The Conversation -- July 2, 2024

Philip Marcelo of the AP: "Rudolph Giulian, the former New York City mayor, federal prosecutor and legal adviser to Donald Trump, was disbarred in New York on Tuesday after a court found he repeatedly made false statements about Trump's 2020 election loss. The Manhattan appeals court ruled Giuliani, who had his New York law license suspended in 2021 for making false statements around the election, is no longer allowed to practice law in the state, effective immediately."

Peter Baker, et al., of the New York Times: "In the weeks and months before President Biden's politically devastating performance on the debate stage in Atlanta, several current and former officials and others who encountered him behind closed doors noticed that he increasingly appeared confused or listless, or would lose the thread of conversations.... In interviews, people in the room with him more recently said that the lapses seemed to be growing more frequent, more pronounced and more worrisome.... The recent moments of disorientation generated concern among advisers and allies alike. He seemed confused at points during a D-Day anniversary ceremony in France on June 6. The next day, he misstated the purpose of a new tranche of military aid to Ukraine when meeting with its president. On June 10, he appeared to freeze up at an early celebration of the Juneteenth holiday. On June 18, his soft-spoken tone and brief struggle to summon the name of his homeland security secretary at an immigration event unnerved some of his allies at the event...."

Farnoush Amiri of the AP: "A House Democratic lawmaker has become the first in the party to publicly call for President Joe Biden to step down as the party's nominee for president, citing Biden's debate performance against Donald Trump failing to 'effectively defend his many accomplishments.' Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas said in a statement Tuesday..., 'My decision to make these strong reservations public is not done lightly nor does it in any way diminish my respect for all that President Biden has achieved,' Doggett said. 'Recognizing that, unlike Trump, President Biden's first commitment has always been to our country, not himself, I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw. I respectfully call on him to do so.'"

Liz Goodwin, et al., of the Washington Post: "As panic and confusion over President Biden's faltering debate performance swept the ranks of Democratic lawmakers late last week, Sen. Joe Manchin III informed a few key allies that he would soon break with Biden in an interview on a Sunday news show, a high-profile defection that would underscore the president's weakness.... But he didn't. Senior Democrats heard of Manchin's plans and started making calls to the independent-minded senator.... The 'full-court press' was quickly assembled to help dissuade Manchin from appearing on the show...."

Bloody Biden Buddy Bunker. Eli Stokols, et al., of Politico: "Over the course of his presidency, Joe Biden's small clutch of advisers have built an increasingly protective circle around him, limiting his exposure to the media and outside advice -- an effort to manage public perceptions of the oldest person to ever hold the office and tightly control his political operation. But inside the White House, Biden's growing limitations were becoming apparent long before his meltdown in last week's debate, with the senior team's management of the president growing more strictly controlled as his term has gone on.... Following the debate, the pervasive view throughout much of the party is of Biden's inner circle as an impenetrable group of enablers who deluded themselves about his ability to run again even as they've assiduously worked to accommodate his limitations and shield them from view."

** Ben Protess, et al., of the New York Times: "The judge in Donald J. Trump's Manhattan criminal case delayed his sentencing until Sept. 18 to weigh whether a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling might imperil the former president's conviction, the judge said Tuesday in a letter to prosecutors and defense lawyers. The judge, Juan M. Merchan, may ultimately find no basis to overturn the jury's verdict, but the delay was a surprising turn of events in a case that had led to the first conviction of an American president. With the election on the horizon, the sentencing might be the only moment of criminal accountability for the twice-impeached and four-time-indicted former president whose other cases are mired in delay." This is an update of a story linked earlier.

** Ian Millhiser of Vox: "The Court's six Republicans handed down a decision on Monday that gives Donald Trump such sweeping immunity from prosecution that there are unlikely to be any legal checks on his behavior if he returns to the White House. The Court's three Democrats dissented. Trump v. United States is an astonishing opinion. It holds that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution -- essentially, a license to commit crimes -- so long as they use the official powers of their office to do so.... [It is] a blueprint for dictatorship." Millhiser goes on to explain the Court's decision, with nuggets like this: "... Roberts does concede that the president may be prosecuted for 'unofficial' acts. So, for example, if Trump had personally attempted to shoot and kill then-presidential candidate Joe Biden in the lead-up to the 2020 election, rather than ordering a subordinate to do so, then Trump could probably be prosecuted for murder. But even this caveat to Roberts's sweeping immunity decision is not very strong."

Joyce Vance is a good explainer, too. Besides hitting all the low points, she adds, for instance, "The majority opinion closes with a section where the Chief Justice, in a most decidedly uncollegial fashion, criticizes the Justices who dissent. He starts by calling out the dissents for striking 'a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.' Sit down, little ladies, the Chief Justice says." And, "It's remarkable that the Court is able to go on for 43 pages without acknowledging that Donald Trump tried to undo our democracy."

Judd Legum of Popular Information: "The Supreme Court invented this new kind of presidential immunity 235 years after the Constitution was ratified. And it lacks any grounding in the Constitution's text.... In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the President would be 'liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.' This, Hamilton wrote is the key distinction between the 'King of England,' who was 'sacred and invulnerable,'" and the 'President of the United States.'" ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: I recall reading Federalist No. 69 when I was a freshman in college. Hamilton's words were still true when I read No. 69 in 1963. This, a young girl supposed, is what made the United States great. As of yesterday, the words are not true anymore. So the United States is no longer great. MAGA = Make America God-Awful.

Kate Shaw in a New York Times op-ed: "It is increasingly clear that this court sees itself as something other than a participant in our democratic system. It sees itself as the enforcer of the separation of powers, but not itself subject to that separation.... The court ... has removed a major check on the office of the presidency at the very moment when Mr. Trump is running for office on a promise to weaponize the apparatus of government against those he views as his enemies.... The court in this case announces that an important mechanism of accountability, criminal charges under statutes passed by Congress, is almost entirely unavailable in the context of former presidents.... Justice Samuel Alito [made a] statement last July to The Wall Street Journal about Congress and the court:... 'No provision in the Constitution gives them' -- meaning Congress -- 'the authority to regulate the Supreme Court -- period.' Sub in 'president' for Supreme Court, and that's Monday's opinion in a nutshell. The court's reasoning here is also in line with what Chief Justice John Roberts said to the Senate.... Roberts's brusque refusal [to meet with senators] invoked broad 'separation of powers concerns' that he claimed 'counsel against such appearances.' It is now clear that the Roberts court believes the separation of powers means that both presidents and courts stand beyond the reach of the law."

Israel/Palestine, et al. The New York Times is live-updating developments Tuesday in the Israel/Hamas war here.

~~~~~~~~~~

As the Nation Falls

Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that ... Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution, delivering a major statement on the scope of presidential power. The ruling will almost surely delay the trial of the case against him on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election past the coming election in November. The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said Mr. Trump had at least presumptive immunity for his official acts. He added that the trial judge must undertake an intensive factual review to separate official and unofficial conduct and to assess whether prosecutors can overcome the presumption protecting Mr. Trump for his official conduct. That will entail significant delays, and the prospects for a trial before the election seem vanishingly remote." ~~~

     ~~~ Here's the decision, concurring opinions and dissents, via the Court. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~

~~~ From the New York Times liveblog:

Charlie Savage: "The Supreme Court has ruled 6 to 3 that former presidents have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts in office.... The Supreme Court has remanded the case to the Federal District Court judge overseeing the matter, Tanya Chutkan, to determine the nature of the acts for which former President Trump has been charged -- which are unofficial ones he undertook in his personal capacity and which are official ones he undertook as president."

Alan Feuer: "... one of the practical effects of it on Trump;s federal election case in Washington is that he will now enjoy immunity from any allegation in the indictment concerning his dealings with the Justice Department. Recall that one of the main accusations was that Trump sought to install a loyalist, Jeff Clark, as acting attorney general in order, the indictment says, to do his bid in claiming there was fraud in the election.... Another practical effect on the ruling; The justices have ordered that the trial judge, Tanya Chutkan, will have to determine whether Trump is immune from prosecution on allegations related to his pressure campaign on ... Mike Pence."

Savage: "As Justice Sotomayor's appalled dissent makes clear, this ruling is a dramatic expansion of presidential power -- not just for Trump but for all presidents. She cites the notorious World War II ruling that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans on the West Coast. '... The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.... "

Savage: “In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the legitimacy of the appointment of the special counsel, Jack Smith: 'If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people.' That is an issue that the judge in the Trump classified documents case, Aileen Cannon, just held a hearing about. Notably, none of the other eight justices joined his concurring opinion."

Maggie Haberman: "Trump posted a victorious message on his social media site, Truth Social: 'BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!'"

Feuer: "Chief Justice Roberts's ruling expresses skepticism that Trump could be prosecuted for the speech he gave on Jan. 6 or any of his tweets that day. Roberts notes that 'most of a president's public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.' But he leaves open the possibility that Trump could face charges for his words if they were delivered as 'a candidate for office'."

Adam Liptak: "Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., rejecting calls for their disqualification, participated in the decision on the scope of ... Donald J. Trump's immunity from prosecution. Experts in legal ethics have said that the activities of the justices' wives raised serious questions about their impartiality."

Simon Levien: "In a call with reporters, the Biden campaign is using the decision to sound an alarm. 'They just handed Donald Trump the keys to a dictatorship,' Quentin Fulks, the deputy campaign manager, said. 'We have to do everything in our power to stop him.'"

Feuer: "Here's one of the sleeper holdings in the court's ruling: The decision finds not only that a president can't be charged for any official acts, but also that evidence involving official acts can't be introduced to bolster accusations made about unofficial acts. If I'm reading this right, Chief Justice Roberts has reversed himself from his position during oral arguments." (Also linked yesterday.)

~~~ CNN's liveblog is here.~~~

From Justice Sotomayor's "scathing" dissent, joined by Kagan & Jackson: "Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.... With fear for our democracy, I dissent.'" (Also linked yesterday.)

Marie: One thing justices do when there is disagreement on a decision is "talk to" each other in their opinions and dissents. As an example, in the NYT liveblog of the decision, Charlie Savage pointed to Amy Coney Barrett's concurrence in which "She disagreed with the majority's holding that the Constitution does not permit prosecutors to tell a jury about an ex-president's official actions that are relevant to some private action being charged.... [So] In a footnote of the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts addressed Justice Barrett's example.... He disagreed that the court's ruling meant prosecutors could not mention any official act, saying 'of course' prosecutors could point to the public record to show that a president performed the official act in question."~~~

     ~~~ BUT THEN. Andrew Weissmann pointed out that Roberts made no attempt to answer or refute Justice Sotomayor's catalogue of horrors: "... the President is now a king above the law. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune." That is, Roberts tacitly admits that Sotomayor is right: the president can do whatever he wants, exactly what Trump himself infamously asserted when he said he "had an Article II." ~~~

     ~~~ Update. Weissmann is not quite right. As Patrick Marley of the WashPo notes in a story linked below, &"The dissenters, Roberts wrote, were engaging in 'fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals.'" Gosh, Johnnie boy, your reassurance would be a tad more convincing if Trump had not already proposed (see linked story below) military tribunals to prosecute a boatload of federal officlals and former officials for treason. Not an "extreme hypothetical," Chief, but a real thing proposed by the very real reprobate to whom you have granted immunity in this disastrous opinion. And, you know, if you don't keep on toeing the line, Johnnie-O, you could find yourself in the dock, too.

Philip Bump of the Washington Post: This decision came about "largely because of the systematic advantages Republicans have enjoyed in the Senate and thanks to the electoral college." Bump does the arithmetic. MB: I suppose it's ironic that the U.S.'s form of democracy has failed again because it is inherently not democratic but privileges minorities, well, to a fault. The attempt to appease the minority was surely the cause of the 1860 Civil War. It was only a matter of time, perhaps, before that same flaw ruptured the constitutional order again.

** Scott Lemieux in LG&$: "The incredibly cynical and lawless two-step the Republican Party engaged in -- Trump shouldn't be impeached because he can be prosecuted, and he can't be prosecuted because he could have been impeached -- has been enshrined into 'constitutional law.'... This is enough to make Roberts the 21st century Taney in itself.... Much of Roberts's opinion ... provides an indefensible answer to a question it didn't need to ask to address this case in the first place."

Michael Shear of the New York Times: "President Biden warned on Monday that the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity meant that there were 'virtually no limits on what the president can do' and urged voters to prevent ... Donald J. Trump from returning to the White House freed from the constraints of the law.... 'I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers, as I have for three and a half years,' Mr. Biden said on Monday night. 'But any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law.' Mr. Biden said he agreed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote that 'with fear for our democracy, I dissent.' Mr. Biden echoed her language as he concluded his remarks. 'I dissent,' he said. 'May God bless you all and may God help preserve our democracy.'"

Patrick Marley of the Washington Post: "The court's decision raised fears [among scholars] that a future president will be able to act with impunity because official acts of the president have been deemed off limits from prosecution.... They warned of future presidents unbound from the rule of law who could freely engage in criminal activity. And they pointed to the prospect of a second term for Donald Trump -- the man whose indictment on charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election prompted the Supreme Court to weigh in -- as a moment when their worst fears could be realized.... In an all-caps post on social media, Trump praised the ruling as a 'BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN AND WISE' decision that would causes charges against him to disappear or 'WITHER INTO OBSCURITY.'"

Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times: "Yesterday, in a 6-3 decision along partisan lines, the Supreme Court affirmed Nixon's bold assertion of presidential immunity.... This time when the president does it, it really won't be illegal.... Ruling on the federal prosecution of Donald Trump for his role in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the president has 'absolute immunity' for 'official acts' when those acts relate to the core powers of the office.... And while the majority might say here that the president is still subject to criminal prosecution for 'unofficial acts,' Sotomayor aptly notes that the chief justice has created a standard that effectively renders nearly every act official if it can be tied in some way, however tenuously, to the president's core powers."

Marie: As shocking, backward-looking & disruptive as Dobbs is, yesterday's ruling is even worse. Our government provides a mechanism to reverse Dobbs. Congress can override it. But Congress cannot reverse Trump. Yesterday, I described the U.S. as the world's biggest banana republic. But it's worse than that. Most so-called banana republics have constitutions and laws which require their leaders to behave lawfully. Their practices, not the letter of their laws, allow for corrupt official behavior. But the United States now has a formal legal document condoning, encouraging & inviting presidential* corruption. There are no legal means to reverse what six unscrupulous judges have wrought. We are watching the free-fall of the United States. ~~~

     ~~~ Update: It occurs to me that the one way to get rid of a lawless president* would be to impeach & convict him. But we now know that even when the president*'s men physically attack members of Congress, the Senate cannot muster 67 votes to impeach him & disqualify him from running for re-election. So even though impeachment is a theoretical possibility for a quick resolution to a presidential* crisis, it turns out not to be a realistic solution, even in the most dramatic and violent of circumstances. (And the president* could still refuse to leave office, with the aid of military forces he had commandeered.) ~~~

     ~~~ Oh, I see Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has found another good use for impeachment: ~~~

     ~~~ Zachary Leeman of Mediaite: "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced on Monday she intends to file articles of impeachment following the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. 'The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control,' she wrote on X. 'Today's [Monday's] ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.'... Impeaching a Supreme Court Justice would be quite an uphill climb...." It isn't clear who-all AOC has in mind to impeach.

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post: "The risk is no longer just that Donald Trump will evade responsibility for his actions as president, though that seems close to foreordained by Monday's [Supreme Court] ruling. It is that he will be emboldened by the protection the court just gave him to behave even more unconscionably in a second term.... Before Monday's ruling, no previous president imagined that he had immunity from criminal prosecution -- and they somehow managed to engage in plenty of ​'bold and unhesitating action.'" Read on if you have a WashPo subscription. Marcus lays out the extent of the permanent get-out-of-jail-free card the Supremes have issued presidents*.

Ben Protess & William Rashbaum of the New York Times: "Donald J. Trump began an effort on Monday to throw out his recent criminal conviction in Manhattan and postpone his upcoming sentencing, citing a new Supreme Court ruling that granted him broad immunity from prosecution for official actions he took as president, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. In a letter to the judge overseeing the case, Mr. Trump's lawyers sought permission to file a motion to set aside the verdict, doing so just hours after the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling involving one of Mr. Trump's other criminal cases. The letter will not be public until Tuesday at the earliest, after which prosecutors will have a chance to respond. The move from Mr. Trump's lawyers came 10 days before the judge was set to sentence the former president for his crimes in Manhattan, where a jury convicted him on 34 felony counts related to his cover-up of a sex scandal in the run-up to the 2016 election." The NBC News story is here. ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: Not sure how signing checks to pay off a porn star is an "official act," but I'm certain John Roberts can find a way.

Chris Cameron of the New York Times: "... Donald J. Trump over the weekend escalated his vows to prosecute his political opponents, circulating posts on his social media website invoking 'televised military tribunals' and calling for the jailing of President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer and former Vice President Mike Pence, among other high-profile politicians. Mr. Trump, using his account on Truth Social on Sunday, promoted two posts from other users of the site that called for the jailing of his perceived political enemies. One post that he circulated on Sunday singled out Liz Cheney..., and called for her to be prosecuted by a type of military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals. 'Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is guilty of treason,' the post said. 'Retruth if you want televised military tribunals.'

"A separate post included photos of 15 former and current elected officials that said, in all-capital letters, 'they should be going to jail on Monday not Steve Bannon!' Those officials included Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, Mr. Pence, Mr. Schumer and Mr. McConnell -- the top leaders in the Senate -- and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker. The list in the second post also had members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, including Ms. Cheney and the former Illinois congressman Adam Kinzinger, another Republican, and the Democratic Representatives Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Pete Aguilar, Zoe Lofgren and Bennie Thompson, who chaired the committee." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: These sham trials would be "official acts," so all perfectly legal. It's true that it would not be the president* who carried out these military tribunals but other officials, so you might think those officials would be afraid of being prosecuted for participating in extra-legal tribunals. But no. As Patrick noted in yesterday's thread, the president* can -- and would -- pardon these officials.

Lindsay Whitehurst & Susan Haigh of the AP: "Longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon was taken into custody Monday after surrendering at a federal prison to begin a four-month sentence on contempt charges for defying a subpoena in the congressional investigation into the U.S. Capitol attack. Bannon arrived at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut, around noon and was formally taken into federal custody, the Bureau of Prisons said. Speaking to reporters, Bannon called himself a 'political prisoner,' said ... Donald Trump was 'very supportive' of him and slammed Democrats, including Attorney General Merrick Garland. 'I am proud of going to prison,' Bannon said, adding he was 'standing up to the Garland corrupt DOJ.'" (Also linked yesterday.)

Jenny Gathright of the Washington Post: "Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) was charged with a weapons violation Friday at Dulles International Airport after security officers found an unloaded handgun in her carry-on bag, authorities said. A spokesperson for Spartz, 45, on Monday acknowledged the incident and said that the congresswoman had been able to proceed to an international flight." CNN's report is here.

Anna Phillips of the Washington Post: "The Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed a rule Tuesday outlining steps employers must take to protect indoor and outdoor workers from the risk of heat illness, the first major regulation aimed at preventing heat-related deaths on the job. The rule, if finalized, could add protections for 35 million workers nationwide. But it will face opposition from industry groups and major hurdles beyond that, including the possibility that Donald Trump could win a second term and block the rule from becoming final." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: Oh, it's worse than that. Last week the Supremes decided that the courts would curb the decisions of regulatory agencies like OSHA. So let's put Neil Gorsuch (who wrote the anti-deference opinion) on OSHA's case. We already know he thinks workers should literally freeze to death if that's what their companies demand, so we don't have to ponder how he feels about requiring corporations not to let workers die of heat stroke.

Idiocracy Rules. Maxine Joselow of the Washington Post: "A federal court on Monday blocked the Biden administration's pause on approving new facilities that export liquefied natural gas, dealing another legal blow to the president's ambitious climate agenda. In a decision issued late Monday, U.S. District Judge James D. Cain Jr. ruled in favor of Louisiana and 15 other Republican-led states that had challenged the move. The judge, who was appointed by Donald Trump, wrote that the pause 'is completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany of ideocracy [sic].'" MB: Maybe Cain means "ideology"? If it's any consolation, I'm not sure he knows what "epiphany" means, either; in context, it seems misplaced.

Presidential Race

Shane Goldmacher of the New York Times: "Around [President] Biden, a siege mentality has set in for a team that remembers -- and is fond of repeating -- how it outlasted the doubters four years ago to win the nomination in the first place.... Mr. Biden has visibly aged, as most presidents do. But as early as late 2021, the White House physician had noticed a change, observing more frequent and severe 'throat clearing' and a gait that was 'perceptibly stiffer' than a year earlier.... Mr. Biden's handlers insisted he could handle a re-election campaign even as their handling of him gave hints otherwise. He began using the shorter stairs to board Air Force One after his tripping went viral. He has done fewer news conferences than his predecessors. He passed on a pregame Super Bowl interview. His events have become intentionally shorter, too."

Dan Balz of the Washington Post: "... the drubbing that French President Emmanuel Macron's party took in elections on Sunday should come as a warning to President Biden, his campaign and the whole of the Democratic Party.... The National Rally is led by Marine Le Pen. It is a hard-right, nationalistic, anti-immigration party with antisemitic roots.... Macron bet that he could force voters to confront the prospect of Le Pen's party in power and that they would recoil from that future.... He pushed every possible button to rally voters to reject what Le Pen's party offers.... In the first of two rounds of voting, he lost in spectacular fashion.... For Biden and the Democrats, one lesson from Sunday's voting in France seems clear. Trying to scare voters with grim predictions of what a Trump victory would mean for the future of American democracy might not be sufficient to win in November."

Tim Miller in the Bulwark takes apart Democratic gaslighting of President Biden's debate performance. No, it was not "just a bad night" similar to those Presidents Obama & Reagan had in their first presidential debates of the year. Thanks to laura h. for the link. (Also linked yesterday.)

Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times: "Though Joe Biden's debate performance last week was among the most painful things I've ever witnessed, it at least seemed to offer clarity. Suddenly, even many people who love this president realized that his campaign has become untenable.... Since then, several news reports have made it clear that the Biden we all saw onstage is familiar to those who see him behind the scenes.... As long as there's time to replace Biden, Democrats should not allow themselves to be bullied into fatalism and complacency."

"Lady MacBiden." Jacob Bernstein of the New York Times: "The August cover of Vogue featuring Dr. Jill Biden was released online Monday -- four days after the big debate -- and brought with it a fresh round of scrutiny over her role as a die-hard campaigner for her husband, who is locked in a nail-biting campaign for re-election.... Dr. Biden took center stage after Mr. Biden struggled to finish his sentences during a dismal debate performance on Thursday against ... Donald J. Trump. Afterward, The New York Times reported that Dr. Biden was the first person he had turned to: 'The first lady's message to him was clear: They'd been counted out before, she was all in, and he -- they -- would stay in the race.'... Soon after the magazine posted the cover image to its Instagram account on Monday, the comments were overwhelmingly negative." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: If I were Vogue editor Anna Wintour, I would have rushed another cover story to print: maybe Steve Bannon with his lovely layered-shirts look (perfect for summer!) and the question of what-all he will be wearing under his orange jumpsuit. Really, people who run things should leave more decisions to me.

Marie: It takes a lot to get Jim VandeHei & Mike Allen of Axios concerned about the dim prospects for Western liberal democracy in the U.S., but darned if Trump and the Supremes didn't do it: "Former President Trump, if re-elected, plans to immediately test the boundaries of presidential and governing power, knowing the restraints of Congress and the courts are dramatically looser than during his first term, his advisers tell us.... It's not just the Supreme Court ruling on Monday that presidents enjoy substantial legal immunity for actions in office. Trump would come to office with a Cabinet and staff pre-vetted for loyalty, and a fully compliant Republican coalition in Congress -- devoid of critics in positions of real power.... Trump promises an unabashedly imperial presidency -- one that would turn the Justice Department against critics, deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally, slap 10% tariffs on thousands of products, and fire perhaps tens of thousands of government staff deemed insufficiently loyal. He'd stretch the powers of the presidency in ways not seen in our lifetime. He says this consistently and clearly -- so it's not conjecture." Read on.

~~~~~~~~~~

France. The Center Did Not Hold. Roger Cohen of the New York Times: "An era has ended in France. The seven-year domination of national politics by President Emmanuel Macron was laid to rest by his party's overwhelming defeat in the first round of parliamentary elections on Sunday. Not only did he dissolve Parliament by calling a snap vote, he effectively dissolved the centrist movement known as 'Macronism.' The far-right National Rally, in winning a third of the vote, did not guarantee that it will win an absolute majority in a runoff six days from now, although it will likely get close. But Mr. Macron, risking all by calling the election, did end up guaranteeing that he will be marginalized, with perhaps no more than a third of the seats his party now holds."

News Lede

Washington Post: "Hurricane Beryl is now a 'potentially catastrophic' Category 5 hurricane, the earliest ever to reach that strength in the Atlantic. The storm, fueled by record-warm waters, made landfall on Grenada's Carriacou Island on Monday as an 'extremely dangerous' Category 4 hurricane with winds that had increased to 150 mph. Grenada and the nation of St. Vincent and the Grenadines were reeling from a storm that probably will be the region's most intense hurricane on record."

The Conversation -- July 1, 2024

Marie: Donald Trump now has an Article II that lets him do whatever he wants. This is an embarrassing and shameful country. My generation and the next have so failed the nation that it probably will never recover. Even if recovery is possible, we won't climb out of this hole for a century. If the purpose in life is to leave the world better than it was when we entered it, we have failed spectacularly. Radical right-wingers have nothing to crow about; they are the perps, the barbarians who scaled the gates, the monsters in the horror story. Welcome to the World's Biggest New Banana Republic; we are all Carmen Miranda now.

Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that ... Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution, delivering a major statement on the scope of presidential power. The ruling will almost surely delay the trial of the case against him on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election past the coming election in November. The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said Mr. Trump had at least presumptive immunity for his official acts. He added that the trial judge must undertake an intensive factual review to separate official and unofficial conduct and to assess whether prosecutors can overcome the presumption protecting Mr. Trump for his official conduct. That will entail significant delays, and the prospects for a trial before the election seem vanishingly remote. If Mr. Trump prevails at the polls, he could order the Justice Department to drop the charges." ~~~

     ~~~ Here's the decision, concurring opinions and dissents, via the Court. ~~~

~~~ From the New York Times liveblog:

Charlie Savage: "The Supreme Court has ruled 6 to 3 that former presidents have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts in office.... The Supreme Court has remanded the case to the Federal District Court judge overseeing the matter, Tanya Chutkan, to determine the nature of the acts for which former President Trump has been charged -- which are unofficial ones he undertook in his personal capacity and which are official ones he undertook as president."

Alan Feuer: "... one of the practical effects of it on Trump's federal election case in Washington is that he will now enjoy immunity from any allegation in the indictment concerning his dealings with the Justice Department. Recall that one of the main accusations was that Trump sought to install a loyalist, Jeff Clark, as acting attorney general in order, the indictment says, to do his bid in claiming there was fraud in the election.... Another practical effect on the ruling; The justices have ordered that the trial judge, Tanya Chutkan, will have to determine whether Trump is immune from prosecution on allegations related to his pressure campaign on his vice president, Mike Pence."

Savage: "As Justice Sotomayor's appalled dissent makes clear, this ruling is a dramatic expansion of presidential power -- not just for Trump but for all presidents. She cites the notorious World War II ruling that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans on the West Coast. '... The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.... "

Savage: :In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the legitimacy of the appointment of the special counsel, Jack Smith: 'If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people.' That is an issue that the judge in the Trump classified documents case, Aileen Cannon, just held a hearing about. Notably, none of the other eight justices joined his concurring opinion."

Maggie Haberman: "Trump posted a victorious message on his social media site, Truth Social: 'BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!'"

Feuer: "Chief Justice Roberts's ruling expresses skepticism that Trump could be prosecuted for the speech he gave on Jan. 6 or any of his tweets that day. Roberts notes that 'most of a president's public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.' But he leaves open the possibility that Trump could face charges for his words if they were delivered as 'a candidate for office'."

Adam Liptak: "Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., rejecting calls for their disqualification, participated in the decision on the scope of ... Donald J. Trump's immunity from prosecution. Experts in legal ethics have said that the activities of the justices' wives raised serious questions about their impartiality."

Simon Levien: "In a call with reporters, the Biden campaign is using the decision to sound an alarm. 'They just handed Donald Trump the keys to a dictatorship,' Quentin Fulks, the deputy campaign manager, said. 'We have to do everything in our power to stop him.'"

Feuer: "Here's one of the sleeper holdings in the court's ruling: The decision finds not only that a president can't be charged for any official acts, but also that evidence involving official acts can't be introduced to bolster accusations made about unofficial acts. If I'm reading this right, Chief Justice Roberts has reversed himself from his position during oral arguments."

~~~ CNN's liveblog is here.~~~

From Justice Sotomayor's "scathing" dissent, joined by Kagan & Jackson: "Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.... With fear for our democracy, I dissent.'"

Marie: During oral arguments Justice Jackson worried the Oval Office could become a "crime center." Done.

Lindsay Whitehurst & Susan Haigh of the AP: "Longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon was taken into custody Monday after surrendering at a federal prison to begin a four-month sentence on contempt charges for defying a subpoena in the congressional investigation into the U.S. Capitol attack. Bannon arrived at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut, around noon and was formally taken into federal custody, the Bureau of Prisons said. Speaking to reporters, Bannon called himself a 'political prisoner,' said ... Donald Trump was 'very supportive' of him and slammed Democrats, including Attorney General Merrick Garland. 'I am proud of going to prison,' Bannon said, adding he was 'standing up to the Garland corrupt DOJ.'"

Tim Miller in the Bulwark takes apart Democratic gaslighting of President Biden's debate performance. No, it was not "just a bad night" similar to those Presidents Obama & Reagan had in their first presidential debates of the year. thanks to laura h. for the link.

~~~~~~~~~~

Presidential Race -- No Job for Old Men

Jim Rutenberg & Adam Nagourney of the New York Times: "Barely seven weeks before Democrats gather in Chicago to formally nominate [President] Biden for a second term, the Democratic Party is in crisis.... [How that happened] is a complicated mix of historical circumstance and structural deficiencies, a party struggling with ideological and generational fissures, and an aging Democratic president who spent his life battling for this job.... Interviews with top party strategists, office holders and people close to Democrats seen as possible presidential hopefuls suggest that, just as crucially, party leaders were lulled into complacency or pressed to step in line at crucial moments when they might have persuaded Mr. Biden to step aside.... Candidates who might have considered challenging Mr. Biden, after reviewing his weaknesses, yielded in the face of the threat of backlash from a party united behind its president."

Katie Rogers & Peter Baker of the New York Times: "President Biden's family is urging him to stay in the race and keep fighting despite last week's disastrous debate performance, even as some members of his clan privately expressed exasperation at how he was prepared for the event by his staff, people close to the situation said on Sunday. Mr. Biden huddled with his wife, children and grandchildren at Camp David while he tried to figure out how to tamp down Democratic anxiety. While his relatives were acutely aware of how poorly he did against ... Donald J. Trump, they argued that he could still show the country that he remains capable of serving for another four years.... One of the people informed about the situation said 'the entire family is united' and added flatly that the president was not getting out of the race and had not discussed doing so.... The anger among Democrats was made evident on Sunday when John Morgan, a top Democratic donor who is close to Mr. Biden's brother Frank, publicly blamed the advisers who managed the president's debate preparations, citing by name Ron Klain, Anita Dunn and Bob Bauer....

"A new poll by CBS News found strong sentiment among Democratic voters for Mr. Biden, 81, to cede the way to a younger nominee. Forty-five percent of Democrats said they wanted a different candidate to take on the battle with Mr. Trump. Among voters overall, just 27 percent think Mr. Biden has the mental and cognitive health to serve as president, down from 35 percent before the debate."

     ~~~ Marie: Sorry, but the Biden family and his close advisers are living in some kind of fantasy world where they refuse to see what's right in front of them. And they're engaging in what amounts to elder abuse as they push Joe to perform beyond his abilities. Anybody can have a cold and a bad night, but not like what we saw and heard. Shame on all of them. ~~~

~~~ A Family in Denial. Jonathan Lemire & Lauren Egan of Politico: "Members of Joe Biden's family privately trashed his top campaign advisers at Camp David this weekend, blaming them for the president's flop in Thursday's debate and urging Biden to fire or demote people in his political high command.... Among the family's complaints about the debate practice: that Biden was not prepared to pivot more to go on the attack; that he was bogged down too much on defending his record rather than outlining a vision for a second term; and that he was over-worked and not well-rested. The blame was cast widely on staffers, including: Anita Dunn, the senior adviser who frequently has the president's ear; her husband, Bob Bauer, the president's attorney who played Trump in rehearsals at Camp David; and Ron Klain, the former chief of staff who ran point on the debate prep and previous cycles' sessions." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: Wait, Wait. You think he's capable to run a nation of 333 million people, but he can't run his own debate prep? Nearly everybody close to Joe Biden shares the blame for this disaster, and the family is perpetuating the crisis.

Tyler Pager of the Washington Post: "President Biden's debate prep went fine. In the sessions, the president still spoke haltingly. He sometimes confused facts and figures. He tripped over words and meandered. Debate prep would not fix his stutter or make him appear any younger, aides knew... The president, they said, was prepared and would perform well.... So aides were bewildered by his performance. Many felt they had never seen him collapse so dramatically.... The president did not just stumble over words. He appeared to lose his focus and often was unable to finish sentences. His voice was raspy and thin, and when the debate concluded, first lady Jill Biden appeared to help her husband down the stairs." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: I do not find it believable that a gang of seasoned politicos spent a week prepping President Biden for the debate and none of them noticed that he was far from able to perform. If some hadn't seen him for a while so didn't realize how much he'd slipped, they surely knew it several days into debate prep. There is no excuse for their pushing that old man out on the stage where they had to no he would fall flat on his face.

Fritz Farrow, et al., of ABC News: "President Joe Biden's campaign on Saturday night, in a fundraising appeal to supporters, said the president dropping out would only 'lead to weeks of chaos' and leave the eventual replacement weakened ahead of a November faceoff with ... Donald Trump. 'The bedwetting brigade is calling for Joe Biden to "drop out." That is the best possible way for Donald Trump to win and us to lose,' Biden deputy campaign manager Rob Flaherty argued in the email to supporters." MB: An ignorant, partisan, shortsighted, negative POV. The Democratic convention could be the most exciting party convention in our lifetimes, and it would turn into "chaos" only if Biden and other party leaders and convention organizers planned it to be chaotic. The eventual winner should be ushered in like a hero on a white horse, saving the country from disaster. If Democrats can do anything right. (Also linked yesterday.)

Alex Thompson of Axios: "Joe Biden's close aides have carefully shielded him from people inside and outside the White House since the beginning of his presidency.... Current and former White House aides are feeling whiplash -- and now questioning whether Biden could fulfill a second term.... Biden's behavior stunned many in the White House in part because Biden's closest aides -- often led by Jill Biden's top aide, Anthony Bernal, and deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini -- took steps early in his term to essentially rope off the president. Even the White House's residence staff, which serves the first family in the mansion's living quarters, has been kept at arm's length."

Alexandra Marquez of NBC News: "Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., on Sunday acknowledged that there are 'very honest, and serious and rigorous conversations taking place' in the Democratic Party following President Joe Biden's dismal performance at the presidential debate on Thursday. Raskin's remarks are a break from what most top Democrats have said publicly in their defense of the president.... But privately, NBC News reported Saturday, top Democrats are concerned about Biden's campaign. 'We're having a serious conversation about what to do,' Raskin said in an interview with MSNBC's Ali Velshi on Sunday morning...."

~~~~~~~~~~

Nevada. Isabelle Taft of the New York Times: "Nevada residents will vote on whether to protect the right to abortion in the state this November, as abortion rights groups try to continue their winning streak with measures that put the issue directly before voters. The Nevada secretary of state's office certified on Friday the ballot initiative to amend the State Constitution to include an explicit right to abortion after verifying the signatures required. The group behind the measure, Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, submitted 200,000 signatures in May, nearly 100,000 more than needed."

~~~~~~~~~~

France. Roger Cohen of the New York Times: "The National Rally party on Sunday won a crushing victory in the first round of voting for the French National Assembly, according to early projections, bringing its long-taboo brand of nationalist and anti-immigrant politics to the threshold of power for the first time. Pollster projections, which are normally reliable and are based on preliminary results, suggested that the party would take about 34 percent of the vote, far ahead of President Emmanuel Macron's centrist Renaissance party and its allies, which took about 22 percent to end in third place. A coalition of left-wing parties, called the New Popular Front and ranging from the moderate socialists to the far-left France Unbowed, won about 29 percent of the vote boosted by strong support among young people, according to the projections. Turnout was high at about 67 percent.... The two-round election will be completed with a runoff on July 7 between the leading parties in each constituency." The BBC's story is here.

News Lede

New York Times: "Beryl developed into a record-breaking Category 4 hurricane on Sunday -- the earliest in a season that a storm has reached such strength -- as forecasters warned it would continue to rapidly intensify while moving west toward the Caribbean Sea. Before Beryl, the earliest Category 4 hurricane on record was Hurricane Dennis on July 8, 2005. The first hurricane of the 2024 season, Beryl is expected to bring 'life-threatening winds and storm surge' to the Windward Islands, southeast of Puerto Rico and north of Venezuela, the National Hurricane Center said on Sunday."

The Conversation -- June 30, 2024

Presidential Race

Fritz Farrow, et al., of ABC News: "President Joe Biden's campaign on Saturday night, in a fundraising appeal to supporters, said the president dropping out would only 'lead to weeks of chaos' and leave the eventual replacement weakened ahead of a November faceoff with ... Donald Trump. 'The bedwetting brigade is calling for Joe Biden to "drop out." That is the best possible way for Donald Trump to win and us to lose,' Biden deputy campaign manager Rob Flaherty argued in the email to supporters." MB: An ignorant, partisan, shortsighted POV. The Democratic convention could be the most exciting party convention in our lifetimes, and it would turn into "chaos" only if Biden and other party leaders and convention organizers planned it to be chaotic. The eventual winner should be ushered in like a hero on a white horse, saving the country from disaster. If Democrats can do anything right.

~~~~~~~~~~

Carol Lee, et al., of NBC: News: "President Joe Biden is expected to discuss the future of his re-election campaign with family at Camp David on Sunday, following a nationally televised debate Thursday that left many fellow Democrats worried about his ability to beat ... Donald Trump in November, according to five people familiar with the matter. Biden's trip was planned before Thursday's debate. He and first lady Jill Biden are scheduled to join their children and grandchildren there late Saturday.... One Democratic House member who believes Biden should drop out of the race -- but has yet to call for that publicly -- told NBC News that three colleagues expressed the same sentiment to him during votes on the House floor Friday."

Lisa Lerer, et al., of the New York Times: "The 48 hours after the debate were a frenzied campaign within a campaign to save [President] Biden's suddenly teetering candidacy, a multiday damage-control effort to pressure and plead with anxious Democratic lawmakers, surrogates, activists and donors to stand by the president.... His campaign has been criticized as insular and insistent, so the burst of activity signaled that the debate fallout had turned into a real crisis that spun those in his orbit into a frantic battle mode.... After a frenetic run of seven campaign events across four states since the debate, Mr. Biden himself is taking a pause for a preplanned family gathering at Camp David. He arrived late on Saturday and will be joined by his wife, Jill Biden..., as well as the Biden children and grandchildren, according to two people familiar with the scheduling.... But the timing and circumstances of Mr. Biden being surrounded by the very family members who have been crucial in his past decisions to run for the presidency -- or to sit out a race -- have heightened the stakes and scrutiny surrounding the Camp David retreat"

Toluse Olorunnipa & Matt Viser of the Washington Post: "... after a debate performance where his stumbles and meandering responses sent shock waves through the Democratic Party, [President] Biden's enormously consequential decision to run as an 81-year-old after initially saying he would be a transitional figure has come under harsher scrutiny, raising fresh questions about his small circle of advisers and the Democratic leaders who facilitated his unprecedented push to remain in office until age 86.... There were always warning signs. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in September 2022 showed that 56 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents said the party should pick someone else as their nominee.... 'Obviously that debate was a [f----ing] disaster,' Jon Favreau, a former Obama speechwriter and podcast host, wrote on X afterward, suggesting that Democrats needed to have a 'serious discussion' about replacing Biden as their nominee." (Also linked yesterday.)

Kara Voght of the Washington Post: Jill Biden is still backing her husband's candidacy -- and providing cover. MB: Sounds like an intervention is required here, too.

Gregory Krieg, et al., of CNN: "... the Democratic donor class is in crisis, racked by anxiety over what -- if anything -- the party's wealthiest backers can do to reinvigorate or replace [President] Biden, whose campaign has commissioned new polling to assess the damage. The vast universe of wealthy Biden backers and their political whisperers has split along three lines. One faction is arguing that a pressure campaign urging the president -- who has been adamant he will not step aside -- to drop out would be a self-defeating nonstarter. Another is calling for a middle-of-the road approach, saying party leaders should consider drastic steps only after the fallout from Thursday night is more closely examined.... A third group of donors and advisers, with fewer direct ties to Biden world and less influence within it, is proactively calling on Democrats to quit wasting time and immediately begin the process of seeking out a new nominee...."

David Remnick of the New Yorker: "For the President to insist on remaining the Democratic candidate would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment.... At this point, for the Bidens to insist on defying biology, to think that a decent performance at one rally or speech can offset the indelible images of Thursday night, is folly.... So much -- perhaps too much -- now depends on one man, his family, and his very small inner circle coming to a painful and selfless conclusion. And yet Joe Biden always wanted to be thought of as human, vulnerable, someone like you and me.... There is no shame in growing old. There is honor in recognizing the hard demands of the moment." Firewalled.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times: "In Washington, people often become what they start out scorning. This has happened to Joe Biden. In his misguided quest for a second term that would end when he's 86, he has succumbed to behavior redolent of Trump. And he is jeopardizing the democracy he says he wants to save.... Jill Biden, lacking the detachment of a Melania and enjoying the role of first lady more, has been pushing -- and shielding -- her husband, beyond a reasonable point.... He has age-related issues, and those go in only one direction.... James Carville, who also said awhile back that the president should renounce a second term, told me Biden should call former Presidents Clinton and Obama to the White House and decide on five Democratic stars to address their convention in August." (Also linked yesterday.)

Paul Kane of the Washington Post: "Democratic voters and lawmakers keep backing much older candidates for president and congressional leadership posts, even though there are plenty of youthful up-and-comers." (Also linked yesterday.)

digby: "... it must be noted ... that as much as Biden blew the debate and missed his opportunity to dispel the concerns about his age, Donald Trump blew it too. He may have appeared more vigorous but he couldn't control himself and behaved once again like the undisciplined, lying, vulgarian who half the country already hates.... He spewed a torrent of lies, was rude and insulting and delivered what was probably the most memorable line in any presidential debate in history: ... 'I didn't have sex with a porn star.'... That's the least of his various crimes and sexual misbehavior but it's the one he felt compelled to deny.... He made faces and insulted Biden to his face, at one point calling him a criminal and a Manchurian candidate. If anyone had said 10 years ago that this would happen at a presidential debate they would have been laughed out of the room....

"Biden has been a successful president in my book and I have every expectation that his administration will continue on that path in a second term. But if he becomes convinced that this debate has ruined his chances and he decides to drop out, I just hope that the party can resist the temptation to devolve into a bloodletting free-for-all that empowers Trump even more. If there was ever a time to keep calm and carry on it's now." ~~~

~~~ Philadelphia Inquirer Editors: "... lost in the hand wringing [over President Biden's disastrous debate performance] was Donald Trump's usual bombastic litany of lies, hyperbole, bigotry, ignorance, and fear mongering. His performance demonstrated once again that he is a danger to democracy and unfit for office.... The only person who should withdraw from the race is Trump. Trump, 78, has been on the political stage for eight years marked by chaos, corruption, and incivility. Why go back to that?... He dodged the CNN moderators' questions, took no responsibility for his actions, and blamed others, mainly Biden, for everything that is wrong in the world. Trump's response to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection he fueled was farcical. The debate served as a reminder of what another four years of Trump would look like. More lies, grievance, narcissism, and hate. Supporters say they like Trump because he says whatever he thinks. But he mainly spews raw sewage.... During his last term..., Trump spent chunks of time watching TV, tweeting, and hanging out at his country clubs.... Trump didn't read the daily intelligence briefs. He continued to use his personal cell phone, allowing Chinese spies to listen to his calls.... Trump didn't read the daily intelligence briefs. He continued to use his personal cell phone, allowing Chinese spies to listen to his calls." ~~~

     ~~~ Cheryl Rofer in LG&$ is of the impression that this Inquirer editorial is not firewalled. MB: I was able to access the editorial. If you cannot, Rofer has a bit more of it here. The editorial is a summary of the Trump's Greatest Hits.

Shane Goldmacher of the New York Times: "Donald J. Trump's top advisers are planning to drastically scale back and simplify the official platform of the Republican Party, according to a memo sent to the party's platform committee.... The memo -- signed by Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles, the former president's two lead advisers -- described their efforts to pare down the platform 'to ensure our policy commitments to the American people are clear, concise and easily digestible.' It dismissed past platforms as needlessly 'textbook-long' documents shaped by 'special interest influence' that had left the party and its nominee open to attacks from Democrats." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: The follow-up memo -- which I have obtained in a Reality Chex Exclusive -- lays out the full text of the new platform: "Trump alone can fix it."

Maxiine Joselow of the Washington Post: "The Biden administration moved Friday to protect 28 million acres of public lands in Alaska from oil and gas drilling, mining and other industrial activities that could threaten Alaska Native communities, vulnerable wildlife and pristine ecosystems. The move bolsters President Biden's conservation record..., and it may help him court climate activists.... But his latest decision is certain to anger Alaska lawmakers, including Rep. Mary Peltola, a popular Democrat who faces a tough reelection race.... In a final environmental impact statement released Friday, the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management outlined several options for managing 28 million acres of public property across Alaska. The 'preferred alternative' calls for retaining protections for these lands that the Trump administration had proposed revoking. In a separate announcement Friday, the Bureau of Land Management finalized its decision to block a controversial road in northern Alaska. Although Ambler Road would be crucial to operating a planned copper and zinc mine, the agency determined that its construction would cause irreparable harm to Alaska Native communities and the already declining Western Arctic caribou herd." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: No need to fret, Alaskans. With a new Trump presidency* on the horizon, "Drill, Baby, Drill" is just around the corner -- assuming potential miners sufficiently grease Trump's palms. I'm thinking a Trump-licensed fishing resort on federal lands. Featuring maybe an Alito Bar & Grill and a Clarence & Ginni Ballroom to make sure there are no Article III hiccups.

Scott Dance of the Washington Post: "The torrent of water pushing the Rapidan Dam to the brink of failure this week came from one of southern Minnesota's wettest stretches on record. For the second time in five years, near-record floods pounded the century-old structure and clogged it with trees that died during intervening years of drought.... Though this crisis didn't live up to [realistic] worries, it underscored ways that extreme precipitation could overwhelm infrastructure not designed to endure it -- and how other environmental, economic and social problems can cascade from there, experts said.... 'We're not prepared for this new climate regime,' said Whitney Clark, executive director of Friends of the Mississippi River.... Around the country, infrastructure is being tested by new precipitation extremes." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: Not to worry. Trump alone can fix it. When he's president* again, we'll have Infrastructure Week every week, just like before. There's nothing quite like a Trump Infrastructure Week. Well, except for all the other Trump Infrastructure Weeks, when, on account of Article II, he does whatever the hell he wants. ~~~

** The Verge: "Since the New Deal era, the bulk of the functioning US government is the administrative state.... Even when Capitol Hill is not mired in deep dysfunction, the speed at which Congress and the courts operate no longer seems suitable for modern life. Both industry and ordinary people look to the administrative state, rather than legislators, for an immediate answer to their problems. And since 1984, the administrative state largely ran on one Supreme Court precedent: Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).That decision has now been overturned.... The administrative state touches everything around us: net neutrality, climate change, clean air and water, and what scant consumer protections we have." Read on. Various Verge staff report on how the Court has weakened the administrative state and speculate on how overturning Chevron will further undermine federal government protections of American life. ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: Bear in mind that the new "deciders" will be federal judges with no expertise on the matters before them. Some are intelligent enough to recognize their ignorance, of course, and will go right ahead and defer to the agencies. But others, like some of those Trump appointees deemed unqualified by the ABA even to be judges at all, are ideologues whose judgments will always oppose any sort of effective regulation of business & industry or any sort of "meddling" by medical, scientific or safety experts. And the final arbiters will be those six winger Supremes who reckon the best analyses are to be found in friend-of-the-court briefs submitted by biased, corrupt, right-wing zealots.

** Dave Philipps of the New York Times: "At least a dozen Navy SEALs have died by suicide in the last 10 years, either while in the military or shortly after leaving. A grass-roots effort by grieving families delivered eight of their brains to the lab, an investigation by The New York Times has found. And after careful analysis, researchers discovered blast damage in every single one. It is a stunning pattern with important implications for how SEALs train and fight. But privacy guidelines at the lab and poor communication in the military bureaucracy kept the test results hidden. Five years after Lieutenant [David] Metcalf's death [by suicide], Navy leaders still did not know. Until The Times told the Navy of the lab's findings about the SEALs who died by suicide, the Navy had not been informed, the service confirmed in a statement.... The vast majority of blast exposure for Navy SEALs comes from firing their own weapons, not from enemy action. The damage pattern suggested that years of training intended to make SEALs exceptional was leaving some barely able to function." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: This might be the most shocking instance of "failure to communicate" that I have ever read. My best guess is that this inexcusable failure is the result of rigid chain-of-command rules, wherein reports from "random agencies and facilities" have almost no way of reaching leadership. This is the great flaw in the testosterone-heavy top-down org chart and a military code that eschews rocking the boat. Here lives were lost, others ruined or diminished and families shattered because of it. And for no good reason.

~~~~~~~~~~

Oklahoma. Kate Selig of the New York Times: "A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked Oklahoma from enforcing its new immigration law that would make it a crime to enter the state without legal authorization to be in the United States. The ruling, issued just days before the law was set to go into effect on Monday, is the latest legal setback for Republican-controlled states that have tested the limits of their role in immigration by passing their own legislation meant to crack down on people who crossed the border illegally. The Justice Department maintains that only the federal government can regulate and enforce immigration." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: Don't worry, Oklahomans. The Supremes will fix that right up for ya. They are totally into letting local communities decide whose very existence is criminal. You will soon be rid of the masses yearning to breathe free.

~~~~~~~~~~

Iran. Farnaz Fassihi, et al., of the New York Times: "A reformist candidate critical of many of the Iranian government's policies, including the mandatory head scarf law, will compete next week against a hard-line conservative in a runoff election for the country's presidency, Iran's interior ministry announced on Saturday. The runoff follows a special vote called after the death last month of the previous leader, Ebrahim Raisi, in a helicopter crash. A second round of voting, which will pit the reformist, Masoud Pezeshkian, against Saeed Jalili, an ultraconservative former nuclear negotiator, will take place on July 5."