What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Jacob]

Texas looks like they're prosecuting someone for murder for having an abortion: https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-woman-lizelle-herrera-arrested-for-murder-for-illegal-abortion

[Sheilbh]

Interesting chart on partisan trust of media organisations - the thing that's really striking here (and I wonder which came first) is how similar GOP distrust of all media is like what happens with conspiracy minded thinking. Only Fox and the Weather Channel have (just) over 50% trust:


Also slightly interesting to see v UK where it's basically medium that leads trust and tends to be across all parties. So broadcast which is heavily regulated is most trusted (for the UK - so around 60%), then broadsheets etc down to tabloids which are least trusted - the only partisan difference is "mid-market" papers (i.e. the Mail) which have more trust from Tories than Labour but even then it's around 30%. The incredibly low trust rates for Republicans here is really extraordinary.

[HVC]

So republicans are mistrusting, except for Fox News. When did Fox News become a thing? I remember as a kid fox was known for the simpsons and married with children.  And then one day Fox News was just there. Maybe because I'm Canadian.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm surprised Reuters and AP are so far down the list, behind outlets that do much more analysis.

[Jacob]

I'm surprised Reuters and AP are so far down the list, behind outlets that do much more analysis.

Republicans only like facts if they are processed by right wing spun machines.

[Sheilbh]

I'm surprised Reuters and AP are so far down the list, behind outlets that do much more analysis.

People really want analysis, not facts. The analysis is the valuable thing that media organisations do of explaining what facts mean and how they relate to other stories. It's why in BBC articles for example you'll often have an article - obviously no opinion on the BBC - but in the middle of the article there will be an "Analysis" section by one of the correspondents trying to explain the story.

I think that is one of the reasons no-one logs onto Reuters or AP in the morning to read the news, so I wonder if brand recognition is an issue with Reuters and AP. They're a wire service that people won't often actually interact with (and won't notice an AP by-line in the NYT, say) which may be why they're so low.

[Jacob]

That's orthogonal to "trust".

[Sheilbh]

The latest iteration of what we were talking about - what is the point of this but fear of appearing political by politicians, doing politics to respond to a political threat

The investigation is already politicised - only one Republican would join it, half the country doesn't believe it. Everything is politicised - that boat has sailed - and it's just a pathetic excuse for inaction. Republicans are not going to sit back and conclude that actually Merrick Garland's investigation is fine, de-politicised and legitimate because of this or that a judge (appointed by Clinton) has made a ruling they'll suddenly pay attention to in respect. But the rest of the country will see this Committee conclude without referring for criminal investigations

This is how we've got here - significant evidence of crimes and no consequences because it'd be "political". And "if you read his decision, it's quite telling" is up there with "trust in vaccinations is improved by lengthy public hearings" in wonk-brain idiocy:

Don Moynihan
@donmoyn
The consistent pattern of US politics in the last few years is that anti-democratic actors do anti-democratic things, avoid punishment from democratic institutions, and then advance to more serious anti-democratic actions
The consistent pattern of US politics in the last few years is that sober institutionalists bend over backward to avoid the appearance of political use of power in the vain hope that it will curry favor with those intent on destroying those institutions (see also Mueller, Comey)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/politics/jan-6-trump-criminal-referral.html

Jan. 6 Panel Has Evidence for Criminal Referral of Trump, but Splits on Sending
Despite concluding that it has enough evidence, the committee is concerned that making a referral to the Justice Department would backfire by politicizing the investigation into the Capitol riot.
By Michael S. Schmidt and Luke Broadwater
April 10, 2022Updated 1:30 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — The leaders of the House committee investigating the Capitol attack have grown divided over whether to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department of former President Donald J. Trump, even though they have concluded that they have enough evidence to do so, people involved in the discussions said.

The debate centers on whether making a referral — a largely symbolic act — would backfire by politically tainting the Justice Department's expanding investigation into the Jan. 6 assault and what led up to it.

Since last summer, a team of former federal prosecutors working for the committee has focused on documenting the attack and the preceding efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to reverse his defeat in the 2020 election. The panel plans to issue a detailed report on its findings, but in recent months it has regularly signaled that it was also weighing a criminal referral that would pressure Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to open a criminal investigation into Mr. Trump.

Despite concluding that they have enough evidence to refer Mr. Trump for obstructing a congressional proceeding and conspiring to defraud the American people, some on the committee are questioning whether there is any need to make a referral. The Justice Department appears to be ramping up a wide-ranging investigation, and making a referral could saddle a criminal case with further partisan baggage at a time when Mr. Trump is openly flirting with running again in 2024.

The committee's vice chairwoman, Representative Liz Cheney, said on CNN on Sunday that the committee had not made a final decision about making referrals and downplayed any divisions on the committee, but acknowledged there was significant evidence of criminality.

"I think that it is absolutely the case, it's absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing, what a number of people around him were doing, that they knew it was unlawful. They did it anyway," said Ms. Cheney, a Wyoming Republican.

The shift in committee leaders' perspective on making a referral was prompted in part by a ruling two weeks ago by Judge David O. Carter of the Federal District Court for Central California. Deciding a civil case in which the committee had sought access to more than 100 emails written by John C. Eastman, a lawyer who advised Mr. Trump on efforts to derail certification of the Electoral College outcome, Judge Carter found that it was "more likely than not" that Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman had committed federal crimes.

The ruling led some committee and staff members to argue that even though they felt they had amassed enough evidence to justify calling for a prosecution, the judge's decision would carry far greater weight with Mr. Garland than any referral letter they could write, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.

The members and aides who were reluctant to support a referral contended that making one would create the appearance that Mr. Garland was investigating Mr. Trump at the behest of a Democratic Congress and that if the committee could avoid that perception it should, the people said.

Even if the final report does not include a specific referral letter to Mr. Garland, the findings would still provide federal prosecutors with the evidence the committee uncovered — including some that has not yet become public — that could be used as a road map for any prosecution, the people said.

"If you read his decision, I think it's quite telling," Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and a member of the committee, said of Judge Carter's ruling. "He and we have reviewed a huge amount of documents, and he reached a conclusion that he outlined in very stark terms."

Ms. Lofgren is among those who believe a referral letter to the Justice Department is superfluous, since it would carry no legal weight.

"Maybe we will, maybe we won't," she said of a referral. "It doesn't have a legal impact."

But the question about whether to send the referral has, for one of the first times since the committee was formed in July, exposed differences among members.

Representatives Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Elaine Luria of Virginia, Democratic members of the Jan. 6 committee, at the Capitol last month. Ms. Luria said that the committee should send a referral for any crimes it uncovers.

"I would say that I don't agree with what some of my colleagues have said about this," Ms. Luria said on MSNBC this month. "I think it's a lot more important to do what's right than it is to worry about the political ramifications. This committee, our purpose is legislative and oversight, but if in the course of our investigation we find that criminal activity has occurred, I think it's our responsibility to refer that to the Department of Justice."

Ms. Cheney portrayed any divisions as minor and said the panel would work collaboratively and reach a consensus agreement.

"I'm confident we will work to come to agreement," she said.

Although staff members have been in discussions about a referral, and some have debated the matter publicly, the committee members have not sat down together to discuss whether to proceed with a referral, several lawmakers said.

Representative Pete Aguilar, Democrat of California, said the committee was likely to hold off on making a final determination until investigators finished their work. He said the panel was "finishing up" its investigative phase and shifting to a more "public-facing" one in which the panel will present its findings.

"The members haven't had those conversations," Mr. Aguilar said of a meeting to discuss a potential referral. "Right now, we're gathering the material that we need. As the investigative phase winds down, we'll have more conversations about what the report looks like. But we're not presupposing where that's going to go before we get a little further with the interviews."

Although the committee has the ability to subpoena testimony and documents and make referrals to the Justice Department for prosecutions, it has no criminal prosecution powers.

Ms. Cheney singled out Mr. Trump's conduct at a public hearing in December, reading from the criminal code and laying out how she believed he had obstructed Congress.

In early March, the committee in effect road-tested whether the evidence it had gathered could support a prosecution, laying out in a filing in the civil case before Judge Carter its position that Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman had obstructed Congress and defrauded the American public.

In validating the committee's position, legal experts said, the judge made it difficult for the Justice Department to avoid an investigation. Mr. Garland has given no public indication of the department's intentions other than to say that it will follow the facts and the law. But subpoenas issued by a federal grand jury indicate that prosecutors are gathering information about a wide array of issues, including about efforts to obstruct the election certification by people in the Trump White House and in Congress.

Investigators from the House committee and the Justice Department have not been sharing information, except to avoid conflicts around the scheduling of certain witnesses.

"We want them to move faster, but we respect their work," Mr. Aguilar said, adding that the committee has a different goal than the Justice Department's inquiry: to fully investigate what led to the riot, which injured more than 150 police officers, and take legislative steps to prevent a repeat. "It's an insult to the lives of the Capitol Police officers if we don't pursue what happened and take meaningful and concrete steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again."

Aside from the question of whether to make a referral about Mr. Trump, the committee has moved aggressively to use the Justice Department to ensure that witnesses cooperate with its investigation. The committee has made criminal referrals against four Trump White House officials for their refusal to sit for questioning or hand over documents, accusing them of contempt of Congress. But the Justice Department has charged only one — Stephen K. Bannon — frustrating the committee.

Those frustrations played out in public at a hearing this month, when Ms. Lofgren said: "This committee is doing its job. The Department of Justice needs to do theirs."

Ms. Lofgren said she had not planned to make the remarks, but as she sat on the dais during the hearing, she decided to veer from her planned remarks because the department's slowness in addressing the contempt referrals ate at her.

"Some of us did express some frustration. I'm among them," she said. "Honestly, I hadn't planned to say that. It wasn't my script. It wasn't there. But I thought, you know, this is frustrating. I just decided to say it."

Trying to pressure the Justice Department to prosecute a contempt of Congress charge is more appropriate than other criminal referrals, Ms. Lofgren argued.

"It's different than doing a referral generally for prosecution," she said. "When you're the victim of a crime, there is some weight to that. And when you are the victim of criminal contempt, as the committee is, you're the victim. And so I think there was some stature to that."

The committee is preparing to hold public hearings in May and June, and to make a final report in September.

After interviewing more than 800 witnesses — including more than a dozen Trump White House officials — the panel has another 100 interviews lined up, including some witnesses it wants to bring in a second time. Among those scheduled to testify soon is Stephen Miller, a former White House adviser to Mr. Trump, who the committee says helped spread false claims of voter fraud in the election and encouraged state legislatures to appoint alternate slates of electors in an effort to invalidate Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s victory.

Mr. Miller has sued to block the committee from gaining access to his phone records, arguing in part that the panel was invading his parents' privacy since he was on their family plan.

The committee is still deciding whether to call some key witnesses, including Mr. Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, who urged Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff at the time, to work to keep Mr. Trump in office.

"We have completed a substantial amount of work," Ms. Lofgren said. "We're going to accomplish — we hope — what we set out to do, which is to tell the entire story of what happened, the events of the 6th and the events that led up to the day."

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.

Michael S. Schmidt is a Washington correspondent covering national security and federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment and the other for coverage of President Trump and his campaign's ties to Russia. @NYTMike

Luke Broadwater covers Congress. He was the lead reporter on a series of investigative articles at The Baltimore Sun that won a Pulitzer Prize and a George Polk Award in 2020. @lukebroadwater

[grumbler]

The latest iteration of what we were talking about - what is the point of this but fear of appearing political by politicians, doing politics to respond to a political threat

The investigation is already politicised - only one Republican would join it, half the country doesn't believe it. Everything is politicised - that boat has sailed - and it's just a pathetic excuse for inaction. Republicans are not going to sit back and conclude that actually Merrick Garland's investigation is fine, de-politicised and legitimate because of this or that a judge (appointed by Clinton) has made a ruling they'll suddenly pay attention to in respect. But the rest of the country will see this Committee conclude without referring for criminal investigations

This is how we've got here - significant evidence of crimes and no consequences because it'd be "political". And "if you read his decision, it's quite telling" is up there with "trust in vaccinations is improved by lengthy public hearings" in wonk-brain idiocy:

I'm not sure that abandoning the idea that criminal prosecutions are apolitical is as wise as you seem to believe.  Having a criminal investigation untainted by partisan origins would yield a result more likely to be seen as legitimate.

[Razgovory]

To who?  (or is this a "whom" thing?)

[Berkut]

Maybe not.

Can you name a specific idea from the left that has been unfairly driven into absurdity by the commentariat?

Critical race theory.

Which part though?

The 1619 project, as an example of CRT in practical application, is itself in many ways rather absurd. It certainly is not serious history, in any case.

How do you square that circle? The right is going to attack CRT in absurd ways, and the left is going to present CRT (in some cases) in absurd ways.

[Oexmelin]

Have you read the 1619 project?

[Oexmelin]

Maybe that has something to do with the absurdity of the ideas.

The issue isn't whether or not the ideas are good, or absurd, or amazing. It's about the place that those ideas have within the Democrats, vs the place that the fascist ideas have within the Republican party. It's about how much time and space is devoted by good liberals to shoot down those ideas, mostly because they really, really, do not wish to be tarred with that same brush and want to look "fair and balanced". Contrast with the treatment, on the right, of all the crazies.

It's about the potential of harm of fringe Democrats vs the potential of harm of core Republicans at this point. And it's about the characterization of those progressive Democrats. There was no reason to talk as much as it was about "Defund the police" except as a ways to defer to the Republican talking points. Relaying these talking points, and amplifying them certainly makes you score good centrist points, which is fine on an internet discussion board, but ultimately, is terribly counterproductive when you are an actual Democrat in position of power within the party. Because, whatever their fault, the progrsssives have a message. The fascists have a message. The Democrats still do not, except "not like them". Which is something I find astonishing after four years of Trump presidency.

People often mistake my support for militancy as support for progressive causes. Sure. But, as I have written many times, at this critical juncture, my support for militancy is based precisely on the fact that it produces dedicated people, who are dedicated to simple straight messaging and have clarity of vision. If Democratic centrism produced astonishingly powerful messages (a bit like Obama was able to do) that was able to sustain energy beyond elections, I'd back Yi-approved candidates in a heartbeat. But it's simply not what I see.

If you want to drown out the progressive message, find a message that is at least simple, and shout it out enough times to drown out the leftist fringe. Better yet, try to build bridge with that progressive fringe to use their energy and dedication. But I simply don't think that's within the grasp of the Democratic leadership.

[Berkut]

Have you read the 1619 project?

Read what? The project itself is expansive, and include a book, several articles published in the NYT, and a variety of essays.

I've read a decent amount of it, but I would not claim to have read all of everything that could broadly be called "The 1619 project".

What I've read is broadly pretty good, but parts of it are in fact, well, absurd.

[Oexmelin]

What are the absurd parts?