Breaking up the dept of education (or eliminating it), overhauling DOJ, cracking down on illegal immigration, replacing civil servants with Trump loyalists and are all things Trump has says he plans to do. He's hedged recently on some social issues like abortion, for example, because he knows a strong anti-abortion stance does not poll well, but he has previously taken full credit for overturn Roe:

Last year, the Heritage Foundation released Project 2025's mandate for leadership, a roughly 900-page policy book for the next administration to follow. Dozens of conservative policy experts contributed to the book.

The book's policy proposals include plans to break up the Department of Education, overhaul the Justice Department, strongly crack down on illegal immigration, replace longtime federal employees with pro-Trump personnel, and pass a slate of socially conservative legislation.

Trump and his supporters often criticize the perceived disloyalty of Trump's political appointments throughout his first term. The former president's personnel issues last time around formed the basis for Project 2025 to begin preparing ahead of time for another Trump term.

Gal Tuesday,
National Review is arguably the most mainstream conservative outlet in existence. When I went to their site and searched "Project 2025" this is what I found:
www.nationalreview.com
#49 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

They may not be writing about Project 2025 per se, but if you search for topics within the Project 2025 Handbook and then look for them at the National Review you may find the information that way. For example:

Trump and his allies plan on restoring Schedule F if he is elected to a second term and using it to remove lifetime bureaucrats opposed to Trump's presidency. The Heritage Foundation is leading a coalition of conservative organizations involved in building "Project 2025," a personnel development effort intended to staff the next Trump administration. These efforts are being conducted with the purpose of removing the anti-Trump "deep state" that plagued the former president throughout his first term.

#55 Like I said, you are fooling yourself but not the rest of us.

Look, I get it. After PNAC....but that was written and signed by the biggest power players on the right.
If you can show me where Project 2025 is getting even remotely the same kind of traction, I'll pay attention.
#50 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Here is some of Axios original reporting from April 2022 on the topic:

A radical plan for Trump's second term

No operation of this scale is possible without the machinery to implement it. To that end, Trump has blessed a string of conservative organizations linked to advisers he currently trusts and calls on. Most of these conservative groups host senior figures from the Trump administration on their payroll, including former chief of staff Mark Meadows.

The names are a mix of familiar and new. They include Jeffrey Clark, the controversial lawyer Trump had wanted to install as attorney general in the end days of his presidency. Clark, who advocated a plan to contest the 2020 election results, is now in the crosshairs of the Jan. 6 committee and the FBI. Clark is working at the Center for Renewing America (CRA), the group founded by Russ Vought, the former head of Trump's Office of Management and Budget.

Former Trump administration and transition officials working on personnel, legal or policy projects for a potential 2025 government include names like Vought, Meadows, Stephen Miller, Ed Corrigan, Wesley Denton, Brooke Rollins, James Sherk, Andrew Kloster and Troup Hemenway.

Others, who remain close to Trump and would be in contention for the most senior roles in a second-term administration, include Dan Scavino, John McEntee, Richard Grenell, Kash Patel, Robert O'Brien, David Bernhardt, John Ratcliffe, Peter Navarro and Pam Bondi.

The advocacy groups who have effectively become extensions of the Trump infrastructure include the CRA, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), and the Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI).

Other groups--while not formally connected to Trump's operation--have hired key lieutenants and are effectively serving his ends. The Heritage Foundation, the legacy conservative group, has moved closer to Trump under its new president, Kevin Roberts, and is building links to other parts of the "America First" movement.

but what kind of backing is it getting?
#38 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You can go here for a list of groups who have contributed to the project:

The Project 2025 Advisory Board (page xi)

Setting that aside, this ruling allows the Exectuvite to make tough time-sensitive decisions regarding national security without a decisive paralysis of fear of prosecution.
#24 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but unfortunately the SC's ruling goes far beyond those types of national security issues, which is why Luttig calls it "an abomination." The SC had other less sweeping options that it could have and should have taken but didn't. As Rangappa concludes:

The worst part of this case is that it becomes obvious that there was a moderate position that the justices could have taken that would have achieved the majority's purported goals. The Court could have simply said that any official act--even one in the outer perimeter of the president's duties--has presumptive immunity. That presumption can be rebutted if the government shows that the action was taken with a corrupt motive or for personal gain. That would have discouraged politically motivated prosecutions, reinforced the rule of law, and helped protect the executive branch. It also would have preserved the difference between lawful and unlawful acts.

Instead, the Court has decided it will not only protect, but enable, the one class of actions that actually should be deterred, criminalized, and prosecuted. And it does so knowing that we are on the brink of authoritarianism. God help us.

Here's the interview in which Luttig makes the statement I've been quoting and explains why:

Luttig RIPS the Supreme Court's ABOMINATION

N0, they didn't. Not at all. And I'm guessing you do understand that ruling offers clarity for FUTURE presidents not named Trump and it came about because no prior president had ever been persecuted in such a manner where this was even an issue, right?
#16 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Like I said, don't take my word for it (emphasis mine): "America's democracy and rule of law are this country's heart and soul. Our democracy and the rule of law are what had made America the envy of the world and the beacon of freedom to the world for almost 250 years now. The SCOTUS cut that heart and soul out of America."

Did someone hack your username? You are not prone to that type of absurd hyperbole.
#17 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

What would you call the aims of Project 2025 if not the means to install Christian nationalism across the land?

"Kevin Roberts, who heads the Heritage Foundation (largely responsible for Project 2025) just implicitly threatened Americans that if we don't allow him and his hard-right movement to complete their transformation of America from a democratic republic into an authoritarian state, there will be blood in the streets."

If Trump becomes president again, I believe there will be. If for no other reason than he will have anti-Trump protesters shot in the streets. I pray I'm wrong, but I'll be shocked if I am.

#12 "We have to destroy democracy in order to save democracy!"
#13 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The Supreme Court has destroyed democracy with the Trump immunity case ruling. But don't take me word for it. that's why I quoted conservative Judge Michael Luttig earlier: "America's democracy and rule of law are this country's heart and soul. Our democracy and the rule of law are what had made America the envy of the world and the beacon of freedom to the world for almost 250 years now. The SCOTUS cut that heart and soul out of America."

The Supreme Court didn't do this to preserve democracy. They did it to make their Christian nationalist ideology the law of the land.

The legal fight over the 2024 election has begun

Former President Trump's team is more focused so far on building a sprawling network of "election integrity" lawyers and poll watchers than on rounding up organizers and door knockers to reach voters.

Why it matters: It's a sign that five months before Election Day, the legal battle over the 2024 race is underway--and that Trump plans to cry "rigged" if he loses, just as it did after the 2020 election and his felony convictions.

So, yet another MAGA lie?
It is starting to look that way.
#3 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

I don't know, but I need more proof. Remember how Trump, Republicans and conservative media had Hillary on her death bed back in 2016, and yet she is still going strong and really hasn't been ailing at all as far as I can tell.

Remember that Thomas' wife was ---- deep in January 6 and Alito's wife has been an insurrectionist sympathizer since January 6.
You don't think they would know about actions being taken to assure ------- wins?
Something smells REAL fishy.
#9 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Republicans are literally planning to challenge the election results in every state. They have been setting up teams and devising strategies to do this for several years. Any and/or all of these cases could make their way to the SC where a 6-3 majority can rule in Trump/the GOP's favor in the necessary battlegound states. It will be Florida 2000 all over again. Game, set, match. Bloodless coup achieved. And they will never look back.

The thing is though that the Courts are part of something way bigger than -------. ------- is only a useful idiot tool for the conservative revolution. He will enable all sorts of fringe conservative policies and theories to be implemented-essentially destroying every liberal/progressive policy passed in the past 100 years. Because ------- has no core values, he will unleash untold disruption and destruction in our society the limits of which cannot be imagined. Project 2025 is a blueprint for the beginning of this revolution-it is what it enables and the court enables that will transform society. The implications of this year's court cases are HUGE.
#6 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Yes, I agree with all of this. Conservatives like Leonard Leo and the Heritage Foundation are using Trump, and Trump is using them. Trump broke down norms with regard to politics and the presidency. The Supreme Court has broken down the norms of established law. Trump's goal is to stay in power as long as possible and to appoint his successor, preferably from his own family. Their goal is to remake America in their image, which is basically Christian nationalism, and to retain conservative power by whatever means necessary, which basically means faux democracy aka fascism in the style of Orban's Hungary. The Republican party is now corrupt and complicit from top to bottom, and the planning for their bloodless coup is very well thought out and very far advanced. Many, including some on the Supreme Court, supported Trump's attempted coup in 2021. Yes, we need to elect a Democratic president in November, but that won't be enough. We also need to elect a Democratic House and Senate as well as state governorships and legislatures. But even that won't be enough. Once elected Democrats will have to take actions that will reign in the Supreme Court. They need to establish ethical guidelines and term limits for the Court. They also need to figure out how to expand it.

Did they do so knowing those powers would only be used by a POTUS amenable to their political views?
#5 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

I think that may have been part of it, but they have also conveniently set themselves up as the one who will be the final deciders if in any such cases should come to pass. They will not doubt find for Republican POTUSes and against Democratic ones. Please read post #3.

That doctor treats more than Parkinson's and according to his last physical he doesn't have it. What he does have is arthritis in his back and neuropathy in his feet, which makes walking painful and his gait stiff:

emptywheel
@emptywheel

Is there a reason why people chasing NYPost's story about Kevin Cannard visiting the White House aren't mentioning the reference in Biden's physical to Dr. O'Connor adding a movement disorder neurologic specialist to track his gait problem in Nov 2021?

So starting in 2021, we should expect regular visits from someone JUST LIKE CANNARD (Cannard starts showing up a year later), AND ALSO a more substantive visit in January, for a full workup on Parkinsons and other diseases.

Note: One reason this happened is bc people who aren't really good at understanding how NYPost propaganda works, never questioned one of their assertions--that Cannard must be exclusively a Parkinsons doctor.

"They would NOT have handed any president this power if they didn't know for a fact it would be handed to a Republican. Keep in mind three justices were appointed by ------- and 2 of the other 3 are insurrectionist/sympathizers."

As Rangappa explains, that's part of the Court's jedi mind trick. They have set themselves up as the final arbitators in these cases, on a case by case basis, which means if Biden (or some other Democrat) becomes president they will reign them in, but if Trump (or some other Republican) becomes president, they won't:

[T]he Court explicitly states that "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives."

This is an astonishing statement, because it effectively means that it does not matter if a President uses the official levers of power with corrupt intent, for personal gain, or as retribution. In other words, the Court engages a sleight of hand where a critical distinction between lawful and unlawful conduct--the heart of criminal law, which rests on whether a person acted with a specific state of mind, or mens rea--ceases to exist when it comes to the President. Once this distinction is erased, the office of the presidency is basically a get out of jail free card, enabling the President to do pretty much anything that could plausibly be characterized as "official."

In other words, the Court has created immunity for the one category of actions where it actually matters-- unlawful official acts--everything else that is left either would have never been prosecuted anyway or was always fair game.

Further, the determination of whether an action is official if left in the hands of the courts. But conveniently, the Court has offered lower courts so little guidance on how to apply its little rubric that it has ensured that the majority will be the final umpire on this question. It's hard not to imagine that the lines will be drawn depending on which party occupies the Oval Office.

FTA:

"I promised in my immediate hot take after the Trump immunity decision was handed down that I would offer some more detailed thoughts once I had a chance to parse the opinion. All I can say that it is even worse than even what I initially thought at first blush. That's because there are so many implications written between the lines that fundamentally alter the balance of power among the branches, not only making the President effectively a king, but making the Court's conservative majority the kingmakers who rubber stamp or veto what kinds of actions get immunity (thereby ensuring that any potential dictator is symbiotically dependent on the Court to preserve his facade of legitimacy)."

This article contains a thorough but easily understandable analysis of just how corrupt and complicit the Supreme Court's decision in the Trump immunity case really is. It also explains why conservative Judge Michael Luttig said of the decision: "America's democracy and rule of law are this country's heart and soul. Our democracy and the rule of law are what had made America the envy of the world and the beacon of freedom to the world for almost 250 years now. The SCOTUS cut that heart and soul out of America."

#8 I'm not sure it's what the nation wants, but it might be what enough voters in swing states want.

"Presidential Staff Won't Have Presidential Immunity"

No problem. The president will simply promise and then proceed to pardon them, and because the power of the presidential pardon is one of a president's official duties, the pardons will stand.

I'm voting mostly for the platform. Doesn't much matter who the candidate is.
#5 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Agreed. "But his debate stumbles" are the new "but her emails", and as this poster predicts "but her covering for Biden" or something else will be the hit on Harris if she replaces him:

This election is not a choice between two individuals, it's a choice between worldviews, between futures. Do we want to continue down the path to multiethnic democracy or do we want to impose a white patriarchal Christian autocracy?

At stake is the entire federal civil service. The machinery of state built since WWII. Freedom & dignity for millions. Yes, democracy itself. That's not an exaggeration. Yet this country's elites have utterly failed to convey those stakes to the populace. A *grotesque* failure.

You can not look at this extraordinary media freakout this last week and not psychologize, not see all kinds of displacement. They can't or won't be serious about Trump & so they are ------- *giddy* at having permission to scold Dems again. Their safe place.

Anyway, my point is just: none of this will change if Harris replaces Biden at the top of the ticket. The idea that the media -- with these soulless careerist court gossips in charge -- will allow it is just fantasy. They *need* Dems in disarray & so they will engineer it.

The US is right on the precipice of falling into bona fide fascism & *the vast majority of the voting public doesn't even know it*. That speaks to a deeply diseased information environment. Until Dems do something about that, all their self-flagellation will buy them nothing.

This is a good site to begin to understand the aims and scope of Project 2025:

The goal being, since Joe has blown the presidential election anyway, to hopefully salvage the House and Senate to slow Hair Furor's roll to despotism.
#3 | POSTED BY CENSORED

The more I read about Project 2025, the more I realize that it is designed to circumvent Congress in the event that the House and the Senate aren't held by the GOP. The plan will work using just the office of the President and the ultimate sanction of the Supreme Court. For example in the chapter on Homeland Security, a department that will be eliminated, btw, this is the proposed strategy:

While acknowledging the constitutional requirement of Senate confirmation of nominees, Cucinelli suggests "a novel approach" to fast-track confirmations of nominees to avoid Senate delay that involves placing conservative nominees into "acting" or interim positions while they await Senate approval. This step would "guarantee implementation of the Day One agenda and equip the department for potential emergency situations while still honoring the confirmation requirement," writes Cucinelli.

I will support a Biden replacement--Harris, Whitmer, Newsom, Beshear, Buttigieg, to name a few people i've heard proposed. Harris has the best shot in that she is the most likely to be able to get the money the Biden campaign has raised, although it's not guaranteed as the article points out, but the devil is in the details as they say and as the article esplains. So, what's the plan, gents?

Doc, quoting poetry, which you know I love, is cool, but it's not a plan.

Censored, at least you acknowledge your plan is to relinquish the presidency and "to hopefully salvage the House and Senate to slow Hair Furor's roll to despotism." Democrats may be able to get the House back. Not so sure, even before this, they can hold the Senate.

A friend texted this article to me tonight, and I decided to post it because it reminded me a a Twitter thread I read earlier tonight and amplified on it.

FTA:

You all love military metaphors. Military terminology.

This is war! you shout. We're in this fight to the end! We're ready for battle!

I've been to war. Couple times now. War was my profession, most of my life. I don't recommend it, but it worked for me. I know something about it.

This is the Twitter thread I read earlier:

Dave Troy
@davetroy
1/In pilot training, you learn how to recover from a stall-spin, a dangerous condition where you're rotating, nose-down, and losing altitude fast. The natural instinct is to whip the control yoke hard in the direction opposite the spin. But that's bad, and will kill you...

2/because you can't regain airflow over your wings and regain lift. Gravity takes over, and then you die. If you want to live, you have to overcome that instinct and use the rudder to stop rotating, regain lift, and regain altitude. It's hard to do--because instincts.

3/Today, we see a chorus of people absolutely out of their minds, with no deep understanding of contemporary political dynamics, insisting at the top of their lungs to follow the worst instincts possible. It's shameful, embarrassing, unhelpful--and deadly. It needs to stop.

4/Some in the chorus are just stupid. Some mean well but are not well-informed. Some are downright evil. Either way, it all ends in the same way: in a smoking hole with a lot of dead passengers. Unless the pilots take control and shut the lot of you up, we're all doomed.

5/Without cooler heads taking control, we are going to lose the country. As both a pilot and as someone who has studied our political dynamics in a cross-disciplinary way more than most people, the lack of self-control here is alarming. Instincts, unchecked, will kill us all.

6/So on this 4th of July, I implore those calling for Drastic Actions to shut up and think hard about they are doing, who it benefits, and the distinct possibility that not only are they wrong, they are going to cause a deadly disaster. Stop now. For America.