Willing That Crowded Field Into Existence

Hello! It’s the weekend, this is The Weekender. ☕

I went to an ecstatic dance class recently because I’m not dead yet and I spend most days of my life absorbing a lot of bleak stuff and the human species has been collectively losing its mind for the past like two-and-a-half-years and this is the sort of spontaneous thing we must try in order to keep joy and hope and awkwardness alive.

It was perhaps the most out-of-place I’ve felt in my 30 years. But it wasn’t terrible. My classmates were the kind of vivacious people who hug as freely as they sweat. We did a guided chant(?) at the end to send strength to those hurt most by Roe being overturned (which had happened that day). I tried a kratom tea.  

There was a lot of talk about manifesting, both during the interesting chant and as a principle of the ecstatic dance movement as a whole. I am not a hippie. I clearly live in the physical world. I approach each day from a pretty grounded place (even if said grounding gets a little shaky after a morning dose of headlines). But I do think we all practice manifestation in our own ways without realizing it — talking about something enough that it takes on a life of its own; vocalizing an idea into existence. 

We are seeing this, in fact, from none other than Mitch McConnell. (Jarring transition, I apologize).

As he avoided weighing in on Trump’s potential 2024 bid this week, he attempted to will another reality into existence: Instead of responding to a reporter’s question about that eventuality, McConnell pivoted to talk about what he envisions will be a “crowded” presidential primary season for Republicans. Others quickly followed his lead, with people like Dan Crenshaw suggesting there are “a lot of good options” for 2024 and John Thune talking about “other attractive” candidates – candidates who do not yet exist. 

It is a way, perhaps, to subtly discourage Trump – who is not looking too hot after this week’s Jan. 6 hearing – without directly attracting his ire. Unfortunately, the man is not known for being attuned to subtleties. 

Maybe McConnell also needs to take that Brooklyn ecstatic dance class. 

More on other news below. Let’s dig in. 

— Nicole Lafond

What Did We Learn About Trump’s Actions During The Capitol Attack?

The Congressional Jan. 6 Committee held its last scheduled hearing Thursday, though we were promised more in September, and the panel focused nearly the entire time on the 187-minute span between the end of Donald Trump’s speech at the White House Ellipse and the 4:17 p.m. Twitter video when, finally, he told the mob he’d sicced on the Capitol to go home.

Our coverage focused on the harrowing Secret Service communications from that day, as well as the ranks of Republicans who, previously eager to stoke the Trumpian flames, now ran in fear from the raging fire.

But what about Trump?

Well: We know an unidentified White House staffer told him minutes after his speech ended at 1:10 p.m. that the Capitol was under attack. We know Trump called Rudy Giuliani twice during the riot, at 1:39 and 2:03 p.m. We know Trump was watching television basically the entire time, ignoring the pleas of aides who beseeched him to send the mob home.

We know Trump drafted a tweet after the violence was mostly over, gloating that “These are the things and events that happen” when an election is, in his telling, stolen. We know he showed it to a White House aide, Nick Luna, before sending it, and that Luna told Trump, “the wording on the first sentence would lead some to believe that, potentially, he had something to do with the events that happened at the Capitol.” We know Trump sent the tweet anyway, unchanged.
 

And we know Trump’s White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, happily testified “I can’t think of anybody” in the White House staff who didn’t want people to get out of the Capitol once the violence started on Jan. 6. What about the President himself? Cipollone looked at his lawyer, knowingly. “I can’t reveal communications,” he said.

— Matt Shuham

Congressional Democrats Subtweet Clarence Thomas

The House has already passed legislation centered on protecting contraception access and the legitimacy of same-sex marriages, should the Supreme Court act on Justice Clarence Thomas’ orders and “reconsider” those two precedents.

The exercise began as what might look like a pure messaging effort — Senate Democratic leadership was noncommittal about bringing them to the floor, assuming Republican obstinance.

That, at least, has changed. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that he intends to bring the marriage bill to a vote; he has not publicly said whether he will with the contraception one yet. He has tasked Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), an openly gay lawmaker, with sussing out whether the same-sex marriage bill can win 10 Republican votes.

It’s much less than a slam dunk. So far, five Republicans have at least expressed openness to voting for it: Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Rob Portman (R-OH), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME). Of those, only Collins and Portman seem to be locked-in yeses.

And that’s still five short of the requisite tally to overcome the filibuster. It’s hard to see who the others would be, especially given that usual line-crosser Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UH) sounds pretty disinterested (“I don’t think we need to lose sleep over it unless there were a development that suggested the law was going to be changed,” he told the New York Times.)

The contraception bill has even less Republican support, though Murkowski said that she’s working on her own version of the legislation.

Many Democrats see voting on the bills as a win-win. Either the laws pass, granting a layer of protection to worried people and giving Democrats a win against the Supreme Court — or they fail due to Republican opposition, giving Dems an additional issue to run on for the midterms. 

— Kate Riga

• Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon was convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress Friday after a jury trial in Washington, D.C. In all, the jury took less than three hours to deliberate. Read more here.
• Star Axios reporter Jonathan Swan published a long report (summary here) this week focused on “Schedule F,” a little-covered Trumpian effort to make it way easier to fire tens of thousands of federal government workers without any cause whatsoever — and, crucially, to easily replace them with ideological foot soldiers. That’s in addition to the thousands of political appointees that presidents typically are allowed to hire and fire. Matt Shuham unpacks more on “Schedule F” here.
• Is This The Election Safeguard Legislation We’ve Been Waiting For?
• Bernie isn’t pleased with Manchin: “He didn’t abruptly do anything,” Bernie Sanders said. “He has sabotaged the President’s agenda.”

“If I pull this off, it’s going to be a miracle.”

– Arizona state House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R) on Monday telling NBC News about his chances of winning his primary race for Arizona state Senate.

Bowers is well aware he has a gigantic target on his back after serving as a key witness in one of the House Jan. 6 Committee’s public hearings, during which he testified that Trump tried to pressure him into going along with the fake Trump elector scheme.

In fact, one day after Bowers admitted his campaign was in deep doo-doo, the Arizona Republican Party’s executive committee voted to censure him, declaring that Bowers is “no longer a Republican in good standing.” However, the censure didn’t mention the GOP leader’s testimony. Instead, the committee claimed it was about Bowers’ legislative votes.

— Cristina Cabrera