We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsA Hard Look At Donald Trump

Previous 10 Next 10 
From: Brumar8910/25/2021 1:35:09 PM
   of 30321

There have been more than 1.6 million arrests at the southern border this year... Yet, the Biden administration still has done nothing to manage this crisis.

Andrew "[Joke has been redacted]" Sherrod

Except the 1.6 million arrests...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Brumar8910/25/2021 5:13:40 PM
2 Recommendations   of 30321
The Easiest Case for the Prosecution: Trump’s Aiding and Abetting Unlawful Occupation of the Capitol

by Albert W. Alschuler
October 25, 2021

Knowing whether former President Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 violated one or more criminal statutes is important for several reasons. First, the public should know whether Trump committed any crimes. Second, identifying potential crimes can shape what the House Select Committee investigates. Third, Trump’s potential criminality affects Congress’s ability to obtain information in the face of a claim of executive privilege. And finally, identifying likely crimes could determine whether the Justice Department pursues a criminal investigation and then prosecutes the former president.

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe and former U.S. Attorneys Barbara McQuade and Joyce White Vance have presented “a roadmap for the Justice Department to follow in investigating” whether Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election were criminal. Acknowledging that the facts did not yet establish any crime beyond a reasonable doubt, they listed a half-dozen offenses they said merited investigation.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s chief legal analyst, answered “not so fast.” Reviewing the offenses listed by Tribe, McQuade, and Vance, Toobin concluded, “[T]here is no basis to prosecute Trump and little reason even to open an investigation.”

Neither Tribe and his coauthors nor Toobin mentioned what may be the clearest case for prosecuting the former president. By violating his legal duty to do what he could to end the unlawful occupation of the Capitol, Trump became an accomplice to that crime. He is subject to the same punishment as the rioters who entered the building.

More than 575 of the 674 people charged in the Jan. 6 insurrection have been charged with unlawfully entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. This offense is usually a misdemeanor, but it becomes a felony punishable by as much as 10 years in prison when it results in significant bodily injury or when an offender uses or carries a dangerous weapon or firearm during the crime.

Failing to prevent a crime usually does not make someone an accomplice, but it is sufficient when this person had a legal duty to intervene. For this reason, a railroad conductor who failed to prevent passengers from transporting bootleg liquor was himself convicted of transporting the liquor. Similarly, a parent who made no effort to stop an assault on her child was guilty of the assault herself. And a police officer who arranges to be somewhere else at the time of a robbery aids and abets the robbery. This officer can be convicted along with the robbers at the scene.

The Constitution gave Trump a clear legal duty to intervene. Article II, Section 3 provides, “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision permits good-faith exercises of law-enforcement discretion, but a president unmistakably violates his duty when he refuses to enforce the law because he wants a crime to occur—when, for example, he hopes to advance his own interests through the criminal conduct of others. As abundant evidence shows, that’s what transpired on Jan. 6.

Trump’s ability to enforce the law was unique. Like other public officials, he could have sought the assistance of additional police officers or military forces, but, unlike anyone else in America, he had a less costly and probably more effective way to bring the crime to a halt: He could simply have asked his followers to stop.

More than three hours after the rioters violently entered the Capitol grounds and two hours after they forced their way into the building, Trump did post a video telling them to go home. But he resisted sending any cease-and-desist message earlier, thereby violating his duty to see the law enforced.

Trump had another legal duty—a duty apart from his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”—to do what he could to end the occupation. Even if his direction to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell” was not intended to start a riot, it led to violence and placed the Vice President and members of Congress in peril. A person who creates a physical danger—even innocently—has a legal duty to take reasonable measures to prevent injury from occurring. Someone who’s started a fire can’t just let it burn out of control.

Trump could not be convicted without proof of his criminal intent, but his desire for continued occupation of the Capitol seems clear. Why else did he fail for hours to ask his supporters to desist, and why, even then, did he tell these criminals “we love you” and “you’re very special”? And why, according to ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl, did the first takes of his message leave out a request to end the occupation, prompting his aides to request repeated do-overs?

A president unmistakably violates his duty when he refuses to enforce the law because he wants a crime to occur.

White House officials told a Republican senator that Trump was “delighted” when rioters pushed their way past police officers to enter the building. A close advisor to the President informed the Washington Post that “rather than appearing appalled, Trump was , , , enjoying the spectacle and encouraged to see his supporters fighting for him.” Officials told Kate Collins of CNN that Trump was “borderline enthusiastic because it meant the certification [of the election] was being derailed.” Trump booster Sen. Lindsey Graham observed, “The president saw [the rioters] as allies in his journey.”

Trump’s rebuffs of specific requests for assistance supply further proof of his intent. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy now refuses to confirm or deny it, but he told House members of Trump’s response to McCarthy’s urgent request for presidential action—“Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig reported that Ivanka Trump urged her father repeatedly to ask the rioters to disperse, that White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and other White House staff encouraged her effort, and that Trump refused to take calls from advisors he knew would give him the same message. New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote that “many aides believed Trump was pleased by what he was seeing . . . as he repeatedly refused requests to get him to say something clearly rejecting the violence.”

Second-hand reports of Trump’s behavior during the Jan. 6 occupation are inadmissible hearsay, but the House Select Committee can seek and require the testimony of people who observed Trump’s conduct and heard his remarks. A federal grand jury convened by the Justice Department should investigate Trump’s conduct as well.

Trump has instructed his former aides and unofficial advisors to resist the Select Committee’s subpoenas by claiming executive privilege. One, Steve Bannon, already has refused to appear, and the House has voted to hold him in contempt.

Failing to prevent a crime usually does not make someone an accomplice, but it is sufficient when this person had a legal duty to intervene.

The Supreme Court has recognized that executive privilege “survives the individual President’s tenure,” but when Congress seeks “important” information that cannot be obtained elsewhere, this privilege is unavailable. Moreover, although no court has ruled on the issue, executive privilege must be subject to the same “crime-fraud” exception as the privilege for confidential attorney-client communications. A client’s statement to a lawyer that he intends to go on committing a crime is not privileged.

To establish the “crime-fraud” exception, the committee would need to present a prima facie case that Trump engaged in criminal conduct. If the committee were to rely only on the crimes listed by Tribe, McQuade, and Vance, that showing might be difficult, but establishing a prima facie case that Trump unlawfully aided the occupation of the Capitol looks easy. A judicial determination of the former president’s criminality could come quickly (for example, in contempt-of-Congress proceedings), and with that determination, his invocation of executive privilege would have backfired.

Both the Select Committee and a federal grand jury should also investigate the serious crimes listed in Tribe, McQuade, and Vance’s roadmap. Although the Select Committee appears to be considering evidence of these offenses, there is no sign the Justice Department has begun an investigation.

The most serious of the crimes on the roadmap is inciting an insurrection, but, as the authors acknowledged, a court might rule that Trump’s remarks on Jan. 6 were protected by the First Amendment. That obstacle would disappear if the government sought to punish, not the incitement (or not just the incitement), but Trump’s refusal to enforce the law after the insurrection began. Even if Trump’s remarks could not be punished, they could be received in evidence as proof of his intent. Although his call to “fight like hell” initially might have seemed ambiguous, the ambiguity disappeared when Trump’s supporters invaded the building and he refused to call them off.

Trump surely must have intended at least the illegal occupation. In addition, his refusal to enforce the law would make him an accomplice to every other crime he sought to promote.

President Biden is said to have little appetite for prosecuting his predecessor, and Attorney General Garland may share the president’s concern that an attempt to send Trump to prison would polarize our nation even further. There is indeed reason for concern, but Biden could avoid imprisoning Trump and could move toward healing America by pardoning him and other Jan. 6 offenders after a conviction. Truth could precede forgiveness. Biden might follow the example of President Washington who, in the first U.S. pardons ever given, extended amnesty to participants in the Whiskey Rebellion and set aside the death sentences of two of its leaders.

The time to forgive Trump is not now, and the way to forgive him is not for the Justice Department to rule out prosecution from the outset. Far from desisting or repenting, Trump continues to praise the crime he aided and abetted. On Oct. 21, as the House asked the Justice Department to prosecute Steve Bannon for criminal contempt, Trump issued this “war is peace” proclamation: “The insurrection took place on . . . Election Day. Jan. 6 was the protest!” Prosecuting 674 foot soldiers while exempting their chief for political reasons would be disgraceful.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (27560)10/25/2021 5:14:46 PM
From: Brumar89
3 Recommendations   of 30321
The January 6th scandal just exploded – and these House Republicans may go down for it
Bill Palmer | 9:09 am EDT October 25, 2021 Palmer Report

There are always two things to keep in mind about federal criminal investigations into a wide scale criminal conspiracy: 1) the Feds work from the bottom up, busting the low level henchmen and trying to flip them upwards – meaning we never do know for sure whether the higher ups will end up indicted until the probe has advanced quite a ways. 2) the DOJ makes indictment decisions based on whether there’s at least an 85-90% chance of conviction at trial, meaning there has to be substantial evidence against them in order for them to go down.

This brings us to the DOJ criminal probe into the January 6th Capitol attack, which thus far has resulted in hundreds of low level arrests as the probe has attempted to work its way upward. Now we’re getting solid confirmation that this effort is succeeding. Rolling Stone is reporting that multiple leaders of the Capitol attack are cooperating with the DOJ, and ratting out several political higher ups in the process.

According to the leaders who are cooperating, Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows helped coordinate the January 6th protests, and refused to intervene once they turned violent. Worse, House Republican Paul Gosar goaded the Capitol attackers ahead of time by dangling a “blanket pardon” in an “unrelated ongoing investigation” in exchange for carrying out the protests.

Two thoughts immediately come to mind here. First, if this reporting is accurate, then Gosar might as well start getting fitted for a prison jumpsuit. Offering pardons in exchange for, well, anything is a felony – and offering pardons in exchange for leading protests that turned into an insurrection is a whole lot of felonies.

Second, if you’re thinking that Paul Gosar can’t pardon anyone, you’re right. Gosar was clearly offering to have Donald Trump pardon these January 6th ringleaders. It’s not clear if Gosar was merely floating this on his own, or if he discussed it with Trump before making the offer. But if it’s the latter, this might be the smoking gun that finally nails Trump on federal charges for public corruption.

In any case, it’s clear that the lid has now been blown completely off the January 6th criminal conspiracy. Over the weekend the Washington Post exposed the Trump command center at the Willard Hotel during the insurrection. At the time, Palmer Report pointed to this as a sign that the media was finally gearing up to push January 6th front and center in its daily coverage, and to specifically the role that Trump and his people played in helping to plan the attack. Now this Rolling Stone expose further points to this process being underway.

Now that the bright lights are shining on this criminal conspiracy, we’re likely about to see some cockroaches scattering. The Rolling Stone article says that Lauren Boebert, Mo Brooks, Andy Biggs, Louie Gohmert, and Madison Cawthorn all either met with or sent staffers to meet with the insurrectionists to plot the January 6th rally. Given that these staffers are surely going to face criminal scrutiny, we’ll see if any of them abruptly resign, which we could take as a sign that they plan to flip on their bosses.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (27561)10/25/2021 5:16:38 PM
From: Brumar89
2 Recommendations   of 30321

The so-called “Goyim Defense League” hung a banner declaring “Vax the Jews” from an overpass near a large concentration of Austin’s Jewish population, while a high school was vandalized with antisemitic slogans the same day, leaving local Jews in shock.

Austin Jewish Community Stung by Two Antisemitic Outrages on Same Day
A white supremacist group with a record of pushing “vitriolic antisemitic propaganda” carried out another outrage in Austin, Texas on…

Austin Jewish Community Stung by Two Antisemitic Outrages on Same Day by Algemeiner Staff

Supporters of the “Goyim Defense League”, some making Nazi salutes, hung an antisemitic banner at an overpass in Austin, Texas. Photo: Twitter

A white supremacist group with a record of pushing “vitriolic antisemitic propaganda” carried out another outrage in Austin, Texas on Saturday, as a high school in the same city was vandalized with antisemitic slogans in a separate incident, leaving local Jews in shock.

Supporters of the so-called “Goyim Defense League” hung a banner at an overpass in the city that declared “Vax the Jews” along with a link advertising the group’s website. The location of the overpass near Far West Boulevard is home to a large concentration of Austin’s Jewish population, with the Shalom Austin Jewish Community Center and no fewer than four congregations nearby.

The same group has been responsible for similar actions over the last year, including a banner that was hung at an overpass in Los Angeles in August that stated, “The Jews Want a Race War.”

The group was also behind the harassment of pro-Israel activists who attended a rally in Boca Raton, Fl. at the height of the war between Israel and Hamas in May this year. A white van emblazoned with racist messages including “Hitler Was Right” and “Vax the Jews,” while flying a Palestinian flag, repeatedly drove around the rally.

Austin’s mayor condemned the banner as a violation of the city’s values.

“I am heartbroken to see antisemitic hatred in Austin, a welcoming and respectful place,” Mayor Steve Adler wrote on Twitter. “Hatred of any kind has no place in our city.”

On Saturday, Rabbi Daniel Septimus — the CEO of Shalom Austin — sent a letter to community members stating: “We understand this is extremely upsetting and unsettling. We are always vigilant in monitoring antisemitic groups and work closely with law enforcement to share information about their activities.”

There was controversy over the police response to the banner, when one officer who arrived at the scene to organize its removal was seen fist bumping with one of the far right activists. The Austin Police Department later explained that the officer had been carrying out his mission to remove the banner peacefully. “Hate and bigotry have absolutely no place in our community and certainly are not welcome in our police department,” Austin police chief Joseph Chacon said in a statement on Sunday.

According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the “Goyim Defense League” espouses “vitriolic antisemitism via the internet, through propaganda distributions and in street actions.” The ADL has described the group in a briefing as a “small network of virulently antisemitic provocateurs led by Jon Minadeo II of Petaluma, California.” Its main centers of activity are in California, Colorado, Florida and New York. The term ‘goyim’ is a derogatory word in Yiddish and Hebrew for “non-Jews.”

The antisemitic banner was sighted on Saturday as police were called to a separate incident of antisemitic vandalism in Austin.

Racist and antisemitic slogans and symbols were daubed across several parking spots at Anderson High School. One senior at the school, Aiden Horwitz, told local CBS News that “it was just really scary to see that going into school.”

Horwitz added: “It’s just surprising that this is still happening in 2021 and that this hate is still so prevalent in the world.”

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (27562)10/25/2021 6:04:40 PM
From: Brumar89
1 Recommendation   of 30321
Trump Was No Reagan Conservatism has had better leaders in the past and could have such leaders once again, if it would just get off this damn train.

Justin Stapley

The original version of this article was published as a guest article on the Saving Elephants blog.

Over the years, many of President Trump’s supporters have claimed numerous similarities between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan.

They point at the irrational fear that gripped the media and others as President Reagan took office in order to excuse the ever-present fear during Donald Trump’s presidency and the fear that he’ll run again.

They point at Reagan’s past as a member of the Democratic Party to excuse Donald Trump’s former left-leaning beliefs and activity in Democratic circles.

They trumpeted the fact that Making America Great Again was one of Reagan’s slogans and believed that Trump returned conservatism to form, shook things up, and re-established Reagan Era conservatism by refusing to back down and refusing to be politically correct.

They disregarded concerns about Trump’s ability to hold office given his lack of experience and ignored derisions of Trump as a reality tv politician by saying, “They said the same about Reagan, the actor!”

While there are definitely some circumstantial similarities, these are predominantly surface parallels. A deeper inspection would reveal that Ronald Reagan had very stark fundamental differences with Donald Trump, amounting to distinct underpinnings of ideological disagreement and dramatically alternate visions for the country’s direction.

Ronald Reagan and Modern Conservatism’s CoalitionRonald Reagan was President at a juncture of history that many political scientists and historians consider the height of modern conservatism. He not only presided over a moment in our nation’s history where the most significant swath of American voters affirmed their acceptance of a conservative national direction but also at a point where conservatism, in general, was the most united around a single cohesive vision.

Modern conservatism has flavorings of both neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism because it involved a developed coalition between three generalized factions represented by Barry Goldwater (libertarians), Pat Buchanan (paleoconservatives/social conservatives), and Henry Kissinger (foreign policy hawks).

Ronald Reagan was a successful candidate and effective president primarily because he tapped into, maintained, and championed the unique ideology of this coalition while preserving flexibility in policy as realities dictated. This unique ideology, often called fusionism, was concerned with limited government, moral imperatives, constitutional orthodoxy, fiscal responsibility, and international strength with singular and practical purpose.

The Coalition is DeadIt is important to understand that the coalition of modern conservatism is dissolved, and its ideology is fragmented. Modern conservatism has generally devolved into separate bickering camps of libertarians (Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie), neoconservatives (John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake), and a new amalgamation of paleo and social conservatives that we can call populist nationalism, chiefly represented by Donald Trump and most conservative talk radio hosts.

Populist nationalism has risen to the forefront of Republican Party direction because the libertarian and neoconservative branches of conservatism vehemently oppose each other and have proven feckless in mounting a unified front in moderating the rise of populist nationalism.

The coalition fell apart for many reasons, some connected and some not. I will only attempt to list several main reasons for the purposes of example.

Neoconservatives dominated party leadership post-Clinton and led America into the Iraq War while engaging in Keynesian economics and centrist social platforms at home, alienating libertarians and social conservatives.

Paleo and social conservatism came to dominate the conservative media complex (Fox News and Talk Radio). This complex has come to revolve mostly around personalities who have grown rich engaging in provocation and anti-intellectual punditry. That these personalities and their media companies have become the so-called “gatekeepers” of conservativism has alienated libertarians and neoconservatives who must either pander to the personalities and their viewers or be left impotent and irrelevant.

Meanwhile, libertarians have become more and more marginalized over the last thirty years and have embraced their existence as outliers and increasingly live up to their characterizations as crackpots and anarchists.

Many libertarians owe more deference to Ayn Rand (someone who cared very little for Reagan) and a branch of libertarianism more attached to European anarchism and minarchism than anything in American political traditions. For example, we can look at the behavior of overly-zealous Ron Paul supporters in the 2008 and 2012 elections (particularly the attempted hostile takeovers of Republican Party caucuses). Their hardcore adherence to extreme libertarian doctrine keeps them from engaging in coalition building or embracing the traditions of fusionism.

With the coalition dead, the conservative movement and the Republican Party were ripe for a usurper who could tap into animating and motivating anger to create a new populist nationalism.

Populist NationalismSo, what is populist nationalism, why is it different than modern conservatism, and why do the underpinnings of this new movement make Donald Trump so different from Ronald Reagan?

Chiefly, the motivation is not to conserve any type of moral or geopolitical norms but to restore an “American Ideal” that allegedly existed sometime in the past and now faces an existential threat of being defeated completely.

This may not seem like a significant difference, but it is a foundational shift that creates an entirely new narrative and introduces new motivations, rationale, and behaviors.

Modern conservatism was concerned with maintaining a status quo, an established order, and a balance of power under an established constitutional orthodoxy. It sought to make its argument to as many Americans as possible and craft a “big tent” (Reagan liked to assert that someone who agrees with you on four out of five issues is 80 percent a friend, not 20 percent an enemy).

This is in complete contrast with Donald Trump and his populist-nationalist approach.

Populist nationalism believes in the “Bull In The China Shop” ideal of political leadership (“Trump was our bull in their china shop”). They feel that our nation’s government, our nation’s institutions, and our prevailing and rising “liberal” culture has engaged in a systematic attack upon “Middle America” and must therefore be torn down, burned down, and dismantled at the seams by any means and through any strategy possible.

Populist nationalism is not concerned with maintaining any ideal of norms but rather with victory-at-all-costs over the “other” who its adherents see as endangering and preventing a return to “American Greatness,” whether that be Islamic Terrorists, Liberal Media, Illegal Immigrants, College Elites, Progressive Politicians, the GOP Establishment, Environmentalists, or any other group which is viewed as threatening or having already corroded the “American Ideal.”

While modern conservatism was concerned with orthodoxy, populist nationalism feels that any form of moral or ideological constraint weakens its ability to combat the existential threat presented by the “other” (this is why “playing by the rules” is now derided as weakness when it was once a sign of moral authority).

Winning at all costs is the only consistent motivation of populist nationalism and why shifting ideals and norms are defended or attacked based on the motivation of the actions (An extra-legal executive order or arbitrary presidential action by President Obama was an outrage because it supported the “enemy” but similar behavior from President Trump got celebrated because it helped “us”).

Even with all of this, the most significant difference between Trump and Reagan is that Trump had no interest in building coalitions, engaging in big tent politics, or in selling his vision to the country as a whole. In fact, his approach was the complete opposite.

President Trump believed if you weren’t 100% with him, you were 100% against him. He chiefly pandered to his base while disregarding all others as “losers” whose opinions and concerns could be disregarded based on his electoral victory…and his followers followed him in that mantra.

That’s why Mark Sanford lost his primary election despite voting over 80% for Trump initiatives. That’s why Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan were seen as the “evil establishment” even though their efforts have directly resulted in most Trump policy victories (Supreme Court nominations and the Tax Plan are good examples).

That’s why Republicans who were hesitant or unwilling to shout praises to Trump’s name got called RINOs, traitors, and “cuckservatives” until they were hammered into submission or pushed into irrelevancy, regardless of where they actually stood on the issues.

That’s why anti-Trump protestors in the wake of the 2016 election were derided as “cry-babies” and “snowflakes” in a break against the tradition of newly elected Presidents attempting to consolidate the nation post-election (also an interesting example of cognitive dissonance considering what happened after Trump lost in 2020).

Reagan sought common cause with the various factions of conservatism and communicated to his opponents that while they disagreed in many instances, he believed they still deserved a place at the table of discussion.

Under his direction, Trump and the Republican Party actively purged the GOP of libertarians, neoconservatives, moderates, and anybody not willing to get with the program. And, they engaged in a systematic campaign that declared any viewpoint dissenting from Trump’s vision of America as quintessentially anti-American.

Reagan believed in pluralism and envisioned an America where dramatically different beliefs and ideologies could live together in coexistence under the constitutional order. Trump believed in himself as the dispenser of what American Greatness is, of what things should come first to put America First, and attempted to make himself an avatar of America to his followers. To Trump and his supporters, opposing Trump was the same as opposing America.

From Ascendancy To the Last Puff of SmokeRonald Reagan so totally changed the political dynamic of the United States (He won 49 states in 1984) that for the first time since Roosevelt and Truman, a full-term President was followed by a President of his own party. The opposing party felt forced to pick a Democrat from Arkansas who portrayed himself as very much a moderate in order to defeat the incumbent four years after Reagan left office (and it still took a split conservative vote for Clinton to win).

Speak to somebody about a “golden age of conservatism,” and chances are they will think Reagan. Even in the ’90s, Bill Clinton generally governed as a moderate (Hillary was always the true progressive believer). Obama, Trump, and Biden-era Democrats would condemn most of Clinton’s policy decisions.

Conservatism under Reagan and after Reagan was inclusive, ascendant, dominant, and indestructible.

Today, conservatism looks very different. No longer confident or inclusive, it is angry and hostile. No longer ascendant as a “moral majority,” polls show a growing majority of Americans see conservatism as backward and narrow-minded, back-biting, and even racist.

Instead of dominant and indestructible, conservatism’s opponents can easily pander to identity politics and promises of free education and healthcare to cobble together coalitions to threaten Republicans in state and national elections.

Whereas Reagan once turned the entire map red, the national electoral map looks more impossibly blue every election (Even Trump, whose supporters herald as the “map breaker,” seems to have broken the map in favor of the Democrats).

Ronald Reagan left his mark on Generation X (the most consistently conservative generation in most polls) by converting them to his vision and making them part of his coalition. Donald Trump has nearly completely alienated the Millennial Generation, who now vote more overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates than any previous generation (and Post-Millenials are trending even further left).

While 2020 wasn’t quite a “blue wave,” it nevertheless handed both the executive and legislative branches to the Democrats. And, they have largely been successful at undoing Trump’s actions, reaffirming Obama’s legacy, and proceeding to make the national conversation revolve around a quite progressive legislative vision.

While Reagan left office with his legacy firmly in place and his principles held dear by most Americans, President Trump left office with the disdain of well over half the country. While the governing priorities of the Democratic Party have left the door open for a resurgent Republican Party, Donald Trump’s continued influence in the GOP and among conservatives are seriously hobbling the opportunity to take back Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024.

The bombastic way that President Trump and his supporters sought and gained short-term victories on policy has seriously damaged long-term goals of principle and vision.

Defeat Is Not Set in StoneDespite the realities of populist nationalism, despite the bombastic and derisive approach with which Donald Trump addressed the nation and exercised his office, and despite the rabid support he received on one side and the rabid opposition he received on the other, Trump’s presidency does not have to be doomed as a disaster for conservatism’s future. All it would take for conservatism to turn a corner is a healthy dose of self-awareness.

If a majority of conservatives could understand many of the realities that I have attempted to lay out, it could become possible to take steps towards reversing the dissolution of the once-powerful conservative coalition. If this could happen, many untapped groups of Americans might find that their interests would be well aligned with a renewed conservative “big tent.”

Millennials, despite voting overwhelmingly for leftist politicians, also demonstrate unique and broad support for libertarian ideas. Many groups engulfed in identity politics, especially recent immigrants, feel forced to set aside their generally social conservative religious and cultural beliefs to vote for Democrats. Texas, for example, has traditionally been one of the most powerful bastions of conservatism and has probably been so because it has embraced its Hispanic population.

And, a renewed understanding of how Reagan’s foreign policy approach struck a good balance between strength and prudence could win over many Americans equally frustrated with the foreign quagmires of Bush, Obama, Trump, and now Biden.

But, conservatives need to understand that they can’t save themselves if they go down shouting glory to Trump to the bitter end.

By all means, point out the radical nature of Biden’s agenda and call out the left-biased media for their cognitive dissonance, intellectual inconsistency, and pure hypocrisy, but do so without smearing yourself by refusing to unhitch yourself from the dumpster fire that was Trump’s presidency.

Turn off talk radio for a moment and recall that most of you initially voted for Trump because you were voting against Hillary, because Trump was the lesser of two evils, and because the Supreme Court was not something we could lose.

If, at the tail end of a single-term presidency, you’re still heralding Donald Trump as some sort of political messiah, consider that supporting him and standing by him has changed you, and not for the better.

Conservatives were once umpires of those that claimed to represent them and not unconditional cheerleaders. Conservatives once held higher expectations of character and dignity in themselves and their leaders than they did their opposition and didn’t justify failings in morals, norms, or rhetoric by engaging in toxic moral equivocations (Whataboutism).

Conservatives once overcame false characterizations from the media and their opposition by maintaining intellectual consistency, unchanging principles, and clear, persuasive language. Instead, the Trump era has seen a squandering of copious amounts of limited political capital running interference for the vague language of an ideologically meandering and disgraced former President who can’t move on from his embarrassing defeat for the good of the country, the good of the party, or the good of conservative values.

Reagan Did Not Believe In “Trust Me” Government“I am your voice,” said Donald Trump to the shouting praise of the Republican National Convention in 2016, “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”

This was the main plank of Trumpism, the assertion that Donald Trump believed was his grandest argument in his case to lead the country and the thing that motivated so many to support him and defend him no matter what.

To follow Trump was to believe the system was broken, corrupt, and could not have been fixed by anyone else but Donald Trump. To follow Trump was to believe that an attack upon him was an attack upon you because he was your voice. To follow Trump was to believe that those who could not stomach him were okay with the status quo, were the status quo, and didn’t matter anymore.

This is what Ronald Reagan called “Trust Me” government, and it is what he chiefly stepped forward into the realm of presidential politics to oppose. Thirty-six years before Donald Trump declared himself the sole political savior of the conservative cause, the man we affectionately remember as “the Gipper” stood at a very different Republican National Convention and spoke as if in direct challenge to the direction the Republican Party took under Donald J. Trump:

“‘Trust me’ government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties….I ask you not simply to ‘Trust me,’ but to trust your values–our values–and to hold me responsible for living up to them.”

Conservatism does have a way forward. It does have a path back to ascendancy and endurance. It doesn’t have to die as one last puff of smoke or go loudly, but impotently, into the night of American history. The train does not have to go over the cliff of reactionary suicide or descend into a gulf of things that were…things that will not be so again. We can still have a future but only if we can fully understand that when it comes to Donald Trump…he was no Reagan.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Brumar8910/26/2021 8:13:17 AM
1 Recommendation   of 30321
Did it really come this close?

But they did not come into Jan 6th without a strategy. They did have one very specific thing they were after that they needed the mob's help with: delay. They needed to stop the certification of electoral votes in the hopes that one state, any state, would decertify.


And if you can delay the vote, you give Trump a chance to work over GOP governors in AZ and GA. All he needed was one of them to say "hey, we are concerned enough about voting irregularities that we want to decertify" and you create enough doubt to paralyze Congress.

If you can get the mob to push around a few cops, shove some barriers, even get the cops to fire some tear gas, you can get Congress to delay the vote and flee the building, especially when the Vice President and Secret Service are inside.

What they needed was two things: time and a show of force. A rowdy crowd of thousands outside the Capitol helped them with both of these things. It showed GOP state legislatures how passionate their base was about the issue and could create a security concern that delayed voting.

2) Congress did not delay. To their credit and to the credit of Mike Pence, they refused to walk away and give Trump the time he needed. They reconvened and still certified that day. Without more time, there was nothing the seditionists could do. It was over.

But two things happened that the seditionists did not expect: 1) the mob broke into the Capitol and started hurting cops. Any hope Trump had of getting a governor to decertify was gone when the protest became an unruly mob of would-be terrorists. They became the bad guys.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Brumar8910/26/2021 8:33:30 AM
1 Recommendation   of 30321
Jan. 6 investigators privately question Bannon associate

By Betsy Woodruff Swan, Heather Caygle and Kyle Cheney 16 hrs ago

Dustin Stockton, a conservative activist linked to Steve Bannon, is fielding questions Monday from congressional investigators scrutinizing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, according to two sources familiar with the interview.

.A spokesperson for the committee declined to comment. Stockton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Stockton previously drew national media attention for his connection to We Build The Wall, a crowdfunding effort that purported to raise money to construct a wall on the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Prosecutors in New York charged Steve Bannon and three others with defrauding donors in relation to the fund. In his final weeks in office, Trump pardoned Bannon for his involvement.

Stockton has not been charged with any wrongdoing but has reportedly been linked to the investigation. He’s spoken to multiple media outlets about the events leading up to the Capitol attack.

In the days and weeks leading up to the pro-Trump Jan. 6 rallies, Stockton heavily promoted the event. And in the aftermath, he has defended some of the militia groups who had significant contingents charged with participating in the attack on the Capitol.

The Jan. 6 select committee subpoenaed 11 organizers of the pro-Trump rallies that preceded the riot. Stockton was not among them, but he has ties to some of those involved. Several of the top organizers, including Women For America First leader Amy Kremer and “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander, were subpoenaed to testify this week. It’s unclear if they’ve indicated their plans to cooperate.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Glenn Petersen10/26/2021 12:56:56 PM
1 Recommendation   of 30321
Rep. Mo Brooks, denying planning role in Jan. 6 rally, says he’d be ‘proud’ if his staff helped out

By Timothy Bella
The Washington Post
Today at 10:08 a.m. EDT|
Updated today at 11:16 a.m. EDT

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) on Monday disputed a report that he had a role in organizing the rally on Jan. 6 that immediately preceded the riot at the U.S. Capitol. But his denial came with a note: Brooks said he would be “proud” if any of his staff had a role in planning the rally held moments before a riot that caused five deaths and hundreds of people being injured.

Brooks responded to a Rolling Stone report that found the GOP congressman or his staff to have been in contact with two unnamed organizers of the Jan. 6 rally and similar gatherings following the 2020 presidential election.

He told that the “beginning” of his involvement in the rally was when the White House asked him to speak the day before, saying he “had no intentions of going to that rally until Jan. 5.” While the congressman could not say whether any of his staff worked on the Jan. 6 rally, he acknowledged that he would be happy if they had helped organize it.

“Quite frankly, I’d be proud of them if they did help organize a First Amendment rally to protest voter fraud and election theft,” Brooks said of his staff to the outlet.

Brooks, who has pushed falsehoods about “massive voter fraud” during the 2020 election without evidence, repeated his answer to CNN’s Melanie Zanona on Monday, specifying that he would be proud if any of his staff had a role in planning the Jan. 6 rally “ at the Ellipse.”

A spokesman for Brooks did not immediately respond to a request for comment early Tuesday from The Post. Brooks has previously said he did not do anything wrong by speaking at the event.

The Alabama congressman’s response comes at a time when Brooks, who is running for a U.S. Senate seat next year, has been accused in a lawsuit of helping to incite the riot.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) filed a lawsuit earlier this year against Brooks, former president Donald Trump and several others for giving speeches at the Jan. 6 rally in which they falsely claimed the 2020 election results were fraudulent and encouraged rallygoers to march on the Capitol, where Congress was holding an accounting of the electoral college votes that would make Joe Biden president. Brooks, who told the crowd at the rally to “start taking down names and kicking a--,” asked a federal judge in August to grant him immunity from the lawsuit.

Earlier this month, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection issued another round of subpoenas for those connected to the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the violent insurrection at the Capitol. In the weeks leading up to Jan. 6, right-wing provocateur Ali Alexander, the leader of Stop the Steal, said in a since-deleted video that he had planned to put “maximum pressure on Congress” during the vote to certify the electoral college votes. In that video, he claimed he had help from three GOP lawmakers: Brooks and Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.) and Paul A. Gosar (Ariz.). Brooks and Biggs previously denied aiding Alexander with planning the rally.

On Sunday, Rolling Stone reported that Brooks was among a GOP group of House lawmakers, including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Madison Cawthorn (N.C.) and Lauren Boebert (Colo.), who either planned or had top staff members plan the Jan. 6 rally. The report did not specify the level of involvement that Brooks or his staff had in organizing the rally.

Brooks told the Montgomery Advertiser that he only agreed to speak at the rally that day if he was given an early time slot and enough time to speak, saying he was focused on speeches intended for Congress as the chambers certified the election results. He maintained that he had no role in fundraising for the rally or overseeing logistics.

“I was really busy,” Brooks said to the newspaper. “I was working on speeches for the House floor debates.”

Yet Brooks, who acknowledged he was wearing body armor at the rally, urged the Trump supporters gathered on the Ellipse near the White House to fight back against voter fraud. The congressman later claimed he was referring to elections in 2022 and 2024.

Brooks, without evidence, blamed “militants,” such as the Proud Boys and QAnon, for the riot instead of Trump supporters.

“They executed that attack by using the rally as cover, and also using the rally to induce other people to attack the Capitol,” he told the Advertiser.

Democrats and critics were quick to note Tuesday how Brooks appeared to suggest his own staff played a role in the Jan. 6 rally. Joyce White Vance, a professor at the University of Alabama Law School who was appointed as a U.S. district judge under President Barack Obama, tweeted that Brooks’s response to his role in the Jan. 6 rally raised more questions about why he was there in the first place.

“It takes a little time & a good bit of money to get the right body armor & it’s not particularly comfortable to wear,” she said. “It seems fair to ask Mo Brooks, under oath, what made him think it was worth going to the trouble.”

Michael Fanone, the D.C. police officer who was dragged into a pro-Trump mob and beaten while fighting insurrectionists at the Capitol, reiterated Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” the danger surrounding those who continue to downplay the events of Jan. 6.

“If you describe that day as anything other than brutal and violent and a disgrace to this country, you’re lying to yourself and you’re lying to those around you,” he said.

Mo Brooks says he’d be ‘proud’ if staff helped organize Jan. 6 rally preceding Capitol riot - The Washington Post

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Brumar8910/26/2021 2:08:20 PM
2 Recommendations   of 30321
The Sh*t Just Hit the Fan on January 6. Here’s What We Know So Far and What It Means.
Photos by Getty Images
On Sunday night, Rolling Stone dropped a bombshell story. Two witnesses considered key to the investigation of the January 6 Committee had been speaking extensively for weeks to reporter Hunter Walker about their role in organizing the pro-Trump rallies that took place on January 6. For the first time, these organizers named congressmembers as well as some key White House aides who had been part of the planning.

The names should sound familiar: Along with QAnon-associated Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), “the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).” Among the White House staff named were former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Katrina Pierson, who had worked on Trump’s campaign in 2016 and 2020 and acted as “a key liaison between the organizers of the protest against the election and the White House.”

At the time these meetings were happening, what was being planned wasn’t yet known to the public, but the fact of some kind of planning actually was known. Rep. Greene, for example, seemed quite proud of her involvement, as she demonstrated to her followers in a video right after one of the meetings. She stated, “Just finished with our meeting here at the White House this afternoon. We had a great planning session for our January 6th objection. We aren't going to let this election be stolen by Joe Biden and the Democrats!”

While this is the first time the public is hearing from ordinary citizens on the inside of the White House efforts to stop the election—and there are already calls for the congressmembers to be expelled and prosecuted—the unnamed witnesses and certain congressmembers are already seeking to draw a big and likely crucial distinction: They claim that their organizing was for a peaceful protest to take place at the Ellipse near the White House, and that they were somehow duped when the rally took a turn, quite literally, and headed to Congress where the votes were being certified.

In this version of events, the congressmembers who were involved intended only to raise legitimate objections to the count based on alleged evidence of fraud that they would recite from the floor of Congress, with the hope that more GOP members, especially in the Senate, would rise to join them. Instead, they claim, the protest unexpectedly became violent and turned into a crowd bent on physically stopping the vote count, something they swear they never intended. The article quotes a spokesperson for Rep. Greene, for example, who stated, “Congresswoman Greene and her staff were focused on the Congressional election objection on the House floor and had nothing to do with the planning of any protest.”

This is probably a flat-out lie. But those accused of planning the insurrection apparently will now claim that they never intended to foment a violent one and instead merely met innocently to plan how they would rally their followers peaceably. Thus, when former president Trump told the crowd on January 6 that they were going to walk from the Ellipse to the Capitol, the two witnesses felt they had been betrayed. “I was like, ‘Let’s get the f*ck out of here,” said one. “I do feel kind of abandoned by Trump,” said the other. “I’m actually pretty pissed about it and I’m pissed at him.”

Let’s unpack this. Even taking their rather self-serving story at face value, two big questions emerge.

First, even assuming the witnesses were unaware of the violent turn the protest would take, were others inside the White House and Congress in the know? It is important to establish what the White House was aware of, even if we accept (only for the sake of argument) that the Trump Administration and the representatives did not “plan” to have Congress stormed. Note that this would not let them off the hook legally: Knowledge of a planned, violent attack could give rise to a charge of aiding and abetting (i.e. helping or encouraging the insurrection), or of being an accessory to it (i.e. giving assistance to someone else who actually commits the crime).

The witnesses themselves claim that they had voiced their concerns about the possibility of violence to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, with whom they met directly many times. “Meadows was 100 percent made aware of what was going on,” said one witness. “He’s also like a regular figure in these really tiny groups of national organizers.”

In particular, they raised concerns with Meadows about another protest that would take place at the Capitol itself, organized by “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander. Initially, they claim, Alexander agreed not to hold his “Wild Protest” at the Capitol and that there would be only a single demonstration at the Ellipse. But Alexander went ahead with his plans for a Capitol Hill demonstration anyway, even after the witnesses had raised concerns with the White House about his close association with paramilitary groups like the Oath Keepers and the 1st Amendment Praetorians.

Alexander had even made a video, which he had attempted to delete (but as they say, the Internet is forever), in which he bragged that he and three congressmembers—Reps. Gosar, Brooks, and Biggs— “schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting so that who we couldn’t lobby, we could change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar…” Given his prior appearance with and organizing of armed paramilitary groups, he certainly understood that this “roar” was going to be more than a vocal one.

Rep. Mo Brooks apparently knew well enough ahead of time to don body armor, even though he was allegedly only speaking at the protest at the Ellipse. Investigators and the Committee will want to know if Brooks had firsthand knowledge of the planned violence or if someone had tipped him off for its potential later at the Capitol. If the witnesses in the Rolling Stone report are to be believed, it was common knowledge, and raised several times, that the protest could turn deadly violent. (Given this apparent knowledge, it is critical also to ask why no steps were taken by lawmakers or the White House to warn law enforcement or the national guard about the danger; the common-sense answer is of course that they did not want the violence to be contained.)

Key insider and pardoned felon Steve Bannon also appears to have had advance knowledge of the plan to attack the Capitol, stating on his podcast on January 5, “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. It’s going to be moving. It’s going to be quick. All I can say is strap in, the War Room, a posse. You have made this happen and tomorrow is game day.” Likewise, Trump advisor and pardoned felon Roger Stone, just hours before the attack, was captured on video flanked by Oathkeepers on January 6, the same paramilitary group with which Ali Alexander was associated, raising the obvious question of why they felt the need to protect him.

Second, there appears already to be evidence that many of the named congressmembers and staff were not only aware of the possibility of violence but were deeply in on the planning. This matters a great deal: If they were in on the scheme, the charge in theory rises from aiding and abetting to actual seditious conspiracy, and the stakes and possible range of criminal charges grow even greater.

According to the Rolling Stone piece, Rep. Paul Gosar, for example, apparently dangled the prospect of presidential pardons for the two witnesses and others in exchange for their assistance organizing the protest. It is unclear at this time for what crimes the witnesses were under potential or actual investigation or prosecution—or whether this actually referred to a post-rally pardon—but the prospect of presidential pardons, if true, at the very least demonstrates that the planning and status of the protest were being discussed regularly at very high levels within the White House, including presumably with the president. It also suggests that the witnesses’ success in terms of drawing big crowds to the rally was important enough to offer juicy quid pro quos (likely illegally) of pardons in exchange. It seems unlikely in the extreme that such a coveted prize would be offered merely for organizing a rally, especially one that would remain peaceful and distant from Congress with zero chance of changing the outcome of the count.

There is also evidence that certain representatives knew exactly what was coming and were part of the execution of the attack. There is a trove of suspicious, albeit circumstantial, evidence of coordinated planning, including reports of representatives giving prohibited private Capitol group tours before the assault, the curiously quick way certain offices such as Nancy Pelosi’s were located by the rioters, and how the insurrectionists apparently knew which windows were unreinforced so they could gain quick entry. Rep. Lauren Boebert even tweeted tell-tale messages that day aimed directly at the insurrectionists, including “Today is 1776” (referring to a common refrain among the more violent paramilitary groups who favored taking the government by force) and “The Speaker has been removed from the chamber” (disclosing the whereabouts of one of the key targets of the insurrectionists just as she was being transferred to a secure location).

Perhaps the most impactful development revealed by the Rolling Stone story is a schism between the protest organizers and the Trump White House itself. If witnesses, for whatever reason, are now prepared to throw the prior administration under the bus, that will be a welcome development for investigators. It will provide a direct channel of information about what went on in those “back to back” meetings with the congressmembers, the protest organizers, and the former administration. It will also, as discussed above, tie the White House to advance knowledge of, if not outright conspiracy to commit, the insurrection.

If you recall, efforts by the January 6 Committee to obtain the phone and email records of key witnesses or suspects were met with outrage, including a letter signed by 11 representatives to the telecommunication and tech platform companies warning them not to comply with subpoenas. It is no coincidence that the letter was signed by all of the members named in the Rolling Stone story and other key allies of the former president.

Right now, House staffers and named congressmembers and White House aides are individually weighing whether to come forward willingly and cooperate. Many may be lawyering up if they have not already. They cannot freely communicate with one another or try to “get their story straight” at this time without risking additional charges of obstruction of justice or witness tampering. Visits with or by the Department of Justice are likely already occurring with some of the key civilian actors, and subpoenas likely will issue for some politicians. Be prepared to see sitting congressmembers refuse to cooperate with subpoenas or plead the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

As Steve Bannon famously said, “Strap in.”

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Brumar8910/26/2021 6:26:54 PM
3 Recommendations   of 30321
]Heather Cox Richardson

“Caravans” of migrants to our southern border are once again headline news on the Fox News Channel, but while these anti-immigrant stories divert attention from news that those on the right would like to bury, as usual, they also establish a larger pattern.

Whipping up fears of immigration is standard for authoritarians trying to convince followers to support the loss of civil liberties in order to promote law and order. One of those who rose to power with just such an argument is Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, a figure those on the right are championing these days. Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson broadcast from Hungary appreciatively earlier this year, presenting Orbán’s government, which has systematically dismantled democracy, as enviable. The American Conservative Union is planning to have its 2022 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Hungary, as well.

This backstory gave disturbing context to today’s news from the Government Accountability Office. The GAO is a government agency within the legislative branch (most of the ones you’re used to hearing about are in the executive branch) that audits, investigates, and issues reports for Congress. Known as the congressional watchdog, the GAO tries to cut through spin to do honest, thorough, and nonpartisan evaluations of government issues.

Today, the GAO reported that actions of the Trump administration had undermined U.S. goals in the Northern Triangle countries that are currently driving immigration to the southern border. Since 2008, the U.S. has funded development projects in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to promote economic development, provide security, and combat corruption. This investment was designed, in part, to slow the movement of immigrants escaping the violence and economic dislocation of the region to the U.S. border.

In March 2019, the Trump administration abruptly halted promised money, and that freeze continued until June 2020. Today’s GAO report documented how that suspension hurt 92 of the 114 projects underway under the control of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and 65 of the 168 projects operating under the State Department.

Migration to the border soared, right before the 2020 election.

While Trump Republicans were trying to convince white American voters that immigrants threatened them, another story today suggests the real goals of the Trump machine.

The Guardian revealed that several members of the secretive Council on National Policy (CNP) claim that they were the ones behind the 2017 tax cuts on corporations and wealthy Americans. Wealthy right-wing Christian activists organized the CNP in 1981 to push the country toward religious and libertarian policies.

Also today, the Washington Post Magazine ran a long story about CNP, calling it “the most unusual, least understood conservative organization in the nation’s capital.” CNP is registered as a charity, but it is essentially a central planning center for right-wing activists across the country. Washington Post reporter Robert O’Harrow, Jr., explained how CNP members, who initially opposed Trump, swung behind him when he promised to combat abortion.

Members of CNP are a who’s who of wealthy conservative figures, including Leonard Leo, a leading light of the Federalist Society, which advocates for a conservative judicial system; Steve Bannon, a key Trump adviser; David Bossie, who headed the group Citizens United and who was Trump’s deputy campaign manager; and Kellyanne Conway, a White House adviser. Their goal, they say, is to create a moral America.

So, it appears, the fearmongering about immigrants helped to give power to a secret group of wealthy Americans who lobbied for huge tax cuts for the richest Americans.

The stories about CNP suggest its members have focused on keeping emotions high and Trump in power. The CNP was instrumental in opposing business closures and mask mandates to combat the coronavirus. A number of members, including Cleta Mitchell—the lawyer who was on the phone with Trump during his infamous call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, asking him to switch the state into the Trump column although Biden had won it—and Ginni Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, backed “Stop the Steal” efforts.

Their efforts, we have increasing evidence, were promoted by Facebook, the giant social media company. Starting last Friday, 17 different news outlets have been publishing the “Facebook Papers” based on internal company documents provided to Congress and the press by whistleblower Frances Haugen. The stories allege that Facebook prioritized profits over truth and safety, deliberately amplifying right-wing voices and dividing the country.

Facebook denies the allegations.

Reports of migrant caravans might well be attempts to divert attention from the service of the Republicans to the wealthy, as well as from the story of January 6, which is becoming clearer as information continues to come out.

Today, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol interviewed Steve Bannon associate Dustin Stockton. Stockton was one of the organizers of the Women for America First rally on January 6 that got taken over by the unpermitted Stop the Steal rally which led to the attack on the Capitol.

According to a piece by Joshua Kaplan and Joaquin Sapien in ProPublica last June, Stockton was so concerned about the Stop the Steal people that he urged Amy Kremer, another leader of the Women for America First rally, to contact her associate Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, in the days before January 6 to warn him things were getting out of hand. The committee has subpoenaed Kremer to testify on October 29. There are signs that Kremer or an associate might have been a source for yesterday’s Rolling Stone article, suggesting that someone from Women for America First is willing to cooperate with the committee.

The Rolling Stone article, which provided names of lawmakers allegedly involved in planning the January 6 rally, refocused attention on the fact that it was Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) who was speaking at length as the mob broke into the building. His speech delayed the evacuation of the House chamber for 15 minutes, so that the House members were still present when the mob, including Ashli Babbitt, tried to get at them. A police officer shot and killed Babbitt as she broke through the doors.

Last night’s Rolling Stone story also identified Republican Lauren Boebert (CO) as a participant in planning meetings for the events of January 6. Today she said in a carefully worded statement: “I had no role in the planning or execution of any event that took place at the Capitol or anywhere in Washington, DC on January 6.”

Today, once again, President Joe Biden refused to claim executive privilege to prevent the January 6 committee from seeing documents Trump wants to hide.

Meanwhile, the Democrats in Congress continue to try to move the country forward, hammering out their infrastructure measure. They hope to have it finished before President Biden leaves for meetings with European leaders later this week.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10