We begin today with Kyle Cheney of POLITICO, reporting that during sworn testimony at his disbarment trial Wednesday, John Eastman was asked whether he and others for so-called “Team Crazy” had discussed the possibility that Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley would preside over the the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.
John Eastman, testifying at his own disbarment trial, sidestepped a question Wednesday about whether he and others in Donald Trump’s orbit discussed the possibility that Sen. Chuck Grassley — rather than Mike Pence — would preside over the Jan. 6, 2021, session of Congress.
During several hours of sworn testimony in a California disbarment proceeding, Eastman said discussions on that topic were protected by attorney-client privilege. When pressed about which client of his he was referring to, Eastman replied: “President Trump.”
[...]
Grassley started a furor on Jan. 5, 2021, when he told reporters of Pence “we don’t expect him to be there, I will be presiding over the Senate.” His comments prompted an urgent rush by Pence’s staff to correct the record, eventually resulting in a statement from Grassley’s office indicating the senator had been “misinterpreted” and was merely saying he might fill in for Pence during some portions of the proceedings that day.
Eastman wasn’t the only one who had mentioned the possibility of Grassley presiding. Chesebro also mused in a Dec. 13, 2021 email that Pence could voluntarily step aside from his Jan. 6 role and allow it to fall to “Chuck Grassley or another senior Republican.”
Oh.
There was (and is) a plethora of news coverage of Number 45’s various criminal and civil trials in the MSM and and all over Daily Kos’ front page and the wreck list. I’ll not repeat any of that reporting and analysis here.
Speaking of Mike Pence, Jonathan Swan of The New York Times says that during a speech in New Hampshire last night, the former vice president delivered some of his strongest rebukes of his former boss yet.
Mr. Pence, who is polling in the single digits in the G.O.P. presidential primary race and lags far behind the front-runner Mr. Trump, has been warning about the dangers of populism for nearly a year. But his speech on Wednesday went further than he has gone before, casting Mr. Trump’s populism as a “road to ruin.”
“Should the new populism of the right seize and guide our party, the Republican Party as we have long known it will cease to exist,” Mr. Pence said at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College in Manchester. “And the fate of American freedom would be in doubt.”
In his plea to Republicans to abandon populism and embrace conservatism, Mr. Pence said that “we have come to a Republican time for choosing.” The line echoed his hero Ronald Reagan’s 1964 televised address, “A Time for Choosing,” in which the former Hollywood actor framed that year’s presidential election as a choice between individual freedom and governmental oppression.
“Republican voters face a choice,” Mr. Pence said. “I believe that choice will determine both the fate of our party and the course of our nation for years to come.”
To Heather Digby Parton of Salon, the Democratic weeping and gnashing of teeth and MSM salivating over a recent Wall Street Journal poll sounds awfully familiar.
I'm reminded of Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, who wrote in September of 1995, "There is little unity among Democrats or on the center-left on the desirability of reelecting President Clinton." He was right. At the time there were pitched battles going on among the centrists and the progressives which made the prospect of solidarity in the party a distant dream. The huge Republican win in the midterm election of 1994 as well as the non-stop scandal-mongering and investigations by the congressional Republicans had Democrats everywhere wondering how Clinton could possibly win re-election. The only thing that seemed to unite the party at the time was a mutual loathing of Newt Gingrich. 14 months later, Clinton won a decisive victory.
[...]
Over the Labor Day weekend, the Wall St. Journal released a poll that showed Donald Trump leading the GOP primary at 59% with his closest rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, at 13%. There's nothing shocking there, Trump's leading by a huge margin in all of them, and that poll was conducted by none other than Trump's personal pollster, Tony Fabrizio, (along with a partner) so one would expect no less. But what got every Democratic pundit gasping and every talking head salivating was the finding that 73% of Americans believe 80-year-old Joe Biden is too old to be president while only 47% of voters believe the sprightly 77-year-old Donald Trump is similarly unqualified by his age.
[...]
In a perfect world, we would not have a presidential election between two men who were born in the WWII era. It's 2023 and it's past time to pass the torch. But we are where we are and there are strong reasons to take a breath and realize that Joe Biden is going into this campaign with some serious advantages that would be stupid to toss aside.
Still, Paul Waldman writes for MSNBC, that Digby’s calm reasoning is not the only appropriate reaction.
This is not a feeling we talk about much. While political reporters obsess over the anger and resentments felt by blue-collar white men in Rust Belt diners, liberals’ emotions are seldom considered worthy of the same kind of exploration.
[...]
I can describe the power of partisanship in a polarized age. I can explain the incentive structure that keeps Republican politicians in line behind Trump. I can tell you why Biden gets no credit for bringing the economy back from the depths of recession. I can explain why, despite the fact that he has literally the best one-term job creation record of any president in history; inflation has fallen to 3%; and he has signed legislation providing some of the most important investments in decades, most Americans think Biden has done a poor job on the economy.
I can tell you all that, calmly and reasonably. I’ve done so so many times, when asked by friends, relatives and interviewers. I’ve written so many articles about the nature of Trump’s appeal that I lost count long ago.
Yet part of me looks at those polls and wants to respond not with calm and reason, but with a blood-curdling scream of rage. Or at least with the kind of frustration bordering on despair that usually prompts those questions in the first place.
Hannah Stephens, Manann Donoghoe, and Andre M. Perry of the Brookings Institution report that due to historical inequities, the dangers of extreme heat is more acutely felt by Black homeowners and renters.
Extreme heat is the deadliest climate hazard in the United States. And while heat itself does not discriminate, centuries of racist housing policies such as redlining magnify its impact. Such policies segregated Black neighborhoods, induced lower rate rates of homeownership, and ensured underinvestment in those communities—all of which make Black residents more vulnerable to extreme heat. In 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that Black people are 40% more likely than non-Black people to live in areas with the highest projected increase in mortality rates due to extreme temperatures.
The underinvestment of Black neighborhoods means a disproportionate share of Black residents live in older homes without air conditioning or proper insulation, and on streets that lack green spaces to help lower ambient temperatures. One study found that 94% of formerly redlined areas are hotter than non-redlined areas within the same county by as much as 12.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Homes occupied by Black renters are often inadequate in dealing with extreme heat due to underinvestment. And our history of racist housing policy has led to these Black renters paying proportionally more to stay safe during heat waves than other racial groups. In July of last year, 50% of Black renters were unable to pay their energy bills.
Alex Burness of Bolts magazine reports that getting health care in West Virginia’s prisons is certain to become more difficult.
Senate Bill 1009 bans the use of state funds for any health care for incarcerated people that isn’t deemed “medically necessary.” The policy leaves it to state Corrections and Rehabilitation Commissioner Billy Marshall—a career law enforcement agent who has said incarcerated people are lying when they allege inhumane treatment by the state—to define “medically necessary” and makes clear that this definition can supersede guidance from health professionals. “A provider of health care prescribing, ordering, recommending, or approving a health care service or product does not, by itself, make that health care service or product medically necessary,” the law reads.
West Virginia already routinely fails to provide basic, essential care in its jails and prisons, several formerly incarcerated people told Bolts. Kenneth Matthews, who was locked up for more than eight years and has been free since 2020, says he lived this firsthand, as a diabetic person with high blood pressure.
In prison, he said “I didn’t get insulin, and they didn’t give me medication for my high blood pressure either. They said maybe if I lost some weight and worked out more, my blood pressure and diabetes would correct itself.”
Finally today, an editorial in The HIndu criticizes the substitution of “Bharat” for India in a diplomatic invite to nations participating in the G20 summit.
India and Bharat have both evoked the same emotions among patriots for decades, but these labels of pride have now been weaponised for narrow political ends. The Bharatiya Janata Party government at the Centre has decided to use Bharat instead of India in some official communication and documents, a practice that its representatives say will now expand. ‘India, that is Bharat,...’ is how the Constitution of India names the country, and the use of one or the other has been largely contextual all this while. The cultural echoes of Bharat have never been in doubt, and the current hype around it is more about a campaign to discard the use of India, as if both cannot exist in harmony. India, according to this telling, is a foreign imposition, and hence unsuitable for national dignity. Bharat, linked as it is to various ancient sources, goes beyond the geographical and cultural landscape that constitutes the modern republic of India. In that sense, both names are an outcome of India’s nation-building journey. Labouring to tease out the foreign from the native in the expanse of this nation that hosts a multitude of ethnic, linguistic, and genetic diversity and that has been formed as a result of millennia of migrations and cross-currents of human interactions serves no purpose other than creating new flashpoints in society.
Have the best possible day, everyone!