An awful trend: In state after state, voters are mobilizing in defense of democracy. Yet Republicans are responding with still more virulently anti-democratic tactics.
The threat to impeach a liberal judge in Wisconsin is only the beginning. 1/
It's striking: Even as voters are turning out to protect democracy, Republicans are redoubling their commitment to MAGA-fied anti-majoritarian tactics in the states, which is motivating voters even more.
In Michigan, the state GOP is in chaos, after Trump's loss led to its takeover by MAGA crackpots. Dems won full state control in 2022, leading to still more election denialism, driving away donors and swing voters, hurting Trump's 2024 chances there. 3/
In Ohio, Republicans looked at the success of pro-choice forces in referendums and said, "Let's create a supermajority requirement!" But that was rejected by a large majority, because it further mobilized voters *against* anti-majoritarian tactics. 4/
In Wisconsin, Republicans are responding to liberal judge Janet Protasiewicz's 11-point victory (+11 in Wisconsin!) with threats of impeachment based on bad faith BS.
Dems in the state tell me they'll use this to mobilize voters against Trump in 2024. 5/
Remarkably, this doubling down on anti-majoritarian tactics comes as evidence mounts that voters are getting accustomed to turning out in democracy's defense. The GOP defense of Trump, even as his 1/6 prosecution advances, will reinforce this effect. 6/
Stephen Miller is employing state terror in service of the open goal of shifting the ethnic mix of the country. In numerous ways he's doing this at the expense of public safety.
First, his grandmother has written an unpublished history of some of his ancestors' immigration to the US. We are publishing it online for the first time. They were attacked in terms similar to those he uses today.
Some news on Trump's doling out of most refugee slots to white South Africans: Two former State Department officials tell us basic protocols designed to determine whether this group actually merits protection have simply been scrapped. It's just whim.
Remarkable how brutal the ruling against Trump on Abrego Garcia truly is: It details malicious abuses of power all throughout. Trump and Stephen Miller were testing their ability to spread lawless state terror. But the court held the line. 1/
News --> The commander who oversaw Pete Hegseth's alleged killing of two boat bombing survivors is now likely to come in and face questions from House Armed Services Committee, ranking Dem Adam Smith tells me.
Pete Hegseth denies he gave the order to kill them all. But even some Republicans now appear to be demanding answers, so Frank Bradley, who oversaw bombings, is in talks with House Armed Services about coming in.
NEWS --> BBC confirms to me that they did edit a line out of historian @rcbregman's speech. It called Trump "the most openly corrupt president in US history."
BBC also confirms this was done on the advice of lawyers. So Trump's threats worked.
Today @rcbregman posted a transcript of his Reith Lecture showing that the version that BBC aired removed the line about Trump's world-historical corruption.
BBC emailed me: "we made the decision to remove one sentence from the lecture on legal advice.”
@rcbregman Trump is the most corrupt president in US history, and the openness of his corruption is an essential feature of it. It's extra bad that this comes as the Defense Department punishes Sen Mark Kelly for correctly warning against breaking illegal orders.
Remarkable: Rep Chrissy Houlahan, one of the Dems Trump called for executing, tells me her office literally filled out a Capitol Police threat report listing "the president" as the person making the threat.
One reason she and other Dems did the video about Trump's illegal orders is that they're hearing from inside the military and intel services of actual live fears that they're being given unlawful commands:
Trump's boat bombings in the Caribbean just got worse. An internal DOJ memo says the victims are waging war on the US, but per NYT, it extensively cites the WH's *own claims* to this effect as evidence!
The memo purportedly justifying these murders also contains a lengthy section that lays out arguments defending the actions of those carrying out the strikes. In short, it *preemptively* defends them from potential prosecution later.
Ever since the bombings began, a big Q has been: Do those carrying them out fear they're being given illegal orders? The official overseeing them recently resigned with no explanation, prompting Dems to ask if he'd concluded bombings are illegal. 3/