Heather Cox Richardson

[milliefink]

June 12, 2022 (Sunday)

Thursday’s presentation by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol made quite a splash… and the ripples are still spreading.

Today in the New York Times, columnist Maureen Dowd reacted to Thursday’s revelations that Trump was “deadly serious about overthrowing the government,” by laying out the main points: Trump knew he had lost the election, and yet was willing to see his vice president hanged in order to avoid being labeled a loser. Dowd called former president Trump an “American monster,” and compared him unfavorably to Frankenstein’s monster, who at least “has self-awareness, and a reason to wreak havoc… [and] knows how to feel guilty and when to leave the stage.” Our monster, in contrast, is driven only by “pure narcissistic psychopathy– and he refuses to leave the stage or cease his vile mendacity.”

Yesterday, Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan and Kyle Cheney reported that on January 5, 2021, then-vice president Pence’s attorney Greg Jacob wrote a three-page memo concluding that what the president and his supporters were demanding Pence do the next day would break the 1887 Electoral College Act– that is, the law– in four different ways. The memo responded to John Eastman’s memo laying out the plan for Pence to hand the election to Trump by refusing to count a number of Biden electors. Jacob noted that Eastman himself “acknowledges that his proposal violates several provisions of statutory law.” In addition, both historical court decisions and one as recent as the day before contradicted Eastman’s plan.

Jacob’s memo concluded that if Pence did what Trump demanded, the best possible outcome was that “The Vice President would likely find himself in an isolated standoff against both houses of Congress, as well as most or all of the applicable State legislatures….”

It is no wonder that Pence declined to participate.

Today on CBS’s Face the Nation, Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), who is on the January 6th committee, called out Republicans who have rallied behind the Big Lie, saying: “I don’t really know many people around [Trump] who truly believe the election was stolen,” and if Trump “truly believes the election was stolen, he’s not mentally competent to be President.”

After Thursday’s revelation by committee vice-chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) that Representative Scott Perry (R-PA), as well as “multiple other Republican congressmen,” tried to get Trump to pardon them for their participation in his plan to overturn the election, Perry’s spokesperson called the allegation a “laughable, ludicrous, and a thoroughly soulless lie.”

But today on ABC News, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), who is on the January 6 committee, said the panel has evidence. Schiff said: “We will show the evidence that we have that members of Congress were seeking pardons…. I think that is some of the most compelling evidence of a consciousness of guilt…. Why would members do that if they felt that their involvement in this plot to overturn the election was somehow appropriate?”

Asked if the committee had evidence for their statement that congresspeople had asked for pardons, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), also on the panel, and a constitutional lawyer, told CNN’s Dana Bash, “everything we’re doing is documented by evidence, unlike the Big Lie, which is based on nonsense, as former Attorney General Barr said, everything we’re doing is based on facts.”

As the atmosphere around Trump gets hotter, there are cracks appearing in the Republican Party’s support for the former president. Today, Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, said on Fox News Sunday that former president Trump is “politically, morally responsible” for the events of January 6, although Hutchinson expressed the opinion that the committee has not yet established that the former president is criminally liable. Hutchinson said “Republicans need to do a lot of soul searching as to what is the right thing here and what is the right thing for our democracy in the future, and not simply adhere to the basic instincts of some of our base.”

It is not clear that his colleagues will heed Hutchinson’s call.

Yesterday, demonstrators across the country called for stronger gun safety laws, and the need for them is heightened by the fact that today is the sixth anniversary of the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, when a gunman murdered 49 people and wounded 53 others. Americans appear to have had enough of the carnage at our schools and supermarkets, nightclubs and churches: more than 80% of Americans want background checks before gun purchases and 75% of adults want to limit purchases of AR-15 style weapons to those over 21.

Today a bipartisan group of 20 senators announced they had reached an agreement on what they are willing to put into a package of gun-safety regulations. If successfully written into a bill and then enacted, this would be the first major federal gun safety legislation in almost 30 years, which is astonishing considering just what weak sauce it is.

The agreement calls for stronger red flag laws to help keep guns out of the hands of those a court has determined are a significant danger to themselves or others, “consistent with state and federal due process and constitutional protections”; investment in mental health services; an end to the so-called “boyfriend loophole” that allows unmarried partners with domestic violence records to own guns; more funding for school safety measures; penalties for those who buy guns illegally; and longer reviews for gun buyers who are under 21.

It seems likely the Democrats want the deal to establish the principle of federal regulation of guns, and the Republicans want it to say they’re doing something at a time when American voters are demanding action on gun safety. If it does little to change outcomes, Republicans will be able to say that regulations don’t make us safer.

Significantly, in his statement announcing the framework, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), did not mention gun safety or gun control, simply saying that he supports a bipartisan agreement that resolves “key issues like mental health and school safety, respects the Second Amendment, and earns broad support in the Senate.” All of those terms reinforce Republican arguments for solving our epidemic of gun deaths.

Meanwhile, what it means to empower Trump’s base became clear yesterday when law enforcement officers in Idaho arrested 31 members of the so-called “Patriot Front” white supremacist hate group. The men intended to disrupt Coeur D’Alene’s Pride in the Park, an event advertised as a “family-friendly, community event celebrating diversity and building a stronger and more unified community for ALL.” The Patriot Front rebranded itself from so-called Vanguard America after one of that group’s members plowed a car into a crowd in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017, killed counterprotester Heather Heyer, and wounded many others. Members of the gang arrested yesterday came from 11 different states, and one of those arrested for conspiring to riot– a misdemeanor– was the group’s founder, Thomas Ryan Rousseau.

Farther to the south, Brazil’s president Jair Bolsonaro, whom Trump has called a “great friend” and whose reelection he supports, has expanded his claim that the upcoming election in which he is running is being stolen. Bolsonaro is 25 percentage points behind his chief rival in the polls, but says he will lose only if the vote is fraudulent. Now, he has enlisted the support of the military in his claims. Bolsonaro recently said that election officials had “invited the armed forces to participate in the electoral process,” and reminded an audience that “the supreme chief of the armed forces is named Jair Messias Bolsonaro.” He insists that the military is only trying to keep the vote clean and safe. “For the love of God,” he said recently, “no one is engaging in undemocratic acts.”

The January 6 committee will hold its second hearing tomorrow, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time.

[milliefink]

June 13, 2022 (Monday)

Today was the second hearing of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. The day began with chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) laying out clearly and simply that what Trump and his minions did was to try to steal from Americans our right to vote for the leaders we want. That’s the heart of our system of government and central to the rule of law. The investigation of what happened in the last months of the Trump administration isn’t some abstract debate about a short riot, deadly though it was; it is an examination of an attack on the American people and an attempt to destroy our democracy.

Once again, as it did last Thursday, the committee relied entirely on senior Republican officials and on members of Trump’s own inner circle to tell the story of how Trump tried to overthrow our government. This undercuts accusations that the committee is engaging in a “partisan witch hunt.” Notably, the committee itself is measured, polite, and serious, demonstrating to viewers what hearings used to be before they became ways to produce sound bites for right-wing media.

Observers have commented that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) made a bad mistake in pulling his Republican nominees off the committee. He likely expected that such a move would discredit the committee, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) inclusion of Republicans Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) made the committee bipartisan anyway, and subsequent judicial decisions have concluded that the committee was constituted legally. What McCarthy really lost in pulling Republicans was not the ability to sway the story—the evidence is so clear that no one is challenging it—but the ability to create chaos and make it impossible for people to figure out what was happening, as Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) did at the first impeachment hearings for Trump by yelling over witnesses, badgering, and bullying.

Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) directed today’s hearing as the committee laid out proof that Trump had seeded the argument that the election was fraudulent for months before November 2020. As expected, election night showed the so-called red mirage, which Chris Stirewalt, the Fox News Channel’s elections expert during the 2020 election, explained meant that they expected in-person voting to favor Republicans, while mail-in voting would favor Democrats. That meant that early returns would make it look like Trump was winning, but the later returns would swing to Biden. That’s exactly what happened.

Trump’s advisors, including his campaign manager Bill Stepien, told Trump not to claim victory the night of the election, saying the numbers were still far too preliminary to call a victor. Trump ignored them and instead listened to “an apparently inebriated Rudy Giuliani,” who told him to declare victory. That’s what he did, claiming that he had won and election officials needed to stop counting the remaining ballots, which he insisted were fraudulent. Stepien testified that Trump had no evidence at all to make that claim. “We want all voting to stop,” Trump told the American people. “We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4:00 in the morning and add them to the list.”

Trump’s most senior advisors repeatedly told the former president that he had lost the election and that the many examples of fraud he kept citing were “wild,” “bullsh*t,” “bogus and silly and usually based on complete misinformation,” “debunked,” “incorrect,” and “bad information,” and yet Trump continued to emphasize those same theories and insist publicly that he had won.

On November 29, after Trump suggested that the FBI and others were involved in the fraud and that the Department of Justice wasn’t investigating, Attorney General Bill Barr told an AP reporter that there was “no evidence” of voter fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. Called to the White House, Barr said he had never seen Trump so angry, but “the stuff his people were shoveling out to the public was bullsh*t.” Barr said he continually told Trump his claims about voting machines and so on were bogus. Barr actually laughed when mentioning and then debunking right-wing operative Dinesh D’Souza’s recent film “2000 Mules,” which purports to show how the election was stolen.

There was a suggestion on the part of the witnesses that Trump was being played by his disreputable associates—Barr said “if [Trump] really believes this stuff, he has become detached from reality”—but sports writer Jeff Pearlman pointed out that Trump was following an old pattern. Seeding and insisting on a particular story contrary to all evidence, just to be able to set up a personal win, was the same playbook Trump used when he bankrupted the United States Football League in order to get himself an NFL franchise.

The committee did, though, suggest that the aim of the Big Lie was not just keeping Trump in power. It established that the Trump campaign sent millions of fundraising emails based on the promise to fight to challenge the election results, ultimately raising $250 million from small donors.

But get this: the so-called Election Defense Fund was never real.

According to witnesses, the claim to have such a fund was a “marketing tactic.” The money went to Trump’s own political action committee, the Save America PAC, which used the funds to pay off people in Trump’s orbit (more than $200,000 went to Trump’s hotels, and Don Jr.’s girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, was paid $60,000 for her two-and-a-half-minute introduction at the January 6 rally). Legal observers quickly pointed out that this sounds like wire fraud, which is illegal. The Guardian reporter Hugo Lowell reported that Attorney General Merrick Garland said he is watching the hearings and added, “I can assure you the January 6 prosecutors are watching the hearings as well.”

The committee established that Trump invented out of whole cloth the argument that he had won the election and had done so against the advice and evidence of his advisors. It concluded today’s hearing with video of the January 6th attackers using exactly Trump’s argument and even his words to justify their storming of the U.S. Capitol.

One of the key points the hearings raise is that all these senior officials who, now under oath, are saying that Trump lied and attacked our democracy against their advice and evidence, kept their mouths shut until forced to speak. They could—and should—have spoken up before January 6. And yet, Barr, for example, spent much of the summer reinforcing Trump’s lies about election integrity, and when he resigned on December 14, he wrote a congratulatory letter to Trump, defending most of his presidential policies. Even his reference to their recent argument could be read as supporting Trump’s lies: “it is incumbent on all levels of government…to do all we can to assure the integrity of elections and promote public confidence in their outcome,” he wrote.

Even more revealing is the case of Bill Stepien, Trump’s campaign manager, who now admits that there was never any evidence that Trump won the election or that the vote was fraudulent. Stepien is currently working with the campaign of hard-right, Trump-endorsed Republican Harriet Hageman, who is trying to unseat Cheney in Wyoming. Part of Hageman’s platform is her insistence that “[o]ver the past two years we’ve seen Democrats chip away at…[f]ree and fair elections…the foundation of our Republic.”

Across the country, Republicans have rewritten election laws to prevent another “stolen” election, even though they know there was no such thing. As leading Republican election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg said today, “The 2020 election was not close.” Nonetheless, leading Republicans are willing to embrace the Big Lie in order to skew our election system to keep those like Trump in power.

It all comes down to who is welcome to participate in self-government in the United States, and we have been here before. In our nation’s first famous political coup in Wilmington, North Carolina, in 1898, about 2000 armed white Democrats overthrew a government of Black Republicans and white Populists. The Democrats agreed that the election had been fair, but they rejected its outcome nonetheless, saying they refused to live under the government voters had elected. They accused white men who had worked with the Republicans of tricking Black voters “so they can dominate the intelligent and thrifty element in the community.” They killed as many as 300 Black Americans in this “reform” of the city government.

The committee’s next public hearing will be on Wednesday at 10:00 a.m., Eastern time.

[milliefink]

June 14, 2022 (Tuesday)

Today the White House announced that President Joe Biden will visit the Middle East next month. His first stop will be in Israel, and then he will go to Saudi Arabia, where he will meet with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the man responsible for the murder and dismemberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. MBS recently invested $2 billion in Jared Kushner’s new investment fund against the advice of the funds’ advisors.

In 2019, Biden promised to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” in part because of the Khashoggi killing, but administration officials have been quietly visiting for months, in part to urge Saudi Arabia to increase oil production to help ease gas prices in the U.S. While the White House maintains that it is looking for a “reset” with the Saudis in order to promote peace talks between Israel and Palestine, end the war in Yemen, and address human rights violations, it acknowledges that oil production is on the table.

Inflation is high in the U.S., as it is all over the world, because of demand, supply chain problems, the soaring costs of transportation as the world’s few carriers jack up prices, and so on. But that inflation is driven in large part by higher oil prices, which have driven up the price of gasoline and diesel in the U.S., which in turn makes everything more expensive.

Since the first public hearing of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol last week, much of the traffic on right-wing social media has been about gas prices, blaming them on President Biden. Republicans see gas prices and inflation as key issues both to distract from the hearings and to enable Republicans to take over control of Congress in the November midterm elections.

In fact, according to a piece by E. Rosalie in the newsletter Hoaxlines, U.S. production of crude oil during Biden’s first year was actually higher than it was in Trump’s first year. To encourage production, Biden’s officials have issued more permits on federal lands than were issued in the Trump administration’s first three years, at a pace that approaches that of George W. Bush’s administration. Only 10% of all U.S. drilling takes place on federal land, but the Bureau of Land Management confirms that more than 9000 drilling permits on public land are currently approved. Not all would be productive if they were developed, and none of them could start producing immediately, but this undercuts the argument that gas prices are high because the Biden administration has choked off permits.

Russia’s war on Ukraine has also driven up global oil prices, but the U.S. gets less than 2% of its oil from Russia.

What appears to be driving U.S. gas prices is the pressure investors are putting on oil companies, whose officers answer to their investors. Limited production creates higher prices that are driving record profits. In a March 2022 survey of 141 U.S. oil producers asking them why they were holding back production, 59% said they were under investor pressure. Only 6% blamed “government regulations” for their lack of increased production.

Oil companies are seeing huge profits and are using the money for stock buybacks to raise stock prices. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, TotalEnergies, Eni, and Equinor will give between $38 and $41 billion to shareholders through buyback programs this year. As EOG Resources wrote to its shareholders: “2021 was a record-setting year for EOG. We earned record net income of $4.7 billion, generated a record $5.5 billion of free cash flow, which funded record cash return of $2.7 billion to shareholders. We doubled our regular dividend rate and paid two special dividends, paying out about 30% of cash from operations…. This period of high oil prices allows us to further bolster the balance sheet. To support our renewed $5 billion buyback authorization and prepare to take advantage of other countercyclical opportunities, we plan to build and carry a higher cash balance going forward….”

But congressional Republicans appear uninterested in adjusting the disjunction between supply and demand that is creating such high consumer prices. In May the House passed the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act by a vote of 217 to 207 with only Democrats in the yes column and all Republicans and four Democrats voting no. The bill provided a vague warning that it is unlawful to charge “unconscionably excessive” prices for consumer fuel during presidentially declared energy emergencies, and it gave the Federal Trade Commission more power to punish price gouging.

The Senate has not moved forward with the bill. Republicans there can kill it with the filibuster and will do so, despite the fact that a Morning Consult/Politico poll shows that 77% of registered voters—including 76% of Republicans—like such a measure. Only 13% of voters outright oppose such a law (10% have no opinion).

Biden has sought to address the issue with the tools at his command. After trying to ease pressure by releasing oil from the strategic reserve, he has set out to reduce the nation’s demand for oil products by identifying the conversion to clean energy as a national security issue. On June 6 he vowed to “continue…pushing Congress to pass clean energy investments and tax cuts” but also authorized the use of the Defense Production Act to speed up the domestic production of solar panel parts, building insulation, heat pumps, and power grid infrastructure like transformers. He will also lower tariffs on solar technology coming to the U.S. from Southeast Asia for two years. These measures should ensure a reliable supply of solar panels while creating more jobs in the green energy sector, which currently employs more than 230,000 people in the solar industry alone.

In addition to Biden’s measures to ease oil prices, lawmakers are trying to curb inflation by imposing the sorts of limits on carrier prices that they refuse to on oil prices.

On Monday the House passed the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 to hamper unfair business practices among shipping carriers. The measure passed the Senate in March. Although the bills were introduced by Democrats, the votes that passed them were bipartisan, reflecting, perhaps, that the nine shipping companies that dominate the world market are multinational rather than domestic. According to Representative John Garamendi (D-CA), shippers have raised prices on U.S. businesses and consumers by more than 1000% on goods coming from Asia, enabling them to make $190 billion in profits last year, a sevenfold increase in one year. This bill, he said, “will help crush inflation and protect American jobs.” Biden has praised the bill and promises to sign it.

And tomorrow the Federal Reserve is expected to announce an interest rate hike of three quarters of a percentage point, its highest since 1994, to combat inflation. Higher interest rates will make it more expensive to borrow money, which should cool down the economy, although getting inflation down to the 2% the Fed prefers will likely slow consumer spending, dampen wage increases, and slow economic growth.

And of course, next month, Biden will visit the Saudis, who can increase oil supplies quickly if they believe it is in their best interest to do so.

And finally, a heads up: tomorrow’s hearing of the January 6 committee has been postponed. The next hearing is now scheduled for Thursday at 1:00 pm.

[DukeTrout]

@milliefink

reflecting, perhaps, that the nine shipping companies that dominate the world market are multinational rather than domestic.

Though domestic shippers are doing the same. FedEx and UPS blame the increase in fuel prices for their price increases, but fuel has gone up 30% while domestic US shipping has gone up 300%. And specialty shipping has gone up even more. It’s not uncommon for heavy equipment shipping to cost more than the equipment itself.

[gatto]

someone in another thread mentioned one time windfall taxes ( maybe in the uk? )

i almost think democrats should be pushing that same thing. it might help communicate how much profit taking is happening, and maybe it could go to offset gas tax collection to help bring prices down

[DukeTrout]

Legislation has already been introduced. But it doesn’t really take legislation - Biden could use existing executive powers to do so.

[milliefink]

June 15, 2022 (Wednesday)

In a letter to Georgia Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) this morning, the chair of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, Bennie Thompson (D-MS), dropped information, images, and video showing that Loudermilk had led individuals through the U.S. Capitol complex on January 5, 2021, in what sure looks like a reconnaissance tour.

Thompson wrote that the committee had reviewed surveillance video, social media activity, and witness accounts and understood that Loudermilk led approximately 10 people “to areas in the Rayburn, Longworth, and Cannon House Office Buildings, as well as the entrances to tunnels leading to the U.S. Capitol,” on January 5, “despite the complex being closed to the public on that day.” The group “stayed for several hours.” “Individuals on the tour photographed and recorded areas of the complex not typically of interest to tourists, including hallways, staircases, and security checkpoints…. Their behavior…raises concerns about their activity and intent while inside the Capitol complex.”

The letter went on to note that some of the people Loudermilk showed around the complex attended the January 6 rally at the Ellipse and that some of them joined the unpermitted march from the Ellipse to the Capitol. It quotes a video one of them made of the march, saying: “There’s no escape, Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler. We’re coming for you…. They got it surrounded. It’s all the way up there on the hill, and it’s all the way around, and they’re coming in, coming in like white on rice for Pelosi, Nadler, even you, AOC. We’re coming to take you out and pull you out….”

The letter noted—somewhat dryly, I have to say—that the information it has “raises questions the Select Committee must answer.” There have been accounts of surveillance tours since immediately after January 6, when Democratic members of Congress claimed to have seen them, and 34 Democrats led by Representative Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) wrote to Capitol Police asking them to investigate. Republicans, though, insisted that was inaccurate, saying that “There were no tours, no large groups, no one with MAGA hats on. There’s nothing in there remotely fitting the depiction in Mikie Sherrill’s letter.”

Now there is video and photographic evidence of just such a tour—even including someone in a MAGA hat—as well as a report that the committee has talked to the man to whom Thompson referred in his letter. This opens up a whole new can of congressional worms.

On May 19 the committee had asked Loudermilk to come in and review the evidence it had. He refused.

On Monday, Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger wrote a letter to Representative Rodney Davis, the top Republican on the House Administration Committee, a committee on which Loudermilk sits. Manger wrote that surveillance video showed Loudermilk with a group of approximately 12 people that later grew to 15, but that “[t]here is no evidence that Representative Loudermilk entered the U.S. Capitol with this group on January 5, 2021,” nor did the group with Loudermilk “appear in any tunnels that would lead them to the US Capitol.” “We train our officers on being alert for people conducting surveillance or reconnaissance,” Manger wrote, “and we do not consider any of the activities we observed as suspicious."

Yesterday, Loudermilk chimed in: “The truth will always prevail. As I’ve said since the Jan. 6 Committee made their baseless accusation about me to the media, I never gave a tour of the Capitol on Jan 5, 2021… and a small group visiting their congressman is in no way a suspicious activity. Now the Capitol Police have confirmed this fact.”

Now that we have the video evidence, the statements by Manger and Loudermilk illustrate exactly how someone can misdirect an observer without directly lying. In fact, Thompson’s letter supports Manger’s claim that neither the group nor Loudermilk were in the tunnels themselves. They were photographing the entrances, checkpoints, and staircases used by members of Congress. But the misdirection worked: The AP News headline covering Manger’s letter read: “Police: Republican’s tour of Capitol complex not suspicious.”

And Loudermilk has parsed the term “U.S. Capitol” to mean just that one building, not the entire complex, although we know that there was a plan afoot to take over many of the buildings in the complex, not just the one where Congress meets in session.

Ironically, the conspirators appeared to see their plan to overturn the election and install Republican Donald Trump in the presidency as some sort of a replay of the events of 1776. In a court filing today by a Proud Boy, Zachary Rehl, an exhibit included the “1776 Returns” document that showed up in a conversation between Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and an unknown person. After sending Tarrio the document, the individual apparently said “The revolution is more important than anything,” and Tarrio responded: “That’s what every waking moment consists of…. I’m not playing games.”

Now public, the document lays out a plan “[t]o maintain control over a select few, but crucial buildings in the DC area for a set period of time, presenting our demands in unity…. We must show our politicians We the People are in charge.” Those buildings included the Russell Senate Office Building, the Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Supreme Court, the Hart Senate Office Building, the Cannon House Office Building, the Longworth House Office Building, the Rayburn House Office Building, and “CNN—at least egg doorway.”

Their demands were stated as “a free and fair election” to be held on January 20, 2021, Inauguration Day, with paper ballots, no electronic voting, no mail-in ballots, no absentee ballots, IDs required for all, and monitored by the National Guard. “You are the revolution,” the document said. “Be a part of history & fight for this country so our children don’t have to. It’s all or nothing Patriots, boldness and bravery is necessary.”

“Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Mike Pence & Bill Gates, We the people are watching you,” it said. “Rand Paul & Ron DeSantis, We the people love you.”

Although we have now heard evidence from Trump’s attorney general William Barr, campaign manager Bill Stepien, White House lawyers, and even his own daughter, testifying under oath, that the 2020 election wasn’t stolen—and that such claims were at least in part a way to cheat small donors out of $250 million—insisting on the Big Lie has become a requirement for Republican candidates. Yesterday, Amy Gardner and Isaac Arnsdorf of the Washington Post laid out how more than 100 of the Republicans who have won primaries have signed on to the Big Lie, including eight candidates for the U.S. Senate, eighty-six House candidates, five candidates for governor, four for state attorney general, and one for secretary of state.

When the forcible attempt to overthrow our government failed, the Republicans turned instead to taking over the machinery of elections, arranging election boards and reporting in such a way that Republicans could simply refuse to recognize that Democrats had been elected. This scenario played out last night in New Mexico, when the three-person Otero County commission refused to certify the results of the June 7 primary because they claimed not to trust the voting machines, which are made by the same company Trump and his cronies falsely accused of switching votes, an accusation thoroughly debunked now, under oath, by Trump’s own inner circle.

One of the commissioners, Couy Griffin, is a co-founder of Cowboys for Trump, said in 2020 that “the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat,” and continues to believe that Trump won in 2020. He was at the Capitol on January 6 and will be sentenced this Friday for trespassing there. Another blamed the machines for her unwillingness to sign off on the results of the election: “[I]n my heart I don’t know if it is right,” she said. New Mexico’s secretary of state Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a Democrat, asked the court to order the board to certify the election results, and today, New Mexico’s supreme court did so.

For all that the insurrectionists fancy themselves acting like American Revolutionaries, they have the meaning of our nation’s founding exactly backwards. They tried to overturn the will of the American people to put Democrat Joe Biden in the office of the presidency, a will demonstrated by giving Biden a majority of more than 7 million votes and a majority of 306 to 232 in the Electoral College. In 1776, the Founders of what would later become the United States of America issued a declaration explicitly rejecting the idea that a government could be imposed on a majority by a minority and still be legitimate.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” the Declaration said. And it went on with another self-evident truth: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

[milliefink]

June 16, 2022 (Thursday)

On CNN this morning, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, said: “New evidence is breaking every single day now. Suddenly, a lot of people want to tell the truth.”

After the committee’s third public hearing today, we can see why. The window for getting onto the good side of the investigation by cooperating with it is closing, and the story the congress members are laying out makes it clear that those sticking with Trump are quite likely in legal trouble.

It appears that the former president thinks the same thing. Before today’s hearing, he wrote: “I DEMAND EQUAL TIME!!!”

But it seems unlikely Trump wants to tell his version of what happened around January 6 under oath, and if he were misled by his advisors, who can doubt that he would already have thrown them under the bus?

And, so far, the committee has used testimony and evidence only from those high up in Trump’s own administration. Today was no exception. The committee covered the former president’s pressure campaign against his vice president, Mike Pence, to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Instead of following the law, codified in the 1887 Electoral Count Act, Trump wanted Pence to use his role as the person charged with opening electoral votes to throw out the votes that gave Democrat Joe Biden victory, or at least to recess the joint session of Congress for ten days to send the electoral slates back to the states, where pro-Trump legislatures could throw out the decision of the voters and resubmit slates for Trump.

In interviews with Pence’s former counsel Greg Jacob, as well as retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the committee established that this plan, advanced by lawyer John Eastman, was illegal. Indeed, Eastman himself called it illegal, first at length in October 2020, and then in both written and verbal admissions after the election. And the committee established that Eastman, as well as others, told Trump the plan was illegal.

The hearings today hammered home that the centerpiece of our government is that the people have the right to choose their leaders. That concept is central to the rule of law. And yet, Trump embraced an illegal and unconstitutional theory that, instead, the vice president—one man—could overrule the will of the people and choose the president himself. Such a theory is utterly contrary to everything the Framers of the Constitution stood for and wrote into our fundamental law.

And yet, by early December 2020, after their legal challenges to the election had all failed, Trump’s people began to say that Pence could throw out the electoral slates that states had certified for Biden, or could send those certified electoral slates back to the states for reconsideration so that Republican-dominated legislatures could then submit new slates for Trump. Judge Luttig hammered home that there is nothing in either legal precedent or historical precedent that gave any validation to the idea that one man could determine the outcome of the election.

Still, on December 13, the day before the Electoral College met, lawyer Kenneth Chesebro wrote to Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani arguing that Pence could refuse to count the votes from states that had “alternative” electors (we also know that he wrote about this idea for the first time on November 18, so that might have been the chatter Pence was hearing). At the time, the scheme to create second slates of electors was underway.

Eastman then took up the cause, saying that seven states had submitted “dual” slates of electors. When Jacob dismissed that claim, Eastman just said that Pence could just call them disputed anyway and throw the votes from those states out. Luttig reiterated that these fake electors had no legal authority whatsoever and that there is no historical or legal precedent at all to support the idea that the vice president could count alternative electoral slates to the ones certified by the states.

Both Pence’s counsel Jacobs and his chief of staff Marc Short believed that Eastman’s plan was bananas, and an avalanche of White House advisors agreed. According to today’s testimony, those agreeing included Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Trump lawyer Eric Herschmann, and Trump advisor Jason Miller, who testified that people thought “Eastman was crazy.” Herschmann testified that even Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani agreed on the morning of January 6 that Eastman’s argument wouldn’t stand up in court.

Nonetheless, Giuliani went out in front of the crowd at the Ellipse on January 6, insisted that the theory was correct, and lied that even Thomas Jefferson himself had used it.

Meanwhile, beginning in December, Trump had been pressuring Pence to go along with the scheme. Pence had refused, but Trump kept piling on the pressure. At rallies in early January, he kept hammering on the idea that Pence could deliver the election to Trump, and in meetings on January 4 and 5, he kept demanding that Pence overturn the election. When Pence continued to refuse, Trump appeared to try to lock him in by tweeting on January 5 that he and Pence were “in total agreement” that Pence could act to change the outcome of the election.

By then, Short was so worried about what Trump might do on January 6 that he told the Secret Service he was concerned about Pence’s safety.

On January 6, Trump called Pence on the phone and, according to witnesses, called him a “wimp” and a “p*ssy.” Pence then issued a statement saying it was his “considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.” Trump then went before the crowd at the Ellipse and added to his prepared speech sections attacking Pence.

After Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows told him that violence had broken out at the Capitol, Trump tweeted that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what needed to be done,” and violence ratcheted up. The committee showed rioters claiming they were there because Pence had let them down. “Pence betrayed us…the president mentioned it like 5 times when he talked,” one said. That 2:24 tweet was “pouring gasoline on the fire,” one White House press member told the committee. At 2:26, Pence and his family were evacuated to a secure location, where he would stay for more than four hours. The rioters missed the vice president by about 40 feet. A Proud Boy told the committee that if they had found Pence, they would have killed him.

Even after the crisis ended, Eastman continued to write to Pence’s people asking him to send the electoral slates back to the states. Herschmann advised him to “get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You’re going to need it.” Eastman then put in writing that he wanted a presidential pardon: “I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list,” he wrote. When he did not get a pardon, he took the Fifth Amendment before the committee, asserting his right against self-incrimination more than 100 times.

There were lots of places where Pence and his team were no heroes. They could have warned any number of people about what Trump was up to long before January 6, and Pence’s apparently noble stance was undoubtedly informed by a realization that if Pence did as Trump asked and it went wrong—even Eastman acknowledged the scheme was illegal—Pence would be the one holding the bag.

But the committee left all that unsaid. Instead, it went out of its way to make a very clear distinction between Trump, who was out for himself and damn the country, and Pence, who risked his own safety to follow the law. Indeed, that theme was so clear it appeared to have been carefully scripted. Today’s testimony highlighted the principles of Jacob and Short and their boss, Mike Pence. It even took a deliberate detour to let both Jacob and Short talk about how their Christian faith helped them to stand against Trump and do what was right, an aside that seemed designed to appeal to the evangelicals supporting Trump. And it highlighted how Pence continued to do the work of governing even while he was in the secure location, which looked much like a loading dock according to new photos shown today.

The committee seems to be presenting a clear choice to Republicans: stand with Trump, a man without honor who is quite possibly looking at criminal indictments and who is trying to destroy our democracy, or stand with Pence, who embraces the same economic and social ideology that Republicans claim to, without wanting to destroy our democracy.

The appearance of Judge Luttig today was in keeping with this theme. Luttig is such a giant in conservative legal circles that he was talked of for the Supreme Court in place of Samuel Alito, and his words bear extraordinary weight. Luttig hammered home that Trump’s scheme was an attempt to overturn the rule of law and to destroy our democracy. And, he warned, the danger is not over. Trump and his supporters remain “a clear and present danger to American democracy.”

Luttig’s testimony was powerful, but even more extraordinary was a statement he released before today’s hearing. Luttig, for whom both Eastman and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) clerked, warned that “January 6 was…a war for America’s democracy, a war irresponsibly instigated and prosecuted by the former president, his political party allies, and his supporters.”

That is, Luttig laid the responsibility for today’s national crisis at the door of the Trump wing of the Republican Party. He went on to warn that only it could reject the attempt of the president and his supporters to undermine the faith in our elections that underpins our democracy: “[O]nly the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war…. These senseless wars…were conceived and instigated from our Nation’s Capital by our own political leaders…and they have been cynically prosecuted by them to fever pitch, now to the point that they have recklessly put America herself at stake.”

Luttig urged Americans to remember that the fate of our democracy is in our hands and to reject the fever dreams of the Trump Republicans in favor of “a new vision, new truths, new values, new principles, new beliefs, new hopes and dreams that hopefully could once again bind our divided nation together into the more perfect union that ‘We the People’ originally ordained and established it to be.”

“The time has come,” Luttig wrote, “for us to decide whether we allow this war over our democracy to be prosecuted to its catastrophic end or whether we ourselves demand the immediate suspension of this war and insist on peace instead. We must make this decision because our political leaders are unwilling and unable, even as they recklessly prosecute this war in our name.”

Chair Bennie Thompson closed today’s hearing by asking anyone who might be on the fence about cooperating with the committee’s investigation, please to reach out.

[milliefink]

June 17, 2022 (Friday)

Early in the morning on June 17, 1972, Frank Wills, a 24-year-old security guard at the Watergate Office Building in Washington, D.C., noticed that a door lock had been taped open. He ripped off the tape and closed the door, but when he went on the next round, he found the door taped open again. He called the police, who found five burglars in the Democratic National Committee headquarters located in the building.

And so it began.

The U.S. president, Richard M. Nixon, was obsessed with the idea that opponents were trying to sink his campaign for reelection. The previous year, in June 1971, the New York Times had begun to publish what became known as the Pentagon Papers, a secret government study that detailed U.S. involvement in Vietnam from presidents Harry Truman to Lyndon Johnson. While the study ended before the Nixon administration, it showed that presidents had lied to the American people, and Nixon worried that the story would hurt his administration by souring the public on his approach to the Vietnam War. Worse, if anyone leaked similar information about his own administration—and there was plenty to leak—it would destroy his reelection campaign.

To stop his enemies, Nixon put together in the White House a special investigations unit to stop leaks. And who stops leaks? Plumbers.

These operatives burglarized the office of the psychiatrist who worked with the man who had leaked the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, to find damaging information about him. They sabotaged opponents by “ratf*cking” them, as they called it, planting fake letters in newspapers, hiring vendors for Democratic rallies and then running out on the unpaid bills, planting spies in Democrats’ campaigns and, finally, wiretapping.
On June 17, 1972, they tried to tap the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington’s fashionable Watergate complex.

The White House denied all knowledge of what it called a “third-rate burglary attempt,” and most of the press took the denial at face value. But two young reporters for the Washington Post, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, followed the sloppy money trail behind the burglars directly to the White House.

The fallout from the burglary gained no traction before the election, which Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew won with an astonishing 60.7 percent of the vote. They took 520 electoral votes—49 states—while the Democratic nominees, South Dakota senator George McGovern and former Peace Corps director Sargent Shriver, won only 37.5% of the popular vote and the electoral votes of only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.

But in March 1973, one of the burglars, James W. McCord, Jr., wrote a letter to Judge John Sirica before his sentencing, saying that he had lied at his trial, under pressure to protect government officials. McCord had been the head of security for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, known as CREEP. Sirica was known for his stiff sentences—reporters called him “Maximum John”—and later said, “I had no intention of sitting on the bench like a nincompoop and watching the parade go by.”

Sirica made the letter public, and White House counsel John Dean promptly began cooperating with prosecutors. In April, three of Nixon’s top advisors resigned, and in May the president was forced to appoint Archibald Cox as a special prosecutor to investigate the affair.

That same month, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, informally known as the Senate Watergate Committee, began nationally televised hearings. The committee’s chair was Sam Ervin (D-NC), a conservative Democrat who would not run for reelection in 1974 and thus was expected to be able to do the job without political grandstanding.

The hearings turned up the explosive testimony of John Dean, who said he had talked to Nixon about covering up the burglary more than 30 times, but there the investigation sat during the hot summer of 1973 as the committee churned through witnesses. And then, on July 13, 1973, deputy assistant to the president Alexander Butterfield revealed that conversations and phone calls in the Oval Office had been taped since 1971.

The fat was in the fire.

Nixon refused to provide copies of the tapes either to Cox or to the Senate committee. When Cox subpoenaed a number of the tapes, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire him. In the October 20, 1973, “Saturday Night Massacre,” Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckleshaus, refused to execute Nixon’s order and resigned in protest; it was only the third man at the Justice Department—Solicitor General Robert Bork—who was willing to carry out the order firing Cox.

Popular outrage at the resignations and firing forced Nixon to ask Bork—now acting attorney general—to appoint a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, a Democrat who had voted for Nixon, on November 1. On November 17, Nixon assured the American people that “I am not a crook.”

Like Cox before him, Jaworski was determined to hear the Oval Office tapes. He subpoenaed a number of them, and Nixon fought the subpoenas on the grounds of executive privilege. On July 24, 1974, in U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court sided unanimously with the prosecutor, saying that executive privilege “must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that ‘the twofold aim (of criminal justice) is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.’… The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts….”

Their hand forced, Nixon’s people released transcripts of the tapes. They were damning, not just in content but also in style. Nixon had cultivated an image of himself as a clean family man, and the tapes revealed a mean-spirited, foul-mouthed bully. Aware that the tapes would damage his image, Nixon had his swearing redacted. “[Expletive deleted]” trended.

In late July 1974, the House Committee on the Judiciary passed articles of impeachment, charging the president with obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. Each article ended with the same statement: “In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.”

Still, Nixon insisted he was not guilty, saying he did not know his people were committing crimes on his watch. Then in early August a new tape, recorded days after the Watergate break-in, revealed Nixon and an aide plotting to invoke national security to protect the president. Even Republican senators, who had not wanted to convict their president, knew the game was over. A delegation went to the White House to deliver the news.

On August 9, 1974, Nixon became the first president in American history to resign.

Rather than admit guilt, though, he told the American people he had to step down because he no longer had the support he needed in Congress to advance the national interest. He blamed the press, whose “leaks and accusations and innuendo” had been designed to destroy him. His disappointed supporters embraced the idea that there was a “liberal” conspiracy, spearheaded by the press, to bring down any Republican president.

When his replacement, Gerald Ford, issued a preemptive blanket pardon for any crimes the former president might have committed against the United States, he guaranteed that Nixon would never have to account for his illegal attempt to undermine his Democratic opponent, and that those who thought like Nixon could come to think they were above the law.

“What I admire about Nixon was his resilience,” one of Nixon’s 1972 operatives told a reporter decades later, “It’s attack, attack, attack.” That operative, who sports a tattoo of Nixon on his back, was Roger Stone, who went on to advise Donald Trump’s political career.

[ChuckV]

@milliefink

the Supreme Court sided unanimously with the prosecutor, saying that executive privilege “must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that ‘the twofold aim (of criminal justice) is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.’… The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts….”

Would that one could feel confident, even hopeful, of such a statement now…

[DukeTrout]

The current SCOTUS would invoke the Founding Fathers’ original intent, in the form of the “I’m rubber and you are glue” principle, and order Biden to be responsible for Trump’s crimes.

[milliefink]

June 18, 2022 (Saturday)

Of all we have heard at the hearings of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge J. Michael Luttig’s testimony on Thursday stands out. Luttig is a leading conservative thinker, a giant in Republican legal circles, who worked in the Reagan administration, was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to a federal judgeship, and was on the short-list for a Supreme Court seat during President George W. Bush’s term. In January 2021, then–vice president Mike Pence’s staff turned to him for support to make sure Pence didn’t agree to count out electors; Luttig opposed the scheme absolutely.

Luttig’s words carry weight among Republican lawmakers.

On Thursday, Judge Luttig examined the ongoing danger to democracy and located it not just on former president Donald Trump and his enablers, but on the entire Republican Party of today, the party that embraces the Big Lie that Trump won the 2020 election, the party that continues to plan to overturn any election in which voters choose a Democrat.

“[T]he former president and his party are today a clear and present danger for American democracy,” Luttig reiterated to NPR’s All Things Considered.

And, as if in confirmation, delegates to a convention of the Texas Republican Party today approved platform planks rejecting “the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and [holding] that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States”; requiring students “to learn about the dignity of the preborn human,” including that life begins at fertilization; treating homosexuality as “an abnormal lifestyle choice”; locking the number of Supreme Court justices at 9; getting rid of the constitutional power to levy income taxes; abolishing the Federal Reserve; rejecting the Equal Rights Amendment; returning Christianity to schools and government; ending all gun safety measures; abolishing the Department of Education; arming teachers; requiring colleges to teach “free-market liberty principles”; defending capital punishment; dictating the ways in which the events at the Alamo are remembered; protecting Confederate monuments; ending gay marriage; withdrawing from the United Nations and the World Health Organization; and calling for a vote “for the people of Texas to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation.”

Luttig said that Republicans must start speaking to Democrats as ”fellow Americans that have a shared destiny and shared hopes and dreams for America.” “We cannot have in America either political party behaving itself like the Republican Party has since the 2020 election.”

I’ve been thinking a lot since Thursday of Luttig’s clear-eyed view of the dangers we face in this country today, and of his willingness to cast aside old political loyalties to call them out in order to protect our democracy. They remind me of nothing so much as Abraham Lincoln’s description of the way northerners reacted to the 1854 passage of a law permitting the spread of enslavement into western lands from which it had previously been excluded. The passage of that law woke up Americans who had not been paying attention, and convinced them to work across old political lines to stop oligarchs from destroying democracy. Northerners were “thunderstruck and stunned; and we reeled and fell in utter confusion. But we rose each fighting, grasping whatever he could first reach—a scythe—a pitchfork—a chopping axe, or a butcher’s cleaver” to push back against the oligarchic enslavers, Lincoln later said. Regardless of where they started politically, they stood up for democracy together. And while they came from different parties, he said, they were “still Americans; no less devoted to the continued Union and prosperity of the country than heretofore.”

Over the course of the next decade, that new coalition argued and struggled and took the nation in an entirely new direction. It fought and won a war that involved more than two million men and cost more than $5 billion, established our first national money, welcomed immigrants, created public colleges, invented the income tax, gave farmers land, built transcontinental railroads, and—finally—ended human enslavement in the U.S. except as punishment for a crime for which a person had been duly convicted.

And, of course, it saved the nation from those seeking to destroy it.

“[T]o my knowledge, I’ve never spoken publicly a single word of politics,” Luttig told NPR about his extraordinary statements. In a later note he added: “I wanted to do this for America and I understood I had an obligation to do it for America. It was my ‘moment’ in my life to stand up, step forward, and bear witness to what I believe and what I do not believe.”

[milliefink]

June 19, 2022 (Sunday)

Tomorrow is the federal holiday honoring Juneteenth, the celebration of the announcement on June 19th, 1865, in Texas that enslaved Americans were free.

On April 9, 1865, General Robert E. Lee had surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia to General Ulysses S. Grant of the U.S. Army, but it was not until June 2 that General Edmund Kirby Smith surrendered the Confederacy’s Trans-Mississippi Department, the last major army of the Confederacy, to the United States, in Galveston, Texas. Smith then fled to Mexico.

Seventeen days later, Major General Gordon Granger of the U.S. Army arrived on Galveston Island with about 2000 U.S. troops. On June 19, Granger issued General Order Number 3, informing the formerly enslaved inhabitants of Texas that they were free.

“The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free,” it read. “This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor.”

The order went on: “The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.”

General Order Number 3 informed formerly enslaved people that they were freed from enslavement and the suffocatingly circumscribed lives, restricted movement, corporal punishment, and stunted lives to which the American system of human slavery had previously confined them. It urged them to join the free labor economy the North championed, working for wages and seamlessly shifting their former relations with their former enslavers to ones of employee and employer.

The news arrived in a state consumed by chaos. During the war, white men had gone east to join the Confederate armies as planters had rushed west from Louisiana with their enslaved people to try to preserve the institution of slavery. Mexicans and Comanches had launched raids against the unsettled population, and the long-horned cattle, bottled up in Texas as the United States blockaded southern ports and the railroad lines degraded, had multiplied until observers estimated there were eight cattle for every one person in Texas, and the animals threatened those who ventured too close to them.

The fall of the Confederacy meant the collapse of whatever order remained in the state, and former Confederates were demoralized and angry. “It looked like everything worth living for was gone,” cattleman Charles Goodnight later recalled. Planters furious at the death of their cause and desperate to get crops in refused to tell the enslaved people in the fields of the dramatic change in their circumstances with the surrender of the last major Confederate army.

Against this backdrop, Granger’s men read General Order Number 3 to formerly enslaved Texans in Galveston. They heard the news and celebrated in the streets. The order was no magic bullet for the state—on far-flung plantations, some enslavers tried to hold enslaved people at work until after the harvest—but the news of freedom on June 19 provided a focus and a rallying point for Black Americans to celebrate freedom that stood out and apart from the chaos and anger around them.

A year later, the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing enslavement except as punishment for a crime had been added to the U.S. Constitution, and on June 19, 1866, Texas freedpeople gathered to celebrate the coming of their freedom with prayers, speeches, food, and socializing.

By the following year, the federal government encouraged “Juneteenth” celebrations, eager to make sure Black citizens had an opportunity to discuss the voting rights that had been put in place by the Military Reconstruction Act in early March 1867, and the tradition of Juneteenth began to spread to Black communities across the nation.

Beginning there in Texas, the Black Americans celebrating Juneteenth emphasized that emancipation in the United States meant not just freedom from enslavement, but also freedom to shape the nation’s future.

[iknownuurthing]

Excellent read as usual. So glad of this thread.

[milliefink]

June 20, 2022 (Monday)

Fifty-eight years ago today, on Saturday, June 20, 1964, twenty-year-old Andrew Goodman arrived in Meridian, Mississippi, to work with Michael Schwerner, a 24-year-old former New York social worker, and James Chaney, a 21-year-old Black man, to register Black voters. “Dear Mom and Dad,” he wrote on a postcard home. “I have arrived safely in Meridian Mississippi. This is a wonderful town and the weather is fine. I wish you were here. The people in this city are wonderful and our reception was very good. All my love, Andy.”

What Goodman didn’t know was that members of the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, dedicated to preserving segregation and to keeping Black people from voting, loathed Schwerner and at meetings routinely talked about killing him. They held off until they got authorization from the Klan’s state leader, Sam Bowers, but several weeks before Goodman arrived in Mississippi, they got that authorization.

The next day, Sunday, the three set out to investigate the recent burning of a church whose leaders had agreed to participate in voter registration, an arson that, unbeknownst to them, was committed by the same Klan members who had received authorization to kill Schwerner.

After the three men left the burned church, Deputy Sheriff Cecil Ray Price stopped their car, allegedly for speeding, then arrested them on suspicion that they had burned the church. That night, after they paid their speeding ticket and left, Price followed them, stopped them, ordered them into his car, and then took them down a deserted road and turned them over to two carloads of his fellow terrorists. They beat and murdered the men and buried them at an earthen dam that was under construction.

It turned out that Price and Sheriff Lawrence A. Rainey were members of the Ku Klux Klan, and Price had alerted his fellow Klansmen that he had nabbed Schwerner, then dropped the three civil rights workers into their hands.

An FBI investigation to find the missing men ran up against both stonewalling and fear. Locals lied and obstructed the federal law enforcement officers, claiming that the three men had disappeared on their own hook to attract attention to the cause of voting rights. No state or local charges were brought against anyone suspected of being involved in the disappearances.

Finally, two of the Klansman cracked and began cooperating with the federal government.

In December 1964, 18 men were indicted for their participation in the murders. But the Ku Klux Klan members, who were accustomed to running their states as they saw fit, did not believe they would be punished. A notorious photograph caught Price and Rainey laughing at a hearing after their arraignment for conspiracy and violating the civil rights of the murdered men, both federal offenses.

Ultimately, Price was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison (he served four). Rainey, who was not at the murder scene, was found not guilty, but he lost his job and his marriage and blamed the FBI and the media for ruining his life.

Today, June 20, 2022, a Republican candidate for the Senate in Missouri, disgraced former governor Eric Greitens, released an advertisement threatening those Republicans he considers too moderate, the so-called Republicans In Name Only. Greitens resigned from his governorship after a woman accused him of tying her up, photographing her, sexually assaulting her, and then blackmailing her, and the Missouri legislature agreed that Greitens had engaged in “multiple acts constituting crimes, misconduct, and acts of moral turpitude.” When Greitens’s ex-wife accused him of abusing her and their children, Greitens claimed the accusations were egged on by “the RINO swamp.”

In the ad, Greitens is armed with a shotgun and flanked with military personnel as they burst into a house. “Today, we’re going RINO hunting,” he says. “The RINO feeds on corruption and is marked with the stripes of cowardice,” he continues. “Join the MAGA crew. Get a RINO hunting permit. There’s no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it doesn’t expire until we save our country.”

[docosc]

@milliefink

There’s no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it doesn’t expire until we save our country.”

See Beau’s take on this. Bag or tag limit is the term in hunting. Bagging and tagging refers to killing human beings. This asshat may just be too stupid to know that correct terminology, but I suspect he knows exactly what he is saying. He is encouraging MAGAts to murder those not sufficiently radicalized. This is ugly, and getting uglier.

[Mindysan33]

@docosc

but I suspect he knows exactly what he is saying. He is encouraging MAGAts to murder those not sufficiently radicalized.

[milliefink]

June 21, 2022 (Tuesday)

Today, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol held its fourth public hearing. The agenda was to lay out the scheme to pressure swing state electors to switch their states’ votes to Trump and then, when that failed, to get state operatives to create a false slate of electors to submit to Congress and the National Archives to set up an argument that there was confusion about who had won. That, Trump’s operatives hoped, would give then–vice president Mike Pence an excuse either to refuse to count Biden votes on the grounds that there was confusion over which slate was legitimate (there was no confusion: the Biden votes were certified and the Trump votes were not), or to send the certified electoral votes back to the state legislatures, where Republican-dominated bodies could recertify for Trump.

The scheme was illegal across the board.

It failed, committee chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) pointed out, because the system held. But that system has been under attack by Trump supporters for the past year and a half, and it is no longer clear that it will continue to hold. As proof, Thompson offered the case of the New Mexico panel that refused to certify the results of the recent election there. While two of the three panel members finally agreed to certify the results after pressure the state courts demanded they do so, one continued to refuse, citing “his gut feeling” that the results were wrong. That man was at the January 6th attack on the Capitol.

The theme of the day was our election systems, and how Trump’s attack on them continues to threaten our democracy.

The panel laid out how Trump and his people tried to get state legislators to throw out Biden votes and certify electoral votes for Trump, calling the lawmakers, inviting them to the White House, and, finally, threatening them over social media and sending protesters to their homes. When that didn’t work, they urged pro-Trump state politicians to produce alternative, false, slates of electors, promising that those slates would be used only if courts ruled the certified votes illegitimate. That promise, though, was a lie. Trump’s team planned to use the existence of two sets of electoral votes to justify throwing out both, thereby getting rid of legitimate Biden electors and giving the election to Trump.

The committee’s first panel included officials who had borne pressure from the Trump camp: Russell “Rusty” Bowers, the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives; Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state; and Gabriel Sterling, the chief operating officer in the office of the Georgia secretary of state, responsible for overseeing elections.

All three are Republicans, at least two of whom supported Trump in the election but refused to do his illegal bidding after it. Once again, the committee told its story using only Republican testimony, making it hard for opponents to argue that the hearings are a political hit job. Schiff made a point of asking Bowers about his admiration for President Ronald Reagan, and Bowers talked about Reagan’s celebration of the orderly transfer of power in the United States, a tradition that Trump, of course, shattered.

The three men detailed pressure from Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, from lawyer John Eastman, from Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, and from Trump himself.

Bowers outlined weeks of pressure to produce a competing set of electors or to decertify the existing ones, even as Giuliani and Ellis refused to produce any evidence to back up their wild claims. Bowers refused to go along. Today, he testified passionately about the importance of his oath to the Constitution and his duty to the state of Arizona, and how Trump and his people were asking him to break an oath to a document he considers divinely inspired for the benefit of one man. Giuliani tried to convince him that, as Republicans, they should stick together to put their man back into the White House.

It wasn’t going to happen. Bowers wrote in his diary: “It is painful to have friends…turn on me with such rancor.” But “I do not want to be a winner by cheating. I will not play with laws I swore allegiance to.”

Raffensperger explained that the claims of fake “suitcases” of ballots in Georgia and other irregularities were false, that the election was “remarkably smooth,” and that two recounts produced the same results as the original counting of the votes. He talked of pressure from the Trump camp over its election lies. Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), who was directing the proceedings today, noted that Meadows reached out 18 times to set up a phone call between Raffensperger and then-president Trump.

Once underway, the call took an extraordinary 67 minutes, as Trump repeatedly pushed Raffensperger to “find” 11,780 votes, one more than Biden had won in the state. Trump told Raffensperger that it was “very dangerous” for him to say there was no fraud, a suggestion Raffensperger interpreted as a threat. “Why wouldn’t you want to find the right answer, Brad?” Trump demanded.

Sterling walked us through the “suitcases” allegation again, but his testimony focused on his anger at the disinformation coming from the Trump campaign and then-president Trump himself. He asked Trump directly, on camera, to stop inciting violence. “It’s not right,” he said. Rather than backing off, Trump escalated his pressure on Georgia, alleging “massive voter fraud” there.

The witnesses told the committee that Trump had tried to pressure them by whipping up his followers to harass them at home, terrifying them and their families. Bowers said he is still harassed every week, with people staking out his home and calling him a pedophile and a pervert. Raffensperger detailed the threats coming to him and his wife, and said that people broke into his widowed daughter-in-law’s home.

The threats provided the introduction to the next witness, who sat before the committee alone. After Thompson dismissed the first panel, the committee swore in Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss. Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, were the two Georgia election workers Trump and Giuliani targeted as rigging the vote. If Bowers represented the heights of political lawmaking, and Raffensperger and Sterling the bureaucracy of it, Moss and her mother, who was sitting behind her, represented the rest of us.

But Moss was not at all ordinary. She gave a passionate account of why she had chosen to become an election worker and how she had loved helping older people—people who had not been able to vote when they were young—submit their ballots. On the anniversary of the 1964 murder of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner for their efforts to register Black voters in Mississippi, Ms. Moss articulated just what the struggle for voting rights continues to mean.

Her testimony also outlined what that struggle continues to cost. Both she and her mother explained how they and Moss’s grandmother had been doxxed and harassed until they are now virtual prisoners in their homes—when they can be in them at all. The FBI warned Ms. Freeman to leave her home for two months around the time of January 6 because agents worried for her safety.

“Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you?” Freeman said on video. “The President of the United States is supposed to represent every American. Not target one. But he targeted me: Lady Ruby, a small business owner, a mother, a proud American citizen, who stood up to help Fulton County run an election in the middle of the pandemic."

Taken together, today’s testimony showed the human side of the rule of law in the United States, and how Trump’s pressure on officials and weaponization of gangs to harass them threatens to destroy the system. Both Moss and Freeman have had to quit their jobs, along with all the permanent workers in the Georgia counting venue Trump and Giuliani attacked.

The committee revealed some other interesting information today. It said that protests at state houses, organized by Trump people, had some of the same characters who later showed up in Washington on January 6, including Jacob Chansley (the “QAnon Shaman” who showed up on January 6 in an animal headdress) and various Proud Boys.

It showed testimony from Ronna McDaniel, the head of the Republican National Committee, confirming that the RNC helped the Trump campaign collect the false electoral slates.

It named two lawmakers who appeared to participate in the attempt to overthrow the election. Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) apparently called Bowers to pressure him, and Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) wanted to hand the fake slates of electors from Michigan and Wisconsin to Pence on January 6.

Striding quickly past reporters today, Johnson told CNN’s chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju that he had “no idea” who asked him to share the fake electors with Pence. He said he had “no involvement” in the attempt to provide fake electors to overturn the legitimate outcome of the 2020 election and claimed he didn’t know who handed his office the envelope that was supposed to go to Pence. It was, he said, “some staff intern” who handed another staff member the envelope. When asked if he would try to find out, he said, “No. No, because there’s no conspiracy here. This is a complete non-story, guys. Complete non-story."

[docosc]

@milliefink

Striding quickly past reporters today, Johnson told CNN’s chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju that he had “no idea” who asked him to share the fake electors with Pence.

Run, you chickenshit coward traitor. Run, but you cannot hide. I am loving the panic on the Qnut side as they realize what is happening.

[Mindysan33]

@docosc

I am loving the panic on the Qnut side as they realize what is happening.