Healthy For America vs Dangerous For America

"I Can't Breathe" by Nancy Ohanian

One of the themes here at DWT this cycle has been about the dangers of getting too chummy with conservative Republican #NeverTrumpers. They are, after all conservatives and oppose Trump because-- among other things-- he isn't. Many don't have to hold their noses to vote for Biden. He's just what they're looking for. In fact, from what I've seen, conservative #NeverTrump Republicans like Biden a lot more than progressives do. About 80% of progressives are going to hold their noses and vote for Biden, under no delusions about his utter unfitness for office, just thinking about the existential danger Trump is. The #NeverTrump's actually like the idea of a Biden presidency. Sure, they'd prefer someone like Paul Ryan, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, maybe even another overt racist likeTucker Carlson, Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Ted Cruz-- one of their own-- but Biden's record of almost 5 decades is very comforting to them in the short run.

These people will help us take down Trump. The enemy of my enemy is my friend... to a certain extent. Thanks for helping get rid of the fascist. Then go back to your own party and reform it, but don't try to move the Democratic Party even further right than it has already drifted since Arkansas conservative Bill Clinton managed a hostile takeover in 1992.





In an OpEd for TruthOut this week, Beware of Anti-Trump Republicans Who Endorse Joe Biden, William Rivers Pitt agreed. He wrote that "A stampeding herd of 'anti-Trump' Republican organizations and PACs has flooded the zone with ads attacking Trump and endorsing Biden. If beating "Donald Trump in November is your main thing, this would appear to be only good news. I am forced to wonder, however, what the real intent is behind this sudden solidarity after three long years of near-silence from the deeply compromised 'Never Trump' crew."

"Trump," he continued, "is the best campaign spokesman Joe Biden could ever wish for, because Trump will not stop damaging himself, ever. He is incapable of staying out of the spotlight, has no interest in talking points or strategy, and almost never knows what he is talking about when he starts flapping his gums at the cameras. His ceaseless lies about everything from Russian bounties on U.S. troops to the uprising to the pandemic are a feature, not a bug. In the midst of this maelstrom, Biden pops up every so often like some grandfatherly Jack-in-the-box to remind people that, whatever else he may be, he is not that guy. He has out-raised Trump for the second month in a row, while Trump’s own campaign spends its money on ads intended only to assure the president that he’s a great guy and everything is fine."

All the momentum is on Biden’s side at present, and Trump is only going to help him as we lurch toward the reckoning in November. So forgive me for being leery of this abrupt tidal wave of Biden support from Republican-based organizations. It puts me in mind of the old joke about the French aristocrat who sees an angry mob run by and says, “I must find out where my people are going, so I may lead them.”

The newest entry into the Republican anti-Trump push is named 43 Alumni for Biden. It is a collection of hundreds of former campaign and administration members who worked for George W. Bush, the war criminal 43rd president. A list of members is not available so far as I can glean, but the group boasts a number of former Bush Cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking members whose names I’d love to know. Rumsfeld? Ashcroft? Rove? Cheney? Such is the possible character of Biden’s new allies.

“Whether you worked in the earliest days of the 43rd Administration or sprinted to the finish in January 2009, you know a thing or two about serving the grand ideals and exceptional people of our country,” reads the 43 Alumni for Biden endorsement. “Together we saw compassion in action, strength on display and the steady leadership of a true statesman who inspired us to meet some of America’s greatest challenges.”

I don’t have time to fully parse the freight of “Oy vey” in that paragraph; if you lived through the scabrous eight years of the Bush administration, you don’t need me to tell you how much unrefined bullshit is slathered on the words “compassion,” “steady leadership” and “true statesman.” Those hundreds of “43 Alumni” aided and abetted a murderous smash-and-grab robbery of an administration, and now they’re piling in behind Biden exactly when he does not need their help.

Another Republican group that has been throwing hot shade at Trump is The Lincoln Project. The ads produced by this organization have been singularly brutal and ruthlessly timely, and Trump the TV fanatic is well aware of them. Each time another Lincoln Project ad airs, Trump Twitter goes seismic. The Lincoln spots are masterpieces of inflicted political pain, and further proof that conservatives are better at making killer ads than the Democrats ever were or will be.

Many who oppose Trump have rejoiced at the way these ads have been flaying him, but it cannot be forgotten that this same gleefully lethal energy also went into creating and distributing the GOP’s racist Willie Horton ad attacking Michael Dukakis in 1988, and the wildly truthless swift-boat ads attacking John Kerry in 2004. With friends like these, etc.

...[T]hose working to get Trump gone must be deeply wary of this new “help.” These are the people whose policies and go-for-the-jugular campaign ethos made President Donald Trump possible, or even inevitable, in the first place. Here they are now, leaping on the Biden bandwagon in hopes we all forget the blood and tears soaking their hands.

Furthermore, if these right-wing organizations do manage to make a notable difference in the November outcome, they are going to think they are owed something for that assistance, and anything that pushes Biden even further to the right is a menace on its face for anyone seeking genuine progressive change.

Simply put: Never, ever forget who it is you’re dealing with here. These groups do not oppose Trump because of his policies. They oppose Trump because he is bad for the Republican brand, full stop. The enemy of your enemy in this case is not your friend, at all. It feels too much like the Scorpion and the Frog all over again, and folks by now should be heartily wary of getting stung.

Yesterday, super prominent #NeverTrumper Bill Kristol, writing at the NeverTrump Daily Journal Bulwark, tried to appeal to "those who have not been opponents of Donald Trump... those who, for whatever mixtures of reasons and motives, have until now reluctantly supported or tolerated him." He wants them to use July 4th and what it stands for to help them become "former Trump supporters." And he tells them even if they are too reflexively partisan to back Biden, they have an alternative, "His name is Mike Pence." Here's where these #NeverTrumpers show what they're made of and who they are. "[I]t is self-evident that it would be much better for the country if Donald Trump were out of office for the next six months, and if he had no chance to be president for the next four years. A President Pence for the next several months-- even with the possibility of a President Pence for the next four years-- would be a good outcome for all Americans." Yeah, so not our friends. Instead he has a game plan:

Serious and patriotic men and women who have been Trump supporters could go to Donald Trump privately and tell him that he’s done whatever good he can do. They could tell him that it’s time to resign and to turn over both the reins of government and the 2020 Republican nomination to his vice president.

If Donald Trump ignores them, serious and patriotic men and women who have been Trump supporters could urge delegates to the Republican convention to withhold their votes in this emergency from Donald Trump, and could provide legal and political help when the Trump campaign claims those delegates are bound.

If that doesn’t seem feasible, serious and patriotic men and women who have been Trump supporters could simply announce their support for Joe Biden now. If a sizable number of major figures did so, it would make Trump something like a lame duck and might force him from the race. Even if he refused to withdraw, it would weaken his hold on Republicans on the Hill and on his own administration, and make it harder for him to do substantial damage over the next several months. And since Trump could do substantial damage in using the executive power of the federal government to affect the November election, either beforehand (as in his attempt last year to use Ukraine to damage his opponent) or after (by calling results into question, creating chaos and a crisis of legitimacy, and the like), weakening Trump even if he stays in office would be no small thing.

So the best option would be a Trump who has resigned from office. Second best would be a Trump denied re-nomination. Third best would be a weakened and then defeated Trump.

Those who have previously been Trump supporters could help produce one of these outcomes. They should. For Donald Trump has surely proven himself, even to those who wished him well and hoped for the best, to be, to quote the Declaration, “unfit to be a ruler of a free people.”

There is no reason for patriotic Trump supporters to continue enabling him. There would be a portion of honor in helping us get beyond him.

I'll take a great big pass on that strategy. What would be healthy for the country is a massive November rejection of Trump, Trumpism, fascism, authoritarianism and the Republican Party. And that's what's coming, Bill Kristol and his friends on board or not. There's nothing that would make me cast a ballot for Biden-- nothing-- but there is one thing that I like about him: he promised (though I don't necessarily believe him) that he will not pardon Trump. Pence would, of course. What would be healthy for America-- more healthy than anything I can think of short of a Bernie presidency-- would be to see a Trump trial and to subsequently see Trump die in prison, the way Al Capone did.

Is Donald Trump Likely to Resign?

Thanks to Trump's mismanagement of the Covid-19 outbreak, the U.S. is on the verge of becoming the Typhoid Mary of major industrial nations

by Thomas Neuburger

Donald Trump's resignation is a topic on many lips these days. Chris Hayes, in a dramatic moment at MSNBC, called for Trump to resign over his mishandling of the coronavirus epidemic (deservedly so), and at least one newspaper editorial board has called for Trump to step down, as has Washington Governor Jay Inslee.

Michael Gerson at the Washington Post called for Trump's resignation because of "diminished moral capacity" related to his alleged callous indifference to the alleged Russian bounties offered for American lives in the Afghan theater of war.

Note that there are a lot of "if"s in these bounty reports — Gerson himself leads his argument with "If, as reported by multiple news sources" — while skeptics think it's awfully convenient timing that leaks from ... who? "American intelligence officials," who proudly admit to lying ... have reached the Times just as the Trump administration is working on Afghanistan peace agreements that could get the U.S. out of a war it's been waging for almost 20 years. (Whether the U.S. has been waging the war successfully or not depends on what you think the U.S. considers success. If military occupation counts as success, we've succeeded. By any other measure, we've failed.)

Analysts are also speculating that Trump could leave office voluntarily or be forced out. Robert Kuttner wrote at The American Prospect that Trump may leave on his own, since nothing seems to be going his way lately and the minute he's unelected he'll be subject to quite a bit of prosecution. Kuttner's speculation hinges on the possibility that Trump could pre-emptively negotiate a deal for resigning that amounts to a giant "Get out of jail free" card.

"Trump may conclude," writes Kuttner, "that he has more leverage to cut the best possible deal with all players while the bargain includes a widely wished-for resignation, rather than after he loses an election and his term merely ends. At that point, Trump’s opponents have no incentive to make deals, and a pardon only goes so far."

Sounds plausible to me, but I've been wrong before.

Others feel that increased pressure from Republicans leaders, fearful of losing both the White House and the Senate in November, will cost him critical support within his party. Most of those discussions are private at the moment, but they are many. The question is the method — how to get him to go.

Which brings us back to the Russian bounties story. Will that carry such weight with the American people that his already "crummy" approval rating (39%) and poll numbers (nearly 10 points below Joe Biden) will drop even further? If so, could a combination of public shaming and deep unpopularity force him out of office?

Sounds unlikely to me, but I've been wrong before.

The Typhoid Mary of Major Industrial Nations

Something that might force his resignation, though, is low on people's radar, but it shouldn't be — the EU travel ban on Americans entering Europe. Consider the following from CNN (emphasis added):

What EU's new border rules mean for travelers
Updated 1st July 2020

(CNN) — The European Union has formally agreed a set of recommendations that will allow travelers from outside the bloc to visit EU countries, months after it shut its external borders in response to the outbreak of Covid-19.

As had been widely expected, the list of 14 countries does not include the United States, whose current Covid infection rate does not meet the criteria set by the EU for it to be considered a "safe country."

The criteria requires that confirmed Covid cases in countries on the list are similar or below that of the EU's per 100,000 citizens over the previous 14 days (starting from June 15).

Countries must also have a "stable or decreasing trend of new cases over this period in comparison to the previous 14 days," while the EU will consider what measures countries are taking, such as contact tracing, and how reliable each nation's data is.

The US has not only the highest number of reported coronavirus infections of any nation, currently 2,590,582, but also the highest number of deaths, at, 126,141, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University.

US infection rates will need to dramatically drop if Americans are to be allowed entry to European countries, just as the European tourism industry enters what are traditionally its peak months.

The recommendations are expected to come into force as early as July 1, however, it remains up to member states to decide exactly how the implement any changes in border policy.

According to CNN, exemptions may be offered to "EU citizens or family members of an EU citizen; long-term EU residents or family members; those with an 'essential function or need,' such as diplomats, healthcare workers or certain agricultural workers."

Does being wealthy, powerful or connected count as an essential function? How will business travelers be affected? Would Charles Koch be allowed in? Would a high-ranking official of, say, Apple, on her way to a meeting with a German corporate counterpart, be counted as having a need to enter Europe? What if Charles Koch or the Apple CEO wanted merely to look in on their eighth farm in France, bringing the grandkids for a visit? Would they be allowed in?

If yes, how far down the wealth or corporate ladder would one need to be before the ban would apply? Would mere millionaires qualify? How about junior VPs at smaller companies? The questions, once exemptions are granted, are endless.

The Feckless Administration

Which brings us to Donald Trump and his resignation. The following two things are true:

First, U.S. Covid infection rates are never going to drop under the current regimen and under this administration. They will never come down except naturally, if the virus recedes on its own, period. Trump and his administration are structurally incapable of making this better, and yahoo U.S. governors are incapable of not making this worse.

Second, this will be true from now until January 2021 when the next president is sworn in, and perhaps beyond.

The American people can be told to suffer and bear with it, but they don't travel to Europe. Our bipartisan betters do, however, and this includes our Republican betters. If the Europeans are as strict as, frankly, they ought to be, do you think that powerful and wealthy Republicans, many of whose lives are essentially international, will tolerate a travel ban for the next six months?

When and if Republican elites decide that European governments are serious, that France, Germany, Italy and the rest won't let most of them in, I'll bet any money in the world that Donald Trump will be offered a deal, and both parties will be party to crafting it — even if it means letting Vice-President Pence run as an incumbent on the November ballot.

And, if Robert Kuttner is right about Trump's legal needs post-election, I'll also bet he takes it.
  

Katie Hill, Bye-Bye

PVIs are backward looking and are rarely up to date. Take CA-25, the district represented by Katie Hill, Officially the PVI is "even" but the Santa Clarita Valley-Antelope Valley-Simi Valley district is way bluer than that would indicate. Obama won it narrowly against McCain and then lost it narrowly against Romney. Hillary beat Trump convincingly-- 50.3% to 43.6%. Blue America has been working to flip this district for well over a decade. We started when powerful GOP crook-- now lobbyist-- Buck McKeon was congressman there. He had to go but the district was much redder then, R+7 in 2006. It was a mammoth district-- biggest in California-- that did not include Simi Valley but instead crawled up the California border with Nevada, nearly as far north as Sacramento.

We jumped in to support Roberto Rodriguez, a recent Harvard graduate who hailed from a working class family in Barstow (no longer part of the district). At the time, McKeon was chair of the Education and Workforce Committee and under his stewardship-- and while he raked in over a quarter million dollars from student loan vendors, more than anyone else in Congress-- federal student loan programs were cut by $12.7 billion (the worst cuts in history) and student loan rates went up by 2.4%. Pure sleaze... but not the kind you go to prison for. Getting rid of McKeon would be up to the voters-- and the young and under-funded Rodriguez, who was running a very grassroots campaign concentrating on registering the district's Latino non-voters. McKeon spent $1,370,664 and Rodriguez spent $200,516. The only outside spending in the race was from Blue America ($5,000) and the National Education Association ($3,412) in favor of Rodriquez. The DCCC ignored the race entirely as if CA-25 didn't exist. McKeon beat Rodriguez 61-35%. The district was slowly, demographically, getting bluer but in 2008 and 2010, a vanity candidate went up against McKeon-- whose 61% backing didn't budge. In 2012 it was time to get serious about the district again.

Lee Rogers ran a strong, animated campaign, forcing McKeon to spend $1,769,400 (Rogers spent $360,091). He brought McKeon's win number down to 55% and did significantly better than any Democrat ever had in the district. The DCCC didn't care and studiously ignored the race. Blue America was the only group that spent in the district-- $39,810. McKeon heard the bell tolling and decided to retire. A glitch in the ballot left 2014 with two Republicans, mainstream conservative Tony Strickland and far right neo-Nazi Steve Knight. Though outspent $2,057,642 to $410,835, the neo-Nazi won. The district's Republicans are pretty extreme.

In 2016, the Democratic candidate was a wealthy carpetbagger, a garden variety Democrat-- Bryan Cafario with nothing to recommend him at all except that he wasn't a Republican. He managed to spend the same $1.6 million as Knight but it still came down to 54.2% (Republican) to 45.8% (Democrat). This time though, the DCCC was satisfied that Caforio was their kind of nothing-candidate who wouldn't make waves and they put $3,164,363 into the race, while Pelosi's House Majority PAC spent $242,487.

Now CA-25 was on the national radar. Katie Hill (now 32 years old) jumped into the race and first beat Caforio, massively outraised the hapless neo-Nazi, $7,156,033 to $829,932 and beat him 133,209 (54.4%) to 111,813 (45.6%), despite Paul Ryan's Congressional Leadership Fund spending $8,022,525 on Knight's behalf. (The DCCC and Pelosi's super PAC spent about $3.5 million combined, but Independence USA came in with over $5 million to combat Ryan's $8 million). In the end 61 outside groups spent independently on Hill's race! The Democrats had a slight registration advantage over the GOP and independents were eager to show their disdain for Trump. So Hill won.

Blue America was the first group to endorse her, an endorsement we quickly rescinded. A mutual friend introduced me to her over dinner a month or so before she began her campaign. I loved her energy and wanted to hear something that wasn't really there-- namely that she is a progressive. She didn't have to try too hard to convince me. But once the campaign got started in earnest I slowly began realizing that she duped me (and that I had been eager to be duped). The final straw was when she vowed to me that she would not become a New Dem and then turned around and joined the New Dems. That was blatant dishonesty-- a bad trait in any member of Congress. We quietly withdraw our endorsement.

In Congress, Katie was elected one of the co-presidents of the freshman class and she demonstrated a lot of energy and was seen as a comer. Pelosi sensed she was a leader and started inviting her to caucus leadership meetings. A New Dem, she quickly started running up a crappy voting record. ProgressivePunch has her rated as an "F" and her crucial vote score is 73.33, in the neighborhood of the other non-courageous California freshmen nervous about losing their jobs. Mike Levin's district is slightly redder (R+1) but his voting record is considerably better-- "B" with a 84.44 crucial vote score. Still, Katie is voting somewhat better than fellow New Dem freshmen Gil Cisernos (71.11), Harley Rouda (68.89) and Josh Harder (63.64).

A couple of weeks ago I read the Red State post about the scandal and realized she was a goner. It isn't something I ever wrote about and even refused to discuss it on David Feldman's radio show when he kept asking me about it. There was no need for me to help push her off the cliff she was heading right for. I did begin feeling out potential candidates for the seat though-- something I'm still working on.

Since Hill's resignation announcement (above) late Sunday, Washington Post reporters Meagan Flynn and Michelle Ye He Lee, in separate articles, presented her story-- or the seamy side of it-- without any political context. Sunday night Lee broke the story for Post readers. "Last week, the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into allegations that Hill was romantically involved with her legislative director, Graham Kelly, a relationship that would violate House ethics rules... Her departure came swiftly after allegations surfaced about a week ago in an article on the conservative website RedState.org. The article alleged that Hill and her husband were in a consensual three-person relationship with a woman on her campaign team. The article included text messages it said were between Hill and the woman as well as intimate photos of them together. Hill is openly bisexual. The article also alleged that Hill was involved romantically with Kelly. Under House ethics rules adopted last year in response to high-profile sexual harassment claims involving members of Congress, it is against the official code of conduct for members to 'engage in a sexual relationship with any employee' who works for the member."

Presumably it was Pelosi who made the call that Hill had to resign (rather than retire and just not run for reelection), a strategy that will make it easier for a Democrat to hold the seat. Pelosi announced that Hill "acknowledged errors in judgment that made her continued service as a Member untenable. We must ensure a climate of integrity and dignity in the Congress, and in all workplaces."




Hill's claim that she did not have a romantic relationship with Kelly-- the only thing that would have broken any House rules-- is sketchy. She said "Allegations that I have been involved in a relationship with Mr. Kelly are absolutely false. I am saddened that the deeply personal matter of my divorce has been brought into public view and the vindictive claims of my ex have now involved the lives and reputations of unrelated parties." Since I know from personal experience that she's a liar, I wouldn't believe the denial for two seconds. Lee added that "In her statement Sunday, she said she is pursuing legal options against those who released private photos, saying that 'having private photos of personal moments weaponized against me has been an appalling invasion of my privacy.' ... Hill has accused Republican operatives and her husband of coordinating a 'smear campaign' amid the couple’s pending divorce."

Monday morning, Meagan Flynn built on Lee's story. "For the first time," she wrote, "a House ethics rule that forbids sexual relationships with subordinates, passed in the wake of the #MeToo movement, has forced a lawmaker out of Congress. But to many observers, rather than drive home a warning about the consequences of sexual misconduct, Rep. Katie Hill’s resignation pointed to the disturbing power of 'revenge porn.' The California Democrat’s announcement Sunday that she would resign comes after the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into allegations that she had a romantic relationship with her legislative director, which would violate House ethics rules, and which Hill denied. Hill was also accused of having a three-person sexual relationship with a female campaign staffer and her now-estranged husband, which she admitted was improper. But the allegations only came to light after a conservative news site and British tabloid published nude images of Hill without her consent-- circumstances that have led many critics to note that Hill is both accused of sexual impropriety and is a victim of sexual exploitation."

Hill herself has acknowledged both aspects of her case, previously saying she knew “even a consensual relationship with a subordinate is inappropriate,” while vowing Sunday to mount a legal fight regarding the leak of intimate photos. She has accused her “abusive husband,” with whom she is undergoing a contentious divorce, of engaging in a “smear campaign built around cyber exploitation,” saying he enlisted “hateful political operatives” for help. The nude photos were published by the conservative site RedState.org and the Daily Mail.

“Having private photos of personal moments weaponized against me has been an appalling invasion of my privacy,” she said Sunday. “It’s also illegal, and we are currently pursuing all of our available legal options.”

But fewer lawmakers have outwardly addressed the problem of revenge porn, or nonconsensual pornography. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was a notable exception. Last week, Gaetz called the House ethics investigation “absurd,” questioning, “Who among us would look perfect if every ex leaked every photo/text?” He suggested the real reason Hill was being investigated “is because she is different.” Hill is also one of the first openly bisexual members of Congress.

Jill Filipovic, an attorney who authored the 2017 book The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness, pointed out that the dominant focus in Hill’s case appeared to be on the alleged affairs rather than on the revenge porn, which she argued could deter other women from aspiring to public office.

“It’s important to have consistent standards and say that sexual relationships with underlings are not appropriate, whether the boss is male or female,” she wrote in a Medium essay last week. “But if we care about gender equality and the ability for women to fully participate in the public sphere, the sexualized attacks against Hill are the most pressing matter.”

Other critics noted that Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) was accused by federal prosecutors in June of using taxpayer money to fund extramarital affairs with congressional staffers and lobbyists. The House Ethics Committee launched an investigation into Hunter’s conduct in September 2018, after he was originally indicted on charges of wire fraud and misuse of campaign funds. But despite pressure to resign from some lawmakers, Hunter has remained in Congress. Hunter has denied wrongdoing, and as The Post reported previously, the ethics panel has deferred taking action as federal prosecutors conclude their own probe.

The House rule that prompted the ethics panel to launch an investigation into Hill’s alleged relationship with congressional staffer Graham Kelly was passed in February 2018, during the peak of the #MeToo movement fallout. For the first time in Congress, the House resolution addressed the improper power dynamics of consensual relationships between members of Congress and their employees by banning any such relationship, while further protecting accusers who come forward with sexual harassment claims.

At the time the law passed, nine members of Congress had recently resigned or announced their looming departure amid allegations of sexual misconduct or related impropriety-- including one case that also involved leaked nude photos.

Former Texas congressman Joe Barton announced he would not seek reelection in 2018 after a nude photo of him circulated on Twitter and across the Internet, leading to revelations that the Republican, who was then married but separated from his wife, was having affairs with multiple women. In a November 2017 statement, Barton apologized for not using “better judgment,” saying he let down his constituents while acknowledging consensual sexual relationships he had had with other women.

A recording of a phone call Barton had with one woman, obtained by the Washington Post, revealed him telling the woman not to disseminate the explicit photos or else he would report her to the Capitol Police. Some argued Barton was a victim of revenge porn, while others questioned whether the nude photo he had sent was unsolicited.

But one notable difference between the Barton case and Hill’s is the fact that right-wing publications chose to release the photos, especially since they depicted “a politician of the opposing party,” Quinta Jurecic, managing editor of Lawfare, a legal blog, wrote in an op-ed.

“This is an ugly line to have crossed,” she wrote, adding: “The United States has not historically had a culture in which political media outlets publish nude photographs of opposition politicians for sport. It’s also a disappointing irony that this is taking place in a period in which legislatures are increasingly recognizing the harm of nonconsensual pornography.”

According to the Cyber Civil Rights Institute, 46 states and the District of Columbia have revenge porn laws-- and California, Hill’s home state, is among them. Reps. Jackie Speier (D-CA) and John Katko (R-NY) also reintroduced bipartisan legislation in May that would federally criminalize sharing sexually explicit images of someone without that person’s consent. Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-CA), a Democratic presidential candidate, has introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

Mary Anne Franks, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law who assisted in drafting the first law against nonconsensual pornography, urged the passage of the bill, known as the SHIELD Act, and spoke out in support of Hill on Twitter.

“One of the many terrible effects of nonconsensual pornography is how it can be used to drive women out of politics,” she wrote. “As we at [Cyber Civil Rights Institute] have been emphasizing for years, ‘revenge porn’ very often serves as a tool of abusive partners and a means to silence women.”

Names being bandied about on the Democratic side are Secretary of State Alex Padilla (who represented the 20th Senate district east of CA-25), Assemblywoman Christie Smith (who made it official already! and appears to be the DCCC fave), Bryan Caforio and Lee Rogers (the most progressive name out there). On the Republican side there are over a dozen either in or talking about it-- from Russia-Gate jailbird George Papadopoulous to ex-L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, probably the strongest potential GOP candidate. Lancaster City Councillor Angela Underwood-Jacobs has already announced, as has Mike Garcia, who the NRCC was supporting when he was viewed as a sacrificial lamb. Now they will dump him as fast as they can find someone more electable. Steve Knight has told friends he's going to probably run.

Trump Will Never Resign-- Unless It's Part Of A Plea Deal To Keep Himself Out Of Prison... But Newspapers Are Already Calling For His Resignation

Coup d'état-- The dismantling of American Democracy by Nancy Ohanian

The Connecticut Post, part of the Hearst chain, serves the southwest part of the state-- primarily Fairfield County (think Fairfield, Bridgeport, Trumbull Darien, Stratford, New Canaan, Derby). It reaches over 50,000 families a day. Hillary won Fairfield County handily-- 238,723 (58.2%) to 155,457 (37.9%)-- and last year Democrats swept the county. Senator Chris Murphy racked up a 61.8% win. Ned Lamont took 53.0% in his gubernatorial win. And the county performed massively (D+24) for Jim Himes, the well-regarded local congressman. His was reelected 168,726 (61.2%) to 106,921 (38.8%) in what was once a GOP stronghold. So, over the weekend, the Connecticut Post was largely preaching the the choir when it called on Trump to resign. Someone had to be first, right?

The editors noted that "Even given the incredibly fast pace of news in the Trump era, the speed with which the Ukraine scandal has moved from vague complaint to impeachable offense has been stunning. Though we’re still at the beginning of the process, there is already a mountain of evidence implicating President Donald Trump with conduct far outside the accepted norms of a democratic leader. The most damning evidence came from the president himself. It centers around a phone call with the president of Ukraine in which Trump raises the issue of investigating the son of presidential hopeful Joe Biden, and the implication of Trump’s words is clear as day. He asks for an investigation that would benefit him politically and has nothing to do with legitimate U.S. interests, and he brings it up repeatedly, including immediately upon the Ukrainian president mentioning the need for U.S. security aid."

This is an impeachable offense. Republicans spent Wednesday arguing there was no explicit quid pro quo, but there is seemingly no line the president can cross that would inspire them to put the public good ahead of politics. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, joined by the entirety of Connecticut’s congressional delegation, has called for impeachment proceedings, and that process must now begin in earnest.

The proper next step for the president is clear. He should resign. He has repeatedly proven himself unfit for office and appears to view the presidency as a position meant to benefit himself personally, not as one that must represent the interests of an entire nation.

Because there’s almost no chance he is going to step down, Congress’ work becomes that much more vital.

The truth is that Trump has been breaking laws and norms with impunity from the beginning. For instance, the U.S. Constitution forbids federal officeholders from receiving any gifts or payments from foreign entities, but in the same phone call with the Ukrainian president we see evidence that Trump is in violation. “I stayed at the Trump Tower,” President Volodymyr Zelensky says of his last trip to the U.S. Since Trump never divested himself from his business and continues to profit from it, he’s in violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause, according to many legal scholars, and it’s just one of countless examples on that score.

Further, the Mueller report into Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election details multiple occasions when the president apparently obstructed justice, and he was saved from criminal indictment only by virtue of the office he currently holds. The president, as is his wont, called the report a total exoneration. It wasn’t.

It’s not clear how much worse the Ukraine scandal will get. The summary of the phone call was released by the White House without need for a subpoena, but it is apparently abridged and does not represent all the whistleblower complaint that set the issue in motion. It’s easy to imagine that what we don’t know could be much worse than what we do.

But what we know is enough, and because it’s from the president himself, there’s no reason to question its veracity. There’s no going back from here. The long, bumpy ride of the Trump era may have turned a corner, but it’s nowhere near over.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch had a slightly different message for its readers in Missouri yesterday, one aimed at congressional Republicans: Trump is exhausting the nation's and his party's patience. Time to dump him. "Try as Republicans will to distract the American public and label the impeachment inquiry a witch hunt, there is no escaping the hard truth that President Donald Trump solicited help from a foreign leader for his 2020 campaign, an act that U.S. law specifically forbids. Republican leaders in Congress find themselves, once again, scrambling furiously to concoct a believable defense for a man whose conduct is indefensible. Trump’s recklessness and divisiveness is exhausting the nation’s patience. How far will GOP leaders in Congress allow Trump to drag this country down before they stand in defense of the Constitution?... How far must a president go in betraying his country before Republicans finally declare that he no longer represents their values? How much crisis, chaos and scandal can Republicans, exhausted from constantly defending him, tolerate before they decide enough’s enough? The time has come for Republicans to stand up for the Constitution, stand up for America, and tell Trump to step down."

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Trump resigning would be good for the country and the known universe, but I'd prefer to see him play Russian Roulette on worldwide pay-per-view. Not only would the irony of the name of the choice of game be delicious, but the event could raise billions for some good causes and rid the world of this pestilence. I'm just looking for something good to come of the Trump presidency which has so deliberately failed our country. We could even give him a last meal of very tainted Taco Bell, KFC, or Chick-fil-A. And, a pre-Show warm-up of dancing porno stars and Russian prostitutes.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

It's horrible to see this tweet and realize it's not real. The first thing that tells us it isn't a real Traitor Don tweet is that it doesn't have enough spelling mistakes. Also, if Donnie the Blowhard really was resigning, he'd issue something that included what a great job he'd done, that his resignation will be getting the highest TV ratings ever, that his approval ratings were the higher than Lincoln... and, of course, the Republican "No Collusion" mantra.

Still, one can dream and one can do whatever we can to move such a glorious day closer and closer. One weapon we do have is mass derision. If Comrade Donnie ever did resign, you'd see bigger celebrations than VE Day, and for similar reasons. Hopefully, the kissing couple kissing in the middle of Broadway will be a trans couple and republicans across the country will gag themselves into a coma.

Meanwhile, I suggest we tweet this one viral. If you're not on twitter, share this to the world in whatever way you see fit. Make it viral waterboarding for the White House.