Last Call For The Original October Surprise

With former President Jimmy Carter receiving palliative care at home at age 98, a long-time GOP political operator has come forward to confirm that Reagan's campaign sabotaged Carter's Iran hostage rescue efforts on purpose to win the 1980 election.

 

It has been more than four decades, but Ben Barnes said he remembers it vividly. His longtime political mentor invited him on a mission to the Middle East. What Mr. Barnes said he did not realize until later was the real purpose of the mission: to sabotage the re-election campaign of the president of the United States.

It was 1980 and Jimmy Carter was in the White House, bedeviled by a hostage crisis in Iran that had paralyzed his presidency and hampered his effort to win a second term. Mr. Carter’s best chance for victory was to free the 52 Americans held captive before Election Day. That was something that Mr. Barnes said his mentor was determined to prevent.

His mentor was John B. Connally Jr., a titan of American politics and former Texas governor who had served three presidents and just lost his own bid for the White House. A former Democrat, Mr. Connally had sought the Republican nomination in 1980 only to be swamped by former Gov. Ronald Reagan of California. Now Mr. Connally resolved to help Mr. Reagan beat Mr. Carter and in the process, Mr. Barnes said, make his own case for becoming secretary of state or defense in a new administration.

What happened next Mr. Barnes has largely kept secret for nearly 43 years. Mr. Connally, he said, took him to one Middle Eastern capital after another that summer, meeting with a host of regional leaders to deliver a blunt message to be passed to Iran: Don’t release the hostages before the election. Mr. Reagan will win and give you a better deal.

Then shortly after returning home, Mr. Barnes said, Mr. Connally reported to William J. Casey, the chairman of Mr. Reagan’s campaign and later director of the Central Intelligence Agency, briefing him about the trip in an airport lounge.

Mr. Carter’s camp has long suspected that Mr. Casey or someone else in Mr. Reagan’s orbit sought to secretly torpedo efforts to liberate the hostages before the election, and books have been written on what came to be called the October surprise. But congressional investigations debunked previous theories of what happened.

Mr. Connally did not figure in those investigations. His involvement, as described by Mr. Barnes, adds a new understanding to what may have happened in that hard-fought, pivotal election year. With Mr. Carter now 98 and in hospice care, Mr. Barnes said he felt compelled to come forward to correct the record.

“History needs to know that this happened,” Mr. Barnes, who turns 85 next month, said in one of several interviews, his first with a news organization about the episode. “I think it’s so significant and I guess knowing that the end is near for President Carter put it on my mind more and more and more. I just feel like we’ve got to get it down some way.”

Mr. Barnes is no shady foreign arms dealer with questionable credibility, like some of the characters who fueled previous iterations of the October surprise theory. He was once one of the most prominent figures in Texas, the youngest speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and later lieutenant governor. He was such an influential figure that he helped a young George W. Bush get into the Texas Air National Guard rather than be exposed to the draft and sent to Vietnam. Lyndon B. Johnson predicted that Mr. Barnes would become president someday.

Confirming Mr. Barnes’s account is problematic after so much time. Mr. Connally, Mr. Casey and other central figures have long since died and Mr. Barnes has no diaries or memos to corroborate his account. But he has no obvious reason to make up the story and indeed expressed trepidation at going public because of the reaction of fellow Democrats.

Mr. Barnes identified four living people he said he had confided in over the years: Mark K. Updegrove, president of the L.B.J. Foundation; Tom Johnson, a former aide to Lyndon Johnson (no relation) who later became publisher of the Los Angeles Times and president of CNN; Larry Temple, a former aide to Mr. Connally and Lyndon Johnson; and H.W. Brands, a University of Texas historian.

All four of them confirmed in recent days that Mr. Barnes shared the story with them years ago. “As far as I know, Ben never has lied to me,” Tom Johnson said, a sentiment the others echoed. Mr. Brands included three paragraphs about Mr. Barnes’s recollections in a 2015 biography of Mr. Reagan, but the account generated little public notice at the time.

Records at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum confirm part of Mr. Barnes’s story. An itinerary found this past week in Mr. Connally’s files indicated that he did, in fact, leave Houston on July 18, 1980, for a trip that would take him to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel before returning to Houston on Aug. 11. Mr. Barnes was listed as accompanying him.

 

Holy shit.

 

The original, old-school October Surprise really was a Reagan dirty trick designed to sabotage a sitting president's re-election campaign and it worked, and they basically got away with it for my entire lifetime, and the only reason we know what we know now is that Jimmy Carter is facing his final days and the guilt was too much for one of the assholes to bear.

 

We all knew it was, the Iranians released the hostages literally minutes after Reagan was sworn in on January 20, 1981.

And yet when I told Zandardad about this, a man who was proud to vote for Carter then and met him in person years later, he said little would come of this, and that he'd still prefer Reagan to the current GOP.

God help me, he's not wrong.

The Road To Gilead Goes Through The Mountain West

Wyoming has become the first state to ban abortion medication, even though the state doesn't have a ban on abortion itself.

 

Wyoming on Friday became the first state to ban the use of pills for abortion, adding momentum to a growing push by conservative states and anti-abortion groups to target medication abortion, the method now used in a majority of pregnancy terminations in the United States.

Wyoming’s new law comes as a preliminary ruling is expected soon by a Texas judge that could order the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval of mifepristone, the first pill in the two-drug medication abortion regimen. Such a ruling, if it stands, could upend how abortion is provided nationally, affecting states where abortion is legal as well as states with bans and restrictions.

Legislation to ban or add restrictions on medication abortion has been introduced in several states this year, including a bill in Texas that would not only ban abortion pills but also require internet service providers to take steps to block medication abortion websites so people in Texas could not view them.

In these states, proposals to block or restrict abortion pills have typically been introduced along with other anti-abortion measures, a reflection of the range of obstacles to abortion these states have tried to erect since the Supreme Court overturned the national right to abortion last June.

Medication abortion is already outlawed in states that have total bans, since those bans already prohibit all forms of abortion. But Wyoming became the first state to outlaw the use of pills for abortion separate from a total ban.

Gov. Mark Gordon of Wyoming, a Republican, signed that state’s abortion pill ban on the same day that he said he would allow another more sweeping measure banning abortion to become law without his signature. That law, which takes effect on Sunday, would ban abortion under almost all circumstances, making it a felony to provide an abortion.

“I have acted without bias and after extensive prayer, to allow these bills to become law,” Mr. Gordon wrote in a letter to Wyoming’s secretary of state released on Friday evening.

 

Also this week, Utah GOP Gov. Spencer Cox signed a law closing the state's abortion clinics, even though again, the state doesn't have a ban on abortion itself.

 

Abortion clinics in Utah could be banned from operating under a law signed by the state’s Republican governor, setting off a rush of confusion among clinics, hospitals and prospective patients in the deeply conservative state.

Administrators from hospitals and clinics have not publicly detailed plans to adapt to the new rules, adding a layer of uncertainty on top of fear that, if clinics close, patients may not be able to access care at hospitals due to staffing and cost concerns.

The law signed by Gov. Spencer Cox on Wednesday takes effect May 3, at which time abortion clinics will not be able to apply to be licensed. It institutes a full ban Jan. 1, 2024. Both the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah and the Utah Hospital Association declined to detail how the increasingly fraught legal landscape for providers in Utah will affect abortion access.

In addition to banning abortion clinics from operating, the law also clarifies the definition of abortion to address liability concerns about how exceptions are worded in state law — a provision Cox called a compromise.

On Thursday, the governor rebuffed critics who’ve equated restricting clinics to a de facto ban on abortion and said the law offered clarity to hospitals providing emergency abortions in the case of threats to maternal health and rape or incest reported to authorities.

“This bill clarifies that so that those abortions can continue. They will continue in a hospital setting, but there’s nothing to prevent those from continuing,” he said at a news conference.

 

The difference between Republicans in states like Texas and Kentucky and Republicans in states like Utah and Wyoming is the whole semantics issue of cruelty to the groups they want to subjugate. "We're not banning abortion, we're not like Southern Republicans," they say. "If you want an abortion badly enough ladies, cowgirl up and you'll go get one."

 

Couched in the language of "choice" and "strength" you see, rugged women of the Rockies and all that. And maybe if you're a *real* woman, you'll bring the fetus into the world. Anyway, we're actually making the choice much tougher because we're assholes, but at least we're not psychotic like the Southern GOP.

 

Guess you should consider yourselves lucky that the cruelty isn't quite as awful.

 

Orange Meltdown, Con't

It's good to see that law enforcement is treating security at the Manhattan Criminal Court seriously in case Alvin Bragg brings charges, my concern of course is how many of those various officers will be reporting to Trump.

 

Local, state and federal law enforcement and security agencies are preparing for the possibility that former President Donald Trump will be indicted as early as next week, according to five senior officials familiar with the preparations.

Law enforcement agencies are conducting preliminary security assessments, the officials said, and are discussing potential security plans in and around the Manhattan Criminal Court, at 100 Centre Street, in case Trump is charged in connection with an alleged hush money payment to Stormy Daniels and travels to New York to face any charges.


The officials stress that the interagency conversations and planning are precautionary in nature because no charges have been filed.

The agencies involved include the NYPD, New York State Court Officers, the U.S. Secret Service, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, the officials said.

NBC News has reached out to all of those agencies for comment, and all have declined to comment.

 

I'll still believe in indictments when I see them unsealed and Trump perp-walked to a booking desk. Until then, this is all fabulous nonsense.

 

And even if Trump somehow does get charged and the affair goes to trial without half the country declaring war on Manhattan, I don't believe for a moment that Trump won't be able to get to jurors in any sort of trial, with the open help of partisans in the FBI, NYPD, USSS and US Marshals. I don't think the courthouse itself will come under attack, that would be too much of a failure for these agencies, but I do think the protests will be massive and possibly dangerous. It's going to be *bad*.

 

I've said before that America isn't ready to have this conversation, let alone actually execute a plan to keep all the players safe when there's a phenomenal chance that the security is already badly compromised. It's like the worst mob boss trial in the world, and any of the cops could be on the mob's payroll.

 

There's also a very good chance that Trump openly calls for violence in NYC, and that people will answer that call. Maybe a few, but maybe hundreds, thousands, or more.

 

We're in the no turning back part of this historically infamous chapter in US history.

Last Call For Ron's Gone Wrong, Con't

As Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis's authoritarian, draconian, and unconstitutional Stop WOKE Act winds through the courts, the 11th Circuit refused to stay an injunction against the law for Florida's colleges and universities, leaving enforcement of the law on campuses blocked as it awaits an appellate ruling.

 

A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that a temporary block on a portion of a law pushed by Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis restricting what can be taught in Florida’s public colleges and universities will remain in place.

The three-judge panel of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request from the DeSantis administration and officials with the state university system to stay an injunction from US District Judge Mark Walker, who called the law “positively dystopian” in a 138-page order, while the case plays out.

Last April, DeSantis signed into law Florida’s Individual Freedom Act, better known as the “Stop WOKE Act,” but it has faced a number of legal challenges since taking effect on July 1. The law is a key component of DeSantis’ war on “woke ideology,” and was intended to prevent teachings or mandatory workplace activities that suggest a person is privileged or oppressed based necessarily on their race, color, sex or national origin.

With the law, Walker wrote in November that Florida “lays the cornerstone of its own Ministry of Truth under the guise of the Individual Freedom Act” – invoking George Orwell’s novel, “1984.”

“The Court did not rule on the merits of our appeal. The appeal is ongoing, and we remain confident that the law is constitutional,” DeSantis’ spokesman Bryan Griffin said in a statement.

The Legal Defense Fund, which represented the plaintiffs in the case, celebrated the decision.

“Institutions of higher education in Florida should have the ability to provide a quality education, which simply cannot happen when students and educators, including Black students and educators, feel they cannot speak freely about their lived experiences, or when they feel that they may incur a politician’s wrath for engaging in a fact-based discussion of our history,” Alexsis Johnson, assistant counsel of The Legal Defense Fund, said in a statement. 

Opponents of the law are fighting it on three fronts: the law’s effects on K-12, higher education and employers.

 

Again, the endgame DeSantis and the GOP sees here is a broad Supreme Court ruling that would eliminate much of the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional and discriminatory against whites, eliminating protected classes and much of the equality, accessibility, and racial protections in the federal government and reverting tens of millions back to second-class citizen status.

Everything DeSantis is doing is in service to eliminating federal civil rights protections over "closely held individual religious beliefs".

The World Goes Viral, Con't

 So after weeks of "COVID PROVEN ESCAPED CHINESE LAB WEAPON" and "NATURAL EVOLUTION THEORY OF COVID DEBUNKED" and "WHEN DO THE COVID LIARS PAY FOR THEIR CRIMES" we find out that of course, there's overwhelming evidence that the virus jumped from animals to humans.

 

This week, an international team of virologists, genomicists, and evolutionary biologists may have finally found crucial data to help fill that knowledge gap. A new analysis of genetic sequences collected from the market shows that raccoon dogs being illegally sold at the venue could have been carrying and possibly shedding the virus at the end of 2019. It’s some of the strongest support yet, experts told me, that the pandemic began when SARS-CoV-2 hopped from animals into humans, rather than in an accident among scientists experimenting with viruses.

“This really strengthens the case for a natural origin,” says Seema Lakdawala, a virologist at Emory University who wasn’t involved in the research. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist involved in the research, told me, “This is a really strong indication that animals at the market were infected. There’s really no other explanation that makes any sense.”

The findings won’t fully convince the entrenched voices on either side of the origins debate. But the new analysis may offer some of the clearest and most compelling evidence that the world will ever get in support of an animal origin for the virus that, in just over three years, has killed nearly 7 million people worldwide.

The genetic sequences were pulled out of swabs taken in and near market stalls around the pandemic’s start. They represent the first bits of raw data that researchers outside of China’s academic institutions and their direct collaborators have had access to. Late last week, the data were quietly posted by researchers affiliated with the country’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, on an open-access genomic database called GISAID. By almost pure happenstance, scientists in Europe, North America, and Australia spotted the sequences, downloaded them, and began an analysis.

The samples were already known to be positive for the coronavirus, and had been scrutinized before by the same group of Chinese researchers who uploaded the data to GISAID. But that prior analysis, released as a preprint publication in February 2022, asserted that “no animal host of SARS-CoV-2 can be deduced.” Any motes of coronavirus at the market, the study suggested, had most likely been chauffeured in by infected humans, rather than wild creatures for sale.

The new analysis, led by Kristian Andersen, Edward Holmes, and Michael Worobey—three prominent researchers who have been looking into the virus’s roots—shows that that may not be the case. Within about half a day of downloading the data from GISAID, the trio and their collaborators discovered that several market samples that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were also coming back chock-full of animal genetic material—much of which was a match for the common raccoon dog, a small animal related to foxes that has a raccoon-like face. Because of how the samples were gathered, and because viruses can’t persist by themselves in the environment, the scientists think that their findings could indicate the presence of a coronavirus-infected raccoon dog in the spots where the swabs were taken. Unlike many of the other points of discussion that have been volleyed about in the origins debate, the genetic data are “tangible,” Alex Crits-Christoph, a computational biologist and one of the scientists who worked on the new analysis, told me. “And this is the species that everyone has been talking about.”

Finding the genetic material of virus and mammal so closely co-mingled—enough to be extracted out of a single swab—isn’t perfect proof, Lakdawala told me. “It’s an important step; I’m not going to diminish that,” she said. Still, the evidence falls short of, say, isolating SARS-CoV-2 from a free-ranging raccoon dog or, even better, uncovering a viral sample swabbed from a mammal for sale at Huanan from the time of the outbreak’s onset. That would be the virological equivalent of catching a culprit red-handed. But “you can never go back in time and capture those animals,” says Gigi Gronvall, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. And to researchers’ knowledge, “raccoon dogs were not tested at the market and had likely been removed prior to the authorities coming in,” Andersen wrote to me in an email. He underscored that the findings, although an important addition, are not “direct evidence of infected raccoon dogs at the market.”

Still, the findings don’t stand alone. “Do I believe there were infected animals at the market? Yes, I do,” Andersen told me. “Does this new data add to that evidence base? Yes.” The new analysis builds on extensive previous research that points to the market as the source of the earliest major outbreak of SARS-CoV-2: Many of the earliest known COVID-19 cases of the pandemic were clustered roughly in the market’s vicinity. And the virus’s genetic material was found in many samples swabbed from carts and animal-processing equipment at the venue, as well as parts of nearby infrastructure, such as storehouses, sewage wells, and water drains. Raccoon dogs, creatures commonly bred for sale in China, are also already known to be one of many mammal species that can easily catch and spread the coronavirus. All of this left one main hole in the puzzle to fill: clear-cut evidence that raccoon dogs and the virus were in the exact same spot at the market, close enough that the creatures might have been infected and, possibly, infectious. That’s what the new analysis provides. Think of it as finding the DNA of an investigation’s main suspect at the scene of the crime.

 

But, much like any science over the last century, Republicans, hacks and grifters won't believe it. And the virus will keep killing thousands per week here in the US.

Orange Meltdown, Con't

 The one thing NY Times political reporter Maggie Haberman is good for is letting the world know exactly what Donald Trump is trying to do. Whether or not this has any bearing on reality, well, Haberman doesn't seem to be able to differentiate. Her latest bolus of Trumpian bullshit details how Tang the Conqueror plans to "deal with" any possible charges coming out of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's office.

With an indictment looming from the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, Mr. Trump’s campaign is laying the groundwork for a broad attack on Mr. Bragg, a Democrat. According to two of Mr. Trump’s political allies, the campaign will aim to portray any charges as part of a coordinated offensive by the Democratic Party against Mr. Trump, who is trying to become only the second former president to win a new term after leaving office.

It is unclear what data points, if any, the Trump team plans to point to beyond Mr. Bragg’s party registration in order to make a case that the district attorney is part of a broader political conspiracy against the former president. It is also uncertain whether Mr. Trump will add lawyers to his legal defense team or bring on a communications adviser to play a more traditional role of responding to what will be a crush of media questions related to a potential indictment.

Mr. Trump’s two allies said his campaign was adding staff members, particularly to focus on pushing out their message and their attacks on the prosecutors. In addition, the campaign has been putting together a database listing everyone — members of Congress, legal experts, media figures — who have cast doubts on the strength of the district attorney’s case, the allies said.

Specifically, his campaign team plans on trying to connect Mr. Bragg’s investigation into Mr. Trump to President Biden, who is expected to seek re-election. The Justice Department has spent months investigating Mr. Trump in separate inquiries into his possession of hundreds of classified documents at his private club, Mar-a-Lago, and his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.

Those efforts led to the most visible moment when Mr. Trump focused the anger of his supporters on the institutions of government, the lead-up to the violent riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Underscoring the degree to which Mr. Trump’s campaign is again relying on outrage from his supporters, a campaign official maintained that the nation would not “tolerate” the prosecution and would see it as an effort to influence the 2024 election.

“President Donald J. Trump is completely innocent, he did nothing wrong, and even the biggest, most radical left Democrats are making that clear,” said Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman. He listed a series of other investigations that Mr. Trump has faced and referred to the Manhattan case as “the nuclear button,” calling it a “political donation” by Mr. Bragg “to Joe Biden.” And the Trump team plans to highlight a donation to a political action committee made by the philanthropist George Soros, a subject of frequent right-wing attacks, that was intended to help Mr. Bragg.

A spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to comment.

Mr. Trump’s allies say that tying Mr. Biden to what is taking place in Manhattan will be a key aspect of the campaign’s response. And the degree to which the Trump team plans to make a history-making indictment of a former president a central campaign message is likely to set a new political precedent.

“A Trump indictment will immediately be added to his campaign platform and talking points, another first in presidential politics,” said Scott Reed, a veteran Republican strategist who has observed Mr. Trump and presidential campaigns for decades.

While he was in office, Mr. Trump was shielded by a Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president.

Already, Mr. Trump has spent the better part of two years attacking Mr. Bragg, who is Black, as “racist” and as continuing efforts to harm him, after two impeachment inquiries and a two-year special counsel investigation into whether he obstructed justice and whether his 2016 campaign conspired with Russians.

But since declaring his third presidential campaign in November, Mr. Trump has made attacking the investigators an increasingly intense focus.

Other political allies of Mr. Trump made clear that there would be efforts to highlight how his Republican rivals handle the news of any indictment, and whether they endorse it or defend him. Mr. Trump’s allies said his advisers believed the issue could tie some of his opponents in knots, particularly his closest prospective opponent in public polls, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.

 

I know, it's shocking that Trump would resort to outright racism against a Black DA, more vicious conspiracy theory lies, your bog-standard GOP victimization complex, and tribalization to force other Republicans to go after Bragg for him in order to try to foul the waters. That Trump is selecting Haberman to reveal this "secret" plan to says a lot more about her than Trump.

I hope that reporters ask other Republicans if they agree with Trump's racism twaddle when Bragg lowers the boom.

Probably not, but we'll see.

Last Call For The Revenge Of 2008, Con't

Add First Republic Bank to the growing list of financial institutions getting bailed out as the contamination for the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank spreads.

 

A group of financial institutions has agreed to deposit $30 billion in First Republic Bank in what’s meant to be a sign of confidence in the banking system, the banks announced Thursday afternoon.

Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase will contribute about $5 billion apiece, while Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will deposit around $2.5 billion, the banks said in a news release. Truist, PNC, U.S. Bancorp, State Street and Bank of New York Mellon will deposit about $1 billion each.


“This action by America’s largest banks reflects their confidence in First Republic and in banks of all sizes, and it demonstrates their overall commitment to helping banks serve their customers and communities,” the group said in a statement.

The deposits would be obligated to stay at First Republic for at least 120 days, sources told CNBC’s David Faber. Regional bank stocks initially fell on Thursday but reversed higher after reports from Faber and others about the development of the deposit plan.

The news comes after First Republic’s stock has been pummeled in recent days, sparked by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank last Friday and Signature Bank over the weekend. Both of those banks had a high number of uninsured deposits, as did First Republic, leading to concern that customers would pull their money out. The new deposits from the major banks are uninsured.

First Republic’s stock, which closed at $115 per share on March 8, traded below $20 at one point Thursday. The stock was halted repeatedly during the session and rose to $40 per share at one point, up more than 20% on the day.

 

These banks are saving First Republic for their own good, they are a competitor. They're not even doing it to save their own skin to try to halt the chaos. No, they're doing it because the Biden administration gave them something in return, and that's going to be the White House dropping their insistence on stopping "junk fees" on US bank account holders. 

I guarantee you that the Junk Fee Prevention Act is now going to die a quiet death in the weeks ahead.

Watch.

Ron's Gone Wrong, Historical Revisionism Edition

We've already had the fight in Florida over math textbooks containing "Critical Race Theory", but that was the undercard. The main event is Florida approving social studies texbooks for next fall, and that fight will go to the heart of American history and Black history as a part of it...or not a part at all.

 

In the last few months, as part of the review process, a small army of state experts, teachers, parents and political activists have combed thousands of pages of text — not only evaluating academic content, but also flagging anything that could hint, for instance, at critical race theory.

A prominent conservative education group, whose members volunteered to review textbooks, objected to a slew of them, accusing publishers of “promoting their bias.” At least two publishers declined to participate altogether.

And in a sign of how fraught the political landscape has become, one publisher created multiple versions of its social studies material, softening or eliminating references to race — even in the story of Rosa Parks — as it sought to gain approval in Florida.

“Normally, a state adoption is a pretty boring process that a few of us care about, but there are a lot of people watching this because the stakes are so high,” said Jeff Livingston, a former publishing executive who is now an education consultant.

It is unclear which social studies textbooks will be approved in Florida, or how the chosen materials might address issues of race in history. The state is expected to announce its textbook decisions in the coming weeks.

The Florida Department of Education, which mandates the teaching of Black history, emphasized that the requirements were recently expanded, including to ensure students understood “the ramifications of prejudice, racism and stereotyping on individual freedoms.”

But Mr. DeSantis, a top Republican 2024 presidential prospect, also signed a law last year known as the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which prohibits instruction that would compel students to feel responsibility, guilt or anguish for what other members of their race did in the past, among other limits.

The state’s guidelines for evaluating textbooks targets “critical race theory,” a graduate-level academic theory that rarely appears in younger grades but has become a catchall to some conservatives; and “social emotional learning,” an approach that tries to help students develop positive mind-sets and that is viewed by the DeSantis administration as extraneous to core academics.

Florida — along with California and Texas — is a major market for school textbook publishing, a $4.8 billion industry.

It is among more than a dozen states that approve textbooks, rather than leaving decisions only to local school districts. Every few years, Florida reviews textbooks for a particular subject and puts out a list that districts can choose from. (Districts also have some discretion to choose their own materials.)

Because state approval can be lucrative, publishers have often quietly catered to the biggest markets, adjusting content for their local needs and political leanings.

 

So we have actual American history, and the sanitized, "race-friendly" version of American history, protecting students from history that might make them ask questions about the past, present, and future of America. 

We can't have that in Florida. We're raising good little kids who toe the line and don't ask questions at all.

Only the state-approved Black history matters here.

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be Florida students.

Orange Meltdown, Peaches And Dreams Edition

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports from the special grand jury investigating Donald Trump and his slate of alternate electors in Georgia, interviewing five of the jurors on the eight-month investigation where security was not just the major goal, it was the only one.

 

The bomb-sniffing dog was new. The special grand jurors investigating interference in Georgia’s 2020 elections hadn’t before seen that level of security on the third floor of the Fulton County courthouse where they had been meeting in secret for nearly eight months.

Oh, God, I hope it doesn’t find anything, one juror recalled thinking as the German Shepherd inspected the room. “It was unexpected. We were not warned of that,” she said.

The reason for the heightened surveillance was the day’s star witness: Michael Flynn, former President Donald Trump’s national security adviser. An election denier who suggested martial law should be imposed to seize voting machines in Georgia and other swing states where Trump lost, Flynn had only agreed to appear after being compelled to by two courts in his home state of Florida.

Fulton law enforcement was taking no chances on that unseasonably warm December day, concerned about who might turn up to protect Flynn, a prominent figure among far-right, conspiracy theorist and Christian nationalist groups. Outside, on the courthouse steps, sheriffs’ deputies and marshals carrying automatic weapons kept watch.

No bomb was found. Flynn, who was ultimately the last witness jurors heard testimony from, went on to assert his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer many of prosecutors’ questions.

But the experience brought home to some jurors just how important and consequential their work could be.

In an exclusive interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, five of the 23 special grand jurors recounted what it was like to be a pivotal — but anonymous — part of one of the most momentous criminal investigations in U.S. history; one which could lead to indictments of former President Donald Trump and his allies.

“One of the most important things we’ll be a part of in our life was this eight month process that we did,” one juror told the AJC. It was “incredibly important to get it right.”

Over two hours, in a windowless conference room, the jurors shared never-before-heard details about their experiences serving on the panel, which met in private, often three times a week.

They described a process that was by turns fascinating, tedious and emotionally wrenching. One juror said she would cry in her car at the end of the day after hearing from witnesses whose lives had been upended by disinformation and claims of election fraud.

For months, they were unable to talk to friends, family members and co-workers about what they were doing. They said the overall panel was diverse, with different races, economic backgrounds and political viewpoints represented.

Many emerged with heightened respect for election workers and others who kept the state’s voting integrity intact.

 

Now let's remember that Georgia Republicans in the state legislature are scrambling to pass legislation that would allow lawmakers to dismiss DA Fani Willis and scrap this investigation entirely, and you see just what level of corruption Republicans are neck-deep in here in the Peach State. 

Oh, and Fani Willis's office apparently has yet another phone call recording of Trump pushing Georgia's House Speaker for a special session to overturn the election there.

The recording adds to what’s known about the pressure campaign by Trump and his allies on Georgia officials. It’s the third audio recording of the former president’s phone calls to Georgia officials that is known to exist.

The special grand jury recently concluded its work and recommended multiple indictments, according to the foreperson who has spoken out publicly. Now it’s up to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to make charging decisions.

Ralston, who died last year, described his December 2020 call with Trump during an interview the following day.

Trump “would like a special session of the Georgia General Assembly,” Ralston said. “He’s been clear on that before, and he was clear on that in the phone conversation yesterday. You know I shared with him my belief that based on the understanding I have of Georgia law that it was going to be very much an uphill battle.”

According to the Georgia Constitution, not only can the governor convene a special session, the General Assembly can call itself into a special session, though that requires the signatures of 3/5 of the Georgia House.

Former US Sen. David Perdue, a staunch Trump ally from Georgia, also requested a special session be convened during a meeting in December 2020 at Truist Park, where the Atlanta Braves play. Gov. Brian Kemp, Perdue and former Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the state’s other US senator at the time, and their aides attended.

 

We may really see Trump indicted later this year.

Last Call For The Road To Gilead, Con't

Wednesday's hearing by Texas federal judge Andrew Kacsmaryk made it very clear he will attempt to overturn the FDA and two decades of medicine in order to end medical abortion for everyone, and the Biden administration has a momentous decision to make, as Rolling Stone's Tessa Stuart reports.

Under federal law, anyone can challenge FDA approval of a drug within the first six years — a window has long since closed for mifepristone, which the FDA approved in 2000. According to the Washington Post, when asked on Wednesday if there was precedent for a court intervening in an approval so many years after a drug had been on the market, a lawyer arguing on behalf of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine admitted there was none.

But Kacsmaryk nonetheless appeared poised to rule in the anti-abortion groups’ favor on Wednesday. If that happens, lawyers for the Biden Administration will seek a stay from the Fifth Circuit — one of the most conservative courts in the country — and if they can’t find relief there, they will appeal to the Supreme Court. It’s unclear how long that might take and whether mifepristone would be available in the meantime.

If Kacsmaryk orders the FDA to withdraw approval of the drug, Sen. Ron Wyden has called on the Biden Administration to ignore the order and maintain public access to the medication. (It’s not an idea without precedent, according to a Harvard Law Review article that examined federal agency compliance with court orders, and judges like Kacsmaryk have relatively few options to force an agency, like FDA, to comply with their orders if an agency chooses not to.)

Wyden’s position is simple: “The power of the judiciary begins and ends with its legitimacy in the eyes of the public,” he said last month. “A judge’s rulings stand because elected leaders and citizens have agreed that abiding by them is right and necessary to uphold the rule of law… But the judiciary must uphold its end of the social contract too. It must follow the rule of law and earn the confidence of the American people continually, every day, every month, every year.”

By “hot-wiring the system in order to produce an anti-abortion ruling,” Wyden says, Kacsmaryk is violating that contract and delegitimizing the court itself. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Wyden’s suggestion.) 

I don't know if the White House would go that far, because there is good news:

Health care providers, meanwhile, are making plans to continue offering abortions using misoprostol, the second pill in abortion pill regimen, alone. (Misoprostol, which is also used to treat ulcers, is available without the restrictions to which mifepristone is subject.)

Melissa Grant is the chief operations officer at Carafem, an organization that offers reproductive health care, including abortion care, online and in-person. “Carafem has provided thousands of doses of misoprostol-only as an option to our clients since the year 2020,” she tells Rolling Stone. “We did so because we recognized that the Trump administration was poised to remove the ability to mail mifepristone in 2021.”

What Carafem has found in the data it has collected over that period is that misoprostol-only abortions are extremely effective — 95 percent, compared to 99 percent effectiveness when taken together with mifepristone. Doses can be administered orally or vaginally, largely as a matter of personal preference, Grant says. (While taking the medication orally is slightly less effective, she says, but individuals in areas where abortion is illegal may choose that route out of abundance of caution since “fragments of tablets may be maybe seen on a pelvic exam and your vagina.”)

 

The bad news is that if Judge Kacsmaryk's decision is as odious as I think it will be, and that decision could come at any time now, that it will serve as a new bogus legal precedent to ban misoprostol as well.  We'll see what happens as this winds through the courts, but the fact is Republican fascists won't stop with just ending one abortion medication.

Totally Up For Grabs

A new survey finds that as America heads into 2024, non-affiliated and Independent Latinos are rapidly becoming the country's largest swing voter group, making up as much as 20% of all voters in states like California and Florida.

First-time Latino voters are outpacing first-time non-Latino voters in Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, New York, and Texas, according to a report first obtained by Axios.

The big picture: Nonpartisan and unaffiliated Latino voters are on the verge of becoming one of the biggest swing voter groups in the U.S. — raising the stakes for early and regular engagement from both parties.The 2022 election showed the GOP making significant gains among Latinos in Florida but falling well below expectations in Texas, as predicted.

Details: The percentage of early Latino voters between ages 18 and 34 jumped in Arizona, Nevada, New York, and Texas, according to a TelevisaUnivision/L2 analysis reviewed by Axios.Unaffiliated Latino voters now represent the largest percentage of Latino voters in Florida.

Nonpartisan Hispanic registered voters represent a larger percentage than non-partisan non-Hispanic voters in states like Arizona and Nevada.

State of play: The number of Latinos, which includes people of any race, was 62.1 million in 2020 — a growth of 23% in a decade, according to the U.S. Census.Exit polls for U.S. House races in 2022 showed 60% of Latinos backed Democrats while 39% voted for Republicans.

John F. Kennedy won as much as 90% of the Latino vote in 1960, and Jimmy Carter took 82% in 1976.

Between the lines: Latino voting behavior is much more unpredictable and depends on the political dynamics of their local regions, L2 executive vice president Paul Westcott told Axios.California Latinos tend to lean more Democratic and Florida Hispanics more Republican, but that could change, Westcott said.

"This shows that candidates need to get their messages out early and need to go after younger Latino voters," Michele Day, TelevisaUnivision's senior vice president for its Political, Advocacy & Government Group, told Axios.

What's next: Westcott said the 2024 presidential election will likely see record Latino voter turnout and could offer more surprises if parties don't engage.

 

Whichever parties get the Latino vote in 2024 determine the presidency. Democrats are doing a better job of this, but Republicans already have machinery in Florida and Texas and are moving to pick up more House seats in New York, Arizona, Nevada, Illinois, and California. 

Latino voters don't trust either party at this point. We'll see if Dems can start winning them over.

Orange Meltdown, Con't

The Guardian's Hugo Lowell has been on the Trump crime beat for the UK for a while now, and his latest piece finds that Trump's media company and his failed social media platform are facing possible money laundering charges from the Feds, complete with ties to Russian mobsters.

 

Federal prosecutors in New York involved in the criminal investigation into Donald Trump’s social media company last year started examining whether it violated money laundering statutes in connection with the acceptance of $8m with suspected Russian ties, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The company – Trump Media, which owns Trump’s Truth Social platform – initially came under criminal investigation over its preparations for a potential merger with a blank check company called Digital World (DWAC) that was also the subject of an earlier probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Towards the end of last year, federal prosecutors started examining two loans totaling $8m wired to Trump Media, through the Caribbean, from two obscure entities that both appear to be controlled in part by the relation of an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, the sources said.

The expanded nature of the criminal investigation, which has not been previously reported, threatens to delay the completion of the merger between Trump Media and DWAC, which would provide the company and Truth Social with up to $1.3bn in capital, in addition to a stock market listing.

Even if Trump Media and its officers face no criminal exposure for the transactions, the optics of borrowing money from potentially unsavory sources through opaque conduits could cloud Trump’s image as he seeks to recapture the White House in 2024.

The extent of the exposure for Trump Media and its officers for money laundering remains unclear. The statutes broadly require prosecutors to show that defendants knew the money was the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and the transaction was designed to conceal its source.

But money laundering prosecutions are typically based on circumstantial evidence and can be based on materials that show that the money in question was unlikely to have legitimate origins, legal experts said.

The first $2m payment to Trump Media came in December 2021 when the company was on the brink of collapse after the planned merger with DWAC – that would have unlocked millions for the company – was delayed when the SEC opened an inquiry into whether the arrangement broke regulatory rules.

Trump Media needed a bridge loan to keep the company afloat. But it struggled to get financing until DWAC’s chief executive Patrick Orlando sourced a $2m loan wired from Paxum Bank registered in Dominica, according to the wire transfer receipt reviewed by the Guardian.

The wire transfer identified Paxum Bank as the beneficial owner, although the promissory note identified an entity called ES Family Trust as the lender. Two months later, an unexpected second $6m payment arrived in Trump Media’s account from ES Family Trust, the transfer receipt showed.

In both instances, Orlando declined to provide details about the true identity of the lenders or the origin of the money to Trump Media executives, Trump Media’s since-ousted co-founder turned whistleblower Will Wilkerson recounted in an interview.

Though the two payments to Trump Media ostensibly came from two separate entities – first Paxum Bank and second ES Family Trust – the trustee of ES Family Trust, a person called Angel Pacheco, appears to have simultaneously been a director of Paxum Bank.

The Russian connection, as being examined by prosecutors in the US attorney’s office for the southern district of New York, centers on a part-owner of Paxum Bank – an individual named Anton Postolnikov, who appears to be a relation of Putin ally Aleksandr Smirnov.

So roughly $8 billion in Putin money to try to keep Truth Social afloat. Yeah, it's worth a look from the Feds.

In other words, this is the domain of US Attorney for SDNY, Damian Williams. It means Trump is now facing a possible fifth investigation into criminal activity, on top of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's payoff case to Stormy Daniels, Fulton County, Georgia DA Fani Willis's election fraud case, NY Attorney General Tish James's civil tax fraud case, and Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigations into Trump's documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago.

In other words, it's a bad, bad time to be Trump.

Last Call For Ridin' With Biden, Con't

President Biden rolled out new gun safety regulations at the site of January's deadly Monterey Park shooting, signing a new executive order for tougher gun purchase background checks.

The executive order would direct Attorney General Merrick Garland to clarify the statutory definition of who is "engaged in the business" of selling firearms, an authority the administration official said was detailed in sweeping bipartisan gun legislation Biden signed into law last year after the mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

"This news would mean fewer guns will be sold without background checks, and therefore fewer guns will end up in the hands of felons and domestic abusers," the official said on a call with reporters previewing the order.

The National Instant Background Check System carried out more than 31 million background checks on people looking to own firearms or explosives last year, FBI data shows.

The administration official said it is not clear how many new background checks the executive order would result in.

The order also urges members of Biden's Cabinet to promote effective use of extreme risk protection orders, or "red flag" laws, in 19 states and Washington, D.C., by partnering with law enforcement agencies, health care providers and educators.

Through the order, Biden will also encourage the Federal Trade Commission to compile a report examining how gun manufacturers market firearms, including to minors.

 

By defining who counts as a gun seller, more people will need to make background checks. It would also clarify red flag laws and focus on gun marketing.

 

These are all solid moves under recently passed regulations. The usual "Congress never gave the Executive this authority" BS won't work, because Congress did exactly that last year.

Biden is using the power he's been given.

The Road To Gilead Goes Through South Carolina

As I've been warning from the beginning, Republicans were always going to criminalize women getting an abortion as soon as Roe v Wade was disposed of, and South Carolina is wasting no time in trying to not only put women who get an abortion in prison, but to make it a capital felony in the state where women will face death row and a possible firing squad.

 

MEMBERS OF THE South Carolina State House are considering a bill that would make a woman who has an abortion in the state eligible for the death penalty.

The “South Carolina Prenatal Equal Protection Act of 2023” would amend the state’s code of laws, redefining “person” to include a fertilized egg at the point of conception, affording that zygote “equal protection under the homicide laws of the state” — up to and including the ultimate punishment: death.

The bill was authored by Rep. Rob Harris, a registered nurse and member of the Freedom Caucus; it has attracted 21 co-sponsors to date. (Two former co-sponsors — Rep. Matt Leber and Rep. Kathy Landing — asked to have their names removed as sponsors of the bill. Leber and Landing could not be reached for comment.)

Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican who represents South Carolina in the U.S. House, took to the floor on Friday to call attention to the bill, which she sees as part of a “deeply disturbing” trend. (Multiple Texas lawmakers have floated the idea of executing women who have abortions in the past. Those bills, proposed before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, failed.)

“To see this debate go to the dark places, the dark edges, where it has gone on both sides of the aisle, has been deeply disturbing to me as a woman, as a female legislator, as a mom, and as a victim of rape. I was raped as a teenager at the age of 16,” Mace said. “This debate ought to be a bipartisan debate where we balance the rights of women and we balance the right to life. But we aren’t having that conversation here in D.C. We aren’t having that conversation at home. We aren’t having that conversation with fellow state lawmakers.”

Asked about exceptions for victims of rape, which Mace raised in her remarks on the floor, Harris told Rolling Stone, “There are other bills with exceptions, but will do little or nothing to save the lives of pre-born children.” He went on list exceptions the bill does contain, including: “a ‘duress’ defense for women who are pressured/threatened to have an abortion” and “medical care to save the mother’s life… The functional language in that scenario is whether the baby’s life is forfeited ‘unintentionally’ or ‘intentionally’.” (Asked if he saw any irony between being a member of the so-called “Freedom Caucus” while proposing such harsh restrictions on reproductive freedoms, Harris responded simply: “Murder of the pre-born is harsh.”)

In 2021, legislators in South Carolina — which has experienced difficulty obtaining drugs to carry out executions by lethal injection — revived the electric chair and firing squads as methods to kill inmates convicted of capital crimes. (The South Carolina Supreme Court is currently weighing the constitutionality of that law after a lower court found lawmakers who passed the law “ignored advances in scientific research and evolving standards of humanity and decency.”)

 

This isn't one of those "complete nutbar fringe asshole" bills that has no chance of passage, this legislation has more than 20 sponsors. Republicans have two-thirds supermajorities in both chambers and even if GOP Gov. Henry McMaster vetoed something like this, overriding him is very possible.

Understand South Carolina Republicans are going to try to put women on death row for evacuating clumps of cells from their own bodies. They are going to charge women with felony  infanticide, such a wholly ridiculous prospect that it can only be called fascist misogyny.

We've gone from "protecting the unborn" to trying to put women on death row put before firing squads, and all within nine months of losing Roe.

Didn't take long, did it?

Ron's Gone Wrong, Kyiv Edition

Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis, gearing up for his run at Donald Trump in 2024, at least agrees with him one one thing: if elected, Republicans will abandon Ukraine and NATO to Vladimir Putin and Russia.

 

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has sharply broken with Republicans who are determined to defend Ukraine against Russia’s invasion, saying in a statement made public on Monday night that protecting the European nation’s borders is not a vital U.S. interest and that policymakers should instead focus attention at home.

The statement from Mr. DeSantis, who is seen as an all but declared presidential candidate for the 2024 campaign, puts him in line with the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination, former President Donald J. Trump.

The venue Mr. DeSantis chose for his statement on a major foreign policy question revealed almost as much as the substance of the statement itself. The statement was broadcast on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” on Fox News. It was in response to a questionnaire that the host, Mr. Carlson, sent last week to all major prospective Republican presidential candidates, and is tantamount to an acknowledgment by Mr. DeSantis that a candidacy is in the offing.

On Mr. Carlson’s show, Mr. DeSantis separated himself from Republicans who say the problem with Mr. Biden’s Ukraine policy is that he’s not doing enough. Mr. DeSantis made clear he thinks Mr. Biden is doing too much, without a clearly defined objective, and taking actions that risk provoking war between the U.S. and Russia.

Mr. Carlson is one of the most ardent opponents of U.S. involvement in Ukraine. He has called President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine a corrupt “antihero” and mocked him for dressing “like the manager of a strip club.”

“While the U.S. has many vital national interests — securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness with our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural and military power of the Chinese Communist Party — becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them,” Mr. DeSantis said in a statement that Mr. Carlson read aloud on his show.

Mr. DeSantis’s views on Ukraine policy now align with Mr. Trump’s. The former president also answered Mr. Carlson’s questionnaire.

It's pretty clear that both Trump n DeSantis would give Ukraine and basically Europe over to Putin in exchange for help against China, when anyone with half a brain already knows that Putin and Xi Jinping are buddies looking to split up the rest of the world between them going forward once they deal with America.

Either way, Putin know that a Republican in the White House in 2024 will get him everything he wants and he has every reason to help the GOP. Question is whether he backs Trump, an unreliable but easily manipulated dunce, or the more ambitious, intelligent (relatively) but more wary DeSantis who would turn on Putin at the drop of a hat.

The answer of course for us here is Biden or Harris.

Last Call For The End Of A Taxing Explanation

As expected, new House Republican Oversight Committee chair Rep. James Comer has tossed the investigation into Trump's taxes with no explanation as to why, in favor of issuing multiple subpoenas for Hunter Biden's business associates instead. Ranking Democratic member Rep. Jamie Raskin is letting everyone know what Comer is trying to hide.

 

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, says Republican chairman Rep. James Comer has abandoned efforts to get the financial documents of former President Donald Trump while quietly digging into the finances of the current president's son.

In a letter to Comer released on Monday, Raskin, D-Md., said it had come to his attention that the Kentucky Republican had coordinated with Trump's lawyers in an effort to block the committee from receiving documents from Mazars USA, the president's former accounting firm.

Raskin argued Comer's alleged decision to halt the execution of the production of documents was hypocritical because he had also issued a subpoena related to an investigation into President Joe Biden's son Hunter.

"You appear to have engaged in these efforts to prevent the production of evidence of former President Trump’s misconduct during his time in office while simultaneously issuing an invasive and overbroad subpoena to private individuals as part of an investigation targeting the business dealings of family members of President Biden who have never held public office," Raskin said.

Comer's office denied working with Trump's lawyers.

Raskin alluded to documents that the committee received from Mazars under the Democratic majority last fall that revealed authoritarian governments like China and Saudi Arabia spent hundreds of dollars at Trump-owned properties while he was president.

"In the face of mounting evidence that foreign governments sought to influence the Trump Administration by playing to President Trump’s financial interests, you and President Trump’s representatives appear to have acted in coordination to bury evidence of such misconduct," said Raskin.

Raskin said he learned that Trump attorney Patrick Strawbridge wrote to Mazars in January stating that it was his understanding that the committee, now under Republican control, had no interest in completing the production of documents under the original subpoena. "When counsel for Mazars sought clarification, Mr. Strawbridge confirmed that this direction had been provided to him, twice, by the Acting General Counsel of the House of Representatives, in his capacity as counsel to the Committee," Raskin said. 

 

So yes, the SCOTUS gambit here worked. The Roberts Court made the determination that the House Oversight Committee could have Trump's tax returns, but wasted two years in doing so. As such, Comer is dropping the investigation.

 

But it means that Hunter Biden's tax information -- and Joe Biden's, eventually -- will be fast-tracked for Comer's abuse later on.  Count on that.

Orange Meltdown, Con't

Donald Trump's legal team is smart enough to talk Trump out of testifying before Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's grand jury convened to investigate the Stormy Daniel hush money scandal as Bragg's decision to charge him looms.

 

Former President Donald Trump has "no plans" to participate in a Manhattan grand jury investigation into a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, Trump attorney Joe Tacopina told George Stephanopoulos Monday on ABC's Good Morning America.

"We have no plans on participating in that proceeding," Tacopina said. "Decision needs to be made still. There's been no deadline set, so we'll wait and see."

The Manhattan district attorney's office has been investigating whether Trump falsified business records in connection with a $130,000 payment Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen made to Daniels before the 2016 election, which prosecutors allege was to keep her from talking about a long-denied affair, sources familiar with the matter have told ABC News.

Cohen was scheduled to testify before the grand jury on Monday, ABC News previously reported.

The DA's office informed Trump last week of his right to testify before a grand jury in the probe, a possible signal that the DA is moving toward a charging decision.

Tacopina said another Trump attorney, Susan Necheles, who is leading the case, has met with prosecutors.

Asked if he expects an indictment for Trump, Tacopina said, "I expect justice to prevail. If that's the case, George, there shouldn't be an indictment."

 

Me, I'll believe Bragg or any DA or federal prosecutor will announce an indictment against Donald Trump when I actually see it done. Jack Smith is running out of tiem, if not running out the clock, and Fani Willis will be removed from office by Georgia Republicans if she dares to follow through, so that leaves Bragg as the best shot at an indictment right now.

 

We'll see.

 

The Revenge Of 2008, Con't

A lot has happened over the last 48 hours pertaining to not one but two more crypto venture capital banks collapsing over the weekend and the fate of some $300 billion in deposits.

Federal regulators announced on Sunday that another bank had been closed and that the government would ensure that all depositors of Silicon Valley Bank — which failed Friday — would be paid back in full as Washington rushed to keep fallout from the collapse of the large institution from sweeping through the financial system.

The Federal Reserve, Treasury and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced in a joint statement that “depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13.” In an attempt to assuage concerns about who would bear the costs, the agencies said that “no losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.”

The agencies also said that they would make whole depositors at Signature Bank, which the government disclosed was shut down on Sunday by New York bank regulators. The state officials said the move came “in light of market events, monitoring market trends, and collaborating closely with other state and federal regulators” to protect consumers and the financial system.

President Biden said on Sunday evening that the actions were taken at his direction and that he would deliver remarks about the banking system on Monday morning.

“I am pleased that they reached a prompt solution that protects American workers and small businesses, and keeps our financial system safe,” Mr. Biden said in a statement. “The solution also ensures that taxpayer dollars are not put at risk.”

He added: “I am firmly committed to holding those responsible for this mess fully accountable and to continuing our efforts to strengthen oversight and regulation of larger banks so that we are not in this position again.”

The collapse of Signature marks the third significant bank failure within a week. Silvergate, a California-based bank that made loans to cryptocurrency companies, announced last Wednesday that it would cease operations and liquidate its assets.

Amid the wreckage, the Fed also announced that it would set up an emergency lending program, with approval from the Treasury, to funnel funding to eligible banks and help ensure that they are able to “meet the needs of all their depositors.” 

 

Now why does Signature Bank of New York sound familiar? Oh, because it had some very famous New York clientele. 

Signature was a commercial bank with private client offices in New York, Connecticut, California, Nevada and North Carolina, and had nine national business lines including commercial real estate and digital asset banking.

As of September, almost a quarter of its deposits came from the cryptocurrency sector, but the bank announced in December that it would shrink its crypto-related deposits by $8 billion.

Signature Bank announced in February that its chief executive officer, Joseph DePaolo, would transition into a senior adviser role in 2023 and would be succeeded by the bank’s chief operating officer, Eric Howell. DePaolo has served as president and CEO since Signature's inception in 2001.

The bank had a long-standing relationship with former President Donald Trump and his family, providing Trump and his business with checking accounts and financing several of the family's ventures. Signature Bank cut ties with Trump in 2021 following the deadly Jan. 6 riots on Capitol Hill, and urged Trump to resign.

Yep. This used to be Donald Trump's bank. It cut ties with Trump after January 6th, but let's imagine what kind of bank it had to be in order to do business with Trump in the first place, and to do so throughout his term in office. 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen isn't about to bail out Silicon Valley Bank, and the only question now is if the political pressure grows quickly and powerfully enough to force her hand.

 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Sunday that the federal government would not bail out Silicon Valley Bank, but is working to help depositors who are concerned about their money.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insures deposits up to $250,000, but many of the companies and wealthy people who used the bank — known for its relationships with technology startups and venture capital — had more than that amount in their account. There are fears that some workers across the country won’t receive their paychecks.

Yellen, in an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation,” provided few details on the government’s next steps. But she emphasized that the situation was much different from the financial crisis almost 15 years ago, which led to bank bailouts to protect the industry.

“We’re not going to do that again,” she said. “But we are concerned about depositors, and we’re focused on trying to meet their needs.”

With Wall Street rattled, Yellen tried to reassure Americans that there will be no domino effect after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.

“The American banking system is really safe and well capitalized,” she said. “It’s resilient.”

Silicon Valley Bank is the nation’s 16th-largest bank. It was the second biggest bank failure in U.S. history after the collapse of Washington Mutual in 2008. The bank served mostly technology workers and venture capital-backed companies, including some of the industry’s best-known brands.

 

Meanwhile, SVB's assets are being unwound and the newly created National Bank of Santa Clara will begin operating on Monday.  We'll see if the Trump regime weakened FDIC powers enough to cause problems today, but I'm thinking that Yellen will hold firm for now.

Besides, she's doing the opposite of what Larry Summers wants, and that's good enough for me.

But all this depends on the FDIC finding a buyer for the bank's assets, and nobody has stepped up to play ball yet.

Federal authorities are seriously considering safeguarding all uninsured deposits at Silicon Valley Bank, weighing an extraordinary intervention to prevent what they fear would be a panic in the U.S. financial system, according to three people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private deliberations.

Officials at the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation discussed the idea this weekend, the people said, with only hours to go before financial markets opened in Asia. White House officials have also studied the idea, per two separate people familiar with those discussions.

The plan would be among the potential policy responses if the government is unable to find a buyer for the failed bank. The FDIC began an auction process for SVB on Saturday and hoped to identify a winning bidder Sunday afternoon, with final bids expected by 2 p.m. Eastern time, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Selling SVB to a healthy institution remains the preferred solution, officials have told members of Congress. Most bank failures are resolved that way and enable depositors to avoid losing any money.

In calls with federal banking regulators late Saturday and Sunday, Democrats said they were “praying for a buyer,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee. “Big buyer, small buyer, fat buyer, skinny buyer — we need a buyer,” he said. “If they have a bunch of buyers, I would argue you take the best offer,” he said, noting then they can “quibble about which offer to take.”

Although the FDIC insures bank deposits up to $250,000, a provision in federal banking law may give them the authority to protect the uninsured deposits as well if they conclude that failing to do so would pose a systemic risk to the broader financial system, the people said. In that event, uninsured deposits could be backstopped by an insurance fund, paid into regularly by U.S. banks.

 

The techbros who spent years lobbying for faster, looser capital requirements because "People learned their lesson 15 years ago" are the first people warning that unless these same techbros get back every dime of their billions that they will have no choice but to help collapse more banks until Yellen surrenders.

 

That's the real problem, and everyone knows it.

As far as the bailout of rich depositors and corporations went, late Sunday, Yellen gave in.

Banking regulators devised a plan Sunday to backstop depositors with money at Silicon Valley Bank, a critical step in stemming a feared systemic panic brought on by the collapse of the tech-focused institution.

Depositors at both failed SVB and Signature Bank in New York, which was shuttered Sunday over similar systemic contagion fears, will have full access to their deposits as part of multiple moves that officials approved over the weekend. Signature had been a popular funding source for cryptocurrency companies.

Those with money at the bank will have full access starting Monday.

The Treasury Department designated both SVB and Signature as systemic risks, giving it authority to unwind both institutions in a way that it said “fully protects all depositors.” The FDIC’s deposit insurance fund will be used to cover depositors, many of whom were uninsured due to the $250,000 cap on guaranteed deposits.

Along with that move, the Federal Reserve also said it is creating a new Bank Term Funding Program aimed at safeguarding institutions affected by the market instability of the SVB failure.

A joint statement from the various regulators involved said there would be no bailouts and no taxpayer costs associated with any of the new plans. Shareholders and some unsecured creditors will not be protected and will lose all of their investments.

“Today we are taking decisive actions to protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in our banking system,” said a joint statement from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and FDIC Chair Martin Gruenberg.

So the investors are losers as they should be, but not the cryptobros who had their unsecured deposits in the bank. They're going to get billions back. Lobbyists during the Trump years begged for less oversight and to take greater risks with tech billions. Supposedly this will all be covered by the FDIC as systemic risk. That's the bailout.

But a quarter-trillion plus doesn't go belly up without consequences. Signature Bank is going to bring the total to well over $300 billion. Maybe this all stops Monday.

President Biden spoke earlier this morning to calm the markets.

US President Joe Biden on Monday addressed the nation after the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, and said, "Americans can have confidence that the banking system is safe."

"Your deposits will be there when you need them. Small businesses across the country that have deposit accounts at these banks can breathe easier knowing they'll be able to pay their workers and pay their bills," he said in his Monday address.

 

Which is the right message, but why did this bank run happen in the first place?

Because Republican mega-donor techbros made it happen.

The run was sparked by a letter that Silicon Valley Bank Chief Executive Officer Greg Becker sent to shareholders Wednesday. The bank had suffered a $1.8 billion loss on the sale of US treasuries and mortgage-backed securities and outlined a plan to raise $2.25 billion of capital to shore up its finances.

Customers immediately tried to pull their money, including many of the venture-capital firms the bank had cultivated over decades. Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, Coatue Management, Union Square Ventures and Founder Collective all advised their startups to pull their cash from the bank, people familiar with the matter said.

The withdrawals initiated by depositors and investors amounted to $42 billion on Thursday alone, according to the regulator. Despite being in sound financial condition prior to Thursday, the California watchdog said the run “caused the bank to be incapable of paying its obligations as they come due,” and it was now insolvent.

The bank was then closed by the California DFPI and placed into FDIC receivership, marking the biggest failure of a US bank since the financial crisis.

They pulled their money on purpose to collapse the bank and to force the Biden administration to give them 100% of any losses back, and they collapsed SVB because otherwise they were going to have to pay up for their risky mortgage investments.

This was deliberate sabotage, the fiduciary equivalent of burning down a building to collect the insurance, so these donors turned a $1.8 billion loss that would have shut down one techbro startup and made the rest of Silicon Valley suddenly aware of being on the hook for their own bad investments into a $42 billion bank run that wiped out their creditors and assured that the feds would pay them back for any losses, with the threat of economic destruction if they didn't.

Because if these assholes can collapse one bank in order to avoid losses, they can do it to anyone.

The game is now fully on.

A Pence-ive Turn

If Mike Pence is to have any hope in the 2024 primary, he had to make his turn against Donald Trump, and as possible state-level indictments in New York and Georgia draw closer, Trump's former VP is finally making his move.

 

Former Vice President Mike Pence on Saturday harshly criticized former President Donald Trump for his role in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, widening the rift between the two men as they prepare to battle over the Republican nomination in next year’s election.

“President Trump was wrong,” Pence said during remarks at the annual white-tie Gridiron Dinner attended by politicians and journalists. “I had no right to overturn the election. And his reckless words endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol that day, and I know history will hold Donald Trump accountable.”

Pence’s remarks were the sharpest condemnation yet from the once-loyal lieutenant who has often shied away from confronting his former boss. Trump has already declared his candidacy. Pence has not, but he’s been laying the groundwork to run.

In the days leading up to Jan. 6, 2021, Trump pressured Pence to overturn President Joe Biden’s election victory as he presided over the ceremonial certification of the results. Pence refused, and when rioters stormed the Capitol, some chanted that they wanted to “hang Mike Pence.”

The House committee that investigated the attack said in its final report that “the President of the United States had riled up a mob that hunted his own Vice President.”

With his remarks, Pence solidified his place in a broader debate within the Republican Party over how to view the attack. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, for example, recently provided Tucker Carlson with an archive of security camera footage from Jan. 6, which the Fox News host has used to downplay the day’s events and promote conspiracy theories.

“Make no mistake about it, what happened that day was a disgrace,” Pence said in his Gridiron Dinner remarks. “And it mocks decency to portray it any other way.”

 

This comes about two years too late, frankly.

 

I wonder then if Pence will cooperate with Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith's grand jury subpoena, which he was trying to block as recently as last week.

If Pence actually believes any of the the things he said last night, then he should be more than willing to cooperate with Smith.

Of course, that's not what's going to happen.  But notice if Trump lays into Pence on social media this week or not. If Trump manages to hold his tongue, maybe it's because Pence's grand jury testimony could really damage Trump if Smith can work out a deal with Pence.

We'll see.