More stories

  • in

    St Louis lawyer who pointed gun at BLM protesters announces Senate run

    The St Louis man who brandished his gun at Black Lives Matter protesters last summer, Mark McCloskey, announced on Tuesday that he is running for Senate in Missouri.McCloskey told the Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Tuesday that he is running in the 2022 election. “If we don’t stand up now and take this country back, it’s going away,” McCloskey said on Tucker Carlson Tonight.McCloskey and his wife, Patricia, gained international notoriety after drawing their guns on peaceful protesters marching past their marble-faced palazzo home in June 2020. The incident was embraced by many Republicans and the couple, both personal injury attorneys in their 60s, spoke at the Republican national convention.McCloskey posted a campaign ad on Twitter that repeatedly warned of mob violence and said systemic racism does not exist. “I can promise you one thing, that when the mob comes to destroy our homes, our state and our country, I will defend them,” he said.In the ad, McCloskey references the incident that made him famous and repeated a lie about it that he has said many times before: “An angry mob marched to destroy my home and kill my family.”On 28 June 2020, Black Lives Matters protesters entered the McCloskeys’ private gated neighborhood on the way to a demonstration outside the home of Lyda Krewson, the St Louis mayor. The couple pointed their weapons at the crowd and argued with some protesters, but no shots were fired.The couple were later charged with a felony for unlawful use of a weapon in the incident.They pleaded not guilty and their case is set to go to trial in November. Missouri’s governor, Mike Parson, a Republican, has said he would pardon the couple if they were convicted.The incident also drew attention to the couple’s near constant conflict with others, usually over private property.The St Louis Dispatch revealed last year that the McCloskeys had a long history of suing other people. The variety of legal actions includes Mark McCloskey suing a dog breeder in 1996 for selling him a German shepherd without papers and in 2013 threatening a Jewish congregation with legal action after they placed beehives outside their mansion’s northern wall. McCloskey destroyed the beehives before threatening the congregation with a restraining order. More

  • in

    Investigate the Capitol attack? Republicans prefer to back the big lie

    “Tuesday, September 11, 2001, dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States.” So begins the report of the 9/11 commission, which investigated the terrorist attacks 20 years ago with bipartisan support.Will there be a similarly limpid introduction to a similarly weighty (567 pages) study of the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol in Washington on 6 January 2021? Not if Republicans can help it.The formation of a January 6 commission passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday evening thanks to the Democratic majority and 35 Republicans. But 175 Republicans voted against it. It will be a similar story in the Senate, where the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, announced his opposition earlier on Wednesday.There are sound reasons for a commission. Rarely has the old question “What did the president know and when he did know it?” been more applicable than to Trump on the day that a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol as his election defeat was being certified.It was one of the greatest security failures in American history. US Capitol police were overrun. More than three hours passed before the national guard was deployed. A full investigation is surely critical for the public record.But Republicans’ logic is ruthlessly simple. Now that they have surrendered to Donald Trump, manifest in the ousting of Liz Cheney from House leadership, they would rather recycle false claims of election fraud than talk about 6 January.It was the spectacular culmination of Trump’s presidency, the moment when all the forces of anger and hatred he stoked for years were unleashed at the cost of five lives. Whereas 9/11 bequeathed memorials carved in granite – never forget – there is a concerted effort under way to airbrush 1/6 from history.Kurt Bardella, a political commentator who quit the Republican party, tweeted: “Asking Republicans to investigate 1.6 is like asking Al-Qaeda to investigate 9.11. The people who helped plan/promote the attack aren’t going to be partners in the investigation.”As always, there are outliers pushing the boundaries, trying to shift the centre of gravity and normalise the abnormal. Andrew Clyde, a Republican congressman, told a hearing that, based on TV footage inside the Capitol on 6 January, “you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit” – even though a photo shows him desperately barricading the House chamber.His colleague Louie Gohmert said on the House floor: “I just want the president to understand. There have been things worse than people without any firearms coming into a building.”Such pro-Trump loyalty from the rank and file is unsurprising. They don’t have to convince the public of what did or did not happen, just muddy the waters enough to cause confusion so that rightwing media partisans can play “bothsidesism”.But the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, knows better. He reportedly argued bitterly with Trump as the riot was unfolding and later said the president “bears responsibility”. Yet as the removal of Cheney demonstrated, McCarthy believes Trump is key to his ambition of becoming speaker after next year’s midterm elections.McConnell was even more sharply critical of Trump after the riot and, in theory, is an upholder of institutions who should welcome a commission. But he argued on the Senate floor on Wednesday that, with law enforcement and Senate investigations under way, “the facts have come out and they’ll continue to come out”.It was proof positive of Trump’s reach beyond the presidential grave. Republicans dare not alienate him or his base by rejecting “the big lie”. If election expediency takes precedence over the need to understand an attack on American democracy, is there any line they will not cross?Or as the Democratic congressman Tim Ryan put it to Republican members: “Holy cow! Incoherence! No idea what you’re talking about … We have people scaling the Capitol, hitting the Capitol police with lead pipes across the head, and we can’t get bipartisanship. What else has to happen in this country?” More

  • in

    Republicans flout mask requirement in US House chamber

    Republicans in Congress are rebelling against the mask requirement on the House chamber, which remains in place due to Covid-19 safety concerns from Democrats, who hold the majority.During votes on Tuesday, several Republican lawmakers refused to wear masks as they stood in the chamber and encouraged other members to join them.Lawmakers who refuse to wear a face covering are subject to a fine of $500 for the first offense and subsequent offenses can result in a $2,500 fine. In practice, however, the House sergeant-at-arms gives a warning for the first offense.The seven lawmakers who received warnings include Representatives Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Chip Roy of Texas, Bob Good of Virginia, Louie Gohmert of Texas and Mary Miller of Illinois, according to the Associated Press.Greene, a Republican extremist, posted a photo of herself with three other Republicans on the House floor without masks. The Georgia lawmaker tweeted: “End the oppression!” along with: “#FreeYourFace.”Massie also tweeted a card casting a “No” vote, along with a caption estimating that 10 Republicans were going maskless on the floor on Tuesday.The Republican stunt comes after the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said on Thursday that she would continue requiring masks to be worn on the floor of the chamber. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said earlier that day that fully vaccinated people can stop wearing masks in almost all settings, including indoors.When asked why she kept the mask rule for the chamber, Pelosi told Bloomberg that it’s not known how many lawmakers and their staff are vaccinated.Democratic lawmakers in both chambers of Congress have a 100% vaccination rate against Covid-19, according to answers from a CNN survey of Capitol Hill published on Friday. However, for Republicans, the numbers are less clear.In total, it is estimated that at least 44% of House members are vaccinated and at least 92% of senators are. More

  • in

    The Guardian view on US bishops versus the president: Biden is on the angels’ side | Editorial

    Joe Biden wears his Catholicism on his sleeve. The American president carries the rosary beads of his late son, Beau, around his wrist, and each Sunday he attends mass in Washington, or in his home state of Delaware. After Mr Biden’s election to the White House last year, Pope Francis sent him a copy of his book on the Covid pandemic, Let Us Dream. In it, Francis calls for a new spirit of solidarity in societies which have learned the hard way that “no one is saved alone”.Through his $2tn American Rescue Plan, Mr Biden hopes to turn that theological claim into public policy, deploying the resources of the state in the name of a more equal, sustainable society. “I grew up with Catholic social doctrine, which taught me that faith without works is dead,” he has said.For millions of ordinary American Catholics, disillusioned and alienated by their church’s shameful handling of sex abuse scandals, the Biden presidency is therefore an uplifting source of celebration and hope. But within the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), it is instead treated as an insidious threat to ecclesial authority. As Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas put it recently: “Because President Biden is Catholic, it presents a unique problem for us.”The reason is Mr Biden’s backing of abortion rights, which goes against Catholic teaching. On issues such as the rights of refugees, concern for the poor, the dignity of work and the climate emergency, the president and Pope Francis march in virtual lockstep. But figures such as Archbishop Naumann and the president of the USCCB, José Gomez, believe that the president’s position on abortion confuses the faithful and brings his own Catholicism into disrepute. In such circumstances, they speculate, it may be appropriate to take the extreme step of denying him holy communion at mass.The last similar discussion took place in 2004, when the pro-choice Catholic John Kerry was running for the White House. The issue was eventually parked and Mr Kerry didn’t win. Now the bishops have announced a vote next month on the subject, with a view to issuing a clarificatory document. The arch-conservative cardinal Raymond Burke is already on the record stating that “apostate” politicians backing abortion rights should be denied communion. As the conciliatory Mr Biden makes a credible fist of uniting a nation divided by decades of culture wars, it is tempting to despair. The USCCB has no power to order the withholding of communion, and the Vatican has already made clear its disapproval of the proposed June vote. But this may cut little ice with prelates who have fiercely resisted the liberal priorities of Francis’s papacy from its inception eight years ago.The weaponising of the eucharist illustrates the extent to which much of the hierarchy of US Catholicism has become the theological wing of extreme Republicanism. The end result, as one prominent theologian has warned, may be some kind of “soft schism” as conservative bishops try to pull the church further to the right. Surveys indicate that a majority of US Catholics believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.The extraordinary violent denouement of Donald Trump’s polarising presidency meant that dialling down division became an urgent national priority. Mr Biden, in both tone and substance, has done a pretty good job on that front so far. If only the national leaders of his church could follow suit. More

  • in

    The numbers are grim. Republicans are winning at normalizing voter suppression | David Sirota

    Voter suppression has been around for as long as the republic. Stories of subterfuge and ballot box-stuffing schemes are such a part of American political folklore, there’s an entire book about them. So in one sense, there is nothing particularly novel about Republican politicians’ efforts to rig the vote, or the important revelations that rightwing groups and corporate officials are coordinating state-level campaigns to make it harder to vote.However, a new nugget of polling data illustrates that something more fundamental has happened: voter suppression is no longer a plot engineered in the shadows and denied in public, for fear of criticism by a population that considers such measures grotesque. Instead, voter suppression is having its coming-out party – because more and more Americans now consider it to be a perfectly legitimate and even laudable campaign tactic.The data point comes in a new CBS/YouGov survey, buried under the topline finding that almost two-thirds of Republican voters do not consider Joe Biden the legitimate winner of the 2020 election, despite Biden’s electoral college and popular vote victories.Further down in the survey, pollsters asked GOP voters whether in advance of the 2022 election, they would advise Republican leaders to “tell the public about popular policies and ideas” or instead “push for changes to voting rules”, on the basis that Republicans “will win once those changes are in place”.Nearly half of Republicans surveyed supported the latter move, with the strongest demographics in support being female Republicans, non-white Republicans and white Republicans with no college degree.This wouldn’t be so profound if this were a survey only of cynical, campaign-hardened GOP consultants. But here we see that a near-majority of rank-and-file Republican voters have internalized the soulless cynicism of their party’s political class.In the same way so many Democratic voters have become calculated TV pundits who decide whether something is good policy based only on how they perceive it will supposedly play with moderate voters, many Republican voters have become dead-eyed operatives who actively support voter suppression regardless of how it might conflict with their party’s bromides about freedom and democracy.Liberals keep hoping that exposing the latest voter suppression scheme might miraculously shame GOP lawmakers into backing off, but those Republican leaders are absolutely proud of their efforts, because a sizable chunk of their voters want that.In effect, Roger Stone, Karl Rove and Lee Atwater have created a GOP electorate of Roger Stones, Karl Roves and Lee Atwaters. Shaming alone will not combat that kind of mercenary amorality – ending the filibuster and passing federal legislation to protect and expand the franchise is probably the best hope.The new CBS poll doesn’t appear to be an outlier. An Economist/YouGov poll from March found that 57% of Americans say they would support or aren’t sure they would oppose “laws that would make it more difficult to vote”. An Associated Press poll in April found that while a majority of the country supports making it easier to vote, a majority of Republican voters do not. And voter ID laws – which are sculpted to make it harder to vote – are wildly popular, according to various surveys.It’s hard to overstate the significance of this change of norms.For most of my lifetime, campaigns and elections have been considered a bloodsport – but they at least had a few unwritten rules. Typically, it was assumed that the outer limits of acceptable tactics were negative ads and Super Pac expenditures, with anonymous dark money spending tipping over into that gray area between what was seen as legit and not legit.Though chicanery to drive down turnout was always a threat to steal an election, straight-up voter suppression was generally perceived as something looked down upon if not criminal – a tactic that would always be confined to the shadows, deterred by public shaming. Campaigns and politicians rarely copped to the idea that they were actively trying to make sure people didn’t vote – they either denied it, or dressed it up as some necessary way to ensure ballot-box integrity.But now, another Overton Window has shifted. Super Pac and dark money spending flooding elections are the norm, and voter suppression tactics and legislation are considered by many to be just another totally permissible aspect of the political competition.Maybe it was always like that – maybe conservative voters have always been win-at-all-cost automatons. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that women and people of color were explicitly barred from voting, which is the ultimate form of voter suppression.But maybe in the modern era – after the right to vote was putatively extended to everyone – the revanche is part of the larger Trump effect, which among more and more Republicans has legitimized literally anything required for them to seize power. This effect is clearly reverberating not just among paid political pros, but also among rank-and-file GOP voters.It’s important to remember that the psychological shift isn’t in reaction to actual proof that Democrats are pilfering elections. On the contrary, the normalization of voter suppression is happening even though there is no concrete, substantiated evidence that voter fraud systemically plagues American elections.In other words, this is all happening without the kind of proof that might justify cynicism about elections. (And after the 2000 election shenanigans in Florida, it is Democratic voters who arguably have the most reason to question the integrity of elections.) The shift is a product of both the GOP’s fact-free “voter fraud” propaganda, and also a win-power-at-all-costs mentality among a large subset of conservative voters.The former is an obvious problem that’s being supercharged by the miasma of disinformation unleashed by social media and exacerbated by the decline of fact-based journalism that anchors the news.The latter is arguably even more troubling, because it is operating on the synaptic level. Politics has apparently become such a red-versus-blue tribal war that a significant chunk of Republicans now seem willing to trample the very ideals America is supposed to represent in the name of rescuing the country.They are willing to sacrifice democracy in order to supposedly save it – an authoritarian mentality that never ends well.
    David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and an award-winning investigative journalist. He is an editor-at-large at Jacobin, and the founder of the Daily Poster. He served as Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign speechwriter
    This piece was originally published in the Daily Poster More

  • in

    Kevin McCarthy rejects bipartisan plan for 9/11-style Capitol attack commission

    The House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, said on Tuesday he opposes a proposal to form an independent and bipartisan commission to investigate the deadly Capitol attack of 6 January.McCarthy’s opposition will erode Republican support ahead of a vote this week. Democrats control the House but McCarthy’s opposition could dim the chances of legislation to establish the commission in the evenly divided Senate.In a statement, McCarthy accused the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, of negotiating in bad faith and “playing political games”.He said: “Given the political misdirections that have marred this process, given the now duplicative and potentially counterproductive nature of this effort, and given the speaker’s shortsighted scope that does not examine interrelated forms of political violence in America, I cannot support this legislation.”McCarthy has long said the commission should also investigate leftwing groups that protested against police violence after the murder of George Floyd.Pelosi flatly rejected that approach, seeking to focus the panel on 6 January and form it along the lines of the bipartisan and independent 9/11 commission, which investigated the terror attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and John Katko of New York, the top Democrat and Republican on the House homeland security committee, reached a compromise last week.The commission would be split evenly between Democratic and Republican appointees, none of them serving government officials, with agreement needed for subpoenas to be issued.Supporters of Donald Trump breached the Capitol in service of his lie that the election was subject to mass fraud and in an attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory. Some rioters looked for lawmakers including the then vice-president, Mike Pence, to capture and possibly kill. More than 400 have been charged.McCarthy said he supported that federal effort to hold attackers accountable but claimed the proposed commission could interfere with such work.Liz Cheney, the Wyoming representative ejected from Republican leadership over her opposition to Trump and attempts to downplay the Capitol riot, has led calls for McCarthy to testify willingly or be compelled to do so regarding his conversation with Trump during the attack.Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Washington state Republican, has said McCarthy told her that when he asked the president to call his supporters off, Trump replied: “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”In a recent interview on Fox News, McCarthy avoided questions about Beutler’s statement – but did not deny it.Cheney told ABC last week: “I would hope he doesn’t require a subpoena, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he were subpoenaed.”But McCarthy has thrown his support behind Trump, whose domination of the Republican party is almost complete despite his two impeachments – the second for inciting the insurrection at the Capitol – and his conclusive electoral defeat.Capitol police said this month that threats against members of Congress have increased by 107% compared with last year.In a statement, the agency said: “Provided the unique threat environment we currently live in, the department is confident the number of cases will continue to increase.”On Friday, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security released a report on domestic terrorism, covering recent years.In 2019, the agencies said racially motivated violent extremists “likely would continue to be the most lethal” domestic terrorist threat. This week, members of Congress will also consider a $1.9bn emergency supplemental spending bill to tighten security in and around the Capitol, buy more police equipment and enhance protection for federal judges.No lawmakers were injured during the 6 January attack but some who were trapped in the upper gallery of the House have received threats against their lives.Pelosi appointed Russel Honoré, a retired army lieutenant general, to make security recommendations. Honoré proposed hiring more than 800 police officers, constructing mobile fencing around the Capitol and an overhaul of the Capitol police board. More