“Trump is not an option—they are done with him”: Are “persuadable” Republicans the new #NeverTrump?

Salon

“Trump is not an option—they are done with him”: Are “persuadable” Republicans the new #NeverTrump?

Chauncey DeVega – February 13, 2024

Donald Trump Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images
Donald Trump Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images

Like a mob boss running an extortion racket, in a speech on Saturday Donald Trump signaled to Vladimir Putin that if Russia invaded Western Europe and attacked the NATO alliance, the U.S. under Trump’s leadership would do nothing to stop it.

“You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”

Trump continues to show that he is manifestly unfit for the presidency, boasting again over the weekend that he is going to unleash his own Nazi-like Gestapo force on “day one” of his presidency (what some have described as “Trump’s Kristallnacht”) in 2025 to invade “blue” parts of the country to forcibly detain and deport hundreds of thousands of black and brown undocumented residents. To accomplish such a goal will require gross violations of the law, the Constitution, and civil and human rights. The Trump regime’s reign of terror will also be an act of massive violence and civil disorder – which Dictator Trump and his agents likely desire as a pretext to invoke martial law.

By the conventional wisdom any of these (and the many other) examples of such perfidy and betrayals of American democracy, and the country’s interests and well-being more generally should disqualify Trump from public office. In total, all of them should have resulted in Trump being exiled from American public life.

Meanwhile, the American economy is extremely robust because of the Biden administration’s stewardship and leadership. The stock market is at historic highs. The labor market is strong. By political measures, such as the Democratic Party’s wins in midterm elections as well as on the state and local level, Biden should be trouncing Trump. Instead, high-quality public opinion polls consistently find Trump and Biden in a virtual tie.

The Trumpocene has broken these old norms and expectations. Of course, so-called conventional wisdom ceased to apply more than seven years ago with Trump’s victory in 2016. The American mainstream news media and political class have mostly refused to adapt to this new world and the end of normal politics.

In an attempt to gain some clarity about this increasingly bewildering “longest election ever,” what the early public opinion polls mean and how many political observers are deeply concerned that the 2024 election is increasingly feeling like a repeat of the disastrous 2016 election, I recently asked a range of experts for their thoughts and suggestions.

Cheri Jacobus is a political strategist, writer, ex-Republican, and host of the podcast “Politics With Cheri Jacobus.” 

We are in for a roller coaster ride between now and November. That we are still in this uncharted territory regarding Trump is frightening, and an indication that our institutions are weaker than we suspected in even our darkest moments. The Pollyannas among us should be summarily silenced at this late stage in the game.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has let us down, allowing Trump and the worst of his crew to skate, placing us in this untenable position where Trump is to be the GOP nominee for president. Our “trust” in a Trump-corrupted Supreme Court indicates we still don’t want to accept that our highest court has been co-opted and corrupted, as Clarence Thomas is still there while his wife escapes justice as Garland looks the other way. Our media still enables Trump for clicks and ratings, and those getting rich and/or TV famous in that cottage industry that “fighting” Trump has built, are very much OK with it all; Trump is still good for business.

The good news is that Joe Biden’s team, while in an uphill struggle against these forces they should never have to face, are inching ahead. He defies conventional wisdom fairly regularly, most recently in South Carolina where he outpaced polling by 30+ points, winning 98% instead of coming in with 60-something percent the polling predicted.

I still believe there are more persuadable voters out there than conventional wisdom suggests. We saw some anecdotal evidence of this in New Hampshire where some GOP primary voters indicated if Nikki Haley were not the GOP nominee, they would vote for President Biden, or simply not vote for president at all in November. But Donald Trump is not an option — they are done with him.

Every traditional method and manner of building a Biden win, predicting a Biden win is heavily in his favor, including and especially his stellar record of results, but the persistent knocking down of the guardrails of any and all protections of our democracy continues. I fear we are becoming numb and even accustomed to this, rather than properly alarmed. I fear Vladimir Putin long ago identified the cracks, fissures, and weakness in our various institutions that comprise those guardrails, and is consistently several steps ahead of us while we are repeatedly whiplashed. Media. Supreme Court, Federal bench. Post office. Twitter. Ukraine (that 2016 RNC platform language forced by Trump/Putin team). Putin-friendly Mike Johnson as Speaker. So many things that in retrospect truly seem like connected dots, and should make us concerned that we are not willing or able to connect the dots in advance and get ahead of this.

Are we, as a country, still in denial? We are the frog being boiled slowly.

David Pepper is a lawyer, writer, political activist, and former elected official. His new book is “Saving Democracy: A User’s Manual for Every American”.

I’ve always believed it would be Trump versus Biden. And that’s what it will clearly be.

It won’t only be the longest election of all time, but viewed differently—it’s the longest attempted insurrection of all time. At the outset, the clear motivation for Trump to run again was to avoid the accountability he would otherwise face for his actions around January 6, and other alleged cases and crimes. Running has helped him pay the legal bills to defend it all. Winning, he thinks, gets him immunity and the pardon power. He doesn’t even hide lately that that’s what he craves. And now an entire party is all-in on that cause, including potential vice presidential choices, making clear they would have done the opposite of Mike Pence on January 6.

The most consistent data point has been the overperformance of Democrats since the middle of 2022, largely due to a more energized turnout and the far-right careening into extremism. From Kansas in August ’22 (the special election over abortion access), to November 2022 (not just federal races, but Democrats flipping several statehouses and election deniers losing Secretary of State and Governor races in numerous states), to the big victories in Ohio in August and November 2023, to the Virginia Statehouse in 2023, Democrats have built up a winning streak all across the country, and at multiple levels. Heck, even Moms of Liberty candidates losing 70% of their races in 2023 was a part of this trend. Remember, these are the years where Democrats are supposed to be losing—because they are in the White House. Those statehouse slips defied a half-century of precedent. These aren’t just polls; they are actual outcomes. And the consistency of these results tells us something is happening beneath the surface that is largely being lost as we ogle a faux-GOP primary and polls that are all over the map.

I don’t think anyone knows what will happen. This is indeed an unprecedented time—a battle royale for democracy at all levels. No one who cares about democracy should take it—or anything—for granted. They should count on Trump and anti-democracy forces in states to have studied where they fell short in 2020 and 2022, learning from it, and yes, doing anything to win beyond even what they’ve done before.

But they should also take note of the winning streak I described above.  It is real, and it defies history. And it’s a result of tireless work by grassroots activists and candidates at all levels, and a realization by a broad swath of voters that the current far right is too extreme for America and their community. Similar, tireless work and effective messaging will be needed to protect democracy in 2024.

Mark Jacob, former Chicago Tribune metro editor and current author of the Stop the Presses newsletter at stopthepresses.news.

Most people who will vote in November are not paying that much attention to politics right now. It’s time for people who care – and who know that the risk of us losing democracy are real – to get active, support candidates, get on volunteer lists, and hone their arguments for when they will matter most this fall.

I’d advise everyone to protect their mental health by ignoring the polls. I think it’s going to be a close election, probably closer than in 2020. My best guess now is that Trump will go down again, but there’s no cause for overconfidence.

We should be worried about what will happen and if this could be a repeat of 2016 — and we should use that worry as motivation.

Hundreds of things that could affect the presidential race will happen before Election Day. There’s no predicting those. The overriding message that Americans of good will need to keep focusing on is that one candidate believes in democratic principles and the other one threatens to tear down our system to feed his cult of personality. Our children’s and grandchildren’s lives will be greatly affected by the actions we take this year.

Rick Wilson is a co-founder of The Lincoln Project, a former leading Republican strategist, and author of two books, “Everything Trump Touches Dies” and “Running Against the Devil: A Plot to Save America from Trump – and Democrats from Themselves”.

I’d rather be in President Biden’s position than Trump’s. President Biden is climbing in the polls, the economy is doing well, Biden has passed some of the most consequential legislation in history, and Trump is – of course – facing prison over 91 criminal counts. Democrats need to celebrate the successes of Biden’s term and stop the bed-wetting.

This will be a long election simply because we know who the candidates are in February. Trump’s congressional cult members are going to screw with the budget process and the border in order to help Trump’s chances.

We have months and months of attacks and recriminations to come from a desperate Trump and his MAGA hordes who know the only way they can win is to make this election about something – anything – other than Biden’s success as president. Democrats need to buckle up and stay engaged and not get frustrated. President Biden will win this election if everyone comes out to vote and gets their friends and family to do the same.

The economic indicators show the excellent job President Biden has done to turn the nation around after Trump absolutely destroyed the economy with his mishandling of COVID. We consistently see solid job numbers month over month, oil production is at the highest it’s ever been by any nation in history, and manufacturing is opening up across the country due to the CHIPS Act. These are the numbers that matter to voters when it comes time to vote.

Trump’s trials are all signal – from now through the election they will remain a constant reminder of his culpability in the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

The age issue is nothing but noise by prognosticators who are trying to obtain cable news contracts. The reality is that Trump is showing signs of impairment with his erratic behavior and inability to remember details. The ultimate decision point is how they each handled the job. Every single indicator shows that President Biden has been one of the most successful presidents in history.

Let’s make no mistake, this will be a close election and will come down to several key swing states. But again, I’d rather be Biden than Trump. The economy is going in the right direction and people are starting to be appropriately terrified of what a second Trump term could look like. No matter the outcome, Trump is an unpopular figure who will not win the majority of the vote nationwide.

It’s up to Biden and the Democrats to show the distinction between the two: Another Biden term that continues building on its economic and foreign success, or a rage-filled Trump administration that will rip away individual rights, punish people who disagree and empower our enemies by wrecking America’s standing in the world.

Trump Is Losing It

Jamelle Bouie – February 13, 2024

A group of Trump supporters in Nevada, many wearing red MAGA hats and taking photos, crowds around the former president, who has his right fist raised.
Credit…Patrick T. Fallon/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

It is unclear whether Donald Trump has forgotten the precise nature of NATO or whether he ever fully grasped it in the first place.

What is clear, however, is that Trump — who ostensibly spent four years as president of the United States — has little clue about what NATO is or what NATO does. And when he spoke on the subject at a rally in South Carolina over the weekend, what he said was less a cogent discussion of foreign policy than it was gibberish — the kind of outrageous nonsense that flows without interruption from an empty and unreflective mind.

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’” Trump said, recalling an implausible conversation with an unnamed, presumably European head of state. “‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’” Trump recounted responding. “‘No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’”

The former president’s message was clear: If NATO members do not pay up, then he will leave them to the mercy of a continental aggressor who has already plunged one European country into death, destruction and devastation.

Except NATO isn’t a mafia protection racket. NATO, in case anyone needs to be reminded, is a mutual defense organization, formed by treaty in 1949 as tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union hardened into conflict. “The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” states Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

According to the terms of an agreement reached last year, member states will work to spend at least 2 percent of national G.D.P. on military investment.

But let’s set this bit of fact-checking aside for a moment and look at the big picture.

It is not just that Trump is ignorant on this and other vital questions; it is that he is incoherent.

Consider his remarks at a recent gathering of the National Rifle Association in Harrisburg, Pa. “We have to win in November, or we’re not going to have Pennsylvania. They’ll change the name. They’re going to change the name of Pennsylvania,” Trump said.

Who, exactly, is going to change the name of Pennsylvania? And to what? I don’t know. I doubt Trump does either.

Or consider the time, last November, when Trump confused China and North Korea, telling an audience of supporters in Florida that “Kim Jong Un leads 1.4 billion people, and there is no doubt about who the boss is. And they want me to say he’s not an intelligent man.”

There was also the time that Trump mistook Nikki Haley, his former ambassador to the United Nations, for Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker of the House.

“Nikki Haley, you know they, do you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it. All of it, because of lots of things like Nikki Haley is in charge of security. We offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, National Guard, whatever they want. They turned it down. They don’t want to talk about that. These are very dishonest people,” Trump said, repeating his false claim that Pelosi was responsible for the failure of Capitol security on Jan. 6.

If you would like, you can also try to make sense of the former president’s recent attempt to describe a missile defense system:

“I will build an Iron Dome over our country, a state-of-the-art missile defense shield made in the U.S.A.,” Trump said, before taking an unusual detour. “These are not muscle guys here, they’re muscle guys up here, right,” he continued, gesturing to his arms and his head to emphasize, I guess, that the people responsible for building such systems are capable and intelligent.

“And they calmly walk to us, and ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. They’ve only got 17 seconds to figure this whole thing out. Boom. OK. Missile launch. Whoosh. Boom,” he added.

I assume Trump is describing the pressure of actually manning a missile defense system. Even so, one would think that a former president — currently vying to be the next president — would at least try to be a little more articulate.

But this gets to one of the oddest things about this election cycle so far. There is no shortage of coverage of President Biden’s age, even if there’s no evidence that his age has been an obstacle to his ability to perform his duties. Indeed, it is plainly true that Biden has been an unusually successful president in areas, like legislative negotiations, that require skill and mental acuity.

Coverage of Biden’s age, in other words, has more to do with the vibes of an “elderly” president — he isn’t as outwardly vigorous and robust as we would like — than it does with any particular issue with his performance.

In contrast to the obsessive coverage of Biden’s age, there is comparatively little coverage of Trump’s obvious deficiencies in that department. If we are going to use public comments as the measure of mental fitness, then the former president is clearly at a disadvantage.

Unfortunately for Biden, Trump benefits from something akin to the soft bigotry of low expectations. Because no one expected Trump, in the 2016 election, to speak and behave like a normal candidate, he was held to a lower effective standard than his rivals in both parties. Because no one expected him, during his presidency, to be orderly and responsible, his endless scandals were framed as business as usual. And because no one now expects him to be a responsible political figure with a coherent vision for the country, it’s as if no one blinks an eye when he rants and raves on the campaign trail.

It’s not that there aren’t legitimate reasons to be concerned about Biden’s age. He is already the oldest person to serve in the Oval Office. The issue here is one of proportion and consequence. Biden may be unable to do the job at some point in the future; Trump, it seems to me, already is.

One of those is a lot more concerning than the other.

Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va., and Washington. 

Senate passes $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan after rare all-night session

WFLA

Senate passes $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan after rare all-night session

Mary Clare Jalonick and Stephen Groves, AP – February 13, 2024

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate early Tuesday passed a $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, pushing ahead after months of difficult negotiations and amid growing political divisions in the Republican Party over the role of the United States abroad.

The vote came after a small group of Republicans opposed to the $60 billion for Ukraine held the Senate floor through the night, using the final hours of debate to argue that the U.S. should focus on its own problems before sending more money overseas. But more than a dozen Republicans voted with almost all Democrats to pass the package 70-29, with supporters arguing that abandoning Ukraine could embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin and threaten national security across the globe.

“It’s been years, perhaps decades, since the Senate has passed a bill that so greatly impacts not just our national security, not just the security of our allies, but also the security of western democracy,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who worked closely with Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on the legislation.

The bill’s passage through the Senate was a welcome sign for Ukraine amid critical shortages on the battlefield. The final vote gained 22 Republicans supporting its passage, while two Democrats, Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Peter Welch of Vermont, as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent, voted against it. Progressive lawmakers have objected to sending offensive weaponry to Israel.

Yet the package faces a deeply uncertain future in the House, where hardline Republicans aligned with former President Donald Trump — the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, and a critic of support for Ukraine — oppose the legislation.

Speaker Mike Johnson cast new doubt on the package in a statement Monday evening, making clear that it could be weeks or months before Congress sends the legislation to President Joe Biden’s desk — if at all.

Still, the vote was a win for both Senate leaders. Schumer noted the strong bipartisan support and projected that if the House speaker brings it forward it would have the same strong support in that chamber. McConnell has made Ukraine his top priority in recent months, and was resolute in the face of considerable pushback from his own GOP conference.

Speaking directly to his detractors in a floor speech on Sunday, McConnell said that “the eyes of the world” were on the U.S. Senate.

“Will we give those who wish us harm more reason to question our resolve, or will we recommit to exercising American strength?” McConnell asked.

Dollars provided by the legislation would purchase U.S.-made defense equipment, including munitions and air defense systems that authorities say are desperately needed as Russia batters the country. It also includes $8 billion for the government in Kyiv and other assistance.

In addition, the legislation would provide $14 billion for Israel’s war with Hamas, $8 billion for Taiwan and partners in the Indo-Pacific to counter China, and $9.2 billion in humanitarian assistance for Gaza.

The bill’s passage followed almost five months of torturous negotiations over an expansive bill that would have paired the foreign aid with an overhaul of border and asylum policies. Republicans demanded the trade-off, saying the surge of migration into the United States had to be addressed alongside the security of allies.

But a bipartisan deal on border security struck by Republican Sen. James Lankford fell apart just days after its unveiling, a head-spinning development that left negotiators deeply frustrated. Republicans declared the bill insufficient and blocked it on the Senate floor.

After the border bill collapsed, the two leaders abandoned the border provisions and pushed forward with passing the foreign aid package alone — as Democrats had originally intended.

While the slimmed-down foreign aid bill eventually won enough Republican support to pass, several GOP senators who had previously expressed support for Ukraine voted against it. The episode further exposed divisions in the party, made more public as Trump dug in and a handful of lawmakers openly called for McConnell to step down.

Sen. J.D. Vance, an Ohio Republican, argued that the U.S. should step back from the conflict and help broker an end to it with Russia’s Putin. He questioned the wisdom of continuing to fuel Ukraine’s defense when Putin appears committed to fighting for years.

“I think it deals with the reality that we’re living in, which is they’re a more powerful country, and it’s their region of the world,” he said.

Vance, along with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and other opponents, spent several hours on the floor railing against the aid and complaining about Senate process. They dug in their heels to delay a final vote, speaking on the floor until daybreak.

Supporters of the aid pushed back, warning that bowing to Russia would be a historic mistake with devastating consequences. In an unusually raw back-and-forth, GOP senators who support the aid challenged some of the opponents directly on the floor.

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis angrily rebutted some of their arguments, noting that the money would only help Ukraine for less than a year and that much of it would go to replenishing U.S. military stocks.

“Why am I so focused on this vote?” Tillis said. “Because I don’t want to be on the pages of history that we will regret if we walk away. You will see the alliance that is supporting Ukraine crumble. You will ultimately see China become emboldened. And I am not going to be on that page of history.”

Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., became emotional as he talked about the drudgery of the Senate and spending time away from his family to get little done. “But every so often there are issues that come before us that seem to be the ones that explain why we are here,” he said, his voice cracking.

Moran conceded that the cost of the package was heavy for him, but pointed out that if Putin were to attack a NATO member in Europe, the U.S. would be bound by treaty to become directly involved in the conflict — a commitment that Trump has called into question as he seeks another term in the White House.

At a rally Saturday, Trump said that he had once told a NATO ally he would encourage Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to members that are “delinquent” in their financial and military commitments to the alliance. The former president has led his party away from the foreign policy doctrines of aggressive American involvement overseas and toward an “America First” isolationism.

Evoking the slogan, Moran said, “I believe in America first, but unfortunately America first means we have to engage in the world.”

While the vast majority of House Republicans have opposed the aid and are unlikely to cross Trump, a handful of GOP lawmakers have signaled they will push to get it passed.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, traveled to Ukraine last week with a bipartisan delegation and met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Turner posted on X, formerly Twitter, after the trip that “I reiterated America’s commitment to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia.”

But Speaker Johnson is in a tough position. A majority of his conference opposes the aid, and he is trying to lead the narrowest of majorities and avoid the fate of his predecessor, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who was ousted in October.

Johnson, R-La., said in a statement Monday that because the foreign aid package lacks border security provisions, it is “silent on the most pressing issue facing our country.” It was the latest — and potentially most consequential — sign of opposition to the Ukraine aid from House GOP leadership, who had rejected the bipartisan border plan as a “non-starter,” contributing to its rapid demise.

“Now, in the absence of having received any single border policy change from the Senate, the House will have to continue to work its own will on these important matters,” Johnson said. “America deserves better than the Senate’s status quo.”

Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Virginia Democrat, traveled to Kyiv last week with Turner and other House members. She said the trip underscored to her how Ukraine is still in a fight for its very existence.

As the group traveled through Kyiv in armored vehicles, she said, they witnessed signs of an active war, from sandbagged shelters to burned-out cars and memorials to those killed. During the meeting with Zelenskyy, she said the U.S. lawmakers tried to offer assurances that the American people still stand with his country.

“He was clear that our continued support is critical to their ability to win the war,” Spanberger said. “It’s critical to their own freedom. And importantly, it’s critical to U.S. national security interests.”

Utah senators split on passed $95 billion defense spending bill

KTVX

Utah senators split on passed $95 billion defense spending bill

Derick Fox – February 13, 2024

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — Early Tuesday morning, the U.S. Senate voted to pass a $95 billion emergency defense spending bill, which has left Utah’s senate delegation split.

The bill included $60 billion in funding for Ukraine as well as $14 billion in security assistance to Israel. The bill passed through the Democratic-controlled Senate on a 70-29 vote. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) were on opposite ends of the resolution.

Lee, alongside Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), led the opposition to the bill, saying he had done everything he possibly could do to stop it.

“This didn’t have to happen. It is unfortunate we had Senate Republicans turn on the commitment they made to each other and to their voters and to our Republican colleagues down the hall,” said Lee.

During his speech on the Senate floor, Lee said the bill in its current form only serves to empower drug cartels and dissolve the U.S. southern border – a point of contention between the Biden Administration and GOP officials across the country. Lee said the bill, instead, spends an “insane amount” of money on foreign countries without properly addressing the U.S. southern border.

Romney, however, countered by warning of the “dire consequences” that would come by not continuing support for Ukraine. He claimed that by not helping Ukraine defend itself, the door would open for Russian President Vladimir Putin to invade NATO and allow China to spread fear to Taiwan that the U.S. will not help its allies.

He further said America would “cease to be the arsenal of democracy” and a global leader.

Cox sends Utah National Guard, UHP troopers to US southern border

“What sending weapons to Ukraine does do is help discourage further Russian and Chinese invasions which could draw us in, it helps preserve NATO, it allows America to remain the leader of the free world, and it shows that we honor our word to our friends and allies,” said Romney.

Romney further criticized some of his Republican colleagues by saying if their position is cheered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, it is “time to reconsider your position.”

Twenty-one Republican senators joined Romney in voting to pass the bill while two Democrats voted against it, citing deep concerns for supporting Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s military campaign in Gaza, per The Hill. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) also voted no for the same reason.

The package now goes to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where Lee has indicated Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) pronounced the bill “dead on arrival.”

Chief justice gives Jack Smith one week to respond to Trump’s bid to stave off trial

Politico

Chief justice gives Jack Smith one week to respond to Trump’s bid to stave off trial

Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney – February 13, 2024

Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

Chief Justice John Roberts is giving prosecutors a week to respond to former President Donald Trump’s request to keep his federal criminal election-subversion trial on hold while he tries to persuade the Supreme Court to scuttle it entirely on the grounds of presidential immunity.

A brief docket entry from the court Tuesday morning said special counsel Jack Smith has until next Tuesday at 4 p.m. to address the emergency application Trump’s lawyers filed at the high court Monday.

Last week, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington unanimously rejected Trump’s sweeping immunity claim. However, the judges agreed not to return the case to a lower court for trial until the Supreme Court acts on Trump’s request for emergency relief.

Smith has already urged the courts to resolve the immunity dispute quickly so that Trump’s Washington, D.C. trial, originally set for March 4, can begin later this year.

In December, the special counsel asked the Supreme Court to take up the immunity issue even before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed it, in order to reach an expedited conclusion, but the justices denied the attempt.

“This Court’s immediate review of that question is the only way to achieve its timely and definitive resolution,” Smith wrote in the December filing. “The Nation has a compelling interest in a decision on [Trump’s] claim of immunity from these charges — and if they are to be tried, a resolution by conviction or acquittal, without undue delay.”

Smith is expected to oppose Trump’s request to keep the proceedings in the trial court on hold while Trump pursues further relief from both the Supreme Court and the full, 11-judge bench of the D.C. Circuit. He is hoping those courts rule that former presidents are immune from prosecution on conduct arguably related to the presidency unless they have been impeached and convicted by Congress.

Smith does not have to wait until next Tuesday to respond to Trump’s latest high court filing, which was widely anticipated and largely repeats arguments his attorneys have raised previously.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this report misstated the time of day when the special counsel’s response is due.

CNN host threatens to cut off interview with Texas Republican

The Hill

CNN host threatens to cut off interview with Texas Republican

Tara Suter – February 13, 2024

CNN host Brianna Keilar threatened to cut off an interview with Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas) Thursday after the representative interrupted her multiple times.

Keilar was interviewing Van Duyne on “CNN News Central” and questioning her about a Senate bill with Israel and Ukraine aid. Keilar noted that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) has criticized the bill for not including border security provisions.

Van Duyne then brought up Republicans’ border security bill, House Resolution 2, and said it would get rid of “catch and release,” or the humanitarian parole of migrants. She also spoke about her time as mayor of Irving, Texas and the partnership she had with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) while in that role.

“Let me stop and ask you about this, a couple things,” Keilar stated. “First off, illegal immigrants’ criminal conviction rate is 45 percent below that of native-born Americans in your state, just to be clear.

“When you raise the specter of, ‘They create so many crimes, they’re convicted,’” Keilar said. “I mean, when it comes to violent crimes, property crimes, homicides, sex crimes, you’ve talked in the past about rapes, the numbers just don’t support that. But let’s focus on ‘catch and release.’”

Van Duyne then began to interrupt Keilar, causing the two women to talk over each other. Keilar then attempted to bring up the topic of “catch and release” again, noting that when examining the practice, “you have to look at what’s causing it, and it’s a judicial backlog.” She also pointed to the recently failed bipartisan foreign aid and border deal, which would have clamped down on the practice of humanitarian parole.

“[A]ctually, it wouldn’t have,” Van Duyne cut in and began interrupting Keilar again, repeatedly disagreeing with her.

The two began to talk over each other again, leading to Keilar stating that if Van Duyne wouldn’t let her speak, she would “cut the interview off.”

“And I will let you speak and finish sentences,” Keilar said.

Tucker Carlson Defends Putin, Says ‘Leadership Requires Killing’ | Video

The Wrap

Tucker Carlson Defends Putin, Says ‘Leadership Requires Killing’ | Video

Sharon Knolle – February 12, 2024

Tucker Carlson had a curious defense of Vladimir Putin in his first interview since interviewing the Russian autocrat, saying “Every leader kills people, leadership requires killing.”

Carlson’s remarks were made at the 2024 World Government Summit in Dubai, where he was interviewed by Egyptian journalist Emad Eldin Adeeb.

Adeeb asked Carlson why he neglected to ask Putin about such pressing topics as the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. “I’m not going to lecture you, but you should challenge some ideas,” said Adeeb. “You did not talk about freedom of speech, you did not talk about Navlny…”

Carlson replied that other journalists had already posed such questions to Putin, adding, essentially, that it’s not news that Putin has ordered hits on his enemies. “Every leader kills people, leadership requires killing,” said the former Fox News anchor. (Carlson’s comments that “leadership requires killing” appear about 17 minutes into the 26-minute segment.)

Although Carlson did ask Putin about the potential release of detained Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich during the interview that took place in Moscow, he told Adeeb that his primary goal was to “let Putin talk” and “hear his thoughts.” Carlson said that positioning himself as the “good guy” to Putin’s “bad guy” would “not be fruitful.”

When Adeeb asked about Carlson’s response to the criticism leveled at him over his Putin interview, Carlson responded,”I don’t like the internet and I haven’t seen any of the reactions.” Adeeb asked specifically if Carlson had heard Hillary Clinton’s summation that he had proved “a useful idiot” to the Russian dictator and he claimed not to have heard about it.https://www.youtube.com/embed/mMXikZM_O80?feature=oembed

“She’s a child, I don’t listen to her,” he said of the former Secretary of State.

While Carlson insisted several times that he is “not flakking for Putin,” he did praise Moscow for being better than any current U.S. city. “Moscow is so much nicer than any city in my country, cleaner and safer and prettier. I grew up in a country that had cities like Moscow and Abu Dhabi, and Singapore and Tokyo, and we no longer have them.”

Decrying the “filth and graffiti” found in American cities and people “begging for drugs” in London, Carlson seemed to be saying that if he were in charge, those kinds of things would not happen: “My children don’t smoke marijuana at the breakfast table because I don’t allow them.”

Carlson also has a long history of supporting pro-Putin and pro-Russia talking points on issues like the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine or U.S.-Russia relations, and criticizing Putin’s enemies and people arrested and imprisoned by Russia.

Abandoned by his colleagues after negotiating a border compromise, GOP senator faces backlash alone

Associated Press

Abandoned by his colleagues after negotiating a border compromise, GOP senator faces backlash alone

Mary Clare Jalonick and Stephen Groves – February 7, 2024

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., left, the lead GOP negotiator on a border-foreign aid package, holds hands with his wife Cindy Lankford, center, joined at right by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., who has been central to Senate border security talks, during procedural votes, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2024. Senate Republicans have blocked the bipartisan border package, scuttling months of negotiations between the two parties on legislation intended to cut down record numbers of illegal border crossings. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., left, the lead GOP negotiator on a border-foreign aid package, holds hands with his wife Cindy Lankford, center, joined at right by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., who has been central to Senate border security talks, during procedural votes, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2024. Senate Republicans have blocked the bipartisan border package, scuttling months of negotiations between the two parties on legislation intended to cut down record numbers of illegal border crossings. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., the lead GOP negotiator on the Senate border and foreign aid package, does a TV news interview at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, Feb. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., the lead GOP negotiator on the Senate border and foreign aid package, does a TV news interview at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, Feb. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Just before the Senate voted Wednesday to kill the border deal he spent the last four months negotiating, Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford climbed a set of marble stairs outside the chamber and joined his wife in the visitors’ gallery.

As the Republican quietly watched from a floor above, briefly the outsider after defending his legislation in a last Senate floor speech, fellow negotiator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona was down on the floor excoriating the Republicans who had abandoned Lankfordone by one, after insisting on a border deal and asking him to negotiate a compromise on one of the country’s most intractable issues.

“Less than 24 hours after we released the bill, my Republican colleagues changed their minds,” said Sinema, a former Democrat turned Independent. “Turns out they want all talk and no action. It turns out border security is not a risk to our national security. It’s just a talking point for the election.”

Walking out of the gallery with his wife close by his side, Lankford was asked by a waiting reporter if he felt betrayed by his party. He sighed, deeply, and waited a few beats.

“I’m disappointed we didn’t get it done,” Lankford said, diplomatically. “I don’t know if I feel betrayed, because the issue is still there. It’s not solved.”

He then walked back down the stairs with his wife and Sinema, who had come up to greet them after her speech, and walked into the chamber to watch the bill’s defeat.

In the end, all but four Republicans voted against moving forward on the legislation — including Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who had delegated Lankford to negotiate the bill combining Ukraine aid and border security and had been closely involved in the negotiations.

A former youth minister in the Baptist church, Lankford, 55, is known as one of the most sincere and well-liked members of the Senate. He’s a conservative who rarely votes against his party, has long championed stricter measures at the border and has been supportive of former President Donald Trump. So his colleagues’ swift and outright rejection of the deal he has spent weeks and months negotiating — and their willingness to completely abandon Lankford in the process, after many of them indicated they were supportive of the direction of the talks — is all the more remarkable.

“They reacted to it like it was a poison,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the third negotiator with Lankford and Sinema, of Senate Republicans who had previously signaled they were supportive. “I think it’s unforgiveable what they did to James.”

“They really threw the man overboard,” President Joe Biden said of Lankford at a fundraiser Wednesday evening.

While some Republicans were always going to vote against the compromise, arguing that no policy is better than what they saw as weak policy, others made clear they were encouraged by the talks as Lankford briefed them on the emerging details. But his colleagues’ eventual, quick rejection of the bill highlights the deep divides in the GOP as Trump, the party’s front-runner for the 2024 presidential nomination, has made immigration a top issue. Some senators who had previously been open to a deal became more skeptical after Trump made his opposition clear.

It is also a sign of dysfunction and paralysis in the Senate as its traditionally bipartisan image fades in favor of more partisan, House-like battles.

When he took on the job negotiating a border compromise, Lankford laughed that “he drew the short straw.” Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., joked later that if Lankford can’t get a deal done: “Moses couldn’t get a deal done. He’s one of the most kindest, compassionate people I’ve met in my lifetime.”

His fellow negotiators described him as an earnest, smart legislator who was willing to spend long hours digging into the intricacies of immigration law — and spent weeks away from his family in the process. Murphy said senators often negotiate the broad policies and let staff do the “dirty work” of putting the ideas into legislative text.

“James does both,” Murphy said. “It’s a sign of how sincere he is and how in the weeds he is on policy. But it probably means he’s maybe a little less attuned to the politics.”

The Oklahoma Republican has spent the last three days desperately trying to explain the bill after many of his colleagues put out statements opposing it without even reading the full text. Some Republicans put out misleading statements about what it would do, claiming it was designed to let more people into the country. Trump, who has strongly opposed the bill and said he doesn’t want to give Democrats a win on the issue, gleefully bragged that he helped kill it.

“I think this is a very bad bill for his career, and especially in Oklahoma,” Trump said of Lankford on a radio show earlier this week.

The bipartisan compromise would overhaul the asylum system at the border with faster and tougher enforcement, as well as give presidents new powers to immediately expel migrants if authorities become overwhelmed with the number of people applying for asylum, among other measures to reduce the record numbers of migrants crossing the border. It would also send billions to Ukraine, Israel and allies in the Asia-Pacific.

Lankford’s work on the issue could have lasting political consequences. A group of about 100 people within the Oklahoma GOP put out a statement condemning him for crafting the bill even before it had been released. And in his Senate floor speech Wednesday, Lankford spoke of an unidentified “popular commentator” who told him that if he tries to move a bill to solve the border crisis, “I will do whatever I can to destroy you, because I do not want you to solve this during the presidential election.”

Even more stunning was how quickly his Senate colleagues turned against it.

As the bill was released late Sunday night, Lankford was on an airplane flying to Washington. By the time he landed, an onslaught of criticism from conservatives was already underway. He was on a call with reporters, trying to explain the details of the bill, when House Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X that the bill would be “ dead on arrival ” in his chamber.

Lankford’s frustration was palpable as he responded, listing off how the bill would accomplish several conservative goals like building more border wall, hiring more Border Patrol agents, expanding detention capacity and speeding deportations.

“We’ve got to be able to find a way to stop the chaos at the border,” Lankford said.

Almost no Republicans endorsed it, save McConnell. And by Monday night, seeing the writing on the wall, McConnell told the conference it was OK to vote against it.

“I feel like the guy standing in the middle of a field in a thunderstorm holding up the metal stick,” Lankford told reporters shortly ahead of the bill release. “This is a really intense thing. It’s been divisive.”

Associated Press writers Seung Min Kim, Will Weissert, Jill Colvin and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

Sen. Lankford says a ‘popular commentator’ threatened to ‘do whatever I can to destroy you’ if he negotiated a border deal during a presidential election year

Business Insider

Sen. Lankford says a ‘popular commentator’ threatened to ‘do whatever I can to destroy you’ if he negotiated a border deal during a presidential election year

Bryan Metzger – February 7, 2024

  • Sen. James Lankford was the top GOP negotiator on the failed border security deal.
  • He claims a “popular commentator” warned him not to solve the crisis during an election year.
  • “I will do whatever I can to destroy you,” Lankford said.

Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma spoke on Wednesday about the political challenges he’s encountered while serving as the top GOP negotiator on a bipartisan border security deal.

In a speech shortly before the expected failure of the deal, Lankford bemoaned the fact that some fellow Republicans were objecting to the bill for purely political reasons.

“Some of them have been very clear with me,” Lankford said of his GOP colleagues, “they have political differences with the bill. They say it’s the wrong time to solve the problem. We’ll let the presidential election solve this problem.”

Lankford went on to say that a “popular commentator” — without naming any names — threatened to “destroy” him if he negotiated the deal during a presidential election year, regardless of what was in it.

“I will do whatever I can to destroy you, because I do not want you to solve this during the presidential election,” Lankford recounted the commentator saying.

“By the way, they have been faithful to their promise, and have done everything they can to destroy me,” he added.

Ahead of the release of the text of the deal — which was negotiated following GOP demands to attach border security provisions to a bill to provide billions in aid to Ukraine and Israel — right-wing media outlets like Fox News promoted false claims about the deal, claiming it would amount to “amnesty.”

And some Republicans admitted that politics was a key factor for them.

“I cannot vote for this bill,” said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the third-highest ranking GOP senator, in his statement on the deal. “Americans will turn to the upcoming election to end the border crisis.”

Following the expected failed vote, the Senate is expected to take up a bill to send billions in aid to Ukraine and Israel, but without any border security provisions.

Republicans are sticking to Trump — they’re about to reap the whirlwind

Salon – Opinion

Republicans are sticking to Trump — they’re about to reap the whirlwind

Brian Karem – February 8, 2024

Donald Trump; Mike Johnson Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images
Donald Trump; Mike Johnson Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images

Welcome to the whirlwind.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and constitutional lawyer, says he doesn’t believe the Republicans can win this fall. “They are floundering to find something to run on,” he said. “They’re losing all over the place. They don’t want solutions, they want problems. With them it’s rule or ruin. Either they want to rule everything or ruin our chances of progressing. That’s a fascistic strategy.”

According to Raskin, the Republicans won’t accept the result of elections unless they win, and are using immigration as a campaign issue for Donald Trump — who may well be ineligible to run for office. “I don’t think he’s legally qualified to be on the ballot,” Raskin said. “It’s clear to me that section 3 of the 14th amendment disqualifies Donald Trump because he participated in an insurrection or rebellion. He violated his oath.” Raskin hopes the Supreme Court will come to the “unavoidable” conclusion that Trump is ineligible for the presidency.

Like I said, the whirlwind.

In 1984, in a place called Rio Bravo just south of Laredo, Texas, a double-wide trailer burst into flames.

As the flames grew in intensity they became a whirlwind of fire that consumed the trailer and another structure nearby.

That serves as an apt metaphor for today’s Republican politics, and not just on the southern border.

The trailer owners were unable to do anything about the fire because the subdivision they lived in had no running water, or even electricity. At the time of the fire they were also busy fishing a friend’s trailer out of the Rio Grande, where it had been swept after a sudden deluge of rain.

Rio Bravo was, at the time, a subdivision situated next to the Rio Grande, carved out of rented land by a greedy Texas land developer who sold parcels in “open contracts” to undocumented immigrants. Business was so good, he opened a second illegal subdivision (later called “colonias” — a common term in Mexico — as they became popular throughout the Southwest). He named the second one “El Cenizo.”

That’s right. He called the second one “The Ash.” You can’t make that up.

Covering the border between Texas and Mexico was one of my earliest assignments as a reporter. One of my first run-ins with the Trump administration occurred because of Trump’s incredibly obtuse policies regarding the border. At the time I confronted White House press secretary Sarah Sanders — now the governor of Arkansas — about the practice of caging young immigrant children.

She, of course, claimed to be a Christian and also claimed to be more credible than most reporters. She lied then. She lies now. And Don the Con did not understand, either then or now, the root cause of illegal immigration or how to solve that problem. Trump is not alone. It is an emotional issue, one that nearly every politician has fumbled and few of us understand. It isn’t about criminals marauding through the countryside. It is about hope, despair and disinformation. The U.S. government and the businesses that want a constant supply of cheap labor are responsible for continuing the problem.

There has been no meaningful legislation concerning illegal immigration since the Simpson-Mazzoli Act in 1985, which, for the first time, made it illegal to hire undocumented immigrants. In the 40 years since that became law, few if any large companies have ever been prosecuted for hiring any of the millions of immigrants who work in agriculture, construction, thoroughbred racing and numerous other industries. It’s the promise of jobs and a chance to live out the American Dream that drives the “crisis” on the border that has been with us for at least 40 years.

America needs cheap labor. Immigrants from Mexico and Latin America (and other places much farther away) need jobs. In response, there has been a steady deluge of political garbage out of every White House since the Reagan administration, aimed at criminalizing a story of hope in search of votes.

As the rain continued to fall in Los Angeles this week, causing catastrophic mudslides and flooding, the political rain in Washington also continued, and with similar results.

It engulfed the GOP shortly after sunset on Tuesday, when the House failed by four votes to impeach Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas — for reasons that even some Republicans could not fathom. Rep. Tom McClintock of California, for instance, voted against impeachment for the simple reason that House Republicans failed “to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed.” To proceed, he said, would “stretch and distort the Constitution.”

The world is in disarray right now. But nothing is in more disarray than the Republican Party, as it suffers both the whirlwind of fire brought about by its own need to generate issues for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the deluge of stupidity unleashed by those who do his bidding in Congress. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene led the charge in that latter deluge, one of the few things she does with aplomb. She even claimed that Democrats had hidden members on the House floor to confuse the GOP majority as they voted to impeach Mayorkas. Apparently she can’t count to four even if she uses all of her toes. House Speaker Mike Johnson is so inept that he appointed Greene as a spokesperson. He also can’t count votes. Majority Whip Tom Emmer couldn’t find a way to get four more votes from his own caucus. Republicans have vowed to go after Mayorkas again once they figure out how to count. Is there a better definition of incompetent?

None of this has anything to do with “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the constitutional necessity for impeaching officeholders. There is nothing more grimly amusing than watching the GOP’s three-ring circus — which is both led by Donald Trump and staged exclusively for his benefit.

Trump lost twice on Tuesday. He couldn’t get the votes he wanted to impeach Mayorkas and he lost his bid for “total immunity” in his Jan. 6 criminal case, when three judges on the D.C. Circuit Court delivered circuit judges offered a unanimous and airtight opinion against him.

To understand the depth of Trump’s despair, you may be tempted to count the ketchup bottles at Mar-a-Lago. Or you could read at least part of the 57-page court decision which found that Trump can be criminally charged. Meanwhile,  the GOP couldn’t muster anyone brighter than  Greene to speak up about it. “When they came to Washington to protest, you called that an insurrection,” she said. “But when Biden was inaugurated and this Capitol was surrounded with National Guard troops, none of you stood there and called that an insurrection.”

The congresswoman from Georgia proves, once again, that you can be a whirlwind of fiery rhetoric while deluging the populace with extreme ignorance. Oh, and she wants the House to pass a resolution stating that Trump was no insurrectionist. So there is that.

At the same time the House GOP was trying to impeach Mayorkas, it was also just saying no to a Senate compromise bill that would provide more money and infrastructure on the border along with more support for both Ukraine and Israel. A standalone bill to fund aid to Israel, backed by the GOP, also failed on Tuesday. The border bill failed in the Senate Wednesday, and now that robust body, dominated by aging white men who suffer from incontinence, will have to take up separate funding bills for Ukraine and Israel.

“All of this is just to give Trump something to run on,” Raskin told me. “My colleagues in the Republican Party are subverting the process for a man who embraces fascism.”

The failures keep mounting, but don’t expect Mike Johnson to take any responsibility for his part in the fiasco on the House side. He told reporters, “I don’t think that this is a reflection on the leader, I think this is a reflection on the body itself.” Well, here’s a reminder: He’s the head of that body.

Johnson has promised that any bipartisan legislation sent to the House from the Senate regarding immigration will be “dead on arrival.” Of course Johnson says the border is “an overwhelming emergency” and should be dealt with promptly — but apparently not so much of an emergency that the GOP is willing to accept a compromise solution to a problem that has been ongoing since the last century. The Senate plan — negotiated by James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican; Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat; and Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona independent — would strengthen border security and reduce illegal immigration. The Border Patrol union even supports it – and those folks are not liberal Democrats.

Don’t expect a solution anytime soon. We will get nothing but empty words as Trump’s tempest in a very nasty teapot continues. He wants to delay border legislation indefinitely, so he can run on the issue and take credit for any solution — but only after he wins, which is looking increasingly uncertain the closer we get to Election Day. The decision to deny him immunity seems ironclad, and relies on one of the oldest landmark Supreme Court cases — Marbury v. Madison — to do so. That decision gives courts the ability to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional. So it could be argued that if the Supreme Court takes up Trump’s immunity case and rules in his favor, it will overturn more than 200 years of judicial decisions and eliminate the Supreme Court as an equal partner in government.

To quote the D.C. Circuit decision: “As the Supreme Court has unequivocally explained: No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. … That principle applies, of course, to a President.”

The court also found that the president is “amenable to the laws for his conduct,” and “cannot at his discretion” violate them.

Finally, the court found that Trump was a “citizen,” not a king: He “lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct.”

Harry Litman of the Los Angeles Times offered an explanation on X of what took the D.C. circuit so long: “They opted, probably from the start, to make it per curiam — basically one voice. That gives it even added force. And that might have required extensive compromising negotiation to get it just right.”

That means the Supreme Court might actually refuse to hear Trump’s appeal on the immunity case — something he fears and that many court watchers say is possible now that the D.C. Circuit has done the heavy lifting and penned an exquisite opinion. At any rate, even if the Supreme Court takes up the case, many experts believe Trump will still face a criminal trial, at the latest, by fall.

In the short term, do not expect any legislation regarding immigration to pass the Senate or House. Expect Donald Trump to use the time to raise money while he continues to fight his battles in court and keeps his political party running interference for him.

Trump’s last wild ride in the public domain is in its death throes. His whirlwind is consuming him. His supporters are holding on, and those who need him the most, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, are  defending him so they can stay as relevant as possible (and perhaps evade criminal charges) in a world that increasingly sees Trump and his minions for what they are; soulless hacks with a need and desire for great personal power at the expense of humanity.

What this means for the GOP is obvious: After Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson; after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; after its inability to pass any legislation, the party is undeniably broken, unable to lead and woefully lacking in common sense. It is dedicated to the edification and protection of one of the worst politicians ever to rise to prominence in our republic.

Trump’s former chief of staff, John Kelly, described him as “a person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about.”

Lead? The GOP is incapable of that. Follow? It won’t follow anyone except Trump, and it will never get out of the way — unless we collectively kick it to the curb. Or right into that whirlwind.