271 Comments
User's avatar
Maura's avatar

Integrity isn’t dead. It’s just currently out of office.

Expand full comment
Laurel Rhoads's avatar

We need more Jack Smith's.

Expand full comment
Scott Smith's avatar

Has anyone asked the power drunk cabal whether they think that Section 4 of the 15th Amendment is constitutional?

Expand full comment
Beth's avatar

Regarding the Cheap Shot, why isn't Ted presenting the "considerable evidence" that he has that proves George Soros is funding No Kings? Why isn't he being asked to do so by actual journlists?

Expand full comment
George Armhold's avatar

I appreciate what Jack Smith is doing, but would prefer we stop saying the obviously false phrase about "no one is above the law". One man very obviously is above the law in this country, and it would be better if we were all honest about it. Honest but not nihilistic; I'm going to No Kings.

Expand full comment
Beth's avatar

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that from anyone. If no one is above the law then let's get Mr. Pulte to scrutinize ALL mortgages, not just those of Democrats.

Expand full comment
Cary Lapekas's avatar

Thank you both.

Expand full comment
Robert J Danolfo's avatar

Bill, Andrew, Will and Jim, Thanks for the excellent writing and reporting. Does anyone really believe Jack Smith didn't have the goods to prosecute Trump? Barring a rogue judge (Aileen Cannon) and a complicit group of Constitutional contortionists (the Supreme Court ) Trump would be in prison along with many of his accomplices. Once inside a courtroom Trump sits in silence working overtime to keep from nodding off into lala land. While Smith would enter mountains of facts, evidence, time lines and, of course, witnesses. To Smith this would be like going to a turkey shoot with an AK47. The jury wouldn't even have to deliberate, they'd be looking for rope. Seriously, with so many crimes and so little time, I hope justice makes a swift comeback because, we the people, deserve it.

Expand full comment
Franklin Michaels's avatar

Excellent interview with Timothy Snyder. And what strikes me in particular id hid analysis the administration’s use of Antifa, which has puzzled me, where the last time at least I recall it raising it’s head was in the demonstrations against the Clinton Administration’s 1999 decision to join the WTO. (Something in retrospect was great for the “Renaissance Weekend” regulars, but terrible for the rest of the country.) But Snyder’s insight of the benefit of using a fictitious boogeymen is spot on. It’s their very plasticity, their amorphous nature that makes them adaptable to every situation.

But the other thing that’s been bothering me about the repeated invocation of Antifa is why no one is mentioning Robert Coover’s great 1977 novel, The Public Burning. And in which Coover takes apart the McCarthy Era, largely through the use of magical realism, largely centered around fictional characterization of Richard Nixon and Ethyl Rosenberg (who later played a similar role in Tony Kushner’s Angels in America), along with two wholly fictional characters, The Phantom (whom we never see) and Uncle Sam, who in the end comes through all to personally. As does the fate of the Rosenbergs, wherein “thieves of light were condemned to die by light.”

Highly recommend.

Expand full comment
BabsPHL's avatar

There is not ONE person in this tumultuous 'cult' of trump 'triumph of the will' fit for duty! Not ONE. And Smiller is the WORST. Glad to see you folks pointing this out. The whole gang was chosen to bow down to their "noking" figurehead. Saturday will show how many of us REFUSE to do it!

Expand full comment
Don Gates's avatar

Good to see Jack Smith is more capable of meeting the moment than Mueller was. His comments were comprehensive and compelling.

Overall, though, this is one of those newsletters that makes me really want to get the hell out of the country. It's not just that it's bad now; it's that the SCOTUS is threatening to make things bad indefinitely with minoritarian changes that will never go away, when minoritarian rule is already a major problem.

Expand full comment
max skinner's avatar

It turns out that Mueller had some physical issues that he was dealing with.

Expand full comment
SandyG's avatar

I laughed out loud at this: " . . . these practices, whatever their merits in rooting out institutional racism during the civil rights era, conflict with the Constitution’s basic requirements of race-blind government behavior." That completely turns the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause on its head. Congress' intent in writing this clause was to stop states from discriminating against blacks (https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/clauses/702#the-equal-protection-clause). Nothing else in the Constitution requires race-blind government behavior so to characterize it as "basic" is BS.

Yesterday, the NYT reported that "Trump Considers Overhaul of Refugee System That Would Favor White People." It is so clear that the Right is motivated by racism.

Expand full comment
max skinner's avatar

Yeah that struck me as shades of the Shelby decision on a different part of the Voting Rights Act. As RB Ginsberg said...it's like someone standing under an umbrella saying "I'm dry so everything must be dry. No need to worry about rain anymore."

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

They’re going overt with the racism. He also wants Europeans who disagree with their countries’ immigration policies. The new “refugee.”

Expand full comment
jane's avatar

Yes.

Expand full comment
Marc G's avatar

Please someone cover the fact that Venezuela has nothing to do with drugs and EVERYTHING to do with US oil companies wanting to get control over Venezuela's oil after having been kicked out of the country. You all do remember they paid 100s of millions to fund Trump's campaign and now many favors are owed . . .

Expand full comment
M M (Lee)'s avatar

If the Supreme Court eliminates racial gerrymandering, it's true that Republicans will be unleashed in a way that makes their current authoritarianism look tame. However, it will also mean that Democrats are forced to appeal to the nation as a whole (the part between California and New York).

If you look at Poland as an example, their liberal party (i.e. supporting individual rights (e.g. abortion, gay rights, and protections from racial and religious discrimination); democracy; and rule of law) also supports free-market economics and national defense.

I would like to see the Democrats set public safety as a top part of their party identity. And I'd like to see them support doing whatever it takes to make the U.S. attractive to prospective employers in order to deliver booming GDP growth (i.e. through lower income tax rates) to the majority of counties in the U.S. rather than just a few places like Nashville, Raleigh, etc.

To win over the part of America that sits between New York and California, Democrats need to produce public safety at the level found in places like Japan, Norway, and Switzerland. And they need to produce the booming 4% GDP growth rates of the 1960s that will deliver booming growth in the vast majority of counties in the U.S.

If the Democrats can deliver on a booming economy and Japanese/Norwegian levels of public safety, the voters will support them on issues such as individual rights and environmental protections.

Expand full comment
Arnold Pritchard's avatar

So all the demonstrators are being paid by George Soros! I somehow have been overlooked all this time! Where the heck is my check?

Expand full comment
Joanne's avatar

LOL -- mine is missing as well.

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

Two possible signs for Saturday

Where's my check?

Accountability and transparency for ICE

Expand full comment