Earlier this week, the National Weather Service issued their 90-day outlook for October through December. Assuming you live in the United States, I can now give you a forecast customized to your specific state, town, and neighborhood. Ready? Here it comes: It’s going to be hot.
The reason I can deliver this with some confidence is that the NHS forecast calls for above average temperatures everywhere in the lower-48 and everywhere in Alaska (Sorry, Hawaii, you’re not on their map). For the next three months temperatures are going to run from above average, to much above average. And, as has all too often been true in the last couple of decades, those high temperatures will especially affect the North Slope of Alaska, where cold temperatures and ice are likely to be very late in arriving.
The Weather Service has not yet released their official predictions for winter, but the advance “sanity check” suggest … yeah, more hot.
A note to parents: Now is the time to be thinking of a new home for Santa Claus, because one day soon your kid is going to inform you that the North Pole is just a spot in the ocean. Say goodbye to the ice, and let’s go read some pundits.
WhistleGate
Jonathan Chait says Trump’s Ukraine scandal was “hiding in plain sight.”
New York Magazine
In recent days, a seemingly new scandal materialized: reports of an intelligence whistle-blower encountering disturbing conduct by President Trump, and having his complaint quashed in apparent violation of the law. The complaint turns out to be related to the Ukraine scandal, which has been sitting in plain sight. The Wall Street Journal reports that, in a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump repeatedly pressured his counterpart to work with Giuliani on an investigation of Biden. We are learning more details of a story whose broader contours have been clear for months.
Could we just say that this story wasn’t even hiding? What was missing was attention from the media. Or, as someone said in an article just a week ago: “The actions that Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani have been taking in Ukraine have not been getting 1/10,000th of the press they deserve, and what ink they have received has been far too kind. In an effort to prove that Joe Biden inappropriately used his power as vice president to protect his son by leaning on a foreign government, Trump has been … leaning on a foreign government to produce dirt about Biden. ”
Yeah, that was one of the 21 articles on this flipping topic Daily Kos has run just since May. Meanwhile, major media outlets are still trying to figure out if they can squeeze in a story on Trump extorting an ally for personal gain, or whether they should just jump straight to how this is bad … for Democrats.
We have known since last spring that Trump, working through Giuliani, is pressuring Ukraine to supply dirt on Joe Biden. The alleged misconduct by Biden concerns his work as vice-president under the Obama administration. The allegation is that Biden supposedly tried to sack a Ukrainian prosecutor who was propbing his son’s business in the country. The allegation against Biden is totally baseless. In fact, as Bloomberg News discovered, the prosecution was finished before Biden took a stance, the prosecutor was widely considered corrupt, his sacking was consistent with the administration’s pro-democracy agenda, and the Obama administration supported the investigation into Hunter Biden anyway.
Let me congratulate Chait for doing his homework and getting this right, rather than doing as both The New York Times and Politico did this week and repeating Giuliani’s claims against Biden without bothering to ask for any evidence.
Charles Pierce looks at just how many lines Trump crossed with this one.
Esquire
The details of El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago's extortionate relationship with Ukraine simply get worse and worse, almost by the hour. Late Friday afternoon, the Wall Street Journal reported that the president* repeatedly pressured the government of Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. According to the Journal, the president* pressed his case eight times for the Ukrainians to team up with his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to dig up dirt on the younger Biden. The Journal also reported that their source indicated that the president* offered no specific quid pro quo but, seriously, he was holding back $250 million in military aid that was mysteriously released after a phone call on July 25 between the president* and Volodymyr Zelensky, the newly elected leader of Ukraine.
As a criminal proceeding, the case against Trump includes both statements and action. He didn’t just attempt to coerce assistance from Ukrainian officials, he acted to put their nation at risk while repeating his demands that they help him personally. It is hard to imagine a greater abuse of power that did not directly include a military strike.
The White House counteroffensive went from "Fake news!" to "Sure, I did it. Big deal." faster than it usually does. The president* wrangled some word salad for the press in the Oval Office Friday afternoon. First, he accused the still-anonymous whistleblower of being a "partisan," and then he said he didn't know who the whistleblower was. He said it "doesn't matter" what he says to foreign officials, and that his conversations with Zelensky were altogether splendid, indeed.
And he said that Biden should still be investigated … which is the only part some media outlets seem to have heard.
Mike Litwin on whether Trump will simply walk away. Again.
Colorado Independent
The whistleblower story is not simply a bombshell. It could actually be a game changer, which would be the first in Donald Trump’s tumultuous tenure in the Oval Office. Let’s face it, weird things often occur in Trumpworld, but none of them has ever led anywhere. But now there’s a whistleblower, and history tells us no one blows the whistle on sitting presidents. Ever. Until now.
And now The Wall Street Journal reports that in a July White House call, Trump repeatedly pressured Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate/dig up dirt on Joe Biden and reopen an investigation of his son, Hunter. According to the Journal, Trump pressed the Ukraine leader eight times — not exactly a round number, suggesting they’ve either got a readout of the call or a tape of it — to work with Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
From the number of cites that have popped up on this call, it seems clear there is a readout circulating, at least in the White House. Though we may not see it anytime soon. Has anyone tried calling Zelensky to see if he took notes?
According to The New York Times, the whistleblower had more to offer than simply a “promise” that Trump made on a phone call. The Times says it may involve the possibility of a quid pro quo in that Congress had allocated $250 million to Ukraine for defense against Trump’s buddy, Vladimir Putin — money that, at the time of the call, Trump had withheld. It’s being reported that it was not raised in the phone call, but the whistleblower is apparently saying there is more to his report than a phone call. The money to Ukraine has since been allocated.
What we know about the phone call is damning enough. Please, let there be more.
George Conway (yes, that one) teams up with Neal Katyal to talk Ukraine.
Washington Post
Among the most delicate choices the framers made in drafting the Constitution was how to deal with a president who puts himself above the law. To address that problem, they chose the mechanism of impeachment and removal from office. And they provided that this remedy could be used when a president commits “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
That last phrase — “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” — was a historical term of art, derived from impeachments in the British Parliament. When the framers put it into the Constitution, they didn’t discuss it much, because no doubt they knew what it meant. It meant, as Alexander Hamilton later phrased it, “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
Simply put, the framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust. Through the Constitution, the framers imposed upon the president the duty and obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and made him swear an oath that he would fulfill that duty of faithful execution. They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment.
There will be no better case than this for impeachment. Not against Trump. Not against anyone.
Karen Tumulty on actions the House could take immediately
Washington Post
So here’s where things stand: We have a president who not only abuses the power of his office but flaunts it, and a political system incapable of doing anything about it.
That President Trump would coerce — and possibly extort — a foreign power to launch an investigation aimed at damaging his leading political opponent takes his misconduct to an entirely new level. Yet leading Republicans remain silent. Once again, we are left wondering what, exactly, he would have to do to draw any sort of condemnation from a party that still marches behind him in lockstep, no matter where he takes them.
The facts have been established. We already know that Trump, in a July 25 call with Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, pressured that government to open an investigation of former vice president Joe Biden, who currently leads in the polls for the Democratic nomination to challenge Trump in next year’s presidential election. Biden’s son Hunter showed sketchy judgment in doing business in Ukraine while his father was in office, but the matter has already been thoroughly scrutinized, and there has not been a shred of evidence that the vice president did anything inappropriate on Hunter Biden’s behalf. After Trump put pressure on Zelensky, Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani amped it up in at least one meeting with an associate of the Ukraine leader. All of this was going on as Trump was holding up $250 million in military aid that Ukraine badly needs to fend off a threat from the Russians to the east.
It’s not true that Republicans have remained completely silent. Some of them have already rushed to say that extortion is no big deal … and hey, shouldn’t you really be looking into Biden?
Election 2020
Laurie Roberts says it’s her turn to kick progressive Democrats.
Arizona Republic
A group of Arizona Democrats are demonstrating why President Donald Trump will more than likely be a two-term president.
The party’s liberal wing simply cannot resist the temptation to shoot itself in its Birkenstocks.
Witness the liberals riding in on their unicorn, hoping to censure the first Arizona Democrat elected to the U.S. Senate in 30 years.
It seems Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is just not Democratic enough. So the party's progressive caucus is asked the Arizona Democratic Party to censure her on Saturday. The party has decided to push the vote to its annual meeting in January.
Censure Sinema? Sorry, who are these unicorn-riders and what are their rainbow-flavored demands?
“We really support Kyrsten Sinema, we want her to succeed, we want her to be the best senator in the country,” Dan O’Neal, state coordinator for Progressive Democrats of America, told The Republic’s Yvonne Wingett Sanchez. “But the way she is voting is really disappointing. We want Democrats to vote like Democrats and not Republicans.”
So … progressive Democrats in Arizona support Sinema, but are unhappy that she voted to approve William Barr for Attorney General? This is the kind of radical position Roberts claims is simply going to hand the election to Trump?
Art Cullen’s view of Iowa seems to match that of recent polls.
Storm Lake Times
The soybeans haven’t even fully turned yet, so it remains too early to count out most of the candidates from succeeding in the Iowa caucuses. All polling so far show that Joe Biden leads, that Elizabeth Warren is gaining ground quickly, and that Bernie Sanders is moving sideways for the moment. Iowa remains Biden’s to lose, and he just might.
As we wrote last week for the Washington Post, we attended a Warren organizing event in Sac City on a fine September evening led by her rural coordinator, John Russell. Warren was not there, but 22 people interested in her myriad plans showed up and stuck around two hours to hear Russell talk about her. Several signed on to help. In Sac County, home base of the irrepressible Rep. Steve King, one of the reddest counties in the state.
Warren has built an organizing machine in Iowa that remains unparalleled. She started early, visits often with a populist message of empowering places left behind like her hometown in Oklahoma, and is methodical about signing up supporters and winning over skeptics. That’s how you win the caucuses, one-on-one, retail-style. Nobody in Sac City was a socialist, but they liked her by proxy just fine.
You know, I’ll bet you a chocolate donut and a cup of coffee that a lot of people in Sac City are socialists, in that they hold positions held by democratic socialists around the globe. They just don’t know it, because the only time they hear the word “socialist” is when it’s being sneered by a Republican.
As voters start to pay attention more, it appears that Warren is gaining momentum at the expense of Sanders, Biden and lesser candidates. One dark horse to keep your eye on: Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who is rising in the polls, understands Iowa better than anyone, is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and is gaining traction in surveys.
One other thing to keep an eye on: Art has been saying that Klobuchar was just about to catch fire since she first showed up to say “Midwest” in Iowa. The latest Des Moines Register poll actually has Warren leading at 22%, Biden close behind at 20%, and Bernie down at 11%. Klobuchar has 3% — placing her behind not just the lead pack, but also well back of Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris.
Nancy LeTourneau on the only way to get anything passed in Washington.
Washington Monthly
As Democrats are in the midst of a presidential primary where candidates and the media are focused on drawing distinctions between their proposed agendas, it is important to keep something in mind. Like it or not, there are only two political parties in the U.S. that will eventually compete for our votes. When it comes to the issues that are of most concern to Americans right now, the gulf between those two parties is incredibly wide.
Health Care— Democrats have a variety of plans, but almost everyone agrees that health care should be a right, not a privilege. That is why they support government intervention to make insurance more affordable and care more accessible.
Republicans remain committed to repealing Obamacare, stripping millions of their insurance, and letting the free market reign when it comes to affordability and accessibility.
Immigration—Democrats support a secure border and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. When it comes to asylum-seekers and legal immigration, they support humane policies that align with this country’s stated values.
Republicans are committed to fear-mongering about immigrants and enacting xenophobic policies—all of which are rooted in racism.
The article includes a nice list of side by sides like this — along with a welcome call for a “Blue Tsunami” to sweep these policies into practice.
Miscellaneous
MIchael Tomasky is ready to show Corey Lewandowski where he can shove his ‘attitude.’
Daily Beast
First: Just keep lying—never, ever, ever stop lying. Because if you admit something once, you’ve given up the game. So, Trump says: All 16 or however many of those women are harlots and hustlers who are out for money. He won’t say, “Oh, maybe I did kiss this one.” That would just put a crack in the facade, and once there’s a crack, there’s another, and another.
Second: When cornered, make up new rules as you go along. If the city’s building code requires him to do something, as he well knows, just say it doesn’t. The papers will have to report what he said, and then it looks to the average reader like, well, who knows.
We saw both on display Tuesday when Corey Lewandowski appeared before Congress. I write “appeared,” not “testified,” because he obviously didn’t offer any testimony.
I genuinely thought that, between Nadler’s intro to the hearing and the way both Swalwell and Cicilline teed Lewandowski up, the whole thing was set up to demonstrate that the House was no longer going to tolerate Trump’s pals claiming privilege-not-privilege. Fooled me.
Lewandowski—auditioning for high-roller, Trumpy donors to bankroll his New Hampshire Senate campaign—followed the old Trump model to a T.
Executive privilege—for someone who never worked in the White House. That’s insane. Everyone knows it’s insane, in the exact same way everyone in 1990s New York knew that the building codes did require Trump to do X. But just say it. Bluster through. If reality ever catches up, make up something else new, and bluster through again until the world just gives up.
What these people are doing to democracy is repulsive. And they’ll never stop. It will just get worse and worse.
Too bad for Lewandowski, the day after his testimony, the GOP got behind another candidate. Thanks for that hearing, Corey. Now, go away.
Aisha Sultan on the special racial quote system in college— the one for rich white people.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Studies have shown what everyone knows to be true: Students who apply to colleges that a family member attended often have a significant unearned advantage over those who don’t. It can be used as a tie-breaker when deciding between two well-qualified applicants or it can add additional points to an application. A handful of elite institutions — MIT, Oxford, Cambridge and University of California-Berkeley — do not consider legacy as part of admissions, but many of the selective American colleges do.
Legacy preferences were originally designed to favor white, Protestant men at the expense of Jewish, Catholic and immigrant applicants who began scoring higher on entrance exams in greater numbers once they were allowed to apply. And, to this day, studies show that the people who benefit from this boost the most are the ones who need it the least. The New York Times editorial board recently described it as affirmative action for the rich.
It’s not necessary to view the legacy system as a hand-up to those who are already at the top. Because it’s also a boot on the throat of everyone else.
Universities defend the practice because they say it increases alumni donations in the long-term and engagement with the institution. It’s almost funny to hear universities with billion-dollar-plus endowments defend a system of privilege because it ensures their own wealth. Plus, there is research that disputes that very claim. If Oxford, Cambridge and MIT do not need to rely on legacy preferences to maintain their world-class status, what does that say about Harvard, Yale and all the other elite institutions who feel compelled to hang on to it.
Why not just sell openings to the highest bidder? It would be more honest, and wouldn’t have any pretense of being fair.
Leonard Pitts on how Trump has broken through “the guardrails.”
Miami Herald
“The Guardrails Hold,” exulted the headline of a piece by the late conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. He was highlighting acts of resistance to Donald Trump’s bizarre excesses by entities as varied as the Boy Scouts of America and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
That was in August of 2017. It has since become painfully clear Krauthammer exulted too soon. The vaunted institutions of democracy have proven largely unequal to the task of checking Trump’s transgressions.
Once again, I’m going to ask that you read Masha Gessen’s “Autocracy: Rules for Survival.” Written immediately after Trump’s election, not other work in America has proven to be as prescient, as accurate, or as valuable over the last three years.
Which brings us to federal agencies and last week’s news that the acting director of national intelligence is apparently shielding Trump from questioning over allegations of still-unrevealed misconduct. It seems Trump, who has a history of cavalier behavior with classified information — he once blurted intelligence secrets to Russians in the Oval Office — had an interaction with a foreign leader wherein he made an unspecified “promise” that so troubled one official it led to the filing of a formal whistleblower complaint.
As first reported by The Washington Post, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson found the complaint credible and designated it a matter of “urgent concern.” That’s a legal finding requiring notification of congressional oversight committees. But acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire has refused to provide that information to lawmakers.
There is no resolution now but impeachment, and failing to move forward isn’t just abandoning impeachment, it’s abandoning democracy.
And seriously, this whole thing needs a better name than just “the whistleblower report.” Brainstorm, people, brainstorm.