US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack panel in race against time as Trump allies seek to run out clock

      by

      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

    • 288 Shares99 Views

      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

      by

      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

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack: Cheney says Republicans must choose between Trump and truth

      by

      Capitol attack: Cheney says Republicans must choose between Trump and truthRepublican member of the House committee investigating the events of 6 January issues stark warning to her party

      The Steal: stethoscope for a democracy near cardiac arrest
      On a day of alarming polling about attitudes to political violence and fears for US democracy, and as the first anniversary of the Capitol attack approached, a Republican member of the House committee investigating the events of 6 January 2021 had a stark warning for her party.One in three Americans say violence against government justified – pollRead more“Our party has to choose,” Liz Cheney told CBS’s Face the Nation. “We can either be loyal to Donald Trump or we can be loyal to the constitution, but we cannot be both.”Trump supporters attacked Congress in an attempt to stop certification of his defeat by Joe Biden, which Trump maintains without evidence was the result of electoral fraud. Five people died around a riot in which a mob roamed the Capitol, searching for lawmakers to capture and possibly kill.On Sunday, Cheney and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the committee chairman, again discussed the possibility of a criminal referral for Trump over his failure to attempt to stop the riot or for his obstruction of the investigation.Speaking to ABC’s This Week, Cheney said there were “potential criminal statutes at issue here, but I think that there’s absolutely no question that it was a dereliction of duty. And I think one of the things the committee needs to look at is … a legislative purpose, is whether we need enhanced penalties for that kind of dereliction of duty.”Thompson said subpoenas could be served on Republicans in Congress who refuse to comply with information requests of the kind which have led to a charge of criminal contempt of Congress for Steve Bannon, Trump’s former strategist, and a recommendation of such a charge for Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff.The Democrat told NBC’s Meet the Press the committee was examining whether it could issue subpoenas to members of Congress, immediately Jim Jordan of Ohio and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.“I think there are some questions of whether we have the authority to do it,” Thompson said. “If the authorities are there, there’ll be no reluctance on our part.”Last month, the committee asked Jordan for testimony about conversations with Trump on 6 January. Jordan told Fox News he had “real concerns” about the credibility of the panel.Perry was asked for testimony about attempts to replace Jeffrey Rosen, acting head of the justice department, with Jeffrey Clark, an official who tried to help overturn Trump’s defeat.Perry called the committee “illegitimate, and not duly constituted”. A court has ruled that the panel is legitimate and entitled to see White House records Trump is trying to shield, an argument that has reached the supreme court.Sunday saw a rash of polls marking the anniversary of 6 January.CBS found that 68% of Americans saw the Capitol attack as a sign of increasing political violence, and that 66% thought democracy itself was threatened.When respondents were asked if violence would be justifiable to achieve various political ends, the poll returned an average of around 30%. A survey by the Washington Post and the University of Maryland said more than a third of Americans said violence against the government could be justified.ABC News and Ipsos found that 52% of Republicans said the Capitol rioters were trying to protect democracy.Other polling has shown clear majorities among Republicans in believing Trump’s lie about electoral fraud and distrust of federal elections.On CNN’s State of the Union, Larry Hogan, Maryland governor and a moderate Republican with an eye on the presidential nomination, said: “Frankly, it’s crazy that that many people believe things that simply aren’t true.“There’s been an amazing amount of disinformation that’s been spread over the past year. And many people are consuming that disinformation and believing it as if it’s fact. To think the violent protesters who attacked the Capitol, our seat of democracy, on 6 January was just tourists looking at statues? It’s insane that anyone could watch that on television and believe that’s what happened.”Cheney told CBS the blame lay squarely with her own party.“Far too many Republicans are trying to enable the former president, embrace the former president or look the other way and hope that the former president goes away, or trying to obstruct the activities of this committee, but we won’t be deterred. At the end of the day, the facts matter, the truth matters.”Her host, Margaret Brennan, pointed out that Republicans across the US, some in states where Trump’s attempt to steal the election was repulsed, are changing election laws to their advantage.“We’ve got to be grounded on the rule of law,” Cheney said. “We’ve got to be grounded on fidelity of the constitution … So I think for people all across the country, they need to recognise how important their vote is for their voices. They’ve got to elect serious people who are going to defend the constitution, not simply do the bidding of Donald Trump.”Trump acolytes vie for key election oversight posts in US midtermsRead moreCheney faces a primary challenger doing Trump’s bidding and enjoying his backing. The other Republican on the 6 January committee, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, will retire in November rather than fight such a battle of his own.Cheney said she was “confident people of Wyoming will not choose loyalty to one man as dangerous as Donald Trump”, and that she will secure re-election.She also notably did not say no when she was asked if she would run against Trump if he sought the nomination next time.On ABC, Cheney was asked if she agreed with Hillary Clinton, who has said a second Trump presidency could end US democracy.“I do,” Cheney said. “I think it is critically important, given everything we know about the lines that he was willing to cross.“… We entrust the survival of our republic into the hands of the chief executive, and when a president refuses to tell the mob to stop, when he refuses to defend any of the co-ordinate branches of government, he cannot be trusted.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesRepublicansDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Patriots’ are undermining American democracy | Michael Harriot

      by

      ‘Patriots’ are undermining American democracyMichael HarriotThe people who stormed the US Capitol on 6 January don’t understand that nationalism is not the same as patriotism There is a more accurate term than insurrectionists to describe the people who stormed the US Capitol building on 6 January, forever smearing the seat of the American republic with fear and fascism.Although their activities inspired terror and were planned in part by members of white supremacist groups, they object to being labeled as “terrorists” or “white supremacists”. Calling them “rioters” doesn’t quite capture the political motivations of the pro-authoritarian mob of Maga fanatics. Perhaps we should view them as historical re-enactors. After all, they were only recreating the effort to undermine democracy, freedom and the US constitution that has repeated itself for centuries. Yet, if you asked them, they would undoubtedly say they were “patriots”.Kyle Rittenhouse wasn’t convicted because, in America, white reasoning rules | Michael HarriotRead moreThroughout the course of American history, whenever this country has found itself standing on the unthinkable precipice of ruin, there has always been a horde pledging their allegiance to the flag while clamoring to push the country into the abyss. To be clear, there is a difference between loving one’s country and the vainglorious virtue-signaling that defines America’s most self-righteously toxic misnomer. But fanaticism does not prove one’s devotion. Nationalism is not the same as patriotism.In his 1861 Cornerstone Speech describing the “revolution” that still stands as the bloodiest war in the history of this continent, Confederate States of America vice-president Alexander H Stephens crowed that he had never met “an abler, wiser, a more conservative, deliberate, determined, resolute, and patriotic body of men” than those who would rather rip their nation in half than discontinue their for-profit human trafficking enterprise. Five years later, the conquered confederacy of traitors would unite to form the Ku Klux Klan, an “institution of chivalry, humanity, mercy and patriotism … noble in sentiment, generous in manhood and patriotic in purpose.”Alabama governor George Wallace defended segregation as a matter of patriotism. When South Carolina senator Strom Thurmond filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957, he wondered why the people of the north would pick on the “patriotic” people who simply wanted to preserve white supremacy. After he switched parties in protest of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he was embraced by the new “lilywhite” Republicans as a “patriot”. The Tea Party patriots tossed racial slurs at John Lewis, while at least two people have been killed at rallies organized by the far-right group Patriot Prayer.There is nothing more unpatriotic than someone who calls themself a “patriot”. The flag-waving hypocrites who proudly proclaim their loyalty to their country are determined to kill America. Since the 2020 election, at least 19 states have passed 33 laws that make it harder to vote. These legislative acts of voter suppression are largely introduced and passed by adherents to Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement that now includes a considerable share of the GOP’s constituency. Although these “America first” acolytes claim to want to make their country great again, their real end game is to destroy any semblance of a government where white people’s voting power is equal to their share of the electorate. In other words, the principal goal of the so-called Patriot Party is the opposite of democracy.These America-mongers perform patriotism while disregarding the actual values of their country. They will proudly recite the pledge of allegiance while demonizing Black Lives Matter protesters, reform-seekers or any movement that promotes liberty and justice for all. In Arizona, armed members of the Montezuma County Patriots were charged with harassing participants in a Walk for Justice and Peace. The trial begins days after the white supremacist group Patriot Front organized a rally in Washington. At least three deaths are associated with Patriot Prayer, another pro-Trump gang that staged violent demonstrations across the country.They have constructed a parody of a pro-life movement that does everything it can to strip rights and life away from their fellow Americans. Archbishop Timothy P Broglio, head of the US Archdiocese for the Military Services, claimed that forcing women to carry out unwanted pregnancies is an “authentic act of patriotism”. A true lover of democracy would accept stricter gun laws favored by most Americans. Instead, these performance artists made the National Rifle Association the official partner of school shootings by casting their uncompromising support for firearm manufacturers as an act of patriotism. They claim critical race theory makes kids feel bad and hate America. Yet, they are somehow willing to trade the lives of social studies students for gun industry profits. Whether it’s back-alley abortions or the spilled blood of second-graders, patriots have never cared about life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.Besides being unapologetically pro-death, they are unrepentant liars. They spread conspiracy theories and reject the scientific research of climatologists, immunologists and criminologists, ignoring the death and destruction caused by climate change, Covid-19 and the criminal justice system. They push the false notions of illegal immigration, crime and widespread voter fraud, fully knowing the consequences of their fearmongering. Their obstruction of the 6 January House committee proves it. Their text messages prove it. Their own recounts prove it. Math, history, science, and the entire English language prove that they have no use for truth, facts or evidence. This historically inaccurate, mathematically incorrect caricature of patriotism is white nationalism wrapped in a star-spangled banner.If the American empire ever falls – and it will – we can thank the patriots for the demise of democracy. Ultimately, these fanatical jingoists are the least patriotic people in America. They detest democracy and loathe any prospect of a more perfect union. They have pledged their allegiance to the flag, but not the republic for which it stands. Patriotism as performance is their only protection because a country that provides liberty and justice for all is too unbearable a thought.They’d rather kill it first.
      Michael Harriot is a writer and author of the upcoming book Black AF History: The Unwhitewashed Story of America
      TopicsUS newsOpinionUS politicsUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Indictment of alleged Proud Boys leaders over US Capitol attack upheld

      by

      Indictment of alleged Proud Boys leaders over US Capitol attack upheldFederal judge rejects defence arguments, a development that could have potential implications for Donald Trump A federal judge has refused to dismiss an indictment charging four alleged Proud Boys leaders with conspiracy and obstructing an official proceeding during the 6 January attack on the US Capitol – a development that could have potential implications for Donald Trump.On Tuesday, the US district judge Timothy Kelly rejected arguments by defence lawyers that Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Charles Donohoe are charged with conduct that is protected by the first amendment right to free speech.He said they had multiple nonviolent options to express their opinions about the 2020 presidential election, in which former president Trump lost to Joe Biden.“Defendants are not, as they argue, charged with anything like burning flags, wearing black armbands, or participating in mere sit-ins or protests,” he wrote in a 43-page ruling. “Moreover, even if the charged conduct had some expressive aspect, it lost whatever first amendment protection it may have had.”As reported by the Guardian last week, expectation is growing that Trump may face charges for trying to obstruct Congress from certifying Biden’s election this year as a House panel is collecting more evidence into the attack.Evidence against the former president could include his involvement in the “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House where he called on supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell [or] you’re not going to have a country any more”.Federal prosecutors have so far cited the obstruction statute in about 200 cases involving rioters charged by the Department of Justice for their involvement in the attack, supported by recent rulings by Trump-appointed district court judges.Nordean, Biggs, Rehl and Donohoe, who are jailed while they await a trial scheduled for May, were indicted in March on charges including conspiracy and obstructing an official proceeding.Capitol rioters hit with severe sentences and sharp reprimands from judgesRead moreNordean, from Auburn, Washington, was a Proud Boys chapter president and member of its national “elders council”. Biggs, from Ormond Beach, Florida, is a self-described Proud Boys organiser. Rehl was president of the group’s chapter in Philadelphia and Donohoe, from Kernersville, North Carolina, was president of his local chapter, according to the indictment.Defence lawyers also argued the obstruction charge was not applicable to their clients’ cases because they claimed the certification of the electoral college by Congress was not an “official proceeding”, but Kelly disagreed.Earlier this month another judge in the District of Columbia’s federal court upheld prosecutors’ use of the same obstruction charge in a separate case against riot defenders.To date more than 700 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Capitol riot and at least 165 of them have pleaded guilty.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      From Kremlin leak to sperm counts: our readers’ favourite stories of 2021

      by

      From Kremlin leak to sperm counts: our readers’ favourite stories of 2021 Here are 20 articles that may have helped convince people to support the Guardian’s journalismThe Guardian benefited from hundreds of thousands of acts of support from digital readers in 2021 – almost one for every minute of the year. Here we look at the articles from 2021 that had a big hand in convincing readers to support our open, independent journalism.Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House – Luke Harding, Julian Borger and Dan SabbaghExclusive leak reveals Moscow’s deliberations on how it might help Donald Trump win 2016 US presidential race‘We are witnessing a crime against humanity’ – Arundhati RoyThe author and activist plumbs the depths of India’s Covid catastrophe and finds much to reproach the prime minister, Narendra Modi, for‘I’m facing a prison sentence’: US Capitol rioters plead with Trump for pardons – Oliver MilmanThe past very quickly catches up with those who ransacked the seat of US democracyClimate crisis: Scientists spot warning signs of Gulf Stream collapse – Damian CarringtonA shutdown of the Atlantic current circulation system would have catastrophic consequences around the worldAn Afghan woman in Kabul: ‘Now I have to burn everything I achieved’ – A Kabul residentAs the Taliban take the Afghan capital, one woman describes being “a victim of a war that men started”.Plummeting sperm counts, shrinking penises: toxic chemicals threaten humanity – Erin BrockovichA warning from the environmental advocate and author about the damage being wrought by toxic chemicalsPandora papers: biggest ever leak of offshore data exposes financial secrets of rich and powerful – Guardian investigations teamMillions of documents reveal deals and assets of more than 100 billionaires, 30 world leaders and 300 public officialsThe Hill We Climb: the poem that stole the inauguration show – Amanda GormanShe spoke, and millions listened, at Joe Biden’s inaugurationRates of Parkinson’s disease are exploding. A common chemical may be to blame – Adrienne MateiIs an epidemic on the horizon? And is an unpronounceable chemical compound to blame?Capitalism is killing the planet – it’s time to stop buying into our own destruction – George MonbiotThe Guardian columnist at his most incandescent‘Take it easy, nothing matters in the end’: William Shatner at 90, on love, loss and Leonard Nimoy – Hadley FreemanThe actor discusses longevity, tragedy, friendship, success and his Star Trek co-star‘Our biggest challenge? Lack of imagination’: the scientists turning the desert green – Steve RoseIn China, scientists have turned vast swathes of arid land into a lush oasis. Now a team of maverick engineers want to do the same to the SinaiOff-road, off-grid: the modern nomads wandering America’s back country – Stevie TrujilloAcross US public lands thousands of people are taking to van lifeThe greatest danger for the US isn’t China. It’s much closer to home – Robert ReichThe columnist and former secretary of labour warns of enemies withinThe rice of the sea: how a tiny grain could change the way humanity eats – Ashifa KassamCelebrated chef discovered something in the seagrass that could transform our understanding of the sea itself – as a vast gardenRevealed: leak uncovers global abuse of cyber-surveillance weapon – Guardian staffThe Guardian teams up with 16 media organisations around the world to investigate hacking software sold by the Israeli surveillance company NSO GroupBeware: Gaia may destroy humans before we destroy the Earth – James LovelockLegendary environmentalist argues that Covid-19 may well have been one attempt by the planet to protect itself, and that next time it may try harder with something even nastierThe Rosenbergs were executed for spying in 1953. Can their sons reveal the truth? – Hadley FreemanEthel and Julius Rosenberg were sent to the electric chair for being Soviet spies, but their sons have spent decades trying to clear their mother’s name. Are they close to a breakthrough?Out of thin air: the mystery of the man who fell from the sky – Sirin KaleWho was the stowaway who fell from the wheel well of a Boeing plane into a south London garden in the summer of 2019?The life and tragic death of John Eyers – a fitness fanatic who refused the vaccine – Sirin KaleThe 42-year-old did triathlons, bodybuilding and mountain climbing and became sceptical of the Covid jab. Then he contracted the virusIf these pieces move you to support our independent journalism into 2022, you can do so here:
      Make a contribution from just £1
      Become a digital subscriber and get something in return for your money
      Join as a Patron to fund us at a higher level
      TopicsRussiaInside the GuardianDonald TrumpVladimir PutinCoronavirusIndiaUS Capitol attackClimate crisisfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Facebook’s very bad year. No, really, it might be the worst yet

      by

      Facebook’s very bad year. No, really, it might be the worst yet From repeated accusations of fostering misinformation to multiple whistleblowers, the company weathered some battles in 2021It’s a now-perennial headline: Facebook has had a very bad year.Years of mounting pressure from Congress and the public culminated in repeated PR crises, blockbuster whistleblower revelations and pending regulation over the past 12 months.And while the company’s bottom line has not yet wavered, 2022 is not looking to be any better than 2021 – with more potential privacy and antitrust actions on the horizon.Here are some of the major battles Facebook has weathered in the past year.Capitol riots launch a deluge of scandalsFacebook’s year started with allegations that a deadly insurrection on the US Capitol was largely planned on its platform. Regulatory uproar over the incident reverberated for months, leading lawmakers to call CEO Mark Zuckerberg before Congress to answer for his platform’s role in the attack.In the aftermath, Zuckerberg defended his decision not to take action against Donald Trump, though the former president stoked anger and separatist flames on his personal and campaign accounts. Facebook’s inaction led to a rare public employee walkout and Zuckerberg later reversed the hands-off approach to Trump. Barring Trump from Facebook platforms sparked backlash once again – this time from Republican lawmakers alleging censorship.What ensued was a months-long back-and-forth between Facebook and its independent oversight board, with each entity punting the decision of whether to keep Trump off the platform. Ultimately, Facebook decided to extend Trump’s suspension to two years. Critics said this underscored the ineffectiveness of the body. “What is the point of the oversight board?” asked the Real Oversight Board, an activist group monitoring Facebook, after the non-verdict.Whistleblowers take on FacebookThe scandal with perhaps the biggest impact on the company this year came in the form of the employee-turned-whistleblower Frances Haugen, who leaked internal documents that exposed some of the inner workings of Facebook and just how much the company knew about the harmful effects its platform was having on users and society.Haugen’s revelations, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, showed Facebook was aware of many of its grave public health impacts and had the means to mitigate them – but chose not to do so.For instance, documents show that since at least 2019, Facebook has studied the negative impact Instagram had on teenage girls and yet did little to mitigate the harms and publicly denied that was the case. Those findings in particular led Congress to summon company executives to multiple hearings on the platform and teen users.Facebook has since paused its plans to launch an Instagram app for kids and introduced new safety measures encouraging users to take breaks if they use the app for long periods of time. In a Senate hearing on 8 December, the Instagram executive Adam Mosseri called on Congress to launch an independent body tasked with regulating social media more comprehensively, sidestepping calls for Instagram to regulate itself.Haugen also alleged Facebook’s tweaks to its algorithm, which turned off some safeguards intended to fight misinformation, may have led to the Capitol attack. She provided information underscoring how little of its resources it dedicates to moderating non-English language content.In response to the Haugen documents, Congress has promised legislation and drafted a handful of new bills to address Facebook’s power. One controversial measure would target Section 230, a portion of the Communications Decency Act that exempts companies from liability for content posted on their platforms.Haugen was not the only whistleblower to take on Facebook in 2021. In April, the former Facebook data scientist turned whistleblower Sophie Zhang revealed to the Guardian that Facebook repeatedly allowed world leaders and politicians to use its platform to deceive the public or harass opponents. Zhang has since been called to testify on these findings before parliament in the UK and India.Lawmakers around the world are eager to hear from the Facebook whistleblowers. Haugen also testified in the UK regarding the documents she leaked, telling MPs Facebook “prioritizes profit over safety”.Such testimony is likely to influence impending legislation, including the Online Safety Bill: a proposed act in the UK that would task the communications authority Ofcom with regulating content online and requiring tech firms to protect users from harmful posts or face substantial fines.Zuckerberg and Cook feud over Apple updateThough Apple has had its fair share of regulatory battles, Facebook did not find an ally in its fellow tech firm while facing down the onslaught of consumer and regulatory pressure that 2021 brought.The iPhone maker in April launched a new notification system to alert users when and how Facebook was tracking their browsing habits, supposedly as a means to give them more control over their privacy.Facebook objected to the new policy, arguing Apple was doing so to “self-preference their own services and targeted advertising products”. It said the feature would negatively affect small businesses relying on Facebook to advertise. Apple pressed on anyway, rolling it out in April and promising additional changes in 2022.Preliminary reports suggest Apple is, indeed, profiting from the change while Google and Facebook have seen advertising profits fall.Global outage takes out all Facebook productsIn early October, just weeks after Haugen’s revelations, things took a sudden turn for the worse when the company faced a global service outage.Perhaps Facebook’s largest and most sustained tech failure in recent history, the glitch left billions of users unable to access Facebook, Instagram or Whatsapp for six hours on 4 and 5 October.Facebook’s share price dropped 4.9% that day, cutting Zuckerberg’s personal wealth by $6bn, according to Bloomberg.Other threats to FacebookAs Facebook faces continuing calls for accountability, its time as the wunderkind of Silicon Valley has come to a close and it has become a subject of bipartisan contempt.Republicans repeatedly have accused Facebook of being biased against conservatism, while liberals have targeted the platform for its monopolistic tendencies and failure to police misinformation.In July, the Biden administration began to take a harder line with the company over vaccine misinformation – which Joe Biden said was “killing people” and the US surgeon general said was “spreading like wildfire” on the platform. Meanwhile, the appointment of the antitrust thought leader Lina Khan to head of the FTC spelled trouble for Facebook. She has been publicly critical of the company and other tech giants in the past, and in August refiled a failed FTC case accusing Facebook of anti-competitive practices.After a year of struggles, Facebook has thrown something of a Hail Mary: changing its name. The company announced it would now be called Meta, a reference to its new “metaverse” project, which will create a virtual environment where users can spend time.The name change was met with derision and skepticism from critics. But it remains to be seen whether Facebook, by any other name, will beat the reputation that precedes it.TopicsFacebookTim CookMark ZuckerbergUS CongressUS Capitol attackAppleUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US Capitol attack committee agrees to defer request for some records

      by

      US Capitol attack committee agrees to defer request for some recordsPanel bends to wishes of the Biden White House over concerns of national security and executive privilege

      Robert Reich: 6 January shows we must answer neofascism
      The House committee investigating the 6 January insurrection at the US Capitol has agreed to defer its request for hundreds of pages of records from the Trump administration, bending to the wishes of the Biden White House.Capitol panel to investigate Trump call to Willard hotel in hours before attackRead moreThe deferral is in response to concerns that releasing all the Trump documents sought could compromise national security and executive privilege.Joe Biden has repeatedly rejected Donald Trump’s efforts to cite executive privilege to block the release of all documents surrounding that day. But the White House is still working with the committee to shield some documents.The former president is appealing to the supreme court to stop the National Archives and Records Administration co-operating with the committee.The agreement to keep some Trump-era records shielded is contained in a 16 December letter from the White House counsel’s office. It mostly concerns records that do not involve the events of 6 January but were covered by the request for documents from the Trump White House.Dozen of pages created on 6 January don’t pertain to the assault on the Capitol. Other documents involve the national security council. Biden officials were worried that if those pages were turned over it would set a troublesome precedent. Other documents are highly classified and the White House asked Congress to work with the agencies that created them to discuss their release.“The documents for which the select committee has agreed to withdraw or defer its request do not appear to bear on the White House’s preparations for or response to the events of 6 January, or on efforts to overturn the election or otherwise obstruct the peaceful transfer of power,” White House deputy counsel Jonathan Su wrote in one of two letters obtained by the Associated Press.Su wrote that withholding the documents “should not compromise [the committee’s] ability to complete its critical investigation expeditiously”.The National Archives has been transmitting tranches of documents to the White House and to lawyers for Trump, who has raised broad objections and specific concerns.The National Archives has said records Trump wants to block include presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts, handwritten notes “concerning the events of 6 January” from the files of former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and “a draft executive order on the topic of election integrity”.Biden has rejected Trump’s claims of executive privilege over those documents, including in a letter sent on 23 December regarding about 20 pages.“The president has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States, and therefore is not justified,” White House counsel Dana Remus reiterated.Trump claims 5,000 dead people voted in Georgia – but the real number is fourRead moreA federal appeals court ruled this month against Trump, and he has filed an appeal to the supreme court, which has yet to decide whether to take up the case.Judge Patricia Millett, writing for the federal court, said Congress had a “uniquely vital interest” in studying the events of 6 January and Biden had made a “carefully reasoned” determination that the documents were in the public interest.Trump also failed to show any harm that would occur from the release, Millett wrote.“On the record before us, former president Trump has provided no basis for this court to override President Biden’s judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the political branches over these documents,” Millett said.TopicsUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesBiden administrationDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More