RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Georgia Trump Fans Say the Last Election Was a Sham. Will They Vote in This One? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57685"><span class="small">Charles Bethea, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Saturday, 26 December 2020 12:38

Bethea writes: "On Saturday, November 7th, the day that news networks called the Presidential election for Joe Biden, groups of Donald Trump supporters gathered in Atlanta to proclaim, without evidence, that the result was a fraud."

Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue at a campaign event in Milton, Georgia. (photo: Al Drago/Reuters)
Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue at a campaign event in Milton, Georgia. (photo: Al Drago/Reuters)


Georgia Trump Fans Say the Last Election Was a Sham. Will They Vote in This One?

By Charles Bethea, The New Yorker

26 December 20

 

n Saturday, November 7th, the day that news networks called the Presidential election for Joe Biden, groups of Donald Trump supporters gathered in Atlanta to proclaim, without evidence, that the result was a fraud. A couple hundred people went to the Capitol, where Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has espoused the wild delusions of QAnon and who had just been elected to Congress, railed against the “radical left” and promised to fight alongside Trump to keep him in office. A smaller group assembled at the CNN Center, including Chris Hill, the leader of a far-right group called the Georgia Security Force Three Percent militia, who live-streamed the protest. Hill, who often brings a rifle and a pistol to such events—in case Antifa shows up, he told me, adding, “I’ll eat them up as appetizers and spit them out on my way to glory”—would later attend “Stop the Steal” rallies at the governor’s mansion and at the home of Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger. “I think it’s crazy for me to cast a ballot knowing my vote won’t count,” Hill told me. “What counts is who’s doing the counting.” Hill compared the crusade to the plight of women who have been sexually assaulted. “If a woman says they’ve been raped, you need to give her credibility,” he said. “But if a woman says she’s witnessed election fraud, then you throw it out. It’s hypocrisy.”

Two days after the protests, Georgia’s Republican senators, David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, issued a press release. Both politicians appeared headed to runoff elections, to be held on January 5th. Loeffler, who was appointed to her seat by Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, had finished second in a special election that had included nineteen other candidates, behind the Democrat Raphael Warnock. Perdue, who was first elected in 2014, got more votes than his Democratic opponent, Jon Ossoff—and slightly more than Trump—but fell short of the fifty-per-cent threshold required for victory by state election law. Perdue and Loeffler now had the chance to break ranks with a lame-duck President who lost their state and to convey support for local Republican colleagues, including Kemp and Raffensperger, who had overseen the election, and would soon oversee another, in which both senators would likely take part. Instead, they called on Raffensperger to resign. “Georgians are outraged,” they declared, “and rightly so.”

It seemed like a dubious strategy. The two incumbents were, in essence, asking people to participate, again, in a process that they insist did not work the last time. I spoke with Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who helped manage the election in Georgia and who has lately pushed back against the unfounded allegations of fraud and interference. “If I put on my old-fashioned political-operative hat, we all know what happened,” he told me, of Loeffler and Perdue. “The President went to them, and said, ‘If you don’t back me to the hilt on this and call for Raffensperger’s resignation and Biden and all this stuff, I’m going to send out two tweets and kill your campaign.’ ” (Loeffler and Perdue did not respond to multiple interview requests.)

Republicans currently hold fifty Senate seats and Democrats hold forty-eight, including two Independents who caucus with Democrats. If Loeffler and Perdue lose, then the Vice-President-elect, Kamala Harris, will, beginning in January, break ties whenever the Senate votes along party lines. For this reason, Sterling still plans to vote for Loeffler and Perdue, though he is disappointed in them. “I have been a Republican since I was nine years old,” he said. “And I cannot, in good conscience, give all levers of power to the Democrats at this point in time.” But he has found it difficult to persuade some acquaintances to vote at all. “I’ve had to argue with people I have known for twenty years,” he said. “I had a back-and-forth on Facebook Messenger with a woman I’ve known for a long time, who was like, ‘I’m not going to vote, because it’s not going to matter.’ ” He has a go-to argument in these situations. “I’m not admitting there is any theft, because there wasn’t,” he tells people. “But if you believe that, hand on a Bible, and you believe it will continue to be stolen, then your best bet is to make it harder for them to steal, and show up to vote.” When we spoke, in early December, he’d become worried that Trump’s increasingly elaborate and thoroughly discredited story that the election was stolen—and the echoing of that fiction by Perdue, Loeffler, and others—was going to cost Republicans the Senate.

The week after the senators called on Raffensperger to resign, I went to the fairgrounds in Perry, two hours south of Atlanta, to hear them speak to a hundred or so mostly white and mostly elderly Georgians. They were joined by Senator Tom Cotton, of Arkansas, who is widely expected to run for President someday. A truck circled outside, bearing a message in large letters: “David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler: Blocking COVID Relief for 200+ Days.” I watched the driver, a Black man in a Yankees cap, get hassled by some of the people who’d come for the rally. “I’m just doing a job trying to feed my family,” he told me. “And these old ladies out here telling me, ‘Fuck you! Fuck you!’ ” Nearby, a man sold shirts bearing the Gadsden flag and the words “Don’t Tread On My Vote.”

Perry is in Houston County, where Perdue, a onetime management consultant who later became the C.E.O. of a series of companies, including Reebok and Dollar General, grew up. His father was the county’s superintendent of schools in the years that those schools were desegregated. One of the county’s largest employers is Robins Air Force Base, and many in the crowd wore items signalling a connection with, or an appreciation for, the U.S. military. I asked John Glover, a veteran of the Second World War, what he liked about the senators. “She backed up Trump a hundred per cent,” he said, of Loeffler. “That’s No. 1, because it helps offset the other side, so to speak.” I asked him what he thought of reports that both Loeffler and Perdue had made suspiciously timed stock trades following private meetings about the coronavirus at the beginning of the year. “So much B.S.,” he said. “I’ve got stocks myself. And I hire somebody to take care of them.” (E-mails show that Perdue may have directed trades himself; the Department of Justice investigated both senators but declined to pursue charges.) Glover was dubious of November’s results but passionate about voting again. “We can’t sit on our butts and expect to win, because we know that Stacey Abrams is pushing very hard on her people, and there’s a lot of shenanigans going on,” he said, referring to the Democrat and former gubernatorial candidate who has worked on voter turnout in Georgia for years. Glover shared Trump’s frustration with Kemp. “I don’t know if they’ve got something on him or what,” he said. “Just follow the money. It’ll lead you right to what’s going on.”

Cotton began by announcing that the Lord wanted the good people of Georgia to “hold the line.” He lambasted Warnock, the senior pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church, in Atlanta, for an old sermon in which Warnock said, “Nobody can serve God and the military.” Those comments were part of a Palm Sunday riff on Matthew 6:24—“No man can serve two masters”—though Cotton didn’t mention this. Painting Warnock as an extremist is a key component of Republican strategy. Warnock and Ossoff, the thirty-three-year-old C.E.O. of a small production company that makes documentaries, have similar policy positions, in line with Biden and the mainstream of the Democratic Party. But Ossoff, whom Cotton dismissed as a “pawn for the Democrats, like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi,” has been deemed “too dull” to caricature. As Jelani Cobb has written, “Ossoff is white, Warnock is Black, and this is still Georgia.”

Perdue compared the election to a good war. “I think God has put us in this position, right now, to stand up and tell the world what America is gonna be for the next fifty to a hundred years,” he said. He talked about Democrats stacking the Supreme Court and granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. “That’s four Democrat senators,” he said. “We may never have another Republican majority in the Senate in my lifetime! They want to then get rid of the Electoral College, if you can believe that!” He told those gathered, “It’s not about issues anymore,” and added, “If we win Georgia, we save America.”

Loeffler, the wealthiest member of the Senate, began by connecting with the crowd. She grew up on a large family farm in Illinois, “showing cattle in 4-H,” she pointed out. “I’m so sad there’s not a cattle show going on right now,” she said. After college, Loeffler mortgaged land that her family owned to pay for business school, and, in 2002, she moved to Atlanta to work for the trading company Intercontinental Exchange. Two years later, she married its founder, Jeffrey Sprecher, who, in 2013, bought the New York Stock Exchange. I approached him then about a possible piece in this magazine, and Loeffler, a part owner of Atlanta’s W.N.B.A. team, suggested that we all attend a game together. Afterward, we had fancy pizza and talked about Sprecher’s favorite artist, Jean-Michel Basquiat, whose triptych “Catharsis” hung above the pool table in their home, a fifteen-thousand-square-foot mansion called Descante, which, at the time, was the most expensive residential property in the history of Atlanta. (The Daily Beast recently reported that, in 2016, the mansion’s appraised value dropped by sixty per cent, for no obvious reason, saving the couple around a hundred thousand dollars a year on their property taxes.) Loeffler said she liked that the painting included a crown.

In Perry, Loeffler recited the lines of attack against Warnock and Ossoff. She said, “Every Republican wants to cover preëxisting conditions,” but also railed against “Obamacare,” the legislation that protects that coverage. She repeated the plea “hold the line” eight times. “The American dream is on the ballot,” she said. “Socialism is on the other side of the ballot.” She encouraged early and absentee voting. Neither Loeffler nor Perdue said the name Donald Trump.

The plan, it appeared, was to recapitulate Trump’s claims about election fraud on social media and to campaign on saving America from socialism. But the ongoing saga of those baseless claims kept overshadowing that pitch. The day after the rally in Perry, a federal judge named Steven D. Grimberg dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Atlanta attorney Lin Wood alleging harm done to him as a voter, one of many preposterous lawsuits filed by the “Stop the Steal” crowd. “The fact that Wood’s preferred candidates did not prevail in the General Election—for whom he may have voted or to whom he may have contributed financially—does not create a legally cognizable harm, much less an irreparable one,” Grimberg wrote. Wood, who first received national attention for defending Richard Jewell, and has lately represented Marjorie Taylor Greene and Kyle Rittenhouse, told his more than eight hundred thousand Twitter followers that Georgians who believe that Trump won should refuse to vote for Loeffler and Perdue unless the senators do more to help the President. The next day, Debbie Dooley, the head of the Atlanta Tea Party, made a similar case. “If you have to choose between the Republican Party or @realDonaldTrump,” she asked her twelve thousand followers, “who would you choose?” Most who replied picked Trump. “Republican élitist establishment folks, like Karl Rove, are vastly underestimating the anger that is out there,” Dooley told me. “Many Trump supporters are angry enough they will sit out the runoff.”

The night before Thanksgiving, another lawyer, Sidney Powell—who was at the White House this past weekend—filed a lawsuit riddled with spelling errors accusing Governor Kemp of taking a bribe from the voting company Dominion as part of a conspiracy to throw the election to Biden. (The conspiracy somehow included the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who died in 2013.) On the following Tuesday, a prominent QAnon conspiracist uploaded videos showing a young Dominion employee transferring data to a computer, and claimed that it was evidence of fraud. (It was not.) Within hours, people on the message board 4chan, where QAnon was born, had identified the employee; one user on another pro-Trump forum shared the employee’s name next to a gif of a swinging noose. That afternoon, Gabriel Sterling held a press conference at the state capitol. A self-described “process guy” who doesn’t usually attract much attention—his job title is voting-system implementation manager—Sterling strode to the lectern and pulled off his mask. “I’m going to do my best to keep it together,” he said. “Because it has all gone too far. All of it.” After relating what had happened to the Dominion employee, he said, “Mr. President, you have not condemned these actions or this language. Senators, you have not condemned this language or these actions. This has to stop. We need you to step up. If you’re going to take a position of leadership, show some.”

The video of Sterling’s comments was widely shared, and Loeffler and Perdue released statements hours later. “Like many officials, as someone who has been the subject of threats, of course Senator Loeffler condemns violence of any kind,” Loeffler’s spokesperson, Stephen Lawson, tweeted. “How ridiculous to even suggest otherwise.” A spokesperson for Perdue said, “We won’t apologize for addressing the obvious issues with the way our state conducts its elections.” He did not say what those issues were.

Later, I asked Sterling about these statements. “Is it that high of a bar as a senator or a President to go out yourself and say, ‘We condemn violence’? It seems like a pretty low bar, and having to do it through a spokesperson just struck me as weak,” he said. He mentioned a rambling Facebook video that Trump had posted the following day, rehearsing his usual falsehoods. “He gave them oxygen again,” Sterling said. “I mean . . .” He sighed. “The disinformation itself is what’s leading to the environment that could lead to violence.”

I spoke with a G.O.P. strategist in Georgia, who asked not to be named, about the way that Loeffler and Perdue were handling this misinformation. The strategist told me a story about two other senators from Georgia, both Democrats, who held office decades ago. “When Sam Nunn first got to the U.S. Senate, he told Senator Herman Talmadge that he got all sorts of crazy letters from constituents talking about seeing space aliens and such,” the strategist recalled. “He asked the senior senator what to do about those. Talmadge said, ‘Sam, you answer every one of those letters. Without the nut vote, you won’t carry a county in Georgia.’ ” The Republican Party in the state is split between those who believe the election was stolen, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, who endorsed Loeffler and whom the strategist described to me as “fucking crazy,” and those who regard the allegations of theft as “absolutely bonkers,” the strategist said. He didn’t think the senators had succeeded in pleasing either side. “Loeffler and Perdue tried to feed the nuts with their attack on Raffensperger,” he said. “The nuts spit it out.”

On December 4th, I drove to Roswell, a town in the north Atlanta suburbs, to shadow canvassers with the Faith & Freedom Coalition, a conservative group founded a decade ago by the Christian lobbyist Ralph Reed. It was raining, and the canvassers, Adam Pipkin and Matthew Fuentez, tucked door hangers in the pockets of their coats as they trudged up steep driveways. We were in an area that leans only slightly Republican; Ossoff-Warnock yard signs outnumbered Loeffler-Perdue signs, although Trump signs outnumbered them all. Pipkin, a genial man in his late thirties and F.F.C.’s state director, drove his F-150 between groupings of target homes. He and Fuentez, a thirty-one-year-old who lost his job earlier this year and was door-knocking part-time, used an app that listed addresses worth approaching. Not all of them belonged to Republicans. “You may have a Dem on here that’s pro-life,” Pipkin said. “That’s why it’s telling us to go there.” He added, “I think we’re hitting more independents than anybody else.”

Seven hundred F.F.C. team members had descended on Georgia, Pipkin said. They were not telling people how to vote, he assured me. But the candidate-comparison charts that they handed out, with such headings as “abortion on demand” and “Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett,” made their preferences clear, even if “Hi, I’m a canvasser with Faith & Freedom” did not. At one point, Pipkin and Fuentez optimistically approached a woman who had a Warnock-Ossoff sign in her yard. (Her house was not on their list.) Hearing the name of the group, the woman said, “That could be . . . for Warnock?” When she learned that it wasn’t, she tried to give Fuentez some literature of her own.

Tim Head, F.F.C.’s executive director, is a Texan who did missionary work in Asia and Europe before becoming a policy adviser to legislators in his home state. He trailed Pipkin and Fuentez in a red S.U.V. The organization had “four hundred people knocking on doors every single day in Georgia already,” he told me. By January, he said, “we might literally have a thousand people on the streets knocking.” Head described Trump’s focus on election fraud as a “quandary,” but sounded a hopeful note. “I think that his tone and his specific message is actually in the process of slightly moderating,” he said. “Instead of calling into question the veracity of the process, he’s actually going to start engaging people again to engage in the process.” Trump would soon make his first visit to Georgia in support of the campaigns, and Head believed he would visit once more before they were over. “He needs to do it,” he said. “And he will. He’s going to want to have Loeffler’s support, and her super pac’s support, in two or three years.”

Head was confident that Perdue would beat Ossoff. “Based on voting lists and turnout in November, he should win by three points,” he said. (The polls—which, in recent years, have been more accurate in Georgia than in many states—show two tight races, in keeping with November’s results.) He had his doubts about Loeffler, though, and he fretted about the effect that Lin Wood and other conspiracists might have on turnout. “If twenty thousand Republicans in the state of Georgia sit at home and say, ‘I don’t believe in the system,’ or ‘I’m tired of Kemp and Raffensperger,’ that’s enough for Loeffler to lose,” he said. (A few days later, Debbie Dooley tweeted, “GA voters should vote for Perdue but not vote for Kemp’s appointee Loeffler in protest of Kemp being a traitor.”) “Lin Wood’s rhetoric could almost single-handedly move half a per cent, which could shift the outcome in the Loeffler race,” he said.

Pipkin and Fuentez told me that only a few of the people they’d met while canvassing had brought up the claims of election fraud. One person had said, “I just don’t see the point of voting anymore,” Fuentez told me. “I just say, it’s gonna come down to the wire—we need your vote,” he said.I walked with him to another door, past a yard festooned with half a dozen American flags. Janet Hardesty, a seventy-year-old analyst for A.T. & T., opened the door and said that she’d already voted. “I’m a proud Republican,” she explained. She had sent in an absentee ballot. “I was afraid that maybe it wouldn’t get there,” she said. “Or maybe it would be changed. That’s when I found the My Voter Page—and it lets me track the whole thing!” Hardesty believed Democrats had rigged the November result, but didn’t think the Republicans could prove it in court. “But, as I told my family,” she went on, “you’ve gotta get Loeffler and Perdue in there. You’ve gotta have a fire wall.” She added, “The fraud makes the people I’ve talked to more inclined to vote again.”

Across the street, a father in his eighties and his adult son sat in lawn chairs smoking cigars in an open garage. Fuentez began to introduce himself.

“Are you guys Republican?” the son asked. Fuentez said that he was.

“I’m gonna vote Republican,” the father interjected.

“Yeah, we’re a hundred per cent for Kelly Loeffler and . . . yeah,” the son added.

Both men said they’d be voting in person. “There’s always concerns about fraud, with dead people voting,” the son said. “You’d be foolish not to be concerned.”

After Fuentez said goodbye and started back down the street, the son shouted in his direction. “Keep up the good work, as long as you’re Republican,” he said. “Otherwise, go away.”

The following Saturday, at a small airport in Valdosta, just north of the Florida line, thousands waited to hear Trump speak at a “Defend the Majority” rally. Venders were selling “Stop the Steal” gear, and members of the media were accessing the venue’s Wi-Fi network by typing the password “RiggedElection!” It was cold for South Georgia; most of those gathered wore heavy jackets but not masks, and were packed tightly around the stage. Among them was a radiator repairman who’d driven his family down from upstate New York and a man who’d come from Illinois. A dozen or so members of the Proud Boys, which the F.B.I. has deemed an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism,” wore sweatshirts signalling that they were from New Jersey. There were Georgians there, too, and I asked dozens of them if they planned to vote. Most said they did. One man told me, “The votes will probably get switched to the person we don’t vote for. My vote in November probably got switched to Biden. Bunch of damn thieves.” He said that he was planning to vote in person.

The Elton John song “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road” played as I walked to a table with free signs reading “women for trump, defend democracy” and “make america great again.” None of the signs featured the names of Loeffler or Perdue. “Hell, yeah, I’m voting,” Mickey Cereijo, a junk-removal specialist standing near the table, told me. Probably in person, he said. He was concerned about “Dominican” voting machines, and he planned to be a poll watcher at his precinct. “I’m gonna make sure I keep a sharp eye out,” he said. He described Lin Wood and Sidney Powell as “troupers” who have “so many witnesses,” but he disagreed with Wood’s proposition that people should withhold their votes. “He’s full of shit about that,” he said.

A young couple from Valdosta, with children in tow, said that they planned to vote early and in person, too. “There’s no real procedure that I have trust in,” the husband said. He added, “The whole state of Georgia is Dominion. I don’t even trust this runoff election. We’re gonna see maybe even worse than what we saw in the Presidential.” “I don’t think we’ll see worse,” his wife said. “There’s been light shown in the dark.” She went on, “They’re investigating that ballot-harvesting group that had to do with that one Black chick who tried to win the governor’s race.” She was referring to Stacey Abrams. Lin Wood’s revolt “is bullshit,” she said. The family headed toward the fence closest to Air Force One, which had just landed, to watch Trump walk down the stairs.

“You know we won Georgia,” Trump began, reiterating a lie that, at that point, had been disproved by two vote counts and audits. The crowd chanted “Four more years” and “We love you!” Loeffler and Perdue stood at Trump’s side, smiling and nodding. Trump spoke for most of two hours, and eventually got around to the rally’s ostensible purpose, which he described as “the most important congressional runoff, probably in American history.” “If these two don’t get in,” he continued, pointing to the senators, “there’s going to be nothing to stop them,” meaning the Democrats. “You have no idea how bad it will be.” He said that the United States would become a “socialist country” with a “communistic form of government,” and that Warnock and Ossoff would be “total pawns of Chuck Schumer.” But Trump spent the majority of the chilly evening rehashing election-related grievances and conspiracies, mentioning suitcases put “under a table with a black robe around it” and other mysterious items. Later, Loeffler and Perdue each spoke briefly and thanked Trump profusely. The crowd shouted over them “Stop the Steal!” and “Fight for Trump!”

Heading back to my truck, I struck up a conversation with Brandon Beasley, a forty-one-year-old Republican from a suburb north of Atlanta, who was one of the few Black people I saw at the rally. He called voting “the lesser of two evils.” I asked if he knew people who were sitting out the runoffs. “They’re everywhere,” he said. “I know some personally. They’re not voting. Thousands of them.” Beasley went on, “I’m looking at what President Trump is going through. And if the President is going through that, what can two senators go through?” Loeffler and Perdue hadn’t done enough, in his estimation, to advance Trump’s case.

“Guys,” a white man from Chicago said, walking up to us. “Drag everybody and go vote.”

“You have to,” Beasley said.

“And don’t wait until the last fucking day,” the man went on. “Go early. So if there’s any shenanigans, we can catch them early.” He added, “There’s so many people watching this election, there’s not going to be an ounce of fucking fraud.”

“The same machines are in place,” Beasley countered.

“It’s gonna be so watched,” the man said. “They’re not gonna be able to hack it.”

“Let’s hope so,” Beasley said.

The next day, I texted the G.O.P. strategist who’d emphasized the importance of the nut vote, to ask what he thought of Trump’s performance. “I think this line of messaging will lead to Ossoff and Warnock winning,” he replied.

On December 9th, I called up Lin Wood. I wanted to know whether he thought his crusade would help the Democrats take the Senate. He replied by calling a number of Georgia Republicans “crooked”—not only Kemp and Raffensperger (which he pronounced “Raffenspurger”) but also the attorney general, Chris Carr, and the lieutenant governor, Geoff Duncan, whom Trump had recently called “dumb.” The day before, Texas’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Presidential election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Loeffler and Perdue announced their support for his efforts; Carr said that Paxton was “constitutionally, legally, and factually wrong about Georgia.” (The Court declined to hear Paxton’s case.) Wood said that Carr and the other officials he had mentioned would all resign, get recalled, or be convicted of crimes before their current terms were over. What crimes, specifically, would those be, I asked? Wood pointed out that he is not a criminal attorney, but said that these men had “taken China money” in exchange for interfering in the election. “And maybe tax issues,” he said.“Hundreds of thousands” of Georgia Republicans are “disgusted” by their party and might boycott the runoffs, according to Wood. “Why does Kelly Loeffler have a Mao Zedong Andy Warhol painting in her house?” he asked at one point. He decried voting on machines “owned by China and on paper ballots likely falsified, many of them, on Chinese paper, produced in China.” (The ballots are printed in the U.S. on paper manufactured in North America; the machines are not owned by China.) What about the potential “Lin Wood effect” dampening conservative turnout? “They can blame me if they want to,” he said. So long as Trump and Mike Pence were rightly reinstalled in office, he went on, the Vice-President, Pence, would still “cast any tie-breaking vote in the Senate,” even if the Democrats were to win the two runoffs. This is the kind of thinking that worries Republicans like Gabriel Sterling: the idea that helping Trump makes voting for Loeffler and Perdue unnecessary. The day I spoke to Wood, Trump tweeted, “If the two Senators from Georgia should lose, which would be a horrible thing for our Country, I am the only thing that stands between ‘Packing the Court’ (last number heard, 25), and preserving it.”

I asked Wood why the courts kept dismissing his lawsuits and those of his allies. “Candidly,” he said, “I believe that our government—from the local, state, and national level, including our judiciary—has been infiltrated and influenced by Communist China.” I asked if Republican officials­ had told him directly to cease his efforts. “Those people have not contacted me, because those people are cowards,” he said. Before our call ended, Wood, who has been sued by former colleagues for erratic and abusive behavior, suggested that the recent death of a young aide to Loeffler, who had dated one of Kemp’s daughters, was the result of foul play­ and not a tragic car crash, as had been widely reported. “I’m not making any accusations about what happened to that young boy,” he said. “It’s tragic that he died. But I think there’s a lot of reasons to investigate it very, very thoroughly.”

“He’s an unserious man in a very serious time,” Sterling told me, of Wood, the next day. “It's just totally out there. I mean, the fact that anybody gives him any credence is amazing to me.” But plenty do, apparently. “There was another site that was taken down, last night, that basically had an ‘enemies list’ that had the governor of Michigan, me, Brian Kemp,” Sterling said. “It had our pictures with a sniper kind of target on us.” It included their addresses and pictures of their homes.

Sterling did not believe that hundreds of thousands of Georgia Republicans would boycott the runoffs. But he feared that a smaller group could—maybe ten thousand or so, possibly enough to be decisive. “He’s a big freaking problem,” he said, of Wood. “The President lost by twelve thousand votes here.” Sterling hadn’t been thrilled by Trump’s Valdosta performance, either. A few days after we spoke, Politico reported that while Trump was ostensibly fund-raising for the Georgia runoffs, most of the money he received was going to his own pac. Before we hung up, I asked Sterling if he’d support a potential Trump run in 2024. “This is why God gave us primaries,” he said.

To reach a precinct won by Trump in November, you must drive at least half an hour from downtown Atlanta. On the second day of early voting, in mid-December, I went to Milton, one of the wealthiest and whitest parts of Fulton County. Later in the month, Ivanka Trump would come to Milton for a rally with Loeffler and Perdue. Across the street from the local library, where voting was taking place, I counted eleven signs for each of the Republicans, and two each for Ossoff and Warnock. It was shortly before lunchtime, and a line wrapped around the side of the building. I spoke briefly to a middle-aged white woman as she got into her car. “Some shady things went on during our election,” she said, referring to November. Still, she added, “It’s really important to exercise your right to vote.”

“I’m surprised to see the line here for a runoff like we have,” a white man in his eighties, who said his name was Don and that he was a “fiscal conservative,” told me. He didn’t say whom he’d voted for, but proposed that “we need a check and balance” and that “Obamacare” was the result of an insufficiently checked Administration. Christian, a white man in his forties who said he voted for Libertarian candidates in the last two Presidential elections, offered the same reasoning. “You need divided government, so that we can kind of just all take a step back,” he said. I recalled a conversation I’d had in November with a local resident named Mike, who voted for Trump in 2016 but scoffed at his most recent conspiracy theories, and was troubled that Loeffler and Perdue seemed to be taking them up. Each of the senators was “just an R,” Mike said, and he’d be voting for them.

By the evening, more people had cast in-person ballots in two days of runoff voting than did so in the first two days of the general election. So far, mail-in ballots were down; those had broken disproportionately for Democrats in November. A recent SurveyUSA poll of eight hundred Georgia adults turned up seventy-eight registered voters who said that they were unlikely to vote in the runoffs; of those, about one in five said it was because “the voting process is rigged,” and most who selected that reason identified as conservative. (The poll had Ossoff up five points and Warnock up seven, although polls generally show closer races.) But many Republican voters seem capable of doubting an election their candidate lost while participating in an election they still hope to win. This past Saturday, Trump tweeted, “As badly as we were treated in Georgia by the ‘Republican’ Governor and ‘Republican’ Secretary of State, we must have a massive victory for two great people, @KLoeffler & @sendavidperdue, on January 5th. I will be having a big Rally for them on Monday night, January 4th. WIN!”

Even Chris Hill, the far-right militiaman who live-streamed one of Atlanta’s first “Stop the Steal” protests—his YouTube channel has since been taken down—said that he was planning to vote again. The picture that Trump has been painting, of dark forces connected with the Democratic Party thwarting the will of real Americans, may or may not ultimately hurt Loeffler and Perdue at the ballot box, but, either way, it bolsters Hill’s view of things. His group is part of a larger Three-Percenter movement; some of the men charged with attempting to kidnap the Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer, earlier in the fall, reportedly have ties to a chapter in Wisconsin. “We maintain a defensive posture,” Hill insisted. “We have no plans of going on the offensive, but we will defend people and property in the aftermath of this fraudulent election. And we will resist unconstitutional law. And we will resist tyranny.” He still holds that Trump’s loss in November was bogus, and he knows whom he’s voting for on January 5th.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The White House Counsel and Trump's Attack on the 2020 Election Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=45295"><span class="small">Bob Bauer, Lawfare</span></a>   
Saturday, 26 December 2020 12:06

Bauer writes: "During Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation, President Trump was famously quoted as complaining about the quality of the lawyering he was getting."

Pat A. Cipollone. (photo: Doug Mills/NYT)
Pat A. Cipollone. (photo: Doug Mills/NYT)


The White House Counsel and Trump's Attack on the 2020 Election

By Bob Bauer, Lawfare

26 December 20

 

uring Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, President Trump was famously quoted as complaining about the quality of the lawyering he was getting. To him, the notorious Roy Cohn set the gold standard: “a very loyal guy” who had been “vicious to others in his defense of me.” Trump did not believe that his White House counsel Don McGahn, much less his first attorney general Jeff Sessions, met the loyalty test.

And now it appears that Trump feels that Pat Cipollone, his current White House counsel, is also failing it. Jonathan Swan reports that Trump is “fed up” with this White House counsel. The president has been meeting in the Oval Office with the likes of Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn, entertaining proposals for overturning the 2020 election that include the seizure of voting machines and the imposition of martial law. And Trump has apparently concluded that Cipollone is unacceptably faint of heart. Cipollone’s offense apparently lies in his strenuous objections to the various attacks on the 2020 presidential election that Powell and company are urging a willing president to consider.

The question that these appalling Oval Office stories present is not whether the president can overturn the election. He cannot. It is how Cipollone will respond. Is it enough for him to register his disapproval in Oval Office discussions? Or should the White House counsel take other action to emphasize the nature of his role and the obligations that come with it: Cipollone is a lawyer for the government, not a personal or political lawyer for the president, and he is accountable to the public for how he responds to extraordinary situations such as these.

[Disclosure: I have served as a senior adviser to the Biden presidential campaign and have also written previously on the role of the White House Counsel for Lawfare and other publications, and in After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency, co-authored with Jack Goldsmith.]

In the past, Cipollone has accommodated the political pressures to which the president has subjected him. During the impeachment process, he took up what, for a White House counsel, was a discordantly political defense of the president. He participated in the impeachment trial and heaped invective on the House managers whom he accused of a “hypocrisy” so bad that, he declared, he could barely listen to it.

In an ironic twist, at that time, he purported to be concerned with what he believed to be the Democrats’ “naked political strategy” to overturn the results of another election—the last one, in 2016. His conduct during this episode raised ethical issues. He disregarded evidence that he was a material witness to the very matter—Trump’s pressure on the Ukraine government to launch and announce an investigation of a political opponent—that was the subject of the impeachment inquiry. Legal experts like New York University’s Stephen Gillers pointed out that a lawyer may not ethically advocate for a client in a matter in which he or she would also be a material witness. The House managers raised the issue with Cipollone, noting that he has been in the middle of discussions within the executive branch about the president’s actions. Yet Cipollone took to the floor of the Senate as a leading member of the president’s defense team.

Cipollone has remained on the job for two over years and the vast bulk of his work, as in the case of all White House counsels, does not surface for public viewing and judgment. It’s possible that we might later find, or he may one day claim, that he did the country a great service over this period by giving into the president’s demands on some issues so that he could buy himself the space to resist him on others. If you can believe current press reports, that is what he is doing now. But, as others before him have discovered, Trump does not appear to credit past loyalty in reacting to unwelcome advice.

And now, the president is behaving in a way that demands more public action from Cipollone. The president is acting like no other president before him—disregarding the duties of his office while actively undermining public confidence in the election and exploring various schemes to overturn it through blatantly unconstitutional means. Pat Cipollone is left to raising his voice during Oval Office struggles so that he can be heard above the outlandish advice from Powell, Flynn, Rudy Giuliani and others. It is wrong to see all this as just talk that Cipollone can simply wait out. A president’s words and ethical comportment matter.

In this instance, they matter a great deal. Day in and day out, the president is lying about the election: he has made demonstrably false statements about the access afforded to Republican observers, about illegal “dumps” of votes in the dead of night, about rigged voting machinery, and more. He has attacked the motives and character of state and federal judges, and of election officials. He has urged supporters to turn out to protest in Washington on the day, January 6, 2021, that Congress formally tallies the Electoral College vote in favor of President-elect Biden. And he is suggesting, with more than a hint of encouraging disruptions, that the clamor he is calling for will be “wild!”

If the president is bent on exploring unconstitutional paths and deploying mendacious, grossly irresponsible rhetoric, it seems entirely inadequate for Cipollone to simply express his objections in private and hope for the best. Yes, it better for him to carry the case for presidential behavior that respects the constitutional process and conforms to historic norms. To the extent that his approach has helped to deter the president (so far), he is to be commended.

But whatever may be his influence, and however hard he may be working to curb the president’s most dangerous urges, the fact remains that we can only guess at what is now going on in the White House. We have to rely on press reports. And these extraordinary circumstances are quite unlike the normal context for a White House counsel’s work, where a real or fanciful constitutional question raised by a policy initiative is considered and disposed of. Trump is doing what no other president before him has done in directing an all-out—if doomed—assault on the electoral process. We may need more from the White House counsel than the hope that he is doing the best he can.

Where might Cipollone look for guidance in the present circumstances?

Another senior lawyer in the administration, Attorney General Bill Barr, has decided to be very public about his views of the president’s attack on the election. He has taken the time prior to this departure to dispute the president’s claim of voting fraud and his interest in the appointment of a special counsel” to investigate it. Certainly during his time as attorney general, Barr has made public statements and taken actions entirely inappropriate for his role and harmful to the Department of Justice. But at least on the critical matter of the president’s post-election refusal to accept the results, he has taken a stand.

Cipollone, who is much a government lawyer as the attorney general, faces a similar choice. He might take into consideration the requirements of the Code of Ethics for Government Service: “Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States … and never be a party to their evasion.”

No public report suggests that Cipollone is a party to evading the Constitution. However, he’s a witness to the efforts of others to devise just such a means of evasion. And given that the code also calls upon government officials and employees to “expose corruption wherever discovered,” he should consider resigning and calling out the president out for his conduct.

A reasonable concern with this course of action is that, if Cipollone resigns, he silences his own voice in the Oval Office debates. And as far as we can tell from reports, his views may have made a difference for the better. Trump could also promptly replace him with an enabling successor—maybe Sidney Powell! This is always the trade-off: if he goes, someone worse could take his place. This is also sometimes the rationalization for staying on when professional ethics, public accountability and the dictates of conscience should pull in the other direction. Resignation serves the purposes of bringing to public attention, through an act of direct testimony, what in a case like this should not be hidden. The public and Congress should know precisely what the president is scheming to do to undermine the election and destroy public confidence in it, and not have to rely on a rash of leaks that may, or may not, capture the full story.

As one example of how Cipollone resigning and speaking out could answer important questions, the president has now denied that he discussed the potential for imposing martial law. But did Trump explore that possibility? We should not have to trust in his word for the answer.

And there are other reasons for Cipollone to resign in the present circumstances and give his reasons. There is a strong case for a White House counsel refusing continued service to a president who daily peddles dangerous falsehoods to the public about the reliability of the electoral process and the integrity of the judiciary. The act of resignation to protest both a president’s serial, public lies about the election, as well as his exploration of avenues for an unconstitutional power grab, would establish an important precedent for the Office of the White House Counsel. There must be limits to the acquiescence to a president’s misconduct that is expected of those on the president’s “team,” especially for the most senior lawyer in the White House. Resignation, accompanied by the reasons for it, would help define and affirm those limits.

It is important to distinguish carefully the reasons for a lawyer in Cipollone's position to consider his next step. Recently a former lawyer in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, Erica Newland, published an apology for remaining within the Trump administration on the rationale that, by providing sound legal advice, she could limit the harm done by the president‘s policies. She has since concluded that she merely enabled the execution of those policies. Had she and other lawyers with her qualifications and policy reservations resigned, she has concluded, she would have complicated the president’s program by leaving him at the mercy of lawyers like those Trump has drawn to his election disputes—that is, lawyers far from the top ranks of the profession.

But Newland is speaking here of a very personal question that lawyers may ask themselves about whether they wish to provide legal support for policies they may disagree with. Remaining on duty and casting those policies in a legally defensible form may be a choice they come to regret. But Cipollone is in a qualitatively different position. As a senior government lawyer—as the White House counsel—he is confronted with a serious ethical challenge, which should not be confused with Newland’s more personal quandary.

For Cipollone’s problem is one that has haunted the White House counsel’s office from its very beginnings. Critics of the office have suggested that it is rife with the “potential for conflict because of its political nature.” This is true. The counsel is a senior White House aide who attends meetings and addresses issues that are shot through with political implications and significance. As a member of the president’s “team,” he or she is vulnerable to persistent demands within that environment to act like one. It is in this environment that the expectation of loyalty, even if not of the extreme sort that Trump has emphasized, can overwhelm the better judgment of lawyers who should know better. The best White House counsels can navigate that territory successfully, but there are two requirements: one, that he or she recognizes the role, which is that of a government lawyer, not a personal or political lawyer to the president and two, that the president shares this understanding.

For the counsel who struggles to advise a president who is unwilling or unable to accept the White House lawyer’s role—a president like Trump whose lawyering model is Roy Cohen—resignation must remain an option. And where the counsel is witness to serious presidential misconduct, resignation may be more a necessity than an option. Setting these clear ethical expectations for this office may help temper the fears of critics that “anything goes” for White House counsels, that even if they disagree strongly with a president’s conduct, they somehow owe continued service—and silence.

First it was McGahn, then Barr, and now Cipollone. These senior government lawyers have all faced the exceptional ethical problem of representing a government led by a president who lacks respect for the role of lawyers—beyond the “loyalty” they are prepared to show him—or for legal and constitutional boundaries. McGahn and Barr made their choices. The time has come for Pat Cipollone to make his.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Real Is the Threat of Prosecution for Donald Trump Post-Presidency? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51466"><span class="small">Ed Pilkington, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Saturday, 26 December 2020 09:13

Pilkington writes: "At noon on 20 January, presuming he doesn't have to be dragged out of the White House as a trespasser, Donald Trump will make one last walk across the South Lawn, take his seat inside Marine One, and be gone."

Donald Trump. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty Images)


How Real Is the Threat of Prosecution for Donald Trump Post-Presidency?

By Ed Pilkington, Guardian UK

26 December 20


Legal threats range from investigations into his business dealings in New York to possible obstruction of justice charges – but all come with a political cost

t noon on 20 January, presuming he doesn’t have to be dragged out of the White House as a trespasser, Donald Trump will make one last walk across the South Lawn, take his seat inside Marine One, and be gone.

From that moment, Trump’s rambunctious term as president of the United States will be over. But in one important aspect, the challenge presented by his presidency will have only just begun: the possibility that he will face prosecution for crimes committed before he took office or while in the Oval Office.

“You’ve never had a president before who has invited so much scrutiny,” said Bob Bauer, White House counsel under Barack Obama. “This has been a very eventful presidency that raises hard questions about what happens when Trump leaves office.”

For the past four years Trump has been shielded from legal jeopardy by a justice department memo that rules out criminal prosecution of a sitting president. But the second he boards that presidential helicopter and fades into the horizon, all bets are off.

The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance, is actively investigating Trump’s business dealings. The focus described in court documents is “extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization” including possible bank fraud.

A second major investigation by the fearsome federal prosecutors of the southern district of New York has already led to the conviction of Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen. He pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations relating to the “hush money” paid to Stormy Daniels, the adult film actor who alleged an affair with Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

During the course of the prosecution, Cohen implicated a certain “Individual 1” – Trump – as the mastermind behind the felony. Though the investigation was technically closed last year, charges could be revisited once Trump’s effective immunity is lifted.

It all points to a momentous and fiendishly difficult legal challenge, fraught with political danger for the incoming Biden administration. Should Trump be investigated and possibly prosecuted for crimes committed before and during his presidency?

“It looks like the incoming administration will have to confront some form of these issues,” said Bauer, who is co-author of After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency. “The government is going to have decisions to make about how to respond, given the potential that it becomes a source of division.”

Any attempt to hold Trump criminally liable in a federal prosecution would be a first in US history. No exiting president has ever been pursued in such a way by his successor (Richard Nixon was spared the ordeal by Gerald Ford’s contentious presidential pardon).

Previous presidents have tended to take the view that it is better to look forwards in the name of national healing than backwards at the failings of their predecessor. And for good reasons – any prosecution would probably be long and difficult, act as a huge distraction, and expose the incoming president to accusations that they were acting like a tinpot dictator hounding their political enemy.

That a possible Trump prosecution is being discussed at all is a sign of the exceptional nature of the past four years. Those who argue in favor of legal action accept that there are powerful objections to going after Trump but urge people to think about the alternative – the dangers of inaction.

“If you do nothing you are saying that though the president of the United States is not above the law, in fact he is. And that would set a terrible precedent for the country and send a message to any future president that there is no effective check on their power,” said Andrew Weissmann, who was a lead prosecutor in the Mueller investigation looking into coordination between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign.

As head of one of the three main teams answering to the special counsel Robert Mueller, Weissmann had a ringside seat on what he calls Trump’s “lawless White House”. In his new book, Where Law Ends, he argues that the prevailing view of the 45th president is that “following the rules is optional and that breaking them comes at minimal, if not zero, cost”.

Weissmann told the Guardian that there would be a price to be paid if that attitude went unchallenged once Trump leaves office. “One of the things we learnt from this presidency was that our system of checks and balances is not as strong as we thought, and that would be exacerbated by not holding him to account.”

Bauer, who was an adviser to Biden during the presidential campaign but has no role in the transition team, is also worried that a sort of double immunity would be established. Presidents cannot be prosecuted while in office under justice department rules, but under such a double immunity nor could they be prosecuted once leaving the White House in the interests of “national healing”.

“And so the president is immune coming and going, and I think that would be very difficult to square with the idea that he or she is not above the law.”

Biden has made clear his lack of enthusiasm for prosecuting Trump, saying it would be “probably not very good for democracy”. But he has also made clear that he would leave the decision to his appointed attorney general, following the norm of justice department independence that Trump has repeatedly shattered.

Other prominent Democrats have taken a more bullish position, adding pressure on the incoming attorney general to be aggressive. During the Democratic primary debates, Elizabeth Warren called for an independent taskforce to be set up to investigate any Trump corruption or other criminal acts in office.

Kamala Harris also took a stance that may come to haunt the new administration. The vice president-elect, asked by NPR last year whether she would want to see charges brought by the Department of Justice, replied: “I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes.”

There are several possible ways in which the justice department could be forced to confront the issue of whether or not to take on Trump. One would be through a revelation as yet unknown, following the emergence of new information.

Weissmann points out that the Biden administration will have access to a wealth of documents that were previously withheld from Congress during the impeachment inquiry, including intelligence agency and state department files. Official communications sent by Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump through their personal emails and messaging apps – an ironic move given the flak Hillary Clinton endured from the Trump family in 2016 for using her personal email server – may also become available for scrutiny.

But the two most likely avenues for the pursuit of any criminal investigation would relate to Trump’s use of his presidential pardon power and alleged obstruction of justice. “Trump issued a series of pardons largely characterized by political self-interest,” Weissmann said.

Though the presidential pardon power is extensive, it is not, as Trump has claimed, absolute – including the “absolute right” to pardon himself. He is not immune from bribery charges if he were found to have offered somebody a pardon in exchange for their silence in a judicial case.

For Weissmann, the way Trump continually teased his associates – including Roger Stone and Paul Manafort – with the promise of pardons in the middle of federal prosecutions was especially egregious. “There may be a legitimate reason to give somebody a pardon, but what’s the legitimate reason for dangling a pardon other than to thwart that person from cooperating with the government?”

Perhaps the most solid evidence of criminal wrongdoing compiled against Trump concerns obstruction of justice. John Bolton, the former national security adviser, went so far as to say that for Trump, obstruction of justice to further his own political interests was a “way of life”.

In his final report on the Russia investigation, Mueller laid out 10 examples of Trump’s behavior that could be legally construed as obstruction. Though Mueller declined to say whether they met the standard for charges – the US attorney general, Bill Barr, suggested they did not, but gave no explanation for his thinking – he did leave them in plain sight for any future federal prosecutor to revisit.

In one of the starkest of those incidents, Trump tried to scupper the special counsel inquiry itself by ordering his White House counsel, Don McGahn, to fire Mueller. When that became public he compounded the abuse by ordering McGahn to deny the truth in an attempt at cover-up.

Weissmann, who played a key role in gathering the evidence against Trump in the Mueller report, said that such obstruction goes to the heart of why Trump should face prosecution.

“When the president, no matter who it is, obstructs a special counsel investigation there have to be consequences. If you can obstruct an investigation criminally but you don’t have to worry about ever being prosecuted, well then, there’s no point in ever appointing a special counsel.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Michigan's Forgotten Christmas Eve Massacre Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57668"><span class="small">Loren Balhorn, Jacobin</span></a>   
Friday, 25 December 2020 13:40

Balhorn writes: "On Christmas Eve in 1913, a pitched battle between organized labor and the mining barons of northern Michigan climaxed in the gruesome deaths of over 70 union supporters and their children."

Children of Copper County miners marching in support of the strike in Calumet, Michigan, 1913. (photo: Wystan/Flickr)
Children of Copper County miners marching in support of the strike in Calumet, Michigan, 1913. (photo: Wystan/Flickr)


Michigan's Forgotten Christmas Eve Massacre

By Loren Balhorn, Jacobin

25 December 20


On Christmas Eve in 1913, a pitched battle between organized labor and the mining barons of northern Michigan climaxed in the gruesome deaths of over 70 union supporters and their children. The 1913 Massacre struck a debilitating blow to the region’s labor movement and changed the Upper Peninsula forever. But it’s been largely forgotten in popular consciousness.

ichigan’s Upper Peninsula and the Finnish immigrants whose descendants still make up the plurality of its inhabitants aren’t the first things that come to mind when thinking about American labor history – or anything else, for that matter.

The “UP” occupies a marginal position in the national imagination. Sandwiched between three different Great Lakes, it covers one-third of the state’s landmass but boasts only 3 percent of its population. Its largest city, Marquette, has just twenty thousand residents. Cartographers sometimes mistakenly depict the peninsula as part of Wisconsin — or leave it off the map entirely.

One of the rustier segments of the Rust Belt, the Upper Peninsula has struggled to provide its residents with decent jobs ever since mining and manufacturing dwindled after World War II. Its main industries are now tourism and lumber, and the lure of more opportunities “downstate” prompts many young people to leave the region. Mirroring most of rural America, the UP also tends to be solidly Republican — fourteen of its fifteen counties went for Trump in 2016 and 2020.

It wasn’t always this way. A hundred years ago, the UP was home to a vibrant left rooted in the immigrant communities that made up the bulk of its working class. Particularly around the mines of Lake Superior’s Keweenaw Peninsula known as Copper Country, organizations like the Industrial Workers of the World and the Socialist Party of America published newspapers, ran cooperative stores and meeting halls, and fought tirelessly against the powerful interests who did their utmost to maintain control over the mines and the people working in them.

Long forgotten beyond narrow circles of labor historians, the decline of socialism in the Upper Peninsula was inextricably tied to one harrowing episode later immortalized in Woody Guthrie’s ballad, “1913 Massacre“: the so-called “Italian Hall disaster” of 1913, when a Christmas Eve celebration held for striking workers and their families in Calumet, Michigan ended in a deadly stampede.

Historians Gary Kaunonen and Aaron Goings once described the event as a “macabre exclamation point on an especially violent time in American labor history” — one that deserves to be remembered for both the brutality bosses displayed in breaking the labor movement, and the bravery of the working men and women who fought until the end.

The Company Towns of Copper Country

The flowering of a mass socialist movement in this isolated part of the country is inseparable from the region’s mining industry, which took root soon after the largest pure copper deposits in the world were discovered on the Keweenaw in 1841. Reports of the metal literally lying on the ground sparked a mining rush, and by the late 1840s Michigan was the country’s biggest producer of copper — in high demand as electricity swept into American businesses and households.

There was a lot of money to be made for the capitalists who bought land in the UP, but only if they could get the metal out of the ground. This was easier said than done, for the Copper Country had neither a settled population nor any infrastructure to speak of. It was not yet accessible by train, and winters, which could last up to six months, brought frigid temperatures and severe snowstorms that left residents trapped for days.

To bridge the gap, big mining conglomerates like the Calumet and Hecla Mining Company dispatched recruiters to hire European immigrants who were unfamiliar with the harsh conditions in the UP and willing to work for less than their native-born counterparts. The first wave consisted of skilled miners from the Cornish diaspora, who left England as the local mining industry declined and jobs grew scarce. They were followed by Germans, Italians, Finns, and “Austrians” — Croatians and Slovenians from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The UP’s population more than doubled every decade from 1850 to 1900, as this multiethnic working class turned the Copper Country’s scattered, ramshackle settlements into a well-connected network of small cities stretching sixty miles from Copper Harbor in the north to South Range and Chassell in the south.

Believing that married men made for more reliable workers, the mining companies built single-family houses, hospitals, libraries, theaters, schools, and all kinds of company-owned stores to attract families to the area. Communities like Hancock, Ahmeek, and Calumet were classic company towns, owned and operated by the capitalists that built them. Local government, press, and police were also in the pocket of the mining companies.

Management depicted this as a mutually beneficial arrangement, but for workers it meant that most of their wages went back to the company in the form of rent and groceries. Company towns also gave capital a decisive advantage in the class struggle, as workers who made trouble could be evicted from their homes and placed on industry blacklists.

Ethnic Solidarity and Industrial Unionism

Mining has always been a tough job, and the Copper Country was no exception. Workers went underground for eleven or twelve hours for little more than two dollars per day, while mine operators like Calumet and Hecla’s James MacNaughton pulled down an annual salary of a hundred twenty thousand dollars (the equivalent of over three million dollars today). Cave-ins were rare, as the mineshafts were dug into solid rock, but getting crushed by a thousand-pound boulder was a fairly common occurrence, as was being electrocuted or mangled by tramway wagons.

In 1911, sixty miners died on the job — more than one per week.

Sanitary conditions were medieval. Lighting and ventilation was poor to nonexistent, and only the cleanest mines provided workers with a bucket to defecate in. Once, when a federal inspector inquired about the sanitary conditions in the Copper Range Company mines, a company official responded, “There are no sanitary regulations beyond requiring levels to be cleaned up from time to time.”

The combination of geographic isolation and company intimidation may have placed organized labor at a disadvantage in the Copper Country, but class struggle was never far from northern Michigan’s mining ranges. One of the first labor disturbances occurred in 1872, reportedly instigated by organizers from the International Workingmen’s Association. A major strike broke out on the Marquette Iron Range east of Copper Country in the summer of 1895, shutting down production for over two months.

Mine owners eventually granted shorter working days and higher pay to end the strike, but refused to recognize the union — a sticking point that would spark conflict after conflict in the years to come.

Without a union pension to fall back on, most Copper County workers resorted to mutual aid societies based on shared language and ethnicity. These organizations organized financial support for unemployed workers and widows, and offered cash-strapped families a place to socialize and enjoy what little free time they had with dances, lectures, and other events. Set adrift in a new country with no welfare state and a weak labor movement, for many immigrants these associations were the only thing they could count on in the harsh reality of American working-class life.

German and Swedish immigrants had established the first such societies in the early 1860s. Immigrants from Southern Europe followed suit several decades later, founding organizations like the Società Italiana di Mutua Beneficenza, which rented space in its headquarters, Calumet’s Italian Hall, to the local chapter of the South Slav Socialist Federation and its weekly paper, Hrvatski Radnik. Particularly noteworthy was the Työmies Publishing Company in Hancock, ten miles south of Calumet, which published the Finnish-language daily Työmies alongside the English-language Wage Slave.

Finns migrated to the UP in droves beginning in the 1880s and constituted its largest immigrant group by the early 1900s. According to historians, no immigrant group in early twentieth-century America counted as many socialists among its ranks as the Finns, who were derided by the UP’s right-wing newspapers as “Red Finns” and “jack pine savages.” Their cooperative stores and meeting halls, such as Kansankoti Hall in Hancock, where the Työmies Publishing Company had its headquarters, served as organizing hubs for workers of all ethnicities.

While new immigrants performed the bulk of the labor in the mines, skilled positions and management roles were allocated almost exclusively to men of German and Cornish ancestry. Management used this hierarchy to its advantage, pitting second- and third-generation immigrants against their newly arrived counterparts and blaming labor unrest on impressionable “foreigners” duped by nefarious union organizers.

Copper Country socialists sought to overcome these divisions by organizing in a number of languages and bringing workers together at union events despite linguistic and cultural differences. A meeting of the Calumet Miners’ Union in June 1913, for example, was attended by over two thousand workers and included speeches in “English, Italian, Finnish, Croatian and Hungarian.”

When the Western Federation of Miners began moving into the Upper Peninsula in 1908, its group of crack organizers included a number of Finns like John Välimäki and Helmer Mikko, but also incorporated people like Teofilo Petriella, who edited an Italian-language socialist newspaper in Calumet called La Sentinella, or Anna Clemenc, president of the Slovene National Benefit Society and known among local union supporters as “America’s Joan of Arc.”

Talking Union

Founded in 1893, the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) had cut its teeth on a series of hard-fought battles for union recognition in the mining ranges of Colorado, Montana, and Utah. These fights were part of a broader intensification of class struggle across the United States, which no doubt also influenced workers in the Copper Country, where the Finnish Socialist Federation and other left-wing organizations were significant players in working-class life. Though the mines were still union-free, workers in other Copper Country industries were increasingly launching organizing drives — and winning.

Buoyed by its success in the West and confident that the miners of Copper Country would be drawn to the prospect of a unified, coordinated strike, WFM organizers began preparing the ground in 1912. They identified four key grievances: low wages, unsafe working conditions, the introduction of a new one-man drill that risked miners’ lives and eliminated jobs, and — most importantly — the employers’ refusal to recognize the union.

Labor parades and rallies took place throughout the spring of 1913. Työmies reported on a rally of three thousand “wage slaves” from the Calumet and Hecla mines on June 10. Only two days prior, thousands of workers had marched through downtown in a mass rally organized by the Calumet Miners’ Union.

Charles Lawton, general manager of the nearby Quincy Mine, wrote on June 18 that “Many of our best men have joined the Western Federation, and at times are brought into joining with and listening to the socialists.” Two weeks later, things had grown critical: “I am again very much concerned over the present labor situation.… The temper of the Finnish employees today is unprecedented in all of my experience, and is almost unbearable.” His colleague MacNaughton is alleged to have sworn that “grass will grow in the streets before C&H recognizes the union.”

Later that month the WFM submitted its final ultimatum: recognize the union and open negotiations over its demands, or face an indefinite labor stoppage. Lawton allegedly returned his letter unopened, and on July 23 the Western Federation of Miners called for a strike across Copper Country. Government reports from the time describe hundreds of strikers, armed with sticks, stones, and metal bars threatening workers who tried to enter the mines. By the end of the month Työmies reported that 18,460 miners were on strike — more than twice the number of union members in the area.

The initial weeks of the strike were by most accounts an uplifting affair for the miners of Copper Country. Workers marched through town on a near-daily basis to drum up support and boost morale. Local chapters of the Socialist Party held picnics and rallies to raise money for the strike fund, while solidarity messages and donations poured in from unions across the country.

Leading lights of the American labor movement visited to express their support. Mother Jones, the “miner’s angel,” spoke at a mass rally in Calumet in early August and beseeched strikers to “be men, my sons, then you will make the mine bosses humble.” WFM president Charles Moyer also came to the Copper Country, as did famed labor activist Ella Reeve Bloor, whose account of the massacre on Christmas Eve would later inspire Woody Guthrie’s ballad.

The optimism these men and women must have felt was captured in a song, “The Federation Call,” penned for the occasion by a local worker named John Sullivan and published in the pro-union newspaper, Miners Bulletin:

The Copper Country union men are out upon a strike,
Resisting corporation rule which robs us of our rights.
The victory is all but won in this noble fight
For recognition of the union.

Hurrah, hurrah for the Copper Country strike
Hurrah, hurrah our cause is just and right.
Freedom from oppression is our motto in this fight
For recognition of the union.

The Massacre

Contrary to the miners’ hopes, victory was far from “won” in the summer of 1913. The companies adopted a two-fold strategy of intimidating the strikers with violence and waiting for the harsh Keweenaw winter to break their will. Within weeks, mine owners convinced the state government to send in the National Guard.

Though ostensibly there to keep the peace, these “Michigan Cossacks,” as the Finnish press described them, broke up strike meetings and harassed picketers. When that was not enough, the bosses recruited “gun hounds” from union-busting firms like the Berghoff and Waddell detective agency to spy on workers and, as the strike dragged on, raid union offices and attack or even kill strikers.

Yet if capital had the army and hired guns from Chicago and New York, labor had an equally powerful weapon in community solidarity. Anna Clemenc founded a Calumet chapter of the WFM Women’s Auxiliary in September 1913, marching at the head of parades and organizing groups of women to harass scabs as they entered the mines. Clemenc herself was arrested three times over the course of the strike, along with dozens of other women in the so-called “Broom Brigade” who regularly attacked strikebreakers and police with brooms and other household items.

Nevertheless, as winter approached, strike funds began to dwindle and enthusiasm among the strikers was flagging. The WFM responded by setting up a series of “Union Stores” selling basic staples on a coupon system, and began organizing dances and other indoor entertainment. Fronts were hardening on both sides: the union refused to back down, and the mine owners grew increasingly aggressive in their tactics, arming local merchants’ union opponents into a “Citizen’s Alliance” whose anti-labor rallies and publications struck increasingly violent tones.

It was in this atmosphere that the Women’s Auxiliary decided to organize a Christmas party on December 24, 1913 for striking families and their children. Presents had been donated by organizations around the country and were to be distributed at a celebration in the Italian Hall, the center of the socialist movement in Calumet and long a target of the Citizens’ Alliance’s ire.

After five grueling months on strike, the party was a brief but welcome respite from a labor struggle that many still thought they could win. Instead, it would mark the beginning of their long defeat.

The party was quite the affair, with contemporary reports suggesting over five hundred residents in attendance. Anna Clemenc was one of the main organizers and told stories to the children on the main stage. Some parents dropped their kids off and went for a drink in the bar on the ground floor, while others joined the Christmas festivities.

What happened next will never be fully known, but according to the majority of eyewitnesses, a man wearing a Citizens’ Alliance button walked into the party in the early evening and shouted “Fire!” several times before slipping away. In the minutes that followed, hundreds of guests lunged for the narrow stairwell leading to the exit. According to some accounts, unidentified men laid objects on the stairs to obstruct the way. Others claimed that police and Citizens’ Alliance members stood outside the building and held the front doors shut.

Bodies began piling up on the stairwell as panicked partygoers tripped over each other, fell down, and added to the writhing, suffocating mass. After the dust settled and rescuers removed the bodies one by one, between seventy-two and seventy-five had died, including fifty-nine children. There was no fire.

The Aftermath

Though modern-day accounts of the massacre often characterize it as a “disaster” or “tragedy,” for the Left in Copper Country it was clearly an orchestrated assault designed to break the strike. This view is backed up by the sequence of events that followed.

WFM president Moyer sought to assert leadership in the situation, blaming the Citizens’ Alliance for the massacre and doing his best to rally the workers around the union. Almost as if part of a plan, while Moyer was negotiating with mining company lawyers two days later, an angry mob stormed into the room, shot and beat him to within an inch of his life, and “deported” him out of the Copper Country by throwing him onto a train headed for Chicago.

Työmies broke the story of what transpired in the Italian Hall with the headline “83 MURDERED!” on December 26. The Miners Bulletin and other pro-union publications echoed that sentiment over the coming days, publishing account after account that men from the Citizens’ Alliance, assisted by local police, had both caused the panic and prevented bystanders from intervening.

After printing sworn testimonies that named the specific individuals involved, the editor and several staff of Työmies were thrown in jail on charges of sedition on December 27. Rather than investigate the detective agencies and strikebreakers who were almost certainly behind the disaster, the authorities appeared keen to exploit the commotion to mop up the troublesome union whom they blamed for all of the trouble in town.

The official investigation into the disaster was a lackluster affair. Local prosecutors ignored the many eyewitness accounts that implicated the company and instead suggested that the disaster had been caused by the children themselves.

Though no one could deny that someone had shouted “Fire!”, it was speculated that it had been committed by a local drunk in the bar downstairs, rather than by a Citizens’ Alliance member. A federal investigation in early 1914 recorded a number of testimonies from union sympathizers, and the search for the man who shouted “Fire!” went on for months, but no arrests were ever made.

The End of an Era

The funeral procession held for the victims on December 28 was by all accounts a moving affair. Though the WFM-produced film of the day has unfortunately been lost to history, we know from surviving reports that 5,000 people marched and upwards of 20,000 attended, including hundreds of miners from across the UP.

The entire event was funded by the union, and the Citizens’ Alliance and other anti-labor organizations were explicitly barred from contributing. This somber event, sparked by a devastating tragedy, was likely also the largest gathering of organized labor in the Copper Country’s history.

The Copper County Strike limped on for several more months, but momentum was now on the employers’ side. Clemenc fell ill in January, and when she recovered she went on a national speaking tour with Ella Bloor, robbing the strike of two of its most talented agitators. Moyer had been threatened with death should he ever return to the Keweenaw, and also stayed away.

By January eight thousand men had already gone back to work, and as winter faded into spring it was clear that the strikers could not hold out much longer. The mining companies made overtures to the workers who were still hanging on, offering an eight-hour day and improved wages on the condition that they give up their WFM cards. Finally, on April 14, an overwhelming majority voted to return to work, thereby ending the strike without winning recognition for their union.

The trauma of Christmas Eve combined with such a bitter defeat was too much for many. No statistics on the ensuing exodus have survived, but hundreds of families left the area after 1914, seeking better wages and a less hostile climate in the manufacturing centers of the Midwest. The Työmies Publishing Company relocated to Superior, Wisconsin, and went on to become the Finnish section of the Communist Party USA. Anna Clemenc moved to Chicago, where she lived a quiet life away from labor organizing.

Back in the Copper Country, groups like the Citizens’ Alliance and the newly founded Anti-Socialist League consolidated their hold over local politics, while the events of that Christmas Eve were suppressed in public memory for decades.

The Italian Hall was torn down in 1984 — ostensibly because renovating it would have been too expensive, but some allege it was also a political move, an attempt to extinguish the memory of that particularly brutal episode in the town’s history.

Today, all that remains is the building’s doorway arch and a plaque donated by the AFL-CIO bearing the Mother Jones quote, “Mourn the dead, fight for the living.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
'Racism Is Not Welcome Here': Minnesota Residents Speak Out Against Whites-Only Church Permitted by City Council Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52792"><span class="small">Zack Linly, The Root</span></a>   
Friday, 25 December 2020 13:40

Linly writes: "Earlier this month, The Root reported that in Murdock, Minn.-a small city of around 280 residents-white nationalist group Asatru Folk Assembly was granted permission via city council vote to turn an abandoned Lutheran church into a whites-only church for worshipers to ... oh, I don't know ... be white and racist together in the name of whatever Klan-ish deity they pray to."

Victoria Guillemard, of Murdock, at an October meeting of the Murdock City Council questioned the Asatru Folk Assembly's representative, Allen Turnage, about the violence that has been perpetuated by members of the Asatru Folk Assembly, which has been accused of being a white supremacist organization. (photo: Mark Wasson/West Central Tribune)
Victoria Guillemard, of Murdock, at an October meeting of the Murdock City Council questioned the Asatru Folk Assembly's representative, Allen Turnage, about the violence that has been perpetuated by members of the Asatru Folk Assembly, which has been accused of being a white supremacist organization. (photo: Mark Wasson/West Central Tribune)


'Racism Is Not Welcome Here': Minnesota Residents Speak Out Against Whites-Only Church Permitted by City Council

By Zack Linly, The Root

25 December 20

 

arlier this month, The Root reported that in Murdock, Minn.—a small city of around 280 residents—white nationalist group Asatru Folk Assembly was granted permission via city council vote to turn an abandoned Lutheran church into a whites-only church for worshipers to...oh, I don’t know...be white and racist together in the name of whatever Klan-ish deity they pray to.

Well now, members of the community and others are speaking out against the church for people who dry clean reusable nooses, and they’re making it clear that racism is not welcome in their town.

According to NBC News, people who don’t wish to live near a church for people who would call the police on Black Jesus for turning water into wine without a permit, collected 50,000 signatures on an online petition to stop the group and their church from calling Murdock home.

From NBC:

“I think they thought they could fly under the radar in a small town like this, but we’d like to keep the pressure on them,” said Peter Kennedy, a longtime Murdock resident. “Racism is not welcome here.”

Many locals said they support the growing population of Latinos, who have moved to the area in the past decade because of job opportunities, over the church.

“Just because the council gave them a conditional permit does not mean that the town and people in the area surrounding will not be vigilant in watching and protecting our area,” Jean Lesteberg, who lives in the neighboring town of De Graff, wrote on the city’s Facebook page.

Of course, not all residents oppose the discriminatory church. Twenty-six-year Murdock resident Jesse James—whose real name is Jesse James even though he probably hasn’t even run his own gang of outlaws or robbed a single stagecoach—cited religious freedom in his opinion that the church should be allowed to stand.

“I find it hypocritical, for lack of a better term, of my community to show much hate towards something they don’t understand. I for one don’t see a problem with it,” James wrote on Facebook, NBC reports. “I do not wish to follow in this pagan religion, however, I feel it’s important to recognize and support each other’s beliefs.” (Either he thinks “pagan” is pagan for “no niggras allowed” or he’s missing the point of why people oppose this church.)

As we previously reported, Asatru Folk Assembly has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. According to NBC, the SPLC said the group masks its “bigotry in baseless claims of bloodlines grounding the superiority of one’s white identity.”

The group denied that characterization while describing itself in a way that fits the characterization damn near perfectly. More from NBC:

“We’re not. It’s just simply not true,” said Allen Turnage, a folk assembly board member. “Just because we respect our own culture, that doesn’t mean we are denigrating someone else’s.”

The group, based in Brownsville, California, says teachings and membership are for those of strictly European bloodlines.

“We do not need salvation. All we need is freedom to face our destiny with courage and honor,” the group wrote on its website about their beliefs. “We honor the Gods under the names given to them by our Germanic/Norse ancestors.”

Their forefathers, according to the website, were “Angels and Saxons, Lombards and Heruli, Goths and Vikings, and, as sons and daughters of these people, they are united by ties of blood and culture undimmed by centuries.”

“We respect the ways our ancestors viewed the world and approached the universe a thousand years ago,” Turnage said.

In other words: They only allow the purist of lily-white caucasian bloodlines in their church for people who think some guy named Jim Crow is just another innocent victim of cancel culture.

Murdock Mayor Craig Kavanagh also cited religious freedom as the reason the city council had no choice but to approve the church.

“We were highly advised by our attorney to pass this permit for legal reasons to protect the First Amendment rights,” he said. “We knew that if this was going to be denied, we were going to have a legal battle on our hands that could be pretty expensive.”

“The biggest thing people don’t understand is because we’ve approved this permit, all of a sudden everyone feels this town is racist, and that isn’t the case,” Kavanagh continued. “Just because we voted yes doesn’t mean we’re racist.”

I mean, I guess.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 Next > End >>

Page 249 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN