Archives for category: Accountability

Trump claims to love “law and order,” but he continually incites violence. He incited the single most violent uprising in our history against the law and the Constitution on January 6, 2021. And he treated the Capitol police with contempt, those defending law and order.

He regularly attacks the judicial system—the bastion of law and order—because he is under multiple indictments.

He writes posts on social media intended to incite hatred, division, and yes, violence.

He recently paid a visit to the wake of a New York City policeman who was murdered by a criminal. It was performative politics.

The father and brother of Officer Brian Sicknick, who died after defending the U.S. Capitol, slammed Trump for playing politics. Trump did not pay a condolence call to the families of police officers who died after the riot that Trump incited. He didn’t visit any injured police officers in the hospital. Instead, he refers to those who beat up the police as “patriots.” This is sick and twisted. The people who menaced the Congress, threatened to kill the Vice-President, and damaged the seat of government are, to Trump, “patriots” and those who were convicted for their violence are “hostages.” Not the police who defended Congress. Not those who defended law and order.

Tom Nichols wrote in The Atlantic about Trump’s obsession with violence, about his encouragement of violence, about his threats and intimidation.

He wrote:

On Good Friday, Donald Trump shared a video that prominently featured a truck with a picture of a hog-tied Joe Biden on it. I’ve seen this art on a tailgate in person, and it looks like a kidnapped Biden is a captive in the truck bed.

The former president, running for his old office, knowingly transmitted a picture of the sitting president of the United States as a bound hostage.

Of course, Trump’s spokesperson Steven Cheung quickly began the minimizing and what-abouting: “That picture,” he said in a statement, “was on the back of a pick up truck that was traveling down the highway. Democrats and crazed lunatics have not only called for despicable violence against President Trump and his family, they are actually weaponizing the justice system against him.”

I cannot recall prominent elected Democrats calling for hurting Trump or his family. The closest Biden got was when he once lost his temper six years ago and said that if he and Trump were in high school, he’d have wanted to beat him up behind the gym, a comment Biden later said he regretted. And there is certainly no evidence to suggest that Biden or his spokespeople ever promoted the idea that the 45th president should be taken hostage. Over the weekend, Trump’s defenders took to social media to keep raising the 2017 picture in which the comedian Kathy Griffin held up an effigy of Trump’s severed head. So let us all stipulate: Her stunt was ghastly. Griffin’s comedy—or parody, or protest art—was in bad taste and potentially a risk to a sitting president. She paid for it: The Secret Service investigated her, and her career at CNN was torched.

But Griffin is not a former president seeking once again to become commander in chief of the armed forces and the top law-enforcement authority in the United States. And Griffin did not incite a mob of rioters—some of whom were bent on homicide—to attack the Capitol. Donald Trump is, and he did.

Meanwhile, Trump also had words last week for the people trying to hold him accountable—or, more accurately, for their children. The day before he promoted imagery depicting the torture of the sitting president, Trump fired off a Truth Social post in which he mentioned the daughter of Juan Merchan, the judge presiding over his hush-money criminal trial: “Judge Juan Merchan is totally compromised, and should be removed from this TRUMP Non-Case immediately,” Trump wrote. “His Daughter, Loren, is a Rabid Trump Hater, who has admitted to having conversations with her father about me, and yet he gagged me.”

Then, on Saturday, Trump blasted out a New York Post article that included Loren Merchan’s picture to his followers.

Trump’s fan base will shrug off its leader’s condoning of violent fantasies and implied threats of violence as more harmless lib-owning. But what Trump is doing is dangerous, and the time is long past to stop treating support for his candidacy as just one of many ordinary political choices. As the historian of authoritarianism Ruth Ben-Ghiat posted on Friday on X: “This is an emergency. This is what authoritarian thugs and terrorists do. Trump is targeting the President of the United States.”

Other Americans are well within their rights to wonder if this is what Trump supporters actually want to see in 2024.

Perhaps a thought experiment might help: Would today’s Trump supporters think it hilarious, say, to see Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter bound in the same way that Biden was depicted? Perhaps Bill Clinton or the Bushes tied up like hostages? (We can only begin to imagine what kind of ugly end the truck Rembrandts might have portrayed for Barack Obama.)

After seeing Trump post this video, I found myself wanting to ask his voters the questions that always occur after one of his outrages: Is this okay with you? Is this something you’d want your children to see?…

Unfortunately, we’re not getting much help in making those determinations from some of the media. On Sunday morning, for example, Kristen Welker of Meet the Press noted that Trump had “stepped up his attacks on the judge and his family in the New York hush money case” and is “falsely calling the criminal proceedings ‘election interference.’” Her verdict: “It is yet another reminder that we are covering this election against the backdrop of a deeply divided nation.”

Well, sure, that’s one way to put it. More accurately, however, we might say that a mostly coherent and decent nation is under electoral assault from a violent seditionist minority that has captured one of our two national parties, and its leader encourages and condones threats against officials at every level across the country, including threats of violence against the sitting president of the United States.

Every ardent Trump supporter should be asked when enough’s enough. And every elected Republican, including the sad lot now abasing themselves for a spot on Trump’s ticket or in his possible Cabinet, should be asked when they will risk their careers for the sake of the country, if not their souls. We have reached an important moment—one of many over the past years, if we are to be honest. After all we have learned and seen, and all of the questions we might ask of Trump supporters, perhaps only one simple and direct question truly matters now:

Is this who you are?…

In my view, Trump’s behavior towards others is vile, immature, narcissistic, and pathological. Anyone who is a critic or antagonist to Trump is treated with hatred and contempt. They deserve punishment. They should be hog-tied and beaten. They should be publicly shamed. They are not competitors, they are enemies. When Trump identifies them as such, they are certain to get death threats, threats of violence.

This is not normal. Trump has the mind of a mafia boss or a ruthless authoritarian.. He demands total loyalty. Those unwilling to embrace him and his lies and hatreds are cast out. This is not normal.

William S. Becker is a former U.S. Department of Energy central regional director who administered energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies programs. He is executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project, a nonpartisan initiative founded in 2007 to develop action plans for facing the climate crisis.

In this post, he proposes ways to restore the integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution and the nation’s laws. But who judges the justices when they violate the public trust? 

It’s not a hypothetical question. In recent decisions and revelations, the current court has shown it is co-opted by right-wing ideology and corrupted by a certain ex-president trying to escape justice on more than 90 felony charges

So, who ultimately judges the justices?  

As usual, the answer is voters. Our Supreme Court must abide by higher standards for objectivity and fairness than any other government institution. Yet public respect for the court has been declining for years.  

Earlier this month, a Politico poll found that a big majority of Americans want Donald Trump to stand trial before the November election. A third said his conviction would make a difference in how they vote, but 75 percent don’t fully trust the Supreme Court to be fair and nonpartisan.   

Unfortunately, voters have no direct authority to restore the court’s integrity. The people’s recourse is to elect a Congress willing to force the court to reform. The next opportunity is Nov. 5. 

So, what are the several ways the Roberts Court has undermined public trust?  

Until recently, it refused to subscribe to the ethics standards set for other members of the federal judiciary. Even after the news media found at least two members engaged in apparent conflicts of interest, the justices hesitated for months before adopting an ethics code. It turned out to be neither binding nor enforceable

Second, the court has abandoned the standard of judging without fear or favor. Its conservative majority has bent over backward to protect Trump from accountability for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. The justices even agreed to hear Trump’s specious claim that he enjoys total immunity for his alleged crimes. It delayed oral arguments until next April, making it unlikely Trump’s trial will occur before the election

In another case, the justices decided to protect Trump by rewriting the Constitution rather than enforcing it.  

The 14th Amendment disqualifies people from public office if they swear to support the Constitution, then aid an insurrection. It says oath-swearing insurrectionists can escape disqualification only with a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate. The court’s conservatives gave Congress a new role, saying no insurrectionist can be sanctioned unless Congress says so, apparently on a case-by-case basis. So, a highly partisan body, rather than the Constitution, will make these decisions. 

Third, the justices disregard “settled laws” decided by and repeatedly affirmed by previous courts. The most egregious example was its reversal of Roe v. Wade. Now, state politicians decide whether women have the right to make their own reproductive decisions. The court also gutted the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, reasoning, perhaps naively, that racism is no longer a problem in the South. 

Fourth, the court opened the floodgates for corporations to make unlimited anonymous monetary contributions to political campaigns. The majority reasoned unrealistically that campaign contributions don’t influence how members of Congress vote. It also stretched credulity by ruling that money is speech and corporations are people. As a result, corporations and wealthy Americans gained even more power to shape the nation’s laws to their benefit

So, Supreme Court reform should be a top objective for voters this year. That requires a Congress committed to the goal. In a previous article, I pointed out that Congress has the necessary powers. Democrats (ideally joined by moderate Republicans and independents) should promise to use them if voters give them a trifecta: control of the White House, House, and Senate.  

Congress could: 

  • Allow President Biden to create better ideological balance on the court by adding four new justicesduring his second term; 
  • Establish by rule that the Senate’s duty in confirming Supreme Court nominees includes maintaining ideological balance on the court. The rule also should require that the Senate act on presidential appointments to the court regardless of their proximity to elections
  • Require the Judicial Conference of the United States to create and enforce a strict code of ethics for justices, including mandatory disclosure of potential and apparent conflicts of interest. The code should require justices to recuse themselves from cases where real or apparent conflicts exist; 
  • Establish term limits of 18 years for justices and require them to retire at or before age 70. This would bring the Supreme Court in line with the District of Columbia and 32 states that have set mandatory retirement ages for appellate court judges; 
  • Send President Biden legislation to restore Roe v. Wade and a strong Voting Rights Act as the laws of the land; 
  • Pass legislation to strengthen the Federal Elections Commission, end gerrymandering and voter suppression, and eliminate unlimited and anonymous campaign contributions.  
  • By statute or proposed constitutional amendment, clarify that the president of the United States a) does not have absolute immunity for violating laws, b) can be prosecuted while in office, and c) can be permanently disqualified from public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without an act of Congress. 
  • Under Article III of the Constitution, strip federal appellate courts including the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over certain classes of cases, including those involving women’s reproductive rights and the obligation of governments to protect “public trust assets” for current and future generations. 
  • Discourage growing abuses of the First Amendment by racists, militants, domestic terrorists, accelerationists and other extremists by compelling the court to define unprotected speech by contemporary standards. For example, pass a law that clarifies when predictions of civil violence and “blood baths” cross the line into true threats; when hate speech becomes discriminatory harassment; and when threats of violence or death constitute unprotected “true threats.” 

These and other commitments for reforming the Supreme Court should be part of the next Congress’s Contract with America. 

The reckoning for Donald Trump’s highly overvalued social media company is coming faster than anyone expected. The stock debuted a few days ago at $70 a share, rose to $78, then dropped into the 60s. Today the stock price plunged after the company reported its losses for 2023. At 3:30 pm, it was selling for $48.07.

Drew Harwell of The Washington Post wrote:

Former president Donald Trump’s social media company said Monday it lost more than $58 million last year, sending its stock plunging roughly 25 percent only days after a highflying public debut valued it at more than $8 billion.
Trump Media & Technology Group, which owns Truth Social, said in a new Securities and Exchange Commission filing Monday that the company generated just over $4 million in revenue last year, including less than $1 million in the last quarter of 2023.


The nosediving share price of the company — which uses the stock ticker DJT, for Trump’s initials — shaved off a quarter of its market value in a single day. It also slashed the value of Trump’s 57 percent ownership in the company by roughly $1 billion, to $3.6 billion.


The new financial figures throw into stark relief the gap between Trump Media’s highly hyped investor-driven valuation on the public stock market and the reality of its business performance.


It also raises questions about the possibility that Trump could use the company as a financial lifeline. Trump cannot sell his shares or use them as collateral for a loan for six months due to a provision in the company’s merger agreement, known as a lockup.

The company’s board could vote to waive that requirement but has yet to do so, the filings state. Cashing out early could sink the stock price further by flooding the market with shares and undermining investor confidence in Trump’s commitment to the brand, financial analysts said.


Trump, who invested no money in Trump Media, was given 78 million shares of the company last week and stands to earn tens of millions more over the next three years if the stock stays above $12 to $17, a filing shows.


Trump Media said in a filing that it expects to incur more “operating losses and negative cash flows” as it works to expand its user base but that it expects its growth will come from Truth Social’s “overall appeal.”


The company said in a filing that its management had “substantial doubt” as of the end of last year that it would have enough money to pay its debts as they come due. The company paid nearly $40 million in interest expenses last year and racked up about $16 million in operating losses.

Thom Hartmann writes here about Republican efforts to rig the vote in 2024.

He wrote recently:

Other than last Sunday’s revelation that Saudi Arabia and Russia have begun manipulating oil availability to create high gas prices to kneecap Biden this fall, the most under-reported story of the week was also posted to The New York Times the same day.

Alexandra Berzon and Nick Corasaniti wrote for last Sunday’s Times:

“A network of right-wing activists and allies of Donald J. Trump is quietly challenging thousands of voter registrations in critical presidential battleground states, an all-but-unnoticed effort that could have an impact in a close or contentious election.”

Noting that there’s virtually no evidence of voter fraud in any of the states targeted by this new group, which is run by “former Trump lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, and True the Vote, a vote-monitoring group with a long history of spreading misinformation,” the Times article notes that their targets are quite specific. 

In Michigan, for example, they have:

“[T]urned up large numbers of supposedly questionable voters in dense areas of Detroit and in student housing in Ann Arbor, both overwhelmingly Democratic cities.”

Using arcane laws and loopholes, Republican-affiliated groups are challenging the right to vote of thousands of mostly democratic voters across the states most likely to determine the outcome of the 2024 election.

While the Times report makes it seem like this is a new tactic, it’s been a major part of Republican electoral strategy since the 1960s. They’re just getting more sophisticated these days.

William Rehnquist, for example, was a 40-year-old Arizona lawyer and Republican activist in 1964, when his idol, Barry Goldwater, was running against Lyndon Johnson for president. Rehnquist helped organize a program titled Operation Eagle Eye in his state to aggressively challenge the vote of every Hispanic and Black voter and to dramatically slow down the voting lines in communities of color to discourage people who had to get back to work from waiting hours to vote.

As Democratic poll watcher Lito Pena observed at the time, Rehnquist showed up at a southern Phoenix polling place to do his part in Operation Eagle Eye:

“He knew the law and applied it with the precision of a swordsman,” Pena told a reporter. “He sat at the table at the Bethune School, a polling place brimming with black citizens, and quizzed voters ad nauseam about where they were from, how long they’d lived there—every question in the book. A passage of the Constitution was read and people who spoke broken English were ordered to interpret it to prove they had the language skills to vote.”

Rehnquist was richly rewarded for his activism; he quickly rose through the GOP ranks to being appointed by President Nixon, in 1972, to the Supreme Court and then elevated in 1986 by President Reagan to chief justice, a position he used to help stop the vote recount in 2000 and hand the election that year to George W. Bush in the case of Bush v. Gore.

(Interestingly, three GOP-employed attorneys who worked with the Bush legal team to argue that case before Rehnquist included then-little-known lawyers John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh. Bush rewarded Roberts by appointing him not just to the Court but directly to the chief justice position when Rehnquist died. Roberts was also a tie-breaking vote to allow Ohio to continue its voter purges in 2017, and he wrote the 5–4 decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013.)

But ever since Kathrine Harris and Jeb Bush got away with stealing the 2000 election from Al Gore, Republicans have redoubled their efforts. When they suffered virtually no blowback or media exposure (beyond Greg Palast’s BBC reports) for the open theft of the presidency, that election became a major turning point for amping up Republican election fraud across the nation.

Months before the election, Florida Governor Jeb Bush had his Secretary of State, Kathryn Harris, throw around 90,000 African Americans off the voting rolls and then, just for good measure, invented a new category of ballots for the 2000 election: “Spoiled.”

“Spoiled ballots” were ballots mostly coming from Black neighborhoods where Bush’s and Harris’ people had installed old, defective, and unreliable punch-card voting card devices. When people weren’t sure all the right holes had been punched (because some hadn’t worked right), they’d often write in “Al Gore” in the “write in” space along with punching the Gore hole in the ballot.

This, according to Bush and Harris, “spoiled” the ballots so they didn’t need to be counted, although there is no state or federal law that would back up that claim and require those ballots to be ignored.

As The New York Times reported a year after the 2000 election when the consortium of newspapers they were part of finally recounted all the votes and discovered tens of thousands of uncounted ballots:

“While 35,176 voters wrote in Bush’s name after punching the hole for him, 80,775 wrote in Gore’s name while punching the hole for Gore. [Florida Secretary of State] Katherine Harris decided that these were all ‘spoiled’ ballots because they were both punched and written upon and ordered that none of them should be counted.”

The result was that 45,599 Florida ballots that were clearly intended to be cast for Al Gore were not counted. As the Times noted:

“Many were from African American districts, where older and often broken machines were distributed, causing voters to write onto their ballots so their intent would be unambiguous.”

George W. Bush “won” the election by 537 votes in Florida, because the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court — which would have revealed and counted the “spoiled” ballots, handing the election to Gore (who’d won the popular vote by over a half-million) — was stopped when GHW Bush appointee Clarence Thomas became the deciding vote on the Supreme Court to block the recount order from the Florida Supreme Court.

Since then, Republican voter purge efforts have gone on steroids. More recently, a shocking 2023 study from Demos lays out the dimensions of this voter purge crisis of democracy brought to us by an increasingly desperate GOP.

Republicans are doing this because they know that their policies are unpopular: most Americans aren’t fans of tax cuts for billionaires, more pollution, deregulation, high-priced drugs, privatizing Medicare, ending Social Security, criminalizing abortion and birth control, student debt, hating on Black and queer people, and the GOP’s war on unions and working people.

So, the GOP does everything they can to make voting difficult or even impossible, particularly for people in heavily Democratic neighborhoods (which are usually college towns, big cities, and Black neighborhoods).

When Republicans run elections in such areas (typically Blue cities in Red states), they’ll close or change polling places at the last minute to sow confusion and cause people to give up when they show up at their normal polling place and find it closed.

For example, in last fall’s election in Ohio the state changed polling places for voters in heavily Black Cuyahoga and Summit counties just five days before the election, as Newsweek noted in an article titled “Ohio GOP Changing Polling Locations Days Before Election Raises Questions.”

Ohio voters were outraged, and that outrage spread across X (formerly Twitter) with comments like this:

“The Ohio GOP is playing ‘Your polling place has moved’ with 47,000 voters in the largest African American voting county in Ohio—just five days before the election. Making it harder to vote—in the crucial August 8th special election (deciding if a majority of voters still can amend Ohio’s state constitution)—is wrong.”

Another X user noted:

“Ohio Republicans are so damn shady! … This stinks to high heaven. At the last minute, before Ohio’s special election, polling locations were changed in Cuyahoga and Summit counties. More than 47,000 voters are affected by changes to 50 voting precincts.”

The fact that this little trick in Ohio last fall got virtually no national press coverage guarantees Red states will be doing more of it in the upcoming 2023 and 2024 elections.

But that’s just the beginning.

Knowing that working-class people are less likely to vote Republican than white upper-class suburbanites, Republicans also engineer polling situations so people paid by the hour will have to wait for hours in line to vote, losing out on income. 

Every year, we’re treated to pictures and videos of hours-long lines to vote in Blue cities in Red states, while lines in white suburbs in those same states typically run less than 10 to 15 minutes.

Similarly, many Red states have imposed draconian penalties on people conducting voter registration drives for making even the smallest mistakes, or for failing to “properly register” themselves with the state. This has shut down many voter registration programs, including some from long-term organizations like the League of Women’s Voters.

As The Kansas Reflector newspaper noted, the penalty for even a minor, inadvertent error is now 17 months in the state prison and a $100,000 fine:

“The League of Women Voters of Kansas and other nonprofits are suspending voter registration drives for fear of criminal prosecution under a new state law.”

The League has sued FloridaTennessee, and Texas for their criminalization of voter registration drives as well.

But purging voters — by the tens of millions every election cycle — is where Republicans find their best result. As the Demos report notes:

“Between the close of registration for the 2020 general election and the close of registration for the 2022 general election, states reported removing 19,260,000 records from their voter registration rolls. This was equal to 8.5% of the total number of voters who were registered in the United States as of the close of registration for the 2022 general election.”

Additionally, 17 million voters were purged in the two years leading up to the 2018 election, fully ten percent of America’s voting population, according to the Brennan Center.

Given that the most radical purges took place among Black and youth voters in Republican-controlled Red states, those 8.5 percent and 10 percent “national averages” could well be two or three times that percentage in the states where these purges were concentrated.

They added, most of the purge activity was taking place in former Confederate Red states that — before five Republicans on the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in their 2013 Shelby County decision — had to have purges pre-cleared by the federal government:

“The median purge rate over the 2016–2018 period in jurisdictions previously subject to preclearance [Red states] was 40 percent higher than the purge rate in jurisdictions that were not covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act [Blue states].”

More than a quarter of those purged during this period from 2016-2022 were removed from the rolls either because they failed to vote in the previous election or because they failed to return a postcard mailed out by a Republican secretary of state (that is usually designed to look like junk mail).

This is called “caging” and used to be illegal, but Sam Alito broke the tie and wrote the 5-4 decision in the 2018 Husted v A Phillip Randolph Institute decision when the five Republicans then on the Court ruled that Ohio Republican Secretary of State Husted could continue his practice of mailing the postcards into Ohio cities with the largest Black populations.

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out that only around 4 percent of Americans move out of their county every year. Yet, he wrote:

“The record shows that in 2012 Ohio identified about 1.5 million registered voters—nearly 20% of its 8 million registered voters—as ineligible to remain on the federal voter roll because [Republican Secretary of State Husted said that] they changed their residences.”

The Brennan Center found that just between 2014 and 2016, in the two years leading up to the Hillary/Trump presidential election, over 14 million people were purged from voter rolls, largely in Republican-controlled states. Then-Secretary of State Brian Kemp purged over a million voters in Georgia alone in 2018, leading up to his 50,000-vote win that year against Stacey Abrams.

Calling the findings “disturbing,” the Brennan Center noted

“Almost 4 million more names were purged from the rolls between 2014 and 2016 [just after the Supreme Court legalized large-scale no-oversight voter purges in 2013] than between 2006 and 2008. This growth in the number of removed voters represented an increase of 33 percent—far outstripping growth in both total registered voters (18 percent) and total population (6 percent).”

Another strategy that the GOP has rolled out in a big way to suppress the vote in Blue areas of Red states is “strict signature matching.” They primarily use this against voters who’ve succeeded in obtaining vote-by-mail ballots, which are authenticated by comparing the signature on the envelope with the voter’s registration card.

Because signatures change over time and often vary a lot when people are in a hurry, this is low-hanging fruit for the GOP.  Last year they started a program to field an “army” of 50,000 “poll watchers,” including interviewing candidates from among white supremacist militia groups, for the 2024 election.

While some of these poll watchers will be on hand to try to intimidate or challenge Black and young voters (a practice that’s legal in most Red states), many will be overseeing the counting of mail-in ballots, which are generally more Democratic than Republican.

All they have to do is claim that, in their opinion, a signature doesn’t match and the ballot goes into the “provisional” pile and won’t be counted until or unless the voter shows up in person at the county elections office. Most people never even know their ballot was challenged and not counted.

Meanwhile, the GOP in Texas is quietly recruiting 10,000 white volunteers “courageous” enough to go into Black and Hispanic polling places and confront people trying to vote.  

As Jessica Corbett reported for Common Dreams:

“Common Cause Texas on Thursday shared a leaked video of a Harris County GOP official discussing plans to ‘build an army’ of 10,000 election workers and poll watchers, including some who ‘will have the confidence and courage’ to go into Black and Brown communities to address alleged voter fraud that analyses show does not actually exist.”

Which brings us back to last weekend’s report about the aggressive voter roll purges detailed in The New York Times. Not only are they trying to strip people of their right to vote, but they’re also laying the groundwork to challenge Democratic winners after the election.

The Times reporters found that even when Republican efforts to get clerks to remove Democratic voters from the rolls fail, the registration purgers consider that a victory because they will then use the initial allegation that those voters were “fraudulent” as the basis to contest the election after the fact — as Trump tried to do in 2020 — by claiming they should have been stripped from the rolls.

As Joanna Lydgate, the chief executive of the nonpartisan States United Democracy Center, told the Times, in some cases:

“It really is aimed at being able to cast doubt on the results after the fact.”

Voting in Red states has become difficult, and registering voters is now treacherous since five Republicans on the Supreme Court legalized all these tricks and strategies to purge or discourage Democratic voters.

If you live in a Blue area of a Red state, or one of the swing states that will decide the next president, get ready: the GOP is pulling out all the stops for this fall’s election.

Double-check your voter registration every month or two at Vote.org, and be sure to double-check it in the weeks just before the deadline for registration, as Republican Secretaries of State prefer to purge people in this window so by the time people discovered they’re purged it’s too late to re-register. And let your friends, relatives, co-workers, and neighbors know that they need to do the same.

Forewarned is forearmed. Pass it on.

It may be a federal crime to threaten the life of the president of the United States. Who would know this better than a former President?

Yet Trump posted an image of President Biden, kidnapped and bound with rope lying in the back of a truck.

Olga Lautman posted this on her blog, Trump Tyranny Tracker.

Earlier today, Trump exhibited his alarming inclination towards violence by sharing a video on Truth Social depicting President Joe Biden bound in the back of a pickup truck. This disturbing act is just the latest instance of Trump injecting political violence into our national discourse. The recollection of Ambassador Yovanovitch’s ordeal stands as a stark reminder of Trump’s perilous nature and the threats he poses to democracy.

The Meidas Touch blog has similar images. Apparently Trump saw these Trump trucks while visiting on Long Island and liked them so much he posted them on “Truth Social.”

Some MAGA Republicans have been displaying this graphic depicting President Joe Biden bound with rope and laying in the bed of a pickup truck apparently kidnapped. Trump is now encouraging such imagery.

The bound Biden graphic on another pickup truck

This is loathsome. It also might be criminal. The Secret Service and FBI should investigate those who encourage violence against the President.

Alabama has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation, and its highest court recently banned in vitro fertilization. In a special election for the legislation, candidate Marilyn Lands swept to victory by emphasizing reproductive rights.

Politico reported:

An Alabama Democrat who campaigned aggressively on abortion access won a special election in the state Legislature on Tuesday, sending a message that abortion remains a winning issue for Democrats, even in the deep South.

Marilyn Lands won a state House seat in a rare competitive race to represent a district that includes parts of Huntsville. Lands, a mental health professional, centered her bid on reproductive rights and criticized the state’s near-total abortion ban along with a recent state Supreme Court ruling that temporarily banned in vitro fertilization. 

“Today, Alabama women and families sent a clear message that will be heard in Montgomery and across the nation,” Lands said in a statement. “Our legislature must repeal Alabama’s no-exceptions abortion ban, fully restore access to IVF, and protect the right to contraception.”

Her opponent, Madison City Council member Teddy Powell, focused his campaign on economic development and infrastructure.

Lands spoke openly about her own abortion experience, when she had a nonviable pregnancy that ended in abortion two decades ago. Her campaign ran a television ad sharing that story.

“It’s shameful that today women have fewer freedoms than I had two decades ago,” Lands says in the ad.

Open the link to finish the story.

Top brass at NBC thought it was a brilliant idea to hire Ronna McDaniel, former chair of the Republican National Committee, as a paid contributor. They did not check with their on-air commentators, who had taken the brunt of McDaniels’ criticism of the “fake news” on behalf of Trump. They knew she had fiercely defended his lies about election fraud. She has now retracted her lies, but that didn’t erase her history as a liar.

When the on-air commentators lambasted the hiring of McDaniel during their shows on Sunday and Monday, NBC leadership withdrew their offer.

But they had signed a contract to pay McDaniel $300,000 a year for two years, and she’s expecting to be paid in full.

Politico reports that she’s also considering a lawsuit for defamation and a hostile work environment.

If NBC wanted to add a Republican commentator who did not participate in the effort to overthrow the election and subvert the Constitution, they could have hired Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, or Mitt Romney (Ronna McDaniel’s uncle). She used to call herself Ronna Romney McDaniel but Trump insisted that she drop her middle name and she did.

Josh Cowen of Michigan State University is a veteran voucher scholar. He has been doing voucher research for nearly two decades. For years, he was hopeful about the outcomes for students. He recently realized that the results were appalling. Students who took vouchers and left their public school actually lost ground academically. The real benefits of vouchers went to students who were already enrolled in private schools; their family, which could afford the tuition, won a subsidy from the state. In some states, even wealthy parents won a state subsidy for their children. vouchers do not help poor students; instead, they are harmed.

Josh Cowen has a new book coming out in September: The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers.

Cowen wrote in The Philadelphia Inquirer:

If you’ve ever run a small business or talked to a business owner, you might have heard the phrase “under promise, over deliver” as a strategy for customer service.

Unfortunately, when it comes to school voucher plans like those being considered by Pennsylvania lawmakers this spring, what happens is the opposite of a sound investment: a lot of overpromising ahead of woeful under-delivery.

As an expert on school vouchers, I think about the idea of what’s promised in the rhetoric vs. what actually happens when the realcost sets in. To hear voucher lobbyists tell it — usually working for billionaires like Betsy DeVos, or Pennsylvania’s own Jeff Yass — all that’s needed to move American education forward is a fully privatized market of school choice, where parents are customers and education is the product.

As I testified to Pennsylvania lawmakers last fall, however, vouchers are the education equivalent of predatory lending.

One promise that never holds up is the idea that states can afford to create voucher systems that underwrite private tuition for some children, while still keeping public school spending strong.

Other states that have passed or expanded voucher systems have rarely been able to sustain new investments in public schools. Even when those voucher bills also came with initial increases in public education funding. Six out of the last seven states to pass such bills have failed to keep up with just the national average in public school investment.

But for children and families — especially those who have been traditionally underserved by schools at different points in U.S. history — the cost of school vouchers goes beyond the price for taxpayers.

Although most voucher users in other states (about 70%) were, in fact, in private schools first, the academic results for the kids who transfer are disastrous. Statewide vouchers have led to some of the largest academic declines in the history of education research — drops in performance that were on par with how COVID-19 or Hurricane Katrina affected student learning.

Although school vouchers have enjoyed fits and starts of bipartisan support from time to time, today’s push for universal voucher systems across the country is almost entirely the product of conservative politics. All 12 states that created or expanded some form of a voucher system in 2023 voted for Donald Trump in 2020. Of those that passed voucher laws since the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, only two (Arizona and New Hampshire) voted for Joe Biden that election year.

In states like Arkansas and Iowa, voucher laws either immediately followed or immediately preceded extreme new restrictions on reproductive care, a weakening of child labor laws, and other conservative policy priorities.

And this isn’t just about electoral politics. The right-wing origins of school vouchers have real day-to-day implications for who gets to use them and who is left out. We know from states like Florida, Indiana, and Wisconsin that the latest voucher bills allow schools to discriminate against certain children if schools can claim they do so for religious reasons.

Who pays that particular price? Examples include students with disabilities and children and parents from LGBTQ families, who may be asked to leave or not even admitted at all. And that’s because when it comes to vouchers, it’s not really school choice at all. Families don’t get their choice of schools; instead, schools get their choice of which families to admit.

And the price tag for all of this usually comes in wildly over budget anyway. The big culprit for those cost overruns goes back to who actually gets a voucher. Because most voucher users were in private schools first— paid by the private sector before — voucher costs are actually new expenditures taxpayers have to make. In the worst-case scenario, Arizona, vouchers cost more than 1,000% beyond what their advocates first promised.

Despite claims some supporters make that vouchers are part of an efficient education market, the result is really the opposite of any strategy a successful business would recognize.

To put it plainly: The promises rarely pan out, and eventually, the check comes due.

Chalkbeat Tennessee reported on the Legislature’s recognition that the “Achievement School District” is a failure.

The ASD was launched by the Obama-Duncan Race to the Top on the theory that charter schools were a magic solution to low test scores. Duncan awarded $500 million to Tennessee, one of the first RTTT winners; $100 million was allocated to the ASD.

The ASD gathered the lowest-performing public schools in the state and clustered them into a new, all-charter district. Chris Barbic, leader of YES Prep charter schools in Houston, was selected to lead the ASD. He boldly predicted that within five years, the ASD schools would rank among the top 25% in the state. ASD started with six schools and eventually expanded to 33..

Blogger Gary Rubinstein has followed ASD over the years, with growing disillusionment. None of the ASD schools ever broke into the top 25%.

The state has spent more than $1 billion to help the ASD.

Chalkbeat wrote a few weeks ago that the Legislature is ready to throw in the towel:

After a decade of painful takeovers of neighborhood schools, contentious handoffs to charter networks, and mostly abysmal student performance, Tennessee’s Achievement School District appears to be on its way out.

Several of the GOP-controlled legislature’s top Republicans are acknowledging that the state’s most ambitious and aggressive school turnaround model has failed — and should be replaced eventually with a more effective approach.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to push for legislation designed to end the so-called ASD, created under a 2010 state law aimed, in part, at transforming low-performing schools.

“I expect we will move in a different direction,” Sen. Bo Watson, the powerful chairman of his chamber’s finance committee, recently told reporters.

The Hixson Republican called the charter-centric school turnaround model an “innovative” idea that fell flat, at least in Tennessee. It would be foolish, Watson added, to keep spending money on an initiative that isn’t working and already has cost the state more than $1 billion — a sentiment echoed by Lt. Gov. Randy McNally and House Speaker Cameron Sexton.

But if the legislature decides to shutter the ASD and Gov. Bill Lee signs off, important questions remain about how Tennessee will support thousands of students in its lowest-performing schools.

There are currently 4,600 students enrolled in ASD schools, 12 in Memphis and one in Nashville.

Initially, the ASD attracted some of the nation’s biggest charter chains.

Evaluations showed that students in ASD schools gained no more in tested subjects than students in schools that received no interventions at all.

Now Tennessee must revise its contract with the federal government to revise its plans to help the lowest performing students.

Chalk up another loss for the “Disruption Doctrine” imposed by Bo Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. One can only imagine the difference that might have been made if the same sums were invested in full-service community schools and reduced class sizes.

NBC decided not to hire Ronna McDaniel, former chair, of the Republican National Committee, after an on-air revolt by its biggest stars.

Her loud defense of Trump’s lies about the 2020 election were unacceptable to the NBC and MSNBC commentators.

Amid a chorus of on-air protest from some of the network’s biggest stars, NBC announced on Tuesday night that former Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel will no longer be joining the network as a paid contributor.


The announcement came in a memo from NBCUniversal News Group Chairman Cesar Conde, who said he had listened to “the legitimate concerns” of many network employees. “No organization, particularly a newsroom, can succeed unless it is cohesive and aligned,” he wrote. “Over the last few days, it has become clear that this appointment undermines that goal.”


Conde also apologized to employees “who felt we let them down” and took “full responsibility” for the hiring…

But the company’s on-air personalities — especially those on NBC’s liberal-leaning cable affiliate MSNBC — disagreed vehemently, saying that McDaniel’s promotion of Donald Trump’s media-bashing and false election-fraud claims disqualified her for a role in their news divisions.

And one by one, they took to the airwaves to deliver that message to their bosses in front of their live audiences Monday.


“Take a minute, acknowledge that maybe it wasn’t the right call,” MSNBC’s top-rated star Rachel Maddow said on her show that night. “It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to acknowledge when you are wrong.”