Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: February 2022


February 12, 2022
Heather Cox Richardson
Feb 13
On February 12, 1809, Abraham Lincoln was born.Lincoln was the nation’s sixteenth president, leading the country from March 1861 until his assassination in April 1865, a little over a month into his second term. He piloted the country through the Civil War, preserving the concept of American democracy. It was a system that had never been fully realized, but that he still saw as “the last, best hope of earth” to prove that people could govern themselves.“Four score and seven years ago,” he told an audience at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, in November 1863, “our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Lincoln dated the founding of the nation from the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution, the document enslavers preferred because of that document’s protection of property. In the Declaration, the Founders wrote that they held certain “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.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….”But in Lincoln’s day, fabulously wealthy enslavers had gained control over the government and had begun to argue that the Founders had gotten their worldview terribly wrong. They insisted that their system of human enslavement, which had enabled them to amass fortunes previously unimaginable, was the right one. Most men were dull drudges who must be led by their betters for their own good, southern leaders said. As South Carolina senator and enslaver James Henry Hammond put it, “I repudiate, as ridiculously absurd, that much-lauded but nowhere accredited dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that ‘all men are born equal.’”In 1858, Abraham Lincoln, then a candidate for the Senate, warned that arguments limiting American equality to white men were the same arguments “that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world…. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent.” Either people—men, in his day—were equal, or they were not. Lincoln went on, “I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it… where will it stop?”Lincoln had thought deeply about the logic of equality. In his 1860 campaign biography, he permitted the biographer to identify six books that had influenced him. One was a book published in 1817 and wildly popular in the Midwest in the 1830s: Capt. Riley’s Narrative. The book was written by James Riley, and the full title of the book was An Authentic Narrative of the Loss of the American Brig Commerce, Wrecked on the Western Coast of Africa, in the Month of August, 1815, With the Sufferings of her Surviving Officers and Crew, Who Were Enslaved by the Wandering Arabs on the Great African Desart [sic], or Zahahrah. The story was exactly what the title indicated: the tale of white men enslaved in Africa. In the 1850s, on a fragment of paper, Lincoln figured out the logic of a world that permitted the law to sort people into different places in a hierarchy, applying the reasoning he heard around him. “If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.—why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?” Lincoln wrote. “You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly?—You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.”Lincoln saw clearly that if we give up the principle of equality before the law, we have given up the whole game. We have admitted the principle that people are unequal and that some people are better than others. Once we have replaced the principle of equality with the idea that humans are unequal, we have granted approval to the idea of rulers and ruled. At that point, all any of us can do is to hope that no one in power decides that we belong in one of the lesser groups.In 1863, Lincoln reminded his audience at Gettysburg that the Founders had created a nation “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” but it was no longer clear whether “any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” During the Civil War, the people of the United States were defending that principle against those who were trying to create a new nation based, as the Confederacy’s vice president Alexander Stephens said, “upon the great truth” that men were not, in fact, created equal, that the “great physical, philosophical, and moral truth” was that there was a “superior race.” In the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln called for Americans to understand what was at stake, and to “highly resolve… that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”[Photo of Abraham Lincoln by Alexander Gardner, November 8, 1863]
LikeCommentShare.Subscribe
btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate


February 11, 2022

Heather Cox RichardsonFeb 12

Yesterday, the Treasury noted that the U.S. budget had a surplus of $119 billion in January. That’s the first budget surplus in more than two years. Tax receipts are up significantly: they grew 21% in January to $465 billion, as higher employment and earnings meant a big jump in payroll taxes and withholdings. At the same time, outlays fell 37%. 

Today, the administration warned any American in Ukraine to get out as quickly as possible, leaving no later than 48 hours from midday today. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan warned that, “[i]f you stay, you are assuming risk with no guarantee that there will be any other opportunity to leave and no prospect of a U.S. military evacuation in the event of a Russian invasion.” He said the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv stands ready to help financially and logistically.

Sullivan told reporters that the administration believes that the world has entered the window of time in which if Russian president Vladimir Putin is going to attack Ukraine, he will do so. The U.S., he said, is “ready either way.” It will continue its hefty diplomatic push, or it and key allies will respond to an invasion with severe economic sanctions, reinforce the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and continue to support Ukraine and its well-trained and equipped army. 

The U.S. has deployed service members to Poland, Romania, and Germany to defend NATO territory under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty that established NATO. Article 5 says that an attack against any NATO ally is considered an attack on all of them and that, in such an event, they will come to each other’s aid. To date, Article 5 has been invoked only once: on September 12, 2001, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. 

Those personnel, Sullivan emphasized, “are not soldiers who are being sent to go fight Russia in Ukraine. They are not going to war in Ukraine. They are not going to war with Russia. They’re going to defend NATO territory, consistent with our Article 5 obligation. They are defensive deployments. They are non-escalatory. They are meant to reinforce, reassure, and deter aggression against NATO territory.”

“Whatever happens next,” Sullivan said, “the West is more united than it’s been in years. NATO has been strengthened. The Alliance is more cohesive, more purposeful, more dynamic than at…any time in recent memory.”

President Joe Biden spoke today with leaders from the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Poland, Romania, the Secretary General of NATO, and the presidents of the European Union to coordinate a response to Russian aggression. 

Biden will speak again with Putin tomorrow. 

The Fox News Channel is cheering on the so-called “Freedom Convoys” of disgruntled Canadians driving commercial trucks who have shut down Ottawa, Canada’s capital, as well as key border crossings between Canada and the U.S. They have created traffic jams that have made it impossible for auto plants on both sides of the border to get the parts they need, and the resulting production cuts, as well as the idling of hundreds of millions of dollars in trade, are hurting the economies of both countries.

According to Justin Ling in The Guardian, the convoys appear to have been organized by James Bauder, a conspiracy theorist who believes Covid-19 is a political scam and has endorsed the QAnon movement. Canada’s recent vaccine requirement to cross the Canadian border provided a catalyst to pull together a number of different groups opposed to public health measures with anti-government protesters. The protests were neither popular nor representative of truckers: there were never more than about 8000 protesters, 90% of truckers crossing the border are vaccinated, and the Canadian Trucking Alliance strongly opposes the protest.  

On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Canadian Trucking Alliance told Rose White of MLive that many of the Freedom Convoy protesters “have no connection to the trucking industry and have a separate agenda beyond a disagreement over cross border vaccine requirements.” Ling noted that the convoy participants flew neo-Nazi and Confederate flags and had QAnon logos on their trucks, but Bauder urged his supporters stick to the message of “freedom.”

The “Freedom Convoy” has been pushed by fake accounts on social media and has picked up supporters from the U.S. right wing, including leading lawmakers. Facebook officials told NBC News today that fake accounts tied to content mills in Vietnam, Bangladesh, Romania, and several other countries have been pushing the convoy. Their disinformation is working; donations from the U.S. have flooded into accounts supporting the convoy protesters. 

Former president Donald Trump, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), and others have endorsed the convoy, and the Fox News Channel has talked about the convoy two and a half times as often as CNN and five times as often as MSNBC in the last month, according to Philip Bump of the Washington Post. Matthew Gertz of Media Matters for America tweeted that the network has spent more than ten hours on the story since January 18, with the network personalities—especially Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity—explicitly calling for an American version of the protest.

The idea of shutting down supply chains does not interest the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which yesterday denounced the convoy. “The livelihood of working Americans and Canadians in the automotive, agricultural, and manufacturing sectors is threatened by this blockade,” Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa said in a statement. “Our economy is growing under the Biden Administration, and this disruption in international trade threatens to derail the gains we have made. Our members are some of the hardest workers in the country and are being prevented from doing their jobs.”

But that is almost certainly the point. Disrupting a nation’s supply chains destabilizes its economy and thereby weakens the government in power. Indeed, U.S. lawmakers know this quite well: in 1972, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency funded a 26-day truckers’ strike in Chile that helped to destabilize the government of democratically elected Salvador Allende, who would be overthrown the following year by right-wing dictator General Augusto Pinochet. 

The economy under Biden shows that his traditional vision of a government that supports ordinary people rather than cutting taxes and funneling money to “makers” works; the extraordinary unity of NATO in the face of Putin’s determination to advance authoritarian goals shows that multilateral cooperation rather than unilateral military action works, too. For those determined to regain power, disruption and destabilization are the order of the day. 

Notes: 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-posts-119-billion-budget-surplus-january-first-over-2-years-2022-02-10/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/11/readout-of-president-bidens-video-call-with-transatlantic-leaders/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/02/11/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-and-national-security-advisor-jake-sullivan-february-11-2022/

https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/02/canadian-truckers-protesting-vaccine-rule-snarl-traffic-at-michigan-border-crossings.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/us-trucker-convoy-picks-momentum-foreign-meddling-adds-fray-rcna15932

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/08/canada-ottawa-trucker-protest-extremist-qanon-neo-nazi

Matthew Gertz @MattGertzUPDATE: Fox News coverage of the Canadian truckers protest has exceeded 10 hours through yesterday as the network’s hosts start explicitly pushing for a U.S. version. mediamatters.org/coronavirus-co…

Image

February 11th 2022681 Retweets1,423 Likes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/11/once-again-fox-news-stokes-protest-against-democratic-president/

btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate


Buffalo Soldiers were assigned to assess bicycles as military transportation on the frontier at the end of the nineteen century.Troops of the 25th Infantry Bicycle Corps, Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument, 1896

Troops of the 25th Infantry Bicycle Corps, Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument, 1896

via NPS

By: Matthew Wills 

February 8, 2022

In the summer of 1897, twenty soldiers of the 25th Infantry Regiment bicycled 1,900 miles from Missoula, Montana, to St. Louis, Missouri. The 25th was one of a handful of segregated Black regiments in the U.S. Army, whose members became known as the Buffalo Soldiers. They were accompanied by three white men: their commanding officer, Lieutenant James Moss; an Army surgeon; and a Daily Missoulian reporter.

Moss had proposed the trip as a demonstration of bicycle technology. He wanted to measure the efficiency of the bicycle in comparison with other means of transportation. The automobile was still two decades away from mass production, and bicycles were all the rage. European military interest in the two-wheeled vehicle intrigued at least some in the U.S. Army. Could the bicycle replace the horse and mule? Although largely unheralded, bicycle infantry were in fact used by numerous militaries during many conflicts of the twentieth century, including both world wars.

Scholar Alexandra V. Koelle explores the curious case of bicycle infantry corps heading eastwards from the frontier into the heart of a white-supremacist nation. 

In the late nineteenth century, Black soldiers were purposely kept at the margins: it was policy to not station them in eastern states, particularly in the South, for fear of violence from local whites. The 25th served in Texas, Oklahoma, and Dakota Territory before serving in several forts in Montana. They fought in the Indian Wars and “continued to put down Native ‘rebellions’ throughout their decade in Missoula.” Another of their tasks was to break mining strikes.

“Black soldiers in the West were also engaged in nation-building of a different sort. By physically building the infrastructure that materially connected the West to the eastern states, such as roads and telegraph lines, and by forcefully putting down labor rebellions, African American soldiers shaped the former territories into states.”

Uniforms did not shield the Buffalo Soldiers from racism.

Koelle notes that white soldiers were not required to do the physical construction that the 25th was. Uniforms did not shield the Buffalo Soldiers from racism. One of 25th’s members was lynched in Sturgis, South Dakota in 1885. Another was lynched in Fort Shaw, Montana, in 1888, after the commanding officer of the regiment gave the white mob access to the victim. On the frontier, they were grudgingly tolerated under the assumption that they would eventually be stationed elsewhere. The exception was when they suppressed a strike. Then the mine-owners feted them. 

So the soldiers were a familiar sight in the West, but not further east. “Notice of the bicycle corps troops’ arrival in three Montana towns made no mention of their race,” writes Koelle, but the further east they pedaled, the more the racial commentary increased, and the “stricter the segregation.” In Missouri, for instance, a farmer refused them space for camping after asking if they were “Union soldiers”—three decades after the defeat of slavery in the Civil War.   

No documentation by the soldiers themselves has been found. Koelle pieced together her history from military reports and newspaper articles. Lieutenant Moss, a Southerner who graduated at the bottom of his class at West Point, often characterized the men under his command with the racist stereotypes of the day.  

Moss did, however, propose another cycling sortie, this time from Missoula to San Francisco, with the stated aim of exposing more white Americans to the reality of Black American soldiers. This never happened. The 25th was sent into combat in Cuba in the summer of 1898.

Bottom of Form

After the Spanish-American War, the regiment was stationed in Texas. During the “Brownsville affair” of 1906, 167 members of the regiment were dishonorably discharged without trial after local whites claimed soldiers killed a bartender and wounded a police officer. In 1972, after a new investigation, the men were found innocent, pardoned, and honorably discharged—by then, only two were still alive. 

The highest ranking soldier expelled in 1906 was First Sergeant Mingo Sanders, who had fought in Cuba and, before that, participated in the cross-country bicycle mission. Koelle concludes that in “biking through Indian reservations, national parks, and battlefields, and to St. Louis, [the men of the 25th] embodied the contradictions in the national rhetoric of freedom through westward mobility.”


Resources

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Pedaling on the Periphery: The African American Twenty-fifth Infantry Bicycle Corps and the Roads of American Expansion

By: Alexandra V. Koelle

Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Autumn 2010), pp. 305-326

Oxford University Press

btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate


February 9, 2022
Heather Cox Richardson
Feb 10
This evening, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol issued a subpoena for documents and testimony to former White House trade advisor Peter Navarro, who has made a number of public statements about his role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In its letter to Navarro, the committee noted his statements that former president Trump was “on board with the strategy” of trying to steal the election, as were “more than 100” members of Congress, including Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). This subpoena suggests that the committee is getting closer to lawmakers, and some of them are certainly acting as if they are uncomfortable these days. Navarro responded to the subpoena with a fire-eating statement calling the members of the January 6 committee “domestic terrorists” engaged in a “partisan witch hunt,” and inaccurately claimed that former president Trump has invoked executive privilege that he cannot waive. (In fact, Trump invoked executive privilege only over documents in the possession of the National Archives and Records Administration, and the Supreme Court denied his claims.) He tried to blame House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the Capitol Police for the violence on January 6. He added fuel to the ongoing fight within the Republican Party when he added: “Pence betrayed Trump. Marc Short is a Koch Network dog. Meadows is a fool and a coward. Cheney and Kinzinger are useful idiots for Nancy Pelosi and the woke Left. “Navarro’s discomfort with the committee’s questions was not unlike that of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who picked up today on Representative Troy Nehls’s (R-TX) odd accusations of yesterday that Pelosi and the Capitol Police were spying on him. Greene accused Pelosi of having Gestapo-like secret police “spying on members of Congress, spying on the legislative work we do, spying on our staff and spying on American citizens,” she said, although she called them “gazpacho,” apparently confusing the cold tomato soup with the Nazis. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is also flailing. Sunday, on Face the Nation, he said: “This commission is a partisan scam. They’re going after—they’re—the purpose of that commission is to try to embarrass and smear and harass as many Republicans as they can get their hands on.” Yesterday, he released a video saying “Biden is sending free meth & crack pipes to minority communities in the name of ‘racial equity’…. There is no end in sight for this lunacy. “This is a wild lie made up and spread by right-wing publications, referring to a drug harm reduction program inviting applications for grants in a 75-page call for proposals. Part of that harm reduction includes infectious disease testing kits, medication lock boxes, safe sex kits, vaccinations, and so on, including safe smoking kits, which do not include free meth or crack pipes but do include rubber mouthpieces for pipes to prevent burns, and disinfectant wipes. Drug harm reduction programs have been around in the U.S. since the 1980s, when the HIV epidemic made it clear that addressing drug addiction could stop that era’s epidemic. Exaggeration and demonization of their opponents has been part of politics for years, as Republicans tried to fire up their base by describing their opponents as socialists, lazy “takers,” baby-killers, and so on. Now, though, these over-the-top attacks on the committee and on the Democratic administration seem to be part of a new political project. The frantic edge to them suggests concern about what the January 6th committee might uncover. But statements like those yesterday of Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX), who claimed the Department of Justice was reading his mail; Nehls, who claimed that Pelosi was using the Capitol Police to spy on him; and Greene, who claims Pelosi has a “Gestapo,” normalize the practices of authoritarian government. The proposed banning of books by Republican school officials and lawmakers also echoes authoritarian tactics. Texas State Representative Matt Krause’s October list of 850 books he said “might make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex” invited schools to self-censor. It also puts the idea of banning books–—banning one book normalizes the banning of 850—on the political table. And, to enforce such bans, states like Virginia, West Virginia, and Florida are turning to laws that enlist ordinary people to turn each other in to authorities. We learned yesterday more details of another undemocratic project thanks to Mark Mazzetti and Adam Goldman of the New York Times: in summer 2018, Republican operatives launched a spying operation in Wyoming to gather dirt on opponents of then-president Donald Trump, targeting progressives, Democrats, and Republicans who seemed insufficiently loyal. To help fund the project, they turned to Erik Prince, known as the founder of the military contractor Blackwater and brother of then–secretary of education Betsy DeVos. The third piece of this new, frantic language ties into America’s long history of politicians deploying racism to break the coalitions that challenge their power. When Rubio lies that Biden is sending crack pipes to minority communities, he is tying into other constructed panics around race. Fourteen state legislatures have passed laws restricting the teaching of anything that looks like Critical Race Theory, although the actual concept, an advanced legal theory that seeks to explain the persistence of racial inequality in the U.S., is almost never taught in public schools. Republican allegations of voter fraud focus on majority Black districts, and state laws are increasingly threatening minority voting. On Monday night, the Supreme Court okayed racial gerrymandering, making it harder for Black voters to elect representatives of their choice. These new legal fences enclosing Black Americans echo times in our past when multiracial coalitions threatened an entrenched political party and those in power reacted by using the law to divide their opponents along racial lines. Last June, as Republican operatives whipped up fears of CRT, Republican political operative Stephen K. Bannon told Politico that enflaming racism was how Republicans would take back Congress. “I see 50 [House Republican] seats in 2022. Keep this up,” he said. “I think you’re going to see a lot more emphasis from Trump on [CRT] and DeSantis and others. People who are serious in 2024 and beyond are going to focus on it.” Cracking the majority that elected a Democratic government in 2020 will enable the Republicans to take back Congress and, among other things, ease pressure over the January 6 insurrection. But according to a Washington Post story today, some of the very “suburban moms” being pressed into this racial division are organizing to fight back. “[I]t’s time to get off defense,” organizer Katie Paris told reporter Annie Gowan. “Why should we be the ones explaining ourselves?” Paris’s organization, Red, Wine, and Blue, trains its more than 300,000 members to push back against book bans. Paris recognizes that the attacks on diversity in the schools are about political control of the nation. Attacks on the schools, she says, “certainly are part of what I would say is a pretty massive, orchestrated effort to undermine public education and teachers in the country, impose a political agenda and win back suburban voters.”

Notes: HTTPs://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/select-committee-subpoenas-peter-navarro https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/2022-2-9.BGT%20Letter%20to%20Navarro%20-%20Cover%20Letter%20and%20Schedule_Redacted.pdfhttps://apnews.com/article/business-health-jen-psaki-xavier-becerra-5faa62ff133830b6367f5869f644731dGreg Sargent @ThePlumLineGSA new GOP “snitch culture” is spreading. * DeSantis just backed the Don’t Say Gay measure. It includes rights of action against teachers * A new bill in WV sets up a tip line to report teachings of CRT Spreading fear and panic is the point. My latest: Opinion | Ron DeSantis, ‘Don’t say gay,’ and the new GOP ‘snitch culture’What all these new GOP bills are really trying to accomplish.washingtonpost.comFebruary 9th 20221,022 Retweets2,019 Likeshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/09/desantis-dont-say-gay-bill-florida/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-crack-pipes-racial-equity/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-riot-probe-hits-trump-adviser-navarro-with-subpoena-statement-2022-02-09/Paula Reid @PaulaReidCNNNEW: Former Trump WH advisor Peter Navarro reax to 1/6 subpoena today in statement below. He also added “Pence betrayed Trump.  Marc Short is a Koch Network dog.  Meadows is a fool and a coward.  Cheney and Kinzinger are useful idiots for Nancy Pelosi and the woke Left.” https://t.co/EDSdzt5lBQ Annie Grayer @AnnieGrayerCNNNEW: The 1/6 Committee has issued a subpoena for former White House advisor Peter Navarro. The committee wants to know more about his role in delaying the certification of the 2020 election. Story w/@ZcohenCNN and @ryanobles https://t.co/GrToDz9QS3February 9th 202254 Retweets103 LikesSara Cook @saraecookPeter Navarro adds the following in his statement to @CBSNews: “Pence betrayed Trump. Marc Short is a Koch Network dog. Meadows is a fool and a coward. Cheney and Kinzinger are useful idiots for Nancy Pelosi and the woke Left.”February 9th 2022116 Retweets457 Likeshttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-warns-nancy-pelosis-gazpacho-police-rcna15620https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/us/politics/erik-prince-spy-operation-trump-democrats.htmlhttps://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/23/trumpworld-critical-race-theory-495712https://www.npr.org/2021/10/28/1050013664/texas-lawmaker-matt-krause-launches-inquiry-into-850-bookshttps://actionnetwork.org/forms/book-ban-busters-updateshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/09/suburban-women-voters-organize/
btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate


Drew Sheneman Comic Strip for February 09, 2022
Rob Rogers Comic Strip for February 09, 2022
Mike Luckovich Comic Strip for February 10, 2022
Dana Summers Comic Strip for February 09, 2022
Stuart Carlson Comic Strip for February 09, 2022
Thatababy Comic Strip for February 10, 2022
btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate


February 7, 2022

Heather Cox RichardsonFeb 8

It appears that the Republican National Committee’s censure of Representatives Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), along with its declaration that the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, was “legitimate political discourse,” has created a problem for Republican lawmakers as they try to position the party for the midterms and the 2024 election. Coming, as the statement did, just after former president Trump said that Pence had the power to “overturn the election” and that if reelected, Trump would pardon those who attacked the Capitol, it has put the Republican Party openly on the side of overturning our democracy.

Trump loyalists have been insisting that the rioters were “political prisoners,” and clearly the RNC was speaking for them. This wing of the party got a boost this evening when venture capitalist Peter Thiel, the libertarian whose wealth Forbes estimates to be about $2.6 billion, announced that he is stepping down from the board of Meta, the parent company of Facebook, to focus on electing Trump-aligned candidates in 2022. Thiel famously wrote in 2009 that he “no longer believe[s] that freedom and democracy are compatible,” and deplored “the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women” after 1920.

It also got a boost today when the Supreme Court halted a lower court’s order saying that a redistricting map in Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act by getting rid of a Black majority district. Alabama’s population is 27% Black, which should translate to 2 congressional seats, but by the practice of “packing and cracking”—that is, packing large numbers of Black voters into one district and spreading them thinly across all the others—only one district will likely have a shot at electing a Black representative. The vote for letting the new maps stand was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the liberals against the new right-wing majority, in control thanks to the three justices added by Trump.

But the backlash against the RNC’s statement suggests that most Americans see the deadly attack on our democracy for what it was, and Republican lawmakers are now trying to deflect from the RNC’s statement.

RNC chair Ronna McDaniel said that media quotes from the resolution are a “lie” and says the committee did not mean it to be taken as it has been. But other Republicans seemed to understand that the RNC has firmly dragged the Republican Party into Trump’s war on our democracy.

National Review called the statement “both morally repellent and politically self-destructive,” and worried that “it will be used against hundreds of elected Republicans who were not consulted in its drafting and do not endorse its sentiment.” If indeed the RNC simply misworded their statement, the editors said, “its wording is political malpractice of the highest order coming from people whose entire job is politics.”

Sunday, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who seems to entertain hopes for 2024, said on ABC’s This Week that “January 6 was a riot incited by Donald Trump in an effort to intimidate Mike Pence and Congress into doing exactly what he said in his own words—overturn the election.”

But others, like Senator Todd Young (R-IN), seem to be trying to split the baby. Young told Christiane Amanpour that those saying the attack was legitimate political discourse are “a fringe group,” although the RNC is quite literally the official machinery of the Republican Party. Young is up for reelection in 2022. He is also from Indiana, as is former vice president Mike Pence, who seems to be positioning himself to take over the party as Trump’s legal woes knock him out of the running for 2024.

On Friday, Pence told the Federalist Society that Trump was “wrong” to say that he, Pence, had the power to overturn the election. But he did not say that Biden won the election fairly. Then, on Sunday, Pence’s former chief of staff Marc Short seemed to try to let Trump off the hook for his pressure on Pence, telling Chuck Todd on Meet the Press that the former president “had many bad advisers who were basically snake oil salesmen giving him really random and novel ideas as to what the vice president could do.”

They seem to be trying to keep Trump’s voters while easing the former president himself offstage, hoping that voters will forget that the Republican leadership stood by Trump until he openly talked of overturning the election.

Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), chair of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, seems unlikely to stand by as the country moves on, as the National Review editors indicated they were hoping. As he said in his closing at Trump’s first impeachment trial: “History will not be kind to Donald Trump. If you find that the House has proved its case, and still vote to acquit, your name will be tied to his with a cord of steel and for all of history.”

The other big news of the past day is that it turns out that Trump and his team mishandled presidential records, suggesting that we will never get the full story of what happened in that White House.

By law, presidential records and federal records belong to the U.S. government. An administration must preserve every piece of official business. Some of the documents that the Trump team delivered to the January 6 committee had been ripped up and taped back together, some were in pieces, and some, apparently, were shredded and destroyed. Legal commentator Asha Rangappa noted that Trump’s impeachments mean that such shredding could have amounted to an obstruction of justice.

Today we learned that the National Archives and Records Administration had to retrieve 15 boxes of material from Trump’s Florida residence Mar-a-Lago, including correspondence with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and the letter that former president Barack Obama left for Trump (which would have brought a pretty penny if it were sold). Trump aides say they are trying to determine what other records need to be returned.

Former Republican Kurt Bardella noted, “If this had happened during a Democratic Administration while Republicans were in the majority, I guarantee you [the Oversight Committee] would be launching a massive investigation into this and writing subpoenas right now to any and every W[hite] H[ouse] official that was involved in this.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the story to raise money for her progressive organization, Onward Together. She linked to the story as she urged people to “Take a sip from your new mug as you read the news.” With the tweet was the picture of a mug with her image and the caption “But Her Emails.”

House January 6 committee member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) says that the committee is planning to hold public hearings in April or May. They have been slowed down by the reluctance of the Trump team to cooperate.

Notes:

Hugo Lowell @hugolowellNew: @GovChristie tells it straight on ABC: “Jan. 6 was a riot incited by Donald Trump in an effort to intimidate Mike Pence and Congress into doing exactly what he said in his own words — overturn the election.”February 6th 20225,902 Retweets24,727 Likes

Asha Rangappa @AshaRangappa_And when were they shredded? Apart from violating the Presidential Records Act*, the minute that the impeachment process got underway this would have been evidence and destruction is obstruction Hugo Lowell @hugolowellNew via Washington Post: When the Jan. 6 committee asked for certain docs related to Trump’s efforts to pressure Pence, for example, some of them no longer existed because they had already been shredded.February 6th 20224,130 Retweets14,725 Likes

Manu Raju @mkrajuGOP Sen. Todd Young, who is up for re-elect this year, to @amanpour on RNC resolution: “I don’t know any American that regards that as legitimate political discourse. I certainly haven’t encountered them here in the state of Indiana. That is a fringe group.”February 7th 2022965 Retweets5,902 Likes

https://www.axios.com/pence-chief-staff-trump-election-ad0e1566-12dd-469e-9e40-01dd4fc21b55.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/06/republicans-cheney-kinzinger-rubio-00006039

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2022/2/6/22920968/rnc-censure-adam-kinzinger-liz-cheney-could-backfire-illinois-republicans

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/

“RNC should take a lesson from Mike Pence,” National Review, February 5, 2022 (I won’t link to this because it always crashes my computer, and it might do the same to yours). 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/07/trump-records-mar-a-lago/

Hugo Lowell @hugolowellNew via Washington Post: When the Jan. 6 committee asked for certain docs related to Trump’s efforts to pressure Pence, for example, some of them no longer existed because they had already been shredded.February 5th 20226,336 Retweets18,926 Likes

Kurt Bardella @kurtbardellaIf this had happened during a Democratic Administration while Republicans were in the majority, I guarantee you @GOPoversight would be launching a massive investigation into this and writing subpoenas right now to any and every WH official that was involved in this. Jacqueline Alemany @JaxAlemanyScoop: National Archives last month had to retrieve boxes of Trump WH records from Mar-a-Lago that were improperly removed from the WH. The items included correspondence w Kim Jong Un. With @jdawsey1⁩ ⁦@thamburger⁩ & ⁦@AshleyRParker⁩ > https://t.co/ZdGvEk66ZvFebruary 7th 20221,373 Retweets4,435 Likes

Hillary Clinton @HillaryClintonTake a sip from your new mug as you read the news… shop.onwardtogether.org/collections/fr…

Image
Image

February 7th 20224,403 Retweets23,900 Likes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/01/31/trump-ripped-up-documents/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/07/supreme-court-alabama-racial-gerrymandering/

​​https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/marc-short-trump-snake-oil-salesmen-pence-2020-election-certification

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/07/trump-records-mar-a-lago/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/01/31/trump-ripped-up-documents/

Share

LikeCommentShare
btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate


Heather Cox RichardsonFeb 6

Just for fun, because today feels like a good day to talk about Grover Cleveland….

The economy has boomed under President Joe Biden, putting the lie to the old trope that Democrats don’t manage the economy as well as Republicans.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The economy has performed better under Democrats than Republicans since at least World War II. CNN Business reports that since 1945, the Standard & Poor’s 500—a market index of 500 leading U.S. publicly traded companies—has averaged an annual gain of 11.2% during years when Democrats controlled the White House, and a 6.9% average gain under Republicans. In the same time period, gross domestic product grew by an average of 4.1% under Democrats, 2.5% under Republicans. Job growth, too, is significantly stronger under Democrats than Republicans.

“[T]here has been a stark pattern in the United States for nearly a century,” wrote David Leonhardt of the New York Times last year, “The economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic presidents than Republican ones.”

The persistence of the myth that Democrats are bad for the economy is an interesting example of the endurance of political rhetoric over reality.

It began in the postwar years: the post–Civil War years, that is. Before the Civil War, moneyed men tended to support the Democrats, for the big money in the country was in the cotton enterprises of the leading enslavers in the American South, and they expressed their political power through the Democratic Party, which promised to protect and nurture the institution of human enslavement. Indeed, when soldiers of the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, in April 1861, it was not clear at all whether bankers in New York City would back the United States or the southern rebels. After all, the South was the wealthiest region of the country, and the North had just undergone the devastating Panic of 1857. Southern leaders laughed that without the South, northerners would starve.

The economic policies of the war years, including our first national money, national taxation, state universities, and deficit spending, created a newly booming industrial North, but many moneyed men resented the Republican policies they felt offered too much to poor Americans (the Homestead Act was a special thorn in their sides because it meant that western lands taken from Indigenous Americans would no longer be sold to bring money into the Treasury but would be given away to poor farmers). When the government established national banks, establishing regulations over the lucrative banking industry, state bankers were unhappy.

Whether moneyed men would stay loyal to Lincoln in 1864 was an open question. In the end, they did, but their loyalty after the war was up for grabs.

Democrats’ postwar financial policies drove moneyed men to give their allegiance to the Republican Party. Eager to make inroads on the Republicans’ popularity, northern Democrats pointed out that the economic gains of the war years had gone to those at the top of the economy, and they called for financial policies that would level the playing field. Notably, they wanted to pay the interest on the war debt with greenbacks rather than gold, which would make the bonds significantly less valuable. The alteration would also establish that political parties could take office and change government financial engagements after they were already in force.

Republicans recognized that if a change of this sort were legitimate, the government’s ability to borrow in the future—say, to put down another rebellion—would be hamstrung. They were so worried that in 1868, they protected the debt in the Fourteenth Amendment itself, saying: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

When it looked as if a coalition including the Democrats might win the presidency in 1872, leaders from Wall Street publicly threw their weight behind the Republicans, and in exchange, the Republicans backed away from supporting the workers who had made up their initial voting base.

Southern white supremacists had begun to charge that permitting poor men to vote would lead to a redistribution of wealth as they voted for roads and schools and hospitals that could only be paid for by tax levies on those with property. Such a system was, they charged, “socialism.”

While southern whites directed their animosity toward their formerly enslaved Black neighbors, northerners of means adopted their ideas and language but targeted immigrants and organized workers. If those people came to control government and thus the economy, wealthier Americans argued, they would bring socialism to America, and the nation would never recover.

Increasingly, power shifted to wealthy industrialists who, after 1872, were represented by the Republican Party. They demanded high tariffs that protected their industries by keeping out foreign competition and thus permitted them to collude to raise prices on consumers. By the 1880s, Republican senators were openly serving big business; even the staunchly Republican Chicago Tribune lamented in 1884 that “[b]ehind every one of half of the portly and well-dressed members of the Senate can be seen the outlines of some corporation interested in getting or preventing legislation.”

As money moved to the top of the economy, Democrats pushed back, calling for government to restore a level playing field between workers and their employers. As they did so, Republicans howled that Democrats advocated socialism.

Finally, after the spectacularly corrupt administration of Republican Benjamin Harrison, which businessmen had called “beyond question the best business administration the country has ever seen,” the unthinkable happened. In the election of 1892, for the first time since the Civil War, Democrats took control of the White House and Congress. They promised to rein in the power of big business by lowering the tariffs and loosening the money supply. This, Republicans insisted, meant financial ruin.

Republicans warned that capital would flee the markets and urged foreign investors—on whom the economy depended—to take their money home. They predicted a financial crash as the Democrats embraced socialism, anarchism, and labor organization. Money flowed out of the country as the outgoing Harrison administration poured gasoline on the fires of media fears and refused to act to try to turn the tide. Harrison’s secretary of the Treasury, Charles Foster, said his job was only to “avert a catastrophe” until March 4, when Democratic president Grover Cleveland would take office.

He didn’t quite manage it. The bottom fell out of the economy on February 17, when the Reading Railroad Company could not make its payroll, sparking a nationwide panic. The stock market collapsed. And yet the Harrison administration refused to do anything until the day Cleveland took office, when Foster helpfully announced the Treasury “was down to bedrock.”

To Cleveland fell the Panic of 1893, with its strikes, marchers, and despair, all of which opponents insisted was the Democrats’ fault. In the midterm election of 1894, Republicans showed the statistics of Cleveland’s first two years and told voters that Democrats destroyed the economy. Voters could restore the health of the nation’s economy by electing Republicans again. In 1894, voters returned Republicans to control of the government in the biggest midterm landslide in American history, and the image of Democrats as bad for the economy was cemented.

From then on, Republicans portrayed Democrats as weak on the economy. When the next Democratic president to take office, Woodrow Wilson, undermined the tariff as soon as he took office, replacing it with an income tax, opponents insisted the Revenue Act of 1913 was inaugurating the country’s socialistic downfall. When Democratic president Franklin Delano Roosevelt pioneered the New Deal, Republicans saw socialism. Over the past century, that rhetoric has only grown stronger.

And yet, of course, it has been Republican economic policies that opened up the possibility for Democrats to try new approaches to the economy, to make it serve all Americans, rather than a favored few. As FDR put it: “It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.”

In the end, that’s what the economists Leonhardt interviewed last year think is behind Democrats’ ability to manage the economy better than Republicans. Republicans tend to cling to abstract theories about how the economy works—theories about high tariffs or tax cuts, for example, which tend to concentrate wealth upward—while Democrats are more pragmatic, willing to pay attention to facts on the ground and to historical lessons about what works and what doesn’t.

Notes:

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/business/stock-market-by-president/index.html

btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate


February 3, 2022
Heather Cox Richardson
Feb 4Today, President Joe Biden announced that U.S. special operations launched a counterterrorism mission against the leader of the Islamic State militant group, ISIS. Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi took control of ISIS after the death of previous leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who killed himself in October 2019 during a raid by U.S. troops. Qurayshi was located in a safe house in northwestern Syria, and as U.S. forces approached, he detonated a bomb killing himself and the 13 women and children in the quarters with him.Critics had charged that Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, begun under former president Trump, would injure U.S. credibility in the fight against terrorism. Thanking U.S. armed forces for their skill and bravery, Biden indicated his critics’ assessment had been misguided. “Last night’s operation took a major terrorist leader off the battlefield, and it sent a strong message to terrorists around the world: We will come after you and find you,” Biden said.Biden’s handling of tensions with Russia has also strengthened the nation’s international hand. Russian president Vladimir Putin has demanded extraordinary concessions, and rather than weakening the resolve of members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, his aggression has united them. And, according to Edward Luce of the Financial Times, they are united behind U.S. leadership. “It has been years since that sentence could be written with a straight face,” Luce wrote. “Russia has brought about what it fears—a west that is displaying something approaching resolve.”Today, U.S. officials claimed to have evidence that Russian intelligence intends to create a “very graphic” video, involving actors and corpses, that claims to show a Ukrainian attack on Russian speakers in order to justify a new Russian invasion of the neighboring country. Britain came to a similar conclusion. British diplomat James Roscoe tweeted: “Russia says it will never invade Ukraine. Unless it is provoked. So *just in case* it is provoked, it has massed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s border. But how is it that they are able to anticipat[e] that provocation? Perhaps because they are planning to stage [it]?”Representative Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), former CIA analyst and former acting assistant secretary of defense, tweeted that a classified briefing was “a powerful reminder of just how much warfare has changed.” The Russian plan to stage a false attack on Russian troops by Ukrainian soldiers is “insane behavior,” she said. “​​Disinformation & misinformation are real tools in the Russian toolkit, as are cyberattacks that could deliberately target American & NATO civilians.”Disinformation remains a weapon at home, too. Josh Dawsey, Rosalind S. Helderman, Emma Brown, Jon Swaine, and Jacqueline Alemany of the Washington Post this morning broke the story that on December 18, 2020, extremists proposed to former president Trump that he use the powers of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Defense Department to try to prove that foreign countries had swung the 2020 election. It suggested he could direct the agencies to sift through the electronic data from phones, emails, social media, and so on, automatically collected by those agencies but against the law to use to target individuals without a court order.After the election, on November 9, 2020, the White House pressured the Pentagon into naming a lightly qualified 36-year-old Trump loyalist, Michael Ellis, to become the top lawyer at the NSA. The appointment was problematic and thus Ellis did not take charge during Trump’s term, but the decision to appoint him over career civil servants perhaps bears more attention even than it got at the time. While the proposal never went into effect, its backers did send it to Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Ron Johnson (R-WI). Senator Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY) also attended a meeting on January 4 in which attendees alleged (falsely) that foreign governments had affected the vote. “[W]hy the heck did these R[epublican]s not alert the FBI, totally failure of conscience and their oaths,” wrote Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post.It’s a good point. Meanwhile, reporters continue to dig into the history of the false electors who claimed Trump had won their states. Alan Feuer, Maggie Haberman, and Luke Broadwater of the New York Times today revealed two legal memos from a lawyer affiliated with the Trump campaign providing legal rationales for the fake electors. “[W]e are,” he wrote, “trying to have an alternate slate vote, in hopes that its legitimacy will be validated….” One memo, dated November 18, 2020, by Kenneth Chesebro, justified the casting of fake ballots; another, dated December 9, 2020, focused on overturning the certified ballots for Biden. It urged the fake electors to meet in secret, sign fake documents, and submit them as if they were real. Chesebro worked to find loopholes in the mechanics of the process to enable the fake electors to seem legitimate. “Michigan is much more specific about the location in which the electors must meet,” he noted, “which could be a bit awkward.” “Nevada is an extremely problematic State, because it requires the meeting of the electors to be overseen by the Secretary of State, who is only supposed to permit electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote in Nevada,” he wrote. “In conclusion,” he wrote, “it appears that voting by an alternate slate of electors is unproblematic in Arizona and Wisconsin; slightly problematic in Michigan (requiring access to the senate chamber); somewhat dicey in Georgia and Pennsylvania…; and very problematic in Nevada.”  Chesebro’s cool analysis of how to overturn our democracy is chilling. Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), chair of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, notes that the committee members are paying attention to the churning news about the insurrection. Trump’s comments over the weekend about pardoning the January 6 rioters spoke of his intent: ““If this violence against the Capitol wasn’t part of the plan, or wasn’t something he condoned, then why would he consider pardoning them?”And yet, the Republican National Committee is doubling down on its support for Trump, its resolution committee tonight voting unanimously to censure the two Republican representatives on the January 6 committee: Representatives Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL).Ahead of the party vote, Cheney said: “Leaders of the Republican Party have made themselves willing hostages to a man who admits he tried to overturn a presidential election and suggests he would pardon Jan. 6 defendants…some of whom have been charged with seditious conspiracy. I’m a constitutional conservative and I do not recognize those in my party who have abandoned the Constitution to embrace Donald Trump. History will be their judge.”
—Notes:Jennifer ‘pro-voting’ Rubin @JRubinBloggerwhy the heck did these Rs not alert the FBI, totally failure of conscience and their oaths Memo circulated among Trump allies advocated using NSA data in attempt to prove stolen electionThe proposal to seize and analyze “NSA unprocessed raw signals data” raises legal and ethical concerns that set it apart from other attempts that have come to light.washingtonpost.comFebruary 3rd 2022396 Retweets1,516 LikesRep. Elissa Slotkin @RepSlotkinJust had a classified briefing on Russia/Ukraine from the SecDef, SecState, DNI and others. It was a powerful reminder of just how much warfare has changed.February 3rd 2022761 Retweets2,927 LikesHugo Lowell @hugolowellNew: GOP resolution committee at RNC winter meeting unanimously approves the censure of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger — the two House Republicans on the Jan. 6 committeeFebruary 4th 2022606 Retweets1,539 Likeshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/03/trump-nsa-election/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/02/us/trump-electors-memo-november.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/02/us/trump-electors-memo-december.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/us/politics/trump-jan-6-memos.htmlhttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/adam-schiff-donald-trump-pardons-prospect_n_61fb94f5e4b084213da3e57dScott MacFarlane @MacFarlaneNewsRep Liz Cheney ahead of anticipated RNC censure vote: “Leaders of the Republican Party have made themselves willing hostages to a man who admits he tried to overturn a presidential election and suggests he would pardon Jan. 6 defendants….” (More)February 4th 20221,702 Retweets7,217 Likeshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/context/dec-18-2020-memo/af2cc1eb-730b-4171-bcc8-50bbe07e0ff9/James Roscoe @jmsroscoeRussia says it will never invade Ukraine. Unless it is provoked. So *just in case* it is provoked it has massed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s border. But how is it that they are able to anticipation that provocation? Perhaps because they are planning to stage that provocation? The New York Times @nytimesThe U.S. has exposed what it says is a Russian plan to use a fake video to create a pretext to invade Ukraine, senior officials said. https://t.co/S9aMp4lAYHFebruary 3rd 202247 Retweets198 Likeshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/03/biden-on-a-roll-syria-raid-isis-russia-ukraine/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-gop-political-operative-michael-ellis-named-as-nsa-general-counsel/2020/11/09/8c7c025a-22cc-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.htmlJames Roscoe @jmsroscoeRussia says it will never invade Ukraine. Unless it is provoked. So *just in case* it is provoked it has massed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s border. But how is it that they are able to anticipation that provocation? Perhaps because they are planning to stage that provocation? The New York Times @nytimesThe U.S. has exposed what it says is a Russian plan to use a fake video to create a pretext to invade Ukraine, senior officials said. https://t.co/S9aMp4lAYHFebruary 3rd 202247 Retweets198 Likeshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/03/qurayshi-isis-leader-killed/https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-did-trump-loyalist-come-be-named-nsa-general-counsel-and-what-should-biden-do-about-it
btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate


The following post has attachments worth reading as they show how callous the “former guy” was and continues to be in the face of truth. This also points out the gullibility of his followers much like the followers of “this way to the egress”, which P.T. Barnum used to garner a reentry fee to his sideshow. MA.

February 2, 2022
Heather Cox Richardson
Feb 3
Today, retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman sued Donald Trump, Jr., Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and others, as well as Fox News Channel personalities, including Laura Ingraham, for obstructing an official proceeding “by intimidating and retaliating against a key witness.” The lawsuit describes an “intentional, concerted campaign of unlawful intimidation and retaliation against a sitting Director of the National Security Council and decorated military officer…to prevent him from and then punish him for testifying truthfully before Congress during impeachment proceedings against President Trump.”Their goal, the lawsuit says, was to portray him as disloyal to the United States, a spy, and “a politically motivated ‘leftist’ within the military who was insubordinate and even broke the law.” In addition to the effect on Vindman himself, it said, the attacks “left a stain on our democracy.”And so, on Groundhog Day, we have come full circle.Vindman was a key witness in the first House of Representatives impeachment hearing in 2019. A Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, he had been on the July 25, 2019 call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. After hearing the call, Vindman had reported to John Eisenberg, the top lawyer for the National Security Council, that the call was troubling, with Trump pressing Zelensky to deliver an investigation into Hunter Biden, the son of potential rival Joe Biden, in exchange for promised military aid to Ukraine so it could resist Russian incursions. Eisenberg told Vindman not to tell anyone else about the conversation.Vindman’s opening statement before Congress recalled the American dream. He explained that his father, who had brought Vindman from Ukraine when three, was afraid to have his son testify against the president. Vindman assured him it would be okay. “Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth,” Vindman said he told his father, “because this is America, this is the country I have served and defended, that all of my brothers have served, and here, right matters.”After Vindman’s testimony, he was ousted from the National Security Council, and his twin brother Eugene, a senior lawyer and ethics official for the NSC who had not been involved in the impeachment hearings, was also fired, escorted off White House grounds “suddenly and without explanation,” according to Alexander’s lawyer David Pressman. The two men were fired on the same day Trump told reporters that he was “not happy” with Vindman’s testimony.On July 8, 2020, Vindman resigned from the military after more than 21 years, citing the “campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation” led by the president for his decision to leave public service.And now he is suing the allies of the former president, demanding they repair the damage they did, both to Vindman and to democracy. “The threat to our democracy came from a conspiracy among people within the highest reaches of our government and their close allies. President Trump and his aides and other close associates, including Defendants, waged a targeted campaign against Lt. Col. Vindman for upholding his oath of office and telling the truth.”“I filed this lawsuit,” he said, “because I believe in the active role all citizens must play in upholding our democracy.”It’s an interesting moment.The former president is still strong. His fundraising emails, full of fake promises of 700x matching and dinners with the president, might sound just like scams, but they work: he started the year with $122 million in cash. He seems to be stockpiling it for himself; the only significant expenditure he has made is $1 million to a nonprofit, the Conservative Partnership Institute.But things are not all ducky for him, either.That million-dollar payment to CPI is significantly higher than any other donation, and it went to CPI, where his former chief of staff Mark Meadows now works, weeks after the House created the January 6 committee, which has subpoenaed Meadows.Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social, is supposed to go live this month, but when Business Insider reached out to Trump’s people—including to former representative Devin Nunes, who left Congress to become the CEO of Trump Media and Technology Group—to ask about it, no one responded. The investor presentation for the company was “so bad, it is laughable—literally says nothing,” one person to whom it was circulated wrote. The special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) behind Trump’s company is under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.Yesterday, Trump tried to take back his statement of Sunday indicating he wanted then–vice president Pence to overturn the election. He released a statement saying he only wanted Pence to send the electoral votes back to the states “for reassessment.” This, too, would have been illegal, but it is significant because it shows he recognizes that his earlier statement adds to the case against him.At his rally in Conroe, Texas, on Saturday, Trump promised to pardon the insurrectionists if he is reelected, and today Tara Palmeri of Politico reported that Trump had considered blanket pardons of the rioters, asking advisors if he had the power and if it was a good idea. Belying the idea floated by right-wing media that the rioters were “antifa,” he asked, “Is it everybody that had a Trump sign or everybody who walked into the Capitol,” who could be pardoned. Trump also wanted to announce that he was running in 2024 even before Biden’s inauguration, hoping to frame any future prosecutions as being politically motivated.Representative Pete Aguilar (D-CA), a member of the committee investigating the insurrection, said on CNN that Trump’s promise is “absolutely” witness tampering. He wondered what it would take for Republicans to say enough is enough. “I don’t know where the floor is on that side of the aisle,” he said.That seems a reasonable question, as right-wing personalities are upping the ante in their political rhetoric, echoing authoritarians in their suggestion that they will use the power of the government to go after those they consider political opponents. Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, for example, has expressed interest in arresting President Biden’s chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci, saying, “[w]e are going to create criminal referrals…. There needs to be an example made of him.”As right-wing fury seems to mount, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol is quietly gathering evidence, and those testifying seem to be getting closer to the heart of the attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.Yesterday, yet another member of former vice president Mike Pence’s team, top aide Greg Jacob, met with the January 6 committee for more than eight and a half hours.The leader of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, has appeared before the committee this week and has answered “many questions,” according to his lawyer, although he has exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination with regard to other questions.Today, former Department of Justice lawyer Jeffrey Clark met with the January 6 committee for close to two hours. Clark backed Trump’s attempt to cast doubt on the election, and Trump entertained the idea of making him attorney general until Department of Justice leadership threatened to resign as a group if he did. Initially, Clark refused to answer a subpoena, and in December the committee voted to hold him in criminal contempt. The committee remained willing to talk, though, and apparently it now has.We learned today that the committee has also subpoenaed from T-Mobile the phone records of Arizona Republican Party chair Kelli Ward and her husband, Michael Ward, both of whom signed a document falsely claiming that Trump had won Arizona’s electoral votes. The Wards filed suit in federal court today to block the subpoena, saying that because the Wards are osteopathic doctors who use their phones to talk to patients, the subpoenas violate patient-doctor privilege.Meanwhile, the committee has put off Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s testimony while it discusses the scope of his subpoena with his lawyer.Today, committee member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said that the committee expects to hear from Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter and White House advisor, whom the committee expects to call this week.Raskin also said public hearings will likely be held in April. This will make them uncomfortably close to the midterm elections, but they have had to be pushed back because of obstruction by Trump’s people.And so we are back to where we were in 2019, when Vindman first reminded us that in America, right matters. At long last, will most of us decide that it does?—
Notes:https://www.thedailybeast.com/alexander-vindman-sues-trump-donald-trump-jr-fox-news-allies-alleging-conspiracy-to-silence-himRachel Vindman @natsechobbyist“I filed this lawsuit because I believe in the active role all citizens must play in upholding our democracy.” usatoday.com/story/opinion/…via @USATODAYAlexander Vindman: Why I’m seeking accountability from Trump allies in courtPublic servants who do their duty, tell the truth and uphold their oaths of office shouldn’t be subjected to intimidation and retaliation.usatoday.comFebruary 2nd 20221,576 Retweets10,770 Likeshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/31/trump-fundraising-2021-fec-filings/Public NoticeTrump’s unintentionally hilarious fundraising emails, explainedI was drinking my morning coffee and putting the finishing touches on Tuesday’s edition of the newsletter when an email from “Donald J. Trump” caught my eye. “Don’t share this with anyone,” read the subject line. I’ve subscribed to Trump’s emails long enough to realize that the former president hadn’t really penned me a personal note. Still, I was curious…Read more13 hours ago · 26 likes · 6 comments · Aaron RuparBen Siegel @bensiegelGreg Jacob, an attorney who worked for former VP Pence in the White House, met with the @January6thCmte for at least 8.5 hours Tuesday, per pooler @HolmesLybrand He’s at least the second senior Pence aide to meet w/ the panel, after chief of staff Marc Short appeared last week.February 2nd 2022937 Retweets4,596 LikesBrianna Keilar @brikeilarcnnJanuary 6th committee member @RepPeteAguilar says former President Trump is “absolutely” tampering with witnesses by promising pardons for those charged with crimes related to the insurrection. February 2nd 2022294 Retweets918 Likes​​Zak Hudak @cbszakNEWS: Ex-DOJ official Jeffrey Clark is meeting with the Jan. 6 committee right now, per pooler @HolmesLybrandFebruary 2nd 2022953 Retweets4,914 LikesHugo Lowell @hugolowellJan. 6 committee member Jamie Raskin: “Had we not faced so much obstruction by Trump’s entourage, we would be a lot further along now” — which suggests if final report comes close to midterms, it’s Trump’s fault.February 2nd 20221,892 Retweets9,086 Likeshttps://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/vindman-sues-don-jr-giuliani-other-trump-allies-over-first-impeachment-smear-campaignhttps://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/excitement-about-trumps-social-media-site-is-tepid-with-just-weeks-before-its-launch-but-one-politically-eager-genzer-is-all-in/articleshow/89285342.cmshttps://www.cnn.com/2022/01/11/investing/trump-spac-stock/index.htmlHugo Lowell @hugolowellNew: Jan. 6 committee has deferred Rudy Giuliani’s deadline to respond to his subpoena for a few weeks while House investigators discuss the scope of his subpoena with his lawyer, per sources familiar.February 2nd 2022709 Retweets2,827 Likeshttps://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/politics/oath-keepers-stewart-rhodes-january-6-investigation/index.htmlJulia Jester @JulesJesterNEW: Jeffrey Clark, former Trump DOJ official, is meeting with the January 6 committee. In Dec, the House panel voted for Clark to be held in criminal contempt for refusing to answer questions & provide documents. Clark brought a suitcase with him this afternoon. February 2nd 202251 Retweets140 Likeshttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/jamie-raskin-discusses-january-6-select-committee-and-ivanka-trump/https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/02/jan-6-committee-subpoenas-arizona-gop-chair-00004903https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/01/trump-gave-1m-to-meadows-nonprofit-weeks-after-jan-6-panels-creation.htmlhttps://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/02/trump-considered-blanket-pardons-for-jan-6-rioters-before-he-left-office-00004738

January 31, 2022
Heather Cox Richardson
Feb 1, CNN reported tonight that former president Trump had not one but two executive orders prepared to enable his loyalists to seize voting machines after the 2020 election. One authorizing the Pentagon to seize the machines was made public as part of the investigation by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. Another, authorizing the Department of Homeland Security, has been confirmed to CNN by a number of sources, but is not publicly available.Shortly after this report, the New York Times reported a story with much more detail, claiming that Trump was directly involved in the plans to seize the machines. The authors talked to “people familiar with the matter [who] were briefed on the events by participants or had firsthand knowledge of them.” That latter description is interesting: someone in Trump’s inner circle is talking to reporters (and the shape of the different elements in the story suggests that person is not necessarily giving an accurate account).CNN also reported that former vice president Mike Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, testified before the January 6 committee last week. Short had been cooperating with the committee, providing documents, and testified after a subpoena. He was with Pence for many of the key moments surrounding the events of January 6.The committee has asked a judge to adjust document production from lawyer John Eastman’s former employer, Chapman University. Eastman sued to stop a subpoena for 94,000 pages of emails the university agreed to produce, saying that many of them were covered by attorney-client privilege. So a judge ordered him to review them, but he is moving so slowly the committee says he won’t get around to sending the ones between January 4, 2021, and January 7, 2021—the ones the members most want to see—until it’s too late for them to be of use. The judge ordered him to prioritize those days. Also, campaign finance reports filed today show that former president George W. Bush donated the maximum allowable to Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY), who is vice chair of the January 6 committee, and to Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who also opposed former president Trump. The fight between establishment Republicans and Trump Republicans continues to simmer, but the muted response today to Trump’s statement last night about overturning the election suggests the establishment is not willing to make a stand in favor of our democratic system if it means losing their base.   In the wake of Trump’s weekend attack on the prosecutors investigating the varying valuations of his properties and his efforts to overturn the election, Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney Fani Willis today asked the FBI to address heightened security concerns.Otherwise, today’s main news came from the meeting of the United Nations Security Council, where the U.S. ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, warned of an “urgent and dangerous” situation in Europe as Russian president Vladimir Putin has massed more than 100,000 Russian troops along the border with Ukraine. The Russian representative countered that Russia had indicated no intention of invading Ukraine and the U.S. is fearmongering.At stake is the concept of sovereignty: will large states have the power to absorb their neighbors into spheres of influence in a system that mirrors that of the Cold War era, or will each state have the right to hold firm borders and determine its own alliances. The U.S. and the U.K. have said they have prepared a list of “oligarchs close to the Kremlin” who will be hit with sanctions in the case that Russian troops invade Ukraine again. The list includes the family members of those profiting from Putin’s regime, cutting off their ability to funnel illicit money into western democracies. This is a huge deal. Oligarchs consolidated power in the former Soviet satellite states in the 1990s and moved enormous amounts of illicit money into the U.S. and the U.K.—so much that London is sometimes called “Londongrad.” Recent studies suggest that the influx of that illicit money had undermined democracy, and cleaning it up would almost certainly help to stabilize the systems in the U.S. and the U.K. British foreign secretary Liz Truss said the measures “can target anyone providing strategic support close to Vladimir Putin.”This threat appears to have worried the Kremlin, whose spokesperson Dmitry Peskov called the proposed measures an illegitimate “outright attack on business.” The head of Russia’s Senate committee for protection of national sovereignty, Andrey Klimov, said that any such sanctions would hurt Britain rather than Russia by hurting the image of the U.K. as a safe haven for investments. Capital would flow out of the U.K. to Hong Kong or Zurich, he warned.Interviewed by Politico’s Ryan Heath, European Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Kadri Liik noted that a massive military deployment would be “very badly received” in Russia. Asked if Putin sees Biden as weak, Liik said the opposite: that he has come off as smart. “He’s trying to limit his frontlines. He’s not fighting each and every battle. Plus, Biden is someone who can speak on behalf of the West. During the whole Trump period, there was no one like that.”In Britain today, Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the country’s Conservative Party faced a serious challenge to his government when a report revealed “failures of leadership and judgment” by Johnson in attending 12 parties that ignored the country’s strict lockdown rules. Johnson had downplayed the events and now that they are confirmed, even much of his own party appears ready to abandon him, appalled that he apparently considered himself above the law. In a leader, one member of Parliament said, “honesty and decency matters.”—
Notes: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/31/politics/trump-executive-orders-seize-voting-machines/index.htmlhttps://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/31/george-w-bush-donations-gop-impeachment-00004007https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/31/politics/pence-marc-short-january-6-committee/index.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/us/politics/trump-election-fraud.htmlhttps://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/31/house-accuses-trump-attorney-john-eastman-of-stalling-on-jan-6-subpoena-00004026https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/breaking-fulton-da-seeks-fbis-aid-as-trump-probe-advances/OSABSTUVHBATPPMQCU7LXSXMV4/https://www.rt.com/russia/547781-uk-london-oligarch-property/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/31/liz-truss-vows-nowhere-to-hide-for-putin-allies-if-ukraine-invadedhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/31/us-to-target-putins-inner-circle-with-sanctions-in-event-of-ukraine-invasionhttps://www.politico.com/newsletters/global-insider/2022/01/26/inside-russias-thinking-on-ukraine-00002228
btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate