Should the Democrats Shut Down the Government on Oct. 1?

Ezra Klein has a very interesting op-ed piece in The New York Times about a potential government shutdown on Oct. 1. If you have a Times subscription, it is worth reading. If not, here is a brief summary.

In March, the Democrats had a chance to shut down the government and they caved. Klein is neutral on whether that was a good move then. Nevertheless, he makes a strong case for shutting it down now, even for a modest time. The basic reason is that what Donald Trump is doing is not normal, but no one is paying attention. Democrats have no power to stop him but they do have the power to get everyone's attention and make their case boldly and clearly. They should not throw it away even though it won't change the outcome. But it will give them the chance to put all of Trump's illegal acts front and center. That could drive his approval down with independents. If it gets into the low 30s, history shows that the Republicans will be crushed next year. Here is a short list of things Trump has done that would drive his supporters stark-raving mad if Barack Obama or Joe Biden had done them. (The Democrats could even formulate it as: "What would you think of Joe Biden if he had done all these things that Donald Trump has done?")

• Refused to spend money Congress lawfully appropriated.
• Fired agency heads protected by statute from being fired except for serious malfeasance.
• Fired civil servants for no reason, in violation of the Pendleton Act.
• Called up the National Guard for the flimiest (and probably illegal) reasons.
• Outsourced slashing the government to an immigrant (Elon Musk) who was not confirmed by the Senate.
• Corrupted the government for his own gain in a way that would make Warren Harding blush.
• Used the DoJ to punish his political rivals and anyone who has criticized his illegal acts.
• Browbeaten law firms, media companies, and universities to subjugate themselves to his will.
• Appointed cabinet officers and others who are totally incompetent.
• Accepted very expensive gifts from foreign governments (e.g., Qatar) in violation of the Emoluments Clause.
• Used the National Guard to invade and occupy U.S. cities in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
• Used masked agents to sweep random people off the streets and imprison them with no due process.
• Deported people to a foreign gulag in El Salvador with no trial and no chance to defend themselves.
• Etc.

At the very least, the Democrats could make a website listing and explaining all of these things and more. When the mafia took over an industry (e.g., collecting garbage), after they were paid off, they did do the work they were supposed to do. Being as honest as the mafia is a pretty low bar and Trump fails to clear it.

At the moment, Democrats are considering politely asking for some small favor, say, not gutting funding for some minor program they like, in return for agreeing not to shut the government down. Klein says this is just cowardice. They need to do two things. First, get everyone's attention (which a shutdown will do). Second, compile a list of things to tell every media outlet from the Times to the East Cupcake Middle School Reporter. And everyone needs to be on the same page. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) did a pretty good job in July when he said this:

Corruption is why they just defunded nursing homes to cut taxes for the rich. Corruption is why you pay a fortune for prescriptions. Corruption is why your insurance claim keeps getting denied. Corruption is why hedge funds get to buy up all the houses in your neighborhood, driving you out of the market, and then your corporate landlord ignores your calls during a gas leak. Corruption is why that ambulance costs $3,000 after you just had to get your choking toddler to the hospital.

Claim that Trump was right when he said the system was rigged. By him, for himself. Saying the system is rigged will resonate with many voters. Explain who is doing the rigging and why.

The DNC has plenty of smart strategists and can do all the polling it wants. Find out what people are unhappy about and blame Trump for all of it. Make it short and to the point. Make sure everyone understands what the Democrats are fighting for: You. Copping out and saving some minor funding program in return for the Democrats' full cooperation isn't going to win any hearts and change any minds. And it certainly won't win the midterms. (V)

The Discharge Petition Will Pass by the End of September

The discharge petition written by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) to force the House to vote on a resolution to ask the DoJ to release all the Epstein files is currently two votes short of the number needed for it to pass. All Democrats are for it and also four Republicans: Massie and three crazy women: Lauren Boebert (CO), Marjorie Taylor Green (GA), and Nancy Mace (SC). Possibly two more Republicans will sign, but their votes aren't actually needed.

Tomorrow there will be a special election in Virginia to replace the late Gerry Connolly. The Democratic candidate, James Walkinshaw, is the overwhelming favorite in the D+18 district and he said he will sign as soon as he is sworn in. On Sept. 23, there is a special election in the D+13 Arizona district of the late Raúl Grijalva. Grijalva's daughter, Adelita Grijalva, is the heavy favorite and she has also said she will sign it. Once both of them are sworn in, the petition will have enough signatures and the House will have to vote on it.

It doesn't actually matter whether the House passes the resolution or not since the DoJ will just ignore it. The problem is political. Donald Trump's base wants to see the Epstein files—badly. This vote will probably have every Democrat voting to release them and all but four Republicans voting to not to release them. The PR here for the Republicans is terrible. Assuming this whole story is raging next year, there will be Democrats campaigning on: "Congressman Smith voted to keep the Epstein files secret. If I am elected, I will vote to publish them all." For some true believers, that might just be enough to flip their votes. Certainly having the Democrats being the party of transparency and the Republicans being the party of secrecy doesn't work for the Republicans here. (V)

Trump Is Trying to Lobby the Supreme Court

An article in Politico Magazine by former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori makes the case that Donald Trump is trying to blackmail the Supreme Court on tariffs. We would describe it, a bit more gently, as "lobbying." Basically, it is all about making absurd, nonsensical claims about what will happen to the country if the Court doesn't side with him on issue after issue. On Friday, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck does his authority to levy tariffs on the grounds that he has no authority to levy tariffs, he claimed the government is taking in $17 trillion in tariffs. This is 4x more than the total value of all imports. In fact, it is about 15% of the GDP of the entire planet.

Trump's underlings have clearly been instructed to help out. In the appeals court filing, Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that striking down the president's ability to levy tariffs would damage national security. What he didn't explain is: If tariffs are so crucial to national security, why can't the president just ask Congress to levy them? Rubio later claimed that a loss for Trump on this would make it harder to end the war in Ukraine.

Solicitor General John Sauer told the Court that before Trump the United States was a dead country. If the Court doesn't give Trump his way, that would be ruinous for the country.

The implication here is that Trump's case is very weak and he is afraid the Court knows it. So he is lobbying for the Court to give him what he wants and to find a rationale later. This is precisely the kind of judicial activism conservatives have long despised. Well, that they's long claimed they despised, at least.

Trump has two problems. First, he is basing his case on the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act), which grants the president the power to regulate imports when an emergency has been declared (also by the president). But the power to regulate is not the power to tax and nowhere does the IEEPA mention tariffs or taxes. Second, the public is strongly against tariffs because most people know they will raise prices. The Supreme Court is already very unpopular and the justices are surely aware if they side with Trump, Democrats will blame them for the subsequent price increases. They don't want their approval rating to go down more, because in the end, all they have is moral authority. If people simple believe they are in the tank for Trump, that gives the next Democratic trifecta the backing it needs to do something about the Court, whether it is expanding it, stripping some jurisdiction from it, forcing sitting justices to take senior status at 70 (and filling seats while while continuing to pay the senior justices' their salaries, thus de facto expanding the Court), or other things. Trump (or people close to him) understand this, hence the all-hands-on-deck approach to pressuring the Court. (V)

Trump Is Bringing Countries Together

Trump likes being a divider, setting one person or one country against another. But some of his actions have been unifiers. In particular, he is busy driving India, the world's largest democracy and a longtime U.S. ally, into an informal cooperation with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. That's a pretty large and powerful bloc, with 3.1 billion people vs. 780 million for the U.S. and E.U. combined. To save you the trouble of firing up your favorite calculator app, team dictatorship is 4x bigger than team democracy.

Trump seems aware of the basic facts, but not the consequences (e.g., sending soldiers or weapons to help each other, coordinating their economies, resisting U.S. demands). On Friday, he posted a message to his boutique social media site reading: "Looks like we've lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China." This loss wasn't an act of God, Vishnu, or Shiva. It was an act of Trump, triggered by his slapping a 50% tariff on imports from India to punish India. Turns out India has a couple of cards also. He didn't use ALL CAPS, incidentally. Maybe the satirical tweets from Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) are upsetting him.

In addition, at the meeting of the Russian, North Korean and Chinese leaders in China, a few other countries' leaders showed up, including Egypt, Turkey, and Vietnam. Trump hasn't yet made them full-fledged partners of China yet, but he is working on it. Brazil and South Africa could also loosely affiliate themselves with China and friends. Trump may end up changing the geopolitical alignment in the world. How does this new order help the United States, especially since the E.U. now treats the U.S. with suspicion? It isn't "America First," it is "America alone." Next time Trump needs help from the world (e.g., to catch a terrorist), well... good luck with that.

In pointless pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize, Trump claimed he has solved the conflict between India and Pakistan. That is complete nonsense. Among other things, it is a long-standing principle of Indian politics that the (usually) cold war between India and Pakistan must be resolved by India and Pakistan alone. No third-party intervention is acceptable to India. Trump's claim is very insulting to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In addition, having been subjected to 200 years of British colonial rule, India is extremely sensitive to other countries trying to push it around. Trump is completely oblivious to this.

India doesn't want to be pushed around by China, either, so it is not "lost" forever. Its "crime" is buying Russian oil. If Trump were a bit smarter—or listened to people who are, say, Rick Perry—he could have tried diplomacy and offered to sell American oil to India at a good price instead of driving it into the arms of the Chinese. Forcing the E.U. to buy American oil when the E.U. is rapidly moving away from oil makes no sense. It's not going to do it right now, but India would be happy to buy American oil if the price were right. There is no Nobel Prize in the category "Stupidity," though Trump may yet win himself a Darwin Award.

Trump learned the strategy of backing his rivals and enemies into a corner and then threatening them with harsh consequences from the dog-eat-dog world of New York real estate dealings. That doesn't work so well against large countries that have plenty of cards. He seems to have missed that. Maybe he forgot Roy Cohn's warning that you bully only opponents who are much weaker than you and who can't fight back. (V)

Trump Is Going after Adam Schiff Big Time

Donald Trump is the rare politician who is actually vigorously carrying out his campaign promises. One of them was relentless oursuit of his political rivals to punish them and try to put them in prison, whether or not they have committed any crimes. Opposing him is crime enough. For Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), that holds double, because Schiff was the lead manager in Trump's first impeachment. That will not stand. Lock him up.

Trump has called Schiff "a sleazebag," a "major low life," "shifty," "one of the least attractive human beings I've ever seen," a "pencil neck," "sick," one of the "enemies from within," and "Adam Schitt." This is not how previous presidents have referred to U.S. representatives and senators, even those they didn't like. Trump also wants to imprison Schiff.

Trump's charge du jour is mortgage fraud. Turns out everyone does it (keep reading). Many banks give more favorable terms to people buying a house to live in rather than to rent out as an investment property. The idea is that you won't trash your own house and reduce its value, but a renter might. You are also less likely to default on a house you live in, rather than a money-losing investment property, As a consequence, there is a box to check on mortgage applications asking: "Is this your principal residence?" Schiff checked the box on both his mortgage applications, one for his house in California and one for his house in Maryland. Case Closed. Take the prisoner away!

Maybe not so fast. First of all, the crime of mortgage fraud requires proof of intent to defraud a bank. Many members of Congress have a house in D.C., Maryland, or Virginia, where they live when Congress is in session, which is about 10 months of the year. They also maintain one at home either because it is required by state law or because they simply need a place to live when Congress is not in session. Calling both of the a "principal" residence is easily defensible in this case. This is especially easy because neither one is being rented out to someone who might trash the place. Also, virtually all the time, the bank knew the person was a member of Congress and has two houses. Snowbirds who have a condo in Florida for the winter but live in New York the rest of the time also have two principal residences. In Schiff's case, he claimed the homestead exemption only for his home in California, underscoring the fact that he wasn't trying to deceive the banks or any government. As long as the bank knows you have two houses (or, in John McCain's case, more houses than he could remember) and you claim a mortgage deduction for only one of them, it is not fraud because there is no element of intent to defraud the bank. If the bank knows you have two houses and is willing to give you a good deal on both houses, that is its business decision.

Schiff has set up a fund to pay for his defense and he is ready to go. He has hired famed former U.S. attorney from SDNY Preet Bharara as his defense lawyer. Trump has chosen Ed Martin as a special attorney to persecute Schiff. This is the same Martin who was so repulsive that even Republican senators couldn't stomach him as U.S. attorney for D.C. and forced Trump to pull the nomination. It is probably lost on Trump that while Martin is vile and venal, he is not actually a good lawyer, while Bharara is the best there is.

How did Trump discover the two mortgages? He appointed his close buddy, wealthy real estate developer Bill Pulte, to run the Federal Housing Finance Authority. This gives Pulte access to almost every mortgage in America and so he is looking for people on Trump's enemies list with two mortgages. We wonder if Pulte will also give the names of these members of Trump's cabinet to the president: Secretary of Labor Lori Chevez-DeRemer, Sec. of Transportation Sean Duffy, and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. All three of them have two houses they have claimed as principal residences.

Oh, and while we are at it, Pulte, who is behind this (and also behind the claim that Fed governor Lisa Cook committed mortgage fraud) knows what he is talking about. After all, his own father and wicked stepmother, Mark and Julie Pulte, have not only claimed principal residences in both Michigan and Florida, but also claimed homestead exemptions in both states. This is definitely illegal because it gives them a tax break in both states. We hope Pulte will turn them over to Trump as well, as a public service. (V)

Trump Wants to Make It More Difficult to Become a Citizen

When it comes to making it difficult for immigrants to come to the U.S., stay in the U.S., or become citizens of the U.S., Donald Trump is leaving no stone unturned. His latest foray into blood and soil is a plan to make it tougher for legal residents with a green card to become voting citizens. It's bad enough that he can't deport them all, but letting them become citizens and vote is about 10 bridges too far for him.

The plan (probably from OMB Director Russell Vought, because Trump isn't smart enough to think of this stuff and Vought is) is to make the citizenship test harder. It might also involve an essay question, which would give officials much more leeway to flunk people. After all, if the test asks: "Who was president from 1850 to 1853? and an applicant writes in big bold letters: MILLARD FILLMORE, it is correct. If a question is: "Write an essay discussing the points made in Federalist No. 29," the grader has a lot of latitude to fail the applicant for a poor argument or a misplaced comma, especially if all graders are instructed to fail everyone on the essay question.

The administration is also looking to make having a good moral character a slippery slope. Now that clause basically means the applicant has never be convicted of a crime. In the future, it could require showing positive contributions the applicant made, for example owning DJT stock, now a bargain at $16.68, but too bad for the rubes people who bought it at $100.

Alternatively, proof of ownership of some $TRUMP crypto coins might be acceptable. For the financially challenged, half a dozen really positive tweets about how great Trump is might be enough. It would all be up to the examiner. Social media vetting is definitely on the agenda. Support for the Second Amendment is a winner but support for the First Amendment is not. Antisemitic activity (meaning opposition to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) is definitely a no-no. The list will be long. And secret. (V)

Trump Sues Boston over Immigration

Donald Trump has sued Boston because he doesn't like its policy of not cooperating with ICE to detain immigrants. No city is required to actively help ICE as long as it does not break any federal laws, which Boston is not doing. Trump is not going to win this one in district court, but the goal isn't winning, it is intimidating Mayor Michelle Wu. Maybe Trump's attention has shifted from Chicago to Boston (temporarily?) because he is getting major pushback from the very aggressive Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL).

AG Pam Bondi is all in on this. She said: "If Boston won't protect its citizens from illegal alien crime, this Department of Justice will." As it turns out, Boston ranks #71 in violent crime rate per 100,000 population. Why hasn't he gone after #1, Memphis? Maybe because the Republican governor of Tennessee, Bill Lee, wouldn't appreciate it.

Wu has not caved. She said: "This is our City, and we will vigorously defend our laws and the constitutional rights of cities, which have been repeatedly upheld in courts across the country. We will not yield." She has defended a city ordinance that limits how much local law enforcement has to co-operate with the feds on low-level crime. It does not bar the city from cooperating with the feds on major crimes committed by noncitizens. But no, if an illegal immigrant is caught jaywalking, Boston will not arrest him or her and call ICE, which is what Trump wants.

Trump has called this policy "obstructionist" and wants to force Boston to abolish it. As usual, Trump doesn't actually care about the tiny number of people who might be turned over. What he wants is intimidate the mayor and get her to bow down and say: "Yes, your highness, we will do whatever your highness wishes of us." And Wu is refusing. (V)

Kennedy Is Getting Flak from All Sides

Robert Kennedy Jr.'s defiant testimony before the Senate was the last straw for a number of his relatives. His own sister, Kerry Kennedy, sent out a tweet that concludes: "I stand with the many courageous individuals in the medical and scientific communities who have set aside their vital work to speak truth to power to keep the public safe. Enough is enough. Kennedy must resign. Now."

Jack Schlossberg, JFK's grandson, wrote: "RFK LOSER IS A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH and AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP WHO PLEASURES HIMSELF by lying to Congress." Schlossberg is probably going to run for the seat of retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY). Former U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy III, RFK's grandson and Junior's nephew, called his uncle "a threat to the health and wellbeing of every American."

The Kennedy' aren't the only who have had it with Junior, but some of the others don't have the spines to be as up front as the family. Senate Majority Whip John Barraso (R-WY), an orthopedic surgeon, said: "I support vaccines. I'm a doctor. Vaccines work. Secretary Kennedy, in your confirmation hearings, you promised to uphold the highest standards for vaccines. Since then, I've grown deeply concerned." No. No. No. Senator, you are from the great open spaces of Wyoming. Maine is 1,800 miles away.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), read aloud a statement from conservative commentator Erick Ericson whose wife couldn't get a vaccine. Cassidy said: "I would say, effectively, we're denying people vaccines." (Our italics) It is definitely "we're" because Cassidy, a physician, is at much as fault as Kennedy. He could have killed Kennedy's nomination and chose not to. He's got a lot of nerve whining about a situation he could have prevented and chose not to.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said: "I do also believe that some of your statements seem to contradict what you said in the prior hearing. You said you're going to empower the scientists at HHS to do their job—I'd just like to see evidence where you've done that." Seem to contradict? Doesn't he mean: "How dare you lie to this committee under oath?"

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) was angry about Kennedy firing CDC Director Susan Monarez a month after the Senate confirmed her. Thune told reporters: "Honestly, he's got to take responsibility. "We confirm these people, we go through a lot of work to get them confirmed, and they're in office a month?"

On the other hand, President of the Senate J.D. Vance was with Kennedy. He tweeted: "When I see all these senators trying to lecture and 'gotcha' Bobby Kennedy today, all I can think is: You all support off-label, untested, and irreversible hormonal 'therapies' for children, mutilating our kids and enriching big pharma. You're full of sh*t and everyone knows it." Do Cassidy, Tillis, and Thune support mutilating kids? Who knew?

Next up, Jerome Adams, surgeon general during Trump v1.0, was asked if Trump should fire Kennedy. He said: "I absolutely believe that he should for the sake of the nation and the sake of his [Trump's] legacy." Adams even criticized Trump himself: "President Trump is clearly the leader on foreign policy, clearly the leader on the economy and tariffs. But when it comes to health he's doing whatever RFK says."

Trump doesn't give a rat's a** one way or other about vaccines, even though he authorized Operation Warp Speed in Trump v1.0. Still, he is pretty good about feeling which way the wind is blowing. He told reporters: "You have some vaccines that are so incredible. I think you have to be very careful when you say some people don't have to be vaccinated. It's a very tough position. Just initially I heard about it yesterday, and it's a tough stance." So? How about doing something about it? (V)

Another Democrat Jumps into the Texas Senate Race

Texas Democrats smell blood in the water. They see polls showing that Texas AG Ken Paxton (R) is ahead of Sen. John Cornyn (R) in the Texas Senate primary next year and know that Paxton might be too much, even for Texas. Former representative Colin Allred (D) is already in, and has a statewide recognition from his previous Senate run. And now, Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D) has jumped in as well, forcing what could be a nasty Democratic primary. A spokesperson for Talarico declined to explain Talarico's decision.

It is likely that the DNC and DSCC will soon openly come out for Allred and start sending money his way to make it clear to Talarico that he will have to fight the entire Democratic Party to get the nomination. If the Democratic establishment tells all the big donors to pony up for Allred and stay clear of Talarico, that could send him a message. (V)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger