We begin today with Marcy Wheeler of EmptyWheel asserting that for Number 45, the show goes on.
Trump is going to lose this trial. Know how I know? Judge Engoron already ruled against him!
But most of Trump’s followers don’t know that. Most of Trump’s followers believe that Chris Kise’s comments about valuation were still at issue. Most cult members will see Trump’s comments today — it won’t be hard, because every outlet is carrying them — and remember that before the trial, Trump “predicted” that The Corrupt Judge and The Black Woman Prosecutor would gang up on him.
Reality TV Show Actor Donald Trump used his presence at the trial to create a reality in which he will have correctly predicted a loss that was baked in last week. Because he “predicted” such an outcome, his millions of cult followers will not only treat him as more trustworthy than the journalists playing some role in Trump’s Reality TV Show, cluck-clucking about his attacks on justice without focusing on the fraud and the more fraud and the already adjudged fraud. [...]
And in the process, Reality TV Show Actor Donald Trump will have continued the big con, the very same fraud of which he has already been adjuged. He will have once again distracted from his own fantasy self-worth and instead led people to report on his golden brand.
John T. Bennett of Roll Call reviews the procedures and the politics of Rep. Matt Gaetz’s attempt to remove Kevin McCarthy from his speakership.
Gaetz’s declaration he would offer a privileged resolution to vacate the speaker’s chair starts a clock that should lead to votes within two days under House rules. Gaetz, R-Fla., did not go into his reasons, but earlier he gave a speech blasting McCarthy for an alleged “secret side deal” over Ukraine aid funding he said the speaker cut with Democrats on Saturday as the House passed a seven-week stopgap funding bill that got 335 votes, with 90 Republicans opposing it. [...]
No speaker has ever been kicked out of that office via a motion to vacate. Then-Speaker Joe Cannon, R-Ill., known as the “czar of the House,” saw his power shrink and in 1910 faced a motion to vacate. It was defeated and he remained speaker.
One thing is clear: The House likely would have to drop all other business and consider Gaetz’s motion within two days; McCarthy, as sitting speaker, would set that vote day and time. From there, “it would be a fascinating meeting of procedure and politics,” said Stanley Brand, who was general counsel to the House when Democrat Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr. was speaker.
“Since it would be a privileged resolution, the House would probably have to wait to get back on other bills. Those two days would be politically important — maybe that time allows Democrats to be brought into the process,” Brand said. “From my 50 years being involved in this stuff and observing it all, the issue for Democrats is do they want the House to be permanently paralyzed? They have an agenda, too, and I think they want to show themselves as the party of constructive governing.”
Simon Montlake of the Christian Science Monitor takes a deep dive into Bidenomics but wonders if, in the end, voters will care.
President Biden has taken to branding his program “Bidenomics” and to contrasting it with what he calls the failure of “trickle-down” policy to spread wealth. In a speech in Chicago in June, he said public investment was essential to drive long-term growth, and he compared his infrastructure law to the Interstate Highway System built in the 1950s and 1960s. “Biden economics means the industries of the future are going to grow right here at home,” he said.
While his branding may be premature, Mr. Biden’s agenda could prove transformative, both in nurturing new industries and, arguably as importantly, in breaking with decades of putting restraints on government and letting the market set the nation’s economic priorities. Under President Ronald Reagan, this orthodoxy – often called neoliberalism – prioritized free trade, limited government, and unfettered capital. It commanded fealty from Republicans and Democrats alike. To dissent was to be branded a big-government heretic who would imperil the money machine of capitalism.
That makes the shift under Mr. Biden, a Democrat from the party’s center, all the more profound. [...}
Harder to gauge is whether voters will credit Mr. Biden for this activity and repay him and his party at election time. Infrastructure projects typically take years to complete. Many of the new factories are being built in conservative states like Georgia where Republican leaders lambaste the president and obscure the role his policy plays in attracting investments. And voters are still reeling from high inflation and the higher interest rates applied to reduce it.
Those “Republican leaders” also hog the cameras for the groundbreaking ceremonies of those very infrastructure projects that they didn’t vote for.
Jenny Hunter of Slate points out that President Joe Biden’s nominations to the National Labor Relations Board have made the ability to unionize much easier (pushing fair use for clarity’s sake).
For more than 50 years, employers have been able to thwart their employees’ attempts to form unions in three simple steps (I have often wondered why “union avoidance” lawyers and consultants make so much money, given how straightforward this is):
1. When workers give their boss signed union cards showing a majority of them want to form a union, refuse to recognize or bargain with the union.
2. Use the NLRB’s sluggish processes to delay an election for weeks or months.
3. Use that time to retaliate against or threaten workers so the same group that signed union cards ultimately votes against forming the union they wanted. [...]
The NLRB’s recent moves, however, should throw several monkey wrenches into this strategy. On Aug. 24, the NLRB issued a final rule that will speed up union elections, screwing up Step 2 of employers’ union-busting playbook. The rule, effective Dec. 26, will eliminate common delay tactics that help employers: pointless waiting periods, the chance to request numerous extensions, and the opportunity to flood the process with irrelevant arguments.
In an even more important move, on Aug. 25, the board decided a case called Cemex that should prevent employers from using Steps 1 and 3 of the anti-union strategy. Under Cemex, if a majority of co-workers agree to form a union and ask their employer to bargain with them, the employer now has three choices...
Aaron Tang writes for POLITICO that the power grab by the U.S. Supreme Court continues into this term.
All of the court’s highest-profile cases involve debates over where the power to address pressing societal problems ought to be located in our constitutional order. The traditional answer — and indeed, the American ideal — has been to vest that power as close to the people as possible, in elected officials who are responsive to us for the simple reason that we can throw them out of office.
Yet in three very different cases this coming year, the court may arrogate that power for itself, taking it away from our elected lawmakers, a politically accountable president, and possibly even juries of ordinary Americans. In other words, all three cases set up the possibility of a power grab by the country’s highest court.
Paul Krugman of The New York Times wonders why MAGA wants to betray Ukraine.
How much are we actually spending supporting Ukraine? In the 18 months after the Russian invasion, U.S. aid totaled $77 billion. That may sound like a lot. It is a lot compared with the tiny sums we usually allocate to foreign aid. But total federal outlays are currently running at more than $6 trillion a year, or more than $9 trillion every 18 months, so Ukraine aid accounts for less than 1 percent of federal spending (and less than 0.3 percent of G.D.P.). The military portion of that spending is equal to less than 5 percent of America’s defense budget.
Incidentally, the United States is by no means bearing the burden of aiding Ukraine alone. In the past, Donald Trump and others have complained that European nations aren’t spending enough on their own defense. But when it comes to Ukraine, European countries and institutions collectively have made substantially larger aid commitments than we have. Notably, most of Europe, including France, Germany and Britain, has promised aid that is higher as a percentage of G.D.P. than the U.S. commitment.
But back to the costs of aiding Ukraine: Given how small a budget item that aid is, claims that aid to Ukraine somehow makes it impossible to do other necessary things, such as securing the border, are nonsense. MAGA types aren’t known for getting their numbers right or, for that matter, caring whether they get their numbers right, but I doubt that even they really believe that the monetary costs of helping Ukraine are insupportable.
Even with the pro-Putin leader of Slovakia’s Direction-Social Democracy party (Smer) Robert Fico winning a majority plurality in parliamentary elections this past Saturday, Peter Tkacenko of the Kyiv Independent thinks that Slovakia’s foreign policy toward Ukraine will not change very much.
On Sept. 30, Slovakia held a snap parliamentary election that saw the Euro-skeptic parties take the upper hand over the previously ruling Ukraine-friendly coalition.
The snap election was called after the collapse of the previous government in mid-December as a result of a series of external and internal troubles and political mismanagement by the overwhelmingly unpopular government led by the populist but pro-Western Ordinary People and Independent Personalities (OLaNO) party. [...]
Concerns are real. It is actually safe to say that Fico personally despises Ukraine as a country, and it is no overstatement to say he hates its political leadership.
He makes no qualms about it, calling Ukrainian politicians liars, disseminating Moscow propaganda concerning Ukrainian “Nazis,” repeating outlandish claims about Kyiv’s perpetrated “genocide” in the Donbas, claiming that it is impossible for nuclear power to lose a conventional war and promising not to provide Ukraine “a single bullet.”
However, there are certain rather strong counter-arguments that Fico will be able to change Slovak foreign alignments.
Finally today, Amanda Coletta and Widlore Mérancourt of The Washington Post that the United Nations Security Council has authorized a Kenyan-led force to assist Haiti in fighting back against the gangs that have destabilized the Caribbean nation.
A draft of the resolution obtained by The Washington Post outlines plans for a force that would provide support to Haitian police, including by conducting joint security operations against the gangs, and protect “critical infrastructure sites” such as hospitals and ports with an aim of establishing a level of security “conducive to holding free and fair elections.”
The Security Council authorized a one-year mission, which is to be reviewed after nine months. It would be funded by the voluntary contributions of U.N. member states. The United States, which spent months searching for an ally to head a mission it didn’t want to lead itself, has pledged at least $100 million, contingent on congressional approval. The Defense Department is also willing to contribute up to $100 million in support.
The resolution authorizes the force to “adopt urgent temporary measures on an exceptional basis” to “prevent the loss of life.” [...]
The United States has said that it plans to provide “significant” logistical, communications and medical support. Kenya has said it’s considering a commitment of 1,000 police officers to the nation of 11.5 million. Several Caribbean nations have said they’re open to contributing hundreds of personnel.
Have the best possible day everyone!
