As we watch the unfolding fiasco of the debt ceiling standoff, now, in fact, a negotiation and a source of gnashing of teeth down through the ages, there’s an additional point and question I wanted to address. Over recent days I’ve had a large volume of emails asking pretty close to the same question: “Josh, can you remind me why the Democrats made the decision not to raise the debt ceiling at the end of the last Congress? I can’t understand why they decided not to do it when they had the chance.”

First, the tl;dr version: That’s not what happened.

Let me preface all this by saying I take a backseat to no one in opposition to the whole clearly anachronistic and unconstitutional debt limit regime. I was banging the drums about the absolute need for the Democrats to do just this — raise the debt limit during the lame duck session last fall and winter — at the time. In fact, there’s a video I’m about to link where I talked to a couple true experts about this last fall.

But pretending they decided not to is just false.

After months of insisting that the White House would not negotiate over debt-ceiling hostage taking, the White House now appears to be doing just that. Reports from numerous news organizations tell us that the White House is now looking for a deal to avoid a calamitous debt default. Yesterday President Biden told reporters, “I really think there’s a desire on their part, as well as ours, to reach an agreement, and I think we’ll be able to do it.” Of course, we haven’t seen any deal or its terms. So we can’t be certain we know what’s coming on that front. But in case there was any uncertainty on the process, the President provided clarity (emphasis added). “I’ve learned a long time ago, and you know as well as I do: It never is good to characterize a negotiation in the middle of a negotiation.” In other words, it makes sense to call this a “negotiation” because the President says it’s a negotiation. That’s good enough for me.

A cardinal rule of politics is remembering that you never get everything you want. But we should also be clear whether what we’re getting is what we said we wanted. This clearly isn’t it. Perhaps this was inevitable. But they’re negotiating over raising the debt ceiling even as they say maybe, somehow, that they’re not, even as they say they are?

Definitely take time this morning to read Hunter Walker’s big exclusive which we published last night. Hunter discovered that a leading member of neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes “Groyper” movement — who operates under a series of pseudonyms — actually works as a staffer on Capitol Hill. Fuentes calls Wade Searle, a staffer working in Rep. Paul Gosar’s office, “one of our strongest soldiers.” If you’re not familiar with it, Fuentes movement is explicitly racist and anti-Semitic and is probably best seen as the modern day, digital equivalent of the late 20th century Aryan Nation neo-Nazi groups.

In recent years, Gosar has flirted with the group and its leader — alternatively expressing agreement with him and then blaming misunderstandings or scheduling snafus when he comes under scrutiny for it. But as Hunter shows, the movement members are actually working in Gosar’s office — a fact that is understandably viewed as a coup and a fact of great value within the movement itself.

Let me say a few words about the piece. While the reporting is Hunter’s, a piece of this scale, complexity and sensitivity is a group effort. It’s also the product of many hours of work by Executive Editor David Kurtz and Managing Editor John Light. Your membership and support for TPM is what makes exclusives like these possible. So thank you for making this possible.

More to come.

Russia is building a planned expat village outside Moscow for right-wing Americans and Canadians who want to live under a regime of “traditional values.” Timur Beslangurov, a Russian immigration lawyer who helps MAGA-loving Americans resettle in Russia, said, “The reason is propaganda of radical values: Today they have 70 genders, and who knows what will come next.”

Does CNN have a scandal on its hands?

According to tonight’s edition of Tara Palmeri’s PuckNews newsletter (sub.req.), CNN set audience ground rules for the Trump town hall which allowed audience members to cheer Trump but not boo him.

Here’s the key part of the interview with Matthew Bartlett (emphasis added)…

I wasn’t able to watch last night’s CNN town hall. I was helping my son prepare for an AP exam. I plan to watch it later today. But I’ve already heard enough reviews and seen enough clips to see that it conforms with what we knew of the Chris Licht model. Licht, as you may know, got the CNN assignment when CNN ended up with its latest corporate overload Warner Bros. Discovery. There’s been a lot of debate about just what Licht’s brief was. But it seems to have been some mix of the ideological fancies of its new owners and a general desire to make it “less liberal.”

For many of us, the idea that CNN is or ever was “liberal” is an absurd enough proposition to get the conversation about Licht’s goals off to a pretty poor start. But the topic clarifies itself when you see the question through the lens a corporation uses to understand questions like this. We don’t need to have an abstract conversation about what constitutes “liberal” in this context. It’s much simpler than that. You’ll know it’s not “liberal” when Trump and Republicans stop attacking it.

I’ve seen various accounts of what was discussed or set forth as positions in yesterday’s meeting between President Biden and congressional leaders. So I don’t feel like I know what was discussed. But after the meeting President Biden said that while he’s been “considering the 14th Amendment” approach he’s wary because of the length of time the issue would take to litigate. He seemed to suggest that process would be too lengthy to resolve the current standoff.

I guess it’s good that he’s considering the 14th. But this answer is not only wrong and self-defeating, it suggests the White House simply isn’t in shape for this fight. Indeed, if this is where we’re at it suggests an attitude toward the courts and the broader political context which seems hopelessly stuck in the past.

Let’s walk through this.

From TPM Reader JB …

I think that the suggestion that the government pays some bills but not all of them is setting up a lawsuit more than the actual plan. SCOTUS made clear that the President does not have the choice to execute only parts of the spending of the US as commissioned by Congress in  Clinton v. City of New York.

From TPM Reader CB …

Josh, I know I’ve written to you previously about this issue, but this Yellen statement is astounding. If this is their plan, it’s a disastrous plan.

It will make enemies of those who get the short end of the stick, and ingrates of the others. The Republicans, however, will love the plan, because it leaves Biden twisting in the wind, while Republicans cackle and criticize and say to the American people, “Biden is doing this to you. All he has to do is sign on to the House bill and everyone gets paid.”

Let me follow up a bit on this post from last night about Janet Yellen’s CNBC interview. I don’t read her as ruling out “consol bonds” or the 14th amendment or various other approaches. I see her communicating two things: one overarching and one immediate and specific.

Let’s deal with the first of those first.

As we’ve hurtled closer to the cliff, there’s been a rising chorus among those who are fiercely opposed to any negotiation with parliamentary terrorists. That chorus is anxiously asking this question: what is your plan when they call your bluff? What steps are you planning once they start shooting the hostages?