The 1/6 Committee Hearings, Day 10: It's Criminal!

The ninth public hearing of the 1/6 Committee was supposed to be the last one. However, Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and his colleagues decided that they would bid farewell with one last, surprise episode. 30 Rock, The West Wing, Parks and Recreation, Gunsmoke, Bonanza and, arguably, Star Trek: The Next Generation had episode(s) that were produced after their finales, so why not the 1/6 Committee? Anyhow, if you didn't see it, and you would like to, you can watch here:

It was short and sweet, as far as these things go, clocking in at a little over an hour.

And now, as we did with the first nine hearings, here is a rundown of the 10 biggest storylines from hearing #10, in our view:

1. Four Criminal Referrals for Trump: Let's not bury the lede. The big news of the day, which everyone knew was coming, was that the Committee decided to make four criminal referrals of Donald Trump to the Department of Justice. The four charges are: (1) obstruction of an official proceeding; (2) conspiracy to defraud the United States; (3) conspiracy to make a false statement and (4) inciting, assisting or giving comfort to an insurrection.
   
   We hardly need note, at this point, that these referrals have no legal standing. The Department of Justice can do whatever it sees fit here, including ignoring the referrals. That does not mean that the referrals are unimportant, however. First, as anyone and everyone is pointing out, this is the first time this Rubicon has been crossed. Never has Congress recommended criminal charges against a current or former president. Even Richard Nixon managed to escape that particular ignominy.
   
   The second significance, at least from where we sit, is that the referrals do put some pressure on the DoJ. By all indications, AG Merrick Garland is very mindful of his Department's public image, and works hard to try to show that he's just prosecuting balls and strikes. He does not want to appear to be party to a partisan witch hunt. At the same time, he also doesn't want to be the AG who fiddled while Washington burned. Even if every right-wing outlet (more below) will accuse the DoJ of partisanship when an indictment comes down, it's going to be very hard for the AG and for special counsel Jack Smith to shrug and say "we didn't find anything" after the Committee has done so much work and has reached a clear consensus on Trump. It is also relevant here that the two Republicans on the Committee also voted in favor of the recommendations, so this is not a partisan attack of Democrats vs. Republicans.
   
   The third significance is that if Trump remains a 2024 candidate, there are going to be lawsuits seeking to disqualify him from the ballot under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. And when it comes time to make the case that he is not eligible to run because he "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," the plaintiffs will be able to point out that a congressional committee, after a yearlong investigation, concluded that Trump was guilty of "inciting, assisting or giving comfort to an insurrection." That will not be easy for Trump's lawyers to push back against, since who is in a better position to determine the intent of the members of Congress than... the members of Congress?
   
   
2. Liz Cheney, Civil Warrior: The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in response to the actions taken by Confederates, particularly Confederate leadership, during the Civil War. The Committee very much wants to suggest that Trump is, in effect, a modern-day Jefferson Davis. It's not easy to make that point in a way that's not ham-fisted, but the Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) found a way. She talked about her great-great grandfather, Samuel Fletcher Cheney, who served with the Union's 21st Ohio Infantry Regiment throughout the war. After going through his bio very briefly, the Representative said: "I have found myself thinking often, especially since January 6th, of my great-great grandfather, and all those in every generation who have sacrificed so much for the unity of our Nation and the perpetuity of our institutions."
   
   In other words, the members of the Committee are a bunch of Abraham Lincolns and the people in Trump's orbit are a bunch of Jefferson Davises.
   
   
3. A Moment of Hope: There wasn't all that much new evidence yesterday, but there was some. Perhaps most notably, there were two new clips of testimony from former White House aide Hope Hicks. In one, she said that she warned Trump about damaging his legacy with his actions on 1/6, and he replied: "Nobody will care about my legacy if I lose. So that won't matter. The only thing that matters is winning." In the other, Hicks said that she warned White House lawyer Eric Herschmann that, in the days before January 6, it was "important that the president put out some kind of message in advance" encouraging the protesters remain peaceful. Herschmann replied that Trump had already refused to do that.
   
   
4. Witness Tampering: The other important bit of new evidence was that, according to Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), people in Trump's orbit offered jobs (and possibly other inducements) to witnesses if those witnesses would agree to not testify. Lofgren also said that these job offers were yanked after the people gave testimony, and that the Committee has evidence proving this. The Representative was quite non-specific beyond that, though she shared this right before the clips from Hicks were played. That may be... instructive. In any event, if the Committee does have that proof, then Trump's in big trouble when it comes to "obstruction of an official proceeding." After all, the Committee hearings are just as official as the count of the electoral votes.
   
   
5. Two Criminal Referrals for Eastman: The other person who will definitely be referred for prosecution is former law professor and Trump lawyer John Eastman. For him, the charges are: (1) obstruction of an official proceeding and (2) conspiracy to defraud the United States. In other words, it's the Trump list, sans the last two items.
   
   Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who outlined the referrals, obliquely said that "others" were also worthy of referral. It is unclear if that means that the Committee will be making additional referrals that have not been hammered out yet, or if they are pointing out that Eastman is going to serve as the representative of the cohort around Trump who encouraged the former president to commit criminal acts, and who themselves committed criminal acts. If we had to guess, we would guess it's the latter. After all, if the DoJ goes after Trump and Eastman, it's not going to stop there. So, there's no real need to give the crime-fighting duo of Garland & Smith a more detailed roadmap than the one the Committee has already provided.
   
   
6. No Referrals for Members of Congress: One thing we know for certain is that the DoJ won't be getting criminal referrals from the 1/6 Committee for any members of Congress. Reps. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA) and Andy Biggs (R-AZ) all defied subpoenas, but will be referred to the House Ethics Committee rather than the DoJ. That Committee is always made up of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, so it might take up the matter in January. But it's chaired by a member of the majority party, very likely Michael Guest (R-MS), so don't hold your breath waiting for that particular investigation.
   
   It's understandable that the Committee made this choice. First, defying a congressional subpoena, while problematic, is rather less serious than the offenses leveled against Trump (and Eastman). Second, criminal referrals would make the already poisonous relationship between House Republicans and House Democrats even more so. If Jack Smith concludes that these four representatives are only guilty of ignoring a subpoena, he'll probably drop the matter, given the DoJ's general discomfort with going after sitting officeholders, especially for matters that are substantially political in nature. On the other hand, if Smith decides that any or all of these men aided in waging insurrection against the United States, then they'll surely get popped, sitting member or not.
   
   
7. Internal Debate: Raskin conceded that the Committee was not at all in agreement about the question of referrals. He spoke of "two poles," with one pole being Committee members who basically wanted to refer everybody and the other being Committee members who wanted to refer nobody. "We ended up in the middle, with the idea that we should focus on the central actors with the major offenses," he explained.
   
   
8. Limits of the Committee's Powers: Raskin also admitted that the Committee does not have all the information it wanted to have: "You'll see that when you read the report that there are lots of other people named as actors. But we were stymied by virtue of the fact that not everybody would testify, lots of people took the Fifth Amendment. So with respect to other particular actors, like [Jeffrey] Clark or [Rudy] Giuliani, we just can't say because we don't have quite enough evidence. That's going to be up to the Department of Justice to determine."
   
   It is possible that friends of Trump will glom onto these admissions from Raskin, using them as "proof" that the Committee's report is shaky and its conclusions are not to be trusted. In our view, however, Raskin's words actually increase the Committee's credibility. No legal case is free of holes, and no group of nine people agrees on everything. Being honest about that gives confidence that the Committee is being honest about everything else.
   
   
9. Report Is Ready: The Committee's final report is complete, and the members voted unanimously to approve it yesterday. They will hand it over to the Clerk of the House sometime this week, probably tomorrow. Over the course of the next couple of weeks, they will also release the mountain of evidence they've accrued. For now, they have made available an executive summary. The "executive summary" is 154 pages, though, so make sure you have a couple of hours to spare if you plan to sit down and read it through.
   
   
10. Greatest Hits: Although the Committee managed to get a fair bit of newsworthy stuff done yesterday, about two-thirds of their time was actually spent on reviewing footage and testimony from previous hearings. In other words, it was pretty close to a "greatest hits" clip show. The new and juicy stuff was squeezed into the other one-third.

The reactions to Monday's hearing were generally predictable. Democrats praised the work of the Committee. House Republicans said nothing, or slammed it as a sham, witch hunt, etc. Donald Trump blew his top, of course, and fired off a bunch of Truths on his boutique social media platform. For example: "The Fake charges made by the highly partisan Unselect Committee of January 6th have already been submitted, prosecuted, and tried in the form of Impeachment Hoax # 2. I WON convincingly. Double Jeopardy anyone!" Does he not understand how double jeopardy works, or is he just counting on his followers not understanding? We report, you decide.

Perhaps the most pathetic response came courtesy of Trump's former wingman/whipping boy/VP, Mike Pence. This is the same Mike Pence, you will recall, whose life was threatened by the former president, and who was momentarily in some real danger. But he still harbors the delusion that he can somehow win over the Trumpers, and ride them to victory in the 2024 presidential election. So, after the hearing yesterday, Pence said: "I hope the Justice Department understands the magnitude, the very idea of indicting a former president of the United States. I think that would be terribly divisive in the country at a time when the American people want to see us heal." We would argue that trying to overturn an election result, and maybe kill some members of Congress, is also rather divisive. But what do we know?

Also interesting was the response of Republicans in the Senate. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued this statement: "The entire nation knows who is responsible for that day. Beyond that, I don't have any immediate observations." He's not exactly sticking his neck out there, and yet most of his colleagues refused even to go that far. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) sprinted for the exit when asked to comment. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), who is nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is, observed that he hasn't seen a poll showing that "the entire nation knows who is responsible." Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) slammed the Committee, but refused to say whether or not Trump committed a crime. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) said McConnell was wrong. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said that only the people who stormed the Capitol are guilty of a crime.

By our count, that's six grown men, and zero testicles. Do we have that right? Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will be downsizing her office soon; maybe these fellows can acquire a few of her extra pairs.

Needless to say, we'll have much more to write about this story over the course of the week, as we see how it develops. (Z)

The 1/6 Committee Hearings, Day 10: Right-Wing Media Coverage

Yesterday, in our preview of the final 1/6 Committee hearing (and their pending report), we wrote this:

What is really important is how the right-wing media play the story. It is too big to hide under the bed. They will have to deal with it. They could attack it as being horribly biased (even though two of the panel members are conservative Republicans). They could attack the witnesses as being biased. But the report will have so much detail, that knocking a dozen witnesses as biased won't really change much. Some right-wing outlets are already wavering on Trump. If more of them jump ship, that could be fatal to him. And if he is actually indicted and convicted, the trickle of deserters could become a flood.

We cannot know, as yet, how the right-wing media outlets will cover the report, since it hasn't yet been released. But we can take a look at how they covered (or didn't cover) the last hearing of the 1/6 Committee. We visited 10 different right-leaning outlets last night. For each, what follows is a list of their top five headlines as of 11:30 p.m. ET, and a note on whether they covered the 1/6 Committee hearing at all. If you click on the name of the outlet, it will take you to a screen capture of the front page of their website, in case you wish to see for yourself:

The Blaze

Top Five Stories:

• Former Cincinnati Reds pitcher Tom Browning dead at 62
• Film critic locks down Twitter account after being mocked for saying white people portraying blue aliens in 'Avatar' movie is cultural appropriation
• Florida man charged with brutally raping and mutilating woman following release from prison after no longer being found a danger by 2 doctors
• Sexual predators from west Africa blackmailing teenage boys online, warns FBI
• 'Sex slave' escapes rapist captor by faking pregnancy, police say

1/6 Committee Coverage?: None.

Breitbart

Top Five Stories:

• MCCARTHY URGES SENATE GOP NOT TO PASS OMNIBUS SPENDING PACKAGE GIVES UP FUNDING LEVERAGE THAT WAS USED TO LIFT VACCINE MANDATE, OIL EXPORT BAN
• 'DEM ON DEM' DRAMA OVER FBI HEADQUARTERS DELAYS OMNIBUS TEXT RELEASE
• COMER: PASSING OMNIBUS MEANS FBI 'UNACCOUNTABLE' FOR TWITTER FILES
• 'TWITTER FILES': TWITTER EMPLOYED GANG OF SPIES LEADING UP TO 2020 ELECTION
• WH CREATES NEW MIGRATION PATHS WITHOUT OK FROM CONGRESS

1/6 Committee Coverage?: The nineteenth story on the site is "ELECTION DENIER JAMIE RASKIN ANNOUNCES 4 CRIMINAL REFERRALS OF TRUMP TO DOJ."

Note also that we do not fully understand the first headline, but that's how it's rendered on the site, without punctuation that would make it clearer. Also, in case you don't know, Breitbart capitalizes its headlines as a matter of course. Presumably they think their crackpot ideas are more compelling if they SHOUT them at you.

The Daily Signal

Top Five Stories:

• Warning Shot: House Conservatives Threaten Revenge If GOP Senators Vote for Pelosi-Schumer Spending Bill
• Republicans About to Willingly Give Up Their Oversight Leverage Over Biden
• Legal Group Sues to Stop Voter Information From Flowing to Left-Wing Groups
• Ode to Unknown Soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery
• Welfare Programs Based on Race and Gender Identity Demonstrate Where Institutional Wokeness Is Going

1/6 Committee Coverage?: None.

The Daily Wire

Top Five Stories:

• Confronting Twitter's Pornography Problem Would Tackle The Child Exploitation Epidemic, Advocates For Online Safety Say
• Pharmacies Limit Children's Medicine Purchases Amid Shortages
• Supreme Court Blocks Key Immigration Policy Title 42 From Ending
• New 'Twitter Files' Show FBI Paid Twitter Millions, Influenced Execs To Censor Hunter Biden Laptop Story
• Elizabeth Warren Browbeats Tesla Board Over Elon Musk's Work With Twitter

1/6 Committee Coverage?: The tenth story on the site is headlined "Trump Responds To Congressional Committee Sending Criminal Referral To DOJ."

The Federalist

Top Five Stories:

• J6 Committee Asks Justice Department To Neutralize Political Opponents With Criminal Prosecution
• 6 Huge Takeaways From The Sixth Dump Of 'Twitter Files'
• David French: Yes, The Dispatch Takes Money To Help Leftists Keep The Internet Conservatism-Free
• Rock Legends And Resist Libs Both Become Neurotic Babies When Faced With Mortality
• Miami Dolphins Are The Republican Party Of Professional Football

1/6 Committee Coverage?: As you can see, it's the lead story. However, the angle is that the 1/6 Committee is a partisan witch hunt/scam.

Fox

Top Five Stories:

• WWE Hall of Famer holds home intruder at gunpoint in dramatic face-off, thanks cops for response
• Officials reveal what likely happened to missing snorkeler
• Authorities take action after nationwide Ring hacking and livestream scheme
• Musk says only certain Twitter users will be allowed to vote in policy-related polls
• NASA's Mars rover posts potential last image as power runs out

1/6 Committee Coverage?: The forty-fourth story on the site is headlined "Jan. 6 Committee releases 154-page executive summary detailing Trump's 'unlawful' conduct, criminal referrals."

Newsmax

Top Five Stories:

• Legal Experts Toensing, diGenova: The Jan. 6 Panel 'Has No Authority'
• Rep. Tenney Likens 1/6 Panel's Probe to Soviet-Style Trial
• Rep. Comer: Top FBI to Be Hauled in Front of Congress
• Ron Johnson: Feds' Credibility 'Shattered' by Narrative Hoaxes |
• Sen. Marshall: Hope Roberts 'Makes Good Decision' on Title 42

1/6 Committee Coverage?: Newsmax gave more coverage to the 1/6 Committee than all the other outlets combined. However, as with The Federalist, the angle is that it's all a big scam.

OAN

Top Five Stories:

• Twitter Files Part 7: The FBI & The Laptop
• The Harvey Weinstein Verdict
• Rep. Jordan: Twitter Files Continue To Expose
• Lake Takes America Fest
• SCOTUS Halts Lifting Of Title 42

1/6 Committee Coverage?: None.

Red State

Top Five Stories:

• FBI, DHS Warn of 'Horrific Increase' in 'Sextortion' Cases Targeting Children
• Democrats Demand Investigation into Incoming Republican Congressman They Forgot to Do Any Opposition Research On
• Satan Clubs, Drag Queens, and the Limits Of Modern Conservative Principles
• Harvey Weinstein Found Guilty Of Rape in Los Angeles Court
• Marjorie Taylor Greene Slams Long-Time Ally Lauren Boebert in Shocking Statement

1/6 Committee Coverage?: The twentieth story on the site is headlined "January 6 Committee Refers Criminal Charges Against President Trump and Others."

The Washington Times

Top Five Stories:

• Nothing to see here: Senate Dems shrug off Big Tech silencing, blacklisting conservatives
• Chief Justice Roberts blocks Biden from ending Title 42 deportation policy
• Migrants depend on Catholic Charities to avoid deportation
• Biden will sign NDAA despite repeal of the military vaccine mandate
• Ronna McDaniel lassos back RNC member who strayed from her reelection herd

1/6 Committee Coverage?: The eighth story on the site is headlined "House Jan. 6 committee recommends criminal charges against Trump, lawyer Eastman," and the tenth story is headlined "Alan Dershowitz dismisses Jan. 6 committee's Trump referral: 'Worthless piece of paper.'"

While there are right-leaning outlets that covered the 1/6 committee hearing as a serious news story, like WND, The Bulwark and The Wall Street Journal, none of them is Trump-friendly. Among the sites that are, or historically have been, Trump-friendly, there were three approaches: (1) ignore the news entirely, (2) bury the story, and (3) turn the news into a story about the deep state/Republican victimhood/Democratic corruption. If any of these outlets are looking for an offramp, so they can move on from Trump to some other Republican, there was no indication yesterday.

Looking over the lists, there are two legitimate news stories that were prioritized over the 1/6 Committee: the budget and the Supreme Court's latest ruling on border policy. Putting those stories front and center is obviously not the choice we made, but it's at least defensible. Other stories that were also ranked as more important: the Twitter Files, the ongoing drama at Twitter, Harvey Weinstein, various news from the world of sports (e.g., the death of a relatively minor baseball player from the 1980s), the spat between Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO), wokeness and vaccines. How can anyone take seriously a news outlet with news judgment like this?

On a related note: Boy howdy is the right-wing media is obsessed with stories about sex, particularly if that sex is predatory in nature. We are not suggesting that such stories should be ignored, but something like 20% of all the items listed above have something to do with illicit or illegal sexual acts. Presumably, this is a form of confirmation bias—the audience for these platforms is full of folks who have been told that most or all sex acts are dirty, perverse, ungodly, etc., and perhaps have spent years or decades hearing horror stories about how the world is full of sex perverts of various sorts.

In any event, it is at least possible that when the 1/6 Committee issues its final report, one or more of these outlets will sit up, take notice, and give the story serious coverage. And by that, we mean "possible" in the same way it's possible that Trump will partner with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) as his 2024 running mate. Clearly, these outlets remain in the bag for the 45th president, and it's hard to see what might change that. Maybe if he actually goes to prison, but even then, we doubt it. (Z)

The Beginning of the Bloodbath?

One of the main political legacies of Donald Trump is the absolute gutting of Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment of Republican Politics: "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." There are tensions in the Democratic coalition, of course—Hillary vs. Bernie, and all that—but they are nothing like the tensions in the Republican coalition. Many Republican members of Congress, particularly in the House, not only loathe Democrats, they loathe any Republicans they deem to be insufficiently committed to "The Cause" (whatever "The Cause" might be). Indeed, sometimes it seems that some Republicans hate their fellow Republicans even more than they hate the Democrats.

This is not a great recipe for governance, and yesterday—weeks before the Republicans actually gain power in the House—multiple sets of tensions boiled to the surface. To wit:

• Lauren Boebert vs. Kevin McCarthy: Lauren Boebert was appearing at one of the approximately 10 million conferences that Republicans seem to stage each year, and said she would not support Kevin McCarthy for Speaker of the House unless he agrees to reinstate the rule wherein any member can call for a vote for his removal. This is not exactly a full-frontal assault, but it does suggest that Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was telling the truth when he said there were more than just five members who had concerns about McCarthy as speaker. And if so, that would, of course, mark the first time that Matt Gaetz ever told the truth.
  
  
• Lauren Boebert vs. Marjorie Taylor Greene: At that same conference, Boebert was asked about Marjorie Taylor Greene's support for McCarthy; the Georgian has said that McCarthy will make a "great speaker." Boebert replied: "I've been aligned with Marjorie and accused of believing a lot of the things that she believes in. I don't believe in this, just like I don't believe in Russian space lasers, Jewish space lasers, and all of this." Clearly Boebert has noticed that she came within a whisker of losing her reelection bid, and needs to distance herself from the kook caucus (Crazy kook caucus? Krazy kook kaucus?), at least a little bit.
  
  Greene took that as something of a personal attack, which it was, and responded on Twitter:

  I've supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. President Trump has supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. Kevin McCarthy has supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. She just barely came through by 500 votes.
  
  She gladly takes our $$$ but when she's been asked:
  
  Lauren refuses to endorse President Trump, she refuses to support Kevin McCarthy, and she childishly threw me under the bus for a cheap sound bite.
  
  The country is facing extremely difficult times. Americans expect conservative fighters like us to work together to Save America and that is the only mission I'm 100% devoted to, not high school drama and media sound bites.

  Marjorie Taylor Greene has no interest in drama and media sound bites? Really? Hmmmm....
  
  
• Bill Thomas vs. Kevin McCarthy: You probably don't know the name Bill Thomas, since he is not currently a member of Congress. The California Republican served in the House from 1979 to 2007, during which time his protégé was Kevin McCarthy. That was then, however, and these days, Thomas regards Anakin... er, Kevin as having gone over to the dark side. The former representative just gave a blistering interview to New Yorker magazine. Said Thomas: "The Kevin McCarthy who is now, at this time, in the House isn't the Kevin McCarthy I worked with. At least from outward appearances. You never know what's inside, really. Kevin basically is whatever you want him to be. He lies. He'll change the lie if necessary. How can anyone trust his word?"
  
  
• Ronna Romney McDaniel vs. Harmeet Dhillon: Nobody regards the MyPillow Guy as a serious contender for chair of the RNC, despite his having thrown his hat into the ring. Trump lawyer and RNC committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon is another matter, however. And now, a week after Dhillon jumped in, McDaniel's reelection bid is in some trouble, as she's under attack from more Trumpy members of the RNC. Yes, she's kowtowed to him at every turn, but someone has to take the blame for three bad elections in a row, and the Trumpists certainly aren't going to blame Trump.
  
  At the moment, it looks like McDaniel still has the support needed to win another term. But it's close, and she's got to hold on until the next RNC meeting on January 27. Maybe she can do it, and maybe she can't.

Maybe what we are seeing right now is a giant game of musical chairs, and once everyone on the Republican side has figured out what seat they will be occupying, this will all calm down. We are inclined to doubt it, however. The House Republican Conference could barely hold itself together when it was in the minority, and had no real power. Now, they're going to be running the show, with actual influence over the national agenda. Our guess is that yesterday was just a preview, and that the red team is going to spend the next 2 years eating itself alive. (Z)

Rep.-Elect George Santos (?) Is Apparently a Fraud

Republican Rep.-elect George Santos—at least, we assume that's his real name—has been trying to get elected to Congress for a while. In 2020, he finally made it to the general election, and was trounced by Democrat Thomas Suozzi in NY-03, 54% to 46%. In 2022, Santos ran in NY-03 again, this time winning the election by that same margin. This was due, at least in part, to the newly drawn district maps. It also helped that Santos' 2022 opponent, Robert Zimmerman, was not an incumbent. And was not the actual Bob Dylan.

Now that the dust from the election has settled, The New York Times took a close look at Santos' résumé and campaign biography. It is not clear if the newspaper also put other candidates under the microscope, but in any case, they struck gold with Santos. Just about every element of his backstory appears to be dubious. To wit:

• Santos said he worked as an investment banker for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs; both firms say they have no record he was ever an employee.
  
  
• Santos said he graduated from Baruch College in 2010; the College has no record of a "George Santos" graduating in that year. In fact, they could not find any evidence of a person with his name or his birthday ever having attended the school.
  
  
• Santos said he helped rescue 2,500 cats and dogs while running the charity Friends of Pets United; the IRS says they have no record of a charity by that name.
  
  
• Santos says he currently works for his family firm, the Devolder Organization, which he claims has $80 million in assets under management. The Times could find no evidence this firm exists, and Santos neglected to mention any clients on his disclosure paperwork.
  
  
• Santos said that he "lost four employees" in the Pulse nightclub shooting, but none of the 49 dead ever worked for any of the firms that Santos claims to have worked for.

On the other hand, the Times did find that Santos has a criminal record in his native Brazil, for theft and check fraud.

Santos' lawyer, Joseph Murray, issued a statement defending his client:

George Santos represents the kind of progress that the Left is so threatened by—a gay, Latino, first-generation American and Republican who won a Biden district in overwhelming fashion by showing everyday voters that there is a better option than the broken promises and failed policies of the Democratic Party. After four years in the public eye, and on the verge of being sworn in as a member of the Republican led 118th Congress, The New York Times launches this shotgun blast of attacks. It is no surprise that Congressman-elect Santos has enemies at The New York Times who are attempting to smear his good name with these defamatory allegations. As Winston Churchill famously stated, "You have enemies? Good. It means that you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

The careful reader will note that nothing in there is a denial of any of the Times' reporting. The really careful reader might also note that Winston Churchill never said that, famously or otherwise. It's a clumsy translation of a quote from the French author Victor Hugo. And really, would Churchill say something so pedestrian and with so little panache?

Some Democrats are calling on House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to refuse to seat Santos. That, of course, is never, ever going to happen. McCarthy is no Rhodes Scholar, but even he can figure out that a 4-vote margin of error is significantly larger than a 3-vote margin of error.

Most of what Santos did was sleazy, but not illegal. The only exposure he would appear to have here is if he fudged his campaign disclosure forms. If Santos did that, and if he is indicted for it, and if he's convicted, the House might expel him. But there are a lot of "ifs" and "mights" in there, so don't count on it happening.

Meanwhile, the New York Democratic Party has a little splainin' to do, since they really ought to have found this out before the Times did. New York state Democratic Party chair Jay Jacobs, when contacted by reporters, whined: "It's unfair to blame the campaign for opposition research work that it did because the resources of a campaign are not as significant as a paper like The New York Times, that can do a lot more with its investigation." Uh, huh. How is $25,000 to hire an investigative firm not the first expense for a campaign, before a single commercial has been aired or a single bumper sticker has been printed? Bad miss here.

That said, Santos is likely to be a one-termer. His last opponent might not have had all this dirt, but his next opponent will. Further, there is a distinct possibility that New York Democrats might try to redraw their map to make it more Democrat-friendly. (Z)

The Word Cup, Part IX: Near Misses

On Thursday, we will begin revealing which slogans advanced to the knockout round. If you still want to cast your vote(s), you have until 11:00 p.m. PT on Wednesday:

• Part I: The Martial Spirit (write-up; ballot)
• Part II: Presidential Campaigns, Pre-Civil War (write-up; ballot)
• Part III: Reform (write-up; ballot)
• Part IV: Presidential Campaigns, from the Civil War to World War II (write-up; ballot)
• Part V: Reactionary Slogans (write-up; ballot)
• Part VI: Presidential Campaigns, from World War II to the End of the 20th Century (write-up; ballot)
• Part VII: The Fight for Equality (write-up; ballot)
• Part VIII: Presidential Campaigns, 21st Century (write-up; ballot)

Today, we thought we'd note some of the slogans that missed the cut. Some were considered in our original selection process, others were sent in by readers. In chronological order:

• Kill 'Em All and Let God Sort 'Em Out (1209): This one was suggested by reader D.M. in Fulton, MO. It began life more than 800 years ago as "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." That translates literally as "Kill them. The Lord knows those that are his own," but the slogan took on its modern form at least 100 years ago. In this revised form, it certainly captures one strain of American culture, namely the juxtaposition of religion with extreme acts of militarism.
  
  
• No Taxation without Representation (1770s): This one is very famous, but our view is that "Give me liberty or give me death!" is more so. Further, "Give me liberty" gets closer to the core motivations for the American Revolution than "No taxation" does. Although the dispute with Britain may have started with arguments over taxes, it quickly broadened to more substantive philosophical differences.
  
  
• Am I Not A Man and a Brother? (1787): J.M. in Stamford, CT, proposed this one, which began life in England, and was the work of potter, entrepreneur and abolitionist Josiah Wedgwood and his staff. It made its way to the United States, by way of Benjamin Franklin, who distributed medallions bearing the slogan among his abolitionist friends. That said, abolitionism remained an extreme minority position until well after the Civil War was underway.
  
  
• Rumpsey Dumpsey, Rumpsey Dumpsey, Colonel Johnson killed Tecumseh (1836): This one was used by Richard Mentor Johnson, who hoped to (and did) become Martin Van Buren's running mate. Running on one's skill at killing Natives would not fly today, but in 1836 the opposition was William Henry Harrison, who was also running based on his skill at killing Natives. In other words, it was a different time. L.T.G. in Bexley, OH, who sent this one in, writes: "It has poetry. It has history. It has verve. It even shows an enterprising expansion of the English language; as far as I know, no one before, or for that matter since, has used Rumpsey Dumpsey to such effect. (To be sure, 'Dumpsey' doesn't actually rhyme with 'Tecumseh,' but in the service of art surely some sacrifices may be made.) I hope this immortal couplet may at least be included in a (dis)honorable mention list."
  
  
• Remember Ellsworth! (1861): This was sent in by reader D.W. in Oxnard, CA. It's a reference to Elmer E. Ellsworth, who was the first Union officer to die in the Civil War, and served as a rallying cry for Union soldiers for the rest of the war.
  
  
• Lincoln and Liberty, Too! (1864): This might be the most famous Abraham Lincoln slogan, since it was also a song. But "The Union Must and Shall Be Preserved!" was more impactful, since that was the core message of the 1860 campaign that got him elected in the first place.
  
  
• Lips That Touch Liquor Must Never Touch Mine (1870): We gave serious consideration to a Prohibition slogan, but concluded that movement was only a short-term "success," since Prohibition was repealed after a little more than a decade. The other reform movements we chose to represent instead were longer-lasting.
  
  
• Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, The Continental Liar from the State of Maine (1884): J.D. in Menlo Park, CA, argues: "[I]f not for this slogan, Blaine may have become President, having lost New York by only 1,047 votes. The only things I know about James G. Blaine are that he is from Maine and he is a 'Continental Liar.'"
  
  
• He Kept Us out of War (1916): J.L. in Paterson, NJ, observes: "I was surprised that 'He Kept Us out of War' didn't make the cut. Unlike the landslides of 1868 and 1924, the 1916 election was fairly close. Wilson took the popular vote by three percentage points and the electoral vote 277-254. Wasn't it important to his campaign that he appealed to voters who didn't want the U.S. involved in World War I? As a side note, it's my understanding that this impactful slogan was somewhat disingenuous; Wilson could already foresee that the U.S. would enter the war early in his second term."
  
  
• Black Power (1954): We really wanted to include this one, but we had room for two of three among "Black Power," "We Shall Overcome," and "Black Lives Matter," and chose in favor of the latter two.
  
  
• I've Upped My Game, So Up Yours (1968): Was there any greater political satirist in the second half of the 20th century than Pat Paulsen? Thanks to B.C. in Walpole, ME, for the reminder.
  
  
• My Body, My Choice (1969): This was one of the very last slogans to miss the cut; we debated back and forth between this one and #MeToo, and concluded that #MeToo shaped events, whereas "My Body, My Choice" was more a reflection of an already existing sentiment.
  
  
• ¡El Pueblo, Unido, Jamás Será Vencido! (1970): This one is courtesy of M.B. in San Antonio, TX, who adds: "Since you included a Spanish-language slogan (¡Si, se puede!), it should be pointed out that another Spanish-language slogan is even more powerful and widespread, though admittedly not in the U.S.: '¡El Pueblo, Unido, Jamás Será Vencido!' (The people, united, will never be defeated!) The slogan was part of Salvador Allende's 1970 campaign in Chile and subsequent presidency. It was turned into a song by the Chilean group Quilapayún, and covered by Inti Illimani, and thereafter became one of the most important anthems of the Nueva Canción movement in the following decades. It is still often heard through Latin America."
  
  
• Think Globally, Act Locally (1970s): We considered two environmentalist slogans, and the person who was present at, and involved in, the birth of the modern environmental movement (that would be V), determined that "There Is No Planet B" had a broader reach and a greater impact.
  
  
• Boots on the Ground (1980): This was first used by Gen. Volney F. Warner during the Iran hostage crisis, and then was redeployed regularly thereafter, commonly by neocons. H.F. in Pittsburgh, PA, who suggested this one, writes: "It was the widely used euphemism for sending U.S. troops to project force and bring about regime change in the Middle East. Of course, the boots were worn by our country's young men and women, thousands of whom were maimed or killed. Some were captured and tortured, and many were poisoned by toxic smoke from burn pits. Thankfully, this Orwellian phrase is no longer in use."
  
  
• Never Forget (2001): This one is memorable, but it's rather generic, such that we doubt most people actually associate it with the 9/11 attacks.
  
  
• Win The Future! (2012): This was Newt Gingrich's slogan during his 2012 presidential campaign. Was he being clever in appropriating the acronym "WTF"? Or did he just not realize? Either way, the slogan made him an object of ridicule. J.A. in Kansas City, MO, who sent this one in, suggests that it's at least as clumsy as "Jeb!"
  
  
• Build The Wall! (2016): Impactful, but largely redundant with, and certainly secondary to, "Make America Great Again."
  
  
• Lock Her Up! (2016): Ibid.
  
  
• Let's Go Brandon! (2021): This one looms large right now, perhaps, but will it be remembered in 10 years? In 5 years? We doubt it.

Clearly, this was a fruitful source for the contest, between these 20 slogans and the 32 that actually made the cut. (Z)

A December to Rhymember, Part X: Viagra Won't Help Trump's Insurrection Issues

Given the big news today, the focus is going to have to be on Donald Trump's Insurrectile dysfunction. We commence with this from S.B. in Natick, MA:

Monday ends with the time to pay pipers
For a band of electoral swipers.
Sudden realizations
Of incarcerations
May fill more than a few MAGA diapers

And then this from R.S. in Alexandria, VA:

Trumpty Dumpty
Promised a wall.
But lost re-election,
And had a great fall.

Insurrections, denials
And suits by his friends
Couldn't put Trumpty
In Office again.

But Trumpty kept fighting.
Refused to be barred.
He'll just keep on kiting
Within walls that are barred.

One of these days, the big news will be about the current president instead of the former president, and we can do some Joe Biden poems. The problem is that the current president knows to stay the hell out of the way when the former president is getting lots of bad press. Oh, well. In any case, here's the address for submissions. (Z)

---

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 or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger