Burn, Baby Burn

Yesterday, the 1/6 Committee released another group of transcripts from its investigation. Is this drip, drip, drip sharing of information imposed by the amount of stuff the Committee has and the short timeline they have to get through it? Is it designed to maximize the amount of bad news coverage for Donald Trump, et al.? Both? We don't know, but the only person competing with Trump for control of the current news cycles is Rep.-elect George Santos (R-NY).

There was a lot of juice in the new release, but also two particularly big storylines. The first of those is that then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was working very hard to keep secret much of whatever he was doing. He held numerous "close hold" meetings, which are not logged in the official records of White House activities. He also made sure that the number of people at these meetings remained small. These are not the behaviors of someone who is above the level, needless to say.

The second big storyline, also involving Meadows, is that it was allegedly not enough to keep certain things "off the record." According to Cassidy Hutchinson, he developed a habit of burning documents in the fireplace in his office. She said she saw him do it at least a dozen times between December 2020 and mid-January 2021. Those, of course, would be the weeks after Trump lost the election, and during which he and Meadows and others were scheming to somehow overturn the result.

Even if the things Meadows burned were menus for Great Wall Szechuan House and Inferno Pizzeria Napoletana, that is a violation of the Presidential Records Act. If the documents were government property, then that's a whole new level of illegal. It might also explain why we don't know for sure, and may never know, exactly what Trump took home with him when he left office. After all, if some key document is missing, it could be in a desk drawer at Mar-a-Lago, or it might have gone up in smoke. Anyhow, if there were others who saw Meadows do this, and can be persuaded to speak on the record, then the hole he's in just got much deeper.

The House is holding pro forma sessions for the rest of this week, and they may hold one on Monday of next week. So, the Committee has a few more days left to spill whatever beans it's going to spill before Republicans get control of the whole pot. (Z)

Trump Tax Returns to Be Released Friday

Are you an amateur forensic accountant? Or a professional, for that matter? One with absolutely nothing to do this weekend? If so, then Christmas has come... well, a few days late for you. That is because the House Ways and Means Committee will release Donald Trump's tax returns on Friday morning, as part of the official record of the Committee's proceedings.

The Committee had to take some time to redact those portions of the returns that cannot be made public. And since Donald Trump owns hundreds of businesses, and since he moves money around like he's playing three-card monte, so as to avoid taxes and to keep his debts serviced, the returns are thousands and thousands of pages. Undoubtedly, some poor sap or saps working for The New York Times will be canceling their New Year's plans and will be stocking up on coffee and No-Doz today, so they can be ready to run something on the front page by Monday.

There has been no smoking gun thus far, in the sense of something that is so problematic on its surface as to be devastating for the former president. We don't think that will change once the full set of documents is made public. However, as we noted, even the summary already released by the Committee is full of red flags. Presumably, within the next week or so, enough red flags will have been discovered to supply next year's May Day parade in Havana. (Z)

Santos Story Isn't Going Away

George Santos told his tale to The New York Post on Monday, and took ownership of the various lies that he had told—sort of. His hope was that unburdening himself would mean a significant decline in the amount of Santos-related news stories. He may still get his wish... but not yet.

Perhaps this story would have dominated multiple news cycles at any time of the year. After all, people love a good scandal. But Santos had the bad luck to be outed as a charlatan during one of the deadest times of the year for news in general, and for political news in particular. So, he's been above the fold for days and days, and yesterday was no different.

Before we get to the serious stuff, let's start with an amuse-bouche (that's an appetizer, for those who are not Mehmet Oz voters). This clip of Santos, from a sort-of candidates debate held shortly before the election, has been going wild on social media:

We've cued it up to the key moment, but in case you don't care to watch, Santos looked at his opponent and asked: "Do you have an honest moment inside of you ever when you're campaigning?" That one has not aged well, to say the least.

And on that note, despite spilling his guts, Santos has not exactly dispelled his reputation for being an inveterate liar. The problem is that, as he explained away his lies, he... lied. For example, in an effort to extricate himself from his claims of being Jewish, Santos said he never actually said that, and that the media misrepresented his words. In fact, it did not take long to find both video and audio of Santos describing himself as a "proud Jew." That is not exactly open to multiple interpretations, is it?

A much bigger question than that is whether or not Santos has legal exposure that could land him in hot water. And while there is no definitive answer, as yet, there are almost as many red flags here as there are with Donald Trump's tax returns (see above):

• Brazilian Lawbreaking: Santos was accused of passing bad checks as a teenager in Brazil, but he fled that country before he could be prosecuted. The case is still open, and Brazilian authorities could still pursue him... if they can find him. If they wait until Jan. 3, then they have an excellent chance of locating him at E Capitol St. and 1st St. NE Washington, DC 20004.
  
  
• Citizenship: Santos says he was born in the U.S., but he's also told friends and co-workers that he was born in Brazil. He's going to need to show some evidence that he's actually a U.S. citizen, because if he's not, he can't serve in Congress.
  
  
• Marriage: Santos was married to a woman from Brazil for 7 years, and then he divorced her just days before his first run for political office. He says he's gay; the marriage initially caused people to suspect that might be a put-on. Now, the suspicions run in the opposite direction. That is to say, the current thinking is that he really is gay, and that the marriage was the put-on. In other words, the purpose of the marriage was to secure citizenship for his "wife." If that can be proven, it's fraud and it's a crime.
  
  
• Money: The Representative-elect's financial picture remains... murky. There is ample evidence that he was very poor as recently as 2 years ago. Then, during his successful run for Congress, he was able to write a check to his campaign for $750,000. Santos claims that the business he runs, the Devolder Organization, is the secret to his success. However, Devolder has no known clients, and it was dissolved in its state of incorporation (Florida) for failing to file mandatory paperwork. Santos then reincorporated the company the day after he was exposed by The New York Times.
  
  If Santos is lying about his finances, where might the money have come from? Well, one possibility is Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian businessman with ties to the Kremlin who gave tens of thousands of dollars to Santos' affiliated PAC.
  
  
• Paperwork: This is probably Santos' biggest problem, because it subsumes most of the others. The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 says that "[whoever] makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." The Feds absolutely do go after members of Congress for this; for example, then-representative Jeff Fortenberry (R) was popped for filing phony paperwork earlier this year and resigned his seat.

The biggest question of all is whether or not this will cause Santos to lose his seat prematurely. The Democrats want him to resign, of course, but neither he nor the Republican leadership in the House care what Democrats think. However, more than a few Republicans have also called him out. Rep.-elect Nick LaLota (R-NY), whose district neighbors Santos', called for a full investigation yesterday. Former Trump White House adviser Jason Miller said the GOP should "get rid of this loser." Tulsi Gabbard, the "independent" who just so happens to be guest-hosting Tucker Carlson's show this week, also implied that Santos has to go.

Is there any chance that Republican leadership in the House refuses to recognize Santos' credentials, or consents to expelling him? We remain skeptical. The Democrats might jettison someone for questionable behavior, like they did with then-Sen. Al Franken (DFL-MN). But maybe not; they knew Franken was going to be replaced by another Democrat, and they were making a (successful) play for the Alabama Senate seat, and so needed to be "right" on sexual misconduct. In any event, Republicans have shown no indication they are bothered by sleazy behavior; if so, Donald Trump would have been convicted at his impeachment, and at least three or four House Republicans would have been sent packing already.

But is there some other cause that might persuade House Republicans to jump ship on Santos? Maybe. As a tactical matter, they might conclude that they don't want to send the lesson that it's OK to get yourself elected on a completely phony persona. That could cause reporters to look really carefully at every candidate's backstory, which is something that many politicians might not want.

The other possibility we can come up with is that if Republican leadership concludes that Santos is going down anyhow, they might decide they have a better chance of winning a special election in winter (low turnout) than in spring or summer. Jettisoning him would also be a double-PR win; it would "send the message" that Republicans don't tolerate this sort of thing, and would also keep Santos from being an ongoing anchor around the Party's neck.

We still think these are longshots, but stranger things have happened. At the moment, Santos is scheduled to take his seat, and there's less than a week for that to change. (Z)

Title 42 Will Stay in Place for Now

The Trump White House in general, and White House Senior Adviser Stephen Miller in particular, hated Mexican immigrants. And so, they used the pandemic as an excuse to impose a pretty draconian border policy. Title 42, using an... aggressive reading of the president's powers in time of a public-health crisis, has allowed for millions of asylum seekers to be turned away at the border without ever having a chance to even make their case for entry.

Given that the legal basis for Title 42 is at least somewhat shaky, and given that the pandemic is now more like an endemic, there have been a number of lawsuits challenging the policy. One of those lawsuits came from the Biden administration, which wants to put the policy aside. Various levels of the federal system have imposed and removed stays while the matter is resolved. As is usual in these circumstances, the matter eventually landed in the laps of the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the Supremes made their decision. Not on the underlying legal questions, mind you, but on whether or not the law could be put aside for now. And their answer was: No. It was a 5-4 vote, with the three liberals and Neil Gorsuch the dissenters. Two of the liberals did not explain their reasoning, but Ketanji Brown Jackson said that "the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis," and Gorsuch agreed.

It is regrettable that the Biden administration, which is being flayed for its lack of border control, cannot implement its own border policy, as opposed to being stuck with the not-exactly-successful policy of its predecessor. We suspect that Team Biden has concluded that if you turn legal asylum-seekers away, they don't go back to the place they fled, they just find a way to enter the U.S. illegally. In any event, this is what the White House is going to have to work with for, quite probably, most of the rest of Biden's first term. (Z)

2023 Elections, Part I: Domestic Elections

The end of the year is nearly upon us, and we have a mountain of material related to that fact. Today, let's take a look at the biggest domestic elections that will be held next year:

• Governor, Kentucky (May 16 primary, November 7 general): Gov. Andy Beshear (D) is eligible for another term, and has already announced his candidacy and filed the necessary paperwork. He has also said that he will stick with his current #2, Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman (D). Beshear has drawn two primary opponents, neither of them serious.
  
  As you may have heard, Kentucky is a pretty red state. And so, Republican candidates are champing at the bit for a chance to knock off Beshear. Already, 11 of them have thrown their hats into the ring. That list includes Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron, former ambassador to the U.N. Kelly Craft, Kentucky State Auditor Mike Harmon and Kentucky Commissioner of Agriculture Ryan Quarles. The first problem for these folks is that even if they survive the sure-to-be-bruising primary, it will be difficult to recover, particularly since winning will likely require tacking far-right. The second problem is that Beshear is, by approval rating, the most popular Democratic governor in the country, with 59% approval vs. 35% disapproval.
  
  
• Governor, Louisiana (October 14 jungle-style general, November 18 runoff if needed): Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) is term-limited, so all he can offer his party is a template for winning in red Louisiana (hint: you better be anti-choice, no matter what the national party says). The Democratic bench is not completely empty here, and the Party would be pretty happy if they could get the current mayor of New Orleans (LaToya Cantrell) or her immediate predecessor (Mitch Landrieu) to jump in. Both are said to be exploring possible runs. Failing that, it will probably be Louisiana Secretary of Transportation Shawn Wilson, Mayor Sharon Weston Broome of Baton Rouge or Luke Mixon, who is a Navy veteran and was a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2022. Given that Louisiana is 35% Black, and that more than half of Louisiana Democrats are Black, it is worth noting that Cantrell, Wilson and Broome are all Black while Landrieu and Mixon are white.
  
  On the Republican side, Louisiana AG Jeff Landry is in, and many other prominent Republicans are considering a bid, including Sen. John Kennedy, Rep. Garret Graves, Lt. Gov. Billy Nungesser, Louisiana State Treasurer John Schroder and Majority Leader of the Louisiana State Senate Sharon Hewitt. All of these folks—you may want to brace yourself for this—are white. If Kennedy jumps in, he would be the prohibitive favorite. But this is another one where a bruising primary could be bad news for the red team. Assuming nobody gets 50% on Oct. 14, the runoff will take place a little more than a month later, which doesn't leave much time to pivot.
  
  For what it's worth, Louisiana has something of a "throw the bums out" tradition. The last time that a governor handed power over to a member of his own party was 1988, when crooked governor Edwin Edwards was primaried by Buddy Roemer (who later switched to the Republican Party). The last time it happened without wonky externalities was 1972. Anyhow, if Louisiana voters hold to form, then the Democrats are in trouble. Bel Edwards, incidentally, is one of the least popular governors in the country, with 49% approval against 44% disapproval.
  
  
• Governor, Mississippi (August 8 primary, November 7 general): This will be the only 2023 gubernatorial election to feature a Republican incumbent. Maybe. Gov. Tate Reeves is eligible for another term, and in deep-red Mississippi, running for reelection would usually be automatic. However, the Governor is even more unpopular than John Bel Edwards, with just a 48% approval rating. That outpaces only Dan McKee (D-RI), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Doug Ducey (R-AZ) and Kate Brown (D-OR); all but McKee will be out of office within the next 2 weeks. And Mississippi, as you may have heard, has ongoing problems with the safety of its drinking water. High gas prices might make people angry, but it's nothing like being unable to get a glass of water or to take a proper shower. So, it's no surprise that Reeves has yet to commit to a second run. He's got until Feb. 1 to decide.
  
  Despite Mississippi's redness, the GOP bench is not deep, since the various federal officeholders have no interest in a job that is both low-power and comes with term limits. If Reeves stays out, or maybe even if he jumps in, the potential Republican contenders include Speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives Philip Gunn, Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, and Mississippi AG Lynn Fitch. It is too bad Gunn wasn't born 100 years ago; he's got the perfect name to be a hardboiled private detective.
  
  On the Democratic side, well, there aren't a whole lot of options. Mississippi Public Service Commissionner for the Northern District Brandon Presley has expressed interest, and then there's... well, that's about it. Since Ronald Reagan left office, Mississippi has sent a grand total of one Democrat to the governor's mansion (Ronnie Musgrove, who served 2000-04). There are no Democrats in statewide office right now, and the only Democratic member of the state's congressional delegation is Rep. Bennie Thompson, who is not likely, at the age of 74, to give up his position as one of the highest profile members of the House in order to tilt at windmills.
  
  The only way this election maybe gets interesting is if Bill Waller Jr., former Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court and son of former governor Bill Waller, runs as an independent, which he is considering. If the Democrats and the non-MAGA Republicans in the state unify behind Waller, he could well give Reeves (or any other Republican) a run for their money.
  
  
• State Legislature, Louisiana (October 14 jungle-style general, November 18 runoff if needed): The state Senate is 27 R, 12 D. The state House is 69 R, 34 D, 2 I. Those numbers are not going to change enough to matter.
  
  
• State Legislature, Mississippi (August 8 primary, November 7 general): The state Senate is 36 R, 16 D. The state House is 74 R, 45 D, and 2 I, with one vacancy. Those numbers are also not going to change enough to matter.
  
  
• State Legislature, New Jersey (June 6 primary, November 7 general): The state Senate is 24 D, 16 R. The state House is 46 D, 34 R. It is theoretically possible that the Republican Party could flip the upper chamber, as all 40 seats are up, but it's not likely. Note that New Jersey had no lieutenant governor from 1757 to 2010, and though that office has now been created, its holder does not break ties in the state Senate. So, if the GOP flips exactly four seats, the two parties will have to hammer out a power-sharing agreement.
  
  
• State Legislature, Virginia (June 20 primary, November 7 general): The state Senate is 21 D, 19 R. The House of Delegates is 52 R, 48 D. This is the one everyone will be watching, as every one of these seats is up, and both chambers could possibly flip. Democrats will work very hard to maintain (or win) control of at least one of the two, so as to frustrate the potential plans of Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) when it comes to things like voter ID laws.
  
  
• Mayor, Chicago (February 28 general, April 4 runoff if needed): Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) is running for reelection, and in Chicago, they tend to reelect their mayors, over and over. But she's come under fire due to rising crime rates and allegations that she covered up police misconduct. So, she has drawn many challengers, including Rep. Chuy García, state Rep. Kam Buckner, Chicago City Councilwoman Sophia King, Chicago City Councilman Roderick Sawyer, Chief Executive Officer of Chicago Public Schools Paul Vallas and Cook County Board of Commissioners member Brandon Johnson. All of the serious contenders are Democrats and, excepting García and Vallas, all are Black. Thus far, the only non-Democrat to jump in is perennial candidate Willie Wilson, who is a member of... The Willie Wilson Party. No Republican came within a country mile of mounting a bid, and the deadline for filing paperwork has now passed. In the likely case that no candidate gets 50% of the vote on Feb. 28, then the top two finishers will face off in April.
  
  
• Mayor, Philadelphia (May 16 primary, November 7 general): Mayor Jim Kenney (D) is term-limited, but it's Philadelphia, so the only question is which Democrat will win the right to succeed him. Thus far, 10 members of the blue team have declared their candidacies, including five of the 12 members of the city council. There has been no polling, and nobody seems to have any idea which of the 10 candidates is a frontrunner. The only Republican to consider a run is councilmember David Oh, but he'd have to resign his council seat, which means that, barring a miracle, he'd be out of work on Nov. 8.
  
  
• Mayor, Houston (November 7 general, December 16 runoff if needed): The office is officially nonpartisan, but everyone knows. Mayor Sylvester Turner (D, er... "I") is term-limited, so he won't be on the ballot. While it's a red state, it's a blue city, so all of the serious candidates to replace him are Democrats; former Houston City Councillor Amanda Edwards, state Sen. John Whitmire and former vice chair of the Texas Democratic Party Chris Hollins. Edwards is considered the frontrunner. As with Chicago and Philadelphia, no Republican has filed, or even expressed serious interest.
  
  
• Mayor, San Antonio (May 6 general, June 4 runoff if needed): Like most other large cities, even in Texas, San Antonio is quite blue. In the gubernatorial election this year, every council district save one went for Beto O'Rourke. Mayor Ron Nirenberg is gunning for a fourth and final term, and he'll get it. He is officially an independent, but describes himself as a "progressive independent." In other words, he's more a Bernie Sanders-type independent than a Kyrsten Sinema-type independent.
  
  
• Mayor, Dallas (May 6 general, June 4 runoff if needed): Mayor Eric Johnson (officially I, but really D) is popular and has announced his reelection bid. Thus far, he has drawn no opponents. If someone wants to take a crack at him, they have until Feb. 17 to decide.

We won't have quite as many elections to write about as this year, though we'll still have a fair bit to cover. On Friday, we'll review the main foreign elections scheduled for 2023. (Z)

A December to Rhymember, Part XV: My Gift Is My Song, Part I

As promised, it's time for song parodies. Our apologies to today's contributors; J.L. in Walnut Creek is a hard act to follow.

Batting leadoff is L.T.G. in Bexley, OH, with this take on "The Battle Hymn of the Republic":

Mine eyes have seen the horror of the portly orange Lord
Who consorts with anti-Semites, who must strike a welcome chord
And he jumps at every opportunity to swell his hoard
As the grift keeps marching on!

Glory, glory Hallelujah!
Glory, glory Hallelujah!
Trump will always stick it to ya
As the grift keeps marching on!

Then Jared knows investing like a platypus knows Greek,
But the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, through a canny Saudi sheik
Gave Kushner's firm two billion bucks—the reason's not oblique
As the grift keeps marching on!

Donald lost the last election, but he couldn't bear the thought
So he gathered his supporters, who stormed Congress on the spot
By the barest, slightest margin we escaped a coup-d'-etat
So the grift could march right on!

In the last mid-term election, Donald hardly ever spent
Any bucks to help his candidates, but e-mail he sent;
From every donation, he kept ninety-nine percent
And the grift keeps marching on!

The latest scam from Donald is to market NFTs
They're cheesy and unlicensed, but the gullible did seize
The chance to buy an image of the traitorous, lying sleaze
And the grift keeps marching on!

M.W. in Richmond, VA, sent in this, inspired by "She'll Be Comin' Round the Mountain":

They keep showing propaganda on FOX News.
Airing only their reactionary views.
They keep ranting 'bout the trauma
They still feel about Obama.
They keep showing propaganda on FOX News.

They keep showing propaganda on FOX News.
They do not inform; they only just confuse.
Watch Jean Pirro and Sean Hannity
And you'll quickly lose your sanity.
They keep showing propaganda on FOX News.

They keep showing propaganda on FOX News.
Cause a right-wing slant is all they ever use.
Opposition's automatic
To whatever's Democratic.
They keep showing propaganda on FOX News.

They keep showing propaganda on FOX News.
So let's exercise the right we have to choose.
There is really just one answer.
It's to boycott all their sponsors,
'til there's no more propaganda on FOX News.

And there was zero chance we were going to let this pass without at least one take on a Beatles song, such as this one from C.W. and B.L. in Silicon Valley, CA, based on "Back in the U.S.S.R."

Scammed his way to presidency GOP,
Never let us sleep that night,
All the way a burger wrapper on his knee,
Man oh what a dreadful sight

Go back to the U.S.S.R.
You know how unlucky we are, boy
Back to the U.S.S.R.

Ever since the vote I hardly know the place,
Gee I wish he'd go back home.
Leave it to Pelosi to wrap up Her case,
Twitter disconnect his phone,

Go back to the U.S.S.R.
You know how unlucky we are, boy
Back to the U.S., Hacking the U.S., Back to the U.S.S.R.

Well the Ukraine schemes really knocked me out,
Yovanavich left behind.
And Moscow Mitch makes me scream and shout,
And Stormy's on mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mind

Oh, shut down all your bogus rallies way down south,
Take them out to Putin's farm,
Let me see your Twitter handle signing out,
Go and keep your Comrade warm,

Go back to the U.S.S.R.
You know how unlucky we are, boy
Back to the U.S., Hacking the U.S., Back to the U.S.S.R.

We'll do song parodies at least once more. And we'd be pleased to receive one (or two) that target Democrats. (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