Fiddly bits: Petition to sign; Trump says he is not Christian; New use for Wi-Fi jammers

MoveOn.org has is collecting signatures on a petition to have Clarence Thomas impeached. The petition is at this link and it takes a few seconds to sign it, just be sure to uncheck the box at the bottom of the petition if you do not want emails from the group. There are close to 1.39 million signatures so far.

Get out there and support Clarence by

getting him impeached! He deserves it!

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

In this 26 second video clip at 17-18 sec. into the clip, DJT says "I'm not Christian." 

I've listened to that part of the video repeatedly and it really does sound like he said what the captioning says. A Daily KOS article comments on this exact point:

Did Trump Confess: "I'm Not Christian?" 

2nd Update: Guardian Drops Quote

Update: I’ve read the comments that he was actually saying, “I’m a Christian.” Listening to the clip some more, I’m not sure either way. The Guardian story linked by B sides in the comments is still up, so for now my title is in the form of a question. I have also added an “unproven” tag.

“You won’t have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians. 

I love you, Christians. I’m not Christian.”

I’ve listened to the clip, over and over, not really able to believe what I heard, but there it is.

Donald Trump has finally come forward to clarify his position on Christians. He loves them, for their votes, but he is not one of them. 

Personally, I think that line is more politically dangerous than admitting he doesn’t intend to let people vote again if he gets back in office. Heck, we knew that.

But coming right out and admitting he’s no believer, just a huckster hustling the Christians for their votes? That’s new.

And, imo, it should be news.

According to Wikipedia, rational people of good will should practice the Principle of Charity, which requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.

In a case like this, what is the best, strongest possible interpretation? If one adopts DJT's mindset and intent, he would say he said "I'm a Christian", not "I'm not a Christian." If one adopts the mindset of a rational pro-democracy person of good will, knowing that DJT is a chronic liar, a bullshitter** and a grifter, one can easily say that he accidentally said "I'm not a Christian" and is lying when he denies it.

Q: Did he say it or not?

** Bullshit: Rhetoric without concern for truth or falsity, but instead focused on telling good story and/or persuasion by any means, rational, truthful or not.

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

tom's Hardware reports about a new use for Wi-Fi jammers:

LAPD warns residents after spike in burglaries using 

Wi-Fi jammers that disable security cameras, smart doorbells

Wilshire-area neighborhoods were told to be particularly vigilant

About DJT & American authoritarianism -- another warning

Notice: For people who don't want to hear more criticism of DJT or warnings about the threat of American radical right authoritarianism, ignore this post.

CONTEXT

On Jan. 6, 2021 I posted this in intense anger and moral outrage:

Trump's Attempted Coup Is In Progress Right Now

2:25 PM EST

News sources are reporting now on the attack on the US Capitol by enraged Trump supporters. Capitol police have been overwhelmed and pushed back. Congress has been told to shelter in place until more police can be brought in. Meanwhile, the seditionist Trump does nothing because he is a tyrant who wants to topple democracy.

All blood that will be shed, if any, is on Trump's filthy, treasonous tyrant hands. Radical right GOP Republicans in congress are also fully culpable for all violence and deaths, even the ones who feebly pretended to be distressed by this possibility.

At the time, people who called it a coup attempt were criticized as alarmist, liars, hyperbolic, brainwashed, communists, Democrats, traitors, stupid, etc. Some Americans today, e.g., most Republicans (~95% ?), still do not see it as a violent coup attempt or as fomented by a morally rotted, kleptocratic dictator and America's lying fraud and Fornicator-in-Chief. I still see it that way.

American authoritarianism

The American Autocracy Threat Tracker analyzes commitments by autocratic actors to implement in our country in 2025. History teaches us that threats to assault core democratic principles should not be taken lightly. On the contrary, contemporary lessons from backsliding democracies like Hungary, Turkey, and Poland, not to mention from more ominous historical parallels, are that autocratic plans must be taken seriously. Conversely, social science data and lived experience teach us that big tent pro-rule of law coalitions that are multi-ideological and multi-partisan are an antidote to autocratic advance and have a proven record of success.

The Autocracy in America conference will sound the alarm on this rising threat in the United States— and advance both short- and long-term responses.

A WaPo opinion (not paywalled) by Jennifer  Rubin opines:

Last week, I participated in the Anti-Autocracy Conference. I was joined by a bipartisan assortment of academics, activists, whistleblowers from the Trump administration, lawyers, journalists, civil society leaders, and current and former elected officials, plus a lively audience, all to discuss the looming threat to pluralistic democracy.

Many participants noted that the authoritarian threat is well underway. The MAGA GOP rationalizes a violent coup and refuses to commit to respecting the election results; its nominee dabbles in Hitlerian language; a radical, right-wing Supreme Court damages our constitutional system by granting the president broad criminal immunity; and, an array of state laws aim to suppress voters.

Kicking off the proceedings, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a leading scholar on totalitarianism, explained:

This is an anti-autocracy conference because autocracy is what we are looking at if Donald Trump is reelected.

I know many Americans feel this is hyperbole, even after MAGA attempted to overthrow the government to keep Trump in office illegally. In my line of work, we call this a coup attempt. Even now, Trump is continuing to use his rallies to market strongman rule to Americans. Just a few days ago he praised Xi Jinping, a Communist dictator, as “brilliant” because he rules with an “iron fist.”

She explained: “Project 2025 is a recipe for mass chaos, abuses of power, and dysfunction in government. It aligns not only with the agendas of present foreign autocracies, especially the Hungary of Viktor Orban … but also with the policies of past dictatorships.”

Norm Eisen, co-founder of State Democracy Defenders Action✓ .... told me, “There is much more that unites us as Americans than divides us.” He laid out 10 principles at the conference that “define what a long-term right, left and center coalition would look like to unify the vast majority of Americans against Trump’s authoritarianism and ensure that the American democratic tradition continues — and that Trump led autocracy is permanently banished from the American political scene.” These principles boil down to:

1. Democracies rest on rule of law; someone who denies the sanctity of the Constitution and serially violates our laws cannot be president.

2. Democracy cannot survive without truth, facts, science and evidence.

3. Free and fair elections are the essence of democracy, where power resides in the people.

4. Civil discourse must be the means to resolve differences; compromise is essential to governance.

5. A democratic government cannot operate without an independent, nonpartisan civil service, and subject matter expertise is essential to good government.

6. An ethical government free from corruption and self-interest is essential to our democracy.

7. The United States is the indispensable nation for international stability, economic prosperity and democracy. Our military takes an oath to the Constitution, not to a single leader.

8. Democracies require and ensure widespread prosperity. Democracies that deliver economically for citizens require a domestic calm, commitment to the rule of law and opposition to cronyism.

9. A vibrant, independent press is vital to democracy.

10. Equality and civil rights (“All men [and women] are created equal”) are foundational to our American creed.

The good news: These ideas might provide the glue to hold together the anti-autocracy coalition if they can gather support across the ideological spectrum.

One can quibble with some of those principles or how they are worded, but in them and the other parts of the opinion I quoted, the key moral values and warnings I have been arguing for years are all there. Democracy over authoritarianism, rejection of DJT and MAGA, respect for the rule of law, civil liberties (we are all equal), and truth, facts, science and evidence, transparency in government (anti-corruption), free and fair elections, etc.

Fact checking DJT; A quick character update

An opinion the NYT published (not paywalled) was a fact check of DJT's 90-minute acceptance speech. Here are some of the lies the NYT fact checked:

Jobs

Lie: “The only jobs [President Biden] created are for illegal immigrants and bounce-back jobs — they’re bounced back from the Covid.”

Inflation

Lie: “It’s killing people. They can’t buy groceries anymore. They can’t — you look at the cost of food where it’s doubled, and tripled and quadrupled. They can’t live. They’re not living anymore.”

Tax cuts

Lie: “What we did was incredible …. We got the largest tax cut in history.”

Tariffs

Lie: “[Tariffs are] not going to drive [prices] higher. It’s just going to cause countries that have been ripping us off for years, like China — and many others, in all fairness to China — it’s going to just force them to pay us a lot of money.”

Immigration

Lie: “Americans are being squeezed out of the labor force and their jobs are taken. By the way, you know who’s taking the jobs, the jobs that are created? One hundred and seven percent of those jobs are taken by illegal aliens.”

Presidential ranking

Lie: “[President Biden is] without question the worst president, the worst presidency in the history of our country.”

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Leopards don't change spots. DJT does not change his character. The NYT writes:

Early in his speech in Minnesota on Saturday night, former President Donald J. Trump made clear just how quickly he has jettisoned the appeal for national unity that he made after he survived an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania two weeks ago.

“I want to be nice,” Mr. Trump said. “They all say, ‘I think he’s changed. I think he’s changed since two weeks ago. Something affected him.’”

But to a cheering crowd of thousands, Mr. Trump quickly conceded the point. “No, I haven’t changed,” he said. “Maybe I’ve gotten worse. Because I get angry at the incompetence that I witness every single day.”  

During a speech lasting roughly 90 minutes, Mr. Trump called Ms. Harris “evil,” “unhinged” and “sick.” He lied about her views on abortion in an effort to paint her as extreme, and he mocked her laugh and her demeanor. 

“We have a brand-new victim,” Mr. Trump told thousands of people inside the Herb Brooks National Hockey Center in St. Cloud, Minn. “And, honestly, she’s a radical left lunatic.”

Kilotons of hypocrisy? . . . . . Sounds about right.

Science & religion pulse check; American dictatorship pulse check

Creationism is the belief that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. A Gallup poll with data from May 2024 gave these results:

This data could be explained by religion inhibiting people from believing in evidence from science that contradicts the creationism story. One personal surprise in the data is that 32% of Catholics believe in creationism despite the Pope saying that science is real and true. Science completely contradicts creationism. Perplexity comments about what the Pope said:

On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, declaring that the theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and do not contradict the existence of a divine creator.

In his address, Pope Francis stated that "The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it".

He also affirmed that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."  

Pope Francis emphasized that God is not "a magician with a magic wand" and that when reading about Creation in Genesis, we should not imagine God as such. [Hm, what should people imagine God as?]

The Pope's logic eludes me, but that is beside the point. The Pope has faith. Those 32% of creationist Catholics also have faith. But that is just their own faith, not the Pope's. Wimpy science is stuck with mundane data, empirical facts and human reasoning. 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

In the most direct assertion that he plans to establish a permanent Christian theocracy-autocratic dictatorship, the NYT reports about DJT's explicit promise (not paywalled) to his Christian supporters:

In the closing minutes of his speech to a gathering of religious conservatives on Friday night, former President Donald J. Trump told Christians that if they voted him into office in November, they would never need to vote again.

“Christians, get out and vote. Just this time,” he said at The Believers’ Summit, an event hosted by the conservative advocacy group Turning Point Action, in West Palm Beach, Fla. “You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

Mr. Trump, who never made a particular display of religious observance before entering politics, continued: “I love you, Christians. I’m a Christian. I love you, you got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not going to have to vote.”  

Mr. Trump’s suggestion that Christians would not have to vote again if he is elected quickly spread across social media. Some argued that it was a threat that the 2024 election could be the nation’s last if he were to win and claimed it was further evidence of an authoritarian, anti-democratic bent he has displayed throughout his political candidacy.  

Since his 2020 loss, Mr. Trump, who often praises strongmen leaders on the trail, has further embraced a brand of conservatism that experts on autocracy have said veers toward totalitarian. [Hm, what a stupid thing to write -- DJT is far too lazy, mentally deranged and narcissistic to be a totalitarian, he is just a kleptocratic dictator]

Here we have DJT explicitly telling Christian theocrats that he will deliver to them an untouchable Christian theocracy. That package implicitly but clearly includes access to taxpayer money to run Christian religious and brain washing operations (schools). DJT's authoritarian intent could not be much clearer. 

Election subversion update; Supreme court pulse check; Same-sex marriage update

40 sec. video clip from 1980

The NYT reports (not paywalled) about election games that some states play:

How Some States Are Making It Harder to Register Voters

LaVon Bracy has been registering Florida voters ever since Lyndon Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act, because she wanted, she said, to give others the voice she was denied as a Black student in a largely white high school. In an average year, she said, the nonprofit Faith in Florida, where she serves as democracy director, used to add 12,000 new voters to the state’s rolls.

That ended last year, when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation that imposed tough new rules on voter registration drives in the name of stopping fraud — and made voter registration groups that break the rules liable for fines as high as $250,000.

These days, Faith in Florida canvassers no longer help would-be voters fill out registration forms. Instead, they hand out slips of paper with a QR code that links to the state’s online registration website. And it’s not just small-time civic groups that are affected: The Florida chapter of the League of Women Voters has scaled back its trademark voter registration drives, too.

“These draconian laws and rules are like taking a sledgehammer to hit a flea,” said Cecile Scoon, a lawyer and the president of the Florida league.

The political right has long sought to winnow voter rolls in the name of stopping fraud, including a stream of challenges this year. As Democrats prepare for a sprint to capitalize on the excitement of a new presidential ticket by signing up new voters, they are finding entirely new barriers in Florida and some other states to the sorts of voter registration drives that have been a campaign staple for both parties.  

Registrations also have slowed markedly at Florida colleges and universities, where more than a million students are enrolled.

“You have to tell every volunteer that if they screw up, there may be a $50,000 fine,” said Connor Efrian, the president of the University of Florida College Democrats. “The consequences are that there are a lot fewer people going around the campus registering people. People are a lot more intimidated.”

The article reports that other states involved in their own election subversion efforts include Kansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Missouri and Georgia. This is more evidence of the undeniable political power and anti-democratic intent of America's radical right authoritarian wealth and power political-social movement.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

An opinion/analysis article the editors of Scientific American discuss some recent USSC decisions that evince Republican hostility to inconvenient facts and substitution of falsity when necessary to get the right decision, i.e., right wing:

The Supreme Court’s Contempt for 

Facts Is a Betrayal of Justice

The Supreme Court majority’s recent decisions about homelessness, public health and regulatory power, among others, undermine the role of evidence, expertise and honesty in American democracy

When the Supreme Court’s Ohio v. EPA decision blocked Environmental Protection Agency limits on Midwestern states polluting their downwind neighbors, a sad but telling coda came in Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion. In five instances, it confused nitrogen oxide, a pollutant that contributes to ozone formation, with nitrous oxide, better known as laughing gas.

You can’t make this stuff up. This repeated mistake in the 5-4 decision exemplifies a high court not just indifferent to facts but contemptuous of them.

The crescendo to this assault on expertise landed in June, when the majority’s Chevron decision arrogated to the courts regulatory calls that have been made by civil servant scientists, physicians and lawyers for the last 40 years. (With stunning understatement, the Associated Press called it “a far-reaching and potentially lucrative victory to business interests.” No kidding.) The decision enthrones the high court—an unelected majority—as a group of technically incompetent, in some cases corrupt, politicos in robes with power over matters that hinge on vital facts about pollution, medicine, employment and much else. These matters govern our lives.

The 2022 Kennedy v. Bremerton School District school prayer decision hinged on a fable of a football coach offering “a quiet personal prayer,” in the words of the opinion. In reality, this coach was holding overt post-game prayer meetings on the 50-yard line, ones that an atheist player felt compelled to attend to keep off the bench. Last year’s 303 Creative v. Elenis decision, allowing a Web designer to discriminate against gay people, revolved entirely on a supposed request for a gay wedding website that never existed that (supposedly) came from a straight man who never made the request. Again, you can’t make this stuff up. Unless you are on the Supreme Court. Then it becomes law.

Summing up the Court’s term on July 1, the legal writer Chris Geidner called attention to a more profound “important and disturbing reality” of the current majority’s relationship to facts. “When it needs to decide a matter for the right, it can and does accept questionable, if not false, claims as facts. If the result would benefit the left, however, there are virtually never enough facts to reach a decision.”  

Climate change, in particular, seems to draw out the Court’s taste for fiction. The 2022 West Virginia v. EPA decision that halted efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants, another 6-3 opinion, saw the majority enshrine a “major questions” doctrine. This legal theology, conjured from the penumbras and emanations of past antiregulatory decisions, insists that sizable regulations require patently-impossible-to-acquire congressional authorization. This is a “power grab” by the Court, anointing itself the economy’s czar.  

A Clean Waters Act case last year decreed wetlands only environmentally protected if their waters possessed a “continuous surface connection” with a larger body of water. This invented requirement is wholly at odds with how water and wetlands actually work, leaving up to half of the country’s protected wetlands now available for dredging. (emphases added)

This is more evidence of the undeniable legal power and anti-democratic intent of America's radical right authoritarian wealth and power political-social movement.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

In the 2015 Obergefell decision, the USSC held that there is a right to same sex marriage. Authoritarian Republicans, including those on the USSC bitterly criticized that decision. Clarence Thomas warned that this issue would be re-examined one day, subject to the same legal analysis that led to the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. That day is coming. Jezebel reports:

Kim Davis Tees Up Supreme Court to 

Reverse Marriage Equality Ruling

In an appeal over damages awarded to a same-sex couple, Davis says the 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is wrong and should be overruled just like Roe v. Wade

The former Kentucky county clerk [Kim Davis]—who became infamous for denying marriage licenses to gay couples after the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges—is now arguing in federal court that Obergefell should be overturned, for the same reasons the high court shredded Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Christian nationalist Kim Davis wants

God in government and gays to stay unmarried

Davis is appealing a jury’s 2023 decision that she should have to pay $100,000 to a gay couple to whom she denied a marriage license. Davis argued that granting a license to David Ermold and David Moore in 2015 violated her religious beliefs; a deputy clerk eventually gave them a license. (The case is called Ermold v. Davis.) In a brief to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, her lawyers argue that “Obergefell should be overturned for the same reasons articulated by the court in Dobbs”—mainly that it “was wrong when it was decided and it is wrong today because it was based entirely on the ‘legal fiction’ of substantive due process, which lacks any basis in the Constitution.”

This is more evidence of the undeniable legal power and anti-democratic intent of America's radical right authoritarian Christian nationalist wealth and power political-social movement. 

In the Obergefell decision, Clarence Thomas was crystal clear that Obergefell was wrong for the same reason that Roe v. Wade was wrong. Now there are six Republican votes on the USSC to turn that sentiment into Christian Sharia law. One can reasonably expect Obergefell to be overturned in June of 2026, maybe 2027 if the courts are slow or less likely, 2025 if the courts are really fast.

DJT lawsuits against Harris/Biden have started

Thought of the day about the rule of law. Well, at least for this blog post:

“This is an attempt to describe generally the process of legal reasoning in the field of case law, and in the interpretation of statutes and of the Constitution. It is important that the mechanism of legal reasoning should not be concealed by its pretense. The pretense is that the law is a system of known rules applied by a judge; the pretense has long been under attack. In an important sense legal rules are never clear, and, if a rule had to be clear before it could be imposed, society would be impossible. The mechanism accepts the differences of view and ambiguities of words. It provides for the participation of the community in resolving the ambiguity by providing a forum for the discussion of policy in the gap of ambiguity. On serious controversial questions it makes it possible to take the first step in the direction of what otherwise would be forbidden ends. The mechanism is indispensable to peace in a community.” -- first paragraph of the 1949 book, An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, legal scholar and former US Attorney General, Edward H. Levy

As expected, and explicitly threatened, if Joe dropped out and someone else replaced him, DJT and his GOP and MAGA threatened lawsuits. Reuters reports:

Trump campaign files complaint against 

Harris taking over Biden war chest

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday, arguing that U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris could not legally take over funds raised by President Joe Biden's reelection campaign.

The fight over the accounts, which had roughly $95 million in the bank at the end of June, is part of a multi-pronged effort by Republicans to stymie Harris' bid to lead the Democratic ticket.

The Trump campaign argued that Harris undertook a "brazen money grab," according to the filing by David Warrington, the campaign's general counsel. In the filing, which was shared with Reuters, Warrington said Harris was in the process of committing what he described as the "the largest campaign finance violation in American history."

Saurav Ghosh, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, a non-partisan watchdog group, has said that because Harris was already part of "Biden for President" as the vice presidential candidate, her claim on the money should be secure.

In any case, election regulators are unlikely to resolve the issue before the Nov. 5 presidential election.

The FEC said they were unable to comment on unresolved enforcement matters.

This is just the beginning of DJT/GOP/MAGA lawsuits. One can reasonably expect at least a dozen federal or state lawsuits. After the 2020 election, DJT/MAGA filed 62 lawsuits in 9 states and the District of Columbia. All 62 failed. Nearly all were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence. Judges tended to describe the lawsuits as frivolous and/or without merit.

Experts have started commenting on NPR and elsewhere about what the ramifications of lawsuits might be. Despite what Reuters reports about the FEC being unable to comment, radical Republican FEC chairman Sean Cooksey commented extensively in an interview. DJT appointed Cooksey as FEC chair on Dec. 9, 2020. Cooksey said the language of the controlling law or regulation probably provides a basis for the FEC to block Harris from having access to the Biden campaign money. 

Based on his comments and the slop in the regulation, it is easy see the three Republican FEC commissioners deciding against Harris and the three Dems deciding for her, leaving the commission gridlocked. An appeal to the federal courts by DJT/MAGA would follow. 

Sean Cooksey - his politics is radical

right authoritarianism? Maybe not. 

This exemplifies, once again, the danger of sloppy writing of laws and regulations. Sufficient ambiguity and/or grammatical incoherence provides politically corrupted partisans with all the cover they need to get what they want, regardless of the sometimes clear intent behind the law or regulation. When original intent is unclear, the meaning of a law or regulation becomes a partisan power game.

This also exemplifies the willingness of DJT/GOP/MAGA to file frivolous lawsuits with no evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence. Facts do not matter. Slop in the law matters far more.

Yahoo! News reported about the partisanship:

Sean Cooksey, the Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), suggested Monday that Vice President Harris may not be able to access the millions of dollars remaining from President Biden’s campaign, which many campaign finance lawyers say is rightfully hers.

Biden shook up the 2024 presidential race Sunday when he dropped out amid concerns about his age and mental acuity and endorsed his vice president. The campaign had just under $96 million in cash on hand as of June 30, according to its most recent report to the FEC, and filed paperwork to change its name from “Biden for President” to “Harris for President” within hours of the president’s decision.

Even before the campaign filed to change its name, Harris was listed as a candidate alongside Biden on its paperwork with the FEC.

Campaign finance lawyers previously told The Hill that Harris would be able to access the funds if she becomes the nominee. Democrats have started to coalesce behind Harris, but Cooksey called the situation “complicated” and suggested it would be challenged in the agency and at the courts.

“I think it’s really complicated, is the short answer,” Cooksey told “Morning Edition” on NPR. “What he’s attempting to do is to give his entire committee, the cash and all the assets, over to another person.”

“I think it’s gonna have to go through a process, through the FEC,” Cooksey added. “I expect, there’s probably going to be challenges to that at the agency, and probably in the courts as well.”

Democratic Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum, who chaired the commission last year, pushed back on the suggestion that Harris would not be able to access those funds.

“It’s quite clear, Vice President Harris can continue using the campaign committee and its funds,” Lindenbaum told The Hill. 

Steve Roberts, former general counsel to Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, was also skeptical of Cooksey’s comments.

“This interpretation is likely wishful thinking,” Roberts told The Hill.

“Since the declarations of candidacy for 2024, the reasonable interpretation is that the Biden campaign committee is a shared one between Harris / Biden, and perhaps uniquely so because they are incumbents. Otherwise, in 2020, Trump-Pence wouldn’t have had a shared committee, but would have set up separate committees and had their own contribution limits,” he explained.  

While Cooksey told NPR it is “entirely reasonable” to scrutinize the political motivations of members of the six-person commission, which may have no more than three members from each political party at any given time, he defended his record.

“I always try to approach these issues based on what the law requires and what is the best policy, not what’s gonna give people a certain partisan advantage in the short term,” Cooksey said.

Cooksey has sided with Democratic candidates and committees in controversial opinions that have angered many campaign finance reform advocates, including recent decisions that allow candidates to raise unlimited funds for state-level ballot measures, remove restrictions from certain mass text messages and make it easier for candidates and super PACs — which can raise unlimited sums of money — to coordinate on canvassing.

Partisanship here is obvious. A big question is whether partisanship on one or both sides is corrupt, principled or sufficiently grounded in ambiguity to make a solid determination impossible.

MAGA lawyers dropping anti-Harris 

lawsuits in courts across this great land!