<....Several prominent district exits have occurred in the South – places like St. George, Louisiana – but instances from northern Maine to Southern California show that school splintering is happening nationwide.

As one reporter wrote, “If you didn’t want to attend school with certain people in your district, you just needed to find a way to put a district line between you and them.”

Many other examples of legalized separatism revolve around taxes. Disney World, for example, was classified as a “special tax district” in Florida in 1967. These special districts are functionally separate local governments and can provide public services and build and maintain their own infrastructure.

The company has saved millions by avoiding typical zoning, permitting and inspection processes for decades, although Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has recently challenged Disney’s special designation. Disney was only one of 1,800 special tax districts in Florida; there are over 35,000 in the nation.

Jeff Bezos paid no federal income taxes in 2011. Elon Musk paid almost none in 2018. Tales of wealthy individuals avoiding taxes are as common as stories of rich Americans buying their way out of jail. “Wealthier Americans,” Robert Reich lamented as far back as the early 1990s, “have been withdrawing into their own neighborhoods and clubs for generations.” Reich worried that a “new secession” allowed the rich to “inhabit a different economy from other Americans.”

Some of the nation’s wealthiest citizens pay an effective tax rate close to zero. As one investigative reporter put it, the ultrawealthy “sidestep the system in an entirely legal way.”

One nation, divisible

Schools and taxes are just a start.

Eleven states dub themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” and refuse to enforce federal gun restrictions. Movements aiming to carve off rural, more politically conservative portions of blue states are growing; 11 counties in Eastern Oregon support seceding and reclassifying themselves as “Greater Idaho,” a move that Idaho’s state government supports.

Hoping to become a separate state independent of Chicago’s political influence, over two dozen rural Illinois counties have passed pro-secession referendums. Some Texas Republicans back “Texit,” where the state becomes an independent nation.

Separatist ideas come from the Left, too.

“Cal-exit,” a plan for California to leave the union after 2016, was the most acute recent attempt at secession.

And separatist acts have reshaped life and law in many states. Since 2012, 21 states have legalized marijuana, which is federally illegal. Sanctuary cities and states have emerged since 2016 to combat aggressive federal immigration laws and policies. Some prosecutors and judges refuse to prosecute women and medical providers for newly illegal abortions in some states.

Estimates vary, but some Americans are increasingly opting out of hypermodern, hyperpolarized life entirely. “Intentional communities,” rural, sustainable, cooperative communes like East Wind in the Ozarks, are, as The New York Times reported in 2020, proliferating “across the country.”

In many ways, America is already broken apart. When secession is portrayed in its strictest sense, as a group of people declaring independence and taking a portion of a nation as they depart, the discussion is myopic, and current acts of exit hide in plain sight. When it comes to secession, the question is not just “What if?” but “What now?”>

<The Florida mom whose complaints about reading material prompted Amanda Gorman's acclaimed poem "The Hill We Climb" and other books to be restricted at a local elementary school admits she only read parts of the material she objected to.

Daily Salinas fueled a firestorm last week after the Bob Graham Educational Center, a public school in Miami-Dade County, agreed to restrict access to "The Hill We Climb" − which Gorman recited at President Joe Biden's inauguration −and three other books a school panel decided were better suited for middle-school students.

Salinas told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, JTA, she complained about Gorman's poem and the books because they did not support the curriculum. Gorman, 25, was the first person named the National Youth Poet Laureate.

“I’m not an expert,” she said. “I’m not a reader. I’m not a book person. I’m a mom involved in my children’s education.”

Gorman rejected the school's defense that her poem was restricted not banned, and that it remained available for middle-school children.

"For those claiming my book wasn’t banned, just 'aged-up,' 'The Hill We Climb' is an inaugural poem for the world," Gorman posted on Twitter. "Relocating it to older age group library shelves by its nature bars younger and equally deserving generations from accessing said moment in history."

Developments:

Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava has invited Gorman to perform a reading of her poem in the county.

Students at New Roads elementary, the California school Gorman once attended, read their own poetry at rally in her name. "When our students see this book, they are reminded that they too are authors, thinkers, speakers, social justice advocates, champions for those who have been marginalized, and compassionate young people who want to listen and to be heard," the school said in an Instagram post.

Salinas denies link to Proud Boys

The advocacy group Miami Against Fascism posted photos of Salinas at rallies with member of Proud Boys and Moms for Liberty, a conservative group that has protested school curriculums that mention LGBTQ rights, critical race theory and other issues. Salinas told JTA that she was not a member of either group, saying she had merely attended rallies where their members were present.

Salinas apologizes for antisemitic post

Salinas expressed regrets for sharing a Facebook post in March about “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a notoriously antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. The original post includes a line about "socialist rule, then communism, then despotism.” Salinas said she saw the word communism, which she abides, and did not read the rest before sharing.

“I want to apologize to the Jewish community,” Salinas told JTA. “I’m not what the post says. I love the Jewish community.”>

My response would be:

<NatWest Group PC (NYSE: NWG), a U.K.-based bank, is asking its customers to explain why they're withdrawing their cash.

According to its website, the bank explained that it is taking measures to protect its clients from scams. NatWest said that, if it finds the customer's response to its question about the cash withdrawal unsatisfactory, it will ask them to provide supporting documentation.

"Our primary aim is to keep customers safe and secure, and our branches follow our processes carefully to achieve this. This will include asking you questions about the purpose of your cash withdrawal, and in some cases, for supporting documentation such as an invoice. This helps us validate the withdrawal as genuine and protect you against fraud and scams," the bank said on its site.

The bank added that it will block customers from withdrawing cash if it believes there's an issue.

"In some instances, we may decline the cash withdrawal based on the information provided surrounding the transaction. This would only ever be in situations where we need to safeguard our customers," the bank said.

Last week, on Stansberry Research's "The Daniela Cambone Show," macro guru and hedge fund manager Hugh Hendry said that the Federal Reserve's monetary policy has increased the probability that banking customers could one day face restrictions on the amount of cash they can withdraw in the U.S.

Hendry said that the country's banking industry will likely witness a further deposit flight since customers can now easily pull out their funds with a button.

"A combination of being stuck with these uncompetitive rates and now the tyranny that money can fly so quickly … The thing that's pulling money out is the Fed's offering too much via money markets. I mean, you could go to the Fed directly," he said.>

<Republicans’ "obsession" with work requirements are "offensive" to poor people and could produce a backlash, CNN political commentator Ashley Allison said on Sunday..

She appeared on a panel discussion during "State of the Union" to react to the news that Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., reached an agreement to raise the debt ceiling after months of debate.

McCarthy has argued that while some Republicans were unhappy with the concessions in the agreement, there is "not one thing in the bill for Democrats." One of the Republicans’ concessions, however, included removing work requirements for social programs like Medicaid and SNAP, something that Allison insisted is "offensive."

"I think it’s important to also note that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all staying safe, not being touched at all. I think the Republican’s obsession with work requirements are offensive to poor people, assuming that people want to be poor and don’t have the fight inside of them to work hard. It’s offensive, and I think it will ultimately come a backlash. But the way that they were able to negotiate and protect veterans, people who are homeless is really important," Allison said.

Members of the Freedom Caucus such as Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, have voiced their displeasure over the agreement, particularly its lack of work requirements for social programs as well as a lack of significant budget cuts.

Allison also showed concerns about House Republicans turning against the bill and whether McCarthy can successfully rally his party.

"I also think though is Kevin McCarthy going to be able to get it done in his caucus? I mean we were all sitting here at two in the morning seeing if he could get speaker votes. We weren’t sure what concessions he made. Can he hold his caucus together, or will he have to rely on Democrats yet again, so our country doesn’t default?" Allison said.

Allison's comments echo, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who criticized the idea of work requirements in another segment of the show, saying that it would actually "hurt poor people."

"We’ve seen reams of data that show that when you put these work requirements in, they’re really just administrative red tape that prevent the people who need help from getting help," Jayapal said.

McCarthy claimed Republicans are largely in favor of the agreement. According to the House Speaker, the bill will sit for public review for 72 hours before finally coming up for a vote on Wednesday. The vote would come days before the new June 5 default deadline provided by the Treasury Department.>

<In a since-deleted tweet from back in February, the controversial Georgia Congresswoman misstated the number of illegal border crossings in the last two-plus years.

Should we be surprised? Well, no.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Is At It Again

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) often tweets wild and outrageous things, and she rarely deletes such messages.

And, of course, as one would expect, she did so a few months back yet again, after wildly misstating the number of border crossings since President Joe Biden took office.

"$113 Billion has been appropriated to Ukraine in just 1 yr,” Greene said in the deleted tweet back in February of this year, per Newsweek.

"Trump's wall would have only cost $22 billion, but Congress refused to fund it. 6 Billion people illegally crossed our border since Biden took office, but Ukraine's border is the only border that matters to Washington.”

There is [sic] a number of issues with Greene's tweet. For starters, the population of the world is a little under 8 billion, so clearly it’s not true that 6 billion people have illegally crossed the U.S. border since 2021.

It seems to make sense that Greene meant to say “million,” and did so in a subsequent tweet that was otherwise identical.

It’s not clear what the source was for the 6 million figure of illegal border crossings.

The Border Patrol had said last October that there had been 2.4 million migrant arrests at the Southwestern border in the previous fiscal year.

But “migrant arrests” and “illegal border crossings” are not an identical metric.

A subsequent report, in January, found that border arrests had dropped that month after new restrictions were put in place.

The Media is Not Happy With Her Tweet

Journalist Jacob Kornbluh of the Forward responded to the “6 million” tweet with the phrase “interesting use of that number,” a likely reference to the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, which is also 6 million.

Greene has in the past been accused of antisemitism.>

<As the clock ticks down on debt ceiling negotiations, most of the country is pausing for Memorial Day weekend. The U.S. cannot default on its debt, and it won’t. We are simply witnessing another symptom of the catastrophe that is our broken U.S. Congress.

In an interview I did years ago with New York Times columnist David Brooks, he commented that, “It isn’t enough to be broken; you must be broken open in order to be transformed.”

Could this broken moment, highlighting the depth, breadth and degree of brokenness in Congress, actually present an opportunity for what is broken to be broken open and transformed?

A friend once shared with me a thought along these lines: The broken clouds release the rain to nourish the earth. The broken earth receives the seed. The broken seed grows to become grain. The broken grain becomes flour to make the bread. The broken bread nourishes the body.

Congress is broken. Can it be broken open so that transformational change can begin? I say it can if leaders will act greatly, with daring, hope and will. The question is how, and who would lead such a movement?

Let’s do the math and keep it simple. In the current negotiation scenarios, it is assumed that there are 100 Democrats who will not vote for whatever debt ceiling deal emerges because, broadly speaking, it cuts too much or doesn’t tax enough. And there are 100 Republicans who won’t vote for a compromise because it cuts too little or taxes too much.

This would imply that there are 118 Republicans and 100 Democrats willing to vote for the right deal.

Here is your broken-open moment.

If those 218 center-left and center-right representatives were to form a caucus, they would not only be able to ensure that the country reduces spending and doesn’t default on its debt, but also take charge of the entire chamber. Those 218 would comprise an effective majority that could elect a Speaker beholden to neither the far left nor the far right.

More importantly, they would actually be where most of their constituents are. An overwhelming majority of Americans, after all, believe that a debt ceiling increase should be bundled with spending reform.

A broken moment could become a broken-open movement to a different kind of politics.

Imagine the impact of such a new majority caucus. The numbers of representatives would swell swiftly beyond 218 in that new majority, and the two new minority parties (composed of Democrats and Republicans outside of that majority) would scramble to the fringes to figure out whom to yell at, who would still listen, and how they’ll continue to raise money. The iron-fisted stranglehold the two parties have had on the nation for generations would be broken, and our politics would be broken open....>

<....The numbers add up and are congruent with a center-right to center-left nation. For far too long, the majority of Americans have felt they have lost their voice and simply have to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Many have disengaged entirely from the political process because they are exhausted and exasperated with the choices they are being served up by the two parties who offer all rage, no reason and few solutions.

A rejection of the false choice of far-left versus far-right politics could result in a new way — I would call it the American way.

Voters have been convinced by Republicans and Democrats for decades that every choice is a binary choice — red versus blue, us versus them, good versus evil, Democrat versus Republican.

Imagine what would happen if current Democrats and Republicans were to reject this premise. More people would reengage in the political process. More people would show up to town halls, and the silent majority would be silent no more.

If this broken moment were to become a transformational movement — a moment of innovation akin to the invention of Wi-Fi or the smart phone — it could propel the country out of its current morass of sharp political division and into a new era of civility and prosperity.

Who will lead a broken open moment to become a movement? Our country has needed and produced such leaders before. Many of them exhibited the very heroism we celebrate on Memorial Day.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was one of our nation’s greatest orators and served on the U.S. Supreme Court. He was also a Civil War veteran. He spoke May 30, 1884, in Keene, N.H., on the why the young should care about Memorial Day.

Holmes began, “So to the indifferent inquirer who asks why Memorial Day is still kept up, we may answer, it celebrates and solemnly reaffirms from year to year a national act of enthusiasm and faith. It embodies in the most impressive form our belief that to act with enthusiasm and faith is the condition of acting greatly.”

The ability and determination to “act greatly,” with “enthusiasm and faith,” is what those 218 leaders in Congress would need.

Holmes concluded his tribute to those who had died while acting greatly, saying, “As I listen, the great chorus of life and joy begins again, and amid the awful orchestra of seen and unseen powers and destinies of good and evil our trumpets sound once more a note of daring, hope and will.”

The brokenness of Congress has finally broken open. The question this Memorial Day weekend is whether leaders will emerge from the center-right and center-left who are willing “to act greatly,” with “daring, hope and will”?

Acting greatly isn’t easy. Sometimes it requires a little bit of crazy. We can only hope that those 218 in Congress will indeed act greatly, so that the transformation from division to “a more perfect union” can begin once again.>

<CNN's Jim Acosta and John Avlon compared notes on Republicans speaking on raising the debt ceiling over the weekend only to realize that the far-right members refuse to support the deal between Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Joe Biden.

Acosta cited an interview he conducted Saturday with Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), who said he's voted for shutdowns and would vote again this week.

After ranting about cutting spending, Acosta said, "Well, you can have the argument about cutting spending during the budget and appropriations process, but as you know, Congressman, the U.S. has never missed making payments on its bills before. In the last 45 years, Congress has raised the debt ceiling 65 times. So, again, I go back to the question: is it responsible — I understand what you're saying about how much your daughter spends, but we're not talking about $15. We're talking about the American economy. Is it responsible to be the deciding vote to send the country into default?"

Burchett claimed that the country wasn't going to be sent into default. He crafted a conspiracy that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen kept changing the date the U.S. default would happen.

"Nobody is, as the young people say, nobody has provided the receipts. Nobody has called her into Washington and said, 'Show us the math on this,'" he said.

Burchett also had his own math, saying that if they cut the budget spending to the 2022 levels, the country would be in a surplus. The House passed a massive defense spending package that would have required cuts from other places.

"All they're doin' right now is scarin' people," Burchett claimed. "They're talkin' about cutting programs that have no need other than political cronyism, we're tellin' our seniors — and the Democrats will, and I get it — they're tellin' the seniors they're gonna be cut. Veterans are gonna be cut. And nothing can be farther (sic) from the truth. And that's just the reality of politics."

The reason Democrats were citing cuts to seniors and veterans goes back to the Republican Party budget bill that required cuts to seniors and veterans. That's because returning to the 2022 budget levels means making cuts to increases already passed by Congress.

Acosta turned back to Rep. Burchett to ask if he believed the debt ceiling wasn't real.

"I think the debt ceiling is — it's just a creative thing to hold us into responsible — into check," said Burchett.

Avlon cited Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC), who claimed he refused to sign a bill that would bankrupt the economy.

"Well, hold it right there," said Avlon. "I mean, if you let the country default on its debt, that's functionally the same thing."

An annoyed Avlon was frustrated the process was even something allowed to happen.

"It's a fact, Congress has to control the pursestrings. So, frankly, someone should figure out the 14th Amendment side of this because I think this is not the way we're supposed to play ball, the greatest nation in the world constantly every couple of years when there's a Democratic president flirting with defaulting on our debt because it's fiscal policy by extortion," said Avlon. "This is a win to the extent that we came up to a bipartisan agreement, but this is not the way the greatest nation in the world should conduct its fiscal policy. It's ridiculous. And it didn't happen when Donald Trump was president because Democrats worked with Republicans to ensure the debt ceiling was raised three times.">

<Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., said Sunday that a debt ceiling agreement is "going to pass," and that only a small portion of the "most colorful conservatives" in Congress oppose it.

Johnson, chair of the Republican Main Street Caucus and a lead negotiator on the debt ceiling, dismissed criticisms from Freedom Caucus members who claim the reported agreement Saturday reached with the White House is a loss for the GOP. The deal, he said, is "fantastic," and will be passed with a strong majority.

"When we say conservatives are against it, I want to make it clear, I don’t know a single one of the mainstream caucus conservatives," Johnson said Sunday on CNN. "There will be Freedom Caucus members that vote for this package. So when you’re saying that conservatives have concerns, it is really the most colorful conservatives. Some of those guys you mentioned didn’t vote for the thing when it was kind of a Republican wish list."

The deal, struck between House Republicans and the White House, would cut some unused COVID-19 emergency funds, as well as a portion of funds granted to the IRS in the Inflation Reduction Act, multiple sources told Fox News and Fox News Digital. The debt limit would be suspended until after the 2024 presidential election.

Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., said the agreed deal is far from conservative.

"I am hearing the ‘deal’ is for a $4 trillion increase in the debt limit," Good tweeted Saturday. "IF that is true, I don’t need to hear anything else. No one claiming to be a conservative could justify a YES vote."

Johnson dismissed Good’s criticism in his CNN interview as irrelevant bickering.

"Let’s be honest, Bob Good will not vote for this thing," Johnson said. "It doesn’t matter if Mother Theresa came back from the dead and called him. He’s not voting for it. He was never going to. This is going to pass."

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, detailed his concerns with the debt ceiling agreement Sunday in a series of tweets. This included a criticism of the estimated $4 trillion cost of the agreement, a lack of budget cuts, no work requirements for Medicare, and a failure to include measures for border security.

"There are members of the GOP claiming Democrats got nothing from the ‘deal.’ Oh really?" Roy tweeted as he listed his criticisms.

Johnson said he talked to roughly three dozen House Republicans about the agreement with the White House, all of which he claimed supported it.

"Everybody I’m talking to understands that when you’re reducing spending, when you’re peeling back the regulatory state, when you are unlocking American energy, when you are getting people back to work, this is a big deal," Johnson said.>

<House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Joe Biden have agreed to a tentative deal that will raise the debt ceiling, saving the country from default. However, this move could ultimately be the beginning of the end for McCarthy's speakership and the start of his "death clock," according to former GOP strategist Rick Wilson.

Following weeks of negotiations, Biden and McCarthy announced a tentative deal on Saturday night to raise the $31.5 trillion debt limit for two years while also cutting federal spending, just days before the United States is set to default on its commitments—which experts say would have devastating impacts to the global economy. The deal will extend the debt limit until January 2025, cap spending in the 2024 and 2025 budgets, repeal unused COVID-19 relief funds, cut Internal Revenue Service (IRS) funding and add work requirements for food aid programs, CNN reported.

"[It's a] great night for Joe Biden, great night for the White House even though I think their messaging has been kind of tentative for the last couple of weeks," Wilson said during an appearance on MSNBC on Saturday. "I think though we are now going to probably start the Kevin McCarthy death clock."

The former GOP strategist added: "He has certainly got a very angry part of his caucus tonight who are probably burning up his phone. No matter how good it is for the country not to default, it's not going to please the chaos caucus of the GOP."

Taking to Twitter on Saturday night, Biden called the deal "good news for the American people, because it prevents what could have been a catastrophic default and would have led to an economic recession, retirement accounts devastated, and millions of jobs lost."

However, Republicans voiced their frustrations towards the agreement, with Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado vowing to vote against the deal.

"Our base didn't volunteer, door knock and fight so hard to get us the majority for this kind of compromise deal with Joe Biden," the congresswoman tweeted.

Republican Ohio Senator J.D. Vance tweeted on Sunday, "The more I learn about this debt ceiling deal, the more I think it's bad news. Deficit reduction isn't even my most important issue. But we didn't get permitting reform. We didn't get border security. It's not entirely clear we got anything."

Representative Chip Roy of Texas also voiced frustration with McCarthy, responding to his tweet about the deal claiming it will cut spending, "I wish that were true."

Representative Dan Bishop of North Carolina also took to Twitter to call out McCarthy's deal saying, "Kevin says we can fight again NEXT year to rescind another year of the IRS $80 billion ... but he simultaneously prevented that "fight" by agreeing to suspend the debt ceiling for TWO years. So there will be 85,260 more IRS agents rather than 87,000 to eat you alive. Big win."

Political analyst Craig Agranoff told Newsweek on Sunday, "It's possible that the McCarthy debt deal could mark the beginning of the end for his speakership popularity within the GOP. Recent favorable polls might take a hit as his colleagues appear to be turning against him for this deal."

Meanwhile, McCarthy is coming off favorable polling after a tumultuous start to his speakership. Republicans barely captured a majority of U.S. House seats during the 2022 midterm elections, which Republicans were widely anticipated to dominate. Meanwhile, before taking the gavel, McCarthy faced a record 15 rounds of voting to sway far-right members of his party blocking his nomination.

After clocking in at just a 32-point approval rating in February polling from the Economist/YouGov, in its most recent poll, the Economist/YouGov found McCarthy's approval rating had climbed by 14 points since its first poll, while his February disapproval rating of 37 percent had actually declined by one point—a sign more people were discovering who he was and approved of his performance.

Agranoff continued on Sunday, "It remains to be seen how this will impact McCarthy in the long term. The dissatisfaction expressed by his colleagues could have consequences for his overall standing within the party, potentially affecting his future prospects.">

<Longtime conservative gadfly Ann Coulter was buried by the panel on MSNBC's "The Sunday Show" for her latest racist comments, with one panelist suggesting she is long past being even vaguely interesting and should be ignored.

Host Jonathan Capehart kicked off the discussion by reading Coulter's sneering comment about a boycott of Florida by Black Americans.

On Twitter, Coulter wrote, "NAACP issues warning to African Americans to avoid visiting Florida; employees in restaurant and tourism industry brace for 0.00% drop in tips.”

"Oh, Jesus, take the wheel,' host Capehart began before asking former GOP campaign adviser Tara Setmeyer what she thought about the conservative's tweet.

"Ann Coulter is a has-been political hack who is getting more attention on this program than she has in I don't know how many years," Setmeyer stated as Capehart laughed.

"Because she has absolutely zero influence in today's zeitgeist," Setmayer continued on. "So this is what she is doing; she is just trying to make a name for herself, and I am not interested in her ignorance -- she has a history of it.">

To paraphrase Norton on the Honeymooners:

Coulter doesn't have to practise ignorance; she knows it.

<In January 2022, I wrote about David Pepper's book "Laboratories of Autocracy: A Wake-Up Call From Behind the Lines," writing that it stood out in the literature on democratic erosion "as arguably the most important for three reasons: It brings the subject down to earth, connects democratic erosion to corruption and the decline in America's quality of life, and provides a wealth of ideas about how to fight back to protect democracy."

Pepper's new book, "Saving Democracy: A User's Manual for Every American" builds on that foundation, providing not just a user's manual, but a diagnostic framework to help users orient themselves to the task at hand. It's a bottom-up guide for saving democracy from below. Whatever else you may read about saving democracy — history, political science, cognitive science, etc. — this book is essential in terms of translating a necessary diversity of understanding into coherent, unified (not uniform) action.

"It's a pretty tough critique about current pro-democracy efforts" as overly narrow and passive," Pepper told me when he sent my a pre-publication copy. But it draws inspiration from a lot of people who are already changing that, similar in some ways to "The Persuaders" by Anand Giridharadas, but with a sharper focus on the nitty-gritty of what, why and how, as befits a long-time organizer whose great-great-great-great-grandmother was a conductor of the Underground Railroad. The larger point, Pepper said, "is to show people there's so much more they can do to lift democracy than they're ever told."

How the states have become "Laboratories of Autocracy" — and why it's worse than you think

In my interview with Pepper, I focused on the action-oriented insights that flow from realizing that the forces opposed to democracy are fighting a very different and more proactive battle than those who are reactively — and only sporadically — defending it. There are whole areas he covers that we didn't talk about here: issues of messaging, election protection, fighting censorship and more. What I've tried to capture in this interview is Pepper's way of seeing, and his ideas on how to transform the fight for democracy from below — democratically, in fact — to make it as vibrant, inspiring and successful as our children and grandchildren will need it to be if America's promise is to be fulfilled.

This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.

You begin your book with Rhoda Denison Bement. Who was she and why do you start with her?

She is a great-great-great-great-grandmother who I've heard about since I was a little boy from my mom, and I've always been fascinated by her, once you realize what people like her went through to get us some progress. She was kicked out of an abolitionist church before Seneca Falls because she was so fierce about the need for abolition. She did live to see the end of slavery, but [women's] suffrage was her other big cause, and she never saw it and then the generation after her never saw it. Only the teenagers when she died would've seen it. To me that really tells the story of how progress is made in America. I'm using it to say to people today that this very short-cycle, next-election, live-or-die viewpoint gives us the wrong timeframe to see the struggle we're in.

You write that there are "two battles taking place" in American democracy being fought on very different terms. So how does "Team D," the team that supports democracy, see things? What are its assumptions, what are its goals and how does it try to reach them?

The side that I call Team D, that generally has an instinct for the small-d democratic process, its battle is based on two assumptions. One, it generally assumes that democracy is intact and generally assumes that it represents a mainstream view, so it's confident that it can win over the American public on its views. Because of those two things, this side is comfortable fighting a battle through elections. It believes, "Hey, if we go win elections — and we can win them — we'll get what we want as policy in America."

The problem is, that side then determined that since it's about elections, let's go win the most important federal elections — that'll get us everything we need. That'll get us federal policy, the presidency and everything else, which quickly leads this side to being focused, not entirely but mostly, on swing states and swing districts in federal elections, presidential elections. And as I explain, the problem with all that is the first assumption is not correct....>

<...."There's nothing more eye-opening about the flaws of your overall battle plan, if you're celebrating victories, than to learn later that they weren't really victories."

So this side celebrates when it wins those federal swing-state elections that it has decided as its primary battleground. It celebrates like it's won the entire American political battle. As we've seen too often, because the other side is fighting a very different battle, that celebration is premature. Often this side finds that within a year or two of the big celebration, it actually hasn't won. There's nothing more eye-opening about the flaws of your overall battle plan, if you're celebrating victories, than to learn later that they weren't really victories.

So how does "Team A," which opposes democracy, see things? What are its assumptions?

They're very keen-eyed about two things: One is the reality that on almost every issue their agenda is actually deeply unpopular. They're not under any illusion that they represent a majority when they want to ban abortions or do trickle-down economics or insane gun laws that are supported by 10% of Americans, not even a majority of gun owners. This side understands very well that its worldview and most of its agenda is deeply unpopular.

They exhibit that all the time. This is why Mitch McConnell told Lindsey Graham not to bring up a national abortion ban after the Dobbs decision. He knows. That is why he shouted down Joe Biden when he brought up Social Security. They don't want their views to be at the heart of the political debate, because they know these are views that do not enjoy anything close to majority support.

Their No. 2 assumption — which, unfortunately, is also correct — is that democracy can be undermined. It happens all the time in other countries, it's happened over and over again in our country. So their battle is not about winning elections on a fair playing field, because they know they would lose that battle. Their battle is about how to subvert democracy enough to lock in their minority viewpoint that would never survive in a world of fair elections, in a healthy democracy.

This is a lot of what I wrote about in "Laboratories of Autocracy," expanded on here. They clearly figured out that the way to win their battle plan, which is to subvert democracy enough to lock in their minority worldview, is with all the tools and all the power that come with dominating states across this country. That's the heart of their battle, and because of that they're not doing what Team D is doing, which is focusing on a few states every other year and every fourth year in particular. They focus on any state where they can gain power, anytime there's an election. And they're building toward that, working on that between elections through organizations like ALEC. So it's an all-state, state-based battle that they're engaging in all the time, versus a swing-state sporadic battle that Team D is is engaging in. As I write in the book, that's why they're winning. They are on offense all the time, and Team D is not.

You say that seeing things this way "makes painfully clear the strategic adjustments those fighting for democracy must make in order to succeed." You list seven of them. First you argue that "the battle for democracy is a long battle."

Just to cite a specific example, this is how Stacey Abrams succeeded in Georgia. She understood this was a long battle. She didn't quit after the first federal election went red. She knew it was a long, long battle, which I hope leads to optimism. Because it shows you can succeed even when, on the surface, under the old federal lens, you don't think you are. So for some people, including myself, that long lens brings more hope that you can keep making a difference even in tough years.

The second adjustment is to argue that the battle must be fought in all 50 states.

"We are seeing right now across this country an explosion of extremism — because we are not battling for democracy in all 50 states."

Absolutely. This is crucial. We are seeing right now across this country an explosion of extremism because we are not battling for democracy in all 50 states. People are watching in horror what's happening in Tennessee, Ohio, Florida. That's a major result of the fact that there isn't a counter in those states for the extremism. Why all 50 states? Because you're going to win sometimes if you compete everywhere, because this extremism is so over the top and often unpopular. If you actually challenge it effectively, as we saw in Kansas both in the governor's race as well as the [abortion] referendum a year ago, you actually can win. But you never win if if you're not there. This is how you take on the extremism, by getting in a strong counter-push in all the states. Right now this doesn't exist because everything is about a swing state now....>

<....The third adjustment is that state legislatures are the front lines of democracy and you have to contest every district.

Absolutely. The fact that 50% of the Tennessee Republicans who voted out the two Justins didn't even have an election last November explains so much of their behavior. This is a crisis across the country. Once you have no election where the public actually has a choice, and the politicians know that, the effect on these people's incentive warps them completely. You have an incentive to be an extremist as opposed to mainstream. You have an incentive against public service, because the public really doesn't matter anymore. The private players in your statehouse matter more. So the warping of democracy when so many of these people face no democracy, no accountability — we're seeing it play out.

The most important solution is, obviously, we have to end gerrymandering. But in a world of gerrymandering it's still far better to run everywhere than to let gerrymandering succeed by not running in half these places. That makes it so much worse. We want to have, in every one of these districts a fired-up candidate who is knocking on doors, explaining what that extremist down the street did, what that statehouse did. They may win, they may not win. But it starts to bring accountability back to places that simply don't have it anymore.

The fourth adjustment is to understand that local offices impact democracy in huge ways.

We saw it recently with [the mayoral election in] Jacksonville, right? There's so many things that a good school board and a good mayor can do. These are frontline offices in this battle for democracy. They can engage voters, they can stop censorship, they can appoint library commissioners. These are all frontline positions. We make a huge mistake on the pro-democracy side when we call all of these positions the "bench," as if their importance is only about whether these people may someday be in Congress. This is not the bench. This is the frontline.

ALEC doesn't think of these state representatives as the bench. They think of them as the frontline. They're running school board candidates all across this country not to be the bench, but to be the frontline in their attack on democracy. We have to see it the same way: A school board standing up against censorship is pivotal at this moment. So all these races, all these folks that we can elect, can play a role. Most of the time these are not in gerrymandered districts. So if the other side is running toxic candidates and it's not gerrymandered, you have a better chance of winning. And we've actually seen, across the country, many of these far-right school board candidates lose because of it.

Then there's the fifth adjustment: Always fight for democracy.

"A school board standing up against censorship is pivotal at this moment. All these races, all these folks that we can elect, can play a role."

It's tied to the the long game, but we've got to get out of this this mindset that it's just about the election cycle. So much more support work is to be done days after the election, months after the big election and not even related to elections at all. I'm convinced that most of the best voter engagement is not about a political party or a campaign at all. That's too late. That's too transactional. That's too narrow. It's about people, folks in a community, all sorts of organizations that are not political, who are more connected to many of the people who are left out of the process.

Right now the political cycle is is pushing almost all the work into the final months before an election day, and as I argue, that's far too late and far too little. We have to incorporate this work into everything we do all the time. It can't just be tied to the two-year or four-year election cycle. Much of this book has come from all the conversations with the people doing this work around the country. I've been inspired to see that there are people doing it right, but the scale of that work is still far smaller than needs to be if we're going to succeed.

The sixth adjustment you identify is to redefine the teams.

There's a real risk that we have blinded ourselves to think of the attack on democracy as basically being Donald Trump. I think that really simplifies in a way that, although kind of convenient, really misleads ourselves on what's really happening. At the state level, all this would continue if Donald Trump were locked up tomorrow for any of the investigations he's undergoing. They would still be banning drop boxes, they would still be gerrymandering, they would still be passing these toxic laws....>

<....If we only make it about Trump, we are we are excusing and giving cover to many other people. Ron DeSantis has shown every sign of being someone who will attack the basic principles of democracy. He already has, repeatedly. In Ohio, [Secretary of State] Frank LaRose has been actually more effective in attacking democracy through a polite narrative than anything Donald Trump has done. He's gerrymandered the state. He's violated the Constitution seven times. Now he's breaking an election law to have a special election in August. When we make it only about Trump and those who act or seem like Trump, we actually blind ourselves to many other people who seem more sort of civil in their appearance but are just as fierce, if not more so, in their attack on democracy.

The last adjustment is: Accountability is everything.

This is one that that I came to see more after I wrote this first book. The secret sauce of everything they're doing is that they're never accountable for any of it. Every time they aren't held accountable, it's not a moment of relief for them, it's a moment of inspiration to go further. Trump is a perfect example. Lack of accountability just spurs him to go further. That lack of accountability is now playing out in every state and every statehouse in these controversial red states. They don't feel accountable to the people, and they don't feel accountable to laws.

And whenever they see accountability emerging, whether it be through a referendum effort, whether it be through a Supreme Court, like they had in North Carolina and Ohio for a short time — they'll see it now in Wisconsin — whenever they see a threat of accountability against what they're doing, they immediately work to strip that threat of any power.

"There's a real risk that we think of the attack on democracy as basically being Donald Trump. I think that may be kind of convenient but really misleads ourselves on what's really happening."

Whenever we can exert power that brings accountability, we must. We can't shy away from that. I worry sometimes that Democrats are shy to be as aggressive the other side. But if you are a prosecutor and you have a case that you can bring, like we're seeing in Atlanta, knowing that many of these states are so locked up that accountability will never come at the state level — we have to remake accountability. That goes from the FBI cracking down on bribery in Ohio — which is happening, which is good — to local prosecutors, to people going to the bar association and challenging people's law degrees, to private lawsuits, like what we saw happen to Fox News. When we see accountability, it's an "aha" moment. Jean Carroll is a great example. People have to be brave enough to seek accountability at whatever level they can when we have a chance to, because the right wing is living in a world, for the most part, that has no accountability. It's critical we bring it back when we can.

You write that the "first and biggest step" people can take is a shift in your mindset," which is about incorporating "saving democracy" into your personal mission statement. What do you mean by that?

I think of it very simply: You have two ways you can think about what you do for democracy. It's something you do among many other things, or it's a core of who you are and what you fight for. And the second one is that commitment. It's not just some activity I do on Fridays. It's a core of who I am, just like Rhoda Denison Bement. It was a core of who she was. I think about making it a core mission, like you would do when you make your New Year's resolutions: I am going to stand for this as a person. My nonprofit is going to incorporate it into its core mission: we serve people, but we serve people by helping enable them to be part of democracy....>

<....I'm consumed with the idea that we had to fight for this, so I incorporate it into what I do all the time. I'm literally writing books for that reason. I think once people put it there, they can see, "Oh my gosh, I'm on that nonprofit board. I can do it there. I'm an active member of my church, people listen to me." There's so many ways you can do it that once you put it as a core mission, it becomes far more clear than if you just are thinking, "I'm part of this one group and we do it every month and that's fine." Putting it into your core mission means you going to seek it out far more than you ever have before.

We all have a footprint of organizations that we're part of in some way, of family or community things we do every day, ways we communicate. Most people use none of their footprint, or a tiny sliver of it, to lift democracy. What I'm trying to show people is that once you put it as your core mission, once you inventory what your footprint is, you will see that not only are there many opportunities within your footprint to lift democracy, but some of the best opportunities are in your footprint, and you never thought of them.

You have another chapter called "Democracy Everywhere, Accountability Everywhere, Run Everywhere." That feels like an effort to define the nature and scale of the problem you're talking about.

It's truly a crisis that we have millions and millions of Americans living in a world with no democracy at the state level, and that is leading to the downward spiral of extremism. I mentioned this earlier: In a district with no opposition, all the incentives of your time and power are warped. You are serving an extremist agenda, because that's how you avoid a primary. That's why a new mindset is of paramount importance: We have to run against them everywhere and build an infrastructure that values running everywhere, which is something we do not have right now. So I call it a crisis: In a mindset where you largely care about federal swing states, you don't see this is a crisis. This is seen as how it works. We have to change that.

There are ways to do it. There are ways to build that infrastructure from the bottom up. I was glad to see Joe Biden endorse in the Pennsylvania special election last Tuesday. We need to build an entire infrastructure that says we value these races so much that we're going to run in all them, and we're going to find ways to help these candidates....>

<....Can you talk about Blue Ohio as an example of that?

When I wrote my last book, one of the first emails I got was from a woman in Missouri who started a group that was crowdfunding support for candidates in tough districts. She managed to put together technology that takes small-dollar regular contributions and then it gives out those contributions to candidates, but starting with the very difficult districts, not the swing districts everyone's already focused on.

I was so excited about the idea that I said, "Let's bring this to Ohio." In only five months we had a thousand members putting in $10 a month, $15 a month, we have monthly meetings that are very well attended. In only five months we were able to take one data point and change it dramatically: In 2020 there were 13 Ohio state-level candidates — beyond the non-contested races — who had less than $5,000 in their entire campaigns. In only five months, we took that number and made it zero. We started at the bottom and worked our way up.

"Amy McGrath raised $100 million in Kentucky because grassroots donors were told it would make a difference to democracy. Good for her. But some part of that spend would go so much further in states where we have all these uncontested races."

Again, this is a long game. [Kentucky Senate candidate] Amy McGrath raised $100 million because a mass amount of grassroots donors were told give to that race, because it would make a difference to democracy. Good for her. I don't criticize that. But some part of that spend would go so much further in states where we have all these uncontested races. Blue Ohio is trying to create a mechanism to do that in one state, and then do it in other states. If we keep growing, if we keep adding over time — it's all about the long game — all of a sudden you have this institution that is one of the biggest funders of statehouse campaigns in Ohio. It's funding the hardest districts first and it's doing it not for some special interest but because these people support democracy. So I think it's a wonderful vision, a big picture and something we can build on long-term.

There's so much more in your book we don't have time to cover. So let me ask: What's the most important question I haven't asked, and what's the answer?

Two main closing points I'd emphasize: Right now, we too often accept the smaller electorate that is a result of purging and voter suppression, because our political operations only talk to the most frequent voters. That ends up leaving so many others out. It's critical that as we use our full footprints to lift democracy, we find as many ways as possible to engage the voters that have essentially been removed from the political conversation. That's why community organizations and effective precinct organizing are so important. They allow us to get to folks who are too often left unengaged by standard political operations and campaigns.

Second, I'd highlight the second half of my last chapter. There's a unique opportunity at this moment, where all the work I mentioned can have an especially big impact. The extremism of the other side, which has been hidden for so long, is now plain as day. We are seeing ever-growing awareness about the threat to democracy, as well as emerging and successful best practices of how to fight back. Some of that work led to historic state-level progress in 2022. The reason I rushed this book out as fast as I could is that, if done right, a broad collective push for democracy can be especially effective right now.>

<"HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, BUT ESPECIALLY TO THOSE WHO GAVE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE FOR THE COUNTRY THEY LOVE, AND TO THOSE IN LINE OF A VERY DIFFERENT, BUT EQUALLY DANGEROUS FIRE, STOPPING THE THREATS OF THE TERRORISTS, MISFITS AND LUNATIC THUGS WHO ARE WORKING FEVERISHLY FROM WITHIN TO OVERTURN AND DESTROY OUR ONCE GREAT COUNTRY, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN IN GREATER PERIL THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW. WE MUST STOP THE COMMUNISTS, MARXISTS AND FASCIST "PIGS" AT EVERY TURN AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!">

<With more than 87,000 members and 2,400 clubs nationwide, the German Chess Federation (DSB) is one of the biggest and most powerful chess associations in the world.

But after years of infighting, alleged mismanagement, and controversy, this grand old ship of European chess is struggling to stay afloat amid a series of scandals.

On Thursday, April 27, a tournament organizer named Dr. Dirk Jordan was convicted of 27 counts relating to bribery and breach of trust between 2015 and 2018. He was reported to authorities by the DSB for accepting hotel commissions on the back of organizing the German Amateur Championships. Dr. Jordan's wife Martina was also fined 4,500 Euros for "wilful money laundering."

Yet this case is just the latest blow to German chess.

The DSB is also facing calls for investigators to probe why at least 500,000 Euros ($550,000) appears to have vanished from its coffers. The black hole is so serious, it is now threatening the DSB’s very existence.

The scandal was first revealed in February after the influential German chess blog Perlen vom Bodensee, run by Conrad Schormann, published screenshots from a video called presidency meeting that outlined concern about the DSB’s finances.

On February 24, the DSB’s President Ullrich Krause and Vice President Lutz-Rott Ebbinghaus outlined the actual figures, stating that the DSB’s reserves were about to go down to 82,000 Euros. In mid-2020, the DSB had close to 700,000 Euros in the bank.

The previously cash-rich federation had lost a lot of money. Krause and Ebbinghaus blamed miscalculations, additional expenses incurred, and inflation.

But that wasn't the worst of it. Ominously, they also revealed that while a deficit of 89,500 Euros had already been planned for the year, revised figures expected a deficit of more than 300,000 Euros. As a result, the DSB was now facing a financial meltdown.

Four days later, the DSB dropped the bombshell that it was canceling the 2023 German Chess Summit, which was due to take place in the northern city of Braunschweig in July. Having heard about the mess the DSB was in, the local authority withdrew its funding.

This was a hammer blow to German chess. The summit includes the federation's two flagship events, the German Masters and the German Masters for Women. Neither will now run in 2023 unless a new backer can be found. The same is true for a string of German championship events in individual, blitz, senior, and disability categories.

While this has been happening, German chess has suffered both at the grassroots and elite levels. Since 2020, chess has experienced a well-publicized boom in the rest of the world, fuelled in part by the hit Netflix show The Queen's Gambit. Membership of the DSB, however, has dropped significantly in that time. Numbers are down from over 93,000 to 87,672 last year.

There have also been reports of key volunteers leaving the federation in droves, although the number is unknown. Volunteers are not the only people left disenchanted. In 2021, the German international GM Georg Meier announced he would leave the federation and play for Uruguay instead. Meier referenced concerns about bullying.

Other top players have also threatened to stop playing for Germany under the DSB's leadership. Meier went as far as initiating an open letter to the DSB signed by 12 internationals demanding the dismissal of then-national coach GM Dorian Rogozenco.

There has also been a looming vacuum at the top. Krause has held the post since 2017 and was expected to step down at the DSB congress on May 20, but with no obvious successor.

In yet another shocking announcement, the DSB's potential savior pulled out of the running to replace Krause. Wadim Rosenstein, the founder and CEO of WR Group, came seemingly out of nowhere to host and organize the star-studded WR Masters that took place in Dusseldorf in February. He put up a prize fund of 130,000 Euros for the event, which was won by Levon Aronian. Shortly after, Rosenstein announced his intention to stand for the DSB presidency.....>

<....Rosenstein faced some scrutiny on social media after he was pictured playing with the banned Russian Grandmaster Sergey Karjakin, but was seen by many as a way out for German chess.

Rosenstein's decision to pull out followed a new name putting herself forward to take the reins as DSB president. WIM Ingrid Lauterbach, a FIDE arbiter who is on sabbatical from her job with Deutsche Bank, is now the favorite to take over. For the first time, the DSB could now be run by an English woman. On Twitter, Rosenstein described her as an "excellent candidate."

Schormann, who followed every step for Perlen vom Bodensee, told Chess.com the situation has got so bad it is time for a "reboot."

"I don't overlook the almost first 146 years of its history, but from what I gather, this is unprecedented. We've had scandal after scandal and catastrophe after catastrophe and that is excluding the ruin that has followed it all."

“We are now a federation without money and with many storylines and people who argue with each other. There's so much going on it would now be better to shut down and reboot the whole thing.”

So what went wrong?

An article in the German tabloid Bild pointed to the entry of "The Professor," the name it gave to Marcus Fenner, the DSB's former managing director.

Fenner was welcomed into the DSB in 2018 after having returned to Germany from the U.S., where he held the post of managing director at the famous Marshall Chess Club in New York.

Alarm bells started ringing for some.

"He came from the Marshall and he really made a big impression on the, shall we say, quite mediocre chess guys," said Schormann. "They were happy to find him and gave him the job immediately. He just sent them an application letter.

"Very early on it became, I would say, obvious that something was wrong with this guy. Very soon any criticism was not allowed anymore, while within the federation, it was close to revolution many times."....>

<....Indeed, in 2020 GM Meier publicly called out the leadership on Twitter saying: "The president is overwhelmed and disoriented. He lets himself be guided by an impostor whose motives are a mystery."

Fenner moved to an "executive director" role, but by September 2022, he had left. Now following the DSB's financial revelations questions are being asked about his tenure.

In a statement to Chess.com, a DSB spokesman said: "After the departure of our former Executive Director in September 2022, our new Executive Director Dr. Anja Gering discovered at the end of 2022 that the plans in the budget of the German Chess Federation did not match the actual income and expenditure situation."

"For 2022, significant revenues that had been planned for did not materialise, and many positions turned out to be more expensive than expected."

The DSB blamed inflation, a 100,000 Euro loss on the 2022 German Chess Summit and 60,000 Euros spent on "additional projects" that were not counter-financed. It added that a three-Euro increase in membership fees, from 10 to 13 Euros for adults, has been proposed to bridge the gap for 2024 and will be voted on by the General Assembly.

Chess.com contacted Fenner. Through a lawyer, he denied any responsibility for the DSB's financial problems.

The lawyer said: "Since August 2022, our client was no longer involved in operations. The interim result as of 07/31/2022 published in the Ulm October 2022 congressional brochure was -31,132.92 Euros with an account balance of 542,279.72 Euros, significantly higher than at the beginning of our client's employment.

"The finances seem to have developed disastrously after the departure of our client. Therefore, the accusation that our client is in any way responsible for this development is in no way comprehensible and not supported by any evidence. Upon his departure, our client demonstrably sent detailed status reports to his successor and the president and repeatedly offered to provide information and help in the future as well. This offer was not taken up."

Fenner himself added: "I am deeply saddened by the catastrophic developments at the GCF after my departure. These are in no way related to my work as managing director. It is my strong personal belief that some of the developments, especially with regards to finances, were rather caused by my departure and could have been avoided. Since 2019 there has been a character assassination campaign against me, motivated by several decisions of the board in which I was involved."

Michael S. Langer, President of the Lower Saxony Chess Association for 16 years, also told Bild: “I have not yet been given any fully understandable reasons for this catastrophe. The money was there; in 2019 it was over 600,000 Euros. The Association of Lower Saxony, together with Württemberg and NRW, has submitted an application for the appointment of an auditing company.”

As Schormann put it: "I desperately wish that someone independent seeks and finds the answer to this question."

Founded in Leipzig in 1877, the DSB is one of the largest chess associations in the world. It has survived two world wars and the partition of its country. The DSB has overseen the development of talents such as the great Emanuel Lasker and, more recently, its rising star GM Vincent Keymer.

But can it survive 2023?>

<Fox News personality Rachel Campos-Duffy received an immediate fact check after making an outlandish prediction about former first lady Michelle Obama.

On Friday’s episode of “The Five,” Campos-Duffy claimed Obama will run in the 2024 presidential election to take on Republican frontrunner Donald Trump.

“Well, I’ve been saying for a long time, I think that Biden’s not gonna make it to the end and that Michelle Obama will be brought in,” said Campos-Duffy, who was on MTV’s “Real World” reality show before her Fox News gig.

“After all, the Obamas are pretty much running this administration,” she added, pushing the right-wing claim that President Joe Biden is not really in control.

Co-host Jessica Tarlov immediately dismissed Campos-Duffy’s suggestion about seeing Obama on the Democratic ticket, though.

“Michelle Obama is not running for anything,” Tarlov pointed out in a video shared online by Mediaite.

“Just wait, just wait,” responded Campos-Duffy.

Biden in 2020 did say he’d pick Obama “in a heartbeat” if she were willing to run for vice president.

But the ex-FLOTUS has repeatedly ruled out running for office.

“You don’t have to be president of the United States to do wonderful, marvelous things,” she said in 2016.

In 2017, Obama said “politics is tough” and “hard on a family.”

“I wouldn’t ask my children to do this again because, when you run for higher office, it’s not just you, it’s your whole family,” she added at the time.

Obama’s repeated yearslong denials don’t appear to be having any effect on Campos-Duffy, however.

She made the same prediction earlier this month too:>

<In the hours before the GOP-controlled legislature in Texas voted to impeach fellow Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, former President Donald Trump repeatedly took to social media with a warning for anyone − and especially members of his own party − who opposed his longtime ally.

Trump lamented what he called the “very unfair process” used last weekend to oust one of the nation's most active state legal officials and vowed that he would "fight" any lawmakers who supported the impeachment.

In the end, a majority of Texas Republicans in the state's House of Representatives ignored the admonishments of a former president and party leader and voted overwhelmingly to impeach Paxton anyway. Of 85 Republicans in the chamber, 60 supported Paxton's impeachment.

The decision by many Republicans to wave off Trump's warnings fueled questions about the former president’s political power in one of the nation's reddest states. The episode comes as the field of candidates entering the race to challenge Trump for the 2024 Republican nomination grows.

A spokeswoman for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump vows to ‘fight’ for ally Paxton. Will it matter?

Paxton has been a nationally prominent conservative legal voice for years as well as an ally to Trump. In addition to filing high-profile suits against President Joe Biden over immigration and other issues, it was Paxton who brought an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the 2020 election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The nation's highest court ultimately denied that request in late 2020.

Leading up to Saturday's impeachment, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to slam GOP lawmakers in Texas, encouraging them to let the voters decide Paxton's fate, instead. “Hopefully Republicans in the Texas House will agree that this is a very unfair process that should not be allowed to happen or proceed,” he wrote. “I will fight you if it does.”

The former president and other national conservative figures doubled down after the vote as focus in Texas shifted toward a Senate trial. Trump accused Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a fellow of Republican, of being “MISSING IN ACTION!” during the impeachment fight.

When all politics is both local and national

The battle between Paxton, a Republican former state lawmaker who was elected attorney general in 2014, and the GOP leadership in the Texas legislature has been driven by state politics and scandal. The attorney general has been caught up in multiple investigations of misusing his office and retaliating against whistleblower complaints.

“There’s a lot of history here that’s underneath the surface,” said Texas-based GOP consultant Matt Mackowiak.

A lot of that history has nothing to do with Trump, Mackowiak said.

Still, Mackowiak said he was “surprised the House vote was so overwhelming” and predicted that the lawmakers “who voted to impeach are going to be on defense on this issue in GOP primaries around the state” next year.

Trump has support from more than half of his party in the race for the GOP nomination, according to a CNN poll this month. Trump is also beating Biden in polling ahead of the 2024 general election.

Trump’s performance in last year’s midterm elections was spotty in contested races. Many far-right candidates lost, including Doug Mastriano, a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania, and Blake Masters, who ran for Senate in Arizona.

The internecine strife in Texas wasn’t limited to Trump and the state lawmakers. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican, wrote on Twitter Saturday that the impeachment was a “travesty” and claimed that no other attorney general had “battled the abuses of the Biden admin more ferociously.” Matt Rinaldi, the chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, thanked Trump and Cruz in a statement for standing against what he called a “sham of an impeachment.”

What happens with Paxton now?

The impeachment, only the third in Texas history and the first in nearly 50 years, removed the 60-year-old attorney general from office pending a trial in the Senate. An interim replacement must be named by Abbott.

The House vote to impeach is analogous to a grand jury indictment in a criminal case. Paxton's permanent removal from office would require a two-thirds vote in the 31-member Senate. Paxton, a former member in the House and the Senate, served alongside 21 current senators.

Republicans outnumber Democrats in the Senate 19 to 12. One of the Republican members is Paxton's wife, Sen. Angela Paxton. It's not immediately clear when the Senate will hold the trial. Mackowiak predicted Paxton would survive the trial as long as more state GOP leaders don't step in against him.

<Walt Disney's decision to scrap its $1 billion campus in Orlando, Florida this month could leave many surrounding development projects in the Lake Nona community scrambling, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Walt Disney purchased the land to build the campus in the Lake Nona community in 2021, but ultimately decided they would not follow through with this, the Journal reported on May 18. Hundreds of employees set to work at the new campus had already moved to Lake Nona before Disney announced they would be abandoning the plan.

Lisa McNatt, a director of market analytics for CoStar Group, told the Journal that when Disney initially announced plans to build in Lake Nona, 2,100 new apartment units were built as a result, with 1,200 units currently being constructed. In comparison, McNatt told the Journal, only 750 units had been built in the preceding 3 years.

Representatives for Tavistock Development Co., the group behind Lake Nona, told the Journal only that it had been "intentional in curating the selection of organizations, innovators, and entrepreneurs that fuel our ecosystem."

They also told the Journal that 95% of the multifamily housing at Lake Nona is currently being occupied.

McNatt said that Disney's presence "would have resulted in a strong uptick in higher-income jobs that could have benefited the Orlando area at large."

The decision to scrap plans was part of the company's quest to cut down on costs, the Journal previously reported, as well as its ongoing political battle with Governor Ron DeSantis, which began after Disney spoke out against a law backed by the governor that would limit discussions on sexual orientation and gender in public schools.

Insider's Kelsey Vlamis previously reported that if the feud continues, the state of Florida could see significant financial loss should Disney, the second largest private employer in the state, decide to tap out of more projects in the state — although that is not quite happening yet, Deadline reported.

"I think DeSantis has more to lose, as this incident made apparent, depending on whether, as a fairly skilled politician, he can somehow put a good face on this," Richard Foglesong, a leading expert on Walt Disney World's history and politics, told Insider.

Representatives for Disney, Tavistock Development Co., and DeSantis did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.>