Tillis is my senator. Let's not forget he was on the fence about Pete Hegseth and he capitulated to Trump to confirm him. I am not confident this spineless fence sitter will block this nomination. I'd love to be proven wrong.
I was coming to make that exact comment about Hegseth. He's not my senator, but it was still unbelievably disappointing to see him backtrack and support Hegseth in the end. Also, for Tillis to say that he'd confirm this guy for any other district just not the one where the January 6 attack happened?? I'm sorry-what? The attack on the capitol was an assault on ALL Americans. That entire article just made me sick. I'm so frustrated with just the lack of basic decency with so many in this administration.
Exactly. I'm not sure there's a bridge that any nominee could cross that this president could nominate and put before this Senate that would be considered the bridge too far.
Yeah I don’t trust Tillis at all. I thought Trump has already told him he will primary him multiple times so he’s in a no win situation as he should be. He wasn’t acting as a delegate to constituents because he won’t meet with constituents so I don’t expect much from him.
Oh, I'm probably on his blocked list. I've made my displeasure with his cowardice VERY CLEAR. It's too bad his staff doesn't answer the phone and sends everyone to voicemail.
Martin is out! Is this one of those awkward moments where we might feel compelled to thank someone for their spine, given all the rabid MAGA pushback Tillis faced for his role in Martin's loss? Even though his refusal was somehow only about jurisdiction, not the fact that he'd be a horrible attorney in any capacity...there's also gotta be some incentive for people to do the right thing, even if we disagree with 99.9% of the things they do and say. Tricky situation. (Thanks, Thom, I guess?)
Thank you, Gabe! I really appreciate that this journalism took years of work to better understand how these politics function. I just wish the story weren’t so close to an HBO ensemble drama.
In American history, only two cabinet nominations have ever been confirmed by a Vice President's tie-breaking vote: Betsy DeVos for Education and more recently Pete Hegseth for Defense. Other Trump picks have regularly skirted through, only by those picks pretending they aren’t who their own past statements describe, like Martin is showing he is willing to do. This pattern of pushing through deeply problematic nominees makes me doubtful that Martin will be blocked.
Trump has consistently gotten away with associating with people who would tank any other politician's career. Just to pick a couple of names from the article: Steve Bannon was charged with defrauding Trump-supporting donors of millions of dollars in a border wall fundraising scheme, but still got a pardon, and is still a major player in Trumpworld. Roger Stone was convicted of seven felonies including lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstructing a congressional investigation - crimes directly related to protecting the president. These are the kinds of corruption and obstruction of justice charges that would end any normal political career through association, and send any normal politician into “denounce” mode. The list goes on (it seems like every day there’s a new story about how much power Laura Loomer has), yet somehow Trump emerges unscathed by association.
The revolving door of Trump's administration is legendary at this point. By the end of his first term, he had called numerous former officials "terrible," "weak," "dumb as a rock," or "a real nut job" - people HE personally selected and praised throughout their usefulness for him. If we call those denouncements, it seems like the only standard he has for a denouncement is whether those he is scorning have lacked sufficient loyalty. The count exceeds 40 former high-ranking officials he's publicly turned against after hiring them.
What's fascinating about Martin using the word "denounce" regarding Hale-Cusanelli is how Trump himself regularly avoids such clear language. When asked about Ghislaine Maxwell, Trump said "I wish her well." Regarding Jeffrey Epstein, he called him a "terrific guy" before later distancing himself without a clear denouncement. About David Duke's endorsement, Trump initially claimed "I don't know anything about David Duke" - a baffling response given that Duke is a former KKK leader and notorious white supremacist. What makes this claim particularly incredible is that Trump himself had left the Reform Party in 2000 specifically citing David Duke as a reason, stating then that "the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke... and I just cannot accept that." His later reluctance to denounce Duke's endorsement in 2016 represents everything that's come since. And now, with Project 2025, he's continued this pattern, telling voters he doesn’t know anything about it, but in reality playing a game of proximity without any ownership.
What powers do we actually have as citizens to hold politicians accountable for their associations? Voting is the obvious one, but that's years between opportunities, and diluted by election season sensationalism. Public shaming has proven remarkably ineffective in the Trump era. It's ineffective partly because his base views criticism from mainstream sources as validation, and partly because the news cycle moves so quickly that yesterday's outrage gets buried under today's. We need a new tool that permanently ties politicians to the company they keep.
As for Tillis, his position reveals the cynicism at work: he's not opposed to Martin on moral grounds but on technical grounds related to jurisdiction. This suggests he'll fold if the circumstances change slightly, which means the barrier to confirming someone with Martin's background is dangerously low.
Trying to hold Trump directly accountable is like nailing jello to a wall: nearly impossible and at this point people might be wondering if you’re sane while trying to do so. I have no faith in any direct approach. But we've seen that people in Trump's orbit aren't quite as teflon-coated as he is. Focusing our accountability efforts on the people around him - his nominees, enablers, and supporters - might be more effective. By holding them accountable, we indirectly apply pressure to Trump himself.
This is where an "accountability grid" might be helpful. It’s an idea that I was thinking about in previous Preamble comments, but this seems like a good example of when it might be useful. I wonder if other readers have thoughts about this.
Washington operates on collective voter amnesia. Supporting Trump through white supremacy controversies is a calculated risk: politicians assume voters won't remember in a few months, so they maintain Trump loyalty despite temporary heat. (And as we saw in the article, whatever temporary heat they might get from moderate voters, it won’t be anything near the heat they get from MAGA extremists for not toeing the Trump line.)
But what if we created a system that prevented this forgetting? What if there was incentive for doing the right thing?
The accountability grid I've been thinking about would list every public official in rows and their stances/actions in columns. A vote to confirm Martin would appear in the "white supremacy" column for any supporting senator. Think of it like a permanent record in school - students behave differently knowing their actions follow them throughout their academic careers. Similarly, if politicians knew voters had an easily accessible record of their most controversial positions, the political calculus would change dramatically. Just as detention slips accumulate in a student's file, votes and statements would accumulate in a politician's permanent record.
For the grid to work, the interface would need to be intuitive. Voters could answer questions about their values and see how officials align with those values. You could filter by issue - democracy, civil rights, economic policy - and see patterns emerge.
The challenge is making this grid seem legitimate across the political spectrum. To achieve that, we'd need a bipartisan board overseeing methodology, transparent sourcing of objective criteria (direct quotes, voting records, campaign contributions), and clear guidelines for what qualifies for inclusion.
The accountability grid wouldn't end partisanship, but it could make the costs of enabling extremism more permanent and visible. Politicians might still make cynical choices, but at least they wouldn’t assume our collective amnesia will save them from the consequences.
Timothy -- You already know that I support your concept of an "accountability grid." Moving past the *idea* stage is now the challenge. Your description here sounds like a "think tank." At least, that's my impression. If so--maybe pitching the idea to a university poly-sci department(??). Sharon--IF you are reading this...do you have any suggestions? Anyone else?
Todd - first, thank you for being such a consistent supporter of the accountability grid concept! And you're absolutely right that moving from idea to implementation is the critical next step.
I smiled at the "think tank" description because my immediate association with that term tends to be partisan policy shops where people go to build their résumés between administration jobs (though I realize that's an unfair generalization - plenty do substantive, non-partisan work!).
What I'm envisioning is actually more grassroots. Once my current work marathon settles down, I'm planning to carve out personal time to build a basic proof of concept. My limited background in tech should help me create a functional prototype that demonstrates the core idea. The next step would be recruiting friends and connections with complementary skills (data visualization experts, political scientists, and definitely a UX designer) to refine it into something more substantial and reliable.
With a working prototype and some credible contributors, I'd then approach journalists who might find it valuable for their reporting - both to ensure they're getting comprehensive context on their subjects, and to reference it as a legitimate resource. Once it proves useful in real-world application, we could explore funding for expanding it as a voter education tool.
I'm open to academic partnerships too - your university poly-sci department suggestion could provide valuable theoretical frameworks and research validation. But I think starting small and demonstrating practical value might help it gain traction before approaching institutions.
Would love your and anyone's thoughts on this incremental approach! And I'm absolutely open to guidance from anyone with experience bringing similar concepts to life. What I'm not interested in: opinions that it won't work because it hasn't worked before. Those arguments don't persuade me. 😉
When & if it gets to the academic partnership level, I might have a really credible connection that could help. I went to high school with the wife of the dean of the Bush School of Government & Political Service at Texas A&M University, and I'm still in regular contact with her. There's more to the connection than that, but I won't bore you with the rest. Suffice it to say, there's probably a 90% chance I could get you and the accountability grid in front of him.
I agree that a working prototype with some demonstrated practical value would be needed first. I also have a solid UX designer connection who would be great with this, too, if you need someone.
(On the other hand, presenting the idea to a university as a project to be built could get a bunch of students in those various areas of expertise you mentioned -- data viz, poly-sci, UX designers -- working on it as, perhaps, a graduate project on the university's dime. But it might lead to less control of the project for you.)
I keep telling myself that I can last for 2 years of the republicans tearing down our country and trampling upon the constitution, until the midterms, when I hope dearly they lose the house and senate. What keeps me up at night, is knowing after trump is gone, some of these terrible republicans in congress will still be around spewing hate, lies and racism. I have watched the republican party become something I don’t recognize. A party with no integrity, kindness, morals, character or compassion. Short of them all being voted out, I don’t know how we stop worrying about the next undemocratic issue they will champion.
Every decision, every nomination, every move he makes is more vulgar than his last. I really doubt anyone in Congress will stand up to him. It's an incredibly sad time for our nation.
Whether Martin is confirmed for the permanent post or not is really immaterial. Why is it that Trump seems to have softened his stance on Tillis's objection? Because Martin is not the only white supremacist, neo-nazi at Trump's disposal.
Tillis is my senator. Let's not forget he was on the fence about Pete Hegseth and he capitulated to Trump to confirm him. I am not confident this spineless fence sitter will block this nomination. I'd love to be proven wrong.
I was coming to make that exact comment about Hegseth. He's not my senator, but it was still unbelievably disappointing to see him backtrack and support Hegseth in the end. Also, for Tillis to say that he'd confirm this guy for any other district just not the one where the January 6 attack happened?? I'm sorry-what? The attack on the capitol was an assault on ALL Americans. That entire article just made me sick. I'm so frustrated with just the lack of basic decency with so many in this administration.
Exactly. I'm not sure there's a bridge that any nominee could cross that this president could nominate and put before this Senate that would be considered the bridge too far.
Yeah I don’t trust Tillis at all. I thought Trump has already told him he will primary him multiple times so he’s in a no win situation as he should be. He wasn’t acting as a delegate to constituents because he won’t meet with constituents so I don’t expect much from him.
Maren, I hope you have contacted Tillis to let you know how you feel as one of his constituents!
Oh, I'm probably on his blocked list. I've made my displeasure with his cowardice VERY CLEAR. It's too bad his staff doesn't answer the phone and sends everyone to voicemail.
Martin is out! Is this one of those awkward moments where we might feel compelled to thank someone for their spine, given all the rabid MAGA pushback Tillis faced for his role in Martin's loss? Even though his refusal was somehow only about jurisdiction, not the fact that he'd be a horrible attorney in any capacity...there's also gotta be some incentive for people to do the right thing, even if we disagree with 99.9% of the things they do and say. Tricky situation. (Thanks, Thom, I guess?)
Thank you, Gabe! I really appreciate that this journalism took years of work to better understand how these politics function. I just wish the story weren’t so close to an HBO ensemble drama.
In American history, only two cabinet nominations have ever been confirmed by a Vice President's tie-breaking vote: Betsy DeVos for Education and more recently Pete Hegseth for Defense. Other Trump picks have regularly skirted through, only by those picks pretending they aren’t who their own past statements describe, like Martin is showing he is willing to do. This pattern of pushing through deeply problematic nominees makes me doubtful that Martin will be blocked.
Trump has consistently gotten away with associating with people who would tank any other politician's career. Just to pick a couple of names from the article: Steve Bannon was charged with defrauding Trump-supporting donors of millions of dollars in a border wall fundraising scheme, but still got a pardon, and is still a major player in Trumpworld. Roger Stone was convicted of seven felonies including lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstructing a congressional investigation - crimes directly related to protecting the president. These are the kinds of corruption and obstruction of justice charges that would end any normal political career through association, and send any normal politician into “denounce” mode. The list goes on (it seems like every day there’s a new story about how much power Laura Loomer has), yet somehow Trump emerges unscathed by association.
The revolving door of Trump's administration is legendary at this point. By the end of his first term, he had called numerous former officials "terrible," "weak," "dumb as a rock," or "a real nut job" - people HE personally selected and praised throughout their usefulness for him. If we call those denouncements, it seems like the only standard he has for a denouncement is whether those he is scorning have lacked sufficient loyalty. The count exceeds 40 former high-ranking officials he's publicly turned against after hiring them.
What's fascinating about Martin using the word "denounce" regarding Hale-Cusanelli is how Trump himself regularly avoids such clear language. When asked about Ghislaine Maxwell, Trump said "I wish her well." Regarding Jeffrey Epstein, he called him a "terrific guy" before later distancing himself without a clear denouncement. About David Duke's endorsement, Trump initially claimed "I don't know anything about David Duke" - a baffling response given that Duke is a former KKK leader and notorious white supremacist. What makes this claim particularly incredible is that Trump himself had left the Reform Party in 2000 specifically citing David Duke as a reason, stating then that "the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke... and I just cannot accept that." His later reluctance to denounce Duke's endorsement in 2016 represents everything that's come since. And now, with Project 2025, he's continued this pattern, telling voters he doesn’t know anything about it, but in reality playing a game of proximity without any ownership.
What powers do we actually have as citizens to hold politicians accountable for their associations? Voting is the obvious one, but that's years between opportunities, and diluted by election season sensationalism. Public shaming has proven remarkably ineffective in the Trump era. It's ineffective partly because his base views criticism from mainstream sources as validation, and partly because the news cycle moves so quickly that yesterday's outrage gets buried under today's. We need a new tool that permanently ties politicians to the company they keep.
As for Tillis, his position reveals the cynicism at work: he's not opposed to Martin on moral grounds but on technical grounds related to jurisdiction. This suggests he'll fold if the circumstances change slightly, which means the barrier to confirming someone with Martin's background is dangerously low.
Trying to hold Trump directly accountable is like nailing jello to a wall: nearly impossible and at this point people might be wondering if you’re sane while trying to do so. I have no faith in any direct approach. But we've seen that people in Trump's orbit aren't quite as teflon-coated as he is. Focusing our accountability efforts on the people around him - his nominees, enablers, and supporters - might be more effective. By holding them accountable, we indirectly apply pressure to Trump himself.
This is where an "accountability grid" might be helpful. It’s an idea that I was thinking about in previous Preamble comments, but this seems like a good example of when it might be useful. I wonder if other readers have thoughts about this.
Washington operates on collective voter amnesia. Supporting Trump through white supremacy controversies is a calculated risk: politicians assume voters won't remember in a few months, so they maintain Trump loyalty despite temporary heat. (And as we saw in the article, whatever temporary heat they might get from moderate voters, it won’t be anything near the heat they get from MAGA extremists for not toeing the Trump line.)
But what if we created a system that prevented this forgetting? What if there was incentive for doing the right thing?
The accountability grid I've been thinking about would list every public official in rows and their stances/actions in columns. A vote to confirm Martin would appear in the "white supremacy" column for any supporting senator. Think of it like a permanent record in school - students behave differently knowing their actions follow them throughout their academic careers. Similarly, if politicians knew voters had an easily accessible record of their most controversial positions, the political calculus would change dramatically. Just as detention slips accumulate in a student's file, votes and statements would accumulate in a politician's permanent record.
For the grid to work, the interface would need to be intuitive. Voters could answer questions about their values and see how officials align with those values. You could filter by issue - democracy, civil rights, economic policy - and see patterns emerge.
The challenge is making this grid seem legitimate across the political spectrum. To achieve that, we'd need a bipartisan board overseeing methodology, transparent sourcing of objective criteria (direct quotes, voting records, campaign contributions), and clear guidelines for what qualifies for inclusion.
The accountability grid wouldn't end partisanship, but it could make the costs of enabling extremism more permanent and visible. Politicians might still make cynical choices, but at least they wouldn’t assume our collective amnesia will save them from the consequences.
Timothy -- You already know that I support your concept of an "accountability grid." Moving past the *idea* stage is now the challenge. Your description here sounds like a "think tank." At least, that's my impression. If so--maybe pitching the idea to a university poly-sci department(??). Sharon--IF you are reading this...do you have any suggestions? Anyone else?
Todd - first, thank you for being such a consistent supporter of the accountability grid concept! And you're absolutely right that moving from idea to implementation is the critical next step.
I smiled at the "think tank" description because my immediate association with that term tends to be partisan policy shops where people go to build their résumés between administration jobs (though I realize that's an unfair generalization - plenty do substantive, non-partisan work!).
What I'm envisioning is actually more grassroots. Once my current work marathon settles down, I'm planning to carve out personal time to build a basic proof of concept. My limited background in tech should help me create a functional prototype that demonstrates the core idea. The next step would be recruiting friends and connections with complementary skills (data visualization experts, political scientists, and definitely a UX designer) to refine it into something more substantial and reliable.
With a working prototype and some credible contributors, I'd then approach journalists who might find it valuable for their reporting - both to ensure they're getting comprehensive context on their subjects, and to reference it as a legitimate resource. Once it proves useful in real-world application, we could explore funding for expanding it as a voter education tool.
I'm open to academic partnerships too - your university poly-sci department suggestion could provide valuable theoretical frameworks and research validation. But I think starting small and demonstrating practical value might help it gain traction before approaching institutions.
Would love your and anyone's thoughts on this incremental approach! And I'm absolutely open to guidance from anyone with experience bringing similar concepts to life. What I'm not interested in: opinions that it won't work because it hasn't worked before. Those arguments don't persuade me. 😉
When & if it gets to the academic partnership level, I might have a really credible connection that could help. I went to high school with the wife of the dean of the Bush School of Government & Political Service at Texas A&M University, and I'm still in regular contact with her. There's more to the connection than that, but I won't bore you with the rest. Suffice it to say, there's probably a 90% chance I could get you and the accountability grid in front of him.
I agree that a working prototype with some demonstrated practical value would be needed first. I also have a solid UX designer connection who would be great with this, too, if you need someone.
(On the other hand, presenting the idea to a university as a project to be built could get a bunch of students in those various areas of expertise you mentioned -- data viz, poly-sci, UX designers -- working on it as, perhaps, a graduate project on the university's dime. But it might lead to less control of the project for you.)
Martin was dropped! 🤯 🎉
I keep telling myself that I can last for 2 years of the republicans tearing down our country and trampling upon the constitution, until the midterms, when I hope dearly they lose the house and senate. What keeps me up at night, is knowing after trump is gone, some of these terrible republicans in congress will still be around spewing hate, lies and racism. I have watched the republican party become something I don’t recognize. A party with no integrity, kindness, morals, character or compassion. Short of them all being voted out, I don’t know how we stop worrying about the next undemocratic issue they will champion.
And...he's out! https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/08/trump-martin-prosecutor-doj-jan6.html
Every decision, every nomination, every move he makes is more vulgar than his last. I really doubt anyone in Congress will stand up to him. It's an incredibly sad time for our nation.
Whether Martin is confirmed for the permanent post or not is really immaterial. Why is it that Trump seems to have softened his stance on Tillis's objection? Because Martin is not the only white supremacist, neo-nazi at Trump's disposal.