Friday Talking Points -- Plotting A Coup In Plain Sight

[ChrisWeigant]

American democracy is on fire. Or on its deathbed, at the very least. Choose any dire metaphor you wish, but the red flags and warning signals are everywhere you look. The president of the United States of America made news this week when he refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, should he lose the upcoming election. Later, watching the reaction on the news, President Donald Trump reportedly laughed about all the fuss he had caused:

According to two people familiar with the matter, hours after the president stepped away from the cameras, Trump continued following the fallout in the press, including on cable news, and began privately remarking how amusing it was that his answer was making media and liberal heads explode, and also predictably dominating TV coverage.

"He seemed to get a real kick out of it," one of the sources said, adding that the president seemed to relish making the press, in Trump's words, "go crazy" over his non-commitment to democratic norms and procedure. "[The president] wasn't going to be playing by their rules on this just to make them feel comfortable."

"Their" rules? Seriously? No previous president has ever been asked such a question, because it never needed to be asked, pre-Trump. Trump sees it as nothing more than a fun opportunity to yank the media's (and liberals') chain. We might all chalk this up to just Trump being Trump -- if it weren't for all the other things he's currently saying and doing.

The most astonishing thing about all of this is how much it is taking place in full view of everyone. This is not a conspiracy being cooked up in some dark back room or secret lair -- it's Trump saying things out loud on television. Even the parts of the plan that were supposed to stay secret -- such as slowing the mail down, or a late-breaking announcement that vaccine has been approved -- have all (hopefully) already been brought to light. It's fascinating in an academic way, because Donald Trump and his minions are plotting a coup d'état, right out in the open for all to plainly see.

Consider the following rather extensive list, if anyone still thinks "democracy is on fire" or the word coup is mere hyperbole:

• The president of the United States is engaged in an ongoing and constant effort to undermine the American public's confidence in the upcoming presidential election. Without a hint of an iota of a shred of evidence, Donald Trump has proclaimed that all ballots which are mailed in -- except his, and possibly his immediate family's -- are "rigged" against him and should be considered invalid because of a massive amount of "voter fraud" which simply does not exist.


• The director of the F.B.I. stated plainly in a congressional hearing this week: "Now, we have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it's by mail or otherwise." The White House later sneered at his response, while Attorney General William Barr made a half-baked attempt at a press release announcing voter fraud in Pennsylvania (without many facts, and the ones they did provide later had to be retracted as false) which involved a whopping total of nine ballots. So if Christopher Wray doesn't see any fraud, it seems that Bill Barr will be actively working to manufacture some, for the headlines.


• The Trump administration has already been caught trying to slow down the U.S. mail, again in order to cast doubt on mail-in ballots. These efforts have largely -- but not entirely -- stopped, after they got caught red-handed.


• Trump is ramming through a new Supreme Court justice (after the untimely death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg), specifically because he wants the election to wind up in the courts, not at the ballot box. He's openly admitting this, and his campaign was already primed to file a snowstorm of lawsuits beginning on the night of the election, in as many states as it takes. This is Trump's favorite tool in his toolbox, after all -- sue everyone in sight, and delay the legal proceedings as long as possible, to grind down the other side.


• The Senate is aiding and abetting this effort, and astonishingly Lindsey Graham already announced that there will be enough votes to move Trump's nominee out of committee and then confirm her on the Senate floor -- before a nominee has even been announced.


• The president has stated plainly that the election should be considered to be "rigged" and illegitimate (unless he wins in a landslide, of course). This should come as no surprise because in 2016 he did exactly the same thing -- insisting with zero evidence that he actually won the popular vote because three million votes were cast illegally -- even though he won the election. If he's that sore of a winner, just imagine how big a sore loser he'll be.


• In an unprecedented move, the U.S. Senate had to pass a resolution committing the country to a peaceful transition of power. That this was even necessary is telling.


• Meanwhile, Trump has already directly threatened to send federal officials and officers to the polls on Election Day. The Pentagon is reportedly even worried about what would happen if Trump actually ordered American troops out into the streets either during or immediately after the election. Again, this is simply unprecedented (except for the Civil War, of course).


• If that doesn't work, the Republicans have another card up their sleeve. For the first time since the 1980s, the party will no longer be under court orders not to interfere with polling sites during the election. This court order was necessary because of Republican dirty tricks in the past -- sending armed police to the polls to harass any minority voters who showed up and threaten them with prosecution and intimidate the heck out of everyone. Because this order has now been lifted, Team Trump is recruiting 50,000 so-called "election observers" to show up at as many polling sites as possible, to question "anyone who doesn't look right." That's a voter-intimidation dog whistle that is pretty easy to decode.


• In a shocking story the mainstream media almost completely ignored, a bunch of Trump supporters already showed up to an early-voting site in the northern Virginia suburbs and actually blocked voters' access to the polls. Haven't heard about this? We have no idea why most of the media didn't consider it newsworthy, personally. Because, you know, this sort of thing generally happens in banana republics, not here at home.


• In a related matter, the president has praised vigilantes who show up to protests heavily armed, even when they kill people.


• Bill Barr has now named three American cities -- including New York City -- as "anarchist" cities. Perhaps this is also somehow in preparation for Election Day interference? It's certainly a question worth asking, at this point.


• The Department of Justice is no longer seen as neutral under Barr, since he has proven to be nothing short of a legal henchman for Trump, plain and simple.


• The Supreme Court is also in danger of being seen as illegitimate, which could be crucial if they do somehow wind up deciding the election in any way.


• The House of Representatives just introduced a bill to reform the executive branch to never again allow a lawless president to get away with the things Trump has gotten away with. Not since the post-Nixon era has such an effort been necessary, it is worth pointing out.


• The Senate just issued a report that was born out of Russian propaganda against Joe Biden's son Hunter. That's right -- the Senate is now content to carry Russia's water in American politics.


• Russian-owned state media outlet RT just made a comical job offer to Trump, with a fake video showing Trump reading the news on their network. You just can't make this stuff up, folks.


• Almost 500 retired senior military officers, former cabinet secretaries, and other officials just signed a letter endorsing Joe Biden for the good of the nation. In it, they warned: "We are generals, admirals, senior noncommissioned officers, ambassadors and senior civilian national security leaders. We are Republicans and Democrats, and Independents. We love our country. Unfortunately, we also fear for it."


• Trump is demanding that only the votes that are counted on Election Day are valid, because he knows that after demonizing mail-in voting (in the midst of a deadly pandemic that has killed over 200,000 Americans), the mail-in vote may be heavily Democratic. So if the in-person votes are counted first, it may look like Trump is winning -- but then later, when the mail-in ballots are counted, he could lose.


• All of this sand-in-the-face stoking of chaos actually has a clear goal, and that is to somehow declare that the vote count in several battleground states simply can't be trusted, therefore the (Republican) legislatures of these states will have to certify their own set of electors to the Electoral College -- which are the votes that actually elect the next president. This was documented in an Atlantic article that can only be described as "downright frightening."

So, still think "democracy is on fire" is hyperbole? We don't.

Taken individually, each of those items would be cause for some serious outrage (and an extended rant, here in these pages). But the sheer volume of it all is overwhelming -- which is also very much by design. If outrage is diluted across numerous activities, then only a few will ever make it to the headlines. This is a Trump tactic he's been using his whole life, admittedly to great effect.

Trump, perhaps realizing that he's losing, has also been flailing around in a desperate attempt to outright buy as many votes as possible. Because Florida is seen as being close, he decided to woo the Puerto Rican voters in the state by releasing billions of dollars in hurricane aid -- for a hurricane that hit the island three years ago.

Trump just announced the most laughable excuse possible for a bogus "healthcare plan," which was really nothing more than an executive order that stated that it would now be "official policy" of the United States that people with pre-existing conditions are protected. This hasn't just been "official policy," it has been actual federal law ever since Obamacare began, a fact which Trump just completely ignored (while also ignoring the fact that he's suing in court to completely overturn Obamacare). This dog-and-pony show should be seen precisely for what it is -- an admission that Trump has been lying for four years about having his own wonderful, beautiful, tremendous healthcare plan to replace Obamacare that would mean better and cheaper coverage for everybody. This plan has never existed outside the swamp fever of Trump's mind, which his announcement this week confirmed once and for all.

But Trump did try to sneak in another bribe to seniors -- a voting group he has been losing badly due to his abject failure to respond to the coronavirus pandemic (or even to show the slightest interest or humanity towards the 200,000 dead Americans and their families). Trump's going to send all seniors a "Trump card" worth $200 that they can spend on prescription drugs. There were no details on how he's going to pay for this except to point to a hypothetical trial program that does not even exist yet. It would cost upwards of $7 billion for Trump to make good on this bribe, and would almost certainly need congressional approval.

Trump's plan to bribe everyone else has blown up in his face, too. He planned to have an "October surprise" of announcing approval of a COVID-19 vaccine, which would then be available to all Americans for free. However, Trump let this cat out of the bag two or three months early, so it will come as no surprise to anyone when it happens. And because of Trump's ham-fisted attempt to use this as a political issue, half the country no longer will trust the first vaccine approved. The only question is going to be how much Trump will ignore expert advice when he does (inevitably) announce a vaccine's approval. Dr. Deborah Birx is already reportedly at the brink of quitting in disgust, and if Trump jumps the gun it will be interesting to see how many other government scientists denounce Trump's move and hang up their spurs.

Once again, any or all of these items is worth a lot more attention by everyone, but the sheer volume is overwhelming. Due to a lack of space, we urge readers to follow some of those links, for the most dangerous things that are going on. We're going to confine ourselves to examining in any depth only two of these items.

The first one is rather ironic. The Senate set out to hold hearings into Hunter Biden's work for a Ukrainian gas company while his father was president. This was the reason Donald Trump got impeached, if you'll recall. The Senate was going to bolster this conspiracy theory (once again: concocted by the Kremlin to destabilize American democracy and help throw the election to Trump once again) by issuing a report, just before the election. They just did so. Except while the report showed some blatant corruption and self-dealing, it wasn't actually done by anyone named "Biden." Here's the whole story, in case you missed it:

The Republican report aimed at raising questions about the dealings of Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in Ukraine appears to have accidentally implicated former Energy Secretary Rick Perry in an energy scheme in the foreign nation, according to the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

Republicans led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., released their much-hyped report on Hunter Biden's role at the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma on Wednesday. However, it found no evidence of actual wrongdoing and relied largely on debunked claims, old statements and narratives pushed as part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

But the report did find new evidence related to Perry's actions in Ukraine while he served in President Donald Trump's Cabinet.

Amos Hochstein, a member of the supervisory board at the state-owned Ukrainian energy firm Naftogaz, told lawmakers that Perry "inappropriately pressured the Ukrainian government" to place Texas oil executive Robert Bensh on the board of the company while officials at the Department of Energy pressured the government to sign a deal with a "private business entity connected to Mr. Bensh," according to a letter [Senator Ron] Wyden sent to Department of Energy Inspector General Teri Donaldson.

Perry also pressured the Ukrainian government to place one of his longtime campaign supporters, Michael Bleyzer, on the board during a trip to Ukraine for President Volodymyr Zelensky's inauguration in 2019, Wyden wrote. Bleyzer and his partner were later awarded a drilling contract in the country.

"Mr. Bleyzer's contract that he was awarded was despite the fact that he was not the highest bidder in the process," Hochstein told lawmakers. "Other... bids were higher, and therefore, Ukraine chose a bid that paid itself less."

The heads of the state-owned Naftogaz conglomerate have since filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the contract, arguing that the Ukrainian government acted "illegally and with bias" in agreeing to the deal, Wyden noted.

"Witness testimony in this investigation has directly implicated former Secretary Rick Perry in alleged wrongdoing, and the department more broadly, in a scheme to undermine anti-corruption efforts that were implemented by Ukraine in partnership with the international community," Wyden wrote.

As Rick Perry himself might put it: "Oops!" Republicans often tend to forget that in almost all cases, they themselves are guilty of the thing they're accusing Democrats of, and this is a prime example.

Irony aside, however, we strongly urge everyone to read the full Atlantic article mentioned earlier, which does a deep dive into what could happen after Election Day.

Here's just one of many frightening things the article points out:

Republicans control both legislative chambers in the six most closely contested battleground states. Of those, Arizona and Florida have Republican governors, too. In Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the governors are Democrats.

If the legislatures of these states decide their own state's election results can't be trusted, then they would go ahead and appoint a slate of Trump electors. The Democratic governors may counter by certifying their own slates of Biden electors. Each set of electors would be certified by different branches of the state's government. So what would happen when the Electoral College met? Again, here's just one scenario, involving just one state:

Suppose Pennsylvania alone sends rival slates of electors, and their 20 votes will decide the presidency.

One reading of the Electoral Count Act says that Congress must recognize the electors certified by the governor, who is a Democrat, unless the House and Senate agree otherwise. The House will not agree otherwise, and so Biden wins Pennsylvania and the White House. But Pence pounds his gavel and rules against this reading of the law, instead favoring another, which holds that Congress must discard both contested slates of electors. The garbled statute can plausibly be read either way.

With Pennsylvania's electors disqualified, 518 electoral votes remain. If Biden holds a narrow lead among them, he again claims the presidency, because he has "the greatest number of votes," as the Twelfth Amendment prescribes. But Republicans point out that the same amendment requires "a majority of the whole number of electors." The whole number of electors, Pence rules, is 538, and Biden is short of the required 270.

On this argument, no one has attained the presidency, and the decision is thrown to the House, with one vote per state. If the current partisan balance holds, 26 out of 50 votes will be for Trump.

Before Pence can move on from Pennsylvania to Rhode Island, which is next on the alphabetical list as Congress counts the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expels all senators from the floor of her chamber. Now Pence is prevented from completing the count "in the presence of" the House, as the Constitution requires. Pelosi announces plans to stall indefinitely. If the count is still incomplete on Inauguration Day, the speaker herself will become acting president.

Pelosi prepares to be sworn in on January 20 unless Pence reverses his ruling and accepts that Biden won. Pence does not budge. He reconvenes the Senate in another venue, with House Republicans squeezing in, and purports to complete the count, making Trump the president-elect. Three people now have supportable claims to the Oval Office.

This article ends with a call to action, for just about everyone involved:

Right now, the best we can do is an ad hoc defense of democracy. Begin by rejecting the temptation to think that this election will carry on as elections usually do. Something far out of the norm is likely to happen. Probably more than one thing. Expecting otherwise will dull our reflexes. It will lull us into spurious hope that Trump is tractable to forces that constrain normal incumbents.

If you are a voter, think about voting in person after all. More than half a million postal votes were rejected in this year's primaries, even without Trump trying to suppress them. If you are at relatively low risk for COVID-19, volunteer to work at the polls. If you know people who are open to reason, spread word that it is normal for the results to keep changing after Election Night. If you manage news coverage, anticipate extra-constitutional measures, and position reporters and crews to respond to them. If you are an election administrator, plan for contingencies you never had to imagine before. If you are a mayor, consider how to deploy your police to ward off interlopers with bad intent. If you are a law-enforcement officer, protect the freedom to vote. If you are a legislator, choose not to participate in chicanery. If you are a judge on the bench in a battleground state, refresh your acquaintance with election case law. If you have a place in the military chain of command, remember your duty to turn aside unlawful orders. If you are a civil servant, know that your country needs you more than ever to do the right thing when you're asked to do otherwise.

That seems the proper level of response for democracy being on fire -- to us, at any rate. It's been said of every election we've ever voted in, but this time the phrase: "this is the most important election of your lifetime" is undeniably correct. Democracy is on fire, and only a landslide of Biden ballots can put it out, at this point. So make a plan and get out there and vote like your life depended on it!





The most impressive person of the week was obviously Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died almost exactly one week ago (as we write this). But while she fully deserves all the lionizing she is getting (our favorite quote from the week came from John Roberts this morning: "It has been said that Ruth wanted to be an opera virtuoso but became a rock star instead" ), she is not technically a Democratic politician, and is thus ineligible for our awards. So all we can do is to say: Requiescat In Pace, Notorious R.B.G. -- you will be sorely missed by millions.

We have three Honorable Mention awards to hand out this week, before we get to the main event. The first goes to Chuck Schumer, who has been visibly enraged over the Republican efforts to hustle a new nominee through before the election. Schumer is going to throw as many monkey wrenches into the Senate's procedures as possible for the foreseeable future, which is all to the good. He also darkly threatened that "everything is on the table" if Democrats take control of the chamber this November. Which is also all to the good, as far as we're concerned.

The second goes to Bernie Sanders, for a speech he just gave on the danger Trump represents to American democracy. Bernie has been banging this drum for a while now, as have other Democrats, because all those items on the list we started this column with have been going on for quite some time now. But Sanders really stood out in his moral outrage over what is happening. "Democracy is on the ballot," he concluded -- and he is right.

We also have an Honorable Mention for Joe Biden, who has developed a much better response to pesky reporters asking him about his mental condition. Instead of just brushing it off, Biden is now turning the argument right back at Trump:

"Look at him," [Joe] Biden told WRAL's Cullen Browder earlier this week. "I'm not the guy who by the way said the problem with the Revolutionary War is we didn't have enough airports. I'm not the guy who said the attack that took down the trade towers was on 7-Eleven."

And, Biden added, he's not the guy who advised injecting bleach to treat the coronavirus.

"I do know the difference between truth and lies, between good and bad, between hope and fear," he said. "So just watch me and make your decision."

This is a much better answer, and Biden should give some version of it every time he is asked the question. He's certainly got hundreds and hundreds of examples of Trump getting things laughably wrong to choose from.

But this week the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week goes to Michael Bloomberg, who raised over $16 million (and counting) in an effort to pay the fines of Florida felons who are trying to get back their right to vote.

Florida passed a ballot initiative to reinstate the right to vote to felons who had completed their sentence and their parole. But the Republican Florida legislature passed a law stating that they could not do so until they had paid off all fines, as well. This has been upheld by Florida and federal courts, so this leaves tens of thousands of ex-prisoners in legal limbo. Bloomberg (as well as a few celebrity names) have championed the issue and raised millions to pay off all these fines. They estimate that their initial donation will fund over 30,000 efforts to re-enfranchise ex-prisoners.

That's pretty impressive. Of course, the Republicans aren't going down without a fight:

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, a Republican, has asked the FBI and the state's Department of Law Enforcement to investigate former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's efforts to help felons in the state regain their voting rights by paying their court fees, citing "potential violations of election laws."

Bloomberg has over the last week raised more than $16 million from individuals and private organizations, which he said would go towards paying down fines and fees for nearly 32,000 Black and Latinx Florida voters with felony records. A controversial Florida law forbids former felons from voting unless and until they pay off all money they owe the courts or other legal parties. Critics have called it a "modern day poll tax."

Bloomberg, of course, isn't "buying votes" in any way, shape or form. He's restoring access to voting, which is an entirely different thing. And he should be praised for his efforts, not investigated.

It was also announced late in the week that Bloomberg is making his first downpayment on his $100 million promise to boost Joe Biden's chances in Florida, by an initial purchase of $40 million in advertising. That seems like a good start.

All around, even though he's certainly not our favorite Democrat, Mike Bloomberg had an impressive week. Which is why we can't see giving the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award to anyone else, this particular week.

[Michael Bloomberg is technically a private citizen, and it is our blanket policy not to share contact information for such persons, so you'll have to search out his contact info yourself if you'd like to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]





Once again, we are happy to reveal that we were not disappointed by any Democrats this week. Most of the political spotlight was on the memorial services for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which is probably why Democrats were on their best behavior all week. But for whatever the reason, we're going to put the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award back on the shelf until next week.

As always, if anyone's got anyone to nominate that we missed, please feel free to do so in the comments.




Volume 590 (9/25/20)

With so much going on this week, we find it hard to just put out our usual talking points. So instead, we're going to provide lots of fodder for Democratic talking points from the words of sanctimonious Republican senators, from four years ago.

Back then, you see, the will of the voters was so downright sacred that they just had to be consulted before a Supreme Court justice could be confirmed -- almost a year before the election. They're now all trying to bend over backwards to explain why they really didn't mean what they were saying back then, this week.

This is the most flaming bout of blatant hypocrisy we think we've ever seen from Washington. After all the crocodile tears wept by Republicans back then, after all the chest-beating and garment-rending we were all subjected to, now they are being forced to admit what everyone knew all along: this is a naked exercise in power, period. The new motto of the Republican Party is: "If we can do it, and we think we can get away with it, we will do it."

We sincerely hope Democrats are taking note, because they would do well to follow the GOP's example, should they regain the Senate majority next year. This is how the game is now played, according to Republicans. So Democrats would be fools to play it any other way.

Of course, this is only a partial list, put together by HuffPost. There are in fact dozens upon dozens of other examples of fake Republican sanctimoniousness out there. But this should be enough rhetorical ammunition for any Democrat worth his or her salt to put together some scathing talking points on their own. Back when Barack Obama was president, here's what they all thought of the idea that a Supreme Court justice could be replaced in the final year of a presidential term:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa: "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina: "As I have repeatedly stated, the election cycle is well underway, and the precedent of the Senate is not to confirm a nominee at this stage in the process. I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president."

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina: "It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president."

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas: "It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida: "I don't think we should be moving forward with a nominee in the last year of this president's term. I would say that even if it was a Republican president."

Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado: "I think we're too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision."

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah: "We think that the American people need a chance to weigh in on this issue, on who will fill that seat. They'll have that chance this November, and they ought to have that chance."

Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania: "With the U.S. Supreme Court's balance at stake, and with the presidential election fewer than eight months away, it is wise to give the American people a more direct voice in the selection and confirmation of the next justice."

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota: "Since the next presidential election is already underway, the next president should make this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas: "President Barack Obama has exercised his authority to nominate someone to fill the vacancy, but the Senate has an equal authority to determine whether to proceed with that nomination. I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next president."

Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa: "We will see what the people say this fall, and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination."

Sen. David Purdue of Georgia: "The very balance of our nation's highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people."

Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia: "The American people are going to the polls in November to pick the next president, and I think the next president ought to be the one who fills that vacancy, not the one who's on the way out."

Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina: "In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president."

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com