They are getting their asses kicked and crying like little pussy babies....

Russia sharpens warnings as the U.S. and Europe send more weapons to Ukraine

CHARLES MAYNES

As the U.S. and Europe boost military aid to Ukraine, Russian authorities have escalated warnings and criticism, arguing the aid is not only fueling the conflict but also boosting the risk of direct confrontation between Russia and NATO powers.

In some ways, Russian criticism over foreign military assistance to Ukraine is not new. Russian President Vladimir Putin seized on the delivery of Western arms to Kyiv as part of his rationale to launch what he insists is a limited "special military operation" in February.

Yet as Russia's stated goals in Ukraine have narrowed to the "liberation" of the eastern Donbas, the Kremlin's amplified rhetoric reflects efforts to build public consensus for the need of a protracted — if not existential — war with the West.

"The tendency to pump weapons, including heavy weapons into Ukraine and other countries, these are the actions that threaten the security of the continent, provoke instability," Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters Thursday. It was the latest in a series of statements from Moscow that the conflict in Ukraine risks spilling into a wider conflict with the West.

Peskov was reacting to an appeal by British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss for Western countries to "double down" on their military support for the government in Kyiv.

"Heavy weapons, tanks, airplanes — digging deep into our inventories, ramping up production. We need to do all of this" for Ukraine, Truss said in a speech on Wednesday in London.

On Thursday, President Biden asked Congress to approve $33 billion in aid to Ukraine — more than double what Washington has already committed since the start of the conflict last February. Nearly two-thirds of that amount is for military aid.

This week, Germany's parliament also approved sending anti-aircraft tanks to Ukraine.

Since the beginning of the conflict, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made impassioned pleas for heavier and more lethal weapons to stem the Russian assault. While Western allies have embraced the call for aid, they've been careful to emphasize that their forces will not join the fight.

"We're not attacking Russia; we're helping Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression," Biden said in announcing his push for new aid.

Meanwhile, the rhetoric from Russia has grown more heated with each passing day. On state television on Monday, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned the West is de facto engaged in a "proxy war" that could lead to World War III. NATO shipments into Ukraine, he said, would be viewed as "legitimate targets" by Russia's military.

Maria Zakharova, the Foreign Ministry's spokesperson, accused the West of masterminding a series of disputed attacks on Russian territory near the Ukrainian border.

"In the West, they are openly calling on Kyiv to attack Russia, including with the use of weapons received from NATO countries. ... I don't advise you to test our patience," she said Thursday.

Sergei Naryshkin, the head of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Services claimed that same day to have uncovered a U.S.-Polish plot to send forces into western Ukraine under the guise of a "peacekeeping contingent." Their goal, Naryshkin claimed, without providing evidence, was to seize Ukrainian territory for themselves.

Then there was Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of Russia's Security Council, who told Russia's official state newspaper Rossiskaya Gazeta on Tuesday that the U.S. — having failed to subdue Russia after the end of the Cold War — is now intent on its destruction.

"America divided the world into vassals and enemies long ago," Patrushev said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued his own warnings, too. Interference from outside powers in Ukraine is creating "strategic threats" to Russia itself, he said Wednesday — even as he boasted Russia's defenses were up to the challenge.

The West "should know that our retaliatory strikes will be lightning-fast," Putin said in a speech to lawyers in St. Petersburg. "We have all the tools for this, things no one else can boast of having now. And we will not boast about it, we will just use them if necessary."

Judge rejects...

Judge rejects Trump's affidavit saying he doesn't have documents sought by New York's attorney general

By Kara Scannell

Former President Donald Trump said in a sworn affidavit that he doesn't have any documents sought by the New York attorney general in its investigation of the Trump Organization's finances.

The one-page signed affidavit filed with the court Friday was Trump's unsuccessful attempt to end the civil contempt and daily fine of $10,000 per day imposed on him earlier this week by New York state Judge Arthur Engoron.

After a brief telephonic hearing Friday morning, the judge denied Trump's motion to purge the contempt.

"Mr. Trump's personal affidavit is completely devoid of any useful detail. Notably, it fails to state where he kept his files, how his files were stored in the regular course of business, who had access to such files, what, if any, the retention policy was for such files, and, importantly, where he believes such files are currently located," he wrote. The judge also found the sworn statement from Trump's attorney unsatisfactory.

The judge previously said Trump could end the contempt if he complied with the subpoena or him or his attorneys detailed their efforts to search for documents sought by the subpoena. He called Trump's lawyer's earlier response "boilerplate."

In the sworn statement signed April 27, Trump wrote, "To the best of my knowledge, (i) I do not have any of the documents requested in the subpoena dated December 1, 2021 in my personal possession." He said any records would be in the possession of the Trump Organization and he has authorized them to comply with the subpoena. The former President has also appealed that order.

Lawyers with New York Attorney General Letitia James objected, writing in a letter to the judge, "Mr. Trump's two-paragraph affidavit adds no useful information to the mix. Mr. Trump merely states off the top of his head, with no hint that he conducted any type of search, that he has no documents in response to the December 2021 subpoena in his 'personal possession.'"

They also said affidavits from Trump's attorneys provide some new information about their search, but "they are insufficient to purge the finding of contempt."

If after the review is complete and if no new records are recovered, the attorney general's office said it would suggest that Trump didn't preserve records.

"It is simply not plausible that Mr. Trump authored only three documents dealing with the value of his assets and his wealth," they wrote.

The attorney general's office said additional files still need to be searched by Trump's lawyer or HaystackID, the third-party firm hired for document production, before they would be satisfied. Among those files: all of Trump's hard copy files in Trump Tower or its off-site storage, all the paper files of Trump's executive assistants, all electronic devices, including cell phones and computers, belonging to Trump and his assistants, and every property where Trump maintains a personal office or residence.

HaystackID will complete most of the review of materials at Trump Tower by May 6, the attorney general's office said. They noted that Haystack identified two flip cellphones belonging to Trump but the attorney general's office said since Trump reportedly used a smartphone "he apparently has, or must have had in the past, one or more other phones that he obtained for personal use."

In addition, investigators took issue with Trump's attorney relying on previous searches conducted by the Trump Organization's lawyer in response to earlier subpoenas.

In a sworn affidavit, Trump's attorney Alina Habba, said she had checked some of the records and had gone to Florida to speak with Trump himself. She said Trump did not have an documents at his homes in Bedminster, New Jersey, or Mar-a-Lago, Florida.

I don't think they should cancel. They need to reduce the over inflated cost of college.....

Why Biden is resisting the pressure to cancel $50,000 in student loan debt per borrower

By Katie Lobosco

President Joe Biden has a student loan debt forgiveness problem.

Lawmakers within his party continue to put the issue front and center, urging the President to cancel $50,000 for each of the 43 million federal student loan borrowers -- something he has shot down repeatedly, including on Thursday.

Biden has already canceled more student loan debt than any other president by making it easier for students defrauded by for-profit colleges or those working in the public sector to receive forgiveness through existing relief programs. The President also recently extended the pandemic-related payment pause for a fourth time under his administration -- moving the expiration date from May 1 to August 31.

But those moves have done little to ease the political pressure.

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called on Biden yet again to cancel $50,000 in student debt for each federal borrower by using executive action.

"Borrowers don't just need their debts paused; they need them erased," Schumer said from the Senate floor.

"With the flick of a pen, President Biden could provide millions upon millions of student loan borrowers a new lease on life," the New York Democrat added.

The pressure is ramping up in a midterm election year and as recent polling shows that Biden's approval rating continues to drop with young Americans.

More than 100 Democratic members of Congress signed a letter sent to Biden last month that urged him to "cancel a meaningful amount of student debt." A handful of progressive lawmakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, appeared with student debt cancellation organizers outside the White House on Wednesday to show their support.

So far, Biden has resisted the pressure to cancel $50,000 in student loan debt for every borrower. On Thursday, he doubled down on that stance while leaving the door open to some kind of student debt cancellation.

"I am considering dealing with some debt reduction. I am not considering $50,000 debt reduction," Biden said at the White House after unveiling new funding for Ukraine.

"But I'm in the process of taking a hard look at whether or not there are going -- there will be additional debt forgiveness, and I'll have an answer on that in the next couple of weeks."

Later Thursday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki confirmed that "there's been no conclusion of any process internally yet."

There are several reasons why Biden may be resisting the pull from the left wing of his party.

Legal authority is unclear

Biden made it clear during his presidential campaign, after the Covid-19 pandemic began, that he supported partial cancellation of federal student debt.

His campaign proposal called for immediately canceling a minimum of $10,000 in student debt per person as a response to the pandemic, as well as forgiving all undergraduate tuition-related federal student debt from two- and four-year public colleges and universities for those borrowers earning up to $125,000 a year.

But he has also urged Congress to take action to cancel debt, rather than said he could use executive power to do so.

It's not totally clear that the President's executive authority allows him to broadly wipe away student debt. Last year, Biden directed lawyers at the Departments of Education and Justice to evaluate whether he does, in fact, have the power to broadly cancel federal student loan debt. The administration has not disclosed those findings.

But a September 2020 memo from lawyers at Harvard University's Legal Services Center and its Project on Predatory Student Lending argues that Congress has given the power to broadly cancel federal student debt to the Department of Education through a law known as the Higher Education Act. It gives the education secretary the authority "to create and to cancel or modify debt owed under federal student loan programs," the memo says.

Inflation is a key issue for voters

It may sound counterintuitive to borrowers who would benefit from debt cancellation, but some experts say forgiving student loans would add to inflation. This is a problem for Biden and other Democrats, who are getting blamed for rising gas and grocery prices.

Millions of people would be able to spend money -- roughly $4 billion a month, per one estimate -- on things other than their monthly student loan payments. And people may be more likely to make big purchases, like cars or houses, if they no longer have student debt hanging over their heads.

A report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that canceling all $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt would increase the inflation rate by 0.1 to 0.5 percentage point over 12 months. Canceling $50,000 per borrower would result in a smaller increase, but the group did not estimate that effect.

"It's not gigantic," said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

"In a normal inflation environment, it wouldn't be a big deal. But we're in a very precarious situation right now and at risk of inflation spiraling out of control," he added.

Canceling debt could benefit a lot of wealthy people

Biden has repeatedly said he is committed to making sure wealthy Americans pay their fair share and has proposed raising taxes on the richest Americans. Canceling student debt could run afoul of that policy goal.

Canceling student debt for everyone would disproportionately benefit higher-wealth households, like those with doctors and lawyers, because those borrowers tend to have more student debt after attending graduate school. As of 2019, households with graduate degrees owed 56% of the outstanding education debt.

A more targeted approach, like canceling debt for borrowers who earn less than a certain income threshold or canceling loans borrowed only for undergraduate degrees, could help make sure more of the benefit is reaching the Americans most in need.

"If you did even basic targeting, then way more of the money would go to low-income borrowers," said Adam Looney, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has studied student debt relief policies.

Still, canceling student loan debt wouldn't solve the fundamental problem with college affordability. Biden also campaigned on making community colleges free, a move that would require an act of Congress, but that proposal was cut from his Build Back Better agenda.

"If you don't fix the system, these problems are going to reoccur and we'll be back in the same crisis we are now," Looney said.

Biden has signaled he would be open to excluding high-income borrowers from student loan debt cancellation, arguing last year that the government shouldn't forgive debt for people who went to "Harvard and Yale and Penn."

Psaki said Thursday that the President continues to consider some type of means testing when it comes to loan cancellation.

"He has talked in the past about how he doesn't believe that millionaires or billionaires should benefit -- or even people from the highest income -- so that is certainly something he would be looking at," she said.

To date, Biden's actions have delivered more than $17 billion in targeted student debt relief to 725,000 borrowers. About $3.2 billion of that was canceled for borrowers who had been defrauded by their for-profit colleges.

Gives advice and asks for direction... Like a good little Nazi...

New text messages reveal Fox's Hannity advising Trump White House and seeking direction

By Jamie Gangel, Jeremy Herb, Elizabeth Stuart and Brian Stelter

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Fox's Sean Hannity exchanged more than 80 text messages between Election Day 2020 and Joe Biden's January 2021 inauguration, communications that show Hannity's evolution from staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump's election lies to being "fed up" with the "lunatics" hurting Trump's cause in the days before January 6.

CNN obtained Meadows' 2,319 text messages, which he selectively provided in December to the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. While the logs show Meadows communicating with multiple Fox personalities, as well as a number of journalists from other organizations, Hannity stands out with 82 messages. The texts, including dozens of newly disclosed messages, offer a real-time window into how Hannity, a close friend of Trump, was reacting to the election and its aftermath.

Throughout the logs, Hannity both gives advice and asks for direction, blurring the lines between his Fox show, his radio show and the Trump White House.

On the afternoon of Election Day, Hannity texted Meadows at 1:36 p.m. to ask about turnout in North Carolina. Two hours later, Meadows responded: "Stress every vote matters. Get out and vote. On radio."

"Yes sir," Hannity replied. "On it. Any place in particular we need a push."

"Pennsylvania. NC AZ," Meadows wrote, adding: "Nevada."

"Got it. Everywhere," Hannity said.

The texts also show the two men debating Trump's strategy to challenge the election, complaining about Fox, and plotting about what to do after Trump left office -- including possibly working together.

"You also need to spend at least half your time doing business with us," Hannity texted Meadows on December 12. "And I'm serious. Did u ever talk to Fox. I've been at war with them."

"I agree. We can make a powerful team," Meadows responded. "I did not talk with (Fox News CEO) Suzanne (Scott) because I got tied up with pardons but I will make sure I connect. You are a true patriot and I am so very proud of you! Your friendship means a great deal to me."

"Feeling is mutual," Hannity wrote back.

Hannity did not respond to requests for comment from CNN; neither did Meadows or his attorney. A spokesman for the January 6 committee declined to comment.

Feeding the fraud conspiracies

Initially after the November 2020 election, Hannity appeared to be all in with Trump's false election claims. On November 29, he texted Meadows saying he had his team trying to prove election fraud: "I've had my team digging into the numbers. There is no way Biden got these numbers. Just mathematically impossible. It's so sad for this country they can pull this off in 2020. We need a major breakthrough, a video, something."

Meadows responded, "You're exactly right. Working on breakthrough."

"Ok. Would be phenomenal," Hannity texted back.

But several weeks later, as Trump's team lost court challenges and the wild claims from attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell failed to materialize into anything more than false conspiracy theories, Hannity's tone shifted.

Hannity checked in with Meadows on December 22, asking him how he was doing.

"Fighting like crazy. Went to Cobb county to review process. Very tough days but I will keep fighting," Meadows said, referring to the Trump team's objections to votes from Cobb County, Georgia.

While Hannity never appeared to dispute Trump's false claims about the election itself, he expressed alarm at the tactics of some of those pushing Trump's case. Hannity responded to Meadows, "You fighting is fine. The fing lunatics is NOT fine. They are NOT helping him. I'm fed up with those people."

By New Year's Eve, Hannity warned about the fallout if top White House lawyers resigned in protest. Hannity also appeared to accept the fact that the election was over and the President's best course of action was to go to Florida and engage Biden from there.

"We can't lose the entire WH counsels office. I do NOT see January 6 happening the way he is being told," Hannity said. "After the 6 th. He should announce will lead the nationwide effort to reform voting integrity. Go to Fl and watch Joe mess up daily. Stay engaged. When he speaks people will listen."

Prepping for a Trump interview

Hannity's text messages to Meadows are of interest to the House select committee, which wrote to Hannity in January requesting an interview. That month, the panel released some of Hannity's texts to Meadows showing his concern about what would happen on January 6, 2021.

After the letter was sent, Hannity's attorney, Jay Sekulow, told CNN, "We are reviewing the committee's letter and will respond as appropriate."

The texts provide evidence of what many White House and Fox sources claimed during Trump's time in office: That Hannity acted as a "shadow chief of staff" while also juggling radio and TV shows. Trump would frequently call into Hannity's show -- and Hannity appeared on stage with the President during his final 2018 campaign rally.

While Hannity was fiercely loyal to Trump on-air, his off-air relationship was more complicated. He sometimes complained about Trump's conduct and fretted that the President was hurting the Republican Party writ large.

Hannity has said he is not a journalist, and Fox does not hold him to traditional journalistic standards. He is more akin to a GOP activist and entertainer, like some of his fellow Fox hosts. In addition to Hannity, Fox's Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson, Maria Bartiromo and Brian Kilmeade all sent messages to Meadows as well.

A spokesperson for Fox did not respond to a request for comment.

In one noteworthy text, Bartiromo messaged Meadows on the morning of November 29, less than an hour before she was set to conduct Trump's first interview since Election Day. The text included questions she planned to ask Trump.

"Hi the public wants to know he will fight this. They want to hear a path to victory. & he's in control," Bartiromo texted at 9:21 a.m. "1Q You've said MANY TIMES THIS ELECTION IS RIGGED... And the facts are on your side. Let's start there. What are the facts? Characterize what took place here. Then I will drill down on the fraud including the statistical impossibilities of Biden magic (federalist). Pls make sure he doesn't go off on tangents. We want to know he is strong he is a fighter & he will win. This is no longer about him. This is about ????. I will ask him about big tech & media influencing ejection as well Toward end I'll get to GA runoffs & then vaccines."

At 10:12 a.m., Trump called into Bartiromo's show, "Sunday Morning Futures." Her line of questions mirrored much of what she laid out in the text message.

"Thank you for talking with us in the first interview since Election Day," Bartiromo said. "Mr President, you've said many times that this election was rigged, that there was much fraud. And the facts are on your side. Let's start there. Please go through the facts. Characterize what took place."

The committee previously released texts from both Kilmeade and Ingraham expressing alarm over the attacks at the Capitol and its effect on Trump's legacy. Tucker Carlson appears in only one exchange in the Meadows text logs, when he was trying to speak to Meadows while prepping for his show on November 17.

"Sorry I missed you. I was writing the show. Figured it out I think, but I appreciate it," Carlson wrote.

The logs also show there were dozens of journalists from other organizations who texted with Meadows during this time period. In contrast to Hannity's messages, these reporters were frequently seeking the White House chief of staff's confirmation of breaking news or trying to secure an interview with Trump.

Meadows received texts from reporters with the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Politico, Bloomberg, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN, among others.

'I'm beginning to feel down'

As the returns were coming in on Election Night, Hannity pinged Meadows to share a tweet about early vote totals out of North Carolina, a state that was crucial to Trump's reelection hopes. "Will we hold??" Hannity asked Meadows.

"We are still good," Meadows wrote back.

A week later, Hannity checked in again to see how Meadows was "holding up."

"I am doing well. Working around the clock. We are going to fight and win," Meadows said.

"You really think it's possible," Hannity responded. "I'm beginning to feel down. To (sic) much disorganization. We need Jim to front the messaging. Someone that's credible."

"Arizona now down just 12813. Still ballots to count," Meadows wrote back. "Very disorganized but I have been busting heads yesterday and today. Let NOT your heart be troubled my friend."

Hannity and Meadows' texts underscore the insular effects of the right-wing media echo chamber, where little if any accurate information about the election results was able to break through.

In November and early December, Hannity's show often amplified Trump's election lies. Guests including then-White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany made near-nightly appearances to sow doubt about the election results and stoke support for doomed legal challenges. "We will follow the facts," Hannity claimed on his December 2 program, one day after Trump's attorney general, William Barr, declared there was no evidence of widespread election fraud.

But in his texts with Meadows, Hannity sounded resigned to the fact that the election was over.

"Texas case is very strong. Still a Herculean climb. Everyone knows it was stolen. Everyone," Hannity wrote on December 8. "I vacillate between mad as hell and sad as hell. Wtf happened to our country Mark."

Meadows responded, "So upset to see what we allowed to happen."

"Honestly we think alike. That's another discussion," Hannity wrote back.

'I've been at war with them all week'

The text messages also shed light on Hannity's tensions with Fox. The Trump-aligned channel infuriated the former President by calling Arizona for Biden on Election Night.

On December 6, Meadows sent Hannity an article about then-Fox host Chris Wallace (who has since been hired by CNN) interrupting Trump's HHS Secretary Alex Azar when Azar called Biden vice president instead of president-elect.

"Doing this to try and get ratings will not work in the long run and I am doubtful it is even a short term winning strategy," Meadows wrote.

Hannity responded with a jab at Fox and a suggestion about what Meadows should do after leaving the White House: "I've been at war with them all week. We will talk wen I see u," Hannity wrote. "Also if this doesn't end the way we want, you me and Jay are doing 3 things together. 1- Directing legal strategies vs Biden 2- NC Real estate 3- Other business I talked to Rudy. Thx for helping him."

Hannity expressed his frustrations again several days later, telling Meadows that he had made a campaign ad.

"I was screaming about no ads from Labor Day on," Hannity wrote on December 8. "I made my own they never ran it. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm frustrated."

In his book, "Frankly, We Did Win This Election," reporter Michael Bender reported that Hannity had scripted an ad for the Trump campaign, which then paid Fox more than $1 million to run. But according to Bender, the ad only ran one time. When Bender's book was published last year, Hannity denied writing a Trump campaign ad.

On December 11, Meadows asked Hannity to send him the phone number of Suzanne Scott, the Fox News CEO. "I can call through switchboard but that makes it a bigger deal," Meadows said.

The next day, as Hannity pitched Meadows about working for Fox, he also offered an insightful window into how he views Trump. Hannity texted, "I truly feel sorry for our friend. He's never had a days peace. On the other side of this, he's exposed a very dark side of the swamp that's far worse than I ever imagined and I am not particularly optimistic for the future."

'The seats are slipping away'

By mid-December, both Hannity and Meadows were concerned about the two Senate run-offs in Georgia that would decide control of the chamber in 2021. By that point, Trump had started his harsh attacks on Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp for certifying the state's election for Biden.

Hannity and Meadows also began making plans for after the Trump administration, discussing how Trump could fashion a comeback bid and how Meadows could work against the Biden administration.

"These 2 senate seats are slipping away. Kemp is a total idiot," Hannity wrote on December 12.

Hannity argued that Trump should make the Senate race about him.

"He has to make this about him. I'll make a deal with you, If you (elect) 2 R's to the senate, I'll run again in 2024," Hannity wrote of Trump. "Make it about him. 2 of the worst candidates I've ever seen."

"The seats are slipping away," Meadows responded. "I agree that he has to give some hope for the future. Connect the future to these candidates."

Meadows continued, "Additionally. I think we set up a group of administrative lawyers, with a communication arm that fights election laws in every state and fight Biden actions every day, starting on Jan 20. ACLU filed over 400 lawsuits against Trump administration. We need to do the same. I think I can raise around 10 million dollars to hire a team to make sure the fight continues and prepares the way for 2024."

'He can't mention the election again. Ever.'

As January 6 approached, Hannity expressed his concern about what would transpire. He texted Meadows on January 5, "Im very worried about the next 48 hours. Pence pressure. WH counsel will leave."

On January 6, after the Capitol was breached by pro-Trump rioters, Hannity was one of a number of people texting Meadows urging Trump to intervene. "Can he make a statement. I saw the tweet. Ask people to peacefully leave the capital," Hannity texted Meadows at 3:31 p.m.

"On it," Meadows responded.

Later that evening, after Trump had sent another tweet attacking Vice President Mike Pence, Hannity expressed more alarm to Meadows, "Wth (What the hell) is happening with VPOTUS."

In the January 6 aftermath, Hannity sounded a glum note to Meadows as many Republicans looked to cast Trump out of the party. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell gave a floor speech on January 19 saying the mob was "provoked" by Trump, prompting Hannity to share the video with Meadows. "Well this is as bad as this can get," Hannity texted.

Hannity spoke to Trump several days after January 6. The call did not go well, Hannity wrote in a group text to Meadows and GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio. Hannity said he wanted Trump never to speak about the 2020 election again, but that Trump was unwilling, and Hannity appeared at a loss for what to do next.

"Guys, we have a clear path to land the plane in 9 days. He can't mention the election again. Ever," Hannity wrote. "I did not have a good call with him today. And worse, I'm not sure what is left to do or say, and I don't like not knowing if it's truly understood. Ideas?"

Neither Meadows nor Jordan appeared to respond.

They all need to be gutted....

Wildlife officials bust NorCal white sturgeon poaching ring, authorities say

Christian Martinez

Nine people were arrested by state wildlife police on suspicion of poaching, selling animals on the black market and other offenses after a sprawling investigation by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife investigation, the agency said.

Eight men were arrested on suspicion of poaching white sturgeon from Sacramento Valley waterways, the department said last week. A ninth man was arrested on suspicion of selling Dungeness crab and red abalone on the black market.

“I am proud of the dedicated wildlife officers who spent countless hours investigating this wildlife trafficking case to protect our native sturgeon population, which is already severely affected by historic drought conditions,” David Bess, deputy director and chief of the law enforcement division, said in a release.

The investigation into the sturgeon poaching suspects began in May 2021. Andrew Chao, 31, and Ay Pou Saechao, 35, both of Oakland, allegedly caught sturgeon, removed their eggs and sold them to Igor, Lyudmila, Yevgeniy and Olga Petryanik in San Francisco.

“The Petryanik family is suspected of processing the sturgeon roe into caviar and selling it on the illegal wildlife market,” the Department of Fish and Wildlife said in a release. “Chao and all four members of the Petryanik family are facing poaching charges in a case that is still pending prosecution.”

In January, the Oakland men were again under investigation for allegedly poaching sturgeon from the Sacramento River.

On March 14, officers pulled Chao over and found an 85.5-inch white sturgeon in the back of the vehicle, authorities said.

The fish was alive and returned safely to the water. Chao was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to poach sturgeon and possession of an oversize sturgeon.

Investigators said they found links between Chao and Saechao and opened a concurrent investigation into others suspected of poaching sturgeon.

During surveillance on the other suspects, investigators saw the illegal capture of nearly 40 sturgeon, they said.

“The suspects were also observed catching and using juvenile salmon as bait for the sturgeon, another unlawful act,” the Department of Fish and Wildlife said.

On March 30, Chao and Saechao; Huan Van Nguyen, 72, of Elk Grove; and Sacramento residents Lai Chow Saechao, 34; Ou Hin Saetern, 37; Sengon Saechao, 32; Andy Serncho Saephanh, 35; Nai Fow Saechao, 39; and Choy Gwen Saephan, 32, were arrested on suspicion of poaching, fishing and possession violations after officers served search warrants.

Officers reportedly found illegally possessed deer and abalone, illegal guns including a “ghost gun” and an AR-15 along with illegal narcotics and illegal marijuana.

NGC 3628

Sharp telescopic views of NGC 3628 show a puffy galactic disk divided by dark dust lanes. Of course, this portrait of the magnificent, edge-on spiral galaxy puts some astronomers in mind of its popular moniker, the Hamburger Galaxy. It also reveals a small galaxy nearby (below), likely a satellite of NGC 3628, and a very faint but extensive tidal tail. The drawn out tail stretches for about 300,000 light-years, even beyond the upper left edge of the frame. NGC 3628 shares its neighborhood in the local universe with two other large spirals M65 and M66 in a grouping otherwise known as the Leo Triplet. Gravitational interactions with its cosmic neighbors are likely responsible for creating the tidal tail, as well as the extended flare and warp of this spiral's disk. The tantalizing island universe itself is about 100,000 light-years across and 35 million light-years away in the northern springtime constellation Leo.

Not Funny...

 

$1 billion in outstanding debt

DeSantis officials say Florida won’t pay Disney’s debt — but there's no plan yet

Democrats and the special district say $1 billion in outstanding debt could be unloaded on nearby Orange and Osceola counties.

By ANDREW ATTERBURY

The DeSantis administration is adamant that Florida taxpayers will not be stuck paying massive debts for Walt Disney Co. after Republicans revoked the company’s longstanding special privileges in the state — but the governor has offered few specific details as questions mount over the legal ramifications.

A plan for how the state will tackle Disney’s Reedy Creek Improvement District, which gives the California-based company self-governing power over its amusement park property in Central Florida, is expected to be “shared in the next few weeks,” according to DeSantis officials. Yet Reedy Creek is contending that the new state law targeting Disney conflicts with the state’s original agreement, leaving at stake some $1 billion in outstanding bond debt and putting the economic future of the special district in a dire position, according to a new advisory from Fitch Ratings on Thursday.

“As Governor [Ron] DeSantis has said, Disney will pay its fair share of taxes, and abolishing the special district will not cause tax increases for the residents of any area of Florida,” DeSantis spokesperson Christina Pushaw wrote in a statement Thursday. She replied to one person on Twitter that she “will be sure to post more details on the plan as soon as I can share those.”

It took the GOP-led Florida Legislature roughly three days to approve nixing Disney’s special status from the time the measure was announced, in keeping with the short time frame of last week’s special legislative session. Throughout debate over the bill, GOP lawmakers emphasized that it was giving the company and state a year to figure out complex tax and debt issues.

The latest twist in the Florida versus Disney saga came when Reedy Creek called into question the legality behind the Legislature’s move to dissolve the special district, which granted the entertainment giant the ability to build its own structures without seeking approval from a local planning commission and to collect taxes and issue bonds. The district was created in the 1960s.

In a note to investors first reported this week by WESH 2 in Orlando, Reedy Creek officials pointed to a previous agreement between Florida and the special district that seemingly could prohibit the state from altering its status until bond debts are paid.

Reedy Creek is currently carrying approximately $1 billion in outstanding debt, according to Fitch Ratings, burdens that Democrats and the special district said could be unloaded on Orange and Osceola Counties nearby Disney World. After the Legislature approved the measure punishing Disney, Fitch Ratings placed Reedy Creek on a “rating watch negative,” which is essentially a warning to investors.

On Thursday, Fitch released an additional cautionary note, saying that Florida’s move to dismantle Reedy Creek “heightens bondholder uncertainty” and if the state doesn’t find a way to resolve the debt issue it “could alter our view of Florida’s commitment to preserve bondholder rights and weaken our view of the operating environment for Florida governments.”

Reedy Creek’s board of supervisors, meanwhile, met Wednesday for the first time since the repeal and had few, if any, answers about what comes next.

“There’s nothing I can do about it and I don’t think there’s anybody here that knows what to do about it,” said board member Don Greer, per local media. “The governor of the state of Florida will have to decide that.”

DeSantis and his administration are dismissing any claims that local governments and residents could see tax increases as a result of the move, insisting the idea is a “partisan political lie being amplified by media.”

“If it’s true that the repeal of the special district would hand Disney a tax break, and the local taxpayers would be on the hook for this bail-out to benefit Disney … why would Disney oppose the idea of repealing their special district?” Pushaw wrote. “Indeed, if that was true, why wouldn’t Disney have lobbied to get rid of the special district long ago?”

To that end, Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.), a top Democratic challenger for DeSantis in 2022, is attempting to campaign off DeSantis’ fight against Disney. Crist’s campaign announced Thursday a new ad airing in Orange and Osceola blasting the Republican governor for a move Crist says could raise property taxes. Crist in the ad cites Orange County Tax Collector Scott Randolph, a Democrat who previously served in the state House who said that his county will absorb Reedy Creek’s debt.

“I thought Republicans were supposed to be against tax increases,” Crist said at an event this week.

Florida Republicans, led by DeSantis, eliminated Disney’s special status as a punishment for opposing the recently signed Parental Rights in Education bill that prohibits educators from leading classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity for students in kindergarten through third grade. LGBTQ advocates say the measure, which has been labeled the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, could lead to increased bullying or even suicide among youth while GOP lawmakers argued it was necessary to give more power to parents in the state.

The moves against Disney are part of DeSantis’ fight against “woke” culture in schools and companies, efforts spelled out in several new laws passed in 2022 targeting how students are learning about race and gender identity.

Aside from the “Don’t Say Gay” criticisms, DeSantis has taken issue with recent statements by Disney executives discussing efforts to include more diverse characters in their content, which were detailed in company Zoom calls reported by conservative activist Christopher Rufo. DeSantis has also maintained that the special status afforded Disney gave the company an unfair advantage. Disney is one of the state’s biggest employers, with more than 75,000 employees.

“Basically, that arrangement, it was corporate welfare — no question,” DeSantis said Wednesday at a Las Vegas campaign event for Nevada Senate hopeful Adam Laxalt.

“It was totally unfair to every other company in Florida. But it also represented my state being joined at the hip with this one corporation. And if you’re admitting that your intention is to inject sexuality into the programming for these young kids, I can’t have that relationship.”

Lies about the outcome

Republican who refuses to bend the knee to Trump surges in Ohio Senate race

Matt Dolan, who wants the former president to stop pushing "lies about the outcome" of the 2020 election, is showing a late burst of momentum.

By NATALIE ALLISON

The field of candidates chasing Ohio’s GOP Senate nomination has pledged allegiance to former President Donald Trump and beaten a path to Mar-a-Lago.

But not Matt Dolan. The state senator has declined to kiss the ring, and instead run as a traditional conservative — pouring $10.6 million of his own money into the effort.

Now, after languishing at the bottom of the polls since joining the Republican field, Dolan is finding that his strategy is finally showing signs of paying off.

Days before the May 3 primary, Dolan appears to be experiencing a late burst of momentum. While J.D. Vance — who received Trump’s endorsement last week — has surged into first place according to the most recent Fox News poll, Dolan was the only other top contender to gain ground in the poll since last month. A separate poll released Tuesday by Blueprint Polling actually placed Dolan in first place with 18 percent of the vote, followed by Vance at 17 percent.

Whatever momentum Dolan is riding, it was enough to prompt Trump to release a statement Tuesday suggesting that the state senator is “not fit” to serve in the Senate.

“I think there’s mounting evidence that he’s in a scenario where he’s running up the middle, unmolested, with a unique message and some things in his favor,” said Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist who lives out of state but donated $250 to Dolan’s campaign in October. “Does it mean he has a lock on the race? No way. But it’s a competitive race, and he’s in it. He’s got the momentum, as of last week.”

Dolan likely has a low ceiling of support, given his dependence on Republican voters who are willing to move on from Trump — a minority of the party. But in a splintered field of candidates, that could be enough.

“When I made my decision to get into the race, I knew that it was going to be a tough slog, at least publicly, for a while,” Dolan said in an interview. “I knew that I would not be doing well in the polls until much, much later in the campaign. I think it’s playing out as I thought it was going to play out.”

Internal Dolan polling shows him “tracking to second place,” according to a person familiar with the data who said the campaign has a “glide path to getting a plurality of the vote.”

Widely viewed as a longshot, Dolan has avoided any real attacks from his opponents, who took turns going after one another for months in a cutthroat primary that has generated nearly $70 million in ad spending. The Club for Growth — a super PAC supporting former state Treasurer Josh Mandel, who has led in polls throughout most of the primary — took out ads targeting Vance, Jane Timken and Mike Gibbons as each saw gains in support in recent months.

But they and other campaigns and outside interest groups never targeted Dolan, who has spent heavily on television ads with his own positive message since January.

Dolan is the lone candidate who refuses to toe the Trump line. He has accused the former president of “perpetuat[ing] lies about the outcome” of the 2020 election. He called the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol a “failure of leadership” by Trump and an “attack on democracy.” At a March 21 debate, Dolan was the only candidate to raise his hand when the moderator asked who believed it was time for Trump to stop talking about the 2020 election.

Yet Dolan has been careful to highlight that he considers himself a Trump supporter. Throughout the campaign, Dolan’s staff has been “dogged” about seeking corrections to any news reports that referred to Dolan as anti-Trump or a Never Trumper, according to a person working on the campaign. They would explain to reporters that Dolan had twice voted for Trump — unlike Vance — and that Dolan has said he would do so again if Trump were the nominee. Dolan has also said that he would not have voted to convict Trump in an impeachment trial.

Though Dolan’s campaign was once dismissed as a vanity project, Trump has long paid attention to a possible rise by the candidate. On Tuesday, he attacked Dolan not as an opponent of his America First agenda, but because the Major League Baseball team Dolan and his family own, the Cleveland Guardians, changed its name from the Indians after the 2021 season.

“Anybody who changes the name of the ‘storied’ Cleveland Indians (from 1916), an original baseball franchise, to the Cleveland Guardians, is not fit to serve in the United States Senate,” Trump wrote. “Such is the case for Matt Dolan, who I don’t know, have never met, and may be a very nice guy, but the team will always remain the Cleveland Indians to me!”

A person close to Trump insisted there was no particular reason the former president released the Dolan statement Tuesday, and that it was unrelated to polling data circulating on Twitter that day placing Dolan in the lead or in second place. The person noted that the message was something Trump “has been saying for months” — at least since Dolan entered the race in September — and that Trump just wanted to “remind people” about the Dolans’ role in the team name change.

Throughout the campaign, Dolan has said he was not part of the decision to change the name, but supports his family.

While his campaign events this week haven’t drawn high-profile supporters — such as Trump, who held a rally Saturday to support Vance, or Donald Trump Jr., who has visited the state twice in recent days to stump with Vance — Dolan has earned endorsements from three newspaper editorial boards and dozens of municipal office holders around the state. Local surrogates have also engaged in an aggressive letters-to-the-editor campaign on his behalf.

Mandel, meanwhile, has kept a low profile after traveling to campaign stops last week with Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser and a leading advocate for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. This weekend, Mandel will appear at events with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Dolan’s campaign is well aware that Trump’s approval rating among Republican voters in the state is as high as 85 percent. Its approach has been to thread the needle between support for Trump’s agenda — Dolan joined other candidates in the primary in running an ad about closing the southern border — and his unapologetic denunciations of Trump’s baseless election fraud crusade.

“What we sought to do from the outset was illustrate to folks that this race has to be about Ohio,” said Chris Maloney, Dolan’s campaign consultant. “You can be for pro-Trump policies and not share his personality, and that’s what is taking hold among Ohio Republicans.”

In contrast with Dolan, whose large investment in the race for months appeared futile as he failed to gain significant traction, Gibbons, a wealthy business owner, has taken a dive after peaking earlier this year and loaning his campaign more than $16 million.

Murphy, the Republican strategist, noted several factors are helping Dolan now. In addition to emerging unscathed after the other candidates spent months hurling insults at each other, Dolan fits the mold of pragmatic conservatives whom Ohio Republicans have traditionally chosen for Senate, including retiring Sen. Rob Portman, former Sen. and Gov. George Voinovich and current Gov. Mike DeWine.

“He’s not an alien species at all to the normal comfort zone of the Ohio Republican Party,” Murphy said.

Dolan and Timken have had campaign staff out on foot for more than two months, allowing them to have an established ground campaign. But Timken has been dark on broadcast television and cable for weeks in several markets, and has been completely off broadcast statewide the past week, running only $15,000 worth of cable ads. A super PAC supporting her, Winning for Women, now has only a small number of cable spots running.

Dolan’s campaign and the Club for Growth are leading in television ads right now, followed by the pro-Vance super PAC Protect Ohio Values, an outside expenditure group that has received $13.5 million in donations from billionaire tech executive Peter Thiel.

At a recent debate, Dolan was asked whether he could win the Republican nomination without Trump’s support.

“Of course I can win,” Dolan said, pivoting to his record in the Ohio Legislature. “The irony of this whole thing is I’m the only one who has implemented Republican Trump ideas.”

$68B

California's budget surplus has exploded to $68B

Lawmakers are eagerly preparing a wishlist for the estimated windfall.

By ALEXANDER NIEVES

Californians could receive billions in tax rebates later this year as the state’s budget surplus continues to explode.

State Senate leaders on Thursday released an extensive wish list for spending the windfall — now estimated to be as high as $68 billion. That staggering figure is the high end of a projection from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which in January put the number far lower, at $29 billion.

California’s swelling coffers mark a sharp reversal from early in the pandemic, when unemployment spiked and officials braced for steep budget cuts. Instead, a booming stock market and tech sector have brought in record revenues, even as Californians with lower incomes contended with job losses and sky-high housing costs. Other states are also awash in cash.

Atop the spending list is a proposal to send $8 billion in payments to taxpayers, a move that Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and Senate Budget Chair Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) pitched as a way to combat rising costs of energy and consumer goods. The plan would also include rebates to small businesses and nonprofits to help repay federal unemployment debt, along with grants that could be used to offset new costs from the state’s supplemental Covid-19 sick leave program.

The rebate proposal is reminiscent of the Golden State Stimulus checks the state mailed out last year. Meanwhile Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed an $11 billion relief package to offset rising gas prices. The governor is expected to reveal an updated state spending plan next month.

The largest chunk of the surplus — around $43 billion — would go to bolster the state’s budget reserves under the Senate proposal, which the LAO in November estimated to be north of $21 billion for the 2022-23 fiscal year.

The Senate proposal also calls for large increases in education spending. The plan would increase the base funding schools receive by $5 billion for the upcoming year and by $10 billion in 2024-25. Those dollars would come out of a separate pool of revenue that the state is constitutionally required to spend on K-12 schools.

Nearly $5 billion would be directed to universities and community colleges for deferred facilities maintenance and expansion of student housing, a dearth of which has led to criticism of the state’s three public higher education systems. Another $1 billion would be earmarked for preschool programs and waivers to support childcare for low-income residents.

Other spending proposals laid out in the plan:

— $1 billion on developing the state’s Medi-Cal program for undocumented residents, with the goal that the first-in-the-nation program start on June 1, 2023, rather than 2024 timeline currently scheduled.

— $18 billion for climate resiliency programs, including $7.5 billion to build a new state water system and rebalance existing water supplies, and $6.6 billion for wildfire prevention.

— $3 billion in each of the next three years to expand Project Homekey, which converts hotels into housing for homeless residents, and to provide funding for local homelessness programs.

— $2.7 billion for affordable housing projects and home ownership programs, including $1 billion for a new fund to help first-time homebuyer purchase homes with little or no downpayment.

— $20 billion for infrastructure projects laid out in Newsom’s January budget proposal.

Anti-abortion started because of civil rights...

The GOP Wasn't Always Anti-Abortion — Here's Why It Made Such A Significant Shift

By Madhuri Sathish-Van Atta

Since Donald Trump became president, elected Republicans across the country have grown emboldened in their efforts to restrict abortion. But you may not realize how the GOP became anti-abortion in the first place. In just a few years after Roe v. Wade secured abortion as a constitutional right in 1973, the party shifted dramatically toward opposing abortion, per The Washington Post, alienating many party members who had supported abortion rights.

This shift in the GOP's position on abortion policy was part of an effort to revive the party in the years after Roe was decided, according to Karissa Haugeberg, an assistant professor of history at Tulane University.

"During the 1970s, a faction within the GOP sought to re-energize the Republican Party by courting religiously conservative evangelical Christians, many of whom were deeply uncomfortable with the sexual revolution and civil rights movement," Haugeberg tells Bustle via email. "These Republican strategists developed the GOP’s anti-abortion plank (the Democratic Party later followed suit with a platform that affirmed a woman’s right to abortion)."

The majority of Republicans were supporters of abortion rights through the 1960s and 1970s, according to the Journal of Policy History. The first woman to lead the Republican National Committee, Mary Louise Smith, was known for supporting abortion rights, per The New York Times, while former first lady Betty Ford described Roe v. Wade as a "great, great decision." Even former Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, a well-known conservative, supported abortion in certain cases.

According to The Washington Post, 1976 marked the first time that the word "abortion" appeared in a Republican Party platform, acknowledging the debate within the party over abortion rights. By 1980, the party had pledged to adopt an anti-abortion constitutional amendment, according to the Post.

Haugeberg says that as a result, abortion became something of a litmus test for Republican candidates in subsequent years, driving away many Republicans who'd supported abortion rights over the next few decades.

In her book Republican Women, Catherine E. Rymph noted that many Republican women spent years pushing back against their party's newly-adopted anti-abortion stance. Smith, the former head of the RNC, actively spoke out for civil rights for the rest of her life, and denounced the GOP's decision to align itself with the religious right, Rymph wrote.

But their efforts did not seem to make a difference, and anti-abortion sentiment in the GOP only grew more pervasive with time. Fast forward to today: In the two years that Trump has been president, his administration found several ways to roll back abortion rights.

When he first took office, Trump reinstated and expanded a global gag rule that stripped American funds from international organizations that offer or promote abortion services. Trump has also filled his administration with conservatives who've taken a hard-line stance against abortion, and supported Republicans' efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. He nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, who was perceived as a threat to Roe by numerous reproductive rights advocates, and also became the first sitting president in history to address the anti-abortion March for Life last year (he did so again on Friday).

Like other prominent Republicans, Trump wasn't always publicly opposed to abortion. In 1999, he told NBC News that while he personally hated "the concept of abortion," he nonetheless identified as "pro-choice." Other previous Republican presidents, from Ronald Reagan to George H.W. Bush, reportedly supported abortion rights at one point in their political careers, too.

While though roughly 34 percent of Republicans say they're "pro-choice," according to FiveThirtyEight, their view is not shared by most of the Republicans who currently represent them in Congress. Only Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are known to break with their party on the issue.

It was a sign of the times, then, when the Republican Majority for Choice, an organization founded in 1988 by Mary Dent Crisp, a former co-chairwoman of the RNC, closed its doors for good last summer. The group had fought for emergency contraception, effective family planning policies, and stem cell research.

The organization's leaders, Susan Bevan and Susan Cullman, urged the GOP's fiscal conservatives to support those policies in a New York Times op-ed, arguing that "it is fiscally disingenuous to deny birth control coverage and then bemoan unintended pregnancies and abortion." They wrote that ultimately, they could no longer support a party that restricted reproductive health care access and the economic choices of pregnant people.

"As pro-choice Republicans, we refuse to support a party that has rightly earned the labels anti-woman and anti-common sense," they wrote, adding, "The big tent has collapsed for good."

How it started...

How the Republicans Became the Anti-Abortion Party, and What it Means for the GOP Today

by Donne Levy

In the mid-1970s, the religious right became heavily involved in electoral politics and a driving force within the Republican Party. By the end of the decade, abortion had emerged as the dominant issue in the religious right’s quest for power and influence. How did this happen, and what does it mean for American politics and the Republican Party?

In January 1973 the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, a “right to privacy” exists giving pregnant women a choice of whether to have an abortion. As with other constitutional rights, this is not absolute. Under the ruling, in the first trimester the abortion choice is absolute. In the second trimester the state can impose reasonable regulations. In the third trimester abortion may be prohibited except when necessary to save a life.

Despite this landmark decision, immediate response from the religious right was muted. A typical reaction from the evangelical movement came from W. A. Criswell, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, who in 1973 said, “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person.” The Southern Baptist Convention in 1974 reaffirmed its long-held view that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal deformity, or strong evidence of the likelihood of emotional, mental, or physical damage to the mother.

In 1973, the chief issue concerning the religious right was tax exemption for private schools. In Green v. Connally in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that, under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code, racially discriminatory private schools are not entitled to Federal tax exemption. That became the overriding issue for the religious right in the 1970s, as the Justice Department investigated private schools including Bob Jones University for racial discrimination.

By 1976, the anti-abortion movement was not yet strong to influence the GOP platform, which contained a statement acknowledging that abortion is a “difficult and controversial” issue about which Republicans had differing views. There was one candidate in 1976 who was prescient and began to stake out an anti-abortion position. That was Ronald Reagan.

By 1980, a sea-change had taken with respect to the thinking of religious right leaders. A chief figure promoting this change that would capture the Republican Party was Paul Weyrich, a conservative political activist. Weyrich was different from many other conservative activists in that he believed the key to success would be combining old conservative issues such as taxation with religious moralism. Weyrich tried out various issues such as school prayer and especially the issue of tax exemption for private religious schools. But nothing worked on a grand scale.

Then came the 1978 midterm elections, in which anti-abortionists campaigned for winning Senate candidates in Minnesota and Iowa. The following year Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority to support candidates for public office. Weyrich and Falwell realized that the tax exemption issue based on racial discrimination had limited value, but opposing abortion was a moral issue cutting across racial and religious lines. That was their thinking on the eve of the 1980 elections.

When Ronald Reagan emerged as the putative nominee in the primaries, he won the endorsement of the religious right with a goal of outlawing abortion. The appeal of Reagan was odd, because this he was once reputed to be a Hollywood womanizer who never attended church, and had signed the country’s most liberal abortion law as governor. In 1967, Governor Reagan signed a bill giving any doctor the power to approve an abortion for “mental-health” reasons of the mother. Nine years later Reagan claimed that he was unaware of that part of the law, but that is disingenuous, in that Reagan spoke of his misgivings on the day he signed the law. The number of abortions skyrocketed in California. However, Jerry Falwell among others believed in Reagan’s sincerity that he was now one of them. The GOP Platform of 1980 again admitted that Republicans differed on the abortion issue, but this time declared support for a constitutional anti-abortion amendment and called for an end of taxpayers’ money used for abortion services. Reagan never became a churchgoer, but did affirm his anti-abortion views in a 1983 essay titled “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.” His essay opposes abortion on demand and urges Americans to value the life of the “unborn.”

The Republican Party would from then on be an anti-abortion party in its national platforms and legislative agenda, but the results have been mixed. Reagan’s first Supreme Court appointee was Sandra Day O’Connor, who saved Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, Justice O’Connor wrote that an abortion is a constitutional right that can only be restricted if a restriction does not place an “undue burden” on a woman. The case was about a restrictive abortion law in Pennsylvania that required spousal notification prior to an abortion. That was struck down as an undue burden because some husbands are abusive. Other provisions, such as parental consent and a 24-hour waiting period, remained intact.

By the end of Reagan’s presidency, Republican Party leadership had become beholden to the anti-abortion movement. All GOP presidential nominees from George H.W. Bush to Donald Trump declared their anti-abortion position and their desire that Roe v. Wade be overturned. Some of the nominees, such as George H.W. Bush and Mitt Romney, had prior moderate views on abortion—Bush had previously supported Planned Parenthood—but became staunchly anti-abortion when seeking the nomination.

What have the anti-abortionists done to the Republican Party? They have turned the party rightward on a host of other issues. The religious right has also been extremely conservative on multiple issues including taxation, tax exemptions for religious institutions, immigration, healthcare, and same-sex marriage. To keep the anti-abortionists satisfied, Republicans have had to follow suit on those issues. The party formerly had liberals and moderates. Now, the liberals are extinct and the moderates are dwindling. But so long as the primary system is the method of choosing the nominees, the Republicans appear stuck in the status-quo. In the Republican presidential primaries of 2016, 14.8 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots. That allows the base largely composed of anti-abortionists to choose the nominee.

Is this situation a benefit or hindrance to the Republican Party? A CBS News/New York Times poll taken shortly before the November election in 1980 indicates that Americans believed inflation was the worst problem facing the nation, not abortion or any social issue. The Republicans have been compelled to choose anti-abortion nominees although that has never been the most important issue for most Americans. If other issues such as inflation are salient, the party can win. Yet, there is a problem. The Republicans have lost the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections, only to be saved twice by the Electoral College. Furthermore, the conservative uniformity of the Republicans, largely brought about by the power of anti-abortionists, makes expanding their base difficult.

Finally, the Texas abortion law, and a possible gutting (if not outright overturning) of Roe v. Wade in the coming year creates a big target for the Democrats to use in the 2022 midterm elections and perhaps 2024. Polls have long indicated that about 80 percent of the American people want abortion to be legal in some form. The anti-abortionist capture of the Republican Party may do serious damage to the party in the near future.

They would love to be in the middle ages...

Oklahoma House sends Texas-style abortion ban to governor

The bill approved by the GOP-led House on a 68-12 vote without discussion or debate now heads to Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, who is expected to sign it within days.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Oklahoma House gave final approval on Thursday to a Texas-style abortion ban that prohibits the procedure after about six weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant.

The bill approved by the GOP-led House on a 68-12 vote without discussion or debate now heads to Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, who is expected to sign it within days. The assault on abortion rights is one of several culture-war issues conservatives in GOP-led states have embraced, like restricting LGBTQ rights, that drive the party’s base in an election year.

House members also voted Thursday to adopt new language prohibiting transgender students from using school restrooms that match their current gender identity and requiring parental notification to parents ahead of any classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity.

“They’re all concerned about their elections coming up and making sure they have something they can put on a postcard to talk about,” said Rep. Andy Fugate, D-Midwest City.

The abortion bill, dubbed the Oklahoma Heartbeat Act, prohibits abortions once cardiac activity can be detected in the embryo, which experts say is roughly six weeks into a pregnancy. A similar bill approved in Texas last year led to a dramatic reduction in the number of abortions performed in that state, sending many women seeking the procedure to Oklahoma and other surrounding states.

Although Stitt already signed a bill earlier this year to make performing an abortion a felony crime in Oklahoma, that measure is not set to take effect until later in the summer and might not withstand a legal challenge.

Because the measure approved Thursday has an “emergency” provision, it takes effect immediately after the governor signs it, and abortion providers say will immediately end most abortions in Oklahoma.

A coalition of Oklahoma abortion providers and abortion rights advocates immediately filed separate legal challenges in state court to challenge both the Texas-style ban and the felony crime bill that Stitt signed earlier this month.

“The Oklahoma Supreme Court has repeatedly found that the state legislature’s extreme attempts to restrict abortion are unconstitutional, and these bans are some of the most extreme yet,” Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.

A separate bill that uses the Texas-style enforcement mechanism to ban all abortions, not just after cardiac activity is detected, passed the Senate on Thursday and heads to the House for consideration. The bills are among more than a half-dozen anti-abortion measures introduced in the Legislature this year.

“We are more concerned at this point about these Texas-style bans because they have, at least recently, been able to continue and remain in effect,” said Emily Wales, interim president and CEO at Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which operates two abortion clinics in Oklahoma. “We do intend to challenge those if they’re passed, but because of the emergency clause provisions, there would be at least some period of time when we could not offer care.”

Like Texas, the bill allows private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion for up to $10,000, a mechanism that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed to remain in place. Texas’ new law has led to a huge increase in the number of women from Texas seeking abortions in Oklahoma.

“We’re serving as many Texans as Oklahomans right now, in some cases more Texans than Oklahomans,” Wales said.

Before the Texas ban took effect last year, about 40 women from Texas had abortions performed in Oklahoma each month, according to data from the Oklahoma State Department of Health. That number jumped to 222 Texas women in September and 243 in October, the agency reported.

Tony Lauinger, the chair of Oklahomans for Life and a longtime anti-abortion advocate in the state, said he’s optimistic the measure will be deemed constitutional.

“It’s identical to the bill that was enacted by the Texas Legislature last year, and that bill has passed muster with the United States Supreme Court,” Lauinger said. “We are hopeful that this bill will save the lives of more unborn children here in Oklahoma as well.”

Maryland governor race

Hoyer endorses Moore in Maryland governor race

Maryland is one of Democrats’ best gubernatorial pickup opportunities in the country this year.

By ZACH MONTELLARO

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is wading into the crowded Democatic gubernatorial primary in his home state of Maryland, endorsing author and entrepreneur Wes Moore.

Hoyer is the most prominent Maryland Democrat to weigh into the race so far, with the state’s two Democratic senators having not picked a side in the primary.

“While there are many great candidates in this year’s race, Wes stands out as a candidate whose experience, vision, and talent can lead Maryland toward a brighter future by inspiring our people — particularly our young people — to work together to face our toughest challenges,” Hoyer said in a statement, obtained first by POLITICO.

Hoyer is expected to join Moore for an event on Thursday to formally make the endorsement.

The endorsement also puts Hoyer at odds with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, herself a scion of a powerful Baltimore family. Pelosi has previously endorsed Tom Perez, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee and a former federal and state secretary of labor.

Pelosi’s father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., was both a Maryland congressman and later mayor of Baltimore, and her late brother Thomas D’Alesandro III was also mayor.

More about the race: Maryland is one of Democrats’ best gubernatorial pickup opportunities in the country this year and has attracted a large field of candidates for the open-seat race.

Also running are former Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker; state Comptroller Peter Franchot; former state Attorney General Doug Gansler; former Education Secretary John King; nonprofit executive Jon Baron and former Obama administration official Ashwani Jain, among others.

Independent polling in the race has been sparse for the mid-July primary, but Moore has been the most prodigious fundraiser so far.

The seat is open because Republican Gov. Larry Hogan is term-limited. Hogan is a longtime intraparty rival of former President Donald Trump, and the Republican primary has the two men on opposite sides. The outgoing governor has backed Kelly Schulz, his former secretary of commerce, while Trump has endorsed state Del. Daniel Cox.

Many Scandals

A Guide to Madison Cawthorn’s Many Scandals

It’s a long list, and growing longer.

NOAH Y. KIM

Of all the absurd figures in modern politics, nobody—not even Lauren Boebert—has Rep. Madison Cawthorn’s once-in-a-generation talent for making misguided and self-destructive decisions for no discernible reason. Since his election in 2020, the 26-year-old Republican has been a veritable prodigy of controversy, somehow even managing to alienate members of his scandal-plagued party both in DC and in his home state of North Carolina.

Cawthorn started off his political career with a series of apparently false statements about a car crash that left him paralyzed. But in recent months, he seems to be committing transgressions at an accelerated rate, to the point that some days he’s now the focus of multiple mini-scandals (and some not-so-mini ones). On Tuesday, Cawthorn was cited for attempting to bring a loaded gun through airport security in his carry-on bag—the second time in little more than a year that TSA officials have had to prevent the sitting congressman from flying with a firearm.

That same day, the conservative-leaning Washington Examiner alleged that Cawthorn may have violated insider-trading laws. In late December last year, Cawthorn commented on an Instagram photo of himself and hedge fund manager James Koutoulas, the main investor of the Let’s Go Brandon (LGB) cryptocurrency.

“LGB legends,” the comment read. “Tomorrow we go to the moon!”

The next day, Let’s Go Brandon announced a sponsorship deal with NASCAR driver Brandon Brown, which raised its value by 75 percent. Experts told the Examiner that if Cawthorn had inside knowledge of the deal and if he owned the cryptocurrency at the time, his actions could constitute a potential violation of federal law. (Cawthorn stated in a February 2022 video that he owned at least some LGBCoin, though it’s unclear when exactly he acquired it. His office did not respond to a Mother Jones request for comment.)

Together, the loaded gun and the crypto incidents shed light on what separates a Cawthornean scandal from the controlled chaos of other far-right figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz. Unlike other members of the 4Chan Caucus, who weaponize cruelty and outrage toward specific ends (like overthrowing American democracy), Cawthorn’s bizarre stunts are more often than not completely purposeless, combining the usual far-right malice with an extraordinary sense of obliviousness. 

If you’re starting to lose track of the numerous pits that Cawthorn has dug himself into, here’s a convenient list to refresh your memory: 

“He leaves me in a car to die in a fiery tomb.”

When Cawthorn was a teenager, he and his friend Bradley Ledford were driving back to North Carolina after a spring break trip to Florida, when Ledford fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into a construction barrier. The accident, which left Cawthorn with only limited use of his legs, is an incontestably tragic event in the congressman’s life and a dramatic enough story that one would think Cawthorn would have no need for embellishment. However, in a 2017 speech at Patrick Henry College, Cawthorn contradicted Ledford and his own prior statements, saying that his friend had abandoned him “to die in a fiery tomb.” 

“He was my brother, my best friend,” Cawthorn said. “He runs to safety deep in the woods and just leaves me in a burning car as the flames start to lick my legs and curl up and burn my left side.”

There’s no factual basis for this account. Ledford told the Washington Post that Cawthorn was unconscious after the crash, a claim buttressed by a deposition in which the future congressman said he had “no memory” of the accident. Rather than running “to safety deep in the woods,” Ledford said that he’d pulled Cawthorn from the burning car, potentially saving his life. 

Lying about his college acceptances

Cawthorn has implied that as a result of the accident, he was unable to follow through on his dreams of attending the US Naval Academy. However, this was just another falsehood, as the Naval Academy had rejected him before the accident. Cawthorn has also claimed that he was accepted to Princeton and to an online program at Harvard, only to later confess that he hadn’t been admitted to either. 

Allegations of sexual harassment

Cawthorn eventually attended Patrick Henry College, a conservative university in Virginia that typically enrolls between 300 and 400 students, where, by his own account, he mostly received Ds before dropping out. Despite the fact that he was there for only a single semester, Cawthorn reportedly developed a reputation among female members of the student body, a significant number of whom told Buzzfeed and the Washington Post that he had sexually harassed them—allegations Cawthorn has denied. One of his accusers worked as a Republican intern on Capitol Hill at the time she went public with her allegation. 

During Cawthorn’s general election campaign, more than 160 members of the Patrick Henry community signed onto an open letter that accused Cawthorn of “gross misconduct towards our female peers, public misrepresentation of his past, disorderly conduct that was against the school’s student honor code, and self-admitted academic failings.” The letter added that he had “established a reputation of predatory behavior.” 

The Cawthorn campaign attempted to counter this letter with a Facebook post saying that he had the endorsement of “a significant number of PHC alumni and former students.” The post was signed by six people, two of whom worked on the campaign. 

Calling Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “thug”

Shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Cawthorn told his supporters that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a “thug” and that the “Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies.”

The remarks caused a major headache for the Republicans at a time when many party members were backpedaling from their Putin-friendly rhetoric. In an intriguing twist, Cawthorn’s comments were first reported by Republican strategist Karl Rove, who insisted that they didn’t represent the Republican Party as a whole. 

Driving with a revoked license 

Cawthorn has repeatedly been stopped and cited for speeding. Last month, Cawthorn was charged with driving with a revoked license, which carries a penalty of up to 20 days in jail. 

The orgies and cocaine remark

Last month, Cawthorn was asked a question about how similar real life in the capital was to the TV show “House of Cards.” In response, he went on a rant about “sexual perversion,” saying that lawmakers he had “looked up to through my life” had invited him to orgies and that people leading the movement to stop drug addiction had done a “key bump of cocaine” right in front of him. 

“It’s like, this is wild,” he concluded. 

Republicans, many of whom reportedly had to field concerned questions from their spouses, were really pissed off. Cawthorn received a firm talking to from House Minority Leader (and model of honesty) Kevin McCarthy. McCarthy told reporters that Cawthorn had amended his claims during the meeting, saying that “he thinks he saw maybe a staffer in a parking garage [do cocaine] from 100 yards away.” But this remark seems to have been the straw that broke the GOP’s back. Ever since, North Carolina Republicans have been waging a full-throated campaign to remove Cawthorn from Washington.