State of the Discussion

Treating this as an open thread, because there always is one:

"the Court is finding that the government’s actions in this case – whether purposeful, reckless, or negligent – raise genuine issues of misconduct, are inextricably linked to the government’s grand jury presentation, and deserve to be fully explored by the defense."

This from the magistrate judge's findings in the Comey case. If it weren't a Trump-directed prosecution, my gob would be comprehensively smacked.

Is the client list no longer on Pam Bondi's desk? Or was it never there, which is why she never actually said it was (wink, wink)?

Is it still a Democratic hoax? Or does it incriminate a slew of prominent Democrats and their donors? What if it it's BOTH? That would be wild!

Whether or when that is Bondi's response depends on whether the Senate gets around to a vote on the resolution. Not to mention if they make some kind of amendment which then requires it go back to the House for concurrence. Lots of ways to slow walk the whole thing.

But yeah, once the whole thing is done, Bondi can claim "ongoing investigations." Put one extremely junior and ultra-MAGATrumpist staffer to work reading thru the whole file. Could easily be "on-going" for years.

I posted this on People and Politics, which might now be a kind of defunct thread. But since lj has luckily now posted a thread specifically about the Epstein email releases, I am copying it here. Now that lj has helpfully given us the link, there may be other worthwhile finds.

I guess this is the closest thing we have to an open thread at the moment? I find it hard to know for sure.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that on the Epstein emails release, I think the most interesting thing so far is the correspondence between Bannon and Epstein. It’s an astonishing illustration of moral bankruptcy on Bannon’s part, and to the extent that he is such an integral part of MAGA world I do think it really keeps the heat on.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/15/steve-bannon-jeffrey-epstein-text-messages-publicity

The Axios piece is a bit strange, it suggests that Klein was a driver in having the Democrats not vote for the budget, but fails to mention that it looks like he was left high and dry when the 8 senators did the deal.

Klein is certainly stretching for the middle of the road credibility, he had on Ben Shapiro immediately after the Charlie Kirk assassination, which is a bit like interviewing a stagehand who built the sets about how a play went down.

He also had Amit Segal on about the I/P conflict and prefaced the interview with basically a trigger warning about the views, saying that Segal is 'far to the right' of Klein.

You could ask me what do I expect Klein to do, well, that's his choice, but if it were me, I wouldn't want to cosplay Gen Z David Broder.

Copied and pasted something about Ezra Klein from Axios, but didn't notice it contained several links so it's awaiting approval. If anybody wants to rescue it, that would be great - sorry!

I guess this is the closest thing we have to an open thread at the moment? I find it hard to know for sure.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that on the Epstein emails release, I think the most interesting thing so far is the correspondence between Bannon and Epstein. It's an astonishing illustration of moral bankruptcy on Bannon's part, and to the extent that he is such an integral part of MAGA world I do think it really keeps the heat on.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/15/steve-bannon-jeffrey-epstein-text-messages-publicity

Thanks wonkie, I'll note that I a saw a post yesterday with a photo of Chris and the two other Democrats running in the primary for that House seat, everyone looking very jovial. So possibly more practical to wait until after the primary to donate to whomever ends up being the general election candidate. But I don't know anything about the mechanics of running a campaign, campaign finance, etc.

... more Democratic votes in that district won’t win the seat, but those will be votes to re-elect Ossoff to the Senate.

But consider, if a strong candidate could move the district from 65-35 last time to 60-40 (or better), and then we see the sort of blue wave election in 2026 which looks increasingly possible? Might actually happen. Probably temporarily, but still worth doing if it happens.

I realize this is pretty much OT, but is politically related. Just seeing on social media in the last two hours that a friend of mine has announced he is running for Congress in Georgia’s 11th district. He is a lawyer and has been working mostly in the family law, situations where children have been put in state supervision, that kind of thing. He drew up my first estate documents 12 years ago when he was a newly minted lawyer, I had contacted him in the last few weeks about getting them updated.

Getting messages from a mutual friend about this as I type. I had joked about calling our friend Don Quixote, since a Democrat can’t win that district, my friend acknowledged that, but said it’s important for contributing to overall statewide turnout, more Democratic votes in that district won’t win the seat, but those will be votes to re-elect Ossoff to the Senate.

Chris Harden for GA 11!!!

lj - nous, is it out of the realm of possibility to imagine Elizabeth Warren? I was looking at seniority and Patty Murray is actually the most senior, I’d like to think that a woman would send a message, though youth is also good.

I don't think Warren is out of the realm of possibility. If we look at current Democratic leadership, and we eliminate Schumer and Durbin (retiring), then we have Klobuchar (MI), Booker (NJ), Warren (MA), Warner (VA), Sanders (VT), Baldwin (WI), Cortez Masto (NV), Schatz (HI), and Murphy (CT).

If you want to elevate a woman, then I'd eliminate Cortez Masto right off the bat over the shutdown votes. Think what you will of the practicality of it, her decision is not going to help change the impression of the Dems or inspire anyone who is disillusioned. Warren is great, but her media presence reinforces the liberal wonk image. She also reinforces the elitist image a bit by virtue of her still sounding like a professor. That leaves Baldwin and Klobuchar. If Klobuchar still plans to run for President, then Baldwin would be the best choice IMO. She's a bit more vulnerable on the electoral front (WI is very purple and their GOP is deeply awful), but that also positions her as someone who has overcome a lot of prejudices and still succeeded in a rural state in the middle of the country.

Murray has served a long time, but despite this she isn't in party leadership. That makes me wonder if she would be a good choice.

Otherwise, looking at the existing leadership, I think Booker, Schatz, or Murphy. Warner isn't as reliable a D vote. Sanders is great, but older and seen as a socialist. Schatz is less well known, but is seen as a future leader. Murphy is solidly in the middle of the party and is usually supporting the party in his votes.

I saw a thread over on Bsky arguing that the job of the Dem Senate leader is not to be a popular leader, but to be the one who can talk to everyone and hold together the largest possible number of senators for a coalition. Their claim was that Schumer was the one best suited to that task and that to change now was to make someone else learn the hardest job in government on the fly. Who, they asked, would be able to replace him and do as well?

I don't know. But I also don't think that is the right question or the right way to think about this situation. It's not just about maintaining a coalition, it's about communication and leadership and moral presence as well. Schumer has never been half of what Pelosi was in the House.

I think Klobuchar could probably do at least as good a job, and has enough experience that she would not be learning from scratch. She's about the center of the Democratic spectrum. She could still hold presidential ambitions, but they aren't going to go much of anywhere. This would be her peak.

I'd prefer Booker. He'd give the Dems a younger presence with more charisma, but he's also probably a bit farther left than some of his colleagues might prefer, and he may want to take a shot at running for president himself. Still, he's been effective at working with others and has a lot of leadership experience for someone with fewer than ten years in the Senate, and I think he'd be more inspirational than either Schumer or Klobuchar.

Whatever the case, I think the Dems are about to hit a tipping point where the leadership starts to age out, and the prominent younger members are going to be trending more progressive and more willing to fight. Best to start reflecting that a bit more with the public face of the party in the Senate.

russell - if I was, say, 30 or 40 years old I’d be seriously pissed right about now.

And they are.

And it gets more dire the younger you go. My 17-25 year-olds in my class are even more cynical and pissed than I was as a young punk in the 1980s, but with more of a sense of powerlessness because they are watching all of the progress we had get taken away.

We have to give them some reason to hope or else we are ceding the most angry and nihilistic of them straight to the alt-right.

"No. The point being that..."

The point I was making is what I was referring to, so yes. I know what point I was trying to make. You have a different point.

And I don't think it matters one iota what I say on a blog. It has nothing to do with anything other than sharing thoughts with a small number of people. I'm not helping or hurting the Democrats one bit, so I'm not concerned about electoral strategy or legislative maneuvering or anything like that when I complain about politics here.

The world doesn't care.

The point being, wj, that he wasn’t securing a seat for the Democrats by voting with Republicans on critical issues, but that probably won’t get through the radical centrism or whatever it is that makes you want to defend the guy.

No. The point being that, in a very narrowly divided Senate, a vote which can change who is majority leader, and thus in control of what business gets done, is important. Having someone who provides a critical vote on that is important. Even if he sometimes, or even routinely, doesn't vote the way you (or I!) would like on various issues.

I'm not defending the guy. I'm arguing that sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all. And while there's certainly no obligation to embrace someone like Manchin, it is a bad idea to get loudly worked up about his shortcomings. If you have a real chance to replace him with someone better, fine. But when you don't, save your invective for the other side. Screaming "treason!" is counterproductive.

Manchin screwed his own party not long before deciding not to run for another term and his senate seat is now held by a Republican. How is that supposed to be good for Democrats?

The man would have been 77 on election day if he had run again. Can't we let the olds retire? The fact that no Democrat who doesn't have the sort of name recognition that Manchin had in WV (his uncle held statewide office for years; Joe was WV Secretary of State and Governor before he was a Senator) can win is a different problem.

Manchin voted for every nomination Obama and Biden sent to the Senate. While Biden was in office, Manchin eventually voted for every major bill. Sometimes he needed an earmark: the price for his vote on the infrastructure bill was to approve a NG pipeline that ran from the gas fields in WV to a market hub in Virginia. He wasn't nearly as bad as, eg, Joe Lieberman from Connecticut.

The point being, wj, that he wasn't securing a seat for the Democrats by voting with Republicans on critical issues, but that probably won't get through the radical centrism or whatever it is that makes you want to defend the guy.

If you don't care about what's good for congressional Democrats, that's one thing, but it doesn't have to mean you can't recognize the point of view of congressional Democrats or the people who vote for them.

Manchin screwed his own party not long before deciding not to run for another term and his senate seat is now held by a Republican. How is that supposed to be good for Democrats?

Gosh he got vilified for years by party activists. And then decided not to run again. What a stunning surprise. Why would anyone pass up a chance for more of that?
/sarcasm

Manchin screwed his own party not long before deciding not to run for another term and his senate seat is now held by a Republican. How is that supposed to be good for Democrats?

I didn't say moderates can't get elected. I think our problem is the word "moderate" which is so ambiguous in meaning when it comes to politics.
To me, a moderate is a person who is thoughtful, fact oriented, works to solve problems, believes in public service and is not overly ideological or obsessed by any particular issue--temperamentally moderate and open to intellectually honest discussion.

Manchin didn't seem to have much in the way of convictions at all beyond self-promotion and voted R at critical times when his vote could have made a difference in terms of good government--apparently because he saw some advantage to himself.

Another example is Gusenkamp Perez in WA. I sent money to her campaign and wrote GOTV letters for her. She won in a rural red district so I expected support for the timber industry and didn't expect a lot of anti-trump rhetoric. However she voted FOR the Republican voter suppression bill (that failed). Why on earth? Did she do it because Republicans were spreading lies about people voting illegally and she didn't want to contradict the lies? Evidently she felt a need to vote R on an R issue even though her vote was in support of an immoral effort based on lies.

THAT kind of "trying for the middle" is the kind that doesn't work. All she did was piss off her voters and I doubt if she picked up a single R vote. The only reason she won before is because the Rs chose such an obvious wacko to run. They are focusing now on a guy who presents as more normal who will be called a moderate even though he will vote just like the rest do, which is corporate fascist/hater.

Sucking up by supporting a truly evil R initiative won't help her win.

wj - I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.

From the perspective of WV electoral politics, you are correct. But there are wider ripples that are harder to measure that need to be considered. Manchin and Sinema voted against the Build Back Better deal, spiking major legislation that would have helped fight climate change. They (and Shaheen, and King, and Hassan - sound familiar?) spiked the minimum wage bill in 2021.

Now all the stories are about how Biden can't get his signature legislation passed.

It happened again going out the door with these two preventing Biden from appointing someone to the NLRB, handing Trump control of the federal arm that deals with labor bargaining.

I know that a lot of people have written about how Harris had a problem with turnout due to Israel/Palestine issues, but I also firmly believe that had Biden and Harris managed to pass Build Back Better and the increase in minimum wage, that we would not have seen turnout quite so reduced for Harris, and might have seen a few fewer votes for Trump amongst young men disillusioned with federal politics and claiming that both sides were essentially the same.

Dems need to convince younger voters that they can actually achieve something to help with climate, stagnant wages, and the possibility of ever owning a home. Manchin and Sinema did more damage to this belief than did anyone else.

It's not just about vote percentages and issues mentioned in exit polling. There's the unseen effects of turnout and the issues that fuel cynicism and disillusionment.

Guess who showed up for the most recent Blue Wave?