News bits: GOP hypocrisy on voting; Regarding the indictment

In a major reversal of past claims that voting by mail-in ballots was a major source of vote fraud and the stolen 2020 election, some extremist GOP elites now support expanding access to voting by mail. Why would they change their minds? Because the data they see suggests that curtailing voting by mail hurts Republicans more than it hurts Democrats. For radical GOP elites, this is not about defending democracy, it is about winning power until they can kill democracy. The AP writes about the change that the data analysis led the radicals to:

Republicans set to push mail ballots, voting methods they 

previously blasted as recipes for fraud

After years of criticizing mail voting and so-called ballot harvesting as ripe for fraud, Republicans at the top of the party want to change course.

They are poised to launch aggressive get-out-the-vote campaigns for 2024 that employ just those strategies, attempting to match the emphasis on early voting Democrats have used for years to lock in many of their supporters well ahead of Election Day. The goal is to persuade voters who support GOP candidates that early voting techniques are secure and to make sure they are able to return their ballots in time to be counted, thus putting less pressure on Election Day turnout efforts.

It marks a notable shift from the party’s rhetoric since 2020, when then-President Donald Trump was routinely sowing doubt about mail voting and encouraging his voters to wait and vote in-person on Election Day. As recently as last year, Republican activists peddling the stolen election narrative were telling GOP voters who received mail ballots to hold onto them and turn them in at their polling place on Election Day rather than use mail or drop boxes.

Now Trump is asking donors to chip in for his “ballot harvesting fund” – saying in a fundraising email, “Either we ballot harvest where we can, or you can say goodbye to America!”

Republicans say the shift is needed to ensure GOP victories up and down the 2024 ballot, arguing they cannot afford to give Democrats any advantage. At the same time, they acknowledge skepticism from many of their own voters conditioned by false claims of widespread voter fraud from Trump and others.  

Across the country, Republican-controlled legislatures have acted against early voting — shortening windows for returning mail ballots, banning or limiting the use of drop boxes and criminalizing third-party ballot collection.

In announcing a “Bank Your Vote” initiative for 2024, Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said the party “has never said ‘don’t vote early,’” but acknowledged the GOP will have to work to shift voters’ perceptions.

Yup, GOP will have to work to shift voters’ perceptions. That is because the GOP told voters don’t vote early. Republicans even passed laws to limit early voting. Democracy Docket points out the shameless hypocrisy:

RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel, who defeated Dhillon, agrees. In December 2022, the chair selected by former President Donald Trump in 2017 unironically complained that “[t]here were many in 2020 saying, don’t vote by mail, don’t vote early, and we have to stop that.” She failed to mention that the “many” who bad-mouthed mail-in voting included both her and Trump.

This is shameless hypocrisy practiced by shameless hypocrites. Hypocrisy doesn't faze these spin dictator zealots. The extremist's only concern is winning elections, not protecting democracy. It is ironic that to kill democracy, the Republican Party is forced to resort to relying on democracy. 

The pro-democracy/anti-democracy tactic

This pro-democracy/anti-democracy tactic is not new. In Hungary, Viktor Orban got democratically elected and then immediately turned around and destroyed Hungarian democracy. And if I recall right, that's like American communists who used to demand free and fair elections so that once they gained power, they promised they would destroy democracy and free and fair elections. 

A really interesting issue here is how the extremist elites can expand mail-in voting by people who will vote for Republicans while suppressing votes Democratic Party candidates. Sooner or later, authoritarian Republicans will probably need to pass laws that favor Republican candidates while disfavoring Democratic Party candidates. What the radical GOP sells is rejected by most American voters, so something needs to be done to fix that tyranny of the minority problem. Once that line is crossed and sanctified by the Supreme Court, American democracy will be at or near its death.

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

The indictment

From the Relevant Evidence Files: The WaPo reports about a 2021 tape made after Trump left office about declassifying documents:

The evidence leading to the historic indictment of former president Donald Trump includes an audio recording from 2021 in which he talks about an apparently secret document and says, “As president, I could have declassified it, but now I can’t,” a person familiar with a transcript of the remarks said Friday.

In recent days, it has become clear that Trump’s own words are some of the most powerful evidence against him, leading to the filing of a seven-count indictment accusing him of willful retention of national defense secrets, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and false statements, according to people familiar with the case.  

While there is a host of paper, video and witness evidence against Trump for alleged mishandling of classified information and obstruction of justice, the recording is significant because it undercuts a central claim that Trump has put forward since the investigation was opened last year — that he had somehow, at some time, declassified the hundreds of classified documents later found at his Mar-a-Lago home and private club.

If this is real, it seems to be an important piece of evidence. It shows that Trump knew his false claims of declassifying documents before he left office was a lie.   

Observations from the punditocracy: 

Fox News: The first ~33 minutes of the Hannity show last night focused on the indictment. Hannity started with a ferocious blast at special counsel Jack Smith's comment that the law applies equally to everyone. That blast was grounded mostly in whataboutism regarding (i) Hillary's emailgate mishandling of national security secrets, and (ii) Joe and Hunter's alleged acceptance of large bribes in relation to Ukraine. Hannity's guests were legal experts. Hannity equated what Hillary did with classified secrets on her private server as the same as what Trump did at Mar-a-Lago. The thrust of Hannity's arguments is that the rule of law applies to Republicans but not Democrats. There was no mention of how serious the possible security breaches were in Hillarygate compared to Trumpgate.

Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz asserted that there probably was no criminality involved in what Trump did except maybe in what was described in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the indictment. In those two paragraphs, Trump is discussing secret documents with other people.[1] Dershowitz said that the remainder of the indictment was not illegal under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), basically saying there is nothing significant in the indictment maybe except for those two paragraphs. The deceptive sleight of hand there is that The DoJ is not indicting Trump for violating the PRA. That law doesn't even seem to be relevant. Trump is being charged with violating other laws, e.g., laws in the Espionage Act. The PRA specifies that presidential records belong to the government, not a president or former president. I do not understand why Dershowitz was talking about it. Maybe I missed something. 

After the first segment, Hannity interviewed House Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan. Jordan ripped the two Bidens for being corrupt, outrageous bribe-taking sleaze bag criminals in relation to the so far non-existent Ukrainegate scandal. Since there is no special prosecutor hunting the Bidens down for their crimes, Hannity again argued that the rule of  law applies to Republicans but not Democrats. The radical right argument that the law is two-tiered and is a weapon only against Republicans appears to be the main argument that most radical right elites and their propaganda outlets are using to neutralize the Trump indictment as much as possible. Jordan wants the House to publicly release the evidence the FBI has about the Biden's alleged corruption. Jordan says it shows how corrupt the Bidens were. I hope the House does release the document, but it is irrelevant to the Trump indictment other than being a flawed whatabout argument to deflect attention.

Hannity's last guest was Trump's former government doctor Ronny Jackson. As we all recall, Jackson lied to the public about Trump's status when he had COVID. The Jackson segment was a vicious attack on Joe Biden's mental unfitness for office. Jackson was blunt in arguing that Joe has advanced dementia. Hannity argued that only radical left, deep state power keeps him "propped up" and "in the basement" as much as possible. 

MSNBC: The Lawrence O'Donnell program right after Hannity also had legal experts. That program was nothing like the Faux program. It was as if the outlets were talking about two different things. The MSNBC program made it clear that the evidence that Smith has is abundant and shockingly serious. Now I can see why Garland reluctantly appointed special council Jack Smith to investigate the mess at Mar-a-Lago. What Trump did was far worse than what I thought would probably be the case. It was so bad that even Garland the Extremely Reluctant Policeman was forced by circumstances to pursue an investigation he very likely did not want to pursue.

PBS: One of the two legal experts on an PBS broadcast suggested that Smith might have chosen to file the indictment in Florida instead of filing in D.C. to try to speed the proceedings up. If he had filed in D.C., Trump would have contested that venue and argued to have the lawsuit moved to Florida where he lives and the alleged crimes were committed. By filing in Florida, Smith could have been trying to avoid months of fighting over where to try the case. But, since radical right Trump supporter Aileen Cannon appears to be the judge on the case, she can find other ways to slow the proceedings down.  

Footnote: 

1. Paragraph 34:

34.     Upon greeting the writer, publisher, and his two staff members, TRUMP stated, "Look what I found, this was [the Senior Military Official's] plan of attack, read it and just show ...  it's interesting."  Later in the interview, TRUMP engaged in the following exchange:

 

TRUMP: Well, with [the Senior Military Official]-uh, let me see that, I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack [Country A]. Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this-this is off the record, but-they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.

 

WRITER:        Wow.

TRUMP: We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me, this was him. All sorts of stuff-pages long, look.

 

STAFFER:       Mm.

TRUMP: Wait a minute, let's see here. STAFFER: [Laughter] Yeah.

TRUMP: I just found, isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know.

 

STAFFER: Mm-hm.

TRUMP: Except it is like, highly confidential.

STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]

 

TRUMP:  Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this.

You attack, and-

 

***

TRUMP:   By the way.  Isn't that incredible? 

STAFFER:  Yeah.

TRUMP: I was just thinking, because we were talking about it. And you know, he said, "he wanted to attack [Country A], and what ... "

 

STAFFER:       You did.

TRUMP:         This was done by the military and given to me.  Uh, I think we can probably, right?

STAFFER:       I don't know, we'll,  we'll  have to see.    Yeah, we'll have to try to-

 

TRUMP: Declassify it. STAFFER: figure out  a-yeah.

TRUMP: See as president I could have declassified it. 

STAFFER:  Yeah. [Laughter]

TRUMP:  Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret. 

STAFFER: Yeah.  [Laughter] Now we have a problem.

TRUMP: Isn't that interesting?

At the time of this exchange, the writer, the publisher, and TRUMP's two staff members did not have security clearances or any need-to-know any classified information about a plan of attack on Country A.