|
FOCUS: The Giant Corporate Giant Slush Fund Bankrolling the Extremist GOP |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57933"><span class="small">David Sirota, Andrew Perez, Walker Bragman and Julia Rock, Jacobin</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 14 January 2021 12:14 |
|
Excerpt: "In response to the violent insurrection at the US Capitol, the Charles Schwab Corporation yesterday announced it will shut down its political action committee, which gave less than a quarter million dollars to Republican lawmakers in 2020."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. (photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
The Giant Corporate Giant Slush Fund Bankrolling the Extremist GOP
By David Sirota, Andrew Perez, Walker Bragman and Julia Rock, Jacobin
14 January 21
Corporations are being lauded for halting PAC donations to the Republicans after the Capitol riot — but they are not shutting down the $500 million pool of cash that bankrolled authoritarian extremists.
 n response to the violent insurrection at the US Capitol, the Charles Schwab Corporation yesterday announced it will shut down its political action committee, which gave less than a quarter million dollars to Republican lawmakers in 2020.
“In light of a divided political climate and an increase in attacks on those participating in the political process,” the company said, “we believe a clear and apolitical position is in the best interest of our clients, employees, stockholders and the communities in which we operate.”
While the news generated headlines, the company did not respond to questions from the Daily Poster about whether it will review or try to restrict the much larger political contributions made by the company’s billionaire chairman Charles Schwab.
During the 2020 election, the firm’s namesake donated more than $9 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) and the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), the two main party-aligned super PACs supporting House and Senate GOP lawmakers. A majority of House Republicans, 139 of them, voted to overturn the election results, while Republican leaders in the Senate were still endorsing Donald Trump’s right to challenge the election results after media outlets had already called the race.
Schwab is no anomaly: Name-brand companies have issued press releases about halting or reviewing the relatively small PAC donations to the lawmakers who egged on the mayhem. However, the Daily Poster contacted scores of companies linked to top SLF and CLF donors, and virtually none committed to taking steps to restrict top corporate officials from continuing to make far larger donations to the super PACs that bankroll congressional Republicans.
Halting PAC donations while doing nothing to stop corporate titans’ bigger super PAC donations is a head fake: The maneuver lets companies clean their reputations by pretending they are taking decisive actions to punish insurrectionist Republicans, even though they will not stop corporate officials from recapitalizing the slush fund that those lawmakers will rely on for reelection. And the vast majority of these companies do not publicly disclose if and when they make donations to dark money groups that also spend on elections.
The bait and switch is underscored by the data: SLF and CLF together raised more than $578 million to support Republican lawmakers in the 2020 election, while their affiliated dark money nonprofits, One Nation and American Action Network, spent another $50 million on unregulated TV ads, according to OpenSecrets.
By comparison, all corporate PACs combined donated less than half that amount to Republican congressional candidates in the 2020 election, and those contributions comprise an all-time low of just 5 percent of all campaign donations in 2020.
An election in Colorado illustrates how the CLF often plays a far more direct role than PAC donations in supporting insurrectionist Republicans. Freshman Rep. Lauren Boebert, who voted against certifying the presidential election and refuses to walk through Capitol metal detectors, was boosted by more than $900,000 of spending by CLF and only received $20,000 from business PACs.
“Are these corporations saying they’re no longer donating their $5,000 max corporate PAC checks to Republicans or saying they’re no longer doing bundling and financing million-dollar super PACs on behalf of Republicans?” asked Justice Democrats’ Waleed Shahid, whose organization works to elect progressive lawmakers. “Big difference.”
That difference explains the dissonance between exuberant media headlines heralding the end of PAC donations and quiet reassurances that there will be no interruption of the much larger flood of cash funding the GOP’s political apparatus. Indeed, most corporations contacted by aides to GOP House Leader Kevin McCarthy — who voted to block the election results — “have assured them that they have no plans to back away from the party,” according to Politico.
“This is a temporary issue that will quickly disappear when corporate America sees how extreme the agenda is of the Democrats who now have complete unchecked power in Washington,” one GOP lawmaker told the Hill. “They will be running to [the National Republican Campaign Committee] and CLF by March or April.”
No Pledges to Permanently Stop Bankrolling the GOP’s Key Super PACs
The Daily Poster contacted roughly ninety companies and interest groups that either directly donated or whose officials contributed to the CLF and SLF, accounting for roughly $370 million raised by the groups last cycle.
Among the organizations donating directly from their treasuries to CLF and SLF were the National Association of Realtors, ConocoPhillips, and Boeing, which have all said they are reviewing their donations. None of the companies have pledged to permanently stop donating to the Republican super PACs.
The National Association of Realtors said that its PAC met this week and the “association is temporarily pausing federal political disbursements.” The organization, which directly contributed $6.6 million to SLF last cycle, said it “will continue to closely monitor events in Washington in the days and weeks ahead in order to ensure our political participation most closely represents the will of our REALTOR® members and the best interests of American real estate.”
“Given the current environment, we are not making political contributions at this time,” Boeing announced on Wednesday, in a statement that appeared to cover its PAC contributions. Boeing made $750,000 worth of corporate contributions to SLF, including $250,000 in mid-November, as the group turned its sights on the two Georgia senate runoff races.
ConocoPhillips, which directly donated $1.3 million to the groups, said: “In light of Congress’s recent vote on the certification of the electoral college results, ConocoPhillips has suspended all political contributions for at least six months. While the company has a robust governance for political contributions, we are actively reviewing our current policies.”
The Daily Poster reached out to several companies that have said they are halting or reviewing their PAC donations and that contributed to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) last election cycle.
Republican attorneys general in seventeen states sought to invalidate the election results in at least four swing states, and RAGA’s nonprofit arm helped direct people to the protest at the US Capitol last week that preceded the insurrection.
“Future political donations are under review based on the events of the past few weeks,” said a spokesperson for CVS Health, which donated $50,000 to RAGA last year, according to data from Political MoneyLine.
Coca-Cola, which donated $100,000, said the company is “reviewing our participation in groups like the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), and we will continue to do so with last week’s events in mind.”
Corporations Now Trying to Distance Themselves From Their Own Officials
None of the companies contacted by the Daily Poster pledged to restrict donations by their senior officials. A few firms argued that their corporate officials are simply making their own contribution decisions.
A spokesperson for Elliott Management, whose founder and co-CEO Paul Singer contributed $7 million to SLF and CLF, said: “You seem to be referring to donations made by individual employees in their capacity as private citizens — these are not corporate decisions.”
Legal experts told the Daily Poster that, in general, corporations can restrict executives political donations as a condition of employment — and in fact some companies assure investors that their executives’ donations are reviewed and approved by the companies so they don’t trip over anti-corruption rules and avoid potential reputational damage.
“If they say that they are reviewing [donations], they do have the ability to influence,” said Jay Dubow, a former SEC regulator who now advises corporations on compliance. “If it has to be reviewed then there’s a veto [power].”
“I can’t think of anything that would stop a company from telling executives not to make political contributions, or from requiring pre-approval of any political contributions,” said Brendan Fischer, the director of federal reform at Campaign Legal Center. He added that, with some exceptions, “in most private sector, non-unionized workplaces, the law does not stop employers from firing workers for their political views or activities, including for their record of political contributions.”
Companies’ new attempt to feign ignorance and powerlessness about their officials’ donations obscures how corporate and individual contributions often work in tandem. A recent study from Northwestern University researchers found that executives’ political contributions are driven by business considerations.
“The likelihood of an individual corporate leader donating to a member of Congress increased by 11 percent when that legislator received a committee assignment making him or her ‘policy relevant’ to the donor’s company,” the analysis concluded. “The likelihood of a corporate executive donating to a sitting member of Congress was 31 percent higher during election cycles in which that executive’s company was actively lobbying the federal government.”
Bruce Freed — whose organization, the Center for Political Accountability, encourages companies to disclose their political contributions — said firms “need to have policies and procedures in place to protect the company and to protect themselves from the risk they face from election-related spending.”
“At this point, companies are facing existential risks by having any association with the insurrection attempt of last Wednesday, but also any association with the congressmen who voted to overturn the election results or the attorneys general who were involved in the lawsuits to overturn the election results,” he said.
Freed noted that many companies are only talking about reviewing or halting their PAC donations, which are limited to $5,000 per candidate, rather than contributions to groups like super PACs, dark money nonprofits, trade associations, and 527 committees — which can accept donations of any size, including money direct from corporate treasuries.
Moreover, most political donations — more than 70 percent since 2000 — are from individuals.
“Seriously Negative Business Ramifications”
Blackstone presents the most illustrative example of the cat-and-mouse game of culpability and authority when it comes to political spending.
The private equity giant is run by billionaire CEO Steve Schwarzman, who gave $35 million to SLF, $2.5 million to CLF, and $3 million to the pro-Trump super PAC America First Action. He also gave $325,600 to the Republicans who objected to the electoral results.
Right after the election, Schwarzman — a Trump confidant — reportedly told business leaders that Trump had a right to challenge the results and “took issue with suggestions made during the meeting that the U.S. could be on the verge of a coup,” according to the Financial Times.
Schwarzman publicly acknowledged Biden’s victory a few weeks later, and last week he decried the violence at the Capitol — but he has not pledged to stop funding any Republican groups.
“We have been advised by counsel that we cannot direct political giving by individuals,” a Blackstone spokesman told the Washington Post.
Blackstone’s own filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission suggest that the company evaluates all donations from executives.
“Personal political contributions or other political activity could be restricted by law or agreement or could have seriously negative business ramifications,” Blackstone’s policy reads. “Therefore, all [Blackstone Group] employees and senior advisors (and members of immediate family) must obtain prior approval … to make any political contributions or to solicit or coordinate any political contributions, including contributions to political parties or political action committees…. The employee will receive a reply from [Blackstone’s] chief legal officer or his designee granting or denying clearance.”
A company spokesman told the Daily Poster: “Our code of ethics simply helps ensure our employees adhere to their legal and compliance obligations; it does not relate in any way to directing employee giving on a partisan or ideological basis, and implying so is a total distortion.”
 |
|
The Trump Precedent: No President Should Be Above the Law Again |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=33125"><span class="small">Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 14 January 2021 09:24 |
|
Scahill writes: "The halls of the U.S. Capitol are thundering with demands for President Donald Trump to be held directly responsible, alongside his foot soldiers, for the siege of Congress on January 6."
Trump supporters stand on a US Capitol Police armored vehicle as others take over the steps of the Capitol. (photo: Kent Nishimura/LA Times)
The Trump Precedent: No President Should Be Above the Law Again
By Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept
14 January 21
Accountability for high crimes needs to exist for not just the current president, but future ones too.
 he halls of the U.S. Capitol are thundering with demands for President Donald Trump to be held directly responsible, alongside his foot soldiers, for the siege of Congress on January 6. There have already been a couple dozen arrests, and many more are certain to come. There is an active federal investigation of the murder of a police officer at the hands of the pro-Trump mob, and media and political figures have raised the prospect of Trump’s criminal exposure for the bloodshed. There will certainly be convictions and prison sentences.
But it is quite likely that this fate will only apply to those unfamous citizens who joined the mob, not their ideological masters.
When it comes to holding the most powerful responsible for their role in crimes, particularly those committed while holding high office, the U.S. track record is anemic. While Democrats are rightly intent on proceeding with impeachment and other measures against Trump, the reality is that U.S. history is rife with episodes of political elites ultimately deciding to move on “for the good of the country.” It is why so many shameless Republicans are whining about the need to unify the country so it can heal. They know the game.
Listening to many Democrats and some Republicans speak in holy terms about the “sanctity” of the “temple of democracy” being pillaged and ransacked, it is easy to be seduced into believing that this time will be different, that the perpetrators — from top to bottom — will be held to account. But doing so would buck a long-standing pillar of the bipartisan system: When it comes to the crimes of the powerful, we must always look forward.
No senior military official was prosecuted for the torture at the Abu Ghraib detention center in Iraq. No CIA officer went to jail, much less lost their job, for operating a global kidnapping and torture program. No one faced an indictment for the U.S. use of banned cluster bomb munitions in President Barack Obama’s first airstrike in Yemen in December 2009 that shredded a few dozen human beings into ground meat. The failure to hold senior U.S. officials responsible for their crimes ensures that the crimes can and will continue. Look no further than the ascent of Gina Haspel, a key player in the CIA’s torture program and the destruction of videotapes of the abuse of detainees, to become the first woman to head the agency. It was a fruit of Obama’s look-forward-not-backward doctrine. There has rightly been outrage at Trump’s pardons for soldiers and mercenaries convicted of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the other side of that coin is the bipartisan refusal to prosecute the masterminds of U.S. imperial crimes in those countries or elsewhere.
The events of January 6 were shocking in only one way: the fact that a violent mob was able to so easily storm and occupy the Capitol. These events were unprecedented in that the most powerful political figure in the United States was the circus master who used incendiary language as he called on the mob to descend on the building. “You’ll never take back our country with weakness,” Trump declared at a rally moments before the siege began. “You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.” Trump’s disgraced lawyer Rudy Giuliani went a step further, suggesting that the mob needed to create the conditions on Capitol Hill for a “trial by combat.”
Among the most serious questions as yet unresolved are: What role did law enforcement and Republican members of Congress play in facilitating the violent takeover of the Capitol? What did Trump administration officials in control of federal forces and the military know leading up to the siege? And did they facilitate it either directly or through deliberate inaction?
No one should pretend that this moment was not in some form predictable. Trump has spent four years using lie-filled bile to empower and embolden violent, dangerous, low-information racists and xenophobes to embrace a worldview where their “real America” had been snatched from them by Black people, immigrants, socialists, “abortionists,” and anarchists. Trump has openly encouraged police and other law enforcement to be more brutal toward protesters (and other people they arrest, for that matter); he has offered to pay legal expenses of supporters who beat dissidents at his rallies; and he issued orders in September for the Proud Boys militia to “stand back and stand by” as he waged his preemptive campaign to declare the election stolen. Trump has also sent a clear message that he will use the power of the presidential pardon to rescue war criminals, including U.S. soldiers and Blackwater mercenaries, who murder people. The rioters at the Capitol may have sincerely believed that Trump would absolve them of any actions they took that day in their pseudo-revolutionary war.
Leading up to January 6, the message from the president and his sizable coterie of allies among the Republican Party in Congress was clear: Joe Biden and the radical left are stealing not just the presidency but America itself. In portraying the “resistance” to the certification of Biden’s election victory as the second coming of the American Revolution — their 1776 2.0 — Trump offered a presidential seal of approval for any means necessary to “stop the theft.”
The fact that very few of the MAGA warriors who stormed Congress on January 6 attempted to conceal their identities is simultaneously a symbol of their idiocy and their belief that they were operating on orders from the commander in chief. It also served as dramatic evidence of the privileges assumed by the president’s supporters. Violence from Black Lives Matter supporters or antifa is regarded as punishable by death, but when performed by MAGA mobs, you might just deserve the Medal of Freedom like Rush Limbaugh.
How we as a society choose to respond to these events is of great consequence to our future. People were killed in this riot, including a police officer who was allegedly beaten to death by a mob whose members spent four years screaming about blue lives mattering. It seems clear that some among the mob spoke of, if not actively contemplated, murdering House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and hanging Vice President Mike Pence as a traitor from a tree on Capitol Hill. Particularly if you watch the videos of the mob attacking police as well as journalists, it would be a grave mistake to dismiss any of this as political disagreement or rhetoric that went too far in the heat of the moment.
It is easy, morally and politically, to join calls for Trump to be prosecuted. He is a cartoonish villain who clearly relishes his crimes. And let there be no doubt, Trump should face prosecution for a wide range of offenses, from his grifts to inciting violent white supremacists, to war crimes. But the most likely scenario, based on history and the current discourse among the elite political class, is that Trump mainly has reason to fear prosecution in New York and possibly other state jurisdictions, largely for financial crimes that predated his presidency. Trump may well be impeached and convicted under a Democratic-controlled Senate. But that is a very big maybe, given the razor-thin margin and the need to convince at least 17 Senate Republicans to vote to convict him. For a variety of reasons, Trump’s most consequential crimes as president will almost certainly go unpunished.
This country made a grave mistake by not prosecuting former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and other senior U.S. officials who lied to justify the invasion of Iraq, who trampled on basic international laws and conventions, and whose policies destroyed nations and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and thousands of U.S. military personnel. We can recognize that it was and remains unforgivable to forgive Bush and Cheney while still agitating for justice to be served against Trump. In doing so, a precedent could be set that a U.S. president can be prosecuted for crimes committed in the course of their duties.
But that is almost unfathomable to imagine. While Democratic leaders in Congress are eager to impeach Trump, President-elect Joe Biden has indicated, in the words of one of his advisers, that he “just wants to move on.” Another aide told NBC News that Biden is “going to be more oriented toward fixing the problems and moving forward than prosecuting them.” Political elites in the U.S., particularly Democrats, are guided by fear of political blowback. They overemphasize the possibility of Republicans seeking revenge on them and creating a debilitating spiral where no president can govern without constant investigation and threat of prosecution. But that era is already here. The Republicans spent eight years undermining the legitimacy of Obama and moving mountains in an effort to block him from governing. The Trump administration, with support from its Congressional allies, spent four years investigating Obama and Hillary Clinton. And a significant number of these Republicans have endorsed the fantasy that Biden actually lost the election. This weak-kneed game theorizing from powerful Democrats must end. If we cannot hold the president accountable, the crimes will continue unabated.
This could be a moment for reflection about the dangers of unchecked executive power and the crimes that stem from it. But it won’t be. Even if the unthinkable happens and Trump is somehow prosecuted for his high crimes, it will almost certainly be treated as an anomaly rather than a precedent. The unstated conclusion will be that the crimes of the Bushes of the world pale in comparison to Trump’s, that his actions were more abominable than those of the men who authorized two nuclear bombings of Japan in 1945, incinerating more than 130,000 people in an instant and many more after. Trump will be painted as the one president — the only one — we cannot allow to get away. This too would be a disservice to justice. The principle and the gravity of the crimes should guide our actions, not the personality or particulars of the accused.
There are ample dangers present in the aftermath of the siege. On the one hand, there may be more mobs, more violence, more attacks. There are indications that Biden’s inauguration and the days preceding it could become the next theater for the MAGA warriors. In his first remarks in front of reporters since the siege, Trump on Tuesday defended his incitement and ominously warned Pelosi and Chuck Schumer that trying to impeach him is “causing tremendous danger to our country, and it’s causing tremendous anger.” Much as the Hosni Mubaraks of the world directed their unofficial gangs of thugs after defeat in elections, Trump has his irregular army, and he seems dedicated to unleashing them again.
But among liberals, there have been disturbing undemocratic trends emanating from the crisis. Some have called for an expansion of the no-fly list; others have questioned why police didn’t gun down the rioters. There are calls for expanding surveillance capabilities and authorities through new domestic anti-terrorism legislation.
And there is a real danger that advocating the banning of right-wing figures on social media could lead to a popular mobilization toward a broader limiting of speech in this country. We have to be able to rely on principle rather than passion in determining the path ahead. There are dire consequences to ceding to Silicon Valley the decision-making on who is entitled to core liberties. One can believe that Twitter was right to shut down Trump’s account because of its role in inciting violence while also holding extreme concern over how far such bans will go and how much power we as a society bestow upon the tech monarchies.
Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel — no fan or friend of Trump — criticized Twitter’s banning of Trump, labeling it a violation of the “fundamental right to free speech.” As the Financial Times reported, Merkel believes “that the U.S. government should follow Germany’s lead in adopting laws that restrict online incitement, rather than leaving it up to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to make up their own rules.” The political dynamics and Constitution in the U.S. suggest that European laws, such as the German statute that criminalizes Holocaust denial as an act of incitement, would be widely opposed as violations of free speech. But Merkel’s broader point about who makes the rules in an increasingly monopolistic social media environment is an important one.
History has taught us over and over that in the aftermath of crises, the government uses popular fear and outrage to push through far-reaching policy changes that ultimately serve as howitzers blasting away the liberties of the many. That is what happened after 9/11 with the Patriot Act, which most members of Congress didn’t bother to read, and only one senator, Democrat Russ Feingold, opposed. It was this dynamic that led the country into a state of perpetual war with the veneer of legitimacy offered by a law signed nearly 20 years ago, the Authorization for Use of Military Force. There was just one member of Congress, Rep. Barbara Lee of California, who recognized this danger. With incredible bravery and her voice shaking, she took to the floor of Congress just days after the 9/11 attacks with an urgent warning.
“There must be some of us who say, let’s step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today — let us more fully understand their consequences,” Lee said. “We must not rush to judgment. Far too many innocent people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that women, children, and other noncombatants will be caught in the crossfire.” She concluded her remarks by describing how difficult it was knowing she would be the lone voice ringing the alarm bells. “I have agonized over this vote. But I came to grips with it in the very painful yet beautiful memorial service today at the National Cathedral. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, ‘As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore.’”
Lee’s sentiments are an important reference point for the moment we now face. As the country debates the fate of Trump, the legislative response to the Capitol siege, and the role that the Silicon Valley moguls play in deciding what speech is acceptable, it is vital that we view them all through the lens of the precedents that will be set and the consequences that they will enact.
|
|
|
There Are Two Justice Systems in America. Ask My Nephew, Jacob Blake |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57918"><span class="small">Justin Blake, Guardian UK</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 13 January 2021 13:48 |
|
Excerpt: "One system lets armed white insurrectionists attack our nation's government. Another tear-gasses and beats people defending Black lives."
Jacob Blake's father, Jacob Blake Sr. wears a justice for Jacob mask at a rally on Aug. 29, 2020, in Kenosha, Wis. (photo: Morry Gash/AP)
There Are Two Justice Systems in America. Ask My Nephew, Jacob Blake
By Justin Blake, Guardian UK
13 January 21
One system lets armed white insurrectionists attack our nation’s government. Another tear-gasses and beats people defending Black lives
 ast week, I was again reminded that we live under two justice systems. One lets armed white insurrectionists violently attack our nation’s seat of government. Another gasses, beats, and shoots rubber bullets at people defending Black lives. And even though I live nowhere near Washington DC, this is personal for me.
The day before the attempted insurrection at the US Capitol, Rusten Sheskey got off scot-free. He is the Kenosha cop who shot my nephew, Jacob Blake, seven times in the back. The Kenosha district attorney, Michael Gravely, declined to charge Sheskey, and he faces no consequences. Jacob is now permanently paralyzed from the waist down.
Sheskey is just like the thousands of Trump-supporting, white nationalists who laid siege to the US Capitol in broad daylight. They broke windows, stole federal property, and ransacked offices. They endangered lawmakers, their staff, and other employees in the complex. They may have exposed countless people to Covid-19. They had flex cuffs and placed pipe bombs. They were out for blood.
This justice system calls these people “protesters”, and they are protected by the first amendment. Sheskey operates under this justice system, and it is unacceptable. He claimed self-defense after he shot Jacob in the back, in front of his kids, also in broad daylight. No plausible explanation exists for this escalated response.
The fact that the Capitol insurrection and Jacob’s shooting both happened in broad daylight shows how barefaced state-sanctioned violence has become.
Gravely is the top prosecutor in Kenosha. His decision makes crystal clear to Black people in Kenosha and Wisconsin that we are not safe in our communities. It’s proof that police are allowed to shoot us at will. And the Kenosha police department lives off our backs – they are funded by our taxes. Cops will take our money and shoot us right after.
But it’s not just the police. Violent militias stalk our neighborhoods, taking community security into their own hands to defend businesses. It is despicable that Gravely chose to announce his decision when he knew these militias, who support shooting protesters, are planted within our community.
If we lived under a justice system that valued Black lives, this is what would happen next.
The Kenosha Police and Fire Commission would immediately terminate Rusten Sheskey. Kenosha police chief Daniel Miskinis and Kenosha county sheriff David Beth would realize they have tolerated racism within the police department and let the militia kill community members. In response, they would resign. Armed militias threatening our community would be treated as the violent terror groups they are, and authorities would protect us from them. The Kenosha police department would adopt the #8cantwait platform, which includes requiring de-escalation and comprehensive reporting to prevent future police shootings. In the meantime, body cameras would be implemented by the Kenosha police department. The investigation of Jacob’s shooting would be fully transparent and all related documents would be released to the public. Jacob would get justice.
But we’re not there yet. That’s why we’re rising up. Jacob deserves better than this. Kenosha deserves better than this. Black lives may not matter to Gravely but they matter to us.
We will fight this decision in every single way. We will march to demand Sheskey’s firing. We will support our community like we always have. We will continue to protect each other in the face of police violence and of those who invade our community to hurt us.
We are committed to nonviolence and we ask the Kenosha police department and the national guard not to harm peaceful protesters as they did last summer. We ask them to do their job and protect us from armed militias instead of turning a blind eye to them like they did last summer. We ask people from out of town not to come and burn our buildings, but instead, to stand strong with our community to demand an end to violent, racist policing in Kenosha, in Wisconsin, and in the United States.
We ask our community to stay safe. Our fight for justice continues.
|
|
RSN: American Coup |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54565"><span class="small">Stephen Eric Bronner, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 13 January 2021 13:06 |
|
Bronner writes: "Four years of incessant neo-fascist propaganda, police violence, and political polarization set the stage for an event where roughly eight-thousand insurrectionists descended on Washington DC."
Trump supporters in Washington DC on January 6, 2021. (photo: AP)
American Coup
By Stephen Eric Bronner, Reader Supported News
13 January 21
 ax Weber once remarked that politics is not like a taxicab: you can’t stop at a corner and say, “I want to get off.” Ideologically-inspired action tends to generate dynamics that become increasingly radical and intense. This is how best to understand the events of January 6th, 2021 – and understand who is to blame. Four years of incessant neo-fascist propaganda, police violence, and political polarization set the stage for an event at which anywhere from eight- to twenty-thousand insurrectionists descended on Washington DC. They wanted to protest the president’s electoral defeat and expose the supposed threat to democracy posed by manifold conspiratorial agents including the “deep state.” Countless extremists in the crowd then stormed the Capitol building in some strange caricature of 1789 or 1917, when insurrectionists wound up sitting on thrones, destroying artifacts and paintings, breaking into offices, and forcing leading politicians to flee for safety.
There are no “two sides” to this story. Thirty hours after the attempted putsch, six are dead, far more are wounded, and the Capitol building is a wreck. It was only at this point that President Trump addressed the nation by video. Assuring his audience that a peaceful transfer of power to President-elect Joseph Biden would take place on January 20, 2021, Trump disavowed those “special people” who, earlier, he claimed to “love.” They were quite a group. One was wearing a “Camp Auschwitz” hoodie. Another wore a T-shirt proclaiming “6 million was not enough!” Others were in pseudo-military gear, and there were lots of red hats bearing Trump’s slogan: “Make America Great Again!” The slogan could just as well have been “Make America White Again!” – there was hardly a single person of color among the insurrectionists. And that only made sense. One idiot was waving a huge confederate flag and another, apparently a “shaman” for the utterly bizarre and conspiracy-obsessed “Q-Anon,” was wearing a fur hat and horns on his head.
How had it come to this? There has been a tradition intent on delegitimizing the republic since the Civil War, based in roughly the same agrarian parts of the Midwest and the South. It is impossible to forget the rhetoric and violence employed from the time of the Ku Klux Klan to that of the segregationist white councils of the 1950s and 1960s. In short, there was a mass base in waiting as 2021 neared. Driven by white nationalism and authoritarian impulses, its partisans wanted a return to the “true” America, where women cooked in the kitchen, gays stayed in the closet, immigrants performed menial chores, and people of color were kept out of sight.
Crystallized in Trump’s slogan “America First!” – which was lifted from the quasi-fascist movement of the 1940s – this idealized and falsified image of the nation seemed increasingly threatened. Reactionary propaganda identified feminists with baby-killers, liberals and socialists with “communists,” immigrants with “criminals and rapists,” BLM with fomenting a race war, scientists with falsely exaggerating the number of COVID deaths, and mainstream politicians with forcing “the people” to wear masks. Clusters of such subversives working in tandem with a corrupt and conspiratorial “deep state” seemed to justify Trump’s desire to “drain the swamp” of bureaucracy and corruption in Washington.
The president’s purge targeted not only Democrats but also “weak” Republicans. The latter were the “center-right” moderates connected with President George W. Bush’s two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the “great recession” of 2007-2009, and what had become an ideological vacuum within the party. Even before the election of President Barack Obama, the Tea Party had begun formulating a new agenda with its populist combination of white nationalism, suspicion of the federal welfare state, and fear of conspiracies being hatched not outside but inside the government against “the will of the people.”
Victories in local and state elections by Tea Party candidates, and the emergence of a reactionary political infrastructure, set the stage for Trump’s win in 2016. A well-known real estate developer and host of the television game show “The Apprentice,” he conquered seventeen mostly “moderate” and establishmentarian rivals for the Republican nomination; soon enough they would either fall in line with the new president or find themselves ostracized by the party. With the electoral triumph of Trump, against all odds, the political impulses driving the Tea Party were electrified: its racism morphed into white nationalist hysteria, suspicions about the federal government turned into obsessions with the “deep state,” and paranoid fears about hidden conspiracies became transformed into Q-Anon’s bizarre claims that the Democrats were being led by “Satanic pedophile elites” intent on destroying the nation.
Trump’s enemies counterattacked. They subjected everything about his person and his policies to scrutiny and criticism, including his lack of a healthcare policy, tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of industry, sale of public lands, denial of climate change, inhuman immigration policies, blatant racism and sexism, incompetence regarding the pandemic, endless tweets, and countless foreign policy blunders. Trump fumed; he was not ready for a dialogue. Blunt denial and lying were sufficient responses to the “fake news” perpetrated by The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, and CNN. After all, his mass base had never taken any of these Eastern liberal media outlets seriously. FOX was a far better bet; it reported the news as Trump felt it should.
The taxicab picked up speed: Following the botched Mueller Report on Trump’s “collusion” with Russia, and a failed attempt at impeachment, white nationalists, evangelicals, and other gullible souls came to believe that there really was a conspiracy at work. Clashes at the “Unite the Right” demonstrations of 2017 between white nationalist neo-Nazis and anti-fascists in Charlottesville, Virginia, provided a certain legitimacy for the radical right, especially when Trump insisted that there were “good people on both sides.” His supporters were distraught by Republican losses in the Congressional elections of 2018. Disappointment turned to hysteria, however, when BLM took to the streets against institutional racism and police brutality in a nationwide protest of 15 million citizens.
An avalanche of publicity was accorded protestors fighting the “New Jim Crow,” and it threw “White America” into a panic. As COVID spread amid the inactivity and confusion of Trump’s administration, Midwestern and Southern militias multiplied, and extremists stormed the state government buildings in Wisconsin, Michigan, and elsewhere. Intimidation of officials became commonplace: homes were picketed, death threats were sent, and a plot was even uncovered to kidnap and then murder the governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer. The taxicab’s tires were burning.
Bob Dylan was right: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” With the presidential election of 2020 looming, Trump’s Republicans went to work. Democrats mobilized as never before. The party’s left and right wings came together in the battle against Trump. It was clear that the larger the turnout, especially among minorities, the better the chance of victory. Meanwhile, Trump began a publicity blitz accusing his opponents of corruption, treason, and voter fraud, although it was actually Republicans who tried to sabotage the postal service, reduce voting stations, highlight registration technicalities, oppose early voting, and throw out ballots. It didn’t work, of course, and Joe Biden won the election by 81 to 74 million votes, and 306 to 232 electoral votes.
Sixty suits were filed by Trump’s lawyers contesting the results, and sixty times they were thrown out of court. Recounts affirmed the original tallies. But supporters of the president were enraged. These legal decisions only demonstrated the power of the “deep state.” The question for Trump was whether to accept reality or keep fighting the election results. His decision to keep battling called into question the democratic framework of the United States and, given the president’s erratic stubbornness, the “peaceful transfer of power.” As his Congressional supporters vacillated, Trump intensified his purge of “weak Republicans.”
White nationalists and groups like the Proud Boys were delighted as the crowd gathered on January 6th for a march to the Capitol building. Many were armed, pipe bombs and home-made napalm were found, and bullets flew in the Capitol. Trump had been stoking the flames of violent rebellion since before Election Day with talk of a stolen election. As the attempted coup unfolded, he called upon the insurrectionists to “fight like hell,” while Ivanka praised their patriotism, Donald Jr. threatened retribution against those who did not toe the line, and half-crazed advisors like Rudi Giuliani demanded “trial by combat.”
Trump had already told his people to “lock and load,” “stand down but stand by,” and – regarding BLM – “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Trump had cried voter fraud before, during his presidential campaign of 2016, which he expected to lose; he stopped when he won. Yet this time his lying about voter fraud was so incessant, his incitements to violence so intense, that he was ignominiously kicked off Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and most other major internet venues – after the uprising failed.
The taxicab was swerving. Public support for an embattled president whose claim to office rested on blatant lies was the dividing line among Republicans, and it kept moving ever more to the political right. Determining who is a real Republican rested on unwavering support for the president in a moment of crisis. Trump alternated between apoplexy and depression as many cabinet officials and former allies in the Senate and Congress hypocritically distanced themselves from their leader, denied any responsibility for anything, and jumped ship. Even Trump’s thoroughly obsequious vice president, Mike Pence, spoke up by refusing to decertify the electors who would make Biden’s victory official. He did not have the power to do so anyway, yet the president now vilified him in public. The gallows and noose erected outside the door to the Capitol building by the insurrectionists were apparently meant for him: Pence the “traitor.” Thus, this taxicab crashed.
What now? Trump will depart the White House on January 20th, 2021, but impeachment is being planned, which would make him ineligible to run again, and there has been talk about removing him from office. As usual, however, there has been little reflection about broader issues at stake. For all the fear and disgust generated by the insurrectionists, their rebellion never constituted a threat to the state. Of course, real threats lie on the horizon. Limiting civil liberties – especially freedom of speech and assembly – is a temptation.
In spite of the actions planned for the inaugural, however, not all of the 74 million citizens who voted for Trump are fanatics. The deeper problem concerns what threatens to become a “post-truth” society. Paranoia, lying, and conspiracy fetishism are undermining consensual foundations for validating speech claims. Under the circumstances, populist naïveté about opening a “meaningful discussion” is just that: naïve. The goal is to marginalize white nationalism and authoritarian movements, not legitimize the mob by integrating it into a public discourse that will lead nowhere. In this regard, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and a host of other sites have banned the president from participating. These are private organizations and their decisions have nothing to do with “free speech,” which only involves government interference. Individuals and firms can be pressured to freeze donations, and publicly shamed if they don’t. And, finally, the culture industry can contribute by rolling back military video games, curtailing the neo-fascist music scene, and attacking conspiracy fetishism and paranoid politics while promoting humane and democratic values.
Of course, government is also tasked with defending the republic and driving extremists back to the fringes. It must prepare not only for multiple insurrections but for how to respond without suppressing civil liberties. Trump alone is not the issue. Any politician who supported the violence should be subject to censure. The government must set the right tone. “Just following orders” is not an excuse, nor is the claim that participants were somehow “duped.” Healing is possible only by assigning responsibility.
Investigations are necessary to find out who leaked information about the Capitol building to the demonstrators, who fed false information to city officials, and which police collaborated with the insurrectionists. Those perpetrators should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It is also time, once again, to consider serious gun legislation. Also, though protestors should police themselves, legislation is required that prohibits people from carrying guns and the like at large demonstrations.
Armed “million militia” gatherings are planned for the Biden inauguration. They are supposed to take place at the capitols of all fifty states. New legislation is obviously required to disband the armed militias that dot the American landscape. Other tactics and strategies will undoubtedly prove necessary, however. Trump will seek a platform after leaving office, and the mass base for white nationalism and anti-democratic politics isn’t going anywhere – it is firmly entrenched. In spite of everything that has transpired, one-third of voters still believe that Trump bears no responsibility for the insurrection, and one hundred and thirty-nine members of Congress refused to certify the election.
Whatever the impact of Trump’s lamentable “concession” speech and the others that will follow, he will continue to have an audience in the Republican Party. Next time, however, true believers might need to find a fresh demagogue to express their hysterical fear of democratic norms, diversity, and the “deep state.” As the winds for yet another impeachment blow, as Republican senators try to soften the blow with a censure resolution for the president, as a host of pardons loom, and as the president’s day of departure nears, it is useful to recall the words attributed to Edmund Burke that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Stephen Eric Bronner is Co-Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue and Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University. His most recent work is The Sovereign (Routledge, 2020).
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
anuary 19th, the day before Joe Biden’s Inauguration, is one of those moments when past, present, and future will collide, this time in the halls of the Supreme Court. The Justices will hear a case (BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore), and the most interesting question is: How many Justices will there be? Because, as new research makes clear, Amy Coney Barrett, the junior member of that august bench, should recuse herself.
