in a press release.

Aaah, this takes me back to the days when all the nice respectable Republican lawmakers and pundits super-duper insisted that Bill and Hillary Clinton were running drugs out of an Arkansas airport, but only in their spare time between murdering half of the people on the American East Coast. It's possible the Queen of England was involved, but it depended on which crackpot you asked. And then the same crowd told us President Barack Obama was a changeling, smuggled into a Hawaiian hospital crib in a worldwide plan to make some random day-old infant the future president. From there we went to, "The Russian government is innocent. Actually the Democratic Party hacked itself and Hillary put the evidence of this in Ukraine, in some dude's house or something." Now we're back to Dark Brandon allegedly doing all the crimes Steube was able to spell correctly without help, because it turns out Biden's lifelong political passion promoting better rail transportation was all a front for whatever the fuck

I'm not sure whether Steube realizes that fellow crackpot Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene already beat him to the "impeach Biden" punch literally months ago and keeps re-announcing it every time someone around her so much as sneezes. Greene is even doing Steube one better by demanding that Congress expunge the two impeachments of Donald Trump so as to cleanse Dear Leader's tainted record.

Speaking of Greene, she's currently escalating her rhetoric as well. She was never terribly coherent to begin with, but at this point she's just a puddle of words rippling softly in response to breezes nobody else feels.

Greene: This comes down to consumers like a single mom who can't afford to buy cereal because the price of grain has gone up so much with this war in Ukraine.. and this is why we have to do everything we can to impeach Joe Biden pic.twitter.com/hnC0kr7xZD

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 11, 2023

All right, so in order to save our Lucky Charms we have to let Russia take over Ukraine so that they'll sell us Ukraine's grain for cheap, and Joe Biden's stopping us from doing that so he's got to go. I think that's the message? Maybe?

There were few people in America who even knew who hell Rep. James Comer was before he too became a Newsmax staple and Republicanism's Replacement Devin Nunes. Now he's just another guy who sees conspiracies everywhere, all the time. That is, unless somebody mentions the names "Donald Trump" or "Jared Kushner" to him, at which point his eyes roll back in his head and he pretends he cannot hear you because he is communicating with the spirits.

Comer: I’d vote for impeachment right now. I don’t have to think twice about that… Our president has taken millions— his family has taken pic.twitter.com/NSmGXkJHEo

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 10, 2023

And then there's this performative confederate dumbass.

There's never been an allegation in the history of our country that a President of the United States, or then Vice President in Joe Biden's alleged case, sold official favors for millions of dollars. pic.twitter.com/6EyS9HgM5T

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 11, 2023

Again, if you're looking for an allegation that a president sold official favors for millions of dollars, you need to go back in history only to the hoary old days of exactly now. There are a great many people, many of them quite a bit smarter than Sen. Ted Cruz, who are alleging that Donald Damn Trump and family were running a get-your-official-favors-here carnival booth during his presidency. They’re saying everything from the bookings at Trump's hotels and resorts to the restructuring of foreign alliances to Jared Kushner's $2 billion pile of new Saudi money is all part and parcel of Trump and his family selling out the nation's broader interests so that Trump could forge better ties to filthy rich authoritarians elsewhere.

Cruz is having his very own little meltdown of evidenceless conspiracy-cranking, but since Cruz is an allegedly dignified senator as opposed to a House of Representatives ratscrabbler, he's got to hope his audience skips the massive pockmarked "if" that he's using to preface his newest Rudy Giuliani-level hoax.

And if Ted Cruz roamed the countryside kidnapping hundreds of children and sold them to an evil factory owner, he should be thrown in prison. https://t.co/MIFnHJafFg

— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) August 11, 2023

I can't imagine being part of the conservative movement. It just seems so tiring. You've got to keep track of Greene's latest broadcasts from inside what appears to be a lightly haunted New England hotel. You've got Cruz telling you that the stuff rattling around in his own head like the ball in a spray paint can is the most outrageous outrage in all of history. Then you've got to stare and nod your head like you know who the f--k Greg Steube is when he starts talking.

What's clear here is that Republicans in the last week have sharply ramped up the urgency with which they are saying Hunter Biden things, and that generally tends to coincide with times in which Trump is believed to be in brand new legal peril—after which Fox News and other conservative circles suggest that whichever new Trump indictment has dropped is only meant to distract from the super-important new not-evidence those Republicans are now announcing they still don't have.

Based on the urgency of these new Biden theories, Republicans appear to believe that Trump is about to be indicted for attempting to sell off American children as his newest self-branded mail order product. You might want to make sure you've got popcorn ready, because it appears something big is about to drop.

Sign the petition: No to shutdowns. No to Biden impeachment. No to Republicans.

Take that, GOP schemes to rig ballot measures! On this week's episode of "The Downballot," co-hosts David Nir and David Beard gleefully dive into the failure of Issue 1, which was designed to thwart a November vote to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. The Davids discuss why Republican efforts to sneak their amendment through during a summertime election were doomed to fail; how many conservative counties swung sharply toward the "no" side; and what the results mean both for Sherrod Brown's reelection hopes and a future measure to institute true redistricting reform.

RELATED STORIES:

‘No need to defend me’: Read Fani Willis’s message to staff ahead of expected Trump attack ads

The New York Times helpfully proves just how far the right has fallen

Trump's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day made worse by goats

Co-conspirator 5’s memos show that Jan. 6 was a planned coup

On the heels of the public exposure of a memo from lawyer Kenneth Chesebro proposing what would become the central strategy of Donald Trump's attempted coup on Jan. 6, 2021, Politico has a new overview of Chesebro's role in the conspiracy that's worth a read.

Chesebro only made it to Co-Conspirator 5 status in Trump's newest federal indictment, overshadowed by figures such as hoax architect Rudy Giuliani and lawyer John Eastman, but in memos it was Chesebro who laid out each of the core elements of the plan for then-Vice President Mike Pence and Congress to simply nullify the election's results come Jan. 6. Eastman appears to have been the one who packaged it all up for sale to Trump and the rest of the White House team.

In the Dec. 6 Chesebro memo revealed Wednesday, he proposes a plan to create fake, uncertified electoral slates in multiple Joe Biden-won states that would then be passed to Pence, who would announce them as the "true" electors using an allegedly unilateral constitutional power that allows the vice president to count up the electoral votes literally however he or she wants. That version of the plan was the one the co-conspirators and conspiring Republican members of the House and Senate worked towards, creating the fake electoral slates. It was Sen. Ron Johnson who appears to have been the volunteer who would smuggle the fake electors to Pence on the day of the vote.

Pence foiled the scheme by refusing to be a part of it even though Trump and Trump's team had pressured him intensely. He was retaliated against on Jan. 6 when Trump singled out Pence as his enemy even as violent pro-Trump insurrectionists hunted for targets in the halls of the Capitol.

But Chesebro had alternative plans as well. All of them hinged on the conservative Supreme Court being sufficiently crooked enough to come up with a legal facade for ignoring the certified electoral slates of multiple states purely on Republican say-so. Or at least for the court to put a pause on the electoral counting that would, in the eyes of the public, help justify other extreme actions to overturn the results.

A week after the Dec. 6 memo proposing the original plan of Pence unilaterally altering the counts himself, Chesebro had already brainstormed a fallback position that would have the same effects.

On Jan. 6, Chesebro said, Pence would announce his recusal from presiding over the joint session of Congress, citing the unconstitutionality of the Electoral Count Act as well as a conflict of interest because of his candidacy for reelection. This, Chesebro contended, would “insulate” Pence from charges of making a self-serving decision and leave the matter ostensibly in the hands of a senior Republican senator. Then, after beginning to count electoral votes from an alphabetical list of states, that senator would refuse to count the votes from Arizona, citing the competing slates of electors. If Arizona wants to be counted, this senator would say, it would either have to “rerun” its election or allow for more judicial review of the outcome.

It's important to acknowledge here that this plan, too, was absolutely batshit crazy. The plans concocted by Trump's alleged "legal" team all hinged on a supposed ability for a vice president or temporary acting Senate president to simply declare that they weren't going to count the votes of states that the Republican candidate didn't win because fuck you, that's why. This was in accordance with the theory that power is unilaterally invested in the vote-counter and there is not a damn thing anyone else in the entire country can do about it.

Campaign Action

This was entirely batshit crazy for a whole host of reasons, and perhaps especially for the complete indifference shown towards what 330 million people might think—or do—when they learned that their entire constitutional democracy was a fiction. Chesebro himself continued to recognize that his plan was so destructive and batshit crazy that the Supreme Court could very well not go along with it. Again, this is a plan that would end with Chesebro and the others facing a firing squad at pretty much any other point of history or in any other country. At some point even the Supreme Court would have to decide whether this was a stunt worthy of forcing the most powerful military on the planet into choosing sides.

But Chesebro still held out hope that the resulting batshit chaos would somehow result in a miracle occurring. Perhaps the election would be thrown out, making House Speaker Nancy Pelosi the acting president. Or perhaps not. Spin the wheel and take your chances, America. The rancid sacks of shit proposing this plan were willing to risk everything for the slightest chance to erase an election.

But another outcome, he said — one that appears even more far-fetched in hindsight — might play out: Trump could quit the race in exchange for a negotiated deal to make Pence president.

“In this situation,” Chesebro wrote, “which would be messy and unpalatable to many … it doesn’t seem fanciful to think Trump and Pence would end up winning the vote after some legislatures appoint electors, or else that there might be a negotiated solution in which the Senate elects Pence vice president and Trump agrees to drop his bid … so that Biden and Harris are defeated, even though Trump isn’t re-elected.”

First off, fuck this dude sincerely for his willingness to throw all of democracy against a wall in the off chance that the debris would make a pretty pattern that he, personally, might like. But the notion that Donald Trump would "quit the race" in a ploy to make Pence president may be more delusional than the plan to assert dictatorial Pence powers. Trump has never done anything in his life unless it would benefit Trump. Just how were Giuliani, Eastman, and the other seditionists going to convince Trump to drop his claims of winning the election so that Pence could sit behind his desk? Were they going to offer him Alaska? Delaware? Agree to convert our newest aircraft carrier to a floating Trump-branded result?

And no matter how many Trump lawsuits fell because each of them were based on craptacular hoaxes that fell apart upon even the most cursory examination—which has landed multiple lawyers in Trump's orbit in deep professional trouble, and that is putting it mildly—Chesebro and Eastman and the others just kept pressing forward. As the House select committee that investigated the coup discovered, Justice Clarence Thomas was widely seen as the coup's most likely Supreme Court ally. As Trump pressured Pence, the coup's architects hunted for cases that might give Thomas the means to at least temporarily block a state's results from being counted.

“Possibly Thomas would end up being the key here — circuit justice, right? We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt,” Chesebro wrote. “Realistically, our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress, is from Thomas — do you agree, Prof. Eastman?”

This was just one week before Jan. 6, after courtrooms across the country had thrown out the team's farcical "evidence" of fraud over and over again, leaving the seditionists with no remaining legal fig leaves that would justify their plan. But when not even Thomas gave them the justification they sought, the plan didn't change.

Trump and his allies even scheduled a "march" on the Capitol to coincide with the counting of electoral votes, another means of potentially delaying the vote or creating enough chaos to justify throwing out or "redoing" the election's results.

The reason Trump stood by as the violent mob attacked police and ransacked the building is self-evident: This was the delay the team had been trying to make happen. Trump and the coup planners indeed used the delay caused by the evacuation of Congress to again work the phones, pressuring individual lawmakers to go along with the plan.

What the Chesebro and Eastman memos have spelled out, much too plainly, is that from at least Dec. 6 the plan was to nullify Trump's presidential election loss through Republican fiat, either through Pence or through other House and Senate accomplices, and the co-conspirators all recognized that a likely result of their plan would be massive public unrest and almost certain violence. And they did not care. At all! The "plan" was for Trump to declare that the Insurrection Act allowed him to put down public protests by military force, and he was to give those orders, and the coup planners were willing to spin the wheel on what would happen after that as well.

There was seemingly no jumping-off point where Trump's team of true believers proved unwilling to risk mass violence, military violence, or a new civil war on the vaporous chance that they could erase a Republican election loss. The memos are banal in tone: Things might get "messy" after their "bold" strategies were employed, but oh-fucking-well, those were simply the risks of overturning a democratic election and installing a Republican winner regardless.

It was seditionist from the start. The plan was never to prove actual fraud in any state, it was to unilaterally declare "fraud" and announce that the results were invalid because Pence said so. The Supreme Court would hopefully declare the moves "nonjusticiable" because it was Congress doing them, after which the only remaining concerns would be enforcing order as the public objected.

These ratbastards and their allied Republicans intended a coup from the beginning. It was a stupid plan, mind you. It was premised on a great deal of wishful thinking, and with never a thought to what would happen if Trump called up the military and some member of the military dropped a missile onto the White House in response, but it was a coup by design.

It's hard to imagine what justice can even be meted out here against a team of conspirators whose communications show complete indifference to the damage caused by their schemes.

Conservatives cried about how the “woke” (whatever that means) “Barbie” movie would fail. It didn’t. In fact, the film has struck a chord with American and international audiences. Daily Kos writer Laura Clawson joins Markos to talk about the film and the implications of the Republican Party’s fixation on mythical culture wars, which is failing them in bigger and bigger ways every day.

RELATED STORIES:

Newly uncovered memo describes Trump coup plan in detail, one month before it was attempted

What was in Trump's Twitter account that Jack Smith wanted to see?

Media pretends planned impeachment of Biden has some basis in facts

Fox News says House GOP says it has proof of Biden corruption

House Republicans remain in a frenzy of insinuations, half-truths, and outright lies about President Joe Biden’s connection to his son Hunter’s business dealings, and Fox News is, as always, there on the spot to promote the claims. This is all part of the Republicans’ push to impeach the president even though they have turned up no evidence that he has engaged in wrongdoing. Impeachment has been the plan all along, and the strategic distraction is doubly urgent now that Donald Trump is facing so many federal criminal charges.

Let’s take a look at how Fox News uses smoke and mirrors to make it sound like the Bidens’ accusers have far more evidence than they do. Here’s the latest bombshell report from the “news” network. (Unless otherwise indicated, the quotes come from various Fox News personalities.)

“A new set of bank records linked to the Bidens ...” Linked? How are they linked? To the Bidens? Which Bidens?

“Those who contributed to Hunter’s ventures were then seemingly rewarded with access to his father.” Seemingly? The Fox News chyron here reads, “GOP says it has proof of $20M sent to Bidens,” but then we get “seemingly.” Hmm.

“All that flies in the face, Dana, of what the president and his staff have been saying on repeat.” No it doesn’t, unless you have more than “linked to” Bidens other than Joe and “seemingly.” So far, more than 45 seconds into the clip, we have absolutely no solid information, just insinuation.

“The question is, what was Hunter Biden doing to earn access to this money.” Asked and answered, guys: He had the last name Biden and the ability to create what his business partner Devon Archer testified to the House was the “illusion” of access, putting his father on speaker phone when he was with business associates but not talking about business. It’s not laudatory or inspirational, but it is what it is, and it is not Joe Biden being involved in corruption in any way.

“Republicans on the House Oversight Committee say the new records detail a pay-to-play scheme, proof of $20 million sent to the Bidens from foreign business sources.” Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have said a lot of things, many of them verifiably false. They are claiming here to have evidence of the pay, but what’s the play that’s being paid for? And again, “the Bidens” is not the president—if they thought they had him here, they’d be saying it.

Campaign Action

“The committee says Russian, Ukrainian, and Kazakh oligarchs funneled money to companies tied to Hunter Biden. A Russian billionaire sent $3.5 million to a shell company associated with Hunter Biden business partner Devon Archer.” Whoa, whoa, whoa, we’ve gone from $20 million to the Bidens to money going to companies “tied to” Hunter Biden in the sense that they are “associated with” Devon Archer? That’s a flimsy connection to Hunter, let alone his father.

“Then-Vice President Biden dined with the billionaire in Washington.” According to Archer’s testimony, Joe Biden attended two dinners, one in 2014 and one in 2015, that included some of Hunter’s business associates. “I believe the first one was, like, a birthday dinner, and then the second was ‑‑ I think we were supposed to talk about the World Food Programme,” Archer said. So over the course of more than a year, Joe Biden went to a birthday dinner for his son and another dinner to talk about the World Food Programme, and did not control the guest list at either dinner. Got it.

“Another example has Ukrainian money going to Archer and Hunter Biden. Later, Burisma put Hunter Biden on the board.” 1.) Does money that went to Archer count in the previously mentioned $20 million to “the Bidens?” 2.) I think it’s well established that Hunter Biden was on the board of energy company Burisma. We all know that because of Trump’s efforts to extort Ukraine into a sham investigation of Joe Biden and because of Trump’s resulting impeachment.

Next we see House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer alleging that, “The process involved a foreign country or foreign national wiring money to a fake company. Then the fake company would then turn around and wire the money to the Biden family members. They did this to hide the source of the revenue because they weren’t supposed to get money from many of these countries.”

“Republicans are trying to draw a line from these payments to the president,” the Fox News guy chimed in. Republicans have been investigating this for the better part of a year and they are still trying to draw a line, any line, to the president.

Now to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy: “This isn’t about Hunter Biden. This is about paying to play for the Biden family. Because the money goes to nine different members, through shell companies, much like the informant said.” So, again, not Joe? It’s not about Hunter Biden, McCarthy says, but he apparently doesn’t feel he can make any direct allegations about Joe Biden.

Back to the Fox News talking head: “The committee says a Kazakh oligarch transferred $142,000 to Hunter Biden for a sports car. Democrats contend there’s no wrongdoing by the president.” Look, I think we can agree that Hunter Biden’s business dealings have sucked. But once again Fox News used a denial of wrongdoing by the president to substitute for any direct allegation that the president engaged in wrongdoing. “The son did this not-great thing. The father denied wrongdoing on his own part.” How are those things linked, except by a desperate desire to mention the father while lacking any concrete allegation to make against him?

“Some Republicans talk impeachment. The GOP says this is just not pay to play but pay to dine, and drive.” Again, what’s the “play” part here? Right now, Republicans have a lot of evidence that Hunter Biden got paid—although even there, they seem to be trying to pin money on Hunter that really went to Devon Archer. They don’t have any evidence that anyone got anything in exchange for their money. They got to hear Joe Biden’s voice on a speaker phone not talking about business, or see him at his son’s birthday dinner. Republicans have claimed that Hunter got Joe to push for the ouster of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin because he was investigating Burisma—but the reality is that Shokin was not actively investigating Burisma at the time he was forced out, and Joe Biden was one of a chorus of world leaders involved in a concerted effort to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor. So the closest thing to a concrete claim of Joe Biden being on the “play” end of a “pay to play” scheme with his son turns out to be false on multiple grounds.

If Republicans had anything on Joe Biden, we’d know about it. They don’t. And, as Marcy Wheeler points out, all of this screaming about $20 million to Hunter and his business associates is happening when we know that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner parlayed his time as a White House adviser into $2 billion from Saudi Arabia. Jared had an official White House role. Hunter never has. Jared delivered for Saudi Arabia from his White House perch. Hunter has never been in a position to do that for his benefactors and there’s no evidence his father did it for him. Jared got $2 billion. Hunter got some unknown slice of $20 million.

Republicans were desperate to impeach President Biden before they ever took control of the House, but their desperation has increased as Trump’s legal jeopardy has become more apparent. They’re looking to impeach Biden in part so they can claim that Trump’s prosecution on dozens of federal criminal charges is some kind of flimsy distraction. In reality, of course, they are the ones trying to cook up a distraction.

Media pretends planned impeachment of Biden has some basis in facts

House Republicans have been planning to impeach President Joe Biden since before last November’s midterm elections. They had to come up with an excuse, which they knew would center on Hunter Biden. After months of relentless sham investigations, they are ready: It’s going to be about Hunter, like they planned, and since they haven’t found anything implicating the president in corruption, they will go ahead and lie. Lucky for them, the headlines will focus on Republican claims rather than the fact that they are lies.

Dueling articles at The New York Times and CNN show the multiple ways that the media can cover the Republican impeachment push without ever saying that it’s completely partisan BS. CNN offers up what appears to be a straightforward news report on House Republican plans. Really it’s dozens of paragraphs laundering false Republican claims.

Moderate House Republicans: We’re ready to fight back. House Democrats: Sure, Jan

This time they really mean it, swing district House Republicans tell Punchbowl News. They’re ready to start working on bipartisan issues and legislation and beat back the extremist Freedom Caucus so they don’t have to keep taking miserable, unpopular votes that will hurt them.

“There’s a lot of opportunities for bipartisanship,” said Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Garcia of California said his group can have real leverage. “The majority is only five seats, so really every faction has the same amount of power, it’s just a matter of strategy and tactics we choose to deploy as a result of that,” the Republican said. “At some point, we need to ease up some of our positions to get to solutions.”

Both are among the 18 Republicans representing districts where a majority voted for President Joe Biden in 2020.

Moderate House Democrats will believe it when they see it.

“For 11 years I have worked in a bipartisan way on bipartisan bills on important issues,” Democratic Rep. Annie Kuster of New Hampshire, told Punchbowl News. “Now, I find it very difficult because if I try to approach them on a bill that I know we’ve worked on together for years, we get to committee and someone wants to throw a [controversial] amendment on there,” Kuster added.

Campaign Action

RELATED STORY: ‘Centrist’ House GOPers find their line in the sand: Tax cuts for wealthy homeowners

The part she didn’t say is that the so-called moderate Republicans don’t fight to keep those amendments out of bills—and worse: They vote for them.

Consider the traditionally bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act that passed in the House last month. It includes amendments to: ban books in military base school libraries; end the Pentagon’s policy of allowing service members leave to obtain abortions; ban gender-affirming health care for people serving in the military and their families; and ban race, gender, religion, political affiliations, or "any other ideological concepts" as the basis for personnel decisions. Those amendments all passed, with votes from most of these same GOP moderates, known as the Biden 18.

Moderates are also apparently shocked that the Freedom Caucus, the extremist Republican group currently running the show, is “selfish and short-sighted and only care about pushing their own agenda in the media instead of working with us to govern.” That quote is from Republican Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia. He’s mad that the extremists are “taking advantage” of the small Republican House majority to force their will on the rest of the conference.

And it only took him seven months to figure that out. By the time we get through August and Congress is back in session, he might have done the math to figure out 18 is bigger than five, so his team can do the same thing.

He and the rest of the Republican moderates will have a chance to put all that tough talk into action when they return in September. If they really want to help themselves and act like real representatives, they’ll figure out how to leverage that bipartisanship they long for and keep the government from shutting down.

It’s a joyous week in Wisconsin, where Janet Protasiewicz’s swearing-in means that the state Supreme Court now has its first liberal majority in 15 years. We’re talking about that monumental transition on this week’s episode of “The Downballot,” including a brand-new suit that voting rights advocates filed on Protasiewicz’s first full day on the job that asks the court to strike down the GOP’s legislative maps as illegal partisan gerrymanders.

Patriotic Republicans helped save the country 49 years ago. Will any step up in 2023?

On Aug. 7, 1974—49 years ago this week—three powerful Republican lawmakers met with then-President Richard Nixon and told him he wasn’t going to find a reprieve through them: He was going to be impeached. Within two days, Nixon resigned.

That intervention by Sen. Barry Goldwater, House Minority Leader John Rhodes, and Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott earned an almost-mythological status that all three legislators downplayed in later years. They were loyal Republicans, they knew the jig was up for Nixon, and they knew that the right thing for the country—and their political party—was to end the “long national nightmare.”

No Republicans were actual heroes during the Watergate scandal: They were just patriotic civil servants. Sen. Howard Baker, the ranking Republican on the Senate Watergate committee, started out as something of an ally to Nixon. He even secretly met with Nixon at the outset of the hearings to let him know the committee’s strategy. He drew the line, however, at working with Nixon to subvert that strategy.

Baker asked the famous question, “What did the president know and when did he know it?” He thought he was going to get a very different answer, that it was Nixon’s underlings who engineered the plot without Nixon’s involvement. Oops. To Baker’s credit, however, when he got the answer he wasn’t expecting from White House counsel John Dean, he followed the path it opened and the nation was spared the worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War.

From that point on, Republicans have taken the wrong lesson from Watergate. In the past 49 years, they’ve focused on the landslide elections in 1974 and 1976, and on revenge against the Democrats, instead of recognizing that they saved the country.

Fast forward to 2023, and just one Republican has dared to stand up for the rule of law after Donald Trump’s third indictment. It’s not anyone in House leadership. It’s not Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It’s Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Additional evidence presented since then, including by the January 6 Commission, has only reinforced that the former President played a key role in instigating the riots, resulting in physical violence and desecration of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) August 2, 2023

Murkowski went on to say that Trump is “innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court.”

Campaign Action

But, she added, “As that process begins, I encourage everyone to read the indictment, to understand the very serious allegations being made in this case.”

She’s the only one among four Republicans still serving in the Senate from the handful who voted to convict Trump in his Jan. 6 impeachment to make a significant statement. Utah’s Mitt Romney issued a bland statement, saying, “My views on the former president’s actions surrounding January 6th are well known. As with all criminal defendants, he is entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence.” Susan Collins of Maine and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana are the other two, and they haven’t said anything.

But the loudest silence is coming from McConnell, the supposed great institutionalist who should be leading his party now, as his predecessor Hugh Scott did 49 years ago. McConnell was the one who stood on the Senate floor that day, when he refused to vote to convict Trump in the impeachment, and made this proclamation.

“Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty,” McConnell said. He accused Trump of creating “an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.” But still, he wouldn’t vote to convict on the flimsy excuse that Trump was already out of office. Never mind that his impeachment would prevent him from holding that office ever again.

"We have a criminal justice system in this country,” McConnell said. “We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”

The criminal justice system has taken over. Now would be a good time for McConnell, the “great” institutionalist and the only Republican who can remotely claim a leadership position in the party, to break his silence.

Conservatives cried about how the “woke” (whatever that means) “Barbie” movie would fail. It didn’t. In fact, the film has struck a chord with American and international audiences. Daily Kos writer Laura Clawson joins Markos to talk about the film and the implications of the Republican Party’s fixation on mythical culture wars, which is failing them in bigger and bigger ways every day.

Still at the top of Trump’s agenda: Sabotaging Ukraine to benefit Russia

Over the weekend Donald Trump held a campaign rally in Erie, Pennsylvania. It was noteworthy for a few reasons: It got Donald to actually leave his house, which was an impressive feat by his aides considering that Trump has been obsessively toilet-tweeting insults about his current indictments, expected future indictments, and everyone even tangentially involved with his indictments.

Also of note was his usual grifting podium sign, one telling the crowd to "Text PENNSYLVANIA -----" to give him money. This means Trump's campaign team genuinely believes Donald's rally crowds have the attention span to phone-thumb their way through all the letters of “Pennsylvania” without losing interest, so you can't say they've lost their optimism.

Then there was the part where he demanded all of the Republicans competing for the nomination besides him should drop out so that all the money they spent on their own campaigns could instead be given to him. Ah, classic Trump. I imagine he thinks he's being charitable by not demanding they all hand him the keys to their homes as well.

But the weirdest part was probably when Trump once again pressed his bizarre crusade against Ukraine, the same one he got impeached over the first time around, the same one that turned out to be a Rudy Giuliani snipehunt backed by crooked European oligarchs boosting crooked Russian disinformation. Trump once again really, really wants Republicans to block all military help to Ukraine—and this is apparently urgent enough that Trump doesn't think it can wait until his own theoretical second term. It's got to happen now.

"He's dragging into a global conflict on behalf of the very same country, Ukraine, that apparently paid his family all of these millions of dollars," Trump alleged. "In light of this information," Congress, he said, "should refuse to authorize a single additional payment of our depleted stockpiles ... the weapons stockpiles to Ukraine until the FBI, DOJ and IRS hand over every scrap of evidence they have on the Biden crime family's corrupt business dealings."

Oh. My. God. See, what's amazing about Trump is that the man's brain is impervious to new information. It might be laziness, or he might just have too much grass and dirt lodged up there from all the holes he's knocked out of golf courses in his lifetime, but that could be a direct quote from any one of his speeches from his first two campaigns. It's only the fact that he's ranting about Joe Biden and not Hillary Clinton that gives it any context at all.

Trump was going on about "depleted stockpiles" throughout his 2016 campaign. It was his version of the Republican talking point that's been used without fail by each of their candidates of the past 40 years. Every time, the Republican says that our troops are suffering from a lack of readiness, or that the Navy doesn't have enough ships, or the Army doesn't have enough tanks, and it's because a stupid jerk not-Republican is in charge and only a Republican can fix the problem.

Then, if the Republican wins, the problem magically goes away and we don't hear about it again until the next time a Democratic president appears. Trump was very big on the "our troops have no bullets" nonsense. It vanished when he won, and we're possibly supposed to believe it was because he chipped in bullet money out of his own pockets or something. Eight years later, the problem has subtly changed: Now it’s that we're giving Ukraine all our bullets and missiles and phased-out stockpiled vehicles, which means we're not going to have any bullets or missiles or mothballed vehicles left over for ourselves, and our troops will have to train using water pistols and tactical assault bicycles.

What might be most on Trump's mind, however, is that he still really, really wants to build a new hotel in Moscow or God knows where, and it's very hard for him to suck up to Russian mob boss Vladimir Putin when he is unable to stop the United States from arming Ukraine.

So what does he do? Well, this is Donald we're talking about, so he repeats the same bullshit-premised propaganda Giuliani delivered to him the very first time around. It’s a theory about how Russia was completely innocent of both conducting espionage operations against the United States with the aim of making Trump president, and of attempting to seize control of Ukraine.

In the Giuliani-Russia retelling, it was Trump's political enemies who did the real "hacking," and they did it with the help of "Ukraine” (because sure why the f--k not), and Russia was framed for all the rest of it by Hillary Clinton. And, uh, then-Vice President Joe Biden's shiftless adult son. And the former comedian-turned-new-Ukrainian-president.

And Trump is still pushing this completely insane counternarrative, one in which the Democratic National Committee apparently hid (?) a secret server in Ukraine and leaked their own information to frame Russia. Then Hunter Biden got a consulting gig in Ukraine. He claims that unlike Paul Manafort and Giuliani's aggressive humping of European strongmen and criminals, that was actually the real scandal here. And when you say it all at once, it's so painfully stupid that you can see why the masterminds of these theories would find themselves accidentally booking press conferences in the Four Seasons Landscaping driveway just a few effing months later.

That is what Donald Trump has on offer as the seditionist coup leader scrapes together a post-treason, post-indictments second act: retreads. The man is still clinging to the original, Giuliani-authored plan that resulted in his damn impeachment!

Donate to help those escaping Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

RELATED STORIES:

Trump could face charges in Georgia case at same time as new federal indictments

Top Republicans might be divided on Ukraine, but the party's activist base is united behind Russia

Hunter Biden’s ‘laptop’ looks more and more like a politically motivated criminal scheme

Ken Paxton is suddenly worried about ‘impartiality’ in his Texas impeachment trial

Suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton remains indicted on account of crimes, but his more urgent problem is his recent impeachment at the hands of his fellow Republicans. The state Legislature voted to impeach Paxton after his history of crookedness in the attorney general's office became impossible for even Texas Republicans to ignore. Paxton will now face an impeachment trial in the state Senate.

Paxton, however, remains an enormous whining baby and is still trying to stack the deck in his own favor with a new demand that not all of the Senate be allowed to vote in his trial. Paxton's lawyers are now asking Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to bar three Democratic state senators from the trial because those lawmakers have said very mean things about him and are therefore not impartial.

A basic principle of due process is that the accused is entitled to an unbiased jury. Like numerous courts around the country, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held for almost a century that potential jurors with a bias or prejudice against the accused are disqualified from serving on his jury as a matter of law. Jurors José Menendez, Roland Gutierrez, and Nathan Johnson have such a bias and have proclaimed it loudly, time and again. Gutierrez, for example, has said that the evidence against the Attorney General “could not be refuted.” But that is the purpose of a defense—to attempt to refute the prosecution’s evidence—and the function of a trial—to determine whether that evidence has proven charges beyond a reasonable doubt. No one who has publicly declared the charges against a defendant irrefutable can even play at impartiality, let alone serve in an impartial manner. And Menendez and Johnson are no better.

Blah blah, whine whine, blah blah blah.

Now, all of this is very interesting or whatever but Paxton's entire letter goes to great lengths to dodge the core point of the matter: Ken Paxton ain't facing the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He may have forgotten, but right now he's facing an impeachment trial run by the Texas Senate, not a criminal trial in a criminal courtroom, and all this whining about how dare state senators have opinions about the evidence in his trial is nothing but a gigantic bullshit fountain premised on pretending that the two things are the same.

Did Paxton's lawyers write this up for Paxton's eventual upcoming criminal trial, but accidentally stick it in the wrong envelope? Since when did Republicans give a shit about enforcing "impartiality" in an impeachment trial?

Yeah, that's what we all remember most about Donald Trump's two separate impeachment trials—all of the Republicans refusing to render early judgment about Trump’s guilt because of the impartiality of the process. We can't even count all the Republicans who recused themselves from the proceedings due to their inability to be impartial except oh wait—we can, it was zero. Zero Republicans.

What's really going on here is that Ken Paxton is a uniquely gutless sack of corruption still looking to game the system however he can, and removing three Democratic senators from the voting pool would mean that the 21 votes for Paxton's removal from office would have to come from just 27 eligible senators instead of 31. That's a much tougher hurdle, even if a good chunk of Texas Republicans are finally sick enough of Paxton's crookedness to want to be rid of him.

As for evidence of how shallow Paxton’s alleged desire for fairness is, one of Paxton's activist buddies has filed a lawsuit demanding that Paxton's wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, be allowed to vote in the impeachment trial. That’s because the state Senate passed rules requiring her recusal due to her being married to the man being impeached for, among other things, arranging a cushy new job for a woman he had an affair with.

Oh no, three Democratic senators have expressed their belief that the evidence shows Ken Paxton to be a crooked sack of crookedness. However will the impeachment trial go on when such injustice is at play?

RELATED STORIES:

Why is Texas AG Ken Paxton getting impeached? Take your pick

'Unmoored by disarray': AP investigation reveals that Texas AG Ken Paxton's office is a corrupt mess

A gutless Ken Paxton tries to preen after bravely fleeing from a court's process server

Kevin McCarthy made another stupid promise that’s coming back to bite him

Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy is bad at this. The frantic bargaining he did to squeak into the speakership after 15 rounds of voting set the stage for how he would perform in the role he wanted so badly, and the answer is … badly. This is a man so weak that anytime anyone gets mad at him, he offers up a major concession that will just cause him more problems down the road. And he’s done it again.

Politico reports that after McCarthy dared to suggest Donald Trump might not be the strongest Republican presidential candidate, not only did McCarthy grovel publicly for Trump’s forgiveness, he made another of his foolish promises. McCarthy promised Trump a House vote on expunging his two impeachments, and Trump plans to hold him to it, reminding him of the promise every time the two men talk.

Trump is already angry that McCarthy has refused to endorse him so far. Add to that his anger at McCarthy’s late-June comment—“[t]he question is, is he the strongest to win the election; I don’t know that answer”—and McCarthy is on thin ice. If he doesn’t give Trump that impeachment expungement vote before August recess, as he reportedly promised, all bets are off.

Trump apparently thinks having his two impeachments expunged would in some way counterbalance the dozens of criminal charges he faces, with more expected soon. This is about as ridiculous a thing as Trump has ever thought, which is saying something.

But there are significant dangers to holding such a vote—dangers like losing the vote. “I’m for Trump,” an unnamed “senior GOP member” told Politico. “The problem is: If you have an expungement, and it goes to the floor and fails—which it probably will—then the media will treat it like it’s a third impeachment, and it will show disunity among Republican ranks. It’s a huge strategic risk.”

Republicans have a mere five-seat majority in the House, and two current Republican members voted to impeach Trump the second time. There are a total of 18 House Republicans representing districts that voted for President Joe Biden. While the pattern is for those people to complain loudly to the media about what a terrible position they’re being put into by being forced to take votes on unpopular things like impeaching Biden, they usually fall right in line when it’s time to vote. But it wouldn’t take many of them to sink the vote.

Additionally, Politico reports, “there’s the clutch of constitutionally minded conservatives—who, we are told, have privately voiced skepticism that the House has the constitutional authority to erase a president’s impeachments.” Again, however many of these people actually exist, most of them will fall in line. But with such a small majority, it doesn’t take many defections to turn the vote Trump is demanding into yet another disaster for him.

McCarthy, meanwhile, has once again put his pathetic failure of leadership on display. If he holds the vote, he puts many of his most vulnerable members in a difficult position and risks embarrassing himself and Trump if the vote fails. If he doesn’t hold the vote, Trump is going to put him on blast or extract another equally or more damaging promise from him.