Sunday, February 7, 2021

EXACTLY HOW PUSSY IS MIKE PENCE WHEN IT COMES TO THE ORANGE BABOON???

 


Tony Schwartz: The Truth About Trump | Oxford Union Q&A

Andrea Bernstein: The Trumps, The Kushners and American Greed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd7-AbwwBA

No, It Wasn’t a Coup Attempt. It Was Another Trump Money Scam.

The president knew he couldn’t prevail in the courts but he understands how to make money by failing. He did it with casinos and he’s doing it again.

President Trump’s post-election machinations are not a bungled coup attempt; they add up to a scam to enrich himself. A coup would require broad collaboration from the courts and, failing that, from the military. The evidence suggests that Trump may not even be serious about election fraud. If he were, he would have recruited serious election law experts in the states he has contested. Instead, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell blanketed the country with a blizzard of lawsuits, offering fever dreams from the dark web as their legal justification and evidence.

The president’s post-election campaign demonstrates his singular talent for taking care of himself even when he loses. It is a momentous historic attack on the democratic process, on the order of Reconstruction. But for Trump, as Michael Corleone put it, “it’s just business.” Ultimately, Trump’s goals are to remain a star, make money, and solidify his clout. The corrosive effects on democracy are collateral damage.

Donald Trump has always craved fame, a drive common to national politicians. But he alone honed his approach to politics through his stint as a reality TV star. That’s where he learned how he could weave a narrative around his personality that tapped into the fantasies of a national audience. His quixotic claim to have won an election that he knows he lost rests entirely on his curated public persona. And as long as he pursues his claims, he is the center of attention instead of an ignored, sad, lame duck.

Trump’s intrigues embody his drive to come out ahead whether he succeeds or fails. His campaign hardly touched on the pandemic, the economy, or even his signature complaints about immigrants. Instead, he offered a narrative about systemic voter fraud and a stolen election. The strategy was smarter than Trump’s consultants and most media understood. It strengthened his connection to Americans who feel vulnerable to powerful shadowy forces beyond their reach, sufficient to drive nearly enough of them to reelect him.

This approach also laid a foundation for Trump to come out on top again, albeit not as president, and monetize the loss. Soon after the polls closed, his campaign announced an “Official Election Defense Fund” to help pay for his election challenges – with much of the proceeds diverted to his personal PAC, Save America. And by mobilizing his millions of true believers around a false narrative that his enemies have cost them their leader, Trump secured an enormous fan base for whatever he does as an ex-president. Millions will pay to attend more rallies or perhaps subscribe to a new Trump streaming service or cable network.

The strategy will give Trump a global stage to spotlight his inevitable grievances with President Joe Biden. It could become a means to mobilize public pressure against ongoing criminal investigations and possible indictments. Even from Mar-a-Lago, he could keep officeholders aligned with his interests, even as an ex-president.

Ensuring that Trump benefits even when he loses—and so never appears to fail – is an approach he has honed over his career. It nearly always involves making himself richer. He forged the strategy in Atlantic City. When he issued $100 million in junk bonds to bail out the failing Trump Plaza casino in 1993 temporarily, he used half of those proceeds to cover his personal debts. When his three casino hotels went bankrupt, he collected $160 million in management fees from the time the hotels declared Chapter 11 to the inevitable moment, years later, when he had to surrender them to his creditors.

Trump had figured out how to win while losing other people’s money. The final collapse of his Atlantic City properties also became personal paydays: He walked away with $916 million in tax losses based on $3.4 billion in defaulted debts owed to the banks and junk bondholders that actually put up the capital. To make it legal, Trump had assumed personal liability for the loans. But that was at the heart of the scam: Since he had not put up his own money, he couldn’t claim the losses without putting himself technically “at-risk” for the loans.

As president, Trump continues to profit from losing other people’s money. He owns 16 golf courses, all financed by accommodating lenders who put up the money to buy and operate them. As any real estate operator knows, golf courses are notorious money losers. Here too, Trump is personally “at-risk” for those loans – because otherwise, he couldn’t write off their annual losses. Based on the tax returns described in the New York Times, he claimed $15.3 million in those tax losses in 2017, his first year in the White House. For that year, he also reported personal income of nearly $14.8 million from branding deals, income tied to his old reality TV show, and revenues from favor seekers joining Mar-A-Lago and taking suites at his hotels. The losses Trump claimed for ventures paid for with other people’s money enabled him, even as president, to avoid paying personal income tax on all of his $14.8 million income.

Winning by failing has been Donald Trump’s signature business strategy, and now it is his political strategy.  Since he couldn’t force the Justice Department to arrest Biden or coerce the courts to overturn the election results, he is left to enrich himself and maintain his influence with his fans and GOP elected officials. Thankfully for democracy, Americans now face not a coup d’état but yet another scam from Donald Trump – and probably not his last.

Donate Now to the Washington Monthly and your gift will be doubled

Robert J. Shapiro

Robert J. Shapiro, a Washington Monthly contributing writer, is the chairman of Sonecon and a Senior Fellow at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University. He previously served as Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs under Bill Clinton and advised senior members of the Obama administration on economic policy.


Dem Sen. Murphy: Trump ‘Sent Out a Tweet Attacking Mike Pence’ During the Riot — We Have No Choice But to Convict

2:11

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said former President Donald Trump’s tweet sent out during the riot on Capitol Hill on January 6 was enough evidence to convict Trump of incitement.

In a tweet that has been deleted, Trump wrote, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

Murphy said, “So he incited people to go fight like hell, then he said something different, and as they were attacking the Capitol, he had a chance, right, as the insurrection was beginning, to tell them to stand down. I was in the Senate chamber literally as those rioters were outside our doors. While we were being locked down in the Senate chamber, instead of sending out a tweet saying that everybody should leave the Capitol, President Trump sent out a tweet attacking Mike Pence, the very person that those rioters were there to hang.”

He continued, “So even as the riot was occurring, the president had a chance to turn it around, and instead he incited it, knowing what was happening at the Capitol. So I think the case is absolutely clear both in that rally at the White House and during the riot itself the president was taking steps to make it worse, not better. There is, of course, reporting from inside the White House that suggests the president was slow-walking the response because he was very happy with what was happening over at the United States Capitol, so I think all the evidence is put on, there will be no choice but to convict.

He added, “This was an effort to overturn an election in and of itself an unconstitutional endeavor. This was a crowd of tens of thousands of people. The president had access to intelligence to tell him that there were individuals there who were intending to storm the Capitol, and then once again while the attack was happening, the president had the ability to turn them around, and he didn’t.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Exclusive – Pence Plans for Bold GOP Future: Former VP Aims to ‘Build Upon’ Trump’s Success

CLEVELAND, OH - JULY 20: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stand with Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence and acknowledge the crowd on the third day of the Republican National Convention on July 20, 2016 at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump received the …
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
10:36

Former Vice President Mike Pence plans to build on what former President Donald Trump accomplished as he sets out to lead efforts to shape the future of the conservative movement and Republican Party, his chief of staff Marc Short told Breitbart News on Friday.

“Mike’s roots are in the conservative movement,” Short said in a phone interview. “It’s the foundation for his philosophical and political views. But, President Trump brought in a large number of new voters into the party and into the movement. He’s focused on how do we continue to build upon that.”

On Thursday, Pence and the Heritage Foundation—as Breitbart News first reported—announced that he was joining the conservative institution as a senior visiting fellow.

Then on Friday morning, Young America’s Foundation (YAF) announced that Pence would be joining its organization as its Ronald Reagan Presidential Scholar. YAF, which sponsored then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan’s nationally syndicated radio program in the late 1970s before his successful 1980 presidential campaign after his unsuccessful 1976 bid, will sponsor a podcast from Pence as well.

“Vice President Pence has been a stalwart defender of individual freedom, traditional values, free markets, and limited government throughout his career of distinguished service to our country,” former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, now YAF’s president, said in a release. “Now, by partnering with YAF, the Vice President will continue to attract new hearts and minds to the conservative cause, passing along the ideas of freedom—just as President Reagan did before, during, and after his time in office. Vice President Pence’s energy and enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan’s values has and will continue to inspire a new generation of young people.”

Back in November, in the immediate aftermath of the election, Pence delivered an address to YAF at the conference during which Walker took the reins of the group from its longtime president Ron Robinson. In the speech then, Pence implored Trump supporters and conservatives to “stay in the fight” and keep pushing forward no matter what happened in the weeks afterward with election challenges that ultimately failed to ensure Trump’s legacy survives.

“Think about what’s already been recognized,” Pence said in that YAF speech. “This President actually secured 72 million votes. That was more than 10 million more votes than we received in 2016. In fact, it’s more votes than any Republican candidate or any incumbent President in the history of the United States of America. And what maybe meant the most to the President and me is that the vote that came in on November the 3rd for this Republican President actually included the highest proportion of American minority voters in 60 years.”

That record level of support for Trump, Pence added then, also translated into down-ticket successes for Republicans in House and Senate races as well in state-level contests.

“Because of the support that all of you provided and all the states from which you come, we actually already have added 12 seats to the House of Representatives,” Pence said. “And we won three state houses.”

Then then-vice president also said in the November 13 address to YAF that the president and his supporters are fighting to “preserve everything that we’ve accomplished.”

“It really is amazing to think about what we have done in the last four years,” Pence said. “And I say that with a little swirl of my hand because I picked that up off the President. I’ve lost count of the number of times that people would come into the Oval Office and say to the President, ‘Thank you for what you’ve done.’ And he would always—he gets his— just ‘We.’ I mean, this is a President that understands that everything that we’ve been able to accomplish it’s because of the support of tens of millions of Americans who knew we could be strong again, who knew we could be prosperous again if we regrounded our nation in all the ideals and principles that have always made America great.”

Short, Pence’s closest aide, explained to Breitbart News on Friday that these decisions by Pence—to join Heritage and YAF—are part of a broader effort by the former vice president and potential future presidential candidate to help guide the Trump movement forward in the months and years ahead.

“Both Reagan and Trump were transformational presidents,” Short said. “There is a lot that we look to in the last four years and see what we’ve accomplished from immigration policy to the judicial branch to rebuilding the military to historic tax cuts and deregulation that we think as well is a prescription for the future. I think what the vice president would tell you is he sort of came of age politically during the Reagan years, and I think we know the policies of the last four years that have benefitted the nation’s national security and economy and that we want to make sure we continue to build upon that.”

Short told Breitbart News that the Trump era helped flesh out a broad vision—America first—for the movement, the party, and the country, and Pence intends to keep that discussion going in the coming weeks, months, and years.

“I think that both Reagan and Trump brought into the party a broad number of new voters that were middle class, blue collar, midwestern voters,” Short said. “Mike Pence comes from a blue collar, middle class, midwestern family. I think that he is somebody that can look at both of those movements and appreciate what they added to our party and our movement. And I think that, as you said, many of the policies like taking on China and not having a continued abdication of our sovereignty and appeasement to the Chinese Communist Party is essential to what I think a lot of American workers want when it comes to their jobs. You’ll see the vice president want to continue those policies and ideas that help our party and movement flourish best.”

In a series of interviews with Breitbart News when he was vice president, both before and during the coronavirus pandemic during which he was the chairman of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, Pence laid out that vision on every major issue from China to trade to immigration and more.

Moments after the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly—89–10—adopted the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement in January 2020 aboard his campaign bus in Florida between Tampa and Orlando, Pence told Breitbart News that the “USMCA is a huge win for American workers and American farmers.”

“It is a historic achievement following decades of shuttered factories and lost jobs in the wake of NAFTA,” he said.

Later in the year, in Philadelphia in July 2020, Pence told Breitbart News that under Trump the Chinese Communist Party was no longer getting a free ride at the expense of American workers.

“When we took office, China was half of our international trade deficit,” Pence said in that July interview. “President Trump made it clear that those days are over. We put China on notice that we were no longer going to tolerate trade policies and practices that have seen American jobs shipped overseas. So he’s used his authority and imposed tariffs and taken a strong stand. We’ve also, on strategic issues, we’ve made it clear we’re going to stand up for the interests of America in the Asia-Pacific. We’ve defended the freedom of navigation. In fact, we have two aircraft carriers in the South China Sea taking a strong stand. Also, just more recently with China breaking their word on Hong Kong, and the president has announced we are taking action that will be out in the coming days that will demonstrate our commitment to the people of Hong Kong and our commitment to freedom-loving people around the world. But that, whether it be the strong stand on trade and tariffs, whether it be our commitment to our strategic interests in the region, or whether it be our stand for freedom and human rights, no president in my lifetime has been tougher on China than President Donald Trump.”

On courts and the judicial branch, after the vice presidential debate where Pence faced off with then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)—now the vice president—in Salt Lake City during a campaign swing through Florida at the Villages, Pence told Breitbart News it was “outrageous” that Harris and now-President Joe Biden would not give a clear answer on court-packing.

“It is outrageous that a candidate for the highest office in the land won’t tell the American people what he’s going to do with the highest court in the land,” Pence said in that October 2020 interview. “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have got to come clean. They’ve got to tell the American people whether they’re going to pack the court. Honestly, the way I saw Kamala Harris respond in our debate, the way that I saw Joe Biden duck the question in the presidential debate—for them to now say, ‘You’ll know my opinion after the election’ and we ‘don’t deserve to know’ tells me all I need to know. That is Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the Democrats are going to pack the court if they take the Senate. But we’re not going to let it happen. We’re going to re-elect Donald Trump for four more years in the White House.”

Pence was one of the most prolific campaigners for Trump, too, touring the nation hitting all the battleground states and helping guide the campaign and party forward. As for the future, Short told Breitbart News that while Pence is obviously not announcing a run for president himself in 2024 at this time, if he does run down the road he is “uniquely positioned to bring together and marry the traditional conservatives and the Trump voter.”

But, for now, Pence is focused on helping the movement and the party in the immediate elections ahead like looming governor’s races later this year in a handful of states including Virginia as well as looking ahead to the 2022 midterm elections. Short said Pence “will be very active” on the campaign trail in the upcoming elections. As a former governor of Indiana before his election as vice president, as well as the former House GOP conference chair when he served in the U.S. House, Short said that Pence is intricately involved in all facets of the Republican Party’s future prospects.

“I think his focus is really going to be on 2022,” Short told Breitbart News. “We’ve had conversations with RGA [the Republican Governors Association]. Mike was a governor, and he was on the executive committee of RGA, and there is lot of really important races at the state level but also importantly there are a lot of important prospects of reclaiming the House. I think, ultimately, we’ve seen time and again when Democrats have controlled government they have overstepped. When Mike was the conference chairman of the House Republicans and helped communicate the message to Americans of the Obama-Pelosi agenda in 2008 to 2010, we had a record-setting year. He’s going to be focused on how do we reclaim the House and how we win a lot of governor’s seats in 2022.”

A real exposure of the political and social


forces behind January 6 would reveal its


connection to the interests of the financial


oligarchy, and in particular, the homicidal


policy of the ruling class in response to the


pandemic.


Trump and January 6: The evidence of a planned political coup

The impeachment brief filed Tuesday by the nine impeachment managers from the House of Representatives makes an irrefutable case that former President Trump is guilty of advocating, preparing, fomenting and inciting the armed attack on Congress on January 6, 2021, with the goal of overturning the results of the 2020 election and maintaining himself in power.

The brief lays out coherently and in considerable detail the efforts by Trump over a period of six months. First, during the election campaign, he repeatedly cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vote if he did not win it. Then, after the polls closed, he denied the results as votes were counted by state officials, many of them Republicans, showing that Democrat Joe Biden had won by a margin of more than seven million in the popular vote, as well as in enough of the key “battleground” states to bring victory in the Electoral College.

Democratic House impeachment managers stand before entering the Senate Chamber as they deliver to the Senate the article of impeachment alleging incitement of insurrection against former President Donald Trump, in Washington, Monday, Jan. 25, 2021. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post via AP, Pool)

After the members of the Electoral College in 50 states and the District of Columbia met on December 14 and formally cast their ballots, giving Biden the victory by a margin of 306 to 232, Trump, in the words of the brief, “fixated on January 6, 2021—the date of the Joint Session of Congress—as presenting his last, best hope to reverse the election results and remain in power.”

Trump summoned tens of thousands of his supporters to Washington D.C. on January 6 with promises that the event “will be wild.” He repeatedly declared that Congress had the power to overturn the electoral votes of the states he was contesting—it does not—and even that Vice President Mike Pence had the power to unilaterally reject the votes of these states—he did not.

He has repeatedly and explicitly backed the use of violence by his supporters against his political opponents, going back to the 2016 campaign, and he intensified these exhortations throughout the last weeks of 2020 and the first week of 2021. As the House brief notes, in the weeks preceding the congressional certification, Trump issued a series of incendiary statements denouncing the “rigged” and “stolen” election, calling on his followers to “fight like hell” and “fight to the death.”

The brief adds that “it was obvious and entirely foreseeable that the furious crowd … was primed (and prepared) for violence if he lit a spark.”

The House brief notes the statements at the January 6 rally by Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani calling for a “trial by combat” and the declaration by Donald Trump Jr. to Republican legislators wavering on supporting the coup, “We’re coming for you.”

Finally, President Trump appeared behind a podium bearing a presidential seal. Surveying the tense crowd before him, President Trump whipped it into a frenzy, exhorting followers to “fight like hell [or] you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Then he aimed them straight at the Capitol, declaring: “You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

As these words were spoken, the crowd began surging down Pennsylvania Avenue towards the Capitol. Trump had promised to go with them but went back inside the White House to watch the action he had incited unfold on television. He reportedly watched the mob attack on the Capitol with approval and even enjoyment, while calling one senator during the attack to urge him to delay the certification proceedings as much as possible—a clear effort to coordinate the actions of his agents inside Congress with the actions of his agents outside it.

One final citation from the impeachment brief describes the scene inside the Capitol:

Rioters attacked law enforcement personnel with weapons they had brought with them or stolen from the police: sledgehammers, baseball bats, hockey sticks, crutches, flagpoles, police shields, and fire extinguishers. They tore off officers’ helmets, beat them with batons, and deployed chemical irritants including bear spray, a chemical irritant similar to tear gas, designed to be used by hunters to fend off bear attacks. Some attackers wore gas masks and bulletproof vests; many carried firearms—indeed, at least six handguns were recovered after the insurrection—while others carried knives, brass knuckles, a noose, and other deadly weapons. One officer attempting to guard the Capitol described the attack as a “medieval battle scene.”

More than 140 Capitol police were injured in the attack. Dozens of senators and representatives barely escaped with their lives, in some cases by a matter of seconds. Five people died on January 6. Many more are still suffering the effects, physical and psychological.

It is appropriate to review this material at some length, because there has arisen a noxious tendency, not only in the corporate media, especially its pro-Trump wing, but even more so among sections of the pseudoleft to downplay the events of January 6, deny the seriousness of the attack on the Capitol, and even dismiss the consequences if Trump and his crowd of thugs had achieved their immediate goals: seizing congressional hostages and bargaining their lives against a halt in the process of certifying Trump’s defeat and Biden’s election.

Here arises the profound contradiction of the political crisis in Washington. The House brief spells out, more categorically than ever before, the criminal character of Trump and his administration. Yet the congressional Democrats, who produced this indictment, are presently engaged in an all-out campaign to woo Trump’s allies in the Republican Party.

In an interview with CNN Wednesday, Representative Jason Crow, who was one of the Democratic impeachment managers in Trump’s first Senate trial one year ago, pointed out that the Senate trial would be unique because it would be “taking place at the crime scene, with jurors who were among the victims of the crime.” He did not add, however, that other jurors in the Senate trial were among those who aided and abetted the crime and should be joining Trump in the dock, rather than participating in the cover-up and whitewashing of the ex-president.

The Senate “jurors” include Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, who led the effort to challenge the electoral votes for Biden from Arizona and Pennsylvania, as well as Tommy Tuberville, the Alabama senator Trump was trying to reach from the White House during the attack. The jurors include another half dozen senators who supported Hawley and Cruz in their objections, as well as a much larger group, headed by Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who lent credibility to Trump’s bogus claims of election fraud by refusing to acknowledge Biden’s victory for more than a month, until the Electoral College vote of December 14.

Much has been made of the decision by 45 Republican senators, including McConnell, to support the claim of Senator Rand Paul that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to try the impeachment of a president who has left office. This involves more than using a bogus constitutional argument to avoid addressing Trump’s actions on January 6. Nearly all of these 45 Republicans aided the Trump campaign to overturn the election results, in one way or another, and are politically, and perhaps even legally, accomplices in his crimes. They are covering up their own actions, not just his.

The central preoccupation of the Biden administration and the Democratic Party has been not to expose the high-level conspiracy within the Republican Party and the state behind the events of January 6 but to cover them up. Biden himself has insisted on the necessity for a “strong” Republican Party, for “unity” within the state apparatus and “bipartisanship” in the implementation of ruling class policy. As a result, not only are Trump’s co-conspirators given a complete amnesty, but despite the impeachment, Trump himself remains one of the most powerful figures in the Republican Party.

A real exposure of the political and social forces behind January 6 would reveal its connection to the interests of the financial oligarchy, and in particular, the homicidal policy of the ruling class in response to the pandemic.

The Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, is a party of Wall Street and American imperialism. It may object to fascist methods today, particularly when directed at its own leaders. But it is unreservedly committed to the defense of American capitalism against the working class—as demonstrated by the universal demand of the Democrats that schools and workplaces reopen, regardless of the danger of the coronavirus pandemic, so that capitalist profit-making can resume.

The events of January 6 are a turning point in American history. They did not, however, arise simply from the mind of Donald Trump. Trump himself is only the most putrescent expression of a protracted breakdown of American bourgeois democracy. Democratic rights are not compatible with capitalism. The fight against fascism and authoritarianism depends upon the intervention of the working class, armed with a socialist program.

Pentagon purges advisory boards packed by Trump

The Biden administration’s recently confirmed defense secretary, General Lloyd Austin (ret.), has ordered the resignations of hundreds of Pentagon-appointed members of the Defense Department’s 42 civilian advisory boards, including a slew of last-minute appointees named by the Trump administration. The forced resignations are to take effect no later than February 16.

The Pentagon described the move as part of a “zero-based review” of all the existing civilian advisory boards and commissions, whose activities will be suspended and evaluated. These include high profile panels such as the Defense Policy Board, the Defense Business Board and the Defense Science Board, as well as boards formed on issues ranging from Arlington National Cemetery to military families and sexual assault in the military. Among the boards is one recently formed to advise the Pentagon on changing the names of military installations that currently commemorate Confederate generals.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin visits National Guard troops deployed at the U.S. Capitol and its perimeter, Friday, Jan. 29, 2021 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, Pool)

“Advisory boards have and will continue to provide an important role in shaping public policy within [the Department of Defense],” Austin wrote in a statement to the Pentagon leadership. “That said, our stewardship responsibilities require that we continually assess to ensure each advisory committee provides appropriate value today.”

The Senate confirmed Austin as defense secretary on January 22. His was the second nomination in four years to require a waiver by both houses of Congress because of a statute barring recently retired military officers from the position. General James Mattis, Austin’s predecessor as chief of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) and Donald Trump’s first defense secretary, also needed the waiver. Austin has also been required to leave his lucrative berth on the board of directors of top Pentagon arms contractor Raytheon.

There was no question that the overriding consideration behind the purge of the advisory panels was the packing of these boards with Trump loyalists precisely during the period the former president was plotting a coup to overturn the 2020 presidential election and installing his loyalists in the most senior positions within the Pentagon.

Less than two months before the inauguration of Biden, Christopher Miller, an ex-special forces colonel who Trump named as acting defense secretary after firing Mike Esper as Pentagon chief, purged the Defense Policy Board, ousting 11 members. They included veteran practitioners of US imperialist policy such as former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright; retired Adm. Gary Roughead, who served as chief of naval operations; ex-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and former ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman.

A similar wholesale firing was carried out at the Defense Business Board, whose members had traditionally been drawn from the ranks of CEOs and other top corporate executives who understood the immense profits generated by massive US military spending.

Among those appointed as replacements to the Defense Policy Board were Anthony Tata and Scott O’Grady, both of whom had been placed in high-ranking civilian positions in the Defense Department in the purge that followed the firing of Esper, as Trump attempted to exert political control over the Pentagon in preparation for his attempted coup.

Tata had been installed as the third-ranking official at the Pentagon, undersecretary of defense for policy. An extreme-right and Islamaphobic Fox News commentator, he had denounced former president Barack Obama as a Muslim, “terrorist leader” and “Manchurian candidate.”

O’Grady, a former Air Force fighter pilot, was similarly installed briefly as acting assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. A far-right conspiracy theorist, O’Grady had advanced claims that Trump won the 2020 election by a landslide, but that it had been stolen from him in a conspiracy involving, among others, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and the late Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. He denounced Biden and the Democrats, as well as Trump critics in the military, as “socialists” and “traitors” who were attempting to stage a “coup,” and joined Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn in calling for Trump to impose martial law.

Those named as replacements for the Defense Business Board included Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager, and David Bossie, his former deputy campaign manager, who was, at the time of his nomination, coordinating the abortive lawsuits to overturn the election.

While posts on the advisory boards are voluntary and unpaid, their members receive reimbursement for travel and per diem pay for board meetings. They are, in many cases, likely afforded opportunities to forge lucrative business ties with Pentagon contractors and are also provided access to classified material.

The purge of the advisory board does not affect members appointed by either the US president or the Congress. Thus, Trump’s final-hour appointments of his ex-press secretary Sean Spicer and his campaign adviser Kellyanne Conway to the boards of visitors of, respectively, the Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy remain unchanged.

Similarly, while the four members of the commission on the military bases named for Confederate generals appointed by the Pentagon under Christopher Miller will be ousted, four named by Congress will remain in place.

The Increasing Incompetence of Republican Presidents

One of the things that modern-day historians have done is rank U.S. presidents from best to worst. Wikipedia has an interesting collection of these dating back to 1948. To help provide a visual map, they’ve color-coded them by quartiles:

Blue – first quartile
Green – second quartile
Orange – third quartile
Red – fourth quartile

Some interesting patterns show up. For example, according to these historians, this country had a string of fairly competent presidents in its early years from Washington to Jackson. Then came a period of some of the worst, as the Whig Party was in the midst of its demise (primarily over the issue of slavery) – giving way to the formation of the Republican Party. The years following the Great Depression brought us another series of competent presidents – from FDR through Johnson – followed by our modern-day presidents who have gravitated to the second and third quartile.

There are several things to notice about this history that might be instructive for forming a really big picture of what is happening today. The president who averages number one is Abraham Lincoln. But he is surrounded by a sea of incompetence both before and after his tenure. In other words, the greatest American president didn’t leave a legacy that built on his achievements. His genius was in traversing one of the most difficult periods in this country’s history – the question of slavery, which led to the Civil War.

A similar upheaval marked the years following LBJ’s presidency when, rather than the demise of a party as happened to the Whigs, the Republican and Democratic Parties switched positions on the critical question of civil rights. As that realignment was happening, the country went from some of its best leaders to Nixon, Ford and Carter.

Ronald Reagan ushered in the revival of Republicanism that solidified the realignment that began after Johnson. He rates as 15th on the scale of effective presidents – the best for a Republican since Eisenhower at 10th. To the extent that Reagan represents “peak Republicanism,” it is interesting to note what has happened to the parties presidents since then.

Republicans
Ronald Reagan – 15
George HW Bush – 22
George W Bush – 35
Donald Trump – (worst in our history?)

Democrats
Jimmy Carter – 27
Bill Clinton – 20
Barack Obama – 17

It is worth noting that only three of the eighteen rankings included Obama – and only one was completed after his second term (in which he was ranked #12).

What sparked my interest in looking at this was the fact that it was pretty commonly noted during the George W. Bush years that he was one of the worst presidents in our history. Some of us thought the Republicans couldn’t go any lower — until they elected Donald Trump. Can they do any worse?

The truth is that in these rankings, historians tend to focus on competence. As we all know, that isn’t necessarily what elections are all about. But Reaganism brought the fantasy of Republican policies to their peak. Since then, they’ve been a disaster and have led to the election of increasingly incompetent presidents. Now, as McKay Coppins documents, the GOP is having an identity crisis in the Trump era.

Meanwhile, Democrats are demonstrating an increasing competence when it comes to leadership. While there are some on the left who think that change isn’t happening fast enough, the trajectory we’ve seen so far is something that party can continue to build upon.


A Would-Be Thief’s Briefs

Donald Trump tried to steal the election. The impeachment papers filed by his legal team are laughably weak.

My reservoir of compassion is largely drained during these days of pandemic and recession; but if I had any left over, I might actually be tempted to direct a little at Donald Trump’s latest legal team.

In the run-up to the impeachment trial this month, Trump has been, as always, far harder on his lawyers than on his enemies. His revolving-door representation means that they must go into battle with only a few days’ preparation; that they must make, arguments that fall somewhere between spurious and laughable; and that they must, eventually, be stuck with professional disgrace and an unpaid bill.

That underlying motif—the Trump-lawyer-as-Sisyphus trope—should inform any reading of today’s literary treat, the 14-page brief filed by the Trump legal team. It’s an answer to the 80-page Trial Memorandum filed by the House of Representatives Managers who are prosecuting Trump before the Senate. The Trump brief is a terse tissue of incomplete textual citations, mis-citations of the constitutional doctrine, what philosophers call “infinite regress,” and a somewhat fanciful explanation that all of Trump’s attacks on the election were simply abstract musings on the proper Platonic procedure for free elections.

The House Managers’ brief lays out the most important facts governing the Article of Impeachment. It documents how Trump undermined the 2020 election long before it took place; how he called his followers to Washington for a January 6 protest against Congress’s required approval of the electoral-vote total; how he and those working with him carefully goaded the volatile crowd into a violent assault on the Capitol; how, after learning that the mob was inside the Capitol, he tweeted a fresh attack on his own Vice-President, who was then in mortal danger; and how he refused to speak out to stop the violence or take the actions a commander-in-chief should take to protect the government from assault.

Those actions and inactions, the managers argue, violated the president’s oath of office and his duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” deliberately attacked the very foundation of the American republic, and recklessly imperiled national security.

Agree or disagree, it’s not a complicated case. Trump’s response is shorter but far harder to follow. Here are Trump’s major defenses, such as they are:

Trump, not being president, can’t be impeached, tried, or punished for his misconduct as president. Trump’s lawyers rely on the wording of Article I that “the President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This, they argue, means that “the Constitutional provision requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached.” The textual argument would have some merit except for two problems. First, Trump actually was “holding office” when impeached; you could look it up—his title was “President.” Second, other parts of the Constitution expand the meaning of impeachment. Specifically, Article I Sec. 3 provides that “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Since Trump was in fact impeached while president, the Senate has the jurisdiction to try him. The Constitution also provides that a convicted official can be subject to “removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Trump’s lawyers argue that means the president must be removed from office before he can be disqualified. Since he’s not in the office, he can’t be removed. Since he can’t be removed, he can’t be disqualified. It’s not a very good argument. Trump’s lawyers, however, like it. They repeat no fewer than ten times in 14 pages that Trump is no longer president, so olly olly oxen free. Legal argument, however, is not like the “Candyman” movies—just saying the same thing over and over doesn’t bring a monster out of the mirror. Scholars by and large agree that a president who is impeached while in office can be tried after he leaves it.

Trump thinks the election was stolen, and so he did what anybody would do and proposed thoughtful reforms to avoid a repetition. Now look, the lawyers seem to be saying, we don’t necessarily agree with him, because it wasn’t stolen, ok, which is why he’s not president now (we mentioned that before) but still, if you stand on one leg and look at the picture with your head tilted to the left, doesn’t it sort of maybe look a little bit stolen (not that we are saying it is but maybe it was though we aren’t really saying it)? And if the President thought that (not saying he should have thought that but if he did) doesn’t he have a right to disrupt all of American politics because believing this made him very angry and sad?

And anyway, he had a right to say the election was stolen if he thought that, and he didn’t say anybody should do anything about it. “It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to engage in destructive behavior,” the brief says. “It is denied that the phrase ‘if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore’ had anything to do with the action at the Capitol as it was clearly about the need to fight for election security in general.” To anyone who has read the transcript of Trump’s speech, the statement calls to mind a quote from George Orwell’s “As I Please” column: “There are also about eighty ways in the English and American languages of expressing incredulity—for example, garn, come off it, you bet, sez you, oh yeah, not half, I don’t think, less of it or and the pudding! But I think and then you wake up is exactly the suitable answer.”

C’mon, get real, which of us hasn’t at one time or another called a Secretary of State and asked him to change just a few vote totals? The lawyers admit that Trump called Georgia Secretary Brad Raffensperger and asked him a teeny tiny favor of “find[ing] 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.” But they suggest that is really rather humorless of the House managers to actually suggest that this was in some way improper. “President Trump was expressing his opinion that if the evidence was carefully examined one would ‘find that you have many that aren’t even signed, and you have many that are forgeries.’” Okay, I can’t use Orwell again; so let me say this claim calls to mind a couplet from W.H. Auden about a point of religious doctrine: “Yes, it may be so. / Is it likely? No.”

Those bad people in the House impeached Trump too fast, and they impeached him too slowly. Trump’s lawyers mentioned repeatedly that Trump isn’t president. But then they explain that the House, by rushing to impeach him while he was president, also violated his due process right to have a slow process. Of course, that slow impeachment would then be dismissed because he would no longer be president. The acts for which he has been impeached took place two weeks before the end of his term, so I suppose if you want to be hyper-technical he was “President;” but he was entitled to more than two weeks’ notice of impeachment; if he had gotten more than two weeks’ notice then he couldn’t be impeached, but he didn’t get them so he still can’t.

Since the Chief Justice presides over the trial of the president, and since Trump is not president, the Chief Justice can’t preside over his trial, which is no fair because OK the reasoning behind this one eludes me completely but apparently they don’t think Patrick Leahy is someone they would choose. The Chief Justice presides only when “the president” is tried. So, there’s no reason why he should preside when Trump (did I mention he’s not president?) is tried.

Really, the only meritorious claim in the brief is the observation that Trump is no longer president. That’s what lawyers call an “admission against interest,” and one that the former president should be held to.

Donate Now to the Washington Monthly and your gift will be doubled

Garrett Epps

Garret Epps is the Legal Affairs Editor of the Washington Monthly and a professor of law emeritus at the University of Baltimore. He is the author of American Epic: Reading the U.S. Constitution and four other books about the Constitution. 


Remember: There Was An Attempted Coup Against the U.S. Less Than a Month Ago

Do not forget, and do not let them try to make you forget—not until there is justice and accountability.

Among the unique characteristics of American politics is our capacity to forget the unpleasant and inconvenient.

After a sitting president burgled his opponent’s headquarters and then tried to sack his entire Justice Department, his successor pardoned him in the service of “unity” and his party went on to thrive in the aftermath. Just over a decade later, there was an enormous scandal involving the secret sale of weapons to America’s top-profile international enemy to fund murderous paramilitaries on our own continent. The criminals involved were pardoned, the president involved feigned ignorance and then got the national capital’s airport named after him. Shortly thereafter, another Republican president lied the country into a costly and devastating war from which there remains no exit, then oversaw the worst natural disaster response in American history before catapulting the nation into the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression. Within a decade, both parties seem to have forgotten that he even existed except to be seen as a respectable elder statesman at funerals and public functions.

Then came Donald Trump. Trump, his catastrophic failures and extraordinary malfeasance have not yet been forgotten because he still dominates the Republican Party. But his most horrific transgression is already receding into the background of the nation’s collective memory. So let’s all remind ourselves of what happened just this month.

This month—25 days ago!—there was an armed, murderous insurrection against the government of the United States. This insurrection was based on a months-long campaign of spurious lies that the election had been stolen somehow from Trump. These lies were enabled by intentional Republican policies like insisting on counting mail ballots late in order to create the impression of falsification, by the conservative infotainment brigade that promoted the calumnies of Trump and his lawyers, and crucially by hundreds of Republican politicians who backed the president’s lies in statehouses and on the floor of Congress.

Major GOP members of Congress and well-funded conservative groups organized the massive public event at the Capitol. The president’s apparatchiks in the Pentagon denied National Guard assistance to the Capitol Police, who were dramatically underprepared for what was to come—even though the President himself knew that perhaps over 10,000 troops would be needed.

And then the attempted coup began. Even as molotov cocktails and pipe bombs were staged at national party headquarters and elsewhere–likely as distractions–the Capitol building began to be overrun. Paramilitary militia men and women with military-style radios and handcuff zipties rolled through the halls and onto the floor of the Senate. They sought to kill or kidnap members of Congress, shoot the Speaker of the House and hang the Vice President from a makeshift scaffold, even as the legislators barely escaped with their lives by a matter of minutes thanks only to the heroism and quick thinking of handfuls of Capitol Police. They stole government computers with the intent to sell them to the Russian secret service. They sought to deliberately decapitate the line of succession behind Trump.

The seditious putsch plotters reportedly knew precisely not only where the Members’ offices were, but also their unmarked private workspaces in what appears may have been an inside job. As they went door to door in search of the Speaker of the House with murder on their minds, one Republican member of the House tweeted out the Speaker’s movements from the floor while being protected by the police, after allegedly having given some of the insurrectionists a tour of the Capitol just days before.

They failed by the narrowest of windows. But they did succeed in murdering a police officer. They clamored for the murder of others, shouting to kill one with his own gun. They injured dozens of others. One lost an eye; others suffered traumatic brain injuries. Another officer committed suicide afterward. And curiously, the only reinforcements during the event for hours came not to assist the officers–who were deliberately instructed to stand down without armed violence except under extreme duress–but to quickly secure and drag to medical attention the only insurrectionist fatally wounded by police.

It was not, as most journalistic organizations are calling it, a “mob” or a “riot.” It was an attempted coup, an insurrection, a mass assassination attempt. Those who perpetrated it were remarkably allowed to exit with their stolen loot and disappear into the night on their own recognizance, and while many have been arrested or are under surveillance, many are remain at large with whereabouts unknown. The President of the United States, having sent his army to the Capitol, did nothing to quell the violence for hours. Reportedly, the president grinned with glee and excitement as he watched the autogolpe unfold. And then that very same evening 147 Republican members of the House of Representatives sustained the President’s same lies that prompted the insurrection from the floor of the House—an act that, had it succeeded as a majority position, would have overturned the will of the voters and the Electoral College, functionally installing Trump as an unelected dictator. Two Republican Senators did the same from the floor of the Senate. All of them did so in a direct affront to their colleagues who were almost murdered in front of their eyes just hours previously.

This all happened less than a month ago.

And now? Forty-five Republican Senators remarkably voted that there shouldn’t even be an impeachment trial at all, under the theory that if a president commits high crimes in the waning days of his presidency he cannot be held accountable under any circumstance. The conservative media wurlitzer is pretending the incident never took place, that it was a minor blip on the political radar, that it was justified or a false flag perpetrated by leftists.

Meanwhile, President Biden has taken office and most of the press has settled into its comfortable role of analyzing stimulus talks, wondering if a few Republican Senators can draw out the negotiations, kvetching over deficits and reconciliation rules as if many of these same legislators hadn’t just been engaged in a coup against democracy just three weeks earlier. None of the insurrectionists has even been charged yet for the injury or murder of a police officer. Congresswoman Boebert has not yet been forced under oath to explain in public why she was tweeting out the Speaker’s location. One of the Congressmembers who supported the president’s assault on democracy just flew to the district of one of his Republican colleagues who had the temerity to hold the former president accountable, staging a rally in her backyard to encourage her removal in the next election. And after a short joke of an impeachment trial in which most Republicans will dutifully acquit the lead instigator of the failed coup, most of the political establishment will send the entire incident down the memory hole, encouraging Americans to “look forward not backward.”

But we cannot. There was a violent, murderous coup attempt against the United States less than a month ago. None of the pawns have yet been charged with the most serious crimes. None of the most powerful people who truly instigated it have faced any accountability at all. And nothing has structurally changed to prevent it from happening again.

Do not forget, and do not let them try to make you forget. Not until there is justice and accountability.

No comments: