Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

On October 31, 2020, former Trump White House advisor Steve Bannon—who had left Trump’s administration in 2017—explained to a group of people that, knowing that votes for Biden would accumulate throughout the evening as mail-in ballots were counted, Trump planned simply to declare victory on election night, seizing the presidency and claiming that any results to the contrary were an attempt to steal the election from him. “[A]t 10 or 11 o’clock Trump’s gonna walk in the Oval, tweet out, ‘I’m the winner. Game over. Suck on that,’” Bannon was recorded as saying.

That prediction was pretty much what happened, but Trump did not succeed in seizing the presidency. Next came plans to overturn the election results, and Bannon was also involved in those. Then, famously, on January 5, 2021, he predicted on his podcast that the next day, “all hell is going to break loose.”

Not surprisingly, the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol wanted to talk to Bannon. It subpoenaed him in September 2021 for testimony and documents. When he refused to comply, a jury found him guilty of contempt of Congress in October 2022. A judge sentenced him to four months in jail but allowed him to stay out of jail while he appealed.

Today a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld his conviction. He will not be jailed immediately; he can still appeal to a higher court.

Another White House advisor, Peter Navarro, appealed all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn his own conviction for contempt of Congress after he, too, refused to answer a House subpoena for testimony and documents. The Supreme Court denied his appeal, and Navarro reported to prison on March 19, 2024. He has asked a federal judge to let him serve the remainder of his sentence on supervised release, so far without luck.

Former federal prosecutor and legal analyst Joyce White Vance wrote: “Bannon is effectively out of appeals. He can delay a little bit longer, asking for the full court to review the decision en banc & asking SCOTUS to hear his case on cert, but neither one of those things will happen. Bannon is going to prison.”

Lack of information was at the heart of Bannon and Navarro’s cases; it was also at the heart of the State Department’s report to Congress about whether Israel’s strikes on Gaza have complied with international and U.S. law. National Security Memorandum (NSM)-20, which Biden signed on February 8, 2024, was designed to make sure that there are adequate safeguards and accountability when countries who have access to U.S. weapons use them. The memo required the secretary of state “to obtain certain credible and reliable written assurances from foreign governments receiving defense articles” and transmit that information to Congress.

Issued today, the report covered seven countries in “active conflict”—Colombia, Iraq, Israel, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, and Ukraine—and explored whether they were using U.S. government-funded defense articles in accordance with international humanitarian law, and whether they were not “arbitrarily” denying, restricting, or otherwise impeding U.S.-backed humanitarian assistance in any areas where the country was using those U.S. defense articles.

The report noted that it’s hard to collect accurate information in a war zone. Often, the information has to come from participants or third parties, and sometimes that information comes only from the country the U.S. is supplying with weapons. It also noted that the human-rights-based Leahy Laws prohibit the U.S. from supplying weapons to a foreign military unit if the departments of state or defense have credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights, including torture, rape, extrajudicial killing, or enforced disappearance.

The report concluded that Colombia appears to be in compliance. Iraqi security forces have been credibly alleged to be violating international law, but the U.S. does not supply those units. Those it does supply have received U.S. training on compliance with international humanitarian law, and Iraqi leadership is working closely with the U.S. to professionalize. It has not restricted humanitarian aid.

Kenya has repeatedly violated international human rights law, but it is working to come into compliance and has not misused U.S. weapons. Nigerian forces routinely use excessive force and torture. They are expanding the legal advice in the professionalizing army, and there are no credible reports of U.S. matériel used in ways that are inconsistent with international law.

Somalia has violated humanitarian law and human rights law, arbitrarily killing and torturing people and committing sexual violence. The U.S. supplies the counterterrorism Danab Brigade of the Somali National Army and works closely with it. The State Department assesses that the brigade has not used U.S. weapons in any violations of humanitarian or human rights law.

That leaves Israel and Ukraine.

The report begins by noting that in the October 7 attack on Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists killed an estimated 1,200 individuals, wounded more than 5,400, and took 253 hostages, including U.S. citizens. Hamas, it notes, “does not follow any portion of and consistently violates” international humanitarian law.

Then it takes on the numbers of Palestinians killed and injured, saying that the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health, “which international organizations generally deem credible,” estimates that 34,700 Palestinians have been killed. Another 78,200 have been wounded, “a significant percentage of whom are reported to be women and children.” The Gaza Ministry of Health does not differentiate between Hamas fighters and civilians, but Israel says that about half the 34,700 killed were Hamas fighters. The State Department says that “we do not have the ability to verify this estimate.” It also notes that “[t]he conflict has displaced the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza and resulted in a severe humanitarian crisis.”

The State Department notes that the U.S. government has emphasized Israeli compliance with international humanitarian law and that Israel has “institutions and processes charged with upholding” those laws. Israel has been conducting assessments, including criminal investigations, into alleged violations of international humanitarian law.

The next paragraph, though, says that when asked, Israel shared some information that gave insight into Israel’s procedures and rules, but that information was incomplete. Among other things, “Israel has not shared complete information to verify whether U.S. defense articles covered under NSM-20 were specifically used in actions that have been alleged as violations of [international humanitarian law or international human rights law] in Gaza, or in the West Bank and East Jerusalem during the period of the report.” However, the authors concluded, because “certain Israeli-operated systems are entirely U.S.-origin (e.g., crewed attack aircraft),” they “are likely to have been involved in incidents that raise concerns about Israel’s [international humanitarian law] compliance.”

The report goes on to say that while it is difficult to determine whether specific U.S. weapons have been used improperly, “there have been sufficient reported incidents to raise serious concerns…. Given the nature of the conflict in Gaza, with Hamas seeking to hide behind civilian populations and infrastructure and expose them to Israeli military action, as well as the lack of [U.S. government] personnel on the ground in Gaza, it is difficult to assess or reach conclusive findings on individual incidents. Nevertheless, given Israel’s significant reliance on U.S.-made defense articles, it is reasonable to assess that defense articles covered under NSM-20 have been used by Israeli security forces since October 7 in instances inconsistent with its [international humanitarian law] obligations or with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm.”

The State Department says it is “not aware” of U.S. weaponry being misused. It also said that it “has had deep concerns…about action and inaction by Israel” that hampered humanitarian aid efforts and that, while that aid still is insufficient, “we do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance.”

The report also assessed that Ukraine had occasionally violated international humanitarian law and international human rights law, torturing those suspected of collaborating with Russia, for example. The Ukraine government has committed to adhere to the rule of law. It has apparently not used U.S. weapons in those violations and has facilitated U.S. humanitarian assistance.

Alabama Senator Katie Britt, best known for delivering a bizarre, melodramatic televised response to President Biden's 2024 State of the Union address, has introduced a bill to create a federal website to collect data on pregnant people.

The bill, the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed Act (MOMS Act), would mandate the creation of a federal website called Pregnancy.gov, which Britt calls a "clearinghouse of relevant resources available for pregnant and postpartum women, and women parenting young children."

The website would take users through series of questions, it claims, to generate a list of relevant resources of interest within the user’s zip code. The bill would also allow government officials to reach out to users for additional information.

The database would refer users to so-called "crisis pregnancy centers"; fake clinics that do not actually provide women with healthcare, but rather use deception and coercion to scare women away from getting an abortion, even if it necessary for their own health.

The bill specifically forbids any entity that "performs, induces, refers for, or counsels in favor of abortions" from being listed in the database. This would eliminate almost every actual healthcare facility from being listed in the federal database, or pressure doctors away from making necessary healthcare referrals for fear of having their facility removed.

The bill also establishes a federal grant program to fund crisis pregnancy centers listed on the Pregnancy.gov database. The bill specifically prohibits any grant funding from being awarded to any entity that provides or refers for abortions under the same parameters listed above, which again, eliminates almost every actual healthcare facility.

It's very likely the government staffer that follows up with the website users will also be tasked with pressuring them out of seeking proper healthcare if it involves an abortion.

“This legislation is further evidence that you can absolutely be pro-life, pro-woman, and pro-family at the same time,” Britt said. “The MOMS Act advances a comprehensive culture of life, grows and strengthens families, and ensures moms have the opportunities and resources needed so they and their children can thrive and live their American Dreams.”

Multiple hospitals in Britt's state of Alabama have closed down their labor and delivery units in response to a total abortion ban in that state. The Alabama Supreme Court also ruled that fertilized human embryos have legal personhood, effectively banning In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures for infertile couples.

Robin Marty, head of the West Alabama Women’s Center in Tuscaloosa, said in response to the bill, “Alabama lost three labor and delivery wards in the last 12 months, and dumping federal grant money into pregnancy resource centers so there is more funding for diapers and formula after birth isn’t going to fix that medical gap."

Republicans nationwide have been implementing draconian anti-choice laws affecting pregnant women and their doctors. In multiple Republican states such Idaho, Texas and Tennessee, Republicans have introduced "abortion trafficking" bills which would make it a felony to transport any pregnant person out of state to procure an abortion, or even drive them to the post office to get the abortion pill in the mail.

The Biden Administration recently expanded federal healthcare privacy laws to forbid doctors and healthcare providers from complying with state subpoenas for medical records to shield women and their doctors from prosecution over abortion.

Britt was universally condemned for a section of her State of the Union response speech wherein she discussed meeting with a sex trafficking victim at the U.S. border, and attempted to blame what happened to her on Biden's border policies. The woman Britt was referring to was trafficked in Mexico City decades before Biden became President.

I write a lot about how the Biden-Harris administration is working to restore the principles of the period between 1933 and 1981, when members of both political parties widely shared the belief that the government should regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, promote infrastructure, and protect civil rights. And I write about how that so-called liberal consensus broke down as extremists used the Reconstruction-era image of the American cowboy—who, according to myth, wanted nothing from the government but to be left alone—to stand against what they insisted was creeping socialism that stole tax dollars from hardworking white men in order to give handouts to lazy minorities and women.

But five major stories over the past several days made me realize that I’ve never written about how Trump and his loyalists have distorted the cowboy image until it has become a poisonous caricature of the values its recent defenders have claimed to champion.

The cowboy myth originated during the Reconstruction era as a response to the idea that a government that defended Black rights was “socialist” and that the tax dollars required to pay bureaucrats and army officers would break hardworking white men.

This weekend, on Saturday, May 11, Paul Kiel of ProPublica and Russ Buettner of the New York Times teamed up to deliver a deep investigation into what Trump was talking about when he insisted that he must break tradition and refuse to release his tax returns when he ran for office in 2016 and 2020, citing an audit.

The New York Times had already reported that one of the reasons the Internal Revenue Service was auditing Trump’s taxes was that, beginning in 2010, he began to claim a $72.9 million tax refund because of huge losses from his failing casinos.

Kiel and Buettner followed the convoluted web of Trump’s finances to find another issue with his tax history. They concluded that Trump’s Chicago skyscraper, his last major construction project, was “a vast money loser.” He claimed losses as high as $651 million on it in 2008. But then he appears to have moved ownership of the building in 2010 from one entity to a new one—the authors describe it as “like moving coins from one pocket to another”—and used that move to claim another $168 million in losses, thereby double-dipping.

The experts the authors consulted said that if he loses the audit battle, Trump could owe the IRS more than $100 million. University of Baltimore law professor Walter Schwidetzky, who is an expert on partnership taxation, told the authors: “I think he ripped off the tax system.”

The cowboy myth emphasized dominance over the Indigenous Americans and Mexicans allegedly attacking white settlers from the East. On Friday an impressive piece of reporting from Jude Joffe-Block at NPR untangled the origins of a story pushed by Republicans that Democrats were encouraging asylum seekers to vote illegally for President Joe Biden in 2024, revealing that the story was entirely made up.

The story broke on X, formerly Twitter, on April 15, when the investigative arm of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which promises to provide “aggressive oversight” of the Biden administration, posted photos of what it claimed were flyers from inside portable toilets at a migrant camp in Matamoros, Mexico, that said in broken Spanish: “Reminder to vote for President Biden when you are in the United States. We need another four years of his term to stay open.” The tweet thread got more than 9 million views and was boosted by Elon Musk, X’s owner.

But the story was fabricated. The flyer used the name of a small organization that helps asylum seekers, along with the name of the woman who runs the organization. She is a U.S. citizen and told Joffe-Block that her organization has “never encouraged people to vote for anyone.” Indeed, it has never come up because everyone knows noncitizens are not eligible to vote. The flyer had outdated phone numbers and addresses, and its Spanish was full of errors. Migrants who are staying at the encampment as they wait for their appointments to enter the U.S. say they have never seen such flyers, and no one has urged them to vote for Biden.

Digging showed that the flyer was “discovered” by the right-wing video site Muckraker, which specializes in “undercover” escapades. The founder of Muckraker, Anthony Rubin, and his brother, Joshua Rubin, had shown up at the organization’s headquarters in Matamoros asking to become volunteers for the organization; they and their conversation were captured on video, and signs point to the conclusion that they planted the flyers.

Nonetheless, Republicans ran with the story. Within 12 hours after the fake flyer appeared on X, Republican representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Dan Bishop (R-NC) brought posters of it to Congress, and Republicans made it a centerpiece of their insistence that Congress must pass a new law against noncitizen voting. Rather than being protected by modern-day cowboys, the woman who ran the organization that helps asylum seekers got death threats.

The cowboy image emphasized the masculinity of the independent men it championed, but the testimony of Stephanie Clifford, the adult film actress also known as Stormy Daniels, in Trump’s criminal trial for falsifying business records to cover up his payments to Clifford to keep her story of their sexual encounter secret before the 2016 election, turns Trump’s aggressive dominance into sad weakness. Covering Clifford’s testimony, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times yesterday wrote that “Trump came across as a loser in her account—a narcissist, cheater, sad Hugh Hefner wannabe, trading his satin pajamas for a dress shirt and trousers (and, later, boxers) as soon as Stormy mocked him.”

In the literature of the cowboy myth, the young champion of the underdog is eventually supposed to settle down and take care of his family, who adore him. But the news of the past week has caricatured that shift, too. On Wednesday, May 8, the Republican Party of Florida announced that it had picked Trump’s youngest son, 18-year-old Barron, as one of the state’s at-large delegates to the Republican National Convention, along with Trump’s other sons, Eric and Donald Jr.; Don Jr.’s fiancée, Kimberly Guilfoyle; and Trump’s second daughter, Tiffany, and her husband.

On Friday, May 10, Trump’s current wife and Barron’s mother, former first lady Melania Trump, issued a statement saying: “While Barron is honored to have been chosen as a delegate by the Florida Republican Party, he regretfully declines to participate due to prior commitments.” It is hard not to interpret this extraordinary snub from his own wife and son as a chilly response to the past month of testimony about his extramarital escapades while Barron was an infant.

Finally, there was the eye-popping story broken by Josh Dawsey and Maxine Joselow in the Washington Post on Thursday, revealing that last month, at a private meeting with about two dozen top oil executives at Mar-a-Lago, Trump offered to reverse President Joe Biden’s environmental rules designed to combat climate change and to stop any new ones from being enacted in exchange for a $1 billion donation.

Trump has promised his supporters that he would be an outsider, using his knowledge of business to defend ordinary Americans against those elites who don’t care about them. Now he has been revealed as being willing to sell us out—to sell humanity out—for the bargain basement price of $1 billion (with about 8 billion people in the world, this would make us each worth about 12 and a half cents).

Chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration Richard Painter wrote: “This is called bribery. It’s a felony.” He followed up with “Even a candidate who loses can be prosecuted for bribery. That includes the former guy asking for a billion dollars in campaign cash from oil companies in exchange for rolling back environmental laws.”

The cowboy myth was always a political image, designed to undermine the idea of a government that worked for ordinary Americans. It was powerful after the Civil War but faded into the past in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s as Americans realized that their lives depended on government regulation and a basic social safety net. The American cowboy burst back into prominence with the advent of the Marlboro Man in 1954, the year of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision, and the idea of an individual white man who worked hard, wanted nothing from the government but to be left alone, was a sex symbol, and protected his women became a central myth in the rise of politicians determined to overturn the liberal consensus.

Now it seems the myth has come full circle, with the party led by a man whose wife rejects him and whose lovers ridicule him, who makes up stories about dangerous “others,” cheats on his taxes, solicits bribes, and tries to sell out his followers for cash—the very caricature the mythological cowboy was invented to fight.

Cowboys and the rest of us wear Resistols. I do wear a tam in winter.