Mediaboss Marketing

On Saturday, thousands of Texas Republicans approved a new platform at the 2022 party convention in Houston, and it immediately caused a furor. In addition to a number of controversial policy planks, it also called on the state legislature to authorize a referendum on secession from the United States. Here's everything you need to know about the document and what it means:

There are 275 planks in the platform that delegates voted on over the weekend, but suffice to say it is a remarkably radical document. It advocates for protecting life from "fertilization to natural death," defines homosexuality as "an abnormal lifestyle," marriage as only between "one biological man and one biological woman," and supports eliminating sex education from schools altogether. Texas Republicans are also now on record as supporting the prosecution of teachers at any grade level who discuss sexual orientation, and banning gender affirmation surgery for anyone under 21. It also endorses a complete prohibition on abortion and supports returning prayer and the Ten Commandments to public schools and buildings. It describes any and all restrictions on gun ownership, particularly those being discussed in Congress, as "a violation of the Second Amendment and of our God-given rights."

On the political side, it calls for abolishing the direct election of U.S. Senators, nullifying Supreme Court decisions, ending birthright citizenship, repealing the Voting Rights Act, and holding an Article V convention to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. It further argues for eliminating the direct election of all statewide officials in Texas, doing so instead with a state version of the Electoral College. The document endorses former President Trump's baseless 2020 election conspiracy by referring to "acting President Biden" and claiming that he was "not legitimately elected." Will Weissert of The Associated Press said that with the platform, the Texas Republican Party "has broken new ground in its push to the far right."Conservative media outlets like Fox News, National Review, and American Greatness, on the other hand, gave the platform scant coverage.

But perhaps its most attention-grabbing line called for the state legislature to authorize a secession referendum. Early in the document, Texas Republicans called for the legislature to pass a law affirming the state's right to secede from the United States. Then in the 224th plank, it asks for a referendum in the 2023 election "to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation." The plank predictably ignited a firestorm, with many on the left half-jokingly hoping that Republicans go through with it. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank endorsed the idea and recommended a "severance package that includes Oklahoma." Others, however, were quick to point out that Texas cannot legally secede from the United States. Are they right?

Daniel Miller, author of TEXIT: How and Why Texas Will Leave the Union, argues that "there is not a single clause in the Constitution of the United States that forbids Texas, or any State, for that matter, from leaving the Union." Indeed, there is little dispute that the U.S. Constitution neither endorses nor explicitly prohibits the secession of states from the union. But in the aftermath of the Civil War, the issue was considered settled. In the 1869 case Texas v. White, the Supreme Court eliminated all ambiguity, writing that "the union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States."

However, the Supreme Court commands no army. If Texas were to vote to secede next year, it would be up to the U.S. government to choose to intervene, or not. And in a sense, it might actually be advantageous for the Biden administration to let Texas walk away without a fight. After all, without the state's Electoral Votes (now up to 40 after the post-census reapportionment), neither George W. Bush nor Donald Trump would ever have become president. The state currently provides a 12-seat edge to Republicans in the struggle to control the House.

The centrality of Texas to the GOP's national political fortunes, therefore, is what makes its secession so deeply implausible. There is no world in which Republican leaders outside of Texas would support its unilateral secession especially Trump, whose bid to reclaim the presidency in 2024 would be dead in the water without the Lone Star State. And if Republicans take one or both chambers of Congress in November's midterm elections, it would likely suck most of the air out of the Texas GOP's inchoate secession plans, just as the 2018 midterms put an end to loose talk of "Calexit" on the West Coast.

A 2021 poll found substantial support for a hypothetical division of the United States into four countries, with 66 percent of Republicans in the South favoring the plan. A July 2021 survey from the University of Virginia found that 52 percent of Trump voters and 41 percent of Biden voters favored a division of the country into red and blue polities. But secessionist movements have a fairly dim track record of winning binding referenda, especially in wealthy democratic countries where it is hard to make the case that anyone is being particularly oppressed. The emotional satisfaction of imagining a velvet divorce ultimately runs headlong into the logistical, financial, and political nightmares that separation would really entail. And regional secession votes that don't have permission from the central government to take place might "succeed" but not change the territorial status quo.

Ultimately, the Texas Republican Party platform is just that an expression of ideals that aren't binding on anyone, including the state legislature. If its plans are to become reality, it is up to elected Republicans in the state to pursue them, defend them, and put them into practice.

Continue reading here:
Did Texas Republicans endorse secession at their party convention? - The Week

In late 2020, Donald Trump instructed a top Justice Department official to Just say [the election] was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.

Trump gave this command on Dec. 27, 2020nearly eight weeks after Election Day and almost two weeks after the Electoral College met and confirmed Joe Bidens victoryto then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, who revealed it in testimony before the House January 6th Committee yesterday. The revelation, confirmed in Donoghues contemporaneous notes, shows just how serious the former president was about overturning the election.

With that simple order, Trumps plot becomes clear. He wanted Department of Justice (DOJ) officials to lie about the election, creating a pretense that Republican members of Congress could use to reject Electoral College votes for Biden.

And for two reasons, we now know that Trumps plan carried criminal liability:

(1) The only man at the Department of Justice willing to carry out Trumps schemesformer Trump environmental lawyer Jeffrey Clarkhad his home searched on Wednesday by the feds. Law enforcement wont confirm the reason for the raid, but it is almost certainly connected to his efforts to alter the election results.

(2) The Jan. 6th Committee revealed yesterday that Republican members of Congress secretly sought pardons from Trump for their actions to help him overturn the election. As committee member Adam Kinzinger pointed out, The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think youve committed a crime.

Lets discuss each of these in turn.

Trumps disregard for the law was blatant. White House lawyers and Justice Department officials repeatedly warned him and his allies that they were pursuing illegal, unconstitutional measures.

The work of fending off Trumps outrageous demands must have been exhausting. The three former DOJ officials who testified yesterday explained how they pushed back when Trump wanted them to launch sham investigations, file a meritless lawsuit at the Supreme Court, seize voting machines, and create an unnecessary special counsel investigation. (Disgraced lawyer Sidney Powell says Trump asked her to lead that investigation.) But no matter how many times DOJ officials told Trump no, he kept looking for yes men.

Former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr got so fed up with Trumps election lies that, in an act of defiance, he told a reporter on December 1, 2020 that to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election. That same dayas Barr described in his memoir and told the committeehe told Trump in private that his claims of election fraud were bullshit and idiotic. Barr quietly resigned in mid-December without explaining to the public what he had told Trump in private about his election lies.

Trump, upset that Barrs replacement refused to indulge him, sought out Jeffrey Clark. Clark was willing to do what Barr and others would not.

The committee yesterday showed evidence that Clark secretly met with Trump, breaking DOJ protocol, and drafted a letter for the DOJ to issue to lawmakers in key swing states with Republican-controlled legislatures. The letter falsely claimed the DOJ had identified significant concerns about the election and laid out a path for states to transmit to Congress alternate slates of electors, thus converting states that Biden had won into wins for Trump. Clark presented it to his superiors at DOJ and said that if they didnt sign it, he would accept an offer from Trump to become attorney general, thereby getting the power to issue the letter himself.

Thankfully, top officials at the Department of Justice, such as Donoghue, pulled rank and threatened to resign en masse if Trump installed Clark as attorney general. Donoghue told Trump that Clark would be left leading a graveyard at DOJ. Why? Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann described his opposition in colorful terms directly to Clark:

Trump ultimately backed downbut only after Donoghue made the case that Clark was too incompetent to execute Trumps wishes. In other words, Trump was not persuaded that the illegality of his wishes mattered. He was just led to doubt that Clark could get the job done.

More details relating to Clark may yet emerge in the days ahead, especially after he was hauled out of his house in his pajamas this week so that federal investigators could search his house.

At least a handful of Republican members of Congress knew Trumps wishes carried legal risk as well.

In the last half hour of its hearing yesterday, the Jan. 6th Committee revealed the names of six members of Congress who sought or expressed interest in presidential pardons for their participation in various plots to overturn the election. They were: Scott Perry, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert, Andy Biggs, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Mo Brooks.

At least those are the six pardon-seekers the committee knows of, based on interviews with former Trump administration officials.

Mo Brooks actually went further, recommending a few days after Jan. 6th that Trump grant all purpose pardons to all 147 congressional Republicans who objected to certifying Joe Bidens election on January 6 and for the 126 Republicans who signed an amicus brief supporting the Texas lawsuit that sought to cancel votes, outright, in the swing states Trump lost. Brooks cast this as a defensive move against an unfair future prosecution he feared from the Democrats.

While Brookss plea for a mass pardon is paranoidmembers of Congress are largely protected by the Constitutions Speech and Debate Clauseit does indicate that Trumps closest allies in Congress are worried about their criminal culpability connected to Jan. 6th.

Corrections (24 June 2022, 9:30 a.m. EDT): As originally published, this article stated that Jeffrey Clark was arrested this week in connection with the raid on his house; he was not. The article also erroneously labeled him an EPA lawyerbut while his legal focus was indeed on environmental law, it was at the DOJ, not the EPA.

The rest is here:
The Republicans Who Wanted Pardons for Their Trump Coup Actions - The Bulwark

Welcome to The Heart of the Primaries, Republican Edition

June 23, 2022

In this issue: This weeks marquee primary results and responses to Eric Greitens new ad

Here are recent results from marquee elections weve been following.

Alabama U.S. Senate primary runoff: Katie Britt defeated Mo Brooks 63% to 37% on Tuesday. The pair advanced from a field of six candidates in the May 24 primary. Incumbent Richard Shelby (R), first elected in 1986, did not run for re-election. This is a solidly Republican seat.

Alabamas 5th District primary runoff: Dale Strong defeated Casey Wardynski 63% to 37% on Tuesday. Mo Brooks has represented this district for more than a decade. Strong has served on the Madison County Commission since 2012.

Alaskas special U.S. House primary: Sarah Palin (R), Nick Begich III (R), Al Gross (I), and Mary Peltola (D) were the top four finishers in Alaskas special U.S. House primarythe first top-four congressional primary in U.S. history.

Gross withdrew on Monday. The Division of Elections said Tuesday that fifth-place finisher Tara Sweeney (R) would not advance to the Aug. 16 special general election because Gross withdrew fewer than 64 days before the general. Lawsuits are possible. The final ballot count was Tuesday, and the Division plans to certify results Saturday.

Forty-eight candidates ran in the special primary. Unofficial results from the final ballot count for the top five candidates are below.

Virginias 7th District: Yesli Vega defeated five other candidates, receiving 29% of the vote on Tuesday. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D) is running in the redrawn 7th District. Vega serves on the Prince William County Board of Supervisors and had endorsements from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), whom Spanberger defeated in the old 7th District in 2018. Three independent forecasters rate the general election as Toss-up, Lean Democratic, or Tilt Democratic.

Weve been tracking former President Donald Trumps endorsements in primaries. After Tuesdays elections, Trumps endorsement record is 123-10 (92%). Two endorseesVernon Jones and Jake Evanslost U.S. House primary runoffs in Georgia on Tuesday.

The figures below were current as of Wednesday morning. Click here for more information on defeated incumbents.

At least four state legislatorsall Republicanslost in primary runoffs on June 21. Including those results, 111 state legislative incumbents have lost in primaries this year. This number will likely increase: 37 primaries featuring incumbents remain uncalled.

Across the 21 states that have held state legislative primaries so far this year, 5.4% of incumbents running for re-election have lost, continuing an elevated rate of incumbent primary defeats compared to recent election cycles.

Of the 21 states that have held primaries so far, five had Democratic trifectas, 13 had Republican trifectas, and three had divided governments, with Democrats controlling the governorship and Republicans controlling both legislative chambers. Across these 21 states, there are 2,650 seats up for election, 43% of the nationwide total.

Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Eric Greitens released a campaign ad Monday in which he carries a gun and tells viewers to get a RINO hunting permit. Greitens primary opponents and the state Fraternal Order of Police criticized the ad.

Greitens identifies himself in the ad as a Navy SEAL and says, Today, were going RINO hunting. Greitens and a group of armed men in military gear then break into a house and throw a flash grenade inside. Greitens says, Join the MAGA crew, get a RINO hunting permit. Theres no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it doesnt expire until we save our country.

Facebook removed the video from its platform for violating its policies prohibiting violence and incitement. Twitter added a warning to the video, saying, This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about abusive behavior. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the publics interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.

Other Senate GOP primary candidates in Missouri criticized the video.

U.S. Rep. Billy Long said the video was distasteful, adding, [Missouri Attorney General Eric] Schmitt nor [U.S. Rep Vicky] Hartzler can beat him, but he may be able to beat himself. The way to beat RINOs like Schmitt and Hartzler is at the ballot box.

State Sen. Dave Schatz tweeted, Completely irresponsible. Thats why Im running. Its time to restore sanity and reject this nonsense. Missouri deserves better.

Hartzler said, Eric Greitens is an abuser, a blackmailer, and less than ten years ago a Democrat. To be clear: The only RINO featured in Eric Greitens web video is himself.

Greitens was governor of Missouri from 2017 to 2018, when he resigned following allegations of sexual misconduct and misuse of campaign information. This year, Greitens ex-wife alleged that he abused her and one of their children. Greitens denied the allegations.

The Missouri Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) said, The creation and release of this video again demonstrates that Mr. Greitens does not possess the sound judgement necessary to represent the people of Missouri in the United States Senate. The Missouri FOP has endorsed Schmitt in the primary.

Greitens said, We just wanted to demonstrate with a sense of humor and with a sense of fun that we are going to take on RINOS. Greitens said it was entertaining to watch the faux outrage of all of the liberals and RINO snowflakes around the country and around the state.

Twenty-one candidates are running in the Senate GOP primary on Aug. 2. In an Emerson College poll from early June, Greitens received 26% support, followed by Schmitt with 20%, Hartzler with 16%, and Long with 8%. Twenty-seven percent were undecided. The margin of error was +/- 3 percentage points.

Incumbent Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is not running for re-election.

As we wrote last week, Michigan gubernatorial candidate Ryan Kelley was arrested on June 9 on misdemeanor charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach. A poll the Detroit Free Press commissioned from June 10-13 showed 45% undecided, Kelley with 17%, Garrett Soldano with 13%, Kevin Rinke with 12%, and two others with 5% or less. The margin of error was +/- 4.9 percentage points.

A Target Insyght and Michigan Information and Research Service poll from late May showed 49% undecided. Kelley had 19%, Rinke 15%, Tudor Dixon 9%, and Soldano 6%. The margin of error was +/- 5 percentage points.

The primary is on Aug. 2.

Indiana Republican Party delegates nominated Diego Morales for secretary of state during the partys state convention on June 18. Morales will run against Destiny Wells (D) and Jeff Maurer (L) in the general election. Four candidates competed for the nomination: Morales, incumbent Holli Sullivan, Paul Hager, and David Shelton.

In Indiana, political parties nominate candidates for lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, and attorney general at state party conventions.

Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) appointed Sullivan in 2021. The Indianapolis Stars Kaitlin Lange wrote that with some frustration within the Republican party over Holcombs handling of the pandemic and other policy choices, [Sullivans] ties to the establishment hurt her campaign more than they helped as she faced three other candidates. [Morales] primarily garnered the support of the more conservative faction of the party, capitalizing on discontent with Holcomb and those associated with him.

According to the Associated Press Tom Davies, Morales said the 2020 presidential election was a scam. Brian Howey of Howey Politics Indiana wrote, [Morales] campaign says that he was misquoted His campaign texted this statement from Morales: I proudly voted for Trump twice, but Joe Biden was elected president in 2020 and legitimately occupies that office today. There were a number of irregularities in that election, including the secretary of state in Pennsylvania changing election rules only 30 days before election day. Those kinds of actions are unacceptable.'

According to Davies, Morales wants to shorten the early voting period, require proof of U.S. citizenship from newly registering voters, and create an election task force.

Colorado and Oklahoma hold primaries on June 28. Weve crunched some numbers to see how competitive the primaries will be compared to recent election cycles.

Colorado

Oklahoma

Notes on how these figures were calculated:

More here:
Heart of the Primaries 2022, Republicans-Issue 28 Ballotpedia News - Ballotpedia News

The only thing standing in the Republicans' way in the 2022 midterm elections is their own candidates.

Nowhere does that promise to be a bigger problem than in Pennsylvania.

Two polls this month have found that the Republican candidates for governor and Senate are trailing their Democratic opponents despite the favorable political environment. In the governors race, state Sen. Doug Mastriano is trailing state Attorney General Josh Shapiro by 3 points in an AARP poll and 4 points in a USA Today/Suffolk University poll. Television doctor Mehmet Oz is trailing Lt. Gov. John Fetterman in their Senate clash by 6 points in the AARP poll and by 9 points in the USA Today/Suffolk University poll.

Republican voters gave Democrats exactly what they wanted in the race for governor. Mastriano was the opponent Shapiro wanted. He even ran advertisements boosting the Republicans name recognition during the primary. Mastriano wanted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania and supported former President Donald Trumps conspiracy theory that the election was stolen.

Its not hard to see why Shapiro thought this would be a favorable matchup.

Oz had little business becoming the GOP nominee for Senate. He was a daytime talk show host with questionable conservative credentials, a questionable history of medical advice, and questionable ties to Turkey. Yet GOP primary voters pushed him over the finish line, with encouragement from Trump. Now, he is trailing Fetterman, who hasnt been seen in public for over a month after having a stroke. Roughly 63% of Pennsylvanians view Oz unfavorably.

It is still possible that both will win their races. President Joe Biden isnt getting any more popular. But the fact that both Mastriano and Oz are trailing at this point bodes ill for their chances. Democrats have both races right where they would want them at this juncture, and the time and money needed to keep both candidates afloat would be better spent elsewhere.

Mastriano gives Democrats the best chance of maintaining control of the state, and Oz is jeopardizing the GOPs chances at retaking the Senate majority. They can both be added to the list of GOP liabilities in winnable races. If they both end up losing, Pennsylvania Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves.

Originally posted here:
Pennsylvania Republicans gave Democrats the best chance to win - Washington Examiner

from the told-ya dept

For a while now, as Democrats have insisted that the two main antitrust bills that have been able to scrape together bipartisan support wont have any impact on content moderation, we keep pointing out that the only reason they have Republican support is because Republicans want it to impact content moderation. After all, Ted Cruz was practically gleeful when he talked about using this bill to unleash the trial lawyers to sue over moderation.

Earlier this week, we cheered on a proposal from four Democratic Senators, led by Brian Schatz, to add a tiny amendment to the AICOA bill to say that it cant be used to create liability for content moderation. If, as Senator Amy Klobuchar and others supporting this bill (including my friends at EFF and Fight for the Future) are correct that this bill already cannot be abused to enable litigation over content moderation, this amendment shouldnt be a problem. All it would be doing is clarifying that the bill doesnt do exactly what those supporters say it shouldnt be read to do.

Except the Republicans cant help themselves but to give up the game. The Federalist, not generally the most trustworthy of news sources but generally a reliable mouthpiece for Trumpist Republicans ran an article about the Schatz proposal, saying flat out that Republicans would pull their support for AICOA if the minor amendment Schatz suggested is included.

First, lets remind everyone how simple the proposed amendment is:

Protection for Content Moderation Practices.Nothing in section 3(a)(3) may be construed to impose liability on a covered platform operator for moderating content on the platform or otherwise inhibit the authority of a covered platform operator to moderate content on the platform, including such authority under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)), or any other provision of law.

Thats it. If you dont think this bill can or should be used to sue over content moderation, then this shouldnt be a problem. But if you do think websites should be sued for their editorial discretion, well then its a problem. And according to the Federalist, its a real problem. It notes that this Amendment would kill the only conservative or populist ideas along for the ride on the bill.

In other words, its flat out admitting that, as weve been saying all along, the only reason Republicans support the bill is that they see it as a Trojan Horse to sue over content moderation decisions.

And thus, the Federalist notes that nearly all Republicans supporting the bill would walk if this tiny Amendment is included:

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the lead Senate sponsor of the bill, has reportedly already promised Republicans will walk if the changes are made, and hes right: Populists and conservatives like Sens. Josh Hawley, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Rep. Matt Gaetz would flee.

As if to confirm that Republicans will bail if the law is explicit that it doesnt do what supporters of the bill insist it doesnt do, Rep. Ken Buck (who is the lead Republican sponsor of the companion bill in the House) tweeted out the Federalist article, implying that he, too, would bail if the bill is clarified to say it has no impact on content moderation:

So, there you have it. Supporters of the bill can deny all they want that the bill can be used to sue over content moderation decisions, but the Republicans are flat out telling them that the only reason they support the bill is because they believe it can be used to sue over content moderation decisions.

Honestly, that should make supporters of the bill think hard about what it is theyre actually supporting here.

Filed Under: aicoa, amy klobuchar, antitrust, brian schatz, chuck grassley, content moderation, ken buck

Read the original here:
Republicans Announce That If Content Moderation Is Written Out Of Antitrust Bills, They'll Pull Their Support - Techdirt