Blows My Mind

At this point, I think the bi-partisanship that everybody's been squawking for is all about Democrats and the normie - albeit gutless - Republicans teaming up against the MAGA freaks.

And it may be just too fuckin' weird to contemplate, but the "normie Republicans" may now include at least some of the Freedom Caucus Republicans.

Continuing GOP Fuckery

They never let up.

"Conservatives" have been gunning for Social Security for close to 90 years now. And it's the classic ploy - they refuse to do anything that might fix it, and in fact do things like drive up the debt and deficit so they can use "fiscal responsibility" as an excuse to kill off anything the government's involved with that doesn't put money in their pockets.

They won't say it, but we're right back to where they want to turn trillions of our retirement dollars over to their buddies on Wall Street so they can take some nice fat commission checks to the bank, and issue "Medicare vouchers" in order to make their other buddies in the Healthcare Insurance business wealthy beyond the dreams of Croesus.

Remember, Republicans want the government limited to just 3 basic tasks:

1. Defend business interests overseas
2. Keep the rabble in line here in USAmerica Inc
3. Settle contract disputes

Everything else is to be "privatized". (ie: converted to a coin-operated system)

Senate Finance chief rips GOP's 'backroom scheme' to cut Social Security

The chair of the Senate Finance Committee said legislation advanced Thursday by the GOP-controlled House Budget Committee is a "backroom scheme" to cut Social Security and Medicare outside of the regular political process, a warning that came as Republicans signaled their intention to attach the bill to a must-pass government funding measure.

"Republicans in Congress know their plans to gut Americans' Social Security and Medicare benefits are deeply unpopular, so they are resorting to schemes that short-circuit the legislative process, rushing through cuts to Americans' earned benefits," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said of the Fiscal Commission Act, which passed out of the House Budget Committee in a largely party-line vote.

Wyden argued Thursday that "the term fiscal commission' is the ultimate Washington buzzword, and it translates to trading away Americans' earned benefits in a secretive, closed-door process."

"Instead of trying to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid," Wyden added, "Republicans should work with Democrats to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share, which would go a long way towards securing Social Security and Medicare long into the future."

If passed, the Fiscal Commission Act would establish a bipartisan, bicameral, 16-member panel consisting of both lawmakers and individuals from the private sector, all chosen by congressional leaders.

The commission would be tasked with crafting and voting on policy recommendations for Social Security, Medicare, and other trust fund programs. If approved by the commission, the recommendations would receive expedited consideration in both the House and Senate, with no amendments to the final document allowed.

Social Security defenders have long warned that the GOP-led push for a fiscal commission is a ploy to slash the New Deal program, which helps keep tens of millions of seniors and children above the poverty line every year.

During Thursday's budget committee hearing, Republican members did nothing to assuage concerns about their intentions, voting down a proposed amendment from Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) that said the fiscal commission "shall propose recommendations to strengthen and secure Social Security" by "protecting Social Security benefits" and requiring the wealthy to contribute more to the program.

Republican committee members also rejected Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee's (D-Texas) amendment stating that the fiscal commission "shall propose recommendations to strengthen and secure Medicare" by "protecting the traditional Medicare program" and extending its solvency by "requiring taxpayers with incomes above $400,000 to contribute more" and closing a loophole that allows rich business owners to avoid Medicare taxes.

"This bill should be opposed by any member of Congress who cares about Social Security, Medicare, and their constituents who depend on them."

At a press conference following Thursday's hearing, House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) — a longtime supporter of deep Social Security and Medicare cuts — is "100% committed to this commission" and hopes to tie it to government funding legislation.

"Probably that's its best chance of success, but I also think it's most germane to attach it to our final funding bill."

The Fiscal Commission Act has some support in the Senate. In a joint statement on Thursday, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah) — both of whom declined to run for reelection this year — applauded the budget committee for "advancing this commonsense legislation."

"We also appreciate Speaker Johnson's continued support for this effort," added the senators, who are leading a companion bill in the upper chamber. "Taking immediate, corrective action to reverse this catastrophic financial demise of our own making will help ensure that our children and grandchildren are not burdened by our poor fiscal choices."

But the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) stressed Thursday that "Social Security and Medicare Part A are fully self-funded and do not contribute to the debt."

"The biggest drivers of the debt are 'tax expenditures' — giveaways to the wealthy and large corporations like the Trump/GOP tax cuts of 2017 that Republicans insist be extended," the group noted. According to a recent analysis by the Center for American Progress, debt as a percentage of the U.S. economy would be on the decline if the Bush and Trump tax cuts were never passed.

Max Richtman, NCPSSM's president and CEO, said in a statement that the fiscal commission push is "designed to give individual members of Congress political cover for cutting Americans' earned benefits."

"Any changes to Social Security and Medicare should go through regular order and not be relegated to a commission unaccountable to the public and rushed through the Congress," he added. "This bill should be opposed by any member of Congress who cares about Social Security, Medicare, and their constituents who depend on them."

Absolute My Dyin' Ass

Trump's horseshit argument that POTUS enjoys total immunity from all criminal action against him for anything he did while in office is Peak Daddy State.

...The goal is to dictate reality to us.

THE RULES:

1. Every accusation is a confession.

2. Every boast is an admission of inadequacy, or an attempt to claim credit for something they had practically nothing to do with.

2a. What sounds like boasting ("I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes") is intended to soft-peddle some horrific thing they've done - or intend to do, in which case, the "boast" is instructive as to what the devotees will be expected to embrace.

These MAGA idiots are fully conditioned, and they're telling us straight out, "The king can do no wrong".

But things continue to shift against Trump and his MAGA loons.

The action against him in Colorado was led by Republicans. And now, this newer thing is being led by some pretty bright lights in the GOP.

Fix It

The US House Of Representatives hasn't expanded since 1920, when the US population was about 106,000,000.

There were 435 seats, each representing about 235,000 Americans.

We still have that same number of seats, but now each Congressperson represents about 760,000 Americans.

Today's GOP Fuckery

Because a painful, and potentially deadly pregnancy is god's punishment for being a woman.

And maybe the same can be said for breast cancer.

So AIDS is god's punishment for being gay.

And I guess that means testicular cancer is god's punishment for being a total dick about everything.

Apparently, Republicans just can't stand anything that ends up helping women and minorities and queer folk and poor people.

Republicans delay more than $1 billion in HIV program funding

Life-saving PEPFAR program has been ensnared for months in a broader political fight around abortion

Republicans have delayed more than $1 billion in funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, better known as PEPFAR, the latest complication facing a lifesaving HIV program that has been ensnared in a broader political fight around abortion.

Created by President George W. Bush in 2003, PEPFAR has been credited with saving more than 25 million lives around the world. The nearly $7 billion annual initiative, which is managed by the State Department, has distributed millions of courses of medicine to treat HIV, funded testing and prevention services, and supported an array of other interventions. Dozens of foreign governments rely on PEPFAR as a key partner.

The program has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress, which has reauthorized it every five years. But lawmakers this fall failed to reauthorize PEPFAR by a Sept. 30 deadline amid claims from conservative advocacy groups that the program is inadvertently funding abortions overseas — allegations that Biden officials, PEPFAR staff and public health leaders say are unfounded and threaten the program’s mission.

PEPFAR can continue to operate without congressional authorization, with much of its current funding intact. But Republicans have been placing holds on notifications that the State Department is required to send to Congress before PEPFAR spends any additional money, according to four people with knowledge of the funding delays, three of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations.

The GOP-led House Foreign Affairs Committee in August began objecting to language in PEPFAR’s country and regional operational plan, which offers guidance to partners around the globe about how to administer the aid program, according to the people with knowledge of the dispute.

The Republicans’ funding delays and objections, which have not been previously reported, center on PEPFAR’s use of terms relating to abortion, transgender people, sex workers and other areas, with the committee repeatedly demanding rewrites from the State Department. The negotiations have delayed the State Department from releasing more than $1 billion in funding for PEPFAR — funding that the program is planning to use to buy medicines, pay for staff and support other essential PEPFAR functions, several of the people said. PEPFAR officials have pushed back on some of the requested changes, including an attempt by House Republicans to change how terms such as “human rights” appear in the document.

Keifer Buckingham, advocacy director for the Open Society Foundations and a former Democratic congressional aide who worked on PEPFAR’s last reauthorization in 2018, said that prior PEPFAR documents used similar language and addressed the same issues.

“None of that phrasing is new … and it’s not like policy has dramatically changed,” Buckingham said, adding that House Republicans’ complaints about PEPFAR language are “ideological” and parallel their domestic political priorities around abortion and transgender issues.

The State Department confirmed that the House Foreign Affairs Committee has delayed approving the notifications that are required for allocating funds to PEPFAR.

“The delays in approval are straining PEPFAR country operations and threatening PEPFAR’s ability to continue implementation,” the State Department said in a statement. “If the [notifications] are not approved very soon, PEPFAR’s lifesaving work and gains will be threatened.” The department did not specify the amount of funding at stake.

Lawmakers have placed holds on PEPFAR funding in prior years in hopes of securing changes or getting answers about the program. But experts noted that the climate around the program has shifted in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which effectively overturned the national right to abortion.

“If the current [funding] delay is based on these larger issues that have also stymied reauthorization, it would be a potentially serious situation,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the health policy nonprofit KFF.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee referred questions to the State Department.

Stuck in a stalemate

Republicans’ hold on PEPFAR funding comes as lawmakers continue to debate whether to reauthorize the program for one year, five years or not at all. In the wake of the Dobbs ruling, Republicans have alleged the Biden administration is using PEPFAR and other programs to support abortion access, a claim that public health experts roundly deny.

“PEPFAR’s never been an abortion program,” John Nkengasong, the program’s director, said in remarks Monday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank based in Washington. “It is not and will never be because there’s a law, the 1973 Helms amendment,” which restricts U.S. foreign assistance programs from funding abortion abroad, he added.

Public health experts have clamored for lawmakers to swiftly reauthorize PEPFAR for five years through what is known as a “clean reauthorization” — effectively rolling over the current structure. Current and former PEPFAR officials said that a five-year reauthorization would protect the program from political pressures and help global partners plan their strategies.

Asking Congress to vote every year to reauthorize PEPFAR “is basically asking for the appropriations over time to dwindle down and [in] an irrevocable way,” Mark Dybul, a former head of the program, said at the CSIS event.

The Biden administration has also warned that Congress’s delay to reauthorize the program is “damaging the United States’ image globally, particularly in Africa,” and threatening plans to acquire supplies, roll out innovations and take other steps that require certainty about PEPFAR’s long-term viability.

But some Republicans want to reauthorize the program for just one year — arguing that it would allow a future GOP president to make changes to it. Conservative advocacy groups also have warned lawmakers that a vote to reauthorize PEPFAR in its current form will be viewed as a vote to support abortion abroad.

House Republicans last month advanced a measure that would extend PEPFAR funding for one year while reinstating a Trump-era policy, Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance, that explicitly bars global assistance funds from being used for abortion.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that he had “high hopes” that lawmakers could reach a compromise to reauthorize PEPFAR.

“Time is running out and it’s critical to find a path forward and get PEPFAR reauthorized. I know all parties involved in this discussion care about PEPFAR’s success,” McCaul said in a statement. “But that means they also all need to be willing to come to the negotiating table — and everyone needs to be prepared to give a little.”

Having failed to sway holdout Republicans by focusing on PEPFAR’s public health accomplishments, advocates are increasingly touting the program’s national security implications. The George W. Bush Institute sent a letter to congressional leaders Wednesday, signed by more than 30 organizations and leaders in global health, foreign relations and faith communities, saying that a five-year “clean” reauthorization would help fend off strategic rivals seeking influence in regions that rely on PEPFAR support.

“As authoritarian China and Russia seek to increase their influence in Africa by any means possible, PEPFAR has been a shining example of compassion, transparency and accountability, as well as a massive strategic success story for the United States,” the letter reads. “Abandoning it abruptly now would send a bleak message, suggesting we are no longer able to set aside our politics for the betterment of democracies and the world.”

Deborah Birx of the Bush Institute, who led PEPFAR during the Obama and Trump administrations and helped organize Wednesday’s letter, said the congressional debate over the program “is bigger than PEPFAR,” citing the growing political divides over foreign aid, funding the Defense Department and other areas that were traditionally bipartisan.

“There are places where this country has compromised across the aisle for issues that transcend any specific party,” Birx added. “That’s what PEPFAR was about — translating the best of America.”

PEPFAR’s fate has been further clouded by uncertainty in Congress, as House Republicans spent most of October without a speaker, paralyzing legislative efforts in the chamber. Lawmakers and staffers told The Washington Post that it was unclear whether newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who is staunchly antiabortion and a longtime ally of conservative advocacy groups that allege PEPFAR is funding abortions abroad, would favor swiftly reauthorizing the program.

Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Senate’s PEPFAR efforts have also been disrupted. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who was steering Democrats’ efforts and working with Republicans to find a deal, stepped down last month as Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair after he was indicted over allegations he accepted bribes in exchange for exerting political influence. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who had not been closely involved in the PEPFAR negotiations, is now serving as committee chair.

Lawmakers in both parties have discussed attempting to attach PEPFAR’s reauthorization to a larger bill to fund the government at the end of this year, but congressional staffers and experts have said they remain cautious about its prospects.

“If the only conversation is abortion, we’re not going to have a reauthorized bill,” Dybul said this week, calling on public health experts “to stand up, to speak, and not allow the misinformation to win.”

PEPFAR partner organizations across the globe said they are nervously watching the congressional negotiations, which have raised international questions about whether the United States remains committed to its long-running HIV program.

“The anxiety we are causing to patients and health workers is unfair,” Nkatha Njeru, the coordinator and CEO of Nairobi-based African Christian Health Associations Platform, wrote in an email.

It is unclear what will end the logjam. Bush appealed to Congress to reauthorize the program for five years in an op-ed in The Post published last month, and senior officials from both parties have increasingly issued their own pleas.

“I can’t think of another thing like PEPFAR until I go back to the Marshall Plan,” said Bob McDonald, who served as secretary of Veterans Affairs during the Obama administration and who co-signed the letter sent by the Bush Institute on Wednesday. “Imagine if we had been against the Marshall Plan.”

Asked how to break the political stalemate, Nkengasong called for a “dialogue” with the program’s critics. “We have to have a forum where we have an honest conversation … and lead with facts and not misinformation and disinformation,” the PEPFAR chief said.

Death By A Thousand Cuts

Our House Is A Mess

Rephrasing the old adage:

Never attribute to incompetence that which can be understood as nefarious intent.

Republicans can’t govern. Just ask them.

As the party flails in its search for a speaker, the GOP is increasingly acknowledging publicly that its discord is embarrassing — and even dangerous.

It’s not clear yet that House Republicans’ inability to elect a new speaker has significantly recast the political paradigm in this country. But the danger for the party is in a drawn-out process continuing to cast doubt on the GOP’s ability to actually govern when voters give it power. A poll released this weekend showed two-thirds of Americans agreed that “Congress needs to elect a speaker as soon as possible” to deal with issues such as Israel, Ukraine and the looming government shutdown.

The situation has apparently gotten so dire that Republicans are effectively admitting that they can’t govern — that their party is so badly broken that it can’t do the most basic work voters elected it to do. And in some cases, they’re indicating their own party is actually doing damage.

The word of the day Sunday was apparently “embarrass.”

“Well, it’s embarrassing,” ousted former House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” when asked about how this undercuts perceptions of the GOP’s ability to govern.

He later returned to the word: “This is embarrassing for the Republican Party, it’s embarrassing for the nation, and we need to look at one another and solve the problem.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tex.) did McCarthy one better, saying what Republicans were doing was not just embarrassing but also “so dangerous.”

“The world’s on fire. This is so dangerous, what we’re doing,” McCaul said on ABC’s “This Week.” “And most importantly, it’s embarrassing because it empowers and emboldens our adversaries like [Chinese President] Chairman Xi [Jinping] who says, you know, democracy doesn’t work.”

McCaul’s comments built upon what he said early in the speaker fracas, when he placed the threat of the GOP discord alongside external threats.

“Our adversaries are watching what we do — and quite frankly, they like it,” McCaul told the New York Times, adding: “One of the biggest threats I see is in that room, because we can’t unify as a conference and put the speaker in the chair together.”

In that same story, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said, “We’re not a governing body.” Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) said, “This is a bad episode of ‘Veep,’ and it’s turning into ‘House of Cards.’”

“It is an embarrassment,” added Rep. Carlos A. Gimenez (R-Fla.) last week.

When CNN host Jake Tapper on Friday likened the GOP infighting to high school, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) said that gave his party too much credit.

“That’s kind of offensive to high school people, because it’s really junior high stuff,” Womack said, adding: “I mean, look, we get wrapped around the axle on a lot of nonsensical things. But, yes, the world is burning around us. We’re fiddling. We don’t have a strategy.”

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a prominent foreign policy hawk like McCaul, agreed that the lack of a speaker “could” make the United States vulnerable on the world stage.

While many of these members come from the more institutionalist wing of the party, perhaps the most undersold and colorful review came from someone on the other side. It was from Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), who was one of eight Republicans who voted to oust McCarthy.

“I don’t think a lot of people here in this conference actually give a s--- what the American people want,” Crane told The Washington Post on Thursday, as his party was rejecting Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) for speaker.

Republicans don’t care about what Americans want them to do. They’re embarrassing. They’re acting dangerously. They’re falling down on the job at a critical time. They’re even helping nefarious foreign strongmen. Back during the drawn-out process to elect McCarthy in January, it was Democrats like President Biden saying these kinds of things; now it’s Republicans themselves.

It’s a reflection of just how dire the situation is. The strategy here is clearly to say these kinds of things to inject some urgency into the process — to get the 217 out of 221 House Republicans necessary to elect a speaker to come together and bring this sorry exercise to a conclusion. But before the party can get to that point, it apparently needs to have a bunch of prominent members going on the record to talk about how feckless it is and how perilous what it’s doing is.

And all the while, they strengthen the case Democrats will make during the 2024 election about how Republicans are the governing gang that can’t shoot straight.

All I really want is for the Press Poodles to ask

• "Is it possible that Republicans are making government dysfunctional on purpose?"
• "If there's any possibility of intentional dysfunction, what might be the goal(s) driving that effort?"

What’s next in the Republican fight for a new House speaker

It’s been nearly three weeks since eight Republicans lawmakers ousted Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as House speaker, and since then the GOP conference has not been able to find a new leader.

Over the last two weeks, the two top candidates to replace McCarthy — Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Steve Scalise (R-La.) — failed to gather enough support among their GOP colleagues to successfully win the speakership in House floor votes. Scalise, the first of the two to be nominated speaker, did not bring his nomination to the floor, aware that he would not be able to get majority support in the full chamber. Jordan brought his candidacy to the floor three times. Each time, he lost more support from fellow Republicans.

Keeping up with politics is easy with The 5-Minute Fix Newsletter, in your inbox weekdays.
The GOP tries once again to pick a House speaker, this time from the middle

The search for a speaker continues this week as Republicans try to choose among nine candidates, with the goal of getting a speaker-designate to the floor once again. Democrats, meanwhile, are widely expected to continue nominating and voting for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) as speaker.

All this is happening as Congress inches closer to a key deadline: The government will run out of funds in mid-November and shut down if the House and Senate do not pass a number of appropriations bills. Republicans have virtually frozen activity on the House floor for almost three weeks over their inability to choose a new leader.

How many Republicans are running?

Nine House Republicans are running

• Tom Emmer (Minn.)
• Kevin Hern (Okla.)
• Pete Sessions (Tex.)
• Austin Scott (Ga.)
• Byron Donalds (Fla.)
• Jack Bergman (Mich.)
• Mike Johnson (La.)
• Dan Meuser (Pa.) 
• Gary Palmer (Ala.).

What’s the next step?

The nine candidates are expected to make their pitches to the GOP conference on Monday during a closed-door meeting at 6:30 p.m. Eastern. During this candidate forum — run by the office of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the House Republican Conference chairwoman — lawmakers are also expected to continue to air their grievances over the process and plot out where their party should go next.

The House has never been speakerless for so long mid-session

When will Republicans pick a new nominee?

A conference-wide, closed-door vote on the next speaker-designate will probably happen Tuesday morning at around 9 a.m.

To win the vote in conference, a candidate must receive 50 percent of the vote, plus one. With nine Republicans running, it could take awhile to coalesce around a single candidate.

If no candidate gets a majority on the first ballot, the lawmaker with the fewest votes will be dropped and the process repeats itself until someone prevails.

How soon could there be a floor vote?

To win the speakership, a candidate has to win a simple majority of the members in the full House. If every member of the current Congress is present the day of the floor vote, that means the candidate must receive 217 votes.

The earliest the House could vote on a speaker is Tuesday at 11 a.m., when the chamber is next scheduled to meet.

But don’t expect it to be that early, given that Republicans will likely need several rounds in their conference to find their candidate.

The speaker-designate then must coordinate with House Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.) on when to bring their nomination to the floor.

What might be different this time?

Already, some Republicans are circulating a pledge to support the party’s next nominee.

Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.), who last week told reporters he was tired of the lengthy speaker fight, is asking his colleagues to sign a unity pledge in which they promise to vote for the speaker-designate in the next floor vote.

“House Republicans need to elect a Speaker as soon as possible in order to return to work on behalf of the American people,” reads the pledge. “It is time to put politics and personalities aside and unite behind the next Republican Conference choice for Speaker.”

According to a Flood spokeswoman, a “growing number” of House Republicans — including speaker candidates Bergman, Hern, Johnson, Meuser, Scott, and Sessions — have already signed the pledge.

It’s not clear if any of the eight House Republicans who voted to remove McCarthy from the speakership will get behind the pledge. On Friday, seven of the eight signed a letter saying they’re willing to accept censure, suspension, or removal from the conference for their actions, as long as the party supported Jordan for speaker — an effort that failed.

Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), one of the eight, on Monday shared a statement from the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus demanding that leadership keep Republicans in Washington until this situation is settled and a new speaker is named.

“We must proceed with all possible speed and determination,” the statement reads.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), another of the eight, told Fox Business on Monday morning that he wishes “we could have resolved it sooner.”

“We have a very deep bench. Every one of those nine members would be a step up and I believe would be a great leader,” he said.

I'll Say It Again

Three things, actually:

1. When Ken Buck sounds like the voice of reason, we've got serious problems
2. The "silent moderates" of the GOP are silent because they think they'll get their plutocratic agenda through by hiding behind the freak show at the MAGA circus 
3. Democrats are not to blame for the shitty behavior of the Republicans

Jordan loses again:

Speaking Of American Hostages

Some House Republicans try to change the rules so losers become winners

Once obsessed with the ‘majority of the majority,’ the House GOP is now ruled by small minority factions

House Republicans live in a world where math is upside down.

In this fantasy land, five can be as powerful as 217; eight as big as 433; and, in a new twist this past week, 99 out of 223 can somehow be turned into a strong majority.

This latest example came Friday, when Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) claimed the nomination for GOP House speaker, despite a clear majority of the full House not wanting him to be their pick.

On Wednesday, Jordan lost the nomination, running a competitive race but only getting 99 votes — about 44 percent of the 223 ballots cast. He offered a tepid endorsement, at best, to the winner, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), and then sat back as his allies sabotaged the front-runner.

They told Scalise that they would re-create the drama of January when Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) failed on the first 14 ballots because about 20 hard-right conservatives voted for someone else, forcing him to make key concessions until they let him win on the 15th roll call.

After enduring about 30 hours of this torture, Scalise said no thanks. He will stay put as majority leader and watch as Jordan now faces the same struggles.

McCarthy, Jordan and Scalise’s long history seeps into speaker fight

Before Friday’s new vote, Jordan’s allies, including McCarthy, who was deposed earlier this month, hyped his candidacy enough that expectations were set for him to blow past Scalise’s initial tally. Instead, a last-minute entrant, Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), a backbencher focused on national security issues who never sought a leadership post, embarrassed Jordan with a strong second-place showing.

Jordan received only 124 votes, claiming about 10 of the protest votes from Wednesday that went to write-in candidates or simply stated “present.” He flipped only about 15 of Scalise’s initial supporters. In a second secret ballot that asked Republicans how they would vote in the required public roll call for speaker, 55 doubled down and said they would not support Jordan.

This sets up the same conundrum that felled McCarthy and prompted Scalise to abandon the race: With 221 on their side, Republicans have just four votes to spare if all 212 Democrats vote the other way.

Jordan’s allies have signaled a political-roughshod campaign that will dare his opponents to vote against the far-right Republican in the public, alphabetical roll call on the House floor. They hope they will crumble from fear of retribution from conservative primary voters.

“I think there’s a clear path to get him to 217. But as long as you’re doing secret ballots, it’s a lot harder to get 217. We’ve got to break cover,” Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), a leader of a mainstream conservative caucus, told reporters Friday.

But Jordan’s staunchest opponents warned that a pressure campaign would backfire. “Look, when you’re doing it in a positive way, you can usually get a lot,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), a staunch Scalise backer, told reporters.

What to know about Jim Jordan, House speaker nominee

Diaz-Balart, who said he would never vote for Jordan, said it would be an arrogant mistake to ignore the adage about catching more flies with honey than vinegar.

“Usually you do it at your own peril,” he said.

After nine months of watching their hard-right flank essentially extort McCarthy, this band of establishment Republicans has declared that it’s time to stop rewarding the hostage-takers. Instead of giving in to Jordan, they want to adopt the very same strategy: minority-rule tactics to sabotage him.

If as few as five refuse to back Jordan, he can’t win. That’s what happened on multiple key procedural votes last month, when just five Republicans opposed McCarthy’s defense spending bill and voted against the parliamentary vote, sabotaging the legislation.

When the hard right decided to take down McCarthy, those Republicans used the obscure motion to vacate that served as a vote of no confidence. As is custom in votes for speaker, all Democrats voted against the GOP option. Then eight Republicans effectively determined for the rest of the House — currently at 433 members because of two vacancies — that McCarthy would no longer be speaker by siding with Democrats.

Johnson, normally one of the more reserved and earnest lawmakers, proposed forcing the full House to vote early in the week even if Jordan is expected to lose. They would then go through round after round after round, re-creating the chaotic January scene to ramp up the pressure on Diaz-Balart’s group.

“Jim Jordan should continue this fight all the way through,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.) said on Fox News on Friday evening.

That high-risk scenario has some Jordan supporters urging restraint, including Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), who has previously called for no floor vote until the outcome is certain.

“Right now, we just need cool heads and logic to prevail. I think that can occur,” Donalds said Friday.

Jordan’s opponents view the Johnson-Roy approach as another act of deceit.

Before Scalise’s victory Wednesday, Roy tried to change rules so that the nominee would not go to a full vote in the House until securing 217 Republican votes.

Adopting the look and style of a Hollywood movie mad scientist, Roy regularly plots complex strategies, focused on obscure rules and confounding processes. This time, he wanted to force many ballots in the speaker vote: the first involving both candidates, then the winner would go through more grilling and another secret ballot or two, before finally a public roll call in front of all his GOP colleagues.

It seemed designed to deny Scalise, or perhaps anyone other than Jordan, the requisite support to win — which is why Roy’s proposal got trounced by almost 50 votes.

Scalise then won the actual vote, 113-99, but rather than accepting the humiliating defeat, Roy declared he would vote only for Jordan.

A dozen Jordan backers quickly declared they would never vote for Scalise, while about a dozen more lurked in the backdrop, as well as a half-dozen or so moderates who remained loyal to McCarthy.

Pretty quickly, Scalise’s supporters — who include most traditional conservatives on the Armed Services and Appropriations committees — felt that Jordan had reverted back to his original form. In his first dozen years, before McCarthy brought him into his inner circle, Jordan served as the rabble-rouser, threatening to expel speakers and trying to take down bipartisan, must-pass legislation.

Jordan did not offer Scalise an endorsement and left the closed-door meeting without talking to the hundred or more reporters outside the room.

His aides sent word that he offered to give a nominating speech on Scalise’s behalf, but Scalise supporters reported that the offer required him to only stand for one ballot and, if he failed, turn around and nominate Jordan on the next ballot.

Jordan’s supporters denied any double-dealing. “He has said in the most plain, possible English to the conference, entirely wide, that he would support Steve,” Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) told reporters after a Thursday meeting with Scalise.

Still, Mast acknowledged that his plan to support Scalise after he won “just ran into some things” and that he was still with Jordan.

Once Scalise withdrew on Thursday evening, Jordan jumped back into the race anew, this time as the front-runner.

McCarthy thought he could harness forces of disruption. Instead they devoured him.

In public, Jordan’s opponents have walked a careful line to avoid accusing him of treachery.

Instead, they take him at his word that he truly did support Scalise. But they fault the former national collegiate champion wrestler, given his mythological clout within far-right circles, for being weak.

“There’s two alternatives: Either you lied, or you couldn’t deliver,” Diaz-Balart said. “I’ve never been lied to, I’ve never been lied to by him. So therefore, to me, it’s got to be the other alternative, which is he has not been able to deliver on a relatively simple thing.”

So now the Diaz-Balart wing plans to force Jordan to swallow some of the same medicine he has delivered throughout the years.

All these minority-rule moments turn the tables on a GOP conference that used to assert the “Hastert rule,” an unofficial standard often imposed by J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the House speaker from 1999 into 2007. It said legislation that did not have the support of “the majority of the majority” would not get a vote on the House floor.

Now, the majority of the majority no longer rules, given that both McCarthy and Scalise had such support, as Jordan now does.

Instead, a small bloc — sometimes five, sometimes eight, sometimes 20, perhaps 99 — has turned the math upside down.

With the new “Jordan rule,” it’s the minority of the majority that matters most.

Moving Against Corruption

A long sad story of woe and intrigue.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse Calls For DOJ Investigation Of Clarence Thomas’ Hidden Gifts

“I’m urging the Judicial Conference to step in and refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General for investigation,” the senator said.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on the body overseeing the federal judiciary to refer Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice for investigation into his failure to properly report gifts from a billionaire benefactor.

“It would be best for the Chief Justice to commence a proper investigation, but after a week of silence from the Court and this latest disturbing reporting, I’m urging the Judicial Conference to step in and refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General for investigation,” Whitehouse said in a statement released Thursday night.

Whitehouse, joined by other Democrats, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), previously called on Chief Justice John Roberts to investigate Thomas’ failure to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow. Those gifts, uncovered by ProPublica, included multiple expensive luxury vacations on Crow’s superyacht for Thomas and his wife, Ginni Thomas, and regular use of Crow’s private jet. Thomas did not disclose these gifts in his mandated annual personal financial reports.

In addition to the luxury vacations and private jet use, Crow purchased Thomas’ ancestral home in Georgia, where his mother still resides, from him for an inflated price, ProPublica reported on Thursday. While Thomas had listed his interest in the home on his financial reports in the past, he did not disclose the sale to Crow as required by law.

Whitehouse and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) sent a letter to the Judicial Conference on Friday asking it to “refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General for further action.”

The letter states: “Potential violations of disclosure laws by officers of the highest court merit serious investigation, and it is well past time for the Supreme Court to align with the rest of the government on ethics requirements.”

Supreme Court justices are required to disclose certain gifts and sales under federal ethics laws. In the past, some gifts of lodging and hospitality provided by friends were exempt from disclosure. Thomas claims that he believed that he was not required to disclose the travel, lodging and food provided by Crow.

In March, the Judicial Conference, the body that sets rules for the federal judiciary, updated its disclosure guidelines to clarify that justices must report gifts of lodging and hospitality not provided at a personal residence owned directly by the gift-giving individual and private travel to such locations.

The financial disclosure law that Thomas is alleged to have violated states that justices must “knowingly and willfully” fail to report gifts that should have been disclosed. Such a violation may result in fines up to $50,000, or, if the violator falsifies a report, not more than one year in prison.

The Judicial Conference is the body designated by ethics law to refer members of the judiciary to the Attorney General for investigation.

Whitehouse’s call for a referral for investigation into Thomas follows a similar letter to the Judicial Conference sent by the ethics watchdog group Campaign Legal Center. That letter noted that Thomas previously disclosed similar gifts of travel from Crow, but stopped disclosing them after the Los Angeles Times reported on his relationship with the billionaire in 2004. This sudden change in disclosure “demonstrated knowledge of the requirement” that he disclose such gifts, a precondition for guilt under the ethics law.

The CLC letter also notes that Thomas has a long history of failing to disclose gifts and income. In 2011, Thomas amended 20 years of his financial reports to account for his failure to disclose his wife’s income at various conservative political and educational institutions despite previously properly disclosing such income.

It has been 54 years since the Justice Department opened an investigation into a sitting Supreme Court justice.

In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson nominated Justice Abe Fortas to replace the retiring Earl Warren as Chief Justice. A bitter campaign to defeat the liberal justice’s nomination to lead the court, fueled in part by the antisemitism (Fortas was Jewish) of Southern segregationists like Republican Strom Thurmond and Democrat James Eastland, commenced.

Fortas’ nomination was ultimately blocked by a filibuster, but he remained on the bench as an associate justice. In the process, Thurmond attacked Fortas for receiving $15,000 paid by his former corporate clients and legal partners for nine speeches at American University.

In 1969, news reports revealed that Fortas received a $20,000 annual retainer from the family foundation of financier Louis Wolfson beginning in 1966. Wolfson had been convicted of illegal stock trading and appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. The court didn’t take the case and Fortas didn’t take part in its consideration, but the payments created an appearance of corruption.

The Justice Department opened an investigation into Fortas after assistant attorney general and future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist convinced President Richard Nixon that it would be legal to do so. Fortas ultimately resigned his seat after Attorney General John Mitchell threatened to indict him for tax fraud if he did not do so. The ethics law that Thomas is alleged to have broken was extended to cover judges following the revelations of payments to Fortas and other justices.

The campaign against Fortas was the beginning of the conservative push to take over the Supreme Court. It provided Nixon with two open court seats, first the Chief Justice seat being vacated by Warren and then Fortas’. Nixon appointed Warren Burger to replace Warren while attempting to fill Fortas’ seat with a Southern conservative segregationist in order to fulfill a campaign promise to Thurmond, but the Democratic Senate blocked him twice.

This episode launched the judicial wars that culminated in the conservative triumph after President Donald Trump replaced the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg with the conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

The shift in the court to the right elevated Thomas from the margins to the center of a court bloc aimed at rolling back the 20th century decisions pronounced by the likes of liberals like Fortas. But now he faces a similar controversy for breaking a law passed in Fortas’ wake.

Kevin McCarthy Is One Of Them

Jim Jordan (R-Pitstain OH) says he needs to see what the Manhattan DA is doing, and Mr Braggs office told him to fuck off.

Republicans need us to think an attempt to overthrow the government is just something we do now.

Ashli Babbit's mom is grieving the death of her daughter, so she deserves our understanding and compassion, and she gets a little wagon room.

Asshole MAGA Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Kevin McCarthy are trading on a mother's grief as a means to further their dreams of Daddy State minority rule.

The question is: How does McCarthy square going out of his way to meet with a seditionist's mom, and make a point of not meeting with the parents of a school shooting?

Answer: He doesn't. And one reason is that cruelty is the point when it serves GOP ambitions.

Do ya get the feeling, Mr Jordan is flirting with Obstruction Of Justice?

Who's Doin' What?

Kentucky floodwaters receded six months ago. For many, the crisis goes on.

‘People need housing now,’ says the head of one local nonprofit. ‘They need to know there’s a light at the end of this tunnel.’

HAZARD, Ky. — Gerry Roll lets out a sigh when she thinks about the endless pleas that have poured into her inbox over the past six months.

“I am desperately seeking help,” one man wrote this winter, saying the floods that devastated Eastern Kentucky in late July had knocked out his heating system. “Are there any resources that can help me out with that? I am cold and freezing at times.”

Want to know how your actions can help make a difference for our planet? Sign up for the Climate Coach newsletter, in your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday.
“Myself and my daughter both lost our homes. … We would be so grateful for any assistance,” wrote another woman, explaining that there was no money to rebuild.

Every extreme weather disaster leaves a lasting mark, often displacing people in its path. But the biblical floods in Eastern Kentucky have highlighted a deepening reality that many communities face as climate change fuels catastrophes of greater intensity and frequency: a housing crisis that persists long after the immediate disaster has faded.

A flood-damaged home in Ary, Ky., last month. (Arden S. Barnes for The Washington Post)
“I just don’t think people can grasp what a huge issue housing is,” says Roll, the chief executive of the nonprofit Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky. “People need housing now; they need a place to live now. They need to know there’s a light at the end of this tunnel.”

For many, that light has been hard to find.

Mile after mile, county after county, the hills and hollers of Eastern Kentucky are littered with reminders of the floods that unleashed sudden and staggering suffering, killing more than 40 people and leaving hundreds of families homeless.

Spray-painted orange X’s left by search teams are still visible on waterlogged, abandoned homes. Front steps still stand after the houses to which they were once attached were ripped away by the rushing water. Vehicles lie twisted and mired in mud. Tree branches are littered with pieces of lives upended — basketball hoops and tricycles, toilets and Christmas decorations, headboards and books and pieces of metal roofs.

Research shows that particularly in low-income rural communities with limited housing supply and a population that is often uninsured or underinsured, residents can end up in a perpetual state of limbo after disasters. That reality is unfolding in Eastern Kentucky.

Without the means to repair damaged homes, obtain mortgages or scrape together rent, some people here are living in homes without electricity or running water, doubling up with relatives, staying in camping trailers or even tents — often with no end in sight. Some have moved away.

Between cash-strapped local governments, under-resourced nonprofit organizations and slow-moving federal recovery efforts, many residents have concluded that they are largely on their own.

“We already had a housing crisis,” said Scott McReynolds, the executive director of the Housing Development Alliance in Hazard, Ky. The floods made the problem far worse. “It’s staggering,” he said. “Folks are having to make hard decisions.”

One recent analysis found that 6 in 10 Kentucky families with homes damaged in the floods have annual incomes of $30,000 or less, a reality that makes recovery only more daunting, said Eric Dixon, a senior researcher at the Ohio River Valley Institute, a think tank that conducted the study.

“It’s very difficult to see how the folks who lost their homes are going to find the money to rebuild,” he said.

‘Housing, housing, housing’

It’s dark by the time the meeting of the Breathitt County Long Term Recovery Team convenes in the basement room of a Methodist church just off Main Street in Jackson.

The two dozen people sipping coffee from paper cups represent numerous groups — the Red Cross, nonprofit groups, faith-based organizations, local government — working to help flood victims navigate a sea of ongoing needs six months after the unprecedented disaster.

But one issue rises to the top again and again.

“Housing, housing, housing,” says Jackson Mayor Laura Thomas.

On this night, group members mull over some of the hundreds of cases they are managing. One asks if anyone knows a contractor who can repair foundations wrecked by floodwaters. Another offers mold spray to anyone who can use it.

Another shares that a Catholic charitable group is donating building supplies and air-conditioning systems. A church in New Jersey wants to provide 300 refrigerators to people who need them. A humanitarian group has committed to building 20 houses nearby. There’s talk of how to prepare to apply for federal disaster grants, and of drafting a letter to state lawmakers.

Even as the group is desperate to build and rebuild housing, everyone agrees that another aim is equally important. “Ultimately,” says Jamie Mullins-Smith, the group’s co-chair, “the goal is to get people out of the flood plain.”

Not long ago, Roll’s foundation surveyed thousands of families to which it had offered assistance.

Fewer than half of the respondents were back in their homes at the time, and even then many were left to tackle mold and other damage. More than a quarter said they were living with relatives. Others were scattered among camping trailers and hotels. Some said they were living in tents, vehicles, storage buildings and barns.

A University of Kentucky ribbon wreath outside a camper in Carr Creek State Park campground in Sassafras, Ky., last month. (Arden S. Barnes for The Washington Post)

Debris and items damaged by floodwaters outside a home on the outskirts of Hindman, Ky., last month. (Arden S. Barnes for The Washington Post)
Thousands of people will need help for a long time, Roll said. “We know how to do this work,” she said. “What we don’t have is enough capacity to do it fast enough.”

The recent report from the Ohio River Valley Institute, which collaborated on it with the Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center, estimated a cost of $450 million to $950 million to rebuild roughly 9,000 homes damaged by the floods, the bulk in the hard-hit counties of Breathitt, Knott, Letcher and Perry.

The lower figure is for repairing or rebuilding homes largely where they stood before the disaster. Relocating and replacing homes to less-flood-prone areas would cost far more in the short term, the group wrote, but could prevent more damage and death in the long run.

Any recovery will rely in no small part on outside funding and resources.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, said in an update this month that the government had approved $158 million in grants and low-interest disaster loans in the region.

That includes money intended for temporary housing, replacing personal property and meeting other immediate needs. Awards for housing assistance are generally capped at $37,900 — many people received far less — leaving a gap between sums awarded and what is required to repair many damaged homes.

“FEMA assistance is designed to meet a survivor’s basic needs. It will not fully compensate someone for the loss of their home and personal property,” the agency has written.

Last week, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia L. Fudge traveled to Eastern Kentucky to announce $300 million of aid — part of nearly $3.4 billion in grants set aside by Congress for disaster recovery in Florida, Puerto Rico and elsewhere. The funds are intended to help with numerous challenges, including economic revitalization, infrastructure repair and housing.

“I think that people feel left out and forgotten, when month after month they see no real progress, and only through the help of their own family or friends are they able to get by,” Fudge said in an interview during her visit. She said she came to impart a simple message: “We have not forgotten.”

Kentucky must create a plan for spending the money. But if that happens quickly and HUD approves it, Fudge said, money could begin to flow in as few as 60 days — unusually quickly for the federal government.

“What I want to see is us building housing that is going to be resilient, that is going to be able to stand up to the next storm,” she said. “We don’t want to build the same housing they have now. We don’t want to build in the same locations, in some instances.”

For its part, Kentucky’s legislature allocated $213 million of disaster funding in August but did not designate money specifically for housing. The bulk of the funds were aimed at shoring up key infrastructure such as bridges and roads, and helping to get schools functioning again.

Housing advocates have pushed state lawmakers to create an emergency affordable-housing fund — with an initial $150 million investment — that could be tapped after disasters to expedite repairs, elevate homes and build new houses. That idea has not yet succeeded, but the legislature last week voted to reallocate $20 million toward a rural-housing trust fund that will prioritize disaster recovery.

Even before the most recent floods in Eastern Kentucky, parts of the state endured another episode of severe flooding and devastating tornado damage in 2021. As the prospect of more compounding disasters looms in the future, advocates worry that recovery will only become harder.

“We are having more and more extreme weather events,” said Adrienne Bush, the executive director of the Homeless & Housing Coalition of Kentucky. “And our housing built in the 20th century is not up to the task.”

In recent months, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) has announced plans to build hundreds of new homes on higher ground — using a 50-acre parcel in Perry County, a 75-acre spot in Knott County and possibly other places to be designated — with construction partly funded with flood-relief money.

Finding usable land can be difficult in Eastern Kentucky, where narrow valleys and steep mountain terrain complicate building. It remains unclear how soon new housing would be available under those projects.

In the meantime, McReynolds said, “Every day, people are spending the resources they have on partial solutions or less-than-ideal solutions.”

Shannon Van Zandt, a professor of urban planning at Texas A&M University who studies the intersection of affordable housing with disasters, has seen how a catastrophe can affect low-income communities. When a tornado or hurricane or wildfire strikes, those who lack adequate insurance or steady incomes or have little savings lose their homes. And so begins a struggle that can last for years.

She and other researchers have found that housing in higher-income neighborhoods bounces back faster, and that at nearly every stage of recovery, populations that begin with fewer resources encounter more obstacles, often exacerbating existing inequities.

“It really is a long-term thing, especially for really vulnerable populations,” Van Zandt said. “We see a disaster and we think, ‘Well, it’s over.’ But it’s really just beginning for the people that experience it.”

‘One day at a time’

For many residents here in Eastern Kentucky, an ending seems far away.

“I expected to be out no more than two months. Six months later, we are still here,” Megan Hutson, a 33-year-old hospital employee, said one afternoon at Carr Creek State Park, one of the spots where Kentucky once housed hundreds of flood victims.

The numbers have dwindled, but some families still are navigating where to go next. Hutson has lived here since August with her young daughter after their mobile home was knocked from its foundation and destroyed.

“I’m blessed to have a place to go,” said Hutson, who has worked to secure a loan on a new home. Even so, she said, “I worry when it rains.”

Thirty-five miles north in Lost Creek, Lena Shouse also is trying to rebuild her home and her life. The fast-rising waters inundated the brick house where she has lived since 2004, ruining everything in the basement and first floor, and destroying the mobile home where her son lived on the property.

Shouse had been sleeping in her car some days by the time President Biden stopped on her street and met with her family as he surveyed flood damage on Aug. 8.

“It’s going to take a while to get through this, but I promise you we’re not leaving,” Biden said that day a couple of blocks away. “As long as it takes, we’re going be here, and we are committed.”

Six months later, Shouse was spending a Tuesday afternoon sanding the drywall she had recently installed. Debris still sat piled in her yard. Water from broken gutters dripped into plastic buckets.

Family members and co-workers had helped her shovel mud from her basement and rip out sopping insulation. She had lived for a while with her daughter and had received financial help from the Red Cross and FEMA, she said, although not enough to replace all that was destroyed.

“I’ve pretty well done everything by myself,” said Shouse, who did not have flood insurance.

Despite the work that remained, she said she felt lucky still to have a home, unlike so many other people nearby.

“I’m just concentrating on getting everything back together,” she said. “I just take it one day at a time.”

More on climate change

• Understanding our climate: Global warming is a real phenomenon, and weather disasters are undeniably linked to it. As temperatures rise, heat waves are more often sweeping the globe — and parts of the world are becoming too hot to survive.
• What can be done? The Post is tracking a variety of climate solutions, as well as the Biden administration’s actions on environmental issues. It can feel overwhelming facing the impacts of climate change, but there are ways to cope with climate anxiety.
• Inventive solutions: Some people have built off-the-grid homes from trash to stand up to a changing climate. As seas rise, others are exploring how to harness marine energy.
• What about your role in climate change? Our climate coach Michael J. Coren is answering questions about environmental choices in our everyday lives. Submit yours here. You can also sign up for our Climate Coach newsletter.

Today In Shitty Governance

Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, is a petty vindictive little schmuck.

More Ukraine

One of the things humans fear most is being forgotten - thinking we don't count for much when we're alive, and that our passing will mean little to anyone. All we have is a few close friends and family to carry on when we're dead and gone.

There's more than just a possibility that lots of Russians are being forgotten - deprived even of the tiny solace that someone will know of their passing and will mourn them - as they're casually tossed into the meat grinder in eastern Ukraine by a regime in the Kremlin that obviously doesn't give one empty fuck about them.

In Russia, the third wave of recruitment of prisoners to participate in the war against Ukraine has already begun.

Of the first thousand prisoners recruited by the Wagner Group to participate in the war against Ukraine, only 20 returned home. This was stated by the head of the public organization "Seated Russia" Olga Romanova in an interview with the publication "Current Time" .

According to her, the third wave of recruitment of prisoners into the "Wagner group" is now underway in Russia. The first wave came out of the prisons of central Russia from June 26 to September 21, the second - in the Urals and the Far East from September 21 to the end of December. Now the third one has begun, which already covers the whole country, including Chechnya.

“Naturally, for Prigozhin there is also a great convenience in the fact that there is actually no extradition from Chechnya. There he can do some things that he cannot do in the Ryazan region, in the Smolensk region or somewhere else. This is actually extraterritorial education. Therefore, recruitment began in Chechen prisons,” Romanova said.

"I think that they do not count the number of dead - nothing. I think there is no one there. But let's look at the results of the first recruitment. In the very first days of July, about a thousand people were recruited from the Leningrad and Novgorod regions in the zones, but returned 20. Look at the statistics,” she said.

Participation of Russian prisoners in the war against Ukraine

Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin personally traveled to Russian prisons and recruited prisoners into his private army, known as the "Wagner Group" or "PMC Wagner". According to experts , the Wagnerites, among whom the majority are former prisoners, may make up about a quarter of all Russian forces in Ukraine.

At the front, the "Wagner Group" became famous primarily for the fact that it does not spare its soldiers at all and sends them into suicidal attacks for the sake of minimal progress.

The dead Wagnerites are transported around Russia by ordinary truckers, after which they are buried "without too much noise . "

We hear very little about the casualty numbers on either side because governments don't want to give out any information about its wars that it doesn't absolutely have to give out, but the Russians seem to be taking the opportunity to ignore their own losses in order to feel a bit less embarrassed by this latest colossal fuckup in a lengthening series of colossal fuckups.