Republicans
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
Marjorie Taylor Greene a ‘Democrat or an idiot’, fellow Republican says
Marjorie Taylor Greene a ‘Democrat or an idiot’, fellow Republican saysCongressman Dan Crenshaw throws barb at congresswoman in spat over his support for using Fema to operate Covid testing sites The extremist Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene “might be a Democrat – or just an idiot” – according to a fellow hardline conservative.US reports global record of more than 1m daily Covid casesRead moreDan Crenshaw, a Texas congressman and former Navy Seal, threw the barb back at the Georgia congresswoman in a spat over his support for using the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) to operate Covid testing sites.The US is experiencing a crippling surge of Covid cases thanks to the infectious Omicron variant, with more than 1m recorded on Monday and lack of access to testing hampering state and federal responses.Greene has consistently spread Covid conspiracy theories. On Sunday, she was permanently suspended from Twitter, for spreading misinformation.That drew support from Donald Trump, who without discernible irony called Twitter “a disgrace to democracy”, said Greene had “a huge constituency of honest, patriotic, hard-working people”, and added: “Keep fighting, Marjorie!”Regardless, on Monday Greene was temporarily suspended from Facebook, for spreading misinformation.She took aim at Crenshaw on Instagram, writing: “No Fema should not set up testing sites to check for Omicron sneezes, coughs and runny noses.“And we don’t need Fema in hospitals, they should hire back all the unvaccinated [healthcare workers] they fired.“He needs to stop calling himself conservative, he’s hurting our brand.”Crenshaw responded on Instagram, saying: “Hey, Marjorie, if suggesting we should follow Trump policy instead of Biden mandates makes you mad, then you might be a Democrat – or just an idiot.”Greene has been repeatedly fined for failing to wear a mask on the floor of the House of Representatives.Crenshaw, however, has his own history of provocative behaviour.As the Houston Chronicle pointed out, “Before calling for federally funded testing sites, Crenshaw used to share wild posts to social media, before Greene took office, including posting action movie-style videos of him beating up Antifa members.”More than 827,000 people have died in the US from Covid-19.TopicsRepublicansUS politicsOmicron variantCoronavirusnewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
Will the hundreds of Capitol rioters in court ever be held truly accountable?
Inside the FBI’s Capitol riot investigation: will the attackers be held accountable? As Republicans spread a revisionist history of the insurrection, its perpetrators are celebrated and even elected to public officeIt’s been one year since a mob of Donald Trump supporters stormed the United States Capitol, as the “stop the steal” rally demanding to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election turned into a deadly insurrection.After the attack, the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation mobilized one of the largest criminal investigations in American history. Those efforts have so far resulted in more than 700 federal cases and counting, with more suspects expected to be charged. But for all that we have learned about the insurrection and the people who took part in it, crucial questions remain about the fallout of the attack for the far right and what it means to hold its perpetrators accountable.Federal prosecutors want the arrests and convictions of those responsible to act as a deterrent against extremism and future attempts to undermine democracy, experts say, but despite more than 150 guilty pleas so far, the legacy of 6 January is already contentious. A judicial debate has emerged over the appropriate sentencing for rioters, while trials in the coming months will test whether prosecutors can secure convictions on more serious charges facing far-right extremists.The fundamental understanding of what happened on 6 January is also being increasingly contested, as Republican lawmakers and rightwing media attempt to whitewash the events and reframe the insurrection as an act of justified political protest. More than any court case, researchers say, this revisionist narrative may have long-lasting implications for the far right and for political violence in America.The suspectsIn the months after the insurrection, law enforcement officials investigated hours upon hours of videos from the day, thousands of social media profiles and hundreds of thousands of tips from the public. They have arrested hundreds, sometimes raiding homes where suspects had stockpiled weapons and ammunition.As the arrests rolled in, researchers began to get a more complete picture of who was involved in the attack. The people charged came to Washington DC from nearly every state in the union, and ranged from teenagers to senior citizens. Beyond sharing a fervent support for Trump and belief in election conspiracies, no single profile has emerged.Overall the suspects are overwhelmingly male – about 80% according to research from George Washington University’s project on extremism – and the average age is 39. The vast majority of suspects are white. Many belonged to far-right militias and white nationalist groups that played an outsize role in the attack, but most had no direct affiliations with extremist organizations.“They’re sort of your nextdoor neighbor,” said Kurt Braddock, an assistant professor of communication at American University and extremism researcher. “It shows how far far-right ideologies have extended.”There were white-collar workers, people who came with their family members and a cross-section of other Trump supporters radicalized into committing political violence. Many believed in the QAnon conspiracy movement that viewed Trump as a messianic figure who would return to office and destroy a cabal of liberal elite pedophiles.The charges and sentencingAlthough the charges range from misdemeanors such as trespassing to violent assaults against Capitol police officers, the bulk of cases that have come in front of a judge so far have involved individuals pleading guilty to minor charges. Except for some high-profile rioters – including “QAnon shaman” Jacob Chansley, who was sentenced to 41 months in prison after pleading guilty to a felony charge of obstructing Congress – most of the sentences doled out have not exceeded several weeks in prison. Many of the rioters have received no jail time at all, instead receiving fines or probation.There have been significant differences between how US district court judges have approached sentencing and cases. One group of judges has questioned why prosecutors are seeking jail time for misdemeanor offences such as trespassing on Capitol grounds. US District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, made comparisons between Black Lives Matter protesters and the 6 January attackers and told a defendant that he was “acting like all those looters and rioters last year”.(McFadden did, however, later reject a defendant’s claim that he was being treated unfairly compared with leftist protesters in Portland.)Other judges have vehemently rejected the comparison to BLM, and have insisted that participants in the riot face serious consequences for their involvement. US District Judge Tanya Chutkan stated that the siege was an unprecedented attempt to “violently overthrow the government” and “stop the peaceful transition of power”. Chief US District Judge Beryl Howell questioned why prosecutors were letting rioters accept lighter misdemeanor plea deals and lamented that “the government has essentially tied the sentencing judge’s hands”.“No wonder parts of this public are confused about whether what happened on 6 January at the Capitol was simply a petty offense of trespassing, with some disorderliness, or was shocking criminal conduct that posed a grave threat to our democratic norms,” Howell said.The more complex cases and serious charges will probably go to trial in the coming months, researchers say, including those involving members of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters and other far-right militias.One member of the Oath Keepers, Jason Dolan, already admitted as part of a plea deal that he traveled with other militia members and stashed an M4 rifle at a Comfort Inn a short drive outside the Capitol. In December, 34-year-old Matthew Greene became the first member of the Proud Boys to plead guilty in a felony conspiracy case, with prosecutors stating that he and other Proud Boys coordinated their actions using programmable radios and dressed to conceal their affiliation with the group. After the riot, Greene allegedly ordered more than 2,000 rounds of assault-rifle ammunition, bragged that his group “took the Capitol” and told a friend to study guerrilla warfare and be ready to “do uncomfortable things”.The criminal trials this spring for felony charges such as obstructing Congress and a multi-defendant conspiracy case against members of the Oath Keepers may reveal new details about the level of coordination and planning that went into the attack on the Capitol. But they will probably also present difficulties for prosecutors. The government has already succeeded in dismissing some pre-trial defense objections, such as whether the common charge of “corruptly obstructing an official proceeding” was unconstitutionally vague, but more challenges will come.“It’s going to get complicated very quickly,” said Seamus Hughes, deputy director of the program on extremism at George Washington University. “You’re going to get into uncharted water with this prosecution at some point, just by the sheer number.”The investigationThe FBI received more than 250,000 tips related to the siege, including family members turning in relatives and Facebook friends reporting old high school acquaintances. One suspect, New York state’s Robert Chapman, told a match on the dating app Bumble that he had stormed the Capitol and bragged about making it all the way to the National Statuary Hall. “We are not a match,” the other Bumble user replied, according to court filings, before sending a screenshot of their exchange to law enforcement.More than 80% of cases cite some form of social media as evidence for the charges, but the FBI’s investigation goes far beyond relying on amateur online sleuths and combing through social media profiles. Law enforcement has also used invasive technology and surveillance tactics that could expand law enforcement powers and have implications for future investigations.In addition to using facial recognition software to identify rioters, itself a deeply controversial practice, law enforcement appears to have expanded its use of geofencing search warrants – a process that involves using data from digital services to locate people within a certain area during a given time period. In practice, it means that authorities can demand Google hand over anonymized user location data, then ask for specific users’ private information, including their names, emails and phone numbers. Dozens of Capitol rioter cases cite Google location data in their court filings, according to a Wired investigation.“It’s going to set a precedent for geofencing,” Hughes said. “If they can get enough successful prosecutions … that will be something that’s used in future investigations.”The FBI’s use of surveillance has come under additional scrutiny in recent weeks after a New York Times investigation found that the bureau deployed surveillance teams to monitor Portland activists’ protests against policing, a move that civil rights groups condemned as domestic spying.Whitewashing the attackAs the FBI has carried out its investigation, there has been a parallel effort to create a different narrative of the insurrection. Republican politicians and conservative media have been on a months-long campaign to whitewash the attack on the Capitol. Over the past year they have settled on a story that presents 6 January as a largely peaceful protest for legitimate election grievances, sometimes baselessly claiming that any violence was the result of antifa or leftist infiltrators.Prime-time Fox News host Tucker Carlson in November aired a three episode special entitled Patriot Purge that uncritically interviewed rightwing activists with ties to the white nationalist movement, who claim that the FBI investigation is an unjust political crackdown on conservatives. Carlson states in it that there is a leftist “purge aimed at legacy Americans” and features sympathetic interviews with people who took part in the insurrection. Two Fox News contributors quit over the special, with one suggesting that it would lead to violence.Many of the rioters have embraced a burgeoning celebrity status within the far right. Some suspects refer to themselves as “1/6ers”, and have launched online fundraising campaigns where they identify as political protesters and victims of government persecution. One collective fundraising page for the approximately 40 suspects being held in pre-trial detention has already raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and sells hoodies emblazoned with the slogan “free the 1/6ers.”Other high-profile suspects have created individual pages to capitalize on their notoriety. Richard “Bigo” Barnett, a self-described white nationalist who stole a document from speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi’s office and was photographed putting his boots up on her desk, launched a fundraising site that doubles as a manifesto for his anti-government views.“Richard Barnett’s picture at Speaker Pelosi’s desk has become the face of the new anti-federalist movement,” Barnett’s website states on its fundraising page. “We will not go gently into that good night. Click below to donate to the fight.”The group being held in pre-trial detention at the Correctional Treatment facility in Washington DC has also banded together while incarcerated, calling themselves the “Patriot Wing” and attempting to become far-right influencers. These suspects include numerous members of extremist groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, as well as others facing more serious charges of violence and conspiracy related to the insurrection. They have started writing open letters and reportedly passed around a handwritten newsletter in the jail, in which they boast about reciting the pledge of allegiance and singing the national anthem together.Some Republican lawmakers have amplified this far-right narrative that the suspects being held in pre-trial detention are political prisoners and unjustly suffering for their beliefs. Representatives including Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Matt Gaetz and Louie Gohmert have rallied in support of insurrection suspects and staged an attempt to visit the jail, claiming a conspiracy to mistreat the prisoners and that their detention was evidence of Marxism and totalitarianism. Meanwhile, more mainstream Republican lawmakers have stonewalled a House committee investigation into the roots of the attack, and Trump allies have refused to cooperate with subpoenas.All these developments – the solidifying of in-group identity among the more dedicated insurrections, the financial support for rioters and Republican lawmakers’ willingness to paint them as martyrs – concerns extremism researchers about the long-term effects of 6 January. Even if those responsible face significant prison sentences, there is little incentive for them to de-radicalize once incarcerated.“You may get to a point where folks who spend their time in jail come out and are basically provided a kind of a rockstar status within the movement,” Hughes said.The revisionist history of 6 January has also correlated with a declining interest among Republicans in punishing those involved. After the insurrection there was wide bipartisan support for prosecuting rioters, but a Pew Research Center study in September found the number of Republicans who believe it is important to hold those responsible legally liable for their actions significantly declined over the course of the year. Involvement in the events of 6 January is also apparently not disqualifying for Republicans seeking public office. At least 10 people who attended the Washington rally have now been elected to various positions, according to HuffPost, including three in state legislatures.What concerns some extremism researchers is that while it’s critical for prosecutors to secure convictions for those involved in the insurrection, these broader problems remain of how deeply embedded the far right has become in American politics. Even if authorities may be better prepared against future rallies aimed at subverting the democratic process, the reaction from rightwing media and some Republican lawmakers has threatened to legitimize far-right ideology and resorting to political violence to achieve their goals.“January 6 exemplified what the far right is now,” Braddock said. “But it definitely doesn’t end with January 6.”TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More
- in US Politics
The next US civil war is already here – we just refuse to see it
The next US civil war is already here – we just refuse to see it The right has recognized that the system is in collapse, and it has a plan: violence and solidarity with treasonous far-right factionsNobody wants what’s coming, so nobody wants to see what’s coming.On the eve of the first civil war, the most intelligent, the most informed, the most dedicated people in the United States could not see it coming. Even when Confederate soldiers began their bombardment of Fort Sumter, nobody believed that conflict was inevitable. The north was so unprepared for the war they had no weapons.In Washington, in the winter of 1861, Henry Adams, the grandson of John Quincy Adams, declared that “not one man in America wanted the civil war or expected or intended it”. South Carolina senator James Chestnut, who did more than most to bring on the advent of the catastrophe, promised to drink all the blood spilled in the entire conflict. The common wisdom at the time was that he would have to drink “not a thimble”.Next Civil War book illustrationThe United States today is, once again, headed for civil war, and, once again, it cannot bear to face it. The political problems are both structural and immediate, the crisis both longstanding and accelerating. The American political system has become so overwhelmed by anger that even the most basic tasks of government are increasingly impossible.The legal system grows less legitimate by the day. Trust in government at all levels is in freefall, or, like Congress, with approval ratings hovering around 20%, cannot fall any lower. Right now, elected sheriffs openly promote resistance to federal authority. Right now, militias train and arm themselves in preparation for the fall of the Republic. Right now, doctrines of a radical, unachievable, messianic freedom spread across the internet, on talk radio, on cable television, in the malls.The consequences of the breakdown of the American system is only now beginning to be felt. January 6 wasn’t a wake-up call; it was a rallying cry. The Capitol police have seen threats against members of Congress increase by 107%. Fred Upton, Republican representative from Michigan, recently shared a message he had received: “I hope you die. I hope everybody in your family dies.” And it’s not just politicians but anyone involved in the running of the electoral system. Death threats have become a standard aspect of the work life of election supervisors and school board members. A third of poll workers, in the aftermath of 2020, said they felt unsafe.Under such conditions, party politics have become mostly a distraction. The parties and the people in the parties no longer matter much, one way or the other. Blaming one side or the other offers a perverse species of hope. “If only more moderate Republicans were in office, if only bipartisanship could be restored to what it was.” Such hopes are not only reckless but irresponsible. The problem is not who is in power, but the structures of power.The United States has burned before. The Vietnam war, civil rights protests, the assassination of JFK and MLK, Watergate – all were national catastrophes which remain in living memory. But the United States has never faced an institutional crisis quite like the one it is facing now. Trust in the institutions was much higher during the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act had the broad support of both parties. JFK’s murder was mourned collectively as a national tragedy. The Watergate scandal, in hindsight, was evidence of the system working. The press reported presidential crimes; Americans took the press seriously. The political parties felt they needed to respond to the reported corruption.You could not make one of those statements today with any confidence.Two things are happening at the same time. Most of the American right have abandoned faith in government as such. Their politics is, increasingly, the politics of the gun. The American left is slower on the uptake, but they are starting to figure out that the system which they give the name of democracy is less deserving of the name every year.An incipient illegitimacy crisis is under way, whoever is elected in 2022, or in 2024. According to a University of Virginia analysis of census projections, by 2040, 30% of the population will control 68% of the Senate. Eight states will contain half the population. The Senate malapportionment gives advantages overwhelmingly to white, non– college educated voters. In the near future, a Democratic candidate could win the popular vote by many millions of votes and still lose. Do the math: the federal system no longer represents the will of the American people.The right is preparing for a breakdown of law and order, but they are also overtaking the forces of law and order. Hard right organization have now infiltrated so many police forces – the connections number in the hundreds – that they have become unreliable allies in the struggle against domestic terrorism.Michael German, a former FBI agent who worked undercover against domestic terrorists during the 1990s, knows that the white power sympathies within police departments hamper domestic terrorism cases. “The 2015 FBI counter-terrorism guide instructs FBI agents, on white supremacist cases, to not put them on the terrorist watch list as agents normally would do,” he says. “Because the police could then look at the watchlist and determine that they are their friends.” The watchlists are among the most effective techniques of counter-terrorism, but the FBI cannot use them. The white supremacists in the United States are not a marginal force; they are inside its institutions.Recent calls to reform or to defund the police have focused on officers’ implicit bias or policing techniques. The protesters are, in a sense, too hopeful. Activist white supremacists in positions of authority are the real threat to American order and security. “If you look at how authoritarian regimes come into power, they tacitly authorize a group of political thugs to use violence against their political enemies,” German says. “That ends up with a lot of street violence, and the general public gets upset about the street violence and says, ‘Government, you have to do something about this street violence,’ and the government says, ‘Oh my hands are tied, give me a broad enabling power and I will go after these thugs.’ And of course once that broad power is granted, it isn’t used to target the thugs. They either become a part of the official security apparatus or an auxiliary force.”Anti-government patriots have used the reaction against Black Lives Matter effectively to build a base of support with law enforcement. “One of the best tactics was adopting the blue lives matter patch. I’m flabbergasted that police fell for that, that they actually support these groups,” German says. “It would be one thing if [anti-government patriots] had uniformly decided not to target police any more. But they haven’t. They’re still killing police. The police don’t seem to get it, that the people you’re coddling, you’re taking photographs with, are the same people who elsewhere kill.” The current state of American law enforcement reveals an extreme contradiction: the order it imposes is rife with the forces that provoke domestic terrorism.Just consider: in 2019, 36% of active duty soldiers claimed to have witnessed “white supremacist and racist ideologies in the military”, according to the Military Times.At this supreme moment of crisis, the left has divided into warring factions completely incapable of confronting the seriousness of the moment. There are liberals who retain an unjustifiable faith that their institutions can save them when it is utterly clear that they cannot. Then there are the woke, educational and political elites dedicated to a discourse of willed impotence. Any institution founded by the woke simply eats itself – see TimesUp, the Women’s March, etc – becoming irrelevant to any but a diminishing cadre of insiders who spend most of their time figuring out how to shred whoever’s left. They render themselves powerless faster than their enemies can.What the American left needs now is allegiance, not allyship. It must abandon any imagined fantasies about the sanctity of governmental institutions that long ago gave up any claim to legitimacy. Stack the supreme court, end the filibuster, make Washington DC a state, and let the dogs howl, and now, before it is too late. The moment the right takes control of institutions, they will use them to overthrow democracy in its most basic forms; they are already rushing to dissolve whatever norms stand in the way of their full empowerment.The right has recognized what the left has not: that the system is in collapse. The right has a plan: it involves violence and solidarity. They have not abjured even the Oath Keepers. The left, meanwhile, has chosen infighting as their sport.There will be those who say that warnings of a new civil war is alarmist. All I can say is that reality has outpaced even the most alarmist predictions. Imagine going back just 10 years and explaining that a Republican president would openly support the dictatorship of North Korea. No conspiracy theorist would have dared to dream it. Anyone who foresaw, foresaw dimly. The trends were apparent; their ends were not.It would be entirely possible for the United States to implement a modern electoral system, to restore the legitimacy of the courts, to reform its police forces, to root out domestic terrorism, to alter its tax code to address inequality, to prepare its cities and its agriculture for the effects of climate change, to regulate and to control the mechanisms of violence. All of these futures are possible. There is one hope, however, that must be rejected outright: the hope that everything will work out by itself, that America will bumble along into better times. It won’t. Americans have believed their country is an exception, a necessary nation. If history has shown us anything it’s that the world doesn’t have any necessary nations.The United States needs to recover its revolutionary spirit, and I don’t mean that as some kind of inspirational quote. I mean that, if it is to survive, the United States will have to recover its revolutionary spirit. The crises the United States now faces in its basic governmental functions are so profound that they require starting over. The founders understood that government is supposed to work for living people, rather than for a bunch of old ghosts. And now their ghostly constitution, worshipped like a religious document, is strangling the spirit that animated their enterprise, the idea that you mold politics to suit people, not the other way around.Does the country have the humility to acknowledge that its old orders no longer work? Does it have the courage to begin again? As it managed so spectacularly at the birth of its nationhood, the United States requires the boldness to invent a new politics for a new era. It is entirely possible that it might do so. America is, after all, a country devoted to reinvention.Once again, as before, the hope for America is Americans. But it is time to face what the Americans of the 1850s found so difficult to face: The system is broken, all along the line. The situation is clear and the choice is basic: reinvention or fall.TopicsThe far rightRepublicansUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More
- in US Politics
Capitol attack panel in race against time as Trump allies seek to run out clock
Capitol attack panel in race against time as Trump allies seek to run out clock A barrage of delay tactics as Republicans are expected to do well in 2022 midterms that would give them control to shut down inquiryThe House select committee investigating the 6 January attack on the Capitol is facing a race against time in 2022 as Trump and his allies seek to run out the clock with a barrage of delay tactics and lawsuits.Bannon and allies bid to expand pro-Trump influence in local US politicsRead moreRepublicans are widely expected to do well in this year’s midterm elections in November and, if they win control of the House, that would give them control to shut down the investigation that has proved politically and legally damaging to Trump and Republicans.The select committee opened its investigative efforts into the 6 January insurrection, when a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win, with a flurry of subpoenas to Trump officials to expedite the evidence-gathering process.But aside from securing a trove of documents from Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, the select committee has found itself wading through molasses with Trump and other top administration aides seeking to delay the investigation by any means possible.The former US president has attempted to block the select committee at every turn, instructing aides to defy subpoenas from the outset and, most recently, launching a last-ditch appeal to the supreme court to prevent the release of the most sensitive of White House records.His aides are following Trump in lockstep as they attempt to shield themselves from the investigation, doing everything from filing frivolous lawsuits to stop the select committee obtaining call records to invoking the fifth amendment so as to not respond in depositions.The efforts amount to a cynical ploy by Republicans to run out the clock until the midterms and use the election calendar to characterize the interim report, which the bipartisan select committee hopes to issue by the summer, as a political exercise to damage the GOP.The select committee, sources close to the investigation say, is therefore hoping for a breakthrough with the supreme court, which experts believe will ensure the panel can access the Trump White House records over the former president’s objections about executive privilege.“I think the supreme court is very unlikely to side with Trump, and part of it is the nature of executive privilege – it’s a power belonging to the President,” said Jonathan Shaub, a former DoJ office of legal counsel attorney and law professor at the University of Kentucky.“It’s hard to see how a former president could exercise constitutional power under a theory where all the constitutional powers are vested in the current president, so I think Trump is very likely to lose or the court may not take the case,” Shaub said.Members on the select committee note that several courts – the US district court and the US appeals court – have already ruled that Biden has the final say over which White House documents are subject to executive privilege, and that the panel has a legislative purpose.A victory for the select committee at the supreme court is important, members believe, not only because it would give them access to the records Trump has fought so hard to keep hidden, but because it would supercharge the inquiry with crucial momentum.The select committee got its first break when House investigators obtained from Meadows thousands of communications involving the White House, including a powerpoint detailing ways to stage a coup, and are hoping the supreme court can help to sustain their pace.“It’s pretty clear that these documents are serious documents that shed light on the president’s activities on January 6 and that may be quite damaging for Trump,” said Kate Shaw, a former Obama White House counsel and now a professor at the Cardozo School of Law.“They could make a difference to the record being compiled by the committee and thus they could give the process additional momentum,” Shaw said. “That’s probably why Trump is resisting their release as hard as he is.”More generally, the select committee says they are unconcerned by attempts by Trump aides and political operatives to stymie the inquiry, since Democrats control Washington and the panel has an unprecedented carte blanche to upturn every inch the Trump administration.“The legislative and executive branches are completely in agreement with each other, that this material is not privileged and needs to be turned over to Congress,” said congressman Jamie Raskin, a member of the select committee. “Things have been moving much more quickly.”But the select committee acknowledges privately that they face a longer and more difficult slog with Trump aides and political operatives who are mounting legal challenges to everything from the panel’s attempts to compel production of call records and even testimony.The trouble for the select committee, regardless of Democrats’ controlling the White House, Congress and the justice department, is that they are counting on the courts to deliver accountability for Trump officials unwilling to cooperate with the inquiry.Yet Trump and his officials know that slow-moving cogs of justice have a history of doing nothing of the sort. House investigators only heard from former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn this past summer, years after the end of the special counsel investigation.The House has not even been able to obtain Trump’s tax returns – something Democrats have been fighting to get access to since they took the majority in 2018 – after repeated appeals from the former president despite repeated defeats in court.Trump and his aides insist they are not engaged in a ploy to stymie the investigation, though they admit to doing just that in private discussions, according to sources close to the former president.When the select committee issued its first subpoenas to his former aides Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, Steve Bannon and Kash Patel, Trump’s lawyers told their lawyers to defy the orders because it would likely serve to slow down the investigation, the sources said.The result of Trump’s directive – first reported by the Guardian – is that Bannon and Meadows refused to appear for their depositions, and the select committee now may never hear their inside information about the Capitol attack after they were held in contempt of Congress.It remains possible that Bannon and Meadows seek some kind of a plea deal with federal prosecutors that involves providing testimony to the select committee in exchange for no jail time, but the court hearing for Bannon, for instance, is scheduled late into the summer.The reality for House investigators is that the cases are now in the hands of a justice department intent on proving it remains above the political fray after years of Trump’s interference at DoJ, and therefore indifferent to the time crunch felt by the 6 January committee.The situation for the select committee may be even trickier with Republican members of Congress involved in 6 January, as they just need to stonewall the investigation only through the midterms, before which the panel hopes to release an interim report into their findings.A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment on the outlook for the investigation and their expectations for the supreme court hearing in the case against Trump, which the panel, cognizant of their limited timeframe, has asked to expedite.Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, originally aimed to have the final report completed before the midterm elections, but the efforts by the most senior Trump officials to delay the investigation means he could need until the end of the year.Either way, sources close to the investigation told the Guardian, the select committee is hoping that the supreme court will deliver the elusive Trump White House records – and that it could pave the way for the investigation to shift into yet another higher gear.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesRepublicansUS supreme courtnewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
Democrats bid to change Senate rules if Republicans thwart voting rights reform
Democrats bid to change Senate rules if Republicans thwart voting rights reformVoting rights reforms have repeatedly stalled in 50-50 SenateSchumer: ‘We hope they change course and work with us’ Democrats are seizing on this week’s anniversary of the deadly US Capitol riot to renew a push for voting rights legislation to safeguard democracy.Bannon and allies bid to expand pro-Trump influence in local US politicsRead moreMajority leader Chuck Schumer announced on Monday that the Senate will vote on changing its own rules on or before 17 January, the federal Martin Luther King Jr Day holiday, if Republicans continue to obstruct election reform.The deadline appears part of a concerted effort to use Thursday’s commemorations, marking a year since a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, seekingto overturn Joe Biden’s election win, to give fresh impetus to the long-stalled legislation.In a letter to Senate Democrats, Schumer argued that the events of 6 January 2021 are directly linked to a campaign by Republican state legislatures to impose voter restriction laws.“Let me be clear,” the New York senator wrote. “6 January was a symptom of a broader illness – an effort to delegitimise our election process, and the Senate must advance systemic democracy reforms to repair our republic or else the events of that day will not be an aberration – they will be the new norm.“Much like the violent insurrectionists who stormed the US Capitol nearly one year ago, Republican officials in states across the country have seized on the former president’s Big Lie about widespread voter fraud to enact anti-democratic legislation and seize control of typically non-partisan election administration functions.”Sweeping voting rights reforms have stalled in the evenly split 50-50 Senate, repeatedly blocked by a Republican-led filibuster, leaving Democrats unable to find the 60 votes needed to advance. Schumer went further than before in calling for a filibuster exception for voting rights.“We must ask ourselves: if the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the state level with only a simple majority vote, but not allow the United States Senate to do the same? We must adapt. The Senate must evolve, like it has many times before.”He added: “We hope our Republican colleagues change course and work with us. But if they do not, the Senate will debate and consider changes to Senate rules on or before 17 January, Martin Luther King Jr Day, to protect the foundation of our democracy: free and fair elections.”Although Schumer’s words were ostensibly aimed at Republicans, there is little prospect of any members of that party shifting their position.On Monday, Republicans swiftly condemned what they described as a threat. Senator Mike Lee of Utah said: “Senator Schumer’s rash, partisan power grab should be seen for what it is – desperation and a failure to do what Joe Biden and Democrats ran on: unify.“If this rule change were to pass, the people of Utah and the United States would suffer immeasurably as the Senate devolves into a strictly majoritarian, Lord-of-the-Flies environment. Senator Schumer and his disastrous plan must be stopped.”But Schumer’s true target, amid blanket media coverage of this week’s anniversary, is likely to be Democratic holdouts Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who have resisted abolishing or changing the filibuster.The senators from West Virginia and Arizona contend that if and when Republicans take control of the chamber, they could use the lower voting threshold to advance bills Democrats oppose.Schumer’s announcement is likely to set up 6 January vigils and Martin Luther King Jr Day events as rallying points for voting rights activists who have criticised Biden and the party in Congress for failing to prioritise the issue.But the president has become less cautious and more direct.Last month, he told ABC News: “If the only thing standing between getting voting rights legislation passed and not getting passed is the filibuster, I support making the exception of voting rights for the filibuster.”Schumer’s announcement was welcomed by Martin Luther King III, son of the civil rights activist and chairman of the Drum Major Institute.“There is no better way to honor my father’s legacy than protecting the right to vote for all Americans,” he said.Ex-NFL star Herschel Walker posts baffling video promoting US Senate runRead more“The King holiday is historically a day of service, and we hope the United States Senate will serve our democracy by passing the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.“We applaud Senator Schumer for his commitment to expanding voting rights, but we won’t halt our plans for action until legislation has been signed.”Also on Monday, the US Conference of Mayors sent a letter signed by 146 bipartisan mayors to Schumer and the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, urging them to act this month. It noted that in the past few months alone, 19 states passed 34 laws that made it harder to vote. The mayors wrote: “American democracy is stronger when all eligible voters participate in elections. Yet voting rights are under historic attack and our very democracy is threatened.“These bills would stop this voter suppression. They would create national standards for voting access in federal elections that would neutralize many of the restrictive voting laws passed in the states.”TopicsDemocratsRepublicansUS voting rightsUS SenateUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
The risk of a coup in the next US election is greater now than it ever was under Trump | Laurence H Tribe
The risk of a coup in the next US election is greater now than it ever was under TrumpLaurence H TribeRepublicans are busy undermining the next election. But giving up on democracy isn’t an option. We must fight back, and here’s how Only free and fair elections in which the loser abides by the result stand between each of us and life at the mercy of a despotic regime – one we had no voice in choosing and one that can freely violate all our rights. So everything is at stake in the peaceful transfer of power from a government that has lost its people’s confidence to its victorious successor. It was that peaceful transfer that Trump and his minions sought to obstruct and almost succeeded in overthrowing when Joe Biden was elected president.A year has passed since Trump’s attempted coup and his supporters’ violent storming of the United States Capitol on 6 January 2021, in a nearly successful effort to prevent Congress from certifying Trump’s decisive loss of the election to Biden. Watching the images that day of the seat of US democracy overtaken and defiled, it was impossible not to viscerally feel the grave danger that confronted the republic. In the tumultuous year since, the immediacy of that sensation has waned – and the magnitude of the stakes has receded from memory.In the rubble of the insurrection, the sheer shock of the moment jarred loose hints of long-lost bipartisanship and national unity and rekindled an appreciation of why a successful coup would have meant the end of all we care about. The House of Representatives expeditiously moved to impeach Trump for his role in fomenting the attack and 57 Senators, including seven Republicans, voted to convict him on 13 February after a masterful presentation led by Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland. After Trump had become the first American president to be impeached twice, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered a blistering rebuke of Trump from the Senate floor, justifying his and many other Republicans’ votes to acquit only on the thin reed that, by the time of his Senate trial, Trump was no longer president.Alas, the moment was short-lived. With Trump himself out of office and in exile at Mar-a-Lago, public attention quickly faded, Republicans abandoned their increasingly half-hearted search for accountability, and the leaders of their party began planning their next bite at the poisoned apple of power, an apple they told themselves had been stolen from them despite all evidence to the contrary.Rewriting history and turning reality on its head, Republicans in Congress and their allies in rightwing media began absurdly to describe the deadly insurrection as a “mostly peaceful” protest, described rioters who brutally beat Capitol police as “political prisoners”, and suggested that any violence was attributable to some unidentified group of leftwing “antifa”.To be sure, we have seen the rise of a veritable cottage industry of commentary warning sharply that America remains subject to what some have called a “slow motion insurrection” or that “Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun.” Yet the vast majority of Americans have turned their attention back to other concerns – from new and more infectious variants of the Covid-19 virus, to burgeoning inflation and increasingly palpable signs of global warming, to the myriad other problems that bedevil our nation and the world.But for those of us who have continued to investigate the sources and facets of the assault on constitutional democracy, a sobering realization has become unavoidable: our country, and the legal and political institutions that prevent it from descending into despotism, are in even greater peril today than they were at the time of last November’s election.That assault began in the runup to the 2020 election, when Trump and his cultlike followers spread the corrosive view that American elections had become inherently untrustworthy as demographic changes broadened the eligible electorate and thus that any outcome other than victory for Trump would necessarily be the result of fraud and must therefore be rejected by all means necessary.With each passing day, more details about the means Trump’s team devised to undo the results of the November 2020 election have cascaded into public view, even though Republicans in Congress have made concerted efforts to obstruct the work of the special House committee created to uncover the sources of the attempted coup and the ensuing insurrection. The committee was charged to propose legislation to reduce the danger of a repeat performance, but because curing a disease requires diagnosing its cause, Republicans have seized on the committee’s search for causes to claim that its purposes were solely vindictive and not legislative.In the course of designing possible remedies, the committee has uncovered evidence of a conspiracy broader, more far-reaching and better organized than was initially thought. That conspiracy featured deceptive PowerPoint presentations and duplicitous talking points designed to propagate the big lie that Democrats had indeed stolen the election and to lay out a blueprint for “stopping the steal”.Understanding that blueprint requires appreciating the byzantine constitutional structure dating to our founding, a structure in which the presidency is awarded not to the winner of the national popular vote but to the candidate receiving the most “electoral votes”. Those votes are allocated among the states according to a formula slanted toward less densely populated states – states that have tended over time to favor the Republican candidate – with each state’s legislature determining the method for deciding how its electoral votes will be awarded.As Representative Raskin, a leading member of the special House committee, described it to me, the basic plan for Trump to seize power despite his loss of both the popular vote on 3 November and the electoral vote on 14 December had been to pressure various officials to “find” enough nonexistent votes to flip the results of several key states in which the election’s outcome had been the closest.Failing that, the plan was to pressure Vice-President Mike Pence, presiding over the 6 January joint session of Congress required under the constitution to count the certified electoral votes, to reject and return the slates of electoral votes certified by Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania, depriving both candidates of the requisite majority of the electoral votes cast.At that point, the choice of president would fall “immediately” to the US House of Representatives, with each state’s delegation casting a single vote in the resulting “contingent election”. That in turn would have made Trump the president-elect despite having lost the election, because more state delegations in the House were in Republican hands at that point than in the hands of the Democrats.Part of the plot, we are now learning, featured Trump’s invocation of the Insurrection Act to declare something like martial law to put down the chaos and bedlam he and his inner circle would by then have unleashed on the Capitol, all the time blaming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for not keeping order, a form of sinister gaslighting the Republicans have deployed ever since 6 January. Talk of that military option led the CIA Director to predict that “we are on the way to a right-wing coup”.But most terrifyingly, we have learned over the past year that the Republican party plans to do it again. Some retired generals are warning that, without decisive action to hold all the wrongdoers to account, we will witness a march to another coup attempt, and one more likely to succeed, if Trump or another demagogue runs and loses. Trump’s Republican party has all but erased or openly embraced the violence of 6 January. And the party faithful have already set out to use state-level elections and legislative processes to better set the table to steal the 2024 election should that be necessary to their return to power.And why wouldn’t they?Those involved in the last attempt have – at least as of today – faced few if any social, political or legal penalties. Only the foot-soldiers, those who physically invaded the Capitol, have faced criminal punishment. And even they have been charged with no offense more serious than corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. As I have elsewhere argued, it would seem more fitting to charge those who organized, funded, and otherwise led the nearly successful overthrow of our government with insurrection or sedition.Indeed, in the topsy-turvy world of Trumpian logic, the political base of the Republican party now appears by a large majority to believe that the real coup and insurrection took place not on 6 January 2021 but on 3 November and 14 December 2020, when Joe Biden and the Democrats supporting him were guilty of a “big steal” of the national election.Students of how democracies fail and tyrannical regimes arise from the dust they leave behind uniformly teach that such groundless myths of wrongful defeat at the hands either of enemies within or of enemies without are invariably part of the demagogue’s narrative and of its hold on popular consciousness.The specter of another coup attempt in 2024-25 may, at first blush, seem counterintuitive. After all, whether Donald Trump or another aspiring despot runs next time as the Republican party’s nominee, that candidate will have no access to the powers of the presidency when the national election occurs. But the corrupt actions that threaten soon to bring our constitutional republic to an ignoble end sadly do not require either an exercise of presidential power or the abdication of presidential duty.They require only that the cult of Trump repopulate with party hacks the bureaucracy of honest vote-counters and nonpartisan election personnel at the state and local levels, and that Trump-backed lawmakers elected to state legislatures rig the voting rules to dilute the influence of all who might oppose a Republican victory. Because these steps are well under way, we face a challenge more daunting than we did even when the powers of the presidency were in Trump’s hands.Nor can we count on the congressional voting integrity measures brilliantly designed with the help of Adam Schiff and Jamie Raskin, the Democratic representatives who led Trump’s two Senate impeachment trials, to save us from what the growing number of Republican state legislatures seem only too eager to do. For one thing, even before the 2022 midterm elections, Democrats control too few seats in the Senate to overcome the antiquated filibuster rules that make enactment of such voting rights measures with fewer than 60 votes an impossibility. For another, the US supreme court, as packed by means of dubious legitimacy by Trump during his presidency, is poised to hold unconstitutional virtually any meaningful voting protection or electoral reform Congress might enact even if that 60-vote obstacle could be carved away in a limited class of cases.Even if something should derail another Trump run at the presidency, the means for another coup exist, and the temptation to seize power, this time cementing it more permanently, will surely tantalize a political party that seems openly hostile to the very premises of democracy.Of particular concern to students of fascism – a governing form that almost always comes wrapped in violence – was the violence woven through the rise of Trumpism to the siege of the Capitol which was, of course, brutally violent. Participants came armed with body armor, firearms, knives, bear mace, Tasers and everything in between. They brought a gallows and chanted that they were going to hang the sitting vice-president. They brutally beat Capitol and DC police officers.Nor was the violence limited to that day. Leading up to the 2020 election, Trump supporters had run a Biden campaign bus off the road in Texas, plotted to kidnap the Democratic governor in Michigan and stirred up brutal attacks across the country. In the period after that election, they physically surrounded and intimidated senators on an airplane and in an airport, calling them “traitors” and promising consequences for their perceived defection from Trump. They showed up at state capitols armed to the teeth and threatening retribution if state legislators did not allocate their electoral votes to Trump, or at least pursue fraudulent “audits” of the election results.Far from being condemned, in the intervening year that sort of violence has been increasingly glorified by the mainstream conservative movement. In recent weeks, a congressman posted a Photoshopped video of himself murdering a Democratic colleague. A Fox News host discussed – to a crowd of radicalized anti-vaxxers – how they might most appropriately assassinate our nation’s chief epidemiologist with a “kill shot” in “an ambush”. Large crowds venerated a juvenile vigilante who shot three people on an American street.The base is being primed for more violence in the run-up and aftermath of the next election. And the Trump-packed supreme court is poised to do its part by gutting what is left of America’s laws against carrying guns anywhere and everywhere – including maybe in courthouses, polling places and the like. It is no accident that the 6 January hotel command center of the group led by Steve Bannon and Roger Stone was christened the “war room”.So what is to be done?
We must resist state-level attempts to make voting more difficult. Instead, we must make vote-counting easier and use all legal means at our disposal to challenge publicly and in state and federal courts legislative district maps designed to dilute minority voters’ influence or to amplify the power of incumbency, as well as laws empowering state officeholders to designate presidential electors at odds with their state’s popular election results.We must use boycotts and grassroots political organizing to oppose the replacement of honest with corrupt election officials and the enactment of anti-democratic state laws.
We must encourage the 6 January committee to complete its work thoroughly but quickly, including holding public hearings that spotlight the damning details of the plot that nearly succeeded, and making criminal referrals to the Department of Justice of all public officials – from members of Congress to the former president – suspected of such federal crimes as obstructing an official proceeding, aiding and abetting an insurrection or conspiring to commit sedition.
We must fight back against suggestions that the justice department’s criminal investigations of the highest-ranking public officials should await any such criminal referrals from the committee.
We must redouble our determination to hold criminally accountable, and potentially disqualify from ever again holding public office in the United States, everyone involved in the obscene trashing of constitutional democracy.
We must publicly repudiate whatever misguided notions have led the Biden administration’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, to exercise extraordinary restraint in the pursuit of such full accountability, effectively placing the highest officeholders above the law.
Above all, we must not let the difficulty of the task ahead turn realism into resignation and sap the energy we will need to bring to this mission. As the distinguished Yale historian Joannne Freeman recently wrote, “Accountability – the belief that political power holders are responsible for their actions and that blatant violations will be addressed – is the lifeblood of democracy. Without it, there can be no trust in government, and without trust, democratic governments have little power.” And when democracy loses its grip as a guiding ideal, despotism fills the void and liberty is lost.This is a battle we must not, cannot, will not lose.
Laurence H Tribe is the Carl M Loeb University Professor emeritus and professor of constitutional law emeritus at Harvard University and an accomplished supreme court advocate
TopicsUS Capitol attackOpinionRepublicansDonald TrumpUS politicscommentReuse this content More
