45 Days to Midterms

The biggest problem Democrats may have if they, as seems increasingly likely, win majorities in one or both houses will be deciding where to begin in their investigation of Donald Trump’s reign of incompetence and corruption.

The urgent need for congressional oversight got a boost this week with ProPublica’s damning article detailing how a Russian oligarch, Umar Kremlev, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to help host Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding reception — just the latest example of egregious foreign influence peddling. 

“For a decade, Putin’s government, regarded as a chief adversary of the U.S., has been accused of efforts to influence American elections,” ProPublica noted. “Attempts by Russia to make inroads with the Trumps before the 2016 election exploded into controversy that dogged much of the president’s first term.” 

This should alarm all Americans, as it raises more troubling questions about Trump’s pro-Putin stance in the Ukraine war. As the article posed, “National security experts expressed alarm at Trump Jr. accepting the oligarch’s largesse, saying it raised an urgent question: What motivated Kremlin to spend a fortune cultivating the connection?” One can only imagine. But as bad as this is, it is only one instance of one category of egregious misconduct that Trump and the Republicans have countenanced.

Democrats will have their hands full, as was evident in a recent Washington Post article that laid out the categories of potential investigations:

-self-enrichment by Trump and his families and cronies;

-handouts and pardons to supporters;

-self-glorifying construction projects; immigration abuse; spotlighting misconduct allegations against immigration officers; the detention of lawful residents and citizens; the rising death toll in immigration detention centers; the deployment of the National Guard in liberal cities; and the alleged mishandling of spending and contracts by then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem;

-dismantling/destroying the federal government;

-prosecution of enemies; pressure campaigns on corporations, universities, and law firms, “often in violation of the First Amendment”;

-foreign affairs: “the Board of Peace, a multinational group meant to end conflicts; the new presidential plane gifted by Qatar; tariffs and trade deals; the Iran war; military intervention and strikes against alleged drug-trafficking boats in Venezuela; and the redevelopment of Gaza”; and

-the Epstein files.

It’s an impressive list, with many specific scandals that could easily be slotted into the categories above (e.g., DOJ attorneys’ possible violation of professional ethics and federal court rules, nominees and officials’ alleged lying under oath and/or misleading lawmakers, racism and discriminatory practices at the Pentagon and elsewhere, widespread Hatch Act violations by Cabinet officials).

The most obvious concern about embarking on this ambitious plan — “the lawless Trump gang will refuse to cooperate” — is a further indictment of the Trump regime’s unfitness to serve and its contempt for democracy. 

But it is also an example of counterproductive fatalism. For starters, not even the Trump goons can stop everyone from cooperating. There are ex-regime employees, victims of abuse, private sector collaborators (who fear consequences of ignoring Congress), whistleblowers, and yes, even some responsible current officials who will show up and testify truthfully under oath. There are also written documents that cannot be concealed or destroyed.

Congress should be clear that failure to cooperate and testify truthfully will have serious, ongoing ramifications. These include the defunding of relevant government departments, referral for criminal proceedings in a future Democratic administration (or to state and local authorities who may have jurisdiction for underlying misconduct), and civil suits against individuals and government entities — for which courts will have jurisdiction to hand down contempt sanctions for noncooperation.

Other anticipatory objections to the investigations smack more of self-defeatism: ‘Nothing will happen to these people. Trump cannot be impeached or go to jail.’ Such complaints get the process backward. First, Congress compiles the record, then Congress, the courts, and the voters decide what to do about it.

Moreover, the absence of maximalist penalties for Trump (who cannot be certain that the MAGA Supreme Court’s absurd grant of criminal immunity extends, for example, to acts of pure personal enrichment having nothing to do with his core duties as president) leaves a universe of potential ways to hold wrongdoers accountable. These range from clawing back ill-gotten gains to professional sanctions (e.g., disbarment) to criminal prosecution (federal, state, or local) for lower-level officials to military discipline to permanent exclusion from federal jobs.

Let’s not overlook one of the key reasons for the entire exercise: To make an historic record that removes any reasonable doubt about the extent of the cruelty, incompetence, malfeasance, and lawlessness of this regime. Voters in future elections should have no doubt as to who enabled what misconduct, who looked the other way, who profited from office, and who put party loyalty and personal interest above their obligations to the Constitution and the American people.

Protect Democracy, the nonpartisan pro-democracy organization, in its 2022 report observed the wide-ranging purposes oversight and accountability can provide: “[C]omprehensive fact-finding and truth-telling can combat disinformation and work towards creating a more shared reality; lay the political groundwork for institutional reforms; and generate support for other critical accountability measures, such as criminal prosecutions.”

It is vital that those who engaged in wrongdoing is not allowed to waltz away with reputations untouched by their participation in conduct that should shock the conscience of decent Americans:

Accountability can break the revolving door of wrongdoers cycling in and out of power and recommitting offenses—using their time out of power to rehabilitate reputations. In the absence of accountability, history may favor glossing over the breadth and gravity of transgressions that occurred and create an environment amenable to reputationally rehabilitating wrongdoers.

Anyone running for office who served under Trump will have to account for his or her record; anyone seeking important positions in civil society (e.g. partners in law firms, corporation board members) will also need to explain their conduct. Every voter, every public entity, and every private sector employer or philanthropic organization will make an evaluation of past conduct — then themselves be held responsible if they decide to entrust former Trump lackeys with new positions.

In sum, the task of investigating Trump regime wrongdoing may seem overwhelming, but Democrats have no choice but to proceed swiftly, on multiple fronts. Delay, non-confrontation, and “bottom-up” investigation of Jan. 6 under the well-meaning but hapless former Attorney General Merrick Garland had disastrous ramifications for democracy. Congressional Democrats should not repeat that pattern. They should be prepared, focused, and determined to search out wrongdoing at the highest levels of the Trump regime as soon as they take office. 

We will not get a second chance to investigate and hold responsible those who have inflicted so much harm on so many.

-Jennifer Rubin, The Contrarian is community-supported. Help fund bold journalism and critical lawsuits to stop Trump’s corruption by becoming a paid subscriber. Join the fight now.

 

What to Defund

 

Article I grants Congress the power of the purse, arguably its most effective weapon to combat executive overreach. Even if Democrats take both houses, it is nearly impossible, for example, to assemble supermajorities to impeach and remove rogue Cabinet officials. Even with one house secured, however, it can refuse to fund Donald Trump’s priorities. And if Democrats win even a bare majority in the Senate, it can use reconciliation strategically to eliminate programs or temporarily defund departments. And we’ve got a handy list of Trump’s abusive, lawless agencies and departments that Democrats should strategically target.

First and foremost, Democrats should refuse to fund the illegal, reckless Iran War and must eliminate funds for continued deployment of personnel and material that depletes our readiness and leaves us vulnerable elsewhere. They can condition additional funding for the Pentagon on compliance with congressional investigations, and can defund overtly politicized gatherings of the type Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has conducted.

Congress can also use the power of the purse to disable corrupt, lawless departments. Democrats, for example, will need to conduct exacting oversight over the Department of Homeland Security, which has been, according to reports, rife with fraud. Continuing to fund the department before a full accounting is made and until all those responsible are held accountable would be political malpractice.

When it comes to abusive, lawless immigration raids, Democrats must refuse to allocate a single dime for ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other entities responsible for killing or allowing dozens of people to die (on the streets and in custody), mistreating detainees, ignoring fundamental civil liberties protections, refusing to abide by requirements for body cameras, conducting raids at religious institutions, courts, and schools, continuing to use excessive force and racially profile individuals, and blocking cooperation with state and local criminal investigations.

If Democrats win control of even one house, said body can refuse to fund ICE, CBP, and any other aspects of DHS absent full cooperation with oversight and adoption of strict guidelines on use of force, treatment of detainees, compliance with warrants, etc. Congress can simply refuse to fund “raids,” that is, far-flung operations that do not prioritize dangerous criminals. Congress can deny resources for operations if there is no immediate threat to public safety or in any case in which ICE agents lack a judicial warrant based on probable cause. Democrats will need to rally public opinion, already hostile to ICE and CBP, when Trump hollers that they are protecting “dangerous criminals.” (The response: Democrats will fund focused, law-abiding enforcement actions that are actually against dangerous criminals).

Finally, Democrats should seriously consider a much bigger target: Previously independent agencies or boards that Trump has turned into partisan instruments of his political thuggery. In eviscerating the bipartisanship and independence that were the hallmarks of these bodies and putting virtually the entire federal government (with the Federal Reserve alone exempted) under the thumb of the president, the Trump crew thought they had achieved a “unitary executive” dream come true — federal operations devoid of independent judgment, entirely under the sway of a vindictive, lawless president. While the Supreme Court in Trump v. Slaughter went along with this, allowing Trump to fire members of these previously independent bodies (in that case, the FTC) without cause, Congress has a role to play.

Nothing requires Congress to continue funding flunkies who ignore basic constitutional principles while wielding power to benefit their cronies and punish their perceived enemies. Should they gain control of even one house, Democrats could draw the line: No funds for rogue agencies and lawless departments. (Alternatively, requiring quorums with members of both parties would achieve the same ends.)

They could also start with the Federal Communications Commission. Under Brendan Carr, the FCC has become a First Amendment abomination, with behavior like forcing ABC/Jimmy Kimmel to put a James Talarico interview on YouTube instead of network television. As Kimmel explained:

For the whole 20-plus year[s] of our show, in fact, I’ve been interviewing Americans who are running for office with no problem at all... . But for some reason — and I can’t seem to figure out what that reason is — something has changed. Now that he is president, his FCC has threatened me, threatened our show, threatened our network ABC, our affiliates, our local stations based on simple traditional editorial decisions: guest bookings it would seem they don’t like.

Congress can compel Carr to testify about his war on late-night comedians and his overt MAGA bias. If he refuses to cooperate, and if the FCC refuses to adopt enforceable, unbiased rules, Congress should be prepared to defund the FCC until such time as it is controlled by public servants who take their constitutional oath seriously. (Would Trump shut down the government over the issue? Perhaps, although he might find it hard to explain why Americans’ basic services have been disrupted so that he can keep his stooges on the FCC.)

Frankly, Congress can consider defunding any independent agency/commission in which Trump fires members without cause. There is already a long list of individuals/commissions that Trump has politicized. The notion that it is better to leave them in place despite reckless partisan bullying (because occasionally they do something useful?!) is cockeyed and dangerous; foolishly ceding ground to Trump. Entities that no longer operate fairly, without bias and favoritism, cannot operate in the public interest. Why should they receive taxpayer funds?

In sum, Democrats need a coherent, strategic plan for funding the government should they win even one house of Congress. Leadership must be prepared to explain their game plan to voters and to enforce discipline in their own ranks on key votes. If Democrats are serious about recovering our democracy, they must be serious about wielding the power of the purse to benefit the American people.

-Jennifer Rubin, The Contrarian

 

Can American Democracy Survive?

 

 

We are living through a moment that has forced us to confront an old question with new urgency: Can American democracy survive?

This much is true: Our democracy will not be saved by strongly worded criticisms, viral videos, news clips, frustrated screeds from public figures, or even court decisions alone. It will thrive only when people decide, again and again, that our democracy belongs to us, our leaders are elected by us, and that we are responsible for building and defending it. That conviction runs through every work in this anthology.

In response to the question, “What will it take for democracy not only to survive but to thrive in the future?” the winners of Democracy Defenders Fund’s Future of Democracy Prize offer answers grounded in community, racial justice, imagination, and policy reform. They write with a clear-eyed understanding that democracy is built from the bottom up and that systems failing ordinary people must be challenged and changed. From their vantage point, democracy must be practiced, defended, and renewed everywhere: in neighborhoods and schools, public offices and places of worship, through art and organizing, and in the everyday acts of solidarity that bind communities together.

When we launched this prize, we placed only two requirements on entrants — age and U.S. citizenship. We spread the word through influencers, college newspapers, local libraries, social media, and in small towns and big cities, hoping to hear from people whose experiences and perspectives might not otherwise find their way into a national conversation about democracy. What we received was deeply encouraging. The winning works — nine essays, a short film, and a cross-stitch project — describe democracy as something people experience, shape, and build where they live. That gave me hope. Because their words are hopeful.

Before coming to Democracy Defenders Fund, I spent most of my career defending democracy in countries where people had learned not to expect institutions or their (mostly) authoritarian leaders to save them. In Ukraine, Russia, Central Asia, Turkey, Hungary, and Poland, I watched citizens fight back with whatever tools they had: independent newspapers, coalitions, protests, art and music, and community networks. They built power where they stood, with whatever space they had, and they refused to let authoritarianism go unchallenged. At times that came with great personal risk.

What makes the United States different — and what gives me genuine optimism — is our long history of building democracy and the hard-won successes. We have checks and balances in America. Even now, we have institutions capable of withstanding enormous pressure. 

But history teaches us that those institutions do not hold on their own. They hold only when people act to defend them. When people respect the norms and values they represent. Protecting the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, for example, required people to immediately speak out, organize, and challenge the Trump administration in the court of law. The Supreme Court ultimately provided the essential check, but it could do so only because people — supported by attorneys from the ACLU, Democracy Defenders Fund, and other organizations — were willing to bring the fight to the courts. And were willing to share their stories so that people understood what was at stake.

At Democracy Defenders Fund, we approach the business of defending our democracy through the courts, legislatures, other levers of public power, and in the court of public opinion. The young people whose work appears in this anthology, too, approach democracy from the latter vantage point. They define democracy as a sense of whether people feel it belongs to them and whether they believe their own voices can make a difference. That perspective is precisely why we created this project.

Democracy is stronger when people feel that their voices matter between elections, not only on Election Day. People being civically engaged is what makes democracy work and sustains the entire democratic enterprise.

Democracy Defenders Fund will continue to fight in courtrooms to protect voting rights and elections, to counter corruption, and to uphold the rule of law. Our work ensures that now and, in the future, the public can act, organize, dissent, imagine, build, and simply be. Every success for us or the broader pro-democracy movement creates the conditions in which new leaders, new movements, and new visions can take root and ultimately thrive.

We intend to ensure that when these young people take the reins of power — with all the passion and imagination they possess — they can do so in a country where the rules still permit them to build and work toward a democracy that will make their lives better.

That is what makes this project so important to me. The work in this anthology reminds us that defending democracy is not simply about preventing what is worst. It is also about making possible what comes next, what is better. The Civil Rights Movement made us better, but it did not make us perfect. 

Democracy is a journey not a destination. I hope you read these essays with the same humility, urgency, and hope they inspired in us, and with a renewed commitment to the work ahead in the courts, in our communities, in the streets, and everywhere democracy is being made.

Susan Corke is executive director of Democracy Defenders Fund. For more information: Democracy Defenders Fund

---

The Contrarian is community-supported. Help fund bold journalism and critical lawsuits to stop Trump’s corruption by becoming a paid subscriber. Join the fight now.

 

"Democrats should press candidates who claim to be serious about bold, structural reform to spell out what they think is necessary to revamp the Supreme Court"

 

On NBC’s Meet the Press, veteran lawmaker Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) emphatically urged expanding seats on the Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices. “A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court,” he said. Court expansion, no longer the province of left-leaning academics thanks to the MAGA justices’ radicalism, has become an indisputably mainstream, pro-democracy response.

In truth, increasing the seats on the Supreme Court amounts to rebalancing. Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) packed the court when he denied Merrick Garland a hearing during President Obama’s term — yet rushed through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation once election voting was already underway in 2020. 

Rebalancing to establish the proper equilibrium among the branches (i.e., reversing the MAGA justices’ investiture of the authoritarian executive power in Trump and their contemptuous disregard for Congress’s constitutional powers) is fundamental to preserving our constitutional system.

Increasing the number of seats on the court begins with a solid base of support. A June Marquette Law School poll showed the public split 50-50 on adding seats, up from just 42 percent support in 2019. Since 2021, support has varied between 48 and 52 percent, even without a nationally focused campaign on the issue. Simply because other proposals have even more support (the same poll shows term limits has approval from 73 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of independents, and 87 percent of Democrats) does not mean court expansion should be disregarded.

Indeed, fearing that court expansion might be catching on, the MAGA House majority Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment freezing the number of justices at nine, confirmation that — absent such a measure — court expansion by statute is unquestionably constitutional. (It failed to win 2/3 required approval with only a single Democrat voting with Republicans.) 

Ironically, the stunt underscores that nine is an arbitrary number, carrying no historical or constitutional significance. (Unsurprisingly, the GOP, which is beholden to dark money purveyors such as court fixer Leonard Leo, leaves out other overwhelmingly popular reforms, such as a mandatory ethics code.)

In opposing the gambit, the progressive group Demand Justice released a statement explaining: Court expansion is the only court reform option that would promptly redress the 6-3 supermajority, which is itself the result of a partisan power grab. When the American people are counting on congressional Democrats to be the last line of defense against the Administration’s assault on the rule of law, it is more critical than ever to fight MAGA power grabs.

Noting that MAGA justices’ hugely unpopular and constitutionally flawed decisions in the Callais and Dobbs decisions have prompted trust in the court to decline and support for serious reform to spike, Demand Justice urges Congress to keep expansion as a viable option, observing that the “most persuasive argument in favor of expansion is the aggressive approach of the Court itself: the right-wing majority will continue to dramatically remake the law to favor the oligarchy.”

 

In the current environment, many Democrats nevertheless remain skittish about expanding the court, citing FDR’s failed New Deal scheme some 90 years ago. But as the bipartisan court commission assembled by President Biden recalled, “Soon after [FDR’s] plan was announced, the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions upholding state and federal regulation of the economy. . . . [which] left in place Roosevelt’s existing New Deal and ended an era in which the Court frequently invalidated laws designed to protect workers, consumers, and the public.” In short, it worked.

Bottom of Form

Democrats too often shy away from proposals such as court expansion for fear of triggering blowback from Republicans — who championed McConnell’s court-packing. Avoiding a meritorious reform simply because it will upset Republicans or does not already have sky-high approval reveals bizarre timidity and reflects a mindset that ignores the key role that persuasion and debate play in politics. A lengthy list of issues (from data centers to corruption to abolishing ICE) were not “winners” with voters until advocacy groups pushed to educate voters, independent media elevated them, and forward-leaning politicians took the lead.

What is key in the current environment is that dissatisfaction with the MAGA partisan Supreme Court is high (and likely to intensify with each new gift served up to their White House patron). This makes the rationale for serious, substantial restructuring of the court even more compelling.

Taken before the MAGA majority’s latest cringeworthy decision (allowing Donald Trump to build his ghastly ballroom), the Marquette poll found, for example, that 61 percent of Americans understand “the United States Supreme Court is ruling for President Donald Trump ‘almost always’ or ‘most of the time,’” and some 57 percent (including 60 percent of independents) say “the Court is going out of its way to avoid a ruling Trump might refuse to obey.” A captive, quisling court that has distorted the executive branch in direct contravention of the Framers’ vision (shaped by overwhelming fear of creating another monarch) is a court that requires dramatic, immediate repair.

Democrats should emphasize that court redesign is required because the MAGA majority (created by Republican confirmation shenanigans) has arrogantly rejected fundamental judicial norms (e.g., eschewing an enforceable ethics code, abusing the shadow docket to render opinions without judicial reasoning, shredding precedent when it suits them), and taken a sledgehammer to checks and balances (e.g., granting Donald Trump criminal immunity, destroying independent commissions).

Ideally, combining term limits for future justices with court expansion would be the fastest, most comprehensive, and effective way to rescue our democratic structure. Certainly, term limits on justices would help address concerns about diversity, a geriatric court, and hyper-partisanship — with the hope that more frequent appointments with term limits would reduce partisan frenzy surrounding court fights. 

While proponents are confident it could be done statutorily, this Supreme Court majority might not agree. Moreover, changing the composition of the court only by periodic retirements/replacements would be time-consuming, leaving the country at the mercy of MAGA constitutional destruction for years.

Democrats would do well to think more like the Republicans who readily claim a “mandate” after elections. If Democrats win the trifecta in 2028 under the banner of bold pro-democracy reform, their mandate certainly should include court rebalancing as part of their democracy restoration project.

Only a few of the potential 2028 Democratic presidential contenders (e.g., Pete Buttigieg) have embraced court expansion, but most have not ruled it out. However, Democratic voters have a critical role to play in promoting a wide-ranging debate in the next presidential cycle: What will it take to return the Supreme Court to its proper role and recover our constitutional order? Thanks to Clyburn, that issue is squarely before the party.

Democrats should press candidates who claim to be serious about bold, structural reform to spell out what they think is necessary to revamp the Supreme Court. They should not minimize the threat the current MAGA court poses, nor trim their sails to avoid incurring the ire of those who have pummeled our democracy. As long as the MAGA court majority remains hostile to pluralistic democracy and to the restoration of our constitutional structure, it will block progress on virtually all serious issues —dark money, abortion, voting rights. Democrats must decide if they are resigned to that fate.

 -Contrarian 

"Trump’s pathological narcissism has soared (or sunk?) to new levels of almost comedic depravity"

Donald Trump defaces his new helipad with a Sharpie, flanked by an audience of unimpressed construction workers. (Photo courtesy of WhiteHouse.gov)

Like a ping-pong ball in a wind tunnel, he bounces haphazardly from one embarrassment to another, slamming into walls of public derision. Except for the feckless supplicants on the MAGA Supreme Court, the courts have routinely rebuked him, using language that has become increasingly dismissive.

Trump delusionally “ordered” Lake Ontario to be renamed “Lake America,” in another cringeworthy temper tantrum amidst a self-defeating trade war with Canada. In addition, his lame effort to order an end run around a judge’s order barring him from slapping his name on the Kennedy Center — with lawyers threatening to tear down the historic institution unless he gets his way on renovations and a 2 year closure — earned him a court tongue-lashing on Thursday, forcing him to put off its planned September 8 defacement (trying to rename the plaza adjoining the building). 

And Trump’s latest, desperate effort to inject confusion into midterm voting was thwarted on Thursday, thanks to the order of U.S. Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts, who “once again temporarily prohibited the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out a plan to restrict mail-in voting… [that] appeared to overstep its legal mandate and could spark chaos by changing rules fewer than 70 days before an election.”

And, to the amazement of experienced political consultants in both parties, Trump’s minions continue to freak out over Georgia Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff’s innocuous barb aimed at Trump babysitter hanger-on and obsessive fan Natalie Harp, thereby reinforcing his persona as a decrepit, needy has-been.

“Their relationship appears enmeshed and pathological,” observed former George W. Bush White House adviser Pete Wehner. “The information she passes along to him is unvetted, unfiltered, and highly warped and unreliable.” Aside from the creepiness, “She is further distorting the world for a man who, with every passing year, is detaching more and more from reality. His world is narrowing to a pinhole.” His courtiers’ over-the-top defense only confirms Trump is emotionally enfeebled.

As political and court defeats pile up, Trump becomes more unhinged and desperate to boost his public image. With his approval ratings sinking, he demanded his aides whip up “a series of television advertisements about his own record that will serve as a backdrop to the hundreds of individual House and Senate contests.” You can practically hear Democrats guffaw, ‘Oh, really!?’ They could not be more delighted that Trump intends to saddle his party with constant reminders of a record that an overwhelming percentage of Americans (including crucial independent voters and Hispanics) deeply dislike. (‘From the president who brought you a war you didn’t want, more expensive healthcare, dangerous lettuce, and…’)

The New York Times sums up how Trump risks becoming a “liability” for his party, and the Democrats’ response: He has urged supporters to “pretend” he is on the ballot and suggested he will spend significant campaign cash reserves.

Democrats are just as eager for him to play a starring role. Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, argued that congressional Republicans had been boxed in by the president and rendered little more than a rubber stamp for his agenda.

“Donald Trump controls the Republican caucus in Congress like a bunch of trained seals,” Mr. Raskin said . . . . “This is essentially what the November elections are about.”

Well, if Trump insists, let’s all pretend he is on the ballot! Democrats are practically gleeful, ready to pounce with more mockery and sharp humor, which in turn will likely provoke even more hysterical responses from Trump and his supporters.

The horror show for Republicans is just getting underway. Trump’s planned unprecedented midterm convention on the eve of 9/11 (!) has all the makings of another bust. “Republicans are privately questioning if it strikes the right tone amid the electorate’s tightening budgets — and the wisdom of diverting candidates from their districts just weeks out from Election Day,” CNN reports. “Further compounding concerns: expensive entrance fees for lawmakers, competing events like the start of the NFL season and 9/11 commemorations, and some state parties struggling to drum up enthusiasm with their members.”

The real problem? It’s all about Trump. “[T]here’s the overarching fear — that an event once dubbed ‘Trumpapalooza’ will indeed end up being far more about promoting the president than the candidates who are actually on the ballot,” CNN observes.

Some of this would be amusing — especially for Democrats who stand to benefit from the spasm of self-inflicted injuries — if not for the power that the president of the United States wields. Taken together, incidents of this sort (plus Trump’s vindictive threats against the wrongly accused “vandals” of the reflecting pool, firings of Stars & Stripes journalists, a bizarre vow to deploy the military against the bond market, and nonstop touting of imaginary positive polls) underscore Trump’s delusional isolation from reality.

The nonstop stream of ostensibly “small,” petty, and entirely politically daft outbursts reminds us that an emotionally unstable, decaying figure atop the only global superpower (though that status has become a subject of increasing debate) poses enormous risks for the U.S. and the rest of the world. It’s not the laughable midterm ad campaign that should keep us up at night, but the realization that someone so obviously off his rocker is making life-and-death decisions about war and peace, blowing up trillions in market value and family wealth, deporting hundreds of thousands of hard-working migrants, and striving to bollix up the smooth operation of the upcoming midterm elections.

Now is no time for legacy media sanewashing of Trump nor for Democrats to underplay the urgency of the moment. Trump’s danger to the republic has never been greater, nor has MAGA Republicans’ cowardly refusal to grab the wheel and protect the country been more dispiriting. It is up to voters to deliver an unequivocal, overwhelming defeat to this MAGA cult of personality. Only then would Congress be able to recover its constitutional role, implement real checks on his mad reign of terror, and devise a plan for holding accountable those who have driven the country into a ditch.

But, in the meantime, more Trump self-reverential ads please!

-Jennifer Rubin. Join The Contrarian community to support bold journalism and help fund critical lawsuits to stop Trump’s corruption — Subscribe now.

 

Dolly Parton

 

On Tuesday, Dolly Parton’s family announced the death of the beloved country music icon, a woman whose career spanned so many decades and so many disciplines, who wrote so many unforgettable songs and inspired so many people through her joy, kindness, and empathy, that attempting to summarize her legacy feels as futile as bottling up the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.

Parton grew up in poverty but rose to become one of the most successful, instantly recognizable musicians of the 20th century — embodying the American dream in a way that few ever have. She was a savvy entrepreneur, and an actor with a knack for delivering plucky dialogue in classic movies like Steel Magnolias and 9 to 5 (“I’m gonna change you from a rooster to a hen with one shot!”) She was an astonishingly prolific songwriter, and one of the best to ever do it, penning “Jolene” and “I Will Always Love You” within a matter of days.

Parton’s creative gifts were legion. Yet she was, if anything, just as well-known for her outrageous personal style: the voluminous blond wigs, the rhinestone-bedazzled outfits, the bold acrylic nails that helped inspire the opening riff of “9 to 5.” “It costs a lot of money to look this cheap,” she famously said. With a gift for folksy zingers, Parton was effortlessly funny — certainly more amusing than the uninspired comedians who made countless lame jokes about her bust — and she typically made fun of herself rather than others.

There are few Americans alive today who aren’t familiar with some aspect of Parton’s life — whether her music, her screen performances, or even just her ubiquitous image, emblazoned on T-shirts, prayer candles, and countless tchotchkes across the land. Parton was a secular saint, admired by people across the political and cultural spectrum who shared little else in common, so untouchable that not even Donald Trump had a bad word to say about her.

Which is all to reiterate that quantifying Parton’s contributions to the world is exceedingly difficult. But here is one number that can at least begin to put her extraordinary contributions into context:

332,411,218. That’s the number of books that her charity, the Imagination Library, has given to children around the world over the last 31 years. In addition to being a brilliant entertainer and an exceptional entrepreneur, Parton was also one of the country’s most generous philanthropists. The organization, which provides free, age-appropriate books to preschool children, was founded to honor her father, Lee, who was illiterate.

“He was the smartest man I have ever known, but I know in my heart his inability to read probably kept him from fulfilling all of his dreams,” Parton has said.

Originally intended to benefit the children of Sevier County, Tennessee, the program has since expanded across the United States and to Canada, Australia, Ireland, and the U.K., instilling a love of reading in millions of young people who eagerly anticipated the arrival of their monthly gift from “Aunt Dolly.” Because Parton knew the stigma that came with getting “handouts,” she ensured that any child could receive books through the Imagination Library, regardless of their family’s income or economic status.

The Imagination Library is now the flagship program of the Dollywood Foundation, which Parton formed in 1988 — not long after the opening of the Dollywood theme park in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee — with the modest goal of improving educational outcomes for students in her home county. Through an initiative in the early ‘90s called the Buddy Program, she vowed to give every 8th grader who graduated from high school $500. The dropout rate subsequently decreased from 35% to 6%.

The Dollywood Foundation has continued to be a vital source of aid for the people of East Tennessee during times of crisis. In 2016, the organization launched the My People Fund to assist families who lost their homes to wildfires in the Great Smoky Mountains. In less than a year, it had distributed $12 million to those affected.

Parton was also a benefactor for life-saving medical research. She donated $1 million to fund Moderna’s COVID vaccine and got the shot — which she called “a dose of her own medicine” — as soon as she was eligible to reassure anyone who might be hesitant. “I just want to say to all of you cowards out there: Don’t be such a chicken squat,” she teased in her inimitable way. In 2022, she gave another $1 million to Vanderbilt University Medical Centre for research into infectious pediatric disease because, she said at the time, “No child should ever have to suffer.”

Even Parton’s business endeavors have benefitted her community in tangible ways. Dollywood is Sevier County’s largest employer, with more than 4,000 people working at the park itself during high season. According to one case study, the 160-acre park — which includes a bald eagle sanctuary — makes a direct annual impact of $1.8 billion a year in Tennessee.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Parton, a leading gay icon, repeatedly expressed her support for the LGBTQ+ community, before such opinions were widely held in either country music or the country at large. Her company, Sandollar Productions, co-produced the Oscar-winning 1989 documentary Common Threads: Stories From the Quilt, which tells the story of the AIDS memorial quilt and chronicles the lives of five people in its panels. She also contributed to the compilation album Red, Hot + Country, which raised money for AIDS charities, and participated in a public awareness campaign.

Parton’s generosity was not only financial, it also extended to her humane, compassionate songwriting, which she consistently used to tell stories about the downtrodden and marginalized. Though she became fabulously wealthy, Parton never lost her working-class solidarity. And though she avoided wading into partisan politics, she made her views clear in song.

Accepting the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy in 2022, Parton, the first female entertainer to receive the honor, spoke about what motivated her charitable endeavors. “I cannot be a hypocrite and just say I’m going to donate this money for a tax write-off. I’d really like for it to mean something to me — something I can take pride in,” she said.

Parton’s philanthropy has inspired similar largesse in other celebrities. Ahead of their wedding in July, Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift donated $26 million to various charities — including $2 million to the Imagination Library.

But with the possible exception of Swift, the world doesn’t produce celebrities as enormous as Parton anymore. The few people who rival her fame today are not once-in-a-generation artists, but tech oligarchs who hoard their wealth to buy elections and castles in Ireland, not books for preschoolers.

In a vintage TV clip that’s now circulating on social media, Parton was asked about her ultimate goal in life. “Just to be happy, to be as productive as I can be, make as many people happy as I can, make as much money as I can, so I can do for more people,” she said. “And I just want the freedom to work, and everybody else can have the money.”

If only more people lived by her example.

-The Contrarian

Jeffries Never Should Have Met with Kushner

Democrats of all political stripes were exasperated by a New York Times report Sunday that “Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, met privately in recent weeks with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and top outside adviser, and discussed potential areas of common ground.” Numerous Democrats fumed that the get-together violated pro-democracy, anti-corruption values, defied common sense, and seemed politically naïve.

First and foremost, Jeffries made a cardinal error in meeting with Kushner, a non-government employee whose self-promotional antics — aided by his family connection — have no doubt made Hunter Biden blush. (If you can imagine Speaker Mike Johnson meeting with Hunter Biden in search of “common ground,” you can appreciate the absurdity of the Jeffries meeting.)

The meeting inevitably extends legitimacy to Kushner’s ethical gamesmanship, which characterizes the regime’s grotesque corruption. Kushner has fully exploited his name to pursue billions in foreign investment opportunities, all the while evading whatever ethical constraints (concern for presidential relations’ ethics — how quaint!) exist for those performing top government jobs. While continuing to carry out missions for his father-in-law regarding Gaza and Iran, Kushner has leveraged his role to reap riches in the Middle East, triggered an uprising in Albania stemming from his scheme to develop an island resort, and been forced to back out of a scandal-plagued Serbian boondoggle.

As Jeffries surely knows, reports in March that Kushner was soliciting funds from Middle East sovereign wealth funds (while acting as an envoy, however incompetently, in Iran talks) triggered a furious statement from Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA). 

In it, they recapped Kushner’s years-long exploits, starting with Wyden’s “investigation of Kushner’s conflicts of interest in 2020 with an initial probe into whether Kushner advised Donald Trump to support a blockade against Qatar while Kushner Companies was seeking a billion-dollar bailout from Qatari, and possibly other Middle Eastern officials, for the property at 666 Fifth Avenue.”

As Wyden recounted, his investigation in 2024 examined “whether Affinity Partners, the firm Kushner launched immediately after the end of the first Trump administration, was in reality a compensation scheme designed in part to skirt federal disclosure requirements.” As a result of the investigation, he referred Kushner to the Justice Department for possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act in connection with his Saudi investment activities.

On the House side, in 2024, Ranking Member Garcia and Ranking Member Jamie Raskin “urged Chairmen James Comer and Glenn Grothman to hold a hearing regarding Kushner’s apparent influence peddling and quid pro quos for actions he undertook to reshape U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and beyond, as senior adviser in President Trump’s first Administration, following reports that Kushner was close to finalizing investments in Albania and Serbia and leveraged relationships he built during his time as a senior adviser in his father-in-law’s White House.” 

And Kushner continues to evade Congressional inquiry to this day, a direct affront to its Article I power. Once in the majority, Democrats should be investigating — not looking for common ground with — Kushner.

Given all that, any meeting with him strikes one as ill-conceived (at the very least). One can imagine some critical messages Jeffries could have delivered, including: a warning to preserve all documents relevant to allegations of self-dealing with foreign powers; a heads-up that Democrats will pursue, without exception, all allegations of corruption involving Trump, Trump family members, associates, and government employees; a preview of legislation that would mandate full financial disclosure and conflicts of interest rules for anyone serving as an envoy/international negotiator; and an FYI that the disgraced Board of Peace will be put under close supervision of Congress (and/all U.S. government employees and/or presidential relations barred from participation), beginning with public hearings and a subpoena of all relevant documents.

In response to written questions to Jeffries’s staff asking whether Kushner’s conflicts of interest came up at the meeting; what common ground Jeffries believes might exist; and why Jeffries decided to meet with someone who has purposefully sidestepped a government role to avoid scrutiny, I received a bland written statement early Monday evening:

Throughout this Congress, Republicans have adopted a my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing that has failed the American people. To stop the madness, we have repeatedly made clear that an extremist approach will not work and will be met with forceful opposition. 

The American people want bold change and that’s what House Democrats will deliver. In every conversation that we have with the Trump administration, we will continue to make it explicitly clear that the affordability crisis is not a hoax and nothing short of transformational policy change is acceptable. We are fighting for an affordable America. The question is whether Republicans will join us.”

To review: Jeffries’ tone did improve, although the original decision to meet with Kushner was, as they say in soccer, an “own goal.” When Democrats, as seems increasingly likely, win the House majority, their leadership will meet with Trump, his Cabinet, and/or White House staff. But even then, it is hard to fathom any rationale for meeting with someone who has chosen to avoid a government post to flout White House conflicts of interest laws and keep his affairs hidden from Congress.

Moreover, in the future, Jeffries must avoid any signal that that this is a “normal” president with whom he expects to do business, lest he rekindle criticism that he does not appreciate the nature of the Trumpian threat to democracy and is seeking to accommodate rather than confront a dangerous president. 

To be clear: no “common ground” exists with a regime engaging in an illegal war (contemptuous of Congress’s constitutional role), massive self-dealing (allegedly involving family members!), a reign of terror against immigrants, routine destruction of constitutional guardrails (e.g., ignoring Congress’s appropriations’ role, violating the Epstein Files Disclosure Act), a savage assault on healthcare to pay for billionaires’ tax cuts, thorough corruption of the Justice Department, and routine racist insults.

If they gain the majority, Democrats’ mandate will not be to find “common ground” with a decrepit autocrat bent on destroying congressional power. It will be to halt him in his tracks, reverse disastrous policies, and exercise exacting oversight. 

For now, Democratic leaders should focus entirely on achieving a resounding defeat that will hold Kushner, his father-in-law, and the entire regime accountable for their incompetence, malfeasance, and illegality.

-Jennifer Rubin, The Contrarian is community-supported. Help fund bold journalism and critical lawsuits to stop Trump’s corruption by becoming a paid subscriber. Join the fight now.

 

"A Flailing president"

It’s been a summer of profound discontent for Donald Trump. As his poll numbers keep dwindling and he flounders in his war of choice in Iran, he continues to suffer a series of body blows in the courts, hampering his attempts to break the law, weaponize his power to punish the innocent, and use the government as a personal piggybank.... 

Perhaps the most embarrassing flop has been right in Trump’s backyard, where the Reflecting Pool fiasco continues. We at Democracy Defenders Fund, along with our co-counsel Washington Litigation Group and Steptoe LLC, represent Davey Hearn, the decorated Olympian who was falsely blamed for damage at the Reflecting Pool.

The Department of Justice charged Davey with a felony, threatening him with jail for doing nothing wrong. The case was finally dismissed last week, after Jeanine Pirro admitted they didn’t have evidence to support the charges and that the damage to the pool was because of contractor failure — a contractor selected by the Trump administration without the normal competitive bidding process.

But even after the case was dismissed, Trump and his acolytes, including Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, have continued to bash our client and promote the false narrative that vandalism, rather than shoddy construction work, is to blame for the mess. And this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Justice is looking into potentially bringing new charges against Davey. 

So, on Thursday night, we filed our latest brief, further demonstrating why the court needs to dismiss these charges with prejudice. If the case is dismissed without prejudice, as the government wants, that leaves open the possibility that the government could bring this case back, even after its damning admissions. 

As we said in our brief, “The record in this case demonstrates a substantial and specific risk that, if the indictment is dismissed without prejudice, Mr. Hearn will face renewed charges, however meritless, driven by political pressure rather than the evidence.”

That’s why Norm Eisen and I, along with our colleagues representing Davey, will be back in court in Washington, D.C., on September 4 fighting to make sure this case is closed for good.

This tussle comes on the heels of two other seminal victories that we, with our partners, secured against Trump at the Supreme Court this term: his unconstitutional attempt to outlaw birthright citizenship and his illegal endeavor to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Trump’s effort to unconstitutionally rewrite the 14th Amendment by fiat and eradicate our nation’s bedrock principle of birthright citizenship was one of the central missions of his administration. He signed an executive order purporting to outlaw birthright citizenship on day one of his second term.

But, just minutes later, we were in court with our wonderful colleagues to defend this essential constitutional protection. We immediately secured an injunction to prevent the order from going into effect, and after a winding road, with Trump fighting vigorously for this cruel and unlawful policy, we argued the case before the Supreme Court — and won. The court affirmed that the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause puts “the question of citizenship ‘once and forever [to] rest.’”

But, failing to take the hint, Trump has come back with another EO targeting birthright citizenship. And within moments, we went right back to court to stop that dead in its tracks and ensure that the protections currently in place — which the Supreme Court just affirmed — continue to protect all our clients and babies born in the United States.

And finally, after our second Supreme Court victory against Donald Trump this term, in which the court ruled that Trump could not peremptorily fire Cook, a letter from the White House last week indicated that the president was “considering” trying to remove her from her role again. 

As Norm said in a statement with our co-counsel representing Cook, Abbe Lowell: “These allegations are as baseless now as they were a year ago when President Trump tried to remove Governor Cook and interfere with the independence of the Federal Reserve. 

No matter what President Trump tries to do next, this much is clear under the facts and Supreme Court precedent — there is no valid cause for removing Governor Cook. As we did before, we will challenge this latest pretext and preserve her position and the historic role of the Fed.”

All told, this paints a picture of a flailing president, unable to accept defeat, making futile attempts to revive his dead darlings. But his losses, which aren’t just limited to these three cases, continue to pile up. And no matter how often he tries to come back, with your support, we will be there to stop him. Your paid subscriptions help us fight these battles... 

-Joshua Kolb, The Contrarian 

"Their success will determine the fate of our democracy"

Democrats should not wait until Labor Day, the traditional kickoff of the midterm campaign, to pivot and begin sprinting toward November. No one who genuinely cares about the fate of democracy should be kvetching about primary polling (which partisans trolling for donor dollars, but not real voters, obsessively focus upon) or relitigating the relative electability of primary opponents after primaries are decided. 

(Kudos to Rep. Haley Stevens for fully embracing Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed in recognition of the stakes.) Fortunately, a batch of insightful Democrats have stepped forward to offer a pathway to win decisively on a populist economic message with broad-based appeal. Leading the way, Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico delivered a speech last week that adeptly framed the argument for Democrats:

"For fifty years, billionaire mega-donors and puppet politicians have been stealing from the American people. Stealing the wealth we created. With their bribes, their bailouts, and their billionaire tax breaks. This 'affordability crisis' isn’t something that happened in the last five years. This affordability crisis has been fifty years in the making. Since the late 1970s, mega donors and corporate special interests have been buying politicians in both political parties, and then those politicians turned around and rigged this economy to benefit their wealthy donors at our expense. We have an affordability crisis because we have a corruption crisis."

Pushing back on the notion that Democrats despise capitalism, Talarico makes the case that the far right has destroyed free markets. Corruption, tariffs, and dark money have influenced regulatory favors and tax giveaways, and massive corporate consolidation are the antithesis of a competitive free market that would create wealth for a wide cross-section of Americans.

“[T]he idea behind capitalism was simple and revolutionary: people should get fairly compensated for their labor. We should get paid for our work. But that’s not what we have right now,” he argued. “You can’t tell me the market is working as it should when billionaires are becoming trillionaires — while the people who do all the work can’t afford the basics.” He added, “Adam Smith is rolling over in his grave. This is not capitalism; this is crony capitalism.”

Talarico’s proposed agenda, dubbed the New American Dream, includes raising the minimum wage, expanding overtime, repealing tax cuts for the super-rich, protecting labor organizing, and investing in college and vocational education. He also includes items that genuine fiscal conservatives used to favor — such as reducing the national debt (“closing tax loopholes, cracking down on tax cheats, and ending forever wars that send billions of our tax dollars overseas”) and removing red tape that impedes housing construction.

Talarico’s pro-worker proposals include universal childcare and paid family leave, an expanded child tax credit, and “cracking down on the data centers jacking up our utility bills and using up our water — and preventing new ones from being built unless they meet our demands.” Positions such as these, which legacy media would characterize as “progressive,” and MAGA operatives would denounce as “socialism,” are embraced by super-majorities of Americans. Here is where Talarico adeptly turns MAGA hacks’ rhetoric against them:

"They’re going to claim this new dream is radical. They’re going to claim it’s extreme. They’re going to claim we’re socialists, or communists, or whatever sounds scariest in a headline. And we’ll say: Is that the best you can do? These are the same old scare tactics. The same old politics of the past. The names they’ll call us only reveal how small their dreams are. The people at the top want this to be a contest of names because they know they’ll lose a contest of ideas."

Pete Buttigieg, speaking at a unity rally in Michigan on Friday, made a similar argument in the context of the Michigan Senate race: "[W]e have Abdul El-Sayed, who insists that money in politics has gone too far. And we have him running against Mike Rogers, who insists on being part of the problem. We have one candidate, Abdul El-Sayed, who wants to expand affordable health care and keep more money in your pocket. And we have another candidate, Mike Rogers, who literally voted against the Affordable Care Act. And you better believe he will cut health care one more time if you give him a chance in the United States Senate."

Cranky Democratic establishment-types will find it hard to find substantive differences between bogeyman El-Sayed and their favorites such as Talarico and Buttigieg. In truth, their real objection is hearing their corporate donors fingered for rigging the economy.

In a parallel vein, Democratic Senators Chris Murphy (CT), Adam Schiff (CA), Tina Smith (MN), and Elizabeth Warren (MA) put out a memo in January arguing Democrats should not only advance populist economic measures but should sound serious about “tak[ing] on corporate power and the billionaires who are making it impossible for the American people to provide for themselves and their families.” When Democrats don’t mince words and instead underscore realities such as “big corporations get massive tax breaks and then turn around and lay off American workers,” voters take them seriously.

Citing a raft of polling, the Democratic senators urged their colleagues to sharpen the message and point directly at the culprits. Ordinary voters “do not want insurance companies denying treatments prescribed by doctors, or giant corporations driving small neighborhood shops out of business,” they explain. Regardless of party, voters deeply resent it when “wealthy people and big corporations get away with breaking the law — all while Trump is giving special treatment to his friends, enriching his own family, and pardoning corporate wrongdoing all the time.”

As the senators put it, the “backlash” to this outrageously corrupt presidency is “laying the foundation for a large popular majority to wrestle government back from the billionaires and corporations and give the power back to working people.” Democrats can reap the benefits if they embrace “a platform rooted in true economic populism.”

That’s exactly what El-Sayed and other Democrats in Michigan did at their unity rally. Skewering Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), El-Sayed framed the election as a choice between an advocate for ordinary voters and an oligarch-serving MAGA foot soldier, wisecracking that Rogers’s last name is “very fitting for him… [‘c]ause that’s his answer every time a corporation or Donald Trump tells him to do something”:

“Mike, we need you to put a data center in the backyard.” — “Roger!” “Mike, we need you to hike their prescription drug prices.” — “Roger!” “Mike, we need you to rubber-stamp this war we shouldn’t be fighting.” — “Roger!”

Democrats should follow the unity message from Michigan and flatly repudiate self-absorbed voices in their ranks still waging internecine battles. Launching a war now against Democratic Socialists [!] shows a jaw-dropping lack of perspective, suggests they care more about soothing their corporate donors’ bruised feelings than saving democracy, and inevitably amplifies Trump’s hysterical “socialist” smear against Democrats.

In sum, to win decisively, Democrats must avoid distractions and challenge the billionaire class’s pet policies and oligarchs who have rigged the system against the interests of ordinary workers. Their success will determine the fate of our democracy.

Join The Contrarian community to support bold journalism and help fund critical lawsuits to stop Trump’s corruption — Subscribe now.