Monthly Archives: June 2022

Rep. Barry Loudermilk led a Capitol rioter on a tour of House offices the day before the January 6 attack.

Now, he could be next in line to lead the committee that oversees security at the Capitol.

The current most senior Republican, Rep. Rodney Davis, lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger on Tuesday.

Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, who led a January 6 rioter on a tour of the Capitol complex the day before the attack, could now be next in line to lead the committee that oversees Capitol security.

That's because Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois, currently the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration, lost his primary to fellow Republican Rep. Mary Miller on Tuesday and Republicans are widely predicted to regain control of the House in 2023. Loudermilk is currently the second-highest ranking Republican on the panel. The committee has jurisdiction over both the Capitol Police and security on the House side of the Capitol complex.

Miller, who recently said that the overturning of Roe v. Wade was a "victory for white life" a remark her campaign later said was an unintended "mishap" had the backing of former President Donald Trump and criticized Davis for voting to establish a bipartisan January 6 commission.

Earlier this month, the January 6 committee released footage of Loudermilk leading a tour group through the House office buildings on January 5, 2021. The following day, at least one member of that tour group returned to the grounds of the Capitol, and could be heard yelling violent threats against Democratic lawmakers.

"When I get done with you, you're going to need a shine on top of that bald head," the rally attendee says in the video, referring to Pelosi.

It remains unclear whether the man entered the Capitol building itself. January 6 committee chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi also noted that the man and other tour attendees took photos of areas in the House office buildings that wouldn't normally be of interest to tourists, including stairwells and tunnels.

Story continues

Seeking to explain himself the day the footage was released, Loudermilk claimed that the man was simply photographing a golden eagle light fixture on the wall.

"Obviously, I do not support anything he said, but nobody in that group talked or spoke that way," said Loudermilk, referring to the man's violent threats against congressional Democrats.

But Loudermilk's story about the tours has changed a number of times as new information has emerged. He's continually pointed to a letter from Capitol Police to Rep. Davis stating that they didn't consider "any of the activities we observed as suspicious," though they noted that Loudermilk left the tour group unattended at one point.

Though Loudermilk is next in line in terms of seniority, his position atop the committee is not necessarily assured; ultimately, House Republican leadership is in charge of committee assignments for their members.

In a statement to Insider, Loudermilk said he would "have to give serious consideration" to chairing the committee if asked to do so by the next Speaker, but emphasized that his current focus is on "the important work the Republicans are doing on the Committee."

"Rodney Davis has done a tremendous job as the Ranking Republican on the Committee on House Administration. It has been an honor to work under his leadership, and we still have a lot of work to be done this year," said Loudermilk. "Who becomes the chairman of the committee for the 118th Congress will ultimately be the decision of the incoming Speaker."

In 2013, facing criticism for appointing only white men to lead major committees in the House, former Speaker John Boehner appointed then-Rep. Candice Miller to chair the committee, despite the fact that she had not previously served on it.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Follow this link:

The House Republican who led a rioter on a tour the day before the January 6 attack could lead the committee overseeing Capitol security - Yahoo News

Obama and his party combated it not with a norm violation of their own such as a temporary (and legally dicey) recess appointment of a justice but with reasonableness. Surely appointing a modest and moderate justice like Merrick Garland would lead public pressure to force McConnell to relent or would push voters to punish Republicans for their transgression. Neither happened. And the seat was filled by a Republican.

This is a pattern weve seen repeated ever since. Republicans attempt some unprecedented and shocking move; horrified Democrats respond by trying to be the adults in the room; and then the Democrats go unrewarded for it.

To be sure, a country is probably better off with one responsible party than with zero. But in important ways, this kind of asymmetry can be dangerous, making the government less and less representative of its people.

Now, time for some game theory.

In the game known as the prisoners dilemma, two players are competing against each other, and each has just two options cooperate or defect. If they both cooperate, they both get a nice reward. However, if Player 1 defects while Player 2 cooperates, Player 1 gets an even bigger reward while Player 2 pays a penalty. (The reverse happens if Player 1 cooperates while Player 2 defects.) If both players defect, neither gets a reward nor pays a penalty. Thus, each player wants the other to cooperate, and both prefer jointly cooperating to both defecting. But since neither can trust the other to cooperate, the usual outcome is for both to defect, leading to no payoff for either player. (The ferryboat scene in The Dark Knight (2008) remains my favorite, if imperfect, example of the prisoners dilemma.)

Playing this game many times can lead the players to develop norms of trust. Neither is happy with the low payoff, so reaching some sort of agreement about cooperation can be beneficial to both.

This hasnt been the pattern in national politics. On a range of issues and tactics, Republicans have defected while Democrats have cooperated. This includes how the GOP secured multiple Supreme Court justices, Donald Trump giving White House jobs to his daughter and son-in-law, Trump profiting from the presidency while refusing to release his tax returns, the Republican National Committee declaring the Jan. 6th riots to be legitimate political discourse, and many, many more. (I am not including Trumps efforts to steal the 2020 election or his instigation of the Capitol riot since those were, appropriately, met with impeachment and investigations.)

Were seeing this dynamic again in the wake of the Supreme Courts decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. This ruling, while opposed by most Americans, was a longstanding goal of Republicans and particularly conservatives on the court. And Democratic leaders had, thanks to POLITICOs bombshell disclosure of the draft opinion, ample warning that it was coming. And in response, they have done virtually nothing.

As Jamelle Bouie notes, there are things the president or Congress can do to rein in an out-of-control Supreme Court. Lawmakers can impeach justices (perhaps the appointees that appear to have deceived senators or even lied under oath in their confirmation hearings). They can curtail the courts jurisdiction or constrain judicial review. They can add more justices. No, Democrats may not have the votes to do any of these things; such efforts would likely fall at least one or two votes short in the Senate amid opposition from people like Sen. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, though they may at least be open to discussion on some ideas. But its not clear that Democrats are even trying to broach the topic. Instead, they have read poems and sung patriotic tunes.

Even if Congress doesnt act, the Biden administration could push back on its own. One possible policy response would be to put abortion clinics on federal lands within states that have banned abortions; the administration has taken that off the table. Biden also could verbally attack the legitimacy of the court, as a previous Democratic president once did. He hasnt.

To be clear, most of these moves would be treated as significant norm violations in Washington. But thats the point. When a norm violation is met by another, that gives both parties an incentive to find a new equilibrium down the road, and suggests to the first violator that they may have gone too far. If the majoritys rulings to end the federal right to abortion and restrict the states ability to regulate guns were met with an attempt to add four justices to the court even if that attempt failed it would send a message that there is a price to be paid, and that a future Congress might finish the job.

A classic economics article by David Kreps et al. outlines a version of the prisoners dilemma that spans many iterations. In this game, it may make sense for one player to act irrationally in the short run, forgoing some payoffs, in order to give that player a reputation of unpredictability or craziness. This can improve that players negotiating position further down the road. It could make sense for Democrats to adopt a similar strategy, at least to the point that Republicans believe that Democrats are as willing to damage institutions as they are.

For now, though, the lack of any fulsome Democratic response simply sends the message that there will be no penalty for GOP transgressions. And the courts conservative majority is just getting started.

Read more:

Opinion | Why Are Democrats Letting Republicans Steamroll Them? - POLITICO

During that report, local anchor Kyle Clark called out Ganahl for the exact sort of crafted language that the Posts national political desk willingly parroted. This whole, Joe Biden is the president, as if that settles it, Clark said, exasperated by Ganahls infuriating rhetorical nods. Saddam Hussein was president, you know what I mean? Like Robert Mugabe led Zimbabwe, but like, they didn't have clean elections. The question that people want to know is, does Colorado have clean elections? (Indeed, Ganahls ally Bannon has described Biden as an illegitimate president.)

Station reporter Marshall Zelinger explained the Ganahl campaigns official line was that it had seen no direct evidence of cheating in elections, but wanted to see investigations of claims by people who complain about it.

Yeah, because as we try to point out, it's not a joke, Clark responded. If our elections are rigged, it's the biggest story in the history of ever. And if this is a lie, made up to get people afraid and giving money, its a big story.

Clark and Zelinger were correct; it ought to to be a big story that Republican candidates will put on a friendly face to Big Lie supporters, while avoiding the topic in mainstream settings as a deliberate political strategy. Its a shame when a major national media outlet falls for that strategy and pushes the desired propaganda line.

Read more:

The Washington Post falsely promotes a moderate Republican candidate who has admitted to hiding extremist stances from voters - Media Matters for...

PEORIA, Ill. Darren Bailey, a far-right state senator who was the beneficiary of an extraordinary effort by Democrats to help his candidacy, has won the Republican primary for governor in Illinois.

Mr. Bailey, whose crushing victory was called by The Associated Press on Tuesday, topped a field of five other Republicans in the contest to oppose Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a billionaire Democrat who invested $35 million to influence the G.O.P. primary.

The Illinois governors race is on track to become the most expensive campaign for a nonpresidential office in American history. More than $100 million has been spent on television advertising in the primary.

A farmer from Southern Illinois who was endorsed by former President Donald J. Trump at a rally on Saturday, Mr. Bailey was virtually unknown in state politics before he upset a Republican incumbent in a 2018 primary for a State House district.

One of his first legislative proposals once in office was a bill to remove Chicago from the state. When the pandemic began, he refused to wear a mask during legislative sessions and sued Mr. Pritzker to block public health mitigation efforts.

In 2020, Mr. Bailey advanced to the State Senate, where he and a few other conservative legislators from Southern and southeastern Illinois are collectively known as the Eastern Bloc.

Mr. Bailey, 56, began his campaign for governor in February 2021, a month into his State Senate tenure. He has spent the last 16 months barnstorming the states Republican precincts.

In that time, he gathered sufficient support from conservative voters aligned with Mr. Trump to survive a $50 million primary campaign from Mayor Richard C. Irvin of Aurora, who was backed by the hedge fund executive Kenneth Griffin, and a $12.6 million campaign from Jesse Sullivan, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who relocated to Petersburg, his Central Illinois hometown, to run for governor.

Mr. Bailey had two patrons in the primary: Mr. Pritzker, whose relentless advertising campaign bashed Mr. Irvin while highlighting Mr. Baileys conservative credentials, and Richard Uihlein, the Chicago-area megadonor who has supported an array of far-right Republican candidates. Mr. Uihlein has spent $17 million so far on Mr. Baileys campaign and on a political action committee that attacked Mr. Irvin.

Mr. Pritzker will now be a heavy favorite to win the general election against Mr. Bailey. Had Mr. Irvin, a moderate with an inspiring personal story, no ties to Mr. Trump and access to hundreds of millions more dollars, advanced, the race was expected to be highly competitive in November.

In an interview last week in Green Valley, Ill., Mr. Bailey expressed confidence that he would be competitive with Mr. Pritzker in a general election even though Mr. Trump lost Illinois by 17 percentage points.

Life is different now under Joe Biden, and especially with J.B. Pritzker, Mr. Bailey said. Lifes a lot different now for Illinois than it was then. And I think people realize that.

Original post:

Darren Bailey Will Be the Republican Nominee for Illinois Governor - The New York Times

During former President Donald Trumps second impeachment, even when Republicans insisted that the assault on the Capitol was an unfortunate consequence of heated rhetoric, most did not attempt to defend Trumps conduct on the merits. Instead, they relied on the absurd technicality that the president was no longer in office, and therefore could not be convicted.

That was the rationale of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who accused Trump of a disgraceful dereliction of duty and afterward voted to acquit. McConnell then suggested that Trump could be criminally prosecuted, comfortable in the suspicion that would never happen.

Other Republicans, including Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, insisted that seeking accountability for an attempted coup would be incredibly divisive, and was therefore not worth doing. The notion that were going to spend a week or two weeks on a trial on somebody whos not even in officeit sounds to me like a waste of time, Rubio told Politico in 2021.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas offered a more affirmative defense. After voting to acquit, Cruz said, Donald Trump used heated language, but he did not urge anyone to commit acts of violence. Whether they based their decision on the flimsy excuse that he was no longer president, or on the idea that he never meant to inspire the violence that followed his incitement, Trumps defenders have always insisted that the former president acted recklessly but not deliberately.

David Frum: Kevin McCarthy, have you no sense of decency?

I do not recall these excuses simply to point out how pathetic they seem in hindsight, given the gravity of the allegations and the clarity we now have about Trumps conduct. I raise them because the thinness of the Republican rationales for acquittal is strong evidence that any justification, no matter how strained, would have sufficed, and yesterdays revelations are unlikely to change the minds of many Republican legislators now. It is nevertheless crucial to establish for posterity what happened and why. But make no mistake: If those who collaborated with Trumps attack on American democracy escape accountability, the calculus of high-ranking administration officials next time will be that there is a greater price to pay for opposing a coup than supporting one.

Yesterdays sworn testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, before the January 6 committee, if sustained, would leave Trumps enablers without even a pathetic sliver of an excuse for refusing to punish an attempt to overthrow the constitutional order. Hutchinson is just one person, and her testimony could be contested by future witnesses or revelations. A certain level of caution is warranted; it is not unheard of for people to lie under oath. With that said, the picture Hutchinson painted is shocking, if not surprising. According to Hutchinson, not only did Trump understand his own conduct as encouraging acts of violence, but he hoped to make it easier for the mob to reach its targets equipped to carry out those acts.

The extent of Trumps campaign to overturn the 2020 election has been clear since long before the Hutchinson testimony. The mob was Trumps last resort, not his first. In the aftermath of his loss, Trump pressured GOP secretaries of state to not certify the election results; he pressed Republican state legislatures to overturn the election results; he demanded that the courts invalidate the results; and he tried to coerce Vice President Mike Pence to declare him the winner during a ceremonial counting of the votes. When all of that failed, Trump encouraged the mob that sacked the Capitol by telling its members they could fight to overturn the results, and that they had to do so, because if you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country anymore. The justification for this was baseless allegations of voter fraud that both the president and his entourage knew to be false, even as they inundated their supporters with them.

These actions amount to attempts to forcibly remain in power, and alone would have been sufficient reason to impeach him and bar him from office forever.

David A. Graham: The most damning January 6 testimony yet

Hutchinsons appearance before the committee adds to these already damning facts insight into the former presidents personal motives and behavior, which were so pivotal to Republican senators weak rationales for acquittal. She testified that Trump believed the mob would turn violent, knew it was armed, and urged the Secret Service to allow the mob through with its weapons. In short, Hutchinsons testimony indicates that Trump was not merely irresponsible or foolish at the rally; he deliberately riled up the mob with falsehoods of a rigged election in the hopes that it would successfully overturn the election results by force. Trump then refused to call off the mob, because he wanted it to complete its mission. Hutchinson also testified that she heard from a colleague that Trump physically assaulted a Secret Service agent in an attempt to get him to drive them toward the Capitol; the Secret Service later told the press that it would dispute that aspect of her testimony under oath.

Whether or not that outburst occurred, the more significant aspect of Hutchinsons testimony was Trumps awareness of the mobs capacity for violence and its intentions. I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, You know, I dont even care that they have weapons. Theyre not here to hurt me, Hutchinson testified. When the mob began to chant Hang Mike Pence, Hutchinson recalled, she overheard Meadows tell White House Counsel Pat Cipollone that he thinks Mike deserves it. He doesnt think theyre doing anything wrong. Trump understood that the people the mob wanted to hurt were standing between him and power, and therefore did not want the mob sworn to place Donald Trump in power impeded by those who had sworn to defend the Constitution. As my colleague David Graham wrote, Trumps allies defense of his conduct has never been especially plausible, but Hutchinsons testimony demolishes it.

Even without this information, the Senate should have convicted Trump. The plain facts are that the former president attempted to violently overthrow the government of the United States, and Senate Republicans ensured that he would face no consequences for doing so by acquitting him during his second impeachment. Their rationales for refusing to hold Trump accountable are laughable in hindsight, but also disturbing in their frailty, because history suggests that when attempts to seize power by force are not punished, they are both more likely to reoccur and more likely to succeed when they do. Attempting to seize power by violence was not sufficient to turn Republican senators against Trump when his influence was at its ebb; now that he has reasserted his grip on the party, there is little chance they will discover a reserve of courage. The only Republicans in elected office who were punished by the party in connection with Trumps overthrow attempt were those such as Representative Liz Cheney, who was censured for speaking out against it.

Anne Applebaum: The reason Liz Cheney is narrating the January 6 story

Hutchinsons testimony provoked the now tired ritual of Republicans soliciting favorable coverage from reporters by privately expressing their horror while publicly defending Trump; at this point, no one should be fooled by this. The truth is that Hutchinsons testimony, had it been given at Trumps second impeachment trial, may not have changed a single vote. Joining with Democrats to hold Trump accountable would have done too much damage to the party. Better to erode the foundations of American democracy than risk giving the rival party any advantage.

This is cowardice, but also ideology: Since liberals are not Real Americans, it is no sin to deprive them of power by undemocratic means. In this view, Trumps behavior might be misguided, but his heart remains in the right place, in that his mob sought to ensure that only those worthy to participate in American democracy can hold the reins of power, regardless of whom the voters actually choose.

Although seven Republican senators broke ranks and voted to convict Trump, most of the caucus remained loyal to a man who attempted to bring down the republic, because in the end, they would have been content to rule over the ruins.

More:

Don't Forget That 43 Senate Republicans Let Trump Get Away With It - The Atlantic

from the spam-spam-spam-spam dept

What a dumb news cycle. As we noted, mainly driven by the preferred political spam mongers for Republicans, a study from some computer scientists was completely misrepresented to argue (falsely) that Google was deliberately censoring Republican politician emails. As weve repeatedly noted, the study actually found that while a clean Gmail account would flag more Republican emails as spam than Democrats, (1) the reverse was true of the two other most popular web-based email providers, Yahoo and Outlook, and (2) the researchers found that if someone actively manages their spam flags, that this discrepancy disappears in Gmail.

But, Republicans and their favorite spammer cant let facts or accuracy get in the way of a moral panic. So they got Fox News to spin it into a bullshit, inaccurate story about Google censoring conservatives, then got some Republicans to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission arguing that this was an unfair advantage that Google was giving Democrats. Finally, they got an incredibly stupid bill introduced in both the House and the Senate to basically say that email providers can no longer mark political emails as spam.

Apparently, this stupid misleading culture war, that anyone with even the slightest understanding of how spam filters work could have debunked for anyone, was apparently gaining steam. And in this ridiculous world we live in, once the narrative takes over, facts and any sense of reality go right out the window.

So, just after Google CEO Sundar Pichai visited Capitol Hill, where he was apparently yelled at by a bunch of Republicans, Google has announced a pilot program to whitelist candidate emails. The program is not live yet, but Google has first asked the FEC for the greenlight, to make sure that this program doesnt run afoul of any election laws.

Googles pilot program, per the June 21 filing, would be for authorized candidate committees, political party committees and leadership political action committees registered with the FEC.

Basically, because a bunch of Republicans (1) are bad at political emails, (2) cant take any personal responsibility at all, (3) love any kind of moral panic about big tech not liking them we all now will have to deal with more political spam in our inboxes.

What a stupid world.

Filed Under: elections, email, filtering, politics, spamCompanies: google

Go here to see the original:

Google Gives In To Republican Political Spammers: Launching Pilot Program To Whitelist Them Out Of Spam - Techdirt

The South Carolina Republican Party will meet Thursday to decide whether or not a Greenville County election should be overturned.It comes after the Greenville County Republican Party voted last week to overturn the results of the June Primary for Greenville County Council District 17, which longtime councilman Joe Dill lost by 132 votes to challenger Joey Russo. The Greenville County GOP voted to overturn the results after Dill voiced concerns with voting machines, poll workers and issues submitting ballots. "(A) lot of people have complained that their vote didn't get counted because the machines were torn up (and) machines were broken down," Dill said. Joey Russo's campaign said it wasn't properly served Dill's protest as required by law. Therefore, it said, the decision can't be valid. The Russo campaign appealed the decision to the state Republican Party, which set the hearing for Thursday at 6:30 pm in Columbia. In a statement, his campaign said the following. Last week's hearing was an orchestrated attempt to overturn the clear will of Republican primary voters in District 17. Among many other reasons, since Joey was not served with Mr. Dills protest as required by law, the committees decision is not valid and cannot stand. We have already appealed this ruling to the South Carolina Republican Party executive committee and have asked them to certify the original results and declare Joey Russo the winner. We anticipate that hearing taking place on Thursday. Joey looks forward to the general election and ultimately representing the citizens of District 17 on county council. But Dill and the Greenville County GOP believe that state law requires the SC Republican Party to have had the hearing by last Saturday, June 25. "The issue and problem for Mr. Russo, unfortunately, is the fact that (Chairman) Drew McKissick and the state party did not have the hearing as required by law by noon of last Saturday,'" said Jeff Davis, Chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party. "So whether we did anything wrong or improper or didn't dot all the I's and cross all the t's which, you know, we'll concede that we probably did not, nor did the state party in those four hearings that they had last Thursday on that same day. It's a moot point because as long as you don't have that hearing on the 25th it's moot." The South Carolina Republican Party disagrees and said that its upcoming hearing on the appeal is legal and in accordance with state law. The State Election Commission said it can only order another primary election under the guidance of the state party, which means only the SCGOP can call for a new election in this case.

The South Carolina Republican Party will meet Thursday to decide whether or not a Greenville County election should be overturned.

It comes after the Greenville County Republican Party voted last week to overturn the results of the June Primary for Greenville County Council District 17, which longtime councilman Joe Dill lost by 132 votes to challenger Joey Russo.

The Greenville County GOP voted to overturn the results after Dill voiced concerns with voting machines, poll workers and issues submitting ballots.

"(A) lot of people have complained that their vote didn't get counted because the machines were torn up (and) machines were broken down," Dill said.

Joey Russo's campaign said it wasn't properly served Dill's protest as required by law.

Therefore, it said, the decision can't be valid.

The Russo campaign appealed the decision to the state Republican Party, which set the hearing for Thursday at 6:30 pm in Columbia.

In a statement, his campaign said the following.

Last week's hearing was an orchestrated attempt to overturn the clear will of Republican primary voters in District 17. Among many other reasons, since Joey was not served with Mr. Dills protest as required by law, the committees decision is not valid and cannot stand. We have already appealed this ruling to the South Carolina Republican Party executive committee and have asked them to certify the original results and declare Joey Russo the winner. We anticipate that hearing taking place on Thursday. Joey looks forward to the general election and ultimately representing the citizens of District 17 on county council.

But Dill and the Greenville County GOP believe that state law requires the SC Republican Party to have had the hearing by last Saturday, June 25.

"The issue and problem for Mr. Russo, unfortunately, is the fact that (Chairman) Drew McKissick and the state party did not have the hearing as required by law by noon of last Saturday,'" said Jeff Davis, Chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party. "So whether we did anything wrong or improper or didn't dot all the I's and cross all the t's which, you know, we'll concede that we probably did not, nor did the state party in those four hearings that they had last Thursday on that same day. It's a moot point because as long as you don't have that hearing on the 25th it's moot."

The South Carolina Republican Party disagrees and said that its upcoming hearing on the appeal is legal and in accordance with state law.

The State Election Commission said it can only order another primary election under the guidance of the state party, which means only the SCGOP can call for a new election in this case.

More here:

SC Republican Party to hear appeal after Greenville County GOP votes to overturn election results - WYFF4 Greenville

The political world is still collecting itself following the testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson on Tuesday to the committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The sheer volume of shocking details she provided, about what then-President Donald Trump knew in advance of the Capitol riot and his behavior that day, is such that it will take a while to assess its impacts.

Among the obvious questions, though, is just how bad this will be for Trump, politically, and how Republicans will react to it.

In conversations with a half-dozen Republican strategists who represent a spectrum of opinion within the party and were granted anonymity to speak frankly, there was a broad consensus that, yes, this might have an impact on Trump but probably not on Republicans in the midterms. There was a sense that this would inflict real damage on Trumps long-term ambitions, even if it did nothing to shift the needle for now.

What more do you need to believe crimes were committed? one Republican strategist asked, before also conceding that There have been a million times when people say Trump is finished, but this could be the millionth and one, but I dont see a way for him to come back from this testimony.

Another Republican operative noted that Hutchinsons testimony has the potential to make a big impact because of her rarefied level of access to the president, and compared her to Miles Taylor, the former Trump DHS official who wrote an anonymous op-ed for the New York Times in 2018.

That operative said while Taylor had The operative told me, This is someone who legit had tremendous daily access ... not some nobody trying to make a name for herself like Miles Taylor. This is a real person who was taken seriously.

Further, Trump has less goodwill among the political class inside the GOP than he did in the past. As one national strategist pointed out, there are a lot of people that feel burned by Trump this cycle because hes getting involved in so many different primaries. There are a lot of Republican consultants who were loyal and our candidates were loyal, and he picked somebody else, so its all interconnected. The national strategist added that they didnt know where the breaking point is. I felt like it was after January 6, but it didnt last as long. Every time you second-guess the guy, he rises like the phoenix from the ashes, but there is a breaking point.

As to where that breaking point was, the Republican operative noted the silence from most national Republicans. Its fascinating how little youre hearing from people like Ron DeSantis, they said, and marveled at how few members of Congress have stepped in to defend Trump since Hutchinsons testimony.

Even if Tuesdays revelations further dent Trumps potential to mount a political comeback, dont expect Republicans to publicly say so. There still is a tribal industrial complex that wont let people go out and speak against this president, the strategist said.

Not all agreed. The Republican strategist who was, of all those Vox spoke to, the most dubious of the hearings impact simply thought anything Hutchinson said was discredited by what they considered a tainted and partisan process. The persuasive potential of the committee died when [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi threw [Republican Rep.] Jim Banks off, and not just [Republican Rep.] Jim Jordan. ... At that point, it was clear Nancy wanted a partisan show trial, not an investigation. So Republicans checked out.

The skeptical Republican added, Look, Soviet show trials sometimes turned up evidence of real shit, but we dont take them seriously because it was mixed in with a huge amount of theatrics. Cassidy Hutchinson will be seen the same way, both because her story about grabbing the wheel is unraveling, and because shes testifying in a ludicrous forum. (Anonymous pushback to one of the most explosive parts of Hutchinsons testimony appeared in reports shortly after it, when Secret Service sources disputed to several outlets that Trump ever tried to grab the steering wheel of the presidential SUV to go directly to the Capitol on January 6 and assaulted an agent in the process. Hutchinson never claimed to have witnessed that event, simply that that story was relayed to her shortly after it took place by deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato.)

Whatever the impact on Trump, none of the Republicans I spoke to thought the testimony would damage Republicans in the midterms. As one veteran operative pointed out, people right now are really focused on $5 to $6 a gallon gas and I think thats where peoples heads are at. By and large people have tuned this out. ... Maybe this would be different if the economy was better but people are focused on their own welfare right now.

That was echoed by another Republican working on 2022 races, who said, No one is going to vote based on something that is happening within Washington regarding something that occurred a year and a half ago.

View post:

Trump and Republicans: Will Cassidy Hutchinsons testimony be a breaking point? - Vox.com

After Donald Trump took office in 2017, one of his first major decisions was nominating Neil Gorsuch to fill the high courts vacancy, effectively completing the theft of a Supreme Court seat. Senate Republicans patted themselves on the back. Alleged moderates, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, went along with the scheme, expressing confidence that Gorsuch would leave the Roe v. Wade precedent intact.

As regular readers may recall, it was a year later when Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the nations highest court. Maines senior senator went out of her way to vouch for the conservative jurist and his commitment to precedent. The New York Times reported at the time:

Protecting [the right to an abortion] is important to me, said Ms. Collins, who said a two-hour, face-to-face session with Judge Kavanaugh and an hourlong follow-up call, as well as an exhaustive review of his opinions, had persuaded her that he would not overturn Roe v. Wade. His views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.

Kavanaugh received 50 votes. Collins was one of them. She said at the time, I do not believe hes going to repeal Roe v. Wade.

This morning, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined with four other Republican-appointed justices to overturn Roe. Collins was wrong. The consequences of her mistake have the potential to change the direction of the nation.

But to focus solely on the Maine senator would be to miss the forest for the trees.

As Collins vouched for Kavanaugh, other Republican proponents of reproductive rights followed suit. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, for example, ended up opposing Kavanaughs nomination, but she declared on the Senate floor, I do not think that Judge Kavanaugh will be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

After Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs passing, as Republicans scrambled to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the high court, Democrats told voters the future of reproductive rights was on the line in the 2020 elections. As weve discussed, Republicans, well aware of public opinion, furiously pretended otherwise.

In one of the presidential debates, for example, after Joe Biden said the Roe v. Wade precedent was on the ballot, Donald Trump immediately pushed back. Why is it on the ballot? the Republican asked. Why is it on the ballot? Its not on the ballot.

The same day, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa insisted the likelihood of Roe being overturned was very minimal. She added, I dont see that happening. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis used similar rhetoric during his re-election campaign in North Carolina.

The deception at least made tactical sense: The more voters realized how much damage an even-more-conservative Supreme Court was likely to do, the more Republican officials and candidates risked an electoral backlash.

Its precisely why so many in the GOP simply pretended that reproductive rights werent on the line, Roes future was sound, and Americans could count on the status quo remaining in place.

Just keep voting for Republicans, the party effectively said. There wont be dramatic changes. Roe has been around for a half-century and its not going anywhere. Trust us. Democrats are just trying to scare you. Dont listen to them.

As a strategic matter, the messaging worked. Voters were lulled into a false sense of security. The week after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Dobbs case, a Politico/Morning Consult poll found that nearly two-thirds of the public either said they didnt know how likely the court was to overturn Roe or said the court isnt likely to overturn the precedent.

Much of the public assumed that everything would remain the same indefinitely. They thought wrong.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

More:

Seeing Republican assurances that Roe was safe in a new light - MSNBC