February 23, 2023

Thursday, February 23, 2023. Annette’s News Roundup.

To read an article excerpted in this Roundup, click on its blue title. Each “blue” article is hyperlinked so you can read the whole article.

Please feel free to share.

It would be great if you invite at least one other person to subscribe today. https://buttondown.email/AnnettesNewsRoundup

---

Joe is always busy.

_

___________________

Who is Running for the Senate in 2024?

Jon Tester of Montana is in!

This announcement makes it easier for us in 2024.

_

So is Barbara Lee of California.

Touch 👇 to watch Barbara Lee’s announcement.

We already knew that she was running since she told the House Black Caucus and yes, the 2024 California Senate Race is a doozy - with 3 extraordinary candidates: Katie Porter and Adam Schiff and yes, Barbara Lee.

__________

The EPA steps in to take over the East Palestine, Ohio train derailment cleanup.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan speaks during a news conference in East Palestine, Ohio, on Feb. 21.

_____

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Tuesday that it would take control of the cleanup of a Norfolk Southern train derailment in Ohio earlier this month that released hazardous chemicals into the environment.

Crews are still working to respond to the freight disaster in East Palestine as community members worry about possible adverse health effects from the toxic materials released when dozens of cars derailed after a likely mechanical failure.

Under the legally binding order, Norfolk Southern must identify and clean up contaminated soil and water resources, pay for the costs of work performed by the EPA and reimburse the agency for additional cleaning services offered to residents and businesses.

The agency's move comes as the emergency response effort has now morphed into an environmental cleanup that is the responsibility of the railroad, EPA Administrator Michael Regan said during a Tuesday press conference.

"Norfolk Southern will pay for cleaning up the mess that they created and the trauma that they inflicted," Regan said. "In no way, shape or form will Norfolk Southern get off the hook for the mess that they created." (NPR).

Buttigieg to visit scene of Ohio crash Thursday.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg will travel Thursday to the site of a toxic train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, a person familiar with his plans told POLITICO.

The visit is due to happen 20 days after a 150-car train carrying oil and toxic chemicals derailed, causing a fire and spilling toxic chemicals into the air and water, setting the region on edge and stirring a national furor over rail and chemical safety.

It is exceedingly rare for a transportation secretary to visit the site of a train derailment, especially one that resulted in no fatalities — even though this crash has resulted in unusually heavy national media attention, partly driven by the televised image of the accident’s toxic black plume and residents’ anger over the safety of their air and water. About 1,000 train derailments occur each year, according to federal data.

___________

The Civilian Trump is also going to East Palestine. No one is sure why.

Watch Trump’s reply to the question of what he as President would have for East Palestine by touching the tweet below. 👇 Most folks in East Palestine, I am sure, were hoping for Paper Towels from the Big Right-Hander. He apparently doesn’t know that, when the derailment occurred, GOP Ohio Governor Mike DeWine turned down President Biden’s offer of FEMA help.

___________________________

After the Forewoman of the Special Grand Jury in Georgia spoke… and spoke… and spoke, this 👇happened.

What it means is unclear. Perhaps nothing.

___________________________

Democrats begin to fight back against McCarthy gifting January 6 tapes to Fox’s Tucker Carlson.

Democrats are warning against the release of Jan. 6 tapes to a Fox News host

Democrats are sounding the alarm that a Fox News host's access to thousands of hours of security tapes from the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol could endanger the Capitol further and trigger a new wave of disinformation.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the release "one of the worst security risks since 9/11" in a letter to fellow senatorsWednesday.

He issued the warning following reporting by Axios that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy granted Fox News host Tucker Carlson access to more than 40,000 hours of the tapes.

"The footage Speaker McCarthy is making available to Fox News is a treasure trove of closely held information about how the Capitol complex is protected and its public release would compromise the safety of the Legislative Branch and allow those who want to commit another attack to learn how Congress is safeguarded," Schumer said.

Carlson on his Monday night program said his team was reviewing the security footage. He has been a key figure in spreading false claims related to the siege, including incorrect claims that "antifa" groups or the FBI could be to blame for the attack. (NPR).

---

More on the Judicial Primary in Wisconsin that took place on Tuesday.

Democrats got exactly what they wanted in Wisconsin last night.

A Stark Judicial Choice in Wisconsin - by Charlie Sykes.

Technically, of course, the race for State Supreme Court is “non-partisan,” but the reality is quite different. The high-stakes race for a swing seat on the court this year has stripped away any lingering pretense that the campaign is anything but a straight-up red-blue partisan brawl. As the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel noted yesterday, it is “a race unmatched in its consequence to policy in this battleground state, where conservatives and liberals are expected to raise and spend levels of cash not seen before in a judicial race.”

Last night, as expected, one of two progressive candidates, Janet Protasiewicz topped the field — as the two liberals in the race garnered around 54 percent of the total vote — an impressive showing in a closely divided state. Turnout was huge, far surpassing previous records.

Progressives also got the conservative they very much wanted, setting up a stark ideological clash in the April general election

Former Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly edged out Waukesha Judge Jennifer Dorow for the second spot on the April ballot. Many Republicans thought that Dorow — who had won plaudits for her handling of a high profile murder trial— was a more electable candidate than Kelly. Democrats apparently thought so too; so she was hammered from both the right and the left, clearing the field for Kelly. (Protasiewicz won about 46 percent of the vote, Kelly had 24 percent and Dorow had 22 percent.)

Why are the Dems so jiggy about Kelly’s win?

Here’s the last time Kelly was on the ballot for Supreme Court. In Wisconsin, incumbent justices almost never lose. But Kelly did. Badly.

Then there is this…(via the Journal-Sentinel):

Former state Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly… has been paid nearly $120,000 by the state Republican Party and the Republican National Committee over the past two years for his work on election issues.

In that role, Kelly was at the center of the discussion in December 2020 with top Wisconsin Republicans over their highly controversial plan to covertly convene a group of Republicans inside the state Capitol in the weeks following Donald Trump’s loss to Joe Biden to sign paperwork falsely claiming to be electors.

Former state Republican Party Chairman Andrew Hitt said in a deposition last year to the U.S. House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that he and Kelly had "pretty extensive conversations" about the fake elector scheme. Kelly was serving as the party's "special counsel" at the time.

Expect to hear a lot more about that… along with debates about abortion, and gerrymandering. But, as Bill Lueders wrote here, the race has also shaped up to be a crucial test for voting rights and election denialism.

After Donald Trump narrowly lost Wisconsin in 2020, the state’s Supreme Court came perilously close to becoming the only court in the nation to side with Trump’s legal challenge of the results. The vote was 4-3, with one conservative, Brian Hagedorn, joining the court’s three liberals. He wrote for the majority that the Trump campaign had “waited until after the election to raise selective challenges that could have been raised long before the election.” It was a by-the-book call for which he drew outrage.

“You are an absolute disgrace and we the people of Wisconsin are completely embarrassed to have you on the court,” said one caller to his office line. “I will actively campaign against you and your next election, hoping to make you a one-term justice,” said another. Wisconsin Supreme Court justices serve ten-year terms. Hagedorn is not up for re-election until 2029.

Kelly has been vocally critical of Hagedorn, has apologized for supporting him, and made it clear that he would show no similar flashes of judicial independence.

And Kelly could be the deciding vote in cases involving the next presidential election.

Last July, Hagedorn was back on board, joining his fellow conservatives in disallowing the use of absentee ballot boxes and barring anyone from helping deliver another person’s absentee ballot—both fixes to nonexistent problems flagged by Republicans.

Will Hagedorn buck his fellow conservatives again next time, or will he join the majority in winking at GOP efforts to manipulate the election apparatus and subvert the election results? And what if Wisconsin were the state, or one of them, on which the race for president turned? That’s where “the future of American democracy” concern comes from. But even if all it does is decide the future of reproductive rights and democratic ideals in Wisconsin, this Supreme Court race is of huge significance. Ben Wikler, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, calls it “the most important race in the country before the 2024 presidential race.”

**

This is not to suggest that Protasiewicz does not have her own challenges. She has been criticized for appearing to pre-judge major cases that will come before the court, and will face attacks for giving convicted felons probation rather than prison terms recommended by prosecutors.

In a normal year, this would be problematic. But this is not a normal year or a normal election cycle. And then there is Kelly’s own record. Wrote Lueders:

In writings submitted to Walker in seeking appointment to the court, Kelly likened affirmative action to slavery, saying they “both spring from the same taproot,” and said allowing same-sex couples to wed, which the U.S. Supreme Court had not yet done, “will eventually rob the institution of marriage of any discernible meaning.” In blog posts he wrote between 2012 and 2015, Kelly described abortion as “a policy that has as its primary purpose harming children.” And he decried the 2012 re-election of President Barack Obama as a victory for “socialism[,] same-sex marriage, recreational marijuana, and tax increases.”

Last night, as he claimed victory, Kelly took aim at his liberal opponent.

“Janet Protasiewicz’s promise to set aside our law and our Constitution whenever they conflict with her personal values cannot be allowed to stand,” he said. “Never before has a judicial candidate openly campaigned on the specific intent to set herself above the law, to put her thumb on the scales of justice to ensure the results satisfy her personal interests rather than the commands of the law. … If we do not resist this assault on our Constitution and our liberties, we will lose the rule of law and find ourselves saddled with the rule of Janet.”

But, of course, Kelly has also signaled how he would rule on a host of hot-button issues, including the state’s 19th century ban on abortion, which is now very much on the ballot.

The general election is April 4.(Bulwark).

____________________

More good news. An election in New Hampshire.Also a good Supreme Court verdict.

The Supreme Court Did Something Rare: Enforced a Precedent Conservatives Hate.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued an unexpected trio of opinions that should collectively have progressives breathing a sigh of relief—one unanimous opinion in a bankruptcy case, one split decision that ruled in favor of a worker seeking overtime, and another split decision that ruled in favor of a capital defendant who was challenging his sentence in state court.

These aren’t the usual results these days at 1 First Street. And it’s worth taking a moment to consider what went right. That’s particularly warranted for the court’s decision in Cruz v. Arizona, which held that states are actually required to adhere to Supreme Court precedent, at least some of the time, or at least in cases that have nothing to do with abortion. But it’s also important to recognize how close—one vote—the Supreme Court came to plunging us further into nihilism and lawless shell games.

The issue in Cruz v. Arizona sounds technical, but it affects whether defendants have any remedies when their rights are violated. The case is also about basic principles of the rule of law.

The Cruz case arises out of Arizona’s refusal to apply a Supreme Court case that governs states’ imposition of the death penalty. In Simmons v. South Carolina, the Supreme Court held that during the penalty phase of a capital sentencing proceeding, states must inform a jury whether the defendant would be eligible for parole if they were not sentenced to death. That is, the state had to tell the jury whether, if they didn’t impose the death penalty, the defendant could get out of prison, particularly if the state was arguing for the death penalty on the grounds that the defendant posed a risk of danger in the future.

While the particular case of Simmons arose out of South Carolina, the rule that it announced—states must inform juries whether a capital defendant will be eligible for release if they are not sentenced to death—applies everywhere. But Arizona courts refused to apply the rule, even after Arizona changed its law so that people who are convicted of capital crimes were not eligible for parole. Arizona courts refused to apply Simmons for almost two decades, until the court shot them down. In 2016, in Lynch v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that Arizona was bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions—and that Arizona therefore had to inform Arizona juries whether capital defendants would be eligible for parole.

But the Arizona courts didn’t give up. Instead, Arizona courts refused to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Lynch to cases that had already been decided. They refused to apply Lynch on the grounds that state law allowed defendants to challenge their convictions or sentences on the basis of “new” Supreme Court rules. And, Arizona continued, Lynch did not announce a “new” rule. Lynch had simply applied an existing rule (from Simmons) to Arizona without actually changing the law in the process.

What? Arizona’s position would have effectively left Arizona defendants with no remedy at all. That’s because before Lynch, Arizona courts were refusing to apply the rule in Simmons.  And after Lynch, Arizona courts maintained that they still didn’t have to apply Simmons to those older cases, because it was so obvious that they should have been applying Simmons all along.

As Justice Elena Kagan explained at oral argument:

I think Kafka would have loved this. Cruz loses his Simmons claims on direct appeal because the Arizona courts say point-blank Simmons has never applied in Arizona. And then he loses the next time around because the Arizona courts say Simmons always applied … I mean, tails you win, heads I lose, whatever that expression is? I mean, how—how can you run a railroad that way?

Indeed. In a majority opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court affirmed that states cannot play “heads I win, tails you lose” with constitutional rights. Sotomayor wrote for a majority of five that included the other Democratic appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the dissent. (Slate).

---

Opinion by Ruth Marcus | Does Don Lemon’s punishment fit the crime?

The CNN morning show's co-host doubled down on stupid. Did the network let him off the hook?

Don Lemon is young enough to know better. Except he didn’t, and that raises the more interesting question about Lemon’s tiresome sexism: What should happen next?
The CNN morning show co-host is 56, which makes his strange insistence about when a woman is “considered to be in her prime” all the more unacceptable. Lemon didn’t grow up in an era when women on morning television were relegated to fluff and cooking segments — or were considered oddities if they ran for president. But there he was, seated between two women, and seemingly compelled to assert — and keep asserting — that former South Carolina governor and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley was on shaky ground when, in announcing her presidential bid, she snarked about certain unnamed politicians being past their prime.

At 51, Haley “isn’t in her prime,” Lemon insisted — and apparently, in the Lemon-verse, she is far from it. According to Lemon, everyone with access to a search engine knows, “A woman is considered to be in her prime in her 20s and 30s, and maybe 40s.”

Off air, Lemon followed up by non-apologizing, tweeting that his reference was “inartful and irrelevant.” Inartful? That’s all he could manage to choke out?
Really, Lemon ought to send a thank-you note to Tiger Woods, who non-apologized on Friday for his “fun and games” move, handing a tampon to fellow golfer Justin Thomas after out-driving him on the ninth hole of the Genesis Invitational a day earlier. That sophomoric stunt was enough to make Lemon look classy and enlightened.
“If I offended anybody, it was not the case. It was just friends having fun,” Woods said. If, if, if. For the record, this is a 47-year-old multimillionaire, not a high school student — and this is a “joke” you have to plan for.

As for Lemon’s remarks, the story continues. He stayed off the air Thursday and Friday, and CNN chairman Chris Licht announced on Monday night that Lemon “has agreed to participate in formal training.” He is expected to be back on “CNN This Morning” on Wednesday.


I’m struggling a bit with what to make of this. When it comes to inappropriate and offensive behavior, we are still trying to figure out what constitutes reasonable consequences, and what is meaningless wrist-slapping.
If you spend enough time talking on television, you are going to end up saying something stupid, ill-considered or offensive. That shouldn’t automatically mean you lose your show or get yanked from the air, although it is certainly possible that some comments so cross the line as to deserve the career equivalent of the death penalty.


At the same time, a “punishment” that consists of taking two extra days off — Lemon had already enjoyed a three-day weekend in the Miami sun — doesn’t exactly seem right either. A week would send a stronger message that there is, at least, some price for those who double down on dumb.
It helps to remember Lemon’s behavior seems to be part of a pattern of resolute bone-headedness, if not outright sexism. He tangled with Harlow and Collins in December over unequal payments to the men’s and women’s U.S. national soccer teams.

And that gets us to the question of his impending “formal training,” and what purpose it would serve. “It is important to me that CNN balances accountability with fostering a culture in which people can own, learn and grow from their mistakes,” Licht said, and I think this is the correct sentiment.
What I wonder is what such training can accomplish. To steer clear of ethnic, gender and racial minefields — sure, although we have to find a way to discuss these issues that avoids offending without descending into anodyne mush.


But can training change hearts and minds? Will Lemon actually “learn and grow?” Let’s hope, but call me skeptical. Grown men who think tampons are funny, and even older men who think the useful shelf life of a woman ends in her 40s? These men aren’t changing. They are simply learning to keep quiet. That’s blessing enough, but let’s not mistake it for a cure. (Washington Post).

---

Nazis are in full swing protesting Parade on Broadway.

"Anti-Semitic protestors gather outside first preview of ‘Parade’" by Broadway News' Ruthie Fierberg.

"Protesters appeared outside the Jacobs Theatre on Feb. 21, ahead of the first revival performance of “Parade,” Jason Robert Brown, Harold Prince and Alfred Uhry’s musical about the trial and lynching of American Jew Leo Frank. According to a press representative for “Parade,” the protestors have been identified as members of the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi hate group.

A video posted to Twitter by Jake Wasserman, a reporter for the Forward, shows protestors holding banners that include slurs towards Frank and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). One protestor approached theatergoers in line, disparaging the ADL and passing out flyers which, according to another post, included the group name “Empire State Stormers.” ...

(In a video circulated on Twitter, [shown above 👆. Touch to watch.] , people were gathered outside Broadway’s Bernard B. Jacobs Theater holding signs and calling Frank a “Jewish pedophile.” One person, reportedly a member of the neo-Nazi group The National Socialist Movement, is seen asking patrons, “You want the truth about who you’re going to see tonight? You’re paying $300 to go fucking worship a pedophile, you might as well know what you’re talking about.”

Parade” dramatizes the life and death of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory owner who was falsely convicted of raping and murdering his 13-year-old employee Mary Phagan. He was sentenced to life in prison before he was kidnapped and lynched by an angry mob. The national attention of the case and the trial, in which Frank was exonerated, led to the birth of the Anti-Defamation League, as well as the revival of the defunct KKK.(Variety).

---

After the performance, star Ben Platt — who plays Frank in the production — took to his Instagram to share his own message with followers.

Ben Platt and Micaela Diamond in a promotional photo for "Parade

---

“I don’t usually address social media in this manner,” he began, “but I felt compelled this evening because I just got home from our first preview performance of ‘Parade’ … and it was so wonderful and special and I just feel so proud of every member of our cast and our wonderful crew and our creative team and everybody who was making their Broadway debut tonight and my amazing ‘wife’ and co-star Micaela, and just everybody involved in making this amazing story come to life right now.”

He continued, "Naturally, the news of the fact that there were some protestors at our show has spread a lot and that’s kind of the stamp on the evening in terms of the public perception of the evening and definitely an important thing to hear about. … It was definitely very ugly and scary, but a wonderful reminder of why we’re telling this particular story and how special and powerful art — and particularly theater — can be and just made me feel extra, extra grateful to be the one that gets to tell this particular story and gets to carry on this legacy of Leo. I just implore you to come. Thank you to the Jacobs and the Shuberts, our theater, for keeping us super safe and secure, as you will be, too, when you come see the show. ..."(Broadway News).

---

Soon, you can watch Rachel once a week and Jen Psaki once a week. Hmm.

Jen Psaki, Once the Voice of Biden, Moves to an Anchor Chair.

The former White House press secretary will start hosting a weekly MSNBC talk show on March 19. “Inside With Jen Psaki” will air Sundays at noon, vying for the same weekend clout as political mainstays like “Meet the Press” and “Face the Nation.” (New York Times).

---

The White House moves further toward a post-pandemic world.

Scoop: White House's lunchroom back in business.

The White House mess will open for in-person dining for the first time in President Biden’s White House on March 6, according to an internal email viewed by Axios.

Why it matters: The wood-paneled room with a nautical theme has been closed since the winter of 2020 under COVID restrictions, and its re-opening is the latest sign of the White House's embrace of a post-pandemic world.

• In March, officials with the rank of assistant to the president and deputy assistant to the president can invite guests for breakfast and lunch, right outside the situation room. Cabinet officials also will be welcomed.

• The dining room has been closed for three years, with only the take-out window open, depriving top officials of the simple pleasure of cutting through crispy chicken tenders on White House china.

State of play: Casually called the "Navy mess" by those with access, it's run by Navy personnel and includes standard American fare.

• The main menu is predictable, but the specials can be ambitious.

• Yesterday, in a nod to Mardi Gras, creole corn chowder and "ragin’ cajun gumbo" were offered.

• By D.C. standards, prices are low. A BLT costs $6. The West Wing burger is $7, with French fries another $2.50.

• The service is excellent and Navy personnel are known to remember customers' favorite orders.

Between the lines: Like parking on West Executive Avenue, having dining-room privileges in the mess is a coveted perk in the West Wing.

• Later in April, special assistants to the president will be able to make reservations.

• Junior aides working in the West Wing can still order take-out. The frozen yogurt is a hit.

The intrigue: In the last few administrations, it was rare for most reporters to dine there. Invitations typically were reserved for celebrated columnists, particularly sympathetic journalists, or TV personalities.

• In the Trump era, beat reporters dined there more frequently, both in the main dining room (for everyone to see) or the more discreet side rooms.

The bottom line: The best part about dining in the White House mess: Telling people you dined in the White House mess. (Axios).

____________________

And before we call it a day…

Yes, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith subpoenaed Javanka.

_____________