Editors’ Blog

There’s a fascinating passage in these new Trump election lawyer memos from the pre-January 6th period. One particularly jumped out at me in which Trump campaign lawyer Kenneth Chesebro casually runs down the relative difficulty of stealing the election in each of the key states.

“In conclusion, it appears that voting by an alternative slate of electors is unproblematic in Arizona and Wisconsin; slightly problematic in Michigan (requiring access to the senate chamber); somewhat dicey in Georgia and Pennsylvania in the event that one or more electors don’t attend (require gubernatorial ratification of alternates); and very problematic in Nevada (given the role accorded to the Secretary of State).”

A new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast is live! This week, Josh and Kate discuss news around the Supreme Court nomination, including the Republican reaction, and the push for legislative election reform.

You can listen to the new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast here.

Perhaps I’m just so dispirited after a year of being forced to analyze and discuss Joe Manchin on a daily basis. But I find myself compelled to resort to media criticism for the second time in a week. I read this morning that Whoopi Goldberg has been suspended for two weeks from The View for her earlier comments about the Holocaust. This whole episode is a testament to the general insipidness of our public culture.

Goldberg’s comments were clearly rooted in ignorance rather than malevolence. She not only issued a genuine apology rather than a half-assed ‘I’m sorry if anyone was offended’ type apology. She also spoke to people, privately and publicly, and seemingly learned why her comments were wrongheaded and corrected herself. ABC’s suspension was needless and stupid. It will be derided as “cancel culture.” But it’s really more the kind of corporate ass-covering that only discredits the values it purports to serve. It’s a consequence that, as far as I can tell, basically no one was asking for.

On the first day of Black History Month this week, there were a string of bomb threats made targeting historically Black colleges and universities in the U.S. The FBI announced today that it would be looking into those threats and investigating them as “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism and hate crimes.”

“This investigation is of the highest priority for the bureau and involves more than 20 FBI field offices across the country,” the FBI said in a statement, noting the probe was “of the highest priority for the bureau.”

I confess to some feelings of pessimism (something I’m usually characterologically and ideologically opposed to) and drift about the current political moment. But despite the frequent and understandable claims that none of it matters, there’s more going on than people maybe realize with ex-President Trump and the January 6th investigators. Here I don’t mean specifically what the investigators are coming up with — though I think there’s a lot going on there too. I’m talking about Trump’s efforts to manage the Republican response to those findings and its on-going work.

? ? ?

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is set to headline the Federalist Society’s annual conference in Florida over the weekend. It’s closed to the press. And while it may not be a great look for a sitting Supreme Court justice to speak at an ideological event, it’s not uncommon. Gorsuch has spoken at Federalist Society events in the past. In fact, all of the conservative justices on the Court currently have ties, in some form or another, to the conservative organization.

But part of what makes this year’s confab so intriguing are the prominent conservative names he will be sharing the program with.

You’ve probably seen this controversy with Joe Rogan and his podcast which now involves Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and a series of other musicians whose heydays were decades ago. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that! Most of the things I listen to are at least three or four decades old.) I noticed a Twitter exchange this morning that basically asked, ‘How is this controversy going on for so long?’ Maybe something is in the water. Or — given the centrality of COVID to this — in the air. But last night I had a similar thought: How are we still talking about this?

The whole thing seems more mundane and pedestrian than the way it’s being portrayed. Some of it is the focus on “disinformation” or “misinformation” in public discussions which traces back to or at least became ubiquitous after the revelations about Russian disinformation campaigns during the 2016 election.

Over the summer, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) signed a GOP-backed bill into law that mirrors many anti-Critical Race Theory bills that have passed in the last year or are still being considered in Republican states around the U.S. The text of the law, House Bill 2, the “Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education,” is mild in comparison to other red states’ attempts at silencing discussions of issues like systemic racism and modern racial tensions in public schools.

We’ve discussed John Durham’s crooked and parodic investigation into the “origins” of the Russia probe a number of times before. It’s shaping up to have the outlines of the notorious special counsel investigations (technically office of independent counsel investigations) that led to the old independent counsel law being allowed to lapse in the late 1990s. Durham’s probe into the “origins” of the Russia probe has now gone almost a year longer than the Mueller probe itself.

As Josh Kovensky notes here, last week Durham revealed in a court filing that he had obtained new documents he’d never seen before relevant to his prosecution of Michael Sussman, who he indicted last year for lying to to the FBI. Then on Sunday Durham dropped a new filing in which he admitted that in fact he’d been told about the documents back in 2018.

Over the weekend ex-President Trump suggested he’d pardon the various insurrectionists now either facing charges or serving time for their role in the January 6th insurrection. He’s also increasingly open in justifying his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Those promised pardons are better seen as inducements to future acts than anything directed at those involved in January 6th.