The Speech: Trump Announces "Discovery" and Release of "Election Integrity" Documents

We put two parts of that headline in quotations, and we'll eventually explain why, for both. First up is "Election Integrity." Several of the outlets that broadcast Donald Trump's speech last night listed it in their broadcast schedule as "Trump Address on Election Integrity," or something very similar. We understand why they did that, because they had to call it something, and they're ostensibly trying to play it down the middle. However, that framing isn't really down the middle, as it implies this is a serious subject that will be treated in a serious fashion. It's not a serious subject any more than "Trump Address on Aliens who Built the Pyramids" or "Trump Address on the Dangers of the Bermuda Triangle" would be. Further, even if it WAS a serious subject, Trump is never the person to address something in a serious and thoughtful way.

An accurate title would be something more like "Trump Address on the Same Conspiratorial Crap He's Been Flogging for 6 Years." It was foreseeable this would be the case the moment he announced the speech. Naturally, news outlets (and pseudo-news outlets) can't use something that so obviously editorializes like that. What they CAN do, however, is decline to cover the speech. That was the choice ABC and NBC made, and it so infuriated Trump that in both the speech, and on his social media platform for the preservation and promotion of fascism, he excoriated those two outlets and threatened to revoke their broadcast licenses. As a reminder, while broadcast networks are bound by the equal time rule, they are not required to cover presidential addresses. And indeed, all of the major broadcast networks took a pass on some speeches from Joe Biden and Barack Obama, as well. Still, FCC Chair Brendan Carr has his marching orders, and will undoubtedly get to work first thing this morning.

We should also point out that several other networks provided what we would call semi-coverage of the speech. They aired clips, or a portion of the speech, or both, but did not have the whole thing. On this second list, among others, are CBS, CNN and MS NOW. That means the only news station to air the speech in full was C-SPAN. If you did not see the speech, and you are a real glutton for punishment, here is their feed:

The speech was also broadcast in full by Fox, OAN and Newsmax.

If there was any doubt at all what kind of speech this would be, that doubt was dispelled in the first minute. Here is the opening portion:

Good evening. Before we begin, I'm proud to report that our country is safer, stronger, and far wealthier than it has ever been before. We are doing great. Less than two years ago, we inherited an economic and social disaster after the worst inflation in 48 years, the wide open borders with millions and millions of people pouring in from all over the world, including criminals of all types, and 11,888 murderers, many of whom killed more than one person.

We had transgender for everybody, men in women's sports, crime ravaging our cities, and the whole world was laughing at us as a nation, but not anymore. Two years ago, our country was dead. Now, we are the hottest country anywhere in the world. America is respected like we have never been respected before.

So, we're just a shade over a minute into the speech, and Trump has already made clear that it's going to be the same old mix of culture wars and gaslighting, and that his only interest is in speaking to the base. There's also already enough falsehoods to keep CNN fact checker Daniel Dale busy all night long. For example, the 11,888 murderers (a favorite Trump factoid) refers to all immigrants currently in prison on a murder conviction—some of them 40-50 years into their sentences, and the vast majority of them arrested and convicted during years that Biden was not president.

We don't want to dwell on Trump's outright falsehoods too much, because he always lies. But let's give just one more example, which came another minute or two into the speech:

Our previously wide open borders have been transformed into the most secure borders in the history of our country, with zero illegal aliens being admitted to the United States in the past 14 months. That is zero.

He (and his speechwriters?) just have no restraint. Certainly the number of people admitted across the United States' southern border is down right now. And if he'd just contented himself with some impressive statistic—say, "Illegal immigration has been cut by 80%"—then some people might accept that without double-checking. But ZERO people? Really? Is there anyone who believes that is true, or could possibly be true? Ok, we'll admit, there is ONE person. Trump himself believes it's true.

It was so tiresome, and so "same old, same old" that we only made it to 9:04 p.m. ET before googling "How long is Trump speech expected to run?" As it turns out, there were only about 50 seconds left before Trump finished the portion on, well, everything that is not "election integrity"—crime, the economy, the Iran War, etc. (no mention of ICE, of course). That first 5 minutes was there, in part, to allow Trump to fellate himself (a key element of every Trump speech and rally) and, in part, to justify the use (and abuse) of a "presidential address to the nation."

The last 20 minutes of the speech, give or take a minute, were entirely dedicated to the so-called "discovery" of new evidence of so-called "election fraud." Trump was mostly announcing that the documents would be posted to the White House website, and he largely did not address specific documents, or facts. He did assert that the documents support four conclusions:

1. There are major vulnerabilities with US voting machines
2. China has obtained voter data on millions of Americans
3. There is systemic voter registration fraud by Democrats in Michigan
4. There are far more non-citizens on voter rolls than previously known

We put discovery in quotes here (and in the headline) because there's nothing new here, at least in terms of the claims being made.

Now, because we try to be reasonable people, we allowed for the possibility, no matter how slight, that the administration might have come up with something new, if not in terms of the claims being made, then at least in terms of evidentiary support for those claims. However, even while the speech was still ongoing, we thought of numerous questions. Among them:

• If the documents really prove something, why is the speech even needed?
• If there's a "smoking gun," why isn't Trump waving it around? Even if one hand is filled with the other thing he's waving around, he's got another hand.
• Why did it take so long to find this evidence?
• Why are these people who are so good at committing fraud so bad at covering their tracks?
• Why does Trump win presidential elections when a Democrat is in the White House, but lose when HE is in the White House?
• What is the explanation for states where Republicans win some seats, and Democrats win others? For example, in the supposedly fraud-ridden state of Michigan, the House delegation is 7R, 6D. How is that possible?

What we're trying to say is that while our minds were open, they were only a little bit open, because the whole thing just does not pass the smell test.

The promised documents were posted to the White House website around the time the speech ended. But even before anyone started to look at them, there was even more reason to be very skeptical. Trump's speech was laden with conspiratorial, non-fact-based language, with the use of phrases like "shadow government" and "deep state." And there was also this portion, which may have been the most unhinged part of the whole speech (and THAT is saying something):

Recently, we found significant numbers of burn bags information, and this is a group of bags that were used to destroy information, given by President Barack Hussein Obama to be burned, it was supposed to be burned.

These bags were supposed to be at a different level by different people, incinerated and checked, but it never happened. Maybe we got lucky. We believe this was not done on purpose, but rather through gross incompetence of the people that were supposed to burn the bags. But the findings are stunning.

This is meant to sound very damning. But there's nothing here that explains what was in these alleged burn bags, or why they might be connected to Obama. Note also that Trump's bending over backwards to try to construct a plausible theory that allows for this evidence to be damning (to the point that it was apparently marked for destruction), and yet it still exists to be discovered.

Similarly, noted lickspittle and loyal Trump lackey Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) was on TV a few hours before the speech. On these occasions, the administration and its allies coordinate their talking points, in part so everyone is on the same page, and in part because Tuberville is too go**amn dumb to come up with his own. And during his TV hit (on Newsmax, naturally), he asserted that "four or five" of his colleagues were fraudulently elected, and then added this:

We have very little election integrity. Zero in some states like California and New York, where they just blatantly cheat. You know, in California, if you even bring an ID to the polling place, they might put you in jail for bringing it. I mean, they hate voter ID. And so, we got to get it straight.

Again, these folks just can't help themselves. It's hard to swallow that even one senator is fraudulent, much less four or five, much less if those four or five are the senators from California and New York, which are overwhelmingly blue states. But then, since that's not enough, Tuberville has to keep going and assert that California is arresting people for so much as bringing ID to polling places. We defy him to give even ONE example of that. Beyond the fact that it would be a national scandal if it happened, there is also the fact that most people drive to their polling places in California. And to drive, you have to carry your—wait for it—driver's license.

The upshot is that before the documents were even made available, our skepticism meter was at 9.9. And unlike Nigel Tufnel's amp, it doesn't go to 11.

And now, the documents. Here is the link, if you would care to take a look. There are a couple of hundred pages in total, give or take. The documents are often heavily redacted, and are presented without any context. It is often not clear what is fact, what is educated opinion, and what is an outright guess. There are briefings, e-mails, reports, a PowerPoint slide show or two, and some other stuff. It's a big, steaming pile of... something.

We will concede we did not read every document, especially since some of them are effectively unreadable due to the redactions. Seriously, take a look at the first page of "PRC U.S. Presidential Election-Related Intelligence in 2020 - clean - declass marked_Redacted," which is in the China collection (set #2):

The second page isn't much better, and the third and final page is redacted entirely. What is ANYONE supposed to learn from this?

Actually, we will answer our own question: You're not supposed to learn anything from this document dump. Returning to the observation we make above, if the administration had actually discovered anything close to a smoking gun, they'd be shouting that from every rooftop, and would be making sure that it got posted to every social media site in creation. This did not happen, because they don't have a smoking gun or anything close to it. And so, by dumping a whole bunch of official-looking documents, with lots of official-looking notations like "SENSITIVE GOVERNMENT AGENCY" and "DECLASSIFIED BY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT," and lots of redactions, the administration is trying to create the impression of substance. That's all you can do in the absence of actual substance, we suppose.

Incidentally, it took only about an hour before near-ironclad evidence—a smoking gun, if you will—emerged that this was a slapdash operation executed by incompetent boobs. People with a stronger stomach than us have been poring through the documents, and they already found one that provides evidence of foreign interference in a presidential election. The problem, from Trump's point of view, is that it's evidence of Russia interfering on his behalf. Undoubtedly, that was not supposed to be in there. We would link to the document directly, but: (1) they are actually pdfs enclosed in zip files, and so not directly linkable, and (2) we suspect that document is going to disappear from the collection sometime very soon. That said, if you want to try and view it while you can, it's on pages 2-3 of the document "NICA Foreign Threats To 2020 US Election_19AUG2020 DECLASS_REDACTED," which is in the same China collection as the redacted document above.

We've probably spent more time on this stupid speech than we should have. Is that because we wasted 25 minutes watching it and taking notes, and damn it, we are going to do whatever it takes to get some value out of those 25 minutes? No. Well, OK, yes, but that's not the only reason. It's because this is clearly prelude to... something. The question is: What is that something?

We can only see two possible answers to that question. The first is that Trump, desperate to pass the SAVE Act, which he thinks will SAVE his A**, is about to put the full-court pressure on in the Senate. He could say he won't sign any bills, that he won't nominate any more judges, and maybe that he'll impound every dollar currently set to go to the senators' home states. The sky could well be the limit. Of course, it's also possible that his "plan" for a full-court press is merely to double the number of appearances he makes on Fox and triple the number of whiny "Truths" he sends out. He is not a man known for having much in the way of imagination, or a spine.

The more worrisome possibility is that this is a declaration of war against the midterms, and that he's planning to use this "proof" as the basis for declaring martial law, or trying to suspend the elections, or sending armed soldiers to polling places, or refusing to seat members of Congress from blue states, or something along those lines. It is certainly concerning that, in his speech, Trump said that he planned to have the DNI lead this investigation. That is the same obeisant DNI he has bent over backwards to put in that job on an "interim" basis.

Let us be clear, however, that if Trump IS thinking this way, he is delusional. He very clearly imagines a world in which, by force of will, or fiat, or gaslighting, or whatever, he can keep the elections that a Republican wins valid, but can invalidate most or all of the elections won by Democrats. It just cannot work. Most Americans—Democrats, independents, and many Republicans—are simply not going to accept the legitimacy of a government constructed in this way, and aren't going to consent to be governed by it. One can imagine something like Govs. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) and Gavin Newsom (D-CA) using state troopers to escort their delegations through Washington, DC, so they may take their seats. Or everyone in blue and purple states (and probably some red states) just stopping all income tax payments. Or riots in the streets, in every city in America. It would be the Second American Civil War.

The people around Trump must know this. More importantly, the members of Congress know this. It is not easy to imagine what might get Trump impeached and convicted by THIS Congress, but trying to wreck the elections would likely cross that line. And if he is impeached and removed, making clear that his power over the GOP is broken, then the next stop for him would be prison, not unlike what happened to former President Yoon Suk Yeol in South Korea, under very similar circumstances. Remember, the last time Trump tried to overturn an election, most members of Congress did not play along, and many members of his inside circle did not play along, either. He's got a more sycophantic inside circle this time around, but we are certain it is still the case that ending democracy is a bridge too far for most members of Congress.

We acknowledge that this item has a tone that is exceedingly sharp and dismissive, and occasionally vulgar. We don't like having to write that way, but this isn't just a politician talking about his political program. It's the most powerful man in the country actively trying to undermine the Constitution, for his own selfish reasons. Frankly, not only is "exceedingly sharp and dismissive, and occasionally vulgar" appropriate in our view, it's actually somewhat restrained. (Z)

The Debate: Giving 'em Hell, Maine Style

Yesterday, eight wannabe Democratic senators from Maine traveled to Portland (the one in Maine, naturally) and debated. In comparison to the painful presidential debates of the last few cycles, it was a remarkably civilized affair (actually, to be precise, two affairs). That could be because these people are not a**holes, and so do not step on each other's speaking time. Or, it could be because the "debate" was really set up like separate Q&A's with the various candidates, with virtually no interaction between them and virtually no follow-ups from the moderators. Or, it could be that culture of restraint and stoicism that New Englanders are known for. We don't know.

We knew that, to avoid putting their thumbs on the scale, the Maine Democratic Party allowed any candidate who formally declared an intent to run to be on stage. What we did not know is that someone—the Maine Democrats, debate host Maine News Now, someone else—decided to divide the field into two groups. The first hour—the big kids' debate—was given over to any candidate who got 20% of the vote in a primary election this year. The second hour—the kiddies' table—was given over to everyone else. We would call that putting your thumb on the scale, stealth edition.

There were five candidates announced for the second hour, though Paige Loud dropped out of the debate and the race at the last minute. And so, hour #2 featured four participants: environmentalist and third-place-finisher-in-the-original-Senate-primary David Costello, former state Rep. Lizzie Dickerson, brewer Dan Kleban and political newbie Ashley Webb. We did not watch the second hour, and will not be writing about the second hour, because none of these people is going to be the nominee, and so it's not a good use of our time or of readers' time. If you want to watch for some reason, the video is here. There are also four people who are official candidates but did not show up to debate, which means that there are twelve candidates in total. That should be a final total, since the deadline has passed and the dust has settled.

The four candidates who have at least some hope of securing the nomination, and who were allowed to participate in the first hour of the debate, are Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, former President of the Maine Senate Troy Jackson, former state/federal healthcare official Dr. Nirav Shah, and former congressional aide and current progressive activist Jordan Wood. We list them in that order because that is the order in which they were arranged on stage, alphabetically, with Bellows in the "first" position and Wood in the "fourth." In this year's Democratic gubernatorial primary, Shah (second place), Jackson (third place) and Bellows (fourth place) all got at least 20% of the vote (26.8%, 21.1% and 20.6% in the first round, respectively), which qualified them for the big kids' debate. Wood qualified by virtue of getting 28.9% of the vote (third place) in the primary in ME-02.

The moderators were Maine News Now staffers Rob Caldwell and Phil Hirschkorn. We have no idea what these two gentlemen's personal politics are, but we had the impression that Caldwell was tasked with asking the more "Republican" questions and Hirschkorn the more "Democratic" questions. If any reader cares to watch for themselves before reading our thoughts, here is the video:

It was, in some ways, charmingly not "big time." The moderators, particularly Hirschkorn, were clearly a little nervous. And we don't know exactly how they level candidates' heads for national debates, but it's probably not having them stand on a very visible wooden box, as Bellows was (Shah, too, though Bellows' was considerably larger).

Because the debate was structured kind of like a four-person job interview, it's probably clearest to break it down like this (again, in order of the candidates' position on stage):

Shenna Bellows

Pitch: "I have fought the bad man in D.C. (over voter records). I will keep fighting the bad man. Did I mention that he's a very bad man?"

Key Issue: Tax the rich. This was Bellows' solution to virtually every domestic issue she was asked about.

Overall Rating: 0/10. Bellows delivered a terrible performance. Just in terms of her presentation, she was wooden, halting, and seemed to be alternating between "this is my pre-scripted talking point" and "I am just going to talk and yet say nothing." Her answers were also noticeably lacking in substance. For example, when the candidates were asked what they would do to save Social Security, she said:

There's a story that's been told for a long time and that's there's not enough money in Washington, not enough for universal childcare, not enough for universal healthcare, not enough for Social Security, it's gonna run out, and that resonates with people who grew up like Troy and I did because I've lived a lot of my life feeling like there's never enough or I'm never enough. I'm gonna run out if... If you know what it's like, you know what I mean, and, and quite frankly, according to the stats, most Mainers feel that way now.

This particular answer was so lacking in substance, it was one of the rare occasions where the moderators did follow up: "All right, I'm going to jump in because you've gone on 35 seconds and you didn't give me any specifics."

There were also issues where Bellows seemed to have no idea what she was talking about. When the candidates were asked about Venezuela, she declared that Congress and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) had done nothing to stop Trump. The moderator observed that, in fact, Collins had voted "yes" on a resolution to rein Trump in, and Bellows had to concede that Collins had indeed voted that way, and then declared, "I won't speak on something before I know what I want to say," despite the fact that she had just done that very thing. To take another example, the candidates were asked about getting rid of Daylight Saving Time, and Bellows said that the issue came up in the state legislature, but... she couldn't remember how she voted.

---

Troy Jackson

Pitch: "I'm Joe Sixpack; I understand the issues of blue-collar folk because I'm a logger, and my pappy was a logger, and my grandpappy was a logger, and my great-grandpappy was a logger, and my great-great-grandpappy was a logger."

Key Issue: Social class. Nearly every issue that came up, Jackson framed in terms of working people vs. the rich, with Collins an "elitist" who is fighting for "them" and not for "you."

Overall Rating: 5/10. If you assume he was the heavy favorite going in, then he certainly didn't do anything to torpedo himself. And he was generally folksy and likable. However, his answers were often mumbled, and also strung together thoughts in a non-sequitur, word-salad fashion. It wasn't as bad, on that front, as Trump at his worst, but it was bad enough that if Jackson was Joe Biden, the media would be freaking out today. Truth be told, the "person" we kept thinking of while he was speaking was Boomhauer from King of the Hill.

---

Nirav Shah

Pitch: "I'm the most electable candidate."

Key Issue: ICE. Every candidate mentioned ICE, and the recent shooting of Joan Sebastían Durán Guerrero, multiple times. But Shah hit on that issue in his opening remarks, and came back to it time and again, referring to the agency as "Donald Trump's masked marauders."

Overall Rating: 9/10. Shah clearly delivered the best performance of the night. He tripped over his tongue once or twice, but he was far and away the most comfortable person on that stage, and his answers were clear and on point. He was also strongest in terms of his knowledge of the issues and of civics, and mentioned a number of details that the other candidates did not seem to know (e.g., he noted that the U.S. already has term limits for some judges, like the ones who serve on federal bankruptcy courts).

---

Jordan Wood

Pitch: "I'm not Graham Platner. I knew before anyone else he was no good."

Key Issue: Corruption, particularly the corruption of one Donald J. Trump.

Overall Rating: 6/10. Other than Shah, Wood was the most comfortable on stage, and did the best job of expressing himself. That said, he was very obviously reading his opening statement from a piece of paper. We recognize that this debate came together quickly, but... c'mon? You can't memorize 150 words, Jordan? Wood was also the candidate, other than Bellows, most likely to give non-answer answers to the moderators' questions. He had no specific ideas about how to reform ICE, or about how to rein in the Supreme Court, to take two examples.

To round things out, here are five additional observations we have:

1. Surprise Issue: We have, of course, been watching closely to see what issues the Democrats are likely to run on in 2026. After all, they have something of an embarrassment of riches to choose from. The issue that came up surprisingly frequently last night was... Robert F. Kennedy Jr. While we're not stunned that the HHS Secretary and his MAHA stuff might become a political football, we would not have ranked this among the ten most likely issues for the blue team to hammer on in 2026. Perhaps it was just coincidence, or perhaps this is peculiar to Maine. Alternatively, maybe the debate was a bellwether.
   
   
2. Surprise Non-Issue: At the same time, evidence has been mounting that the Democrats plan to make corruption a central theme in 2026. Dwight D. Eisenhower had K1C2 in 1952 (Korea, Communism and Corruption), and the Democrats could well have I2C1 in 2026 (Iran, ICE and Corruption). But while Iran and ICE made many an appearance during the debate, the word "corruption" was only uttered eight times, and seven of those were the same candidate (Wood).
   
   
3. Trump, Trump, Trump: While corruption, specifically, might not have gotten as much attention as we might have expected, criticism of Donald Trump was the most prominent theme of the entire debate. They mentioned him, by name or by office, 61 times by our count, which means he came up more than once a minute (the debate was just shy of an hour). In the 2016 post mortems, the Hillary Clinton campaign was blamed for relying too much on "Donald Trump bad." Maybe that was an unsound conclusion, and the Mainers have figured that out. Maybe that was a sound conclusion, and the Mainers are at risk of making a big mistake. Maybe it was a sound conclusion back then, but an unsound conclusion now, what with another 6+ years of bad behavior from Trump. We should note that the candidates mentioned Susan Collins nearly as often (50 times), which is obviously appropriate, given that she's the actual opponent.
   
   
4. Platner: By and large, the candidates wanted nothing to do with Graham Platner. The very first question was about which of his policies the candidates like. And once they were through that portion of the debate, it was almost like he never existed. He only got mentioned twice more, with both mentions coming within 10 seconds of each other near the very end. Perhaps the candidates do not want to remind voters of that fiasco. Perhaps they don't want to risk alienating his base. Perhaps both.
   
   
5. Left Field: The four candidates were all quite lefty in their rhetoric, particularly as regards taxes and funding for Israel. And none of them objected when the moderators referred to them as "four progressives." The only one among them who occasionally veered into more centrist territory was Shah. One has to presume that their lefty-ness is due, in part, to the fact that they need to secure the support of 300 or so people who come mostly from the activist wing of the Democratic Party. One also has to presume that a partial pivot is coming, once the "primary" is over. That said, Collins' oppo research team certainly got some useful clips for future commercials last night.

In general, outside of giant screw-ups, debates don't usually move the needle much. In the unusual circumstances that are in effect in Maine right now, however, the debates are pretty much the whole campaign. The candidates aren't really going to have much of a chance to press the flesh or speechify in all (or most) of Maine's 16 counties. So, this debate could be considerably more important than is usually the case. And if so, then Shah helped himself, Jackson treaded water, and the other two failed to carpe diem.

The candidates will have one more chance; next Friday, there will be a second debate, this one hosted by CNN. That one will be in Bangor, so get your Roger Miller records ready. The cable outlet has announced:

The two-hour debate will take place at 8 p.m. ET. The candidates will take questions from CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash as well as Bangor Daily News Political Editor Michael Shepherd. There will be a live audience including some of the delegates who will vote to decide the nominee along with Maine primary voters.

Note there is nothing there about which candidates will be invited, or whether there will once again be two debates—one for the varsity, and one for the others. Maybe even CNN doesn't know yet. (Z)

Legal Bytes: Trump Decides to Fire U.S. Attorney after 1 Hour on the Job

There have been a few legal developments we really need to catch up on. (And we still have a monster "Political Bytes" or two in the hopper.)

The Apprentice, Federal Government Edition: Donald Trump is not satisfied with just having his personal attorney turned "Acting Attorney General" as his lapdog; he wants each U.S. Attorney to also be completely subservient to him, regardless of their qualifications for the office. Trump had installed Charles Floyd as the interim U.S. Attorney in Seattle, but never forwarded his name to the Senate for confirmation. By law, Floyd can only serve for 120 days, but Trump left him there and gave him a new title. The federal judges in the district found that to be unlawful and named a replacement U.S. Attorney, as the law requires when the temporary stint has expired. Roger Rogoff, a veteran federal prosecutor, arrived at the U.S. Attorney's office to meet with Floyd and start in his new position, but was fired by e-mail while he was waiting in the lobby. This follows a pattern of Trump breaking the law by improperly installing people as U.S. Attorneys without getting Senate confirmation and then simply leaving them there. And when the courts find that the attorney is serving unlawfully and vote to install a proper U.S. Attorney, Trump immediately fires them.

Our Take: This should really be getting more attention than it is, especially with Todd Blanche's confirmation hearings this week. Blanche continues to approve of these illegal maneuvers to avoid Senate confirmation and the law governing vacancies and temporary positions, because he knows full well the lackeys can't get 50 votes in the upper chamber. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) said it best, "This administration doesn't want to deal with advice and consent—they just want to install cronies to carry out a corrupt political agenda."

---

Another Election Case, Another Loss: Trump's string of election losses continues to pile up, and he's now 0 for 13 in trying to get states' voter rolls. The latest is from West Virginia, which is one of 30 states that refused Trump's demand for sensitive voter data. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston dismissed the DOJ Civil Whites Rights Division's lawsuit on the grounds that the demand was "devoid of any factual basis" and "includes no indication that West Virginia is suspected to be noncompliant with [federal voting rights laws]." West Virginia's Secretary of State Kris Warner, a Republican, called the decision "an important victory for the rule of law, voter privacy, and the dedicated election officials across West Virginia who work every day to ensure the accuracy of our state's voter registration system."

Our Take: Trump won't give up trying to convince the voting public of his need to rig the upcoming elections (including his best impression of the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz, not to mention last night's speech), but courts and elected officials of both parties are working hard to tell their own story to the public that states control elections, the rule of law will hold and voters can be confident that they can cast a ballot and rely on the integrity of the process and the outcome.

---

Subpoena This!: The New York Times filed motions to quash the subpoenas issued to its reporters over their coverage of the Qatar bribe jet and its lack of sufficient security measures, which had already been publicly acknowledged by the White House. The reporters did not testify to the grand jury on Wednesday, as demanded in the subpoenas. Instead, the paper claims the subpoenas were issued solely to "intimidate the journalists and the Times itself" and wants them struck down.

Our Take: Well, it's about time, Times! This is what needs to happen with every illegal maneuver of this corrupt regime. Fight back, especially those companies with the resources of The New York Times. There's absolutely no reason to capitulate—unless, of course, you're a billionaire owner with an important merger to get through, but that's a different problem.

---

Brennan Strikes Back: John Brennan, former CIA director and another target of the retributive DoJ, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration claiming that the evidence that is most relevant and that will show he has done nothing wrong is at risk of disappearing. He wants the judge to order Trump and the DoJ to preserve all evidence related to the investigation of him. They are already obligated to do that, of course, but he can point to many examples of this DoJ violating court orders and failing to preserve critical evidence, such as, ahem, Jeffrey Epstein and various grand jury materials.

Our Take: This is a long shot, but it's a really smart move to go on the offensive and put Trump on notice that Brennan is taking the fight to him. This administration routinely violates the law in litigation, so any kind of discovery can prove very fruitful for his case and any other target. More of this, please.

And so, we've put a finger in the legal dike. The problem is that, with Trump, there's always another giant leak just around the corner. (L)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Wrestling with Wesley vs. Westley

We gave two hints for last week's theme: (1) "we were stuck with 'Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA)' as one of the headlines we had to work with. There aren't TOO many things you can do with that" and (2) "while we were able to find a language (Welsh) in which 'Troi' is a word, we could not find a language in which 'Worf' is a word. Even the language where you might THINK it would be a word, it's not."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader D.E. in Lancaster, PA:

OMG I can't believe I didn't get the headline clues. They'll take away my Starfleet membership card!

It's characters from Star Trek: The Next Generation!

• The Maine Debacle: A Lot of People Are Fighting to Be the Captain of this Ship—Captain Jean-Luc Picard
• Political Bytes: The Data Isn't Looking Good for the Republicans—Lt. Cmdr. Data
• Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week, #23: Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA)—Lt. Ro Laren
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Go West (and Be Ready to Walk Many Miles)—Helsman/Transporter Chief/Operations Chief on DS9 Miles O'Brian
• This Week in Schadenfreude: As They Say in Wales, "Chwarae Troi Chwerw, Wrth Chwarae Gyda Than"—Commander Deanna Troi
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Rob Reiner Will End His Career on a Very Appropriate Note—Commander Will Riker

And the Saturday clue is "Worf" as in Lt. Worf, everyone's favorite Klingon.

What makes me slap myself is when you gave the clue that "Ro" was the starting point, I thought to myself, "I only know one Ro and that's Ro Laren."

Here are all characters listed, except Miles, in LEGO form, underneath a LEGO Enterprise-D!

Boy, LEGO doesn't do bald very well, does it? Anyhow, because we had a Rob Reiner piece last week, we strongly considered using "Wesley" in a headline, but decided it was too sloppy, since the character name in The Princess Bride is "Westley." Hence the headline of this item. Oh, and "Worf" is apparently NOT a word in Klingon.

We accepted any version of "Star Trek characters." However, to be precise, all of these people were bridge officers on the Enterprise-D for at least one episode.

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

J.S. in Huntington Station, NY D.P. in Mount Rainier, MD B.P. in Arlington Heights, IL M.B. in Menlo Park, CA Z.K. in Albany, NY S.K. in Ardmore, PA C.B. in Lakeville, MN J.N. in Zionsville, IN P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ S.T. in Asbury Park, NJ A.C. in Kingston MA M.M. in Charlottesville, VA R.S. in Landing, NJ J.W. in Victoria, BC, Canada M.T. in Simpsonville, SC D.B. in Glendale, CA R.S. in Milan, OH A.A. in Branchport, NY M.K. in Long Branch, NJ E.P. in Plainville, CT M.L. in Simpsonville, SC T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts T.K. in Manchester, MO M.W. in Altea, Spain D.B. in Pittsboro, NC B.R. in Arlington, MA F.H. in Pacific Grove, CA D.B. in Tokyo, Japan, Sector 001 G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN K.R. is Austin, TX

J.T. in Philadelphia, PA M.H. in Nepean, ON, Canada N.H. in London, England, UK J.A. in Austin, TX E.S. in Providence RI R.A.G. in Seattle, WA M.A. in West Windsor, NJ M.M. in Dunellen, NJ J.H. in Wintersville, OH K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN J.H. in Lake Forest, CA C.D.K. in Yorkshire, England, UK T.B. in Santa Clara, CA G.W. in Avon, CT P.A. in Redwood City, CA S.F. in Pemberton Borough, NJ A.G. in Plano, TX D.D. in Bucks County, PA R.E. in Birmingham, AL P.R. in Havertown, PA J.C.B. in Seattle, WA G.M. in Arlington, VA E.B. in North Liberty, IA R.M. in Summerville, SC R.S. in Pittsgrove, NJ D.V. in Plymouth, MA J.T. in San Diego, CA T.R. in London, England, UK W.A. in Red Lion, PA T.D. in Chicago, IL

The 60th correct response was received at 8:11 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word in some headlines, multiple words in others, and it's in the category Language. For a hint, we'll point out that we absolutely intended to have the presidential candidates' profile of #22 Elissa Slotkin today, and had to hold it because it's late and we're already pushing 10,000 words. But we built the whole headline theme around that, before we knew the piece would be held, and we'll tell you there's even less to work with there than with "Ro Khanna." We pondered putting a name with the initials E.S. in every headline, and we pondered using words where you have to add a letter to get a common woman's name (e.g., 'Elissa' + 'M' = 'Melissa'), and we concluded there is NOTHING that works well with "Elissa" or "Slotkin." Which leaves...

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line July 17 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: $3 Million, Up in Smoke?

Some, maybe many, people on the right have indulged in the fantasy that universities are left-wing brainwashing operations, and that professors have the power to turn students into wild-eyed radicals who are left of Marx and Trotsky.

We have something like 70 years' university teaching experience between us, and we can tell you, it's just not so. Oh, it's probably true that the average student leaves college a little more liberal than when they came in. And some of them leave a lot more liberal. But that's almost entirely a product of developing critical thinking, being exposed to new ideas, and living in a much more cosmopolitan environment. Most professors are not interested in indoctrination, and are not trying it. And even if we were, we can't even get students to format their essays properly, much less turn them into mini-Mamdanis.

Still, this fundamentally conspiratorial claim makes great copy, and great material for podcasts, and talk radio, and the various shows on Fox and the other right-wing entertainment channels. The problem is when right-wingers actually start to believe it, and try to put the idea into practice. As a case study, we give you West Virginia University.

West Virginia is, perhaps, the reddest state in the nation. And so, the state legislature is absolutely dominated by Republicans (the state Senate is currently 31R, 2D; the House of Delegates is currently 91R, 9D, which certainly gives an appreciation for the feats of magick Joe Manchin pulled off in his last two or three elections). The legislature decided they would like to get in on the brainwashing, and so they appropriated $3 million for the creation of the Washington Center at WVU. After all, WVU is the Harvard of... well, West Virginia.

We wonder how the faculty at WVU felt about this money. On one hand, faculties like it when money rolls in. On the other hand, they tend to dislike it when the money is clearly meant to purchase legitimacy for problematic ideas. When (Z) was in grad school, the UCLA Department of History was offered multiple millions to establish a chair in Turkish history, and the faculty rejected it outright, because it was clear the real plan was to promote Armenian Genocide denial.

Whatever the WVU faculty felt about the $3 million, they did not get a vote, since it was an independent center being created, as opposed to an appointment within an existing department. And so, the Washington Center was established, and given office and classroom space, and a director, Dr. Patrick Lee, was hired at the bargain salary of just $300,000 per year. Do you know how far $300,000 goes in West Virginia?

The center announced an ambitious slate of 24 courses, including "Woke," "Nation and Migration" and "The New Right." But then the rubber finally met the road. You can appropriate money, allot space, hire a director, etc. by fiat, but eventually students have to enroll voluntarily. And students tend to avoid classes that won't help them graduate, while they positively loathe anything that has the faintest whiff of "propaganda."

And so, those three courses have attracted just one student each. And... it's the same student in all three cases. The planned course offerings have already been slashed to 18, and one imagines they will be cut even more. Since we are not at WVU, we don't quite know what they will do. Most classes can be, and are, approved to fulfill one requirement or another. But at most schools, that's a pretty arduous process, and requires approval from the faculty Senate. Presumably, the WVU Senate isn't even sitting right now, and even if it is, students have presumably already enrolled in classes for Fall. Getting the classes accredited might eventually help some, but that's a solution that probably has a target date of Spring 2027, at the earliest. For now, the West Virginia legislature is probably going to have to satisfy itself with putting Fox on the TVs in the student gym. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: On with the Wind

We often think these days of the line attributed to Galileo: "Eppur si muove." That means, "and yet it moves," and it is supposedly what the great scientist uttered after being forced by a Catholic tribunal to recant his heliocentric theory. The story is probably apocryphal, but it still makes a useful point about those who rage against changes that are inevitable.

Donald Trump, of course, hates green energy. Part of that is probably that the thought of global warming frightens him, and it's easier for him to bury his head in the sand. Part of it is probably that he's been bought and paid for by Big Oil. And part of it is probably that Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), etc., like green energy, and he reflexively hates anything they support.

Trump, in particular, hates wind energy. Not only is that green energy but, on top of that, there's a pretty well-established story (which we've mentioned before) that he felt the view at his golf course in Scotland was being ruined by not-that-nearby wind turbines, and he tried and failed to get them removed. And so, wind power became a permanent bugaboo for him. With any other president, we would have great difficulty accepting that story. With Trump, it tracks.

The fundamental problem, for Trump's "side," is that green energy isn't just political anymore. It is, as we have written many times, a question of economics. Coal is already far more expensive to produce and use than green alternatives, and petroleum is headed on that path, too. And so, even corporate interests—which are bound to make decisions primarily with an eye toward the bottom line—are gravitating toward green power sources, including wind.

Today's example is DHL, which does a brisk business in less-than-container-load (LCL) freight. Basically, that means stuff that is too big to ship via the various postal services, but too small to ship on those giant container ships. We're talking things like pallets of pharmaceuticals, cases of wine, specialized airplane parts, things like that.

Looking to cut costs and emissions, DHL has just announced a partnership with a French company called VELA, which manufactures wind-powered cargo trimarans. In a development that sort of recalls the age of the caravels, the trimarans are partly sail-powered. The sails are aided by some green-powered engines, which also serve to keep the refrigerated portions of the ships properly cooled.

The first regular route for the new ships will be from Caen-Ouistreham, France, to New Haven, CT. DHL and VELA estimate the trip can be completed in 15 days. If everything goes according to plan, the costs will be lower than that of a gas-powered trip, the ships will last longer and emissions will be cut by 99%. That's a win, win, and win, which is a sequence the wind-hating Trump rarely experiences.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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

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

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger