Archives for the month of: November, 2024

Vanity Fair posted a partial list of people who have been threatened by Trump. It’s a partial list because Trump has threatened so many people that no one can name them all. He is truly at heart a Mafia Don.

Who, exactly, would be within their rights to be sweating buckets—or, more likely, shitting bricks—at the very real possibility of Trump and/or his government allies coming after them? The long list includes:

  • Special counsel Jack Smith (Trump has said he should be “thrown out the country”)
  • Joe Biden (Trump has vowed to appoint “a real special prosecutor to go after” the 46th president and his family)
  • Kamala Harris (Trump has said she should be “prosecuted for her actions” concerning the border)
  • Barack Obama (Trump wants the 44th president tried by “military tribunal”)
  • Former GOP representative Liz Cheney(Trump circulated a post on social media calling her “guilty of treason” and arguing she should also be tried by a “military tribunal,” and separately, said she should have guns “trained on her face”)
  • California senator-elect Adam Schiff(Trump has called the lawmaker the “enemy from within,” and suggested the military should be used against him)
  • Nancy Pelosi (Trump has similarly dubbed the former House Speaker the “enemy from within” and called her “evil, sick, crazy,” and mouthed a word that “starts with a b”)
  • General Mark Milley (Trump suggested last year that the retired Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman should be executed)
  • New York attorney general Letitia James(Trump has called for James to be prosecuted, and one of his allies recently declared in an interview, “Listen here, sweetheart, we’re not messing around this time, and we will put your fat ass in prison for conspiracy against rights”)
  • Justice Arthur Engoron (Trump has similarly called for Engoron, who presided over James’s case against the ex-president, to be prosecuted, and called him a “corrupt…political hack”)
  • Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg(yes, Trump also wants Bragg, who brought the hush money case against him, prosecuted)
  • “Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials” involved in the 2020 election (Trump has called for them to receive “long term prison sentences”)
  • Mark Zuckerberg (Trump said during the 2024 race “we are watching him closely” and threatened the Meta founder, saying he could “spend the rest of his life in prison” if he broke any laws)
  • Comcast (Trump has said the company, which owns NBC News and MSNBC, should be investigated for “treason”)
  • ABC News (following his debate with Harris, Trump similarly declared the company should have its license taken away for fact-checking him)
  • CBS News (Trump said the company should lose its license because he didn’t like the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Harris)
  • Journalists (Trump has vowed to jail reporters who don’t reveal their sources on stories he believes concern national security, and “joked” that the threat of prison rape would get them to give up such information)
  • “A sinister group of deep-state bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media” (who Trump claimed comprise a “left-wing censorship regime” and that as president he would “order the Department of Justice to investigate” them and “to aggressively prosecute any and all crimes identified”)
  • Representatives Jamie Raskin and Bennie Thompson, senators Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell,former representative Adam Kinzinger,and former vice president Mike Pence(Trump reshared a post calling for them to be jailed)

“He’s erratic and has the attention span of a seven-year-old,” Harry Litman, a former Clinton DOJ official, told the Times of Trump. “But his thirst for revenge against those he views as his current antagonists is very real, and there’s no reason to think he would be deterred by legal niceties.” (Trump’s office did not respond to the Times’ request for comment concerning whether he would make good on campaign revenge threats.)

Trump nominated former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence, the person at the pinnacle of the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency, and more than a dozen other intelligence agencies. Her nomination is startling, not only because she has no relevant experience, but far more important, because she has a history of defending Putin, no matter what he does. These may be her sincere beliefs yet they hardly suggest that she should control America’s intelligence agencies. It’s doubtful that she could get a security clearance to work at the CIA or any of the other intelligence agencies. Yet Trump wants to put her in charge.

Writing at The Bulwark, Jonathan V. Last asks: Is Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset or a dupe? Open the link to finish reading the article.

1. Aloha, Comrade!

When you woke up yesterday the idea that Pete Hegseth—a philandering morning TV host who has never run anything bigger than a frozen banana stand—could serve as the secretary of defense was the most preposterous idea in the history of the federal government.

By dinner time Trump had issued two nominations that made Hegseth look like Bobby Gates.


The Matt Gaetz appointment is getting most of the attention because of the irony. The DoJ being controlled by a man who was recently investigated by the same department for having an alleged sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl, whom he (allegedly) paid to travel with him? It’s too good.

Also, in the near term, the attorney general can a lot of damage to America. The AG has the power both to turn the state against its citizens and to shield wrongdoers from accountability.

But it’s the appointment of Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence that worries me more. Because for a decade Gabbard has looked and behaved like a Russian asset. 

In four terms as a congresswoman her most notable actions were ongoing defenses of two war criminals: Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin.

Let me tell you her story.


It began in 2013, when Assad’s military used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. The Obama administration was mulling over responses and Gabbard argued that America should not intervene. She said she would vote against authorizing Obama to use force. 

Why Syria?

Syria and Russia had long enjoyed a cooperative relationship. In 2015, that partnership blossomed into direct Russian military intervention on Assad’s behalf. In March of 2016, 392 members of the House voted for a non-binding resolution of on holding Assad accountable for his crimes against humanity. The only Democrat to vote against it was Gabbard.

In December 2016, Gabbard sought an audience with the newly-elected Trump to promote a bill she called the “Stop Arming Terrorists Act.” The goal of this bill was to withdraw U.S. military support for the Syrian rebels fighting against the combined forces of Assad and Putin.1

And in 2017, Gabbard made an unannounced trip to Syria. She did not give her congressional colleagues advance notice that she was traveling to the region and she refused to disclose who had funded the trip. While there, she met with Assad. Twice.

In fact, Gabbard’s only notable break with Trump came in 2017, after Trump authorized a cruise missile strike on Syria in retaliation for Assad deploying nerve agents against civilians. Gabbard called this—Trump’s action, not Assad’s—“dangerous,” “rash,” and “reckless.”2

And she kept going. In 2019, she proclaimed that Assad “is not the enemy of the United States.”

For an on-the-make politician, that’s an awful lot of political capital spent defending a mid-level war criminal. Curious, no?

But of course, it wasn’t really about Syria. It was about Russia.

Share


When Gabbard made her failed presidential run in 2020, she was surreptitiously backed by Russian cyber assets. Russia’s interest in promoting Gabbard was obvious enough that Hillary Clinton publicly observed that it was clear the Kremlin was grooming her.

The extent of Gabbard’s affinity not just for Assad, but for Putin, spilled into the open when Russia invaded Ukraine. Gabbard defendedPutin’s invasion even before it began, blaming the Biden administration for forcing Russia’s hand.3

Appearing on Tucker Carlson’s Fox show, she said that it was the Biden administration who wanted war in Ukraine:

President Biden could end this crisis and prevent a war with Russia by doing something very simple. . .

Guaranteeing that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO because if Ukraine became a member of NATO, that would put U.S. and NATO troops right on the doorstep of Russia, which, as Putin has laid out, would undermine their national security interests. . . .

The reality is that it is highly, highly unlikely that Ukraine will ever become a member of NATO anyway. So the question is, why don’t president Biden and NATO leaders actually just say that and guarantee it?

Which begs the question of why are we in this position then? If the answer to this and preventing this war from happening is very clear as day. And really, it just points to one conclusion that I can see, which is, they actually want Russia to invade Ukraine.

Why did Gabbard think Biden wanted Russia to invade Ukraine? So that it could impose sanctions on Putin. And to be clear here: Gabbard thought that imposing sanctions on Vladimir Putin would be terrible. She explained:

It gives the Biden administration a clear excuse to go and levy draconian sanctions, which are a modern-day siege against Russia and the Russian people.

Sanctions, by the way, are a long-standing bugaboo of Gabbard’s. In 2020, she introduced a bill designed to prove that U.S. sanctions kill children in foreign countries so as to make it harder for the U.S. to deploy sanctions against adversaries.

So in case you’re keeping score: Gabbard is opposed both to U.S. military intervention and to U.S.-imposed sanctions.

But she is not opposed to the Syrian dictator gassing civilians or Russia pursuing its “security interests” by invading neighboring countries.

Leave a comment


As the war progressed, Gabbard would go on to parrot Russian claims about the United States funding “biolabs” across Ukraine as part of her ongoing attempt to justify Putin’s aggression.

After Putin arrested a Russian journalist who protested the invasion of Ukraine, Gabbard rushed onto TV to defend Putin. She claimed that the media environment in Russia was “not so different” from America.

Last April, Gabbard accused President Biden of trying to “destroy” Russia:

All the statements and comments that the Biden-Harris administration has made from the beginning of this [Russo-Ukrainian] war essentially point to their objective being basically to destroy Russia.

In case you cannot tell: Gabbard viewed the “destruction” of the Putin regime in Russia as a bad thing.4

Leave a comment


2. Asset or Dupe?

Is Gabbard a Russian asset? I don’t know if that’s how she sees herself. But the Russians certainly view her that way.

Here’s the thing about intelligence assets: Sometimes an asset is a person you must own and direct. But sometimes an asset will do what you want her to, either with gentle, indirect inputs or completely under her own steam.

Walter Duranty did not officially report to the Kremlin, but Stalin viewed him as a valuable asset and made sure to stroke him and position him in ways that were useful to the USSR. The result was that Duranty’s dispatches to the New York Timeswere indistinguishable from something a KGB-controlled spy would have written.

Whether or not Duranty saw himself as a Russian agent, Stalin and the Soviet secret services classified him as an asset and were diligent in Duranty’s care and feeding.

So when it comes to Gabbard, ask yourself: What would she have done differently over the last decade if she had been formally controlled by Putin?

Share


Gabbard says, over and over, that the only thing she cares about is “peace.” But in this quest for peace she has, over and over, attacked and attempted to discredit the U.S. intelligence community while embracing propaganda emanating from the Kremlin.

She has attempted to stop U.S. military intervention against Russian allies while also opposing sanctions against them.

She has met secretly with Russian clients.

She has blamed the United States for an invasion conducted by Russian forces, attempted to draw false equivalence between America and Russia, and accused the American president of being unfairly belligerent toward Putin—whose regime has killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians and abducted 20,000 Ukrainian children.

Even if Gabbard is only an unwitting dupe, from the Russian perspective her elevation to DNI would represent the greatest achievement in the history of espionage. Russia will have fully penetrated the American intelligence apparatus at the very top level.


Having Gabbard serve as DNI would probably set back America’s intelligence services by a generation.

First, asset recruitment would become impossible. Any potential recruit in the field would be a fool to cooperate with U.S. intelligence knowing that the American DNI was at least functionally on Putin’s side.

Second, no secrets would be safe. There is no way Gabbard could pass a security clearance check in 2024. The only way for her to gain access to this level of information is to be appointed to the top of the organization. She could never be considered for a job inside, say, the CIA.5

Third, she’s not even on America’s side. Just objectively speaking Gabbard views the American government as a problem to be resolved and the interests of the Russian government as valid and worth accommodating.

Making Gabbard director of national intelligence simply makes no sense. It’s the equivalent of the American government gouging its own eyes out and purposefully making itself blind to the covert actions of its adversaries.

Or rather, it makes no sense for America.

For Russia, DNI Gabbard makes all the sense in the world.

Tom Nichols writes about national security for The Atlantic. In this article, he writes that Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s nominee for the highest ranking position in the intelligence community, is not only manifestly unqualified but is a threat to national security. She has spent the past few years as an apologist for the dictator of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, and the dictator of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

Nichols writes:

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated former Representative Tulsi Gabbard as the director of national intelligence. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created after 9/11 to remedy what American policy makers believed was a lack of coordination among the various national-intelligence agencies, and the DNI sits atop all of America’s intelligence services, including the CIA.

Gabbard is stunningly unqualified for almost any Cabinet post (as are some of Trump’s other picks), but especially for ODNI. She has no qualifications as an intelligence professional—literally none. (She is a reserve lieutenant colonel who previously served in the Hawaii Army National Guard, with assignments in medical, police, and civil-affairs-support positions. She has won some local elections and also represented Hawaii in Congress.) She has no significant experience directing or managing much of anything.

But leave aside for the moment that she is manifestly unprepared to run any kind of agency. Americans usually accept that presidents reward loyalists with jobs, and Trump has the right to stash Gabbard at some make-work office in the bureaucracy if he feels he owes her. It’s not a pretty tradition, but it’s not unprecedented, either.

To make Tulsi Gabbard the DNI, however, is not merely handing a bouquet to a political gadfly. Her appointment would be a threat to the security of the United States.

Gabbard ran for president as a Democrat in 2020, attempting to position herself as something like a peace candidate. But she’s no peacemaker: She’s been an apologist for both the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Her politics, which are otherwise incoherent, tend to be sympathetic to these two strongmen, painting America as the problem and the dictators as misunderstood. Hawaii voters have long been perplexed by the way she’s positioned herself politically. But Gabbard is a classic case of “horseshoe” politics: Her views can seem both extremely left and extremely right, which is probably why people such as Tucker Carlson—a conservative who has turned into … whatever pro-Russia right-wingers are called now—have taken a liking to the former Democrat (who was previously a Republican and is now again a member of the GOP).

To finish the article, please open the link.

When Trump announced that he intended to nominate Representative Matt Gaetz to be his Attorney General, a gasp went up in both political parties.

Gaetz has been a fierce Trump loyalist, which is why Trump chose him. He certainly didn’t choose him because he is an eminent member of the bar, because he has the respect of his peers, or because he is a pillar of integrity. Trump wants someone who is certain not to investigate him and certain to prosecute Trump’s “enemies.” Perhaps Trump thinks he has found his latter-day Roy Cohn, a man who can be counted on to twist the law to justify whatever Trump wants.

Gaetz was just reelected on November 5, yet resigned as soon as Trump announced that he had chosen him to be Attorney General, the very epitome of our justice system.

Candidates for the Cabinet usually wait to see if they are confirmed before resigning. Why did he rush to resign a seat he just won?

The House Ethics Committee was investigating serious charges against him and was about to issue its report. His resignation ends the investigation.

But, Politico writes, that’s not the end of the Gaetz story:

The lawyer representing a woman former Rep. Matt Gaetz allegedly had sex with when she was a minor called on the House Ethics Committee to “immediately” release its report into his alleged conduct.

“Mr. Gaetz’s likely nomination as Attorney General is a perverse development in a truly dark series of events,” attorney John Clune wrote Thursday on X. “We would support the House Ethics Committee immediately releasing their report. She was a high school student and there were witnesses.”

Gaetz, a conservative firebrand whom President-elect Donald Trump tapped Wednesday to serve as attorney general — and who pushed the effort to oust former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy —  resigned abruptlyfrom the House Wednesday, days before the chamber’s ethics panel was reportedly set to release a report of its investigation.

Gaetz has repeatedly denied the allegations. A spokesperson for Gaetz did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The former congressman was also the subject of a separate federal sex trafficking investigation by the Department of Justice — which he could soon lead — but was ultimately not prosecuted. That probe, started in 2020 during the Trump administration, was focused on whether Gaetz paid women for sex and traveled overseas to attend parties with teenagers under the age of 18.

In May, he was subpoenaed to sit for a deposition in a civil lawsuit brought against the woman with whom he allegedly had sex — who is represented by Clune — by a friend of Gaetz, ABC News reported.

House Ethics Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) told reporters Wednesday before Gaetz’s resignation that the probe would end if Gaetz was no longer a member of the House — and reiterated that position on Thursday.

But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said they hope to review the report ahead of Gaetz’s Senate confirmation. Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) demanded in a statement that the House Ethics Committee share its findings with the Senate Judiciary Community, saying “We cannot allow this valuable information from a bipartisan investigation to be hidden from the American people.”

Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post described the Gaetz nomination as “a middle finger to the Senate.” She hopes it never reaches a vote. Maybe Trump is testing the Senate to see how low they will go to please him.

The New York Times summed up Trump’s reasons to admire Gaetz:

Gaetz, a Florida Republican, says Trump’s ties to Russia should never have been investigated. He wants “the Biden crime family” to face justice. And he called nonpartisan D.O.J. officials whom he may soon oversee the “deep state.” He has introduced legislation that would limit sentences for people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 and suggested “abolishing every one of the three-letter agencies,” including the F.B.I.

The New Republic referred to stories about Gaetz’s drug-fueled sexual adventures:

Then-Representative Markwayne Mullin, now a senator, candidly told CNN last year that Gaetz bragged about having sex with young women to other members on the floor of the House of Representatives. 

“We had all seen videos … of the girls that he had slept with,” Mullin said. “He’d crush [erectile dysfunction] medicine and chase it with an energy drink so he could go all night.” Mullin, now a Senator, has done a total 180 on this, saying on Wednesday that he “completely” trusts Trump’s decision to nominate Gaetz.

Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville said that any Republican senator who voted against Gaetz should be ousted. Only four defections, and Gaetz is defeated.

John Thompson describes Ryan Walters’ frenzied campaign to be chosen as Trump’s Secretary of Education. In Oklahoma, where he is State Superintendent, Walters has been pushing the Trump agenda long before the election. He wants religion in the schools, he wants to dismantle the Department of Education, he wants to destroy public schools, he wants to purge the curriculum. He’s practically screaming, “Take me!”

Thompson writes:

We Oklahomans need to apologize to the nation for what some of us have been thinking since the election. But, how can we not hope that State Superintendent Ryan Walters gets a job in the Trump administration? As Oklahoma Watch has reported, Ryan Walters seems to be campaigning for an appointment to be Trump’s U.S. Secretary of Education. Walters has been “rumored to be angling for the post; he’s been on a taxpayer-funded national media blitz for months.” And after all, maybe Walters’s incompetence would make it harder to destroy the U.S. Department of Education than to realize his goal of destroying Oklahoma’s public schools.

Of course, I’m kidding, mostly. But at times like this, education supporters have no choice but to seek comfort in humor, no matter how absurd such jokes may be.

During the last week, as the Oklahoman reports, Walters has promised on social media that “President Trump’s agenda will be enacted in Oklahoma.” Moreover, as the Tulsa World explained, “’Freedom to pray’ is among the education policy tenets listed by Trump’s re-election campaign.” And Walters issued a memorandum to parents and school superintendents advocating for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education and replacing its functions with block grants.”

The Oklahoman further explains that Walters has “sent a five-point memo to public school superintendents and parents, detailing what he has described as Oklahoma’s plan to implement Trump’s agenda in schools. The memo covered topics such as ‘ending social indoctrination in classrooms’ and ‘stopping illegal immigration’s impact on our schools.’” And he also complained that “‘well-funded, out of state groups’ had ‘bullied’ an Oklahoma teacher into removing quotes from the Bible from a classroom.”

Walters now promises a “new office would help protect teachers in similar situations in the future.” So, “Walters said the Office of Religious Liberty and Patriotism would promote its namesake principles and make sure students and teachers can freely practice their religion.” While doing so, he blamed teachers unions for undermining faith and family.

The Oklahoma Voice adds, “Walters said public schools have been “ground ‘zero’ for erosion of religious liberty. While calling church-state separation a ‘myth,’ he ordered Oklahoma districts to teach from the Bible, sought to buy Bibles with taxpayer funds and advocated for opening a Catholic charter school in the state.”

Walters falsely argued:

It is no coincidence that the dismantling of faith and family values in public schools directly correlates with declining academic outcomes in our public schools. … In Oklahoma, we are reversing this negative trend and, working with the incoming Trump Administration, we are going to aggressively pursue education policies that will improve academic outcomes and give our children a better future.

The Oklahoma Watch also explains, contrary to Walters’ promises:

Due to the courts and lawmakers’ interpretation of the 10th Amendment, the federal government and Department of Education are not involved in determining curricula or educational standards or establishing schools or colleges.

Mostly, the department gives out money, some of which has strings attached, ensuring that schools adhere to federal non-discrimination laws.

Even so, we are likely to see Walters ramping up his attacks on Oklahoma schools in order to impress Trump. After all, “Trump proposes having parents elect school principals, abolishing teacher tenure and adopting merit pay. He vows to encourage prayer in schools and expel more disruptive students from classrooms.”

Real world, I’ve been asking whether Walters could impose more actual damage on his home state than on the country as a whole. Could we hope that his record of incompetence would be more likely to bring his MAGA agenda down if he tackles the more complicated battles with the U.S. Department of Education (or any other national institutions targeted by the new President)? And, wouldn’t his irrational zealotry be more politically damaging to Trump if he attacks government on the federal level?

Or, are Oklahomans just worn down by the stress Walters inflicted on us, which is what he wants to dump on the nation?

Writing on the MSNBC website, former Obama administration official Brandon Friedman explains why Trump’s choice for Secretary of Defense is unqualified. Pete Hegseth is a FOX News host on “Fox and Friends.” He served in the National Guard and deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. He started his career as a financial analyst at Bear Stearns.

Why is he unqualified?

Friedman writes:

Where to begin? Let’s start with the big one: Hegseth is not qualified for this role. He has no particular experience or expertise that would lead any sane person to put him in charge of America’s military, including the largest governmental bureaucracy in the world.

He has no managerial experience. The defense Department has 3 million people on its payroll and a budget of $842 billion. It’s a massive bureaucracy.

His personal life is messy. While married to his first wife, he had a baby with a woman who became his second wife (he now has a third wife).

Friedman: This is relevant because it’s not clear Hegseth can even get a security clearance, much less the type needed to run the Defense Department. Behavior like that opens individuals to blackmail and espionage and many aspiring civil servants each year are denied clearances for far less.

He was part of a 12-person group that was not allowed to assist in Biden’s Inauguration because of his tattoos, including one that is a white supremacist symbol.

He has opposed punishment of American military who are accused of war criminals. He opposes DEI initiatives in the military. He opposes women in combat, even those who have passed the physical tests to become green Berets or Seals.

Others have written about one of Hegseth’s quirks. He says he hasn’t washed his hands in ten years. He can’t see the germs so he doesn’t believe in them. (Not even after going to the toilet? Disgusting. Wear gloves if you ever meet him.

Throughout the campaign, Trump issued threats and promises of what he would do on Day One. Elections have consequences.

The AP assembled his to-do list for Day One. It will be a very busy day.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump has said he wouldn’t be a dictator — “except for Day 1.” According to his own statements, he’s got a lot to do on that first day in the White House.

His list includes starting up the mass deportation of migrants, rolling back Biden administration policies on education, reshaping the federal government by firing potentially thousands of federal employees he believes are secretly working against him, and pardoning people who were arrested for their role in the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill,” he said of his Day 1 plans.

When he took office in 2017, he had a long list, too, including immediately renegotiating trade deals, deporting migrants and putting in place measures to root out government corruption. Those things didn’t happen all at once.

Here’s a look at what Trump has said he will do in his second term and whether he can do it the moment he steps into the White House:

Make most of his criminal cases go away, at least the federal ones

Trump has said that “within two seconds” of taking office that he would fire Jack Smith, the special counsel who has been prosecuting two federal cases against him. Smith is already evaluating how to wind down the cases because of long-standing Justice Department policy that says sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted.

Smith charged Trump last year with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential electionand illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Trump cannot pardon himself when it comes to his state conviction in New York in a hush money case, but he could seek to leverage his status as president-elect in an effort to set aside or expunge his felony conviction and stave off a potential prison sentence.

A case in Georgia, where Trump was charged with election interference, will likely be the only criminal case left standing. It would probably be put on hold until at least 2029, at the end of his presidential term. The Georgia prosecutor on the case just won reelection.

Pardon supporters who attacked the Capitol

More than 1,500 people have been charged since a mob of Trump supporters spun up by the outgoing president attacked the Capitol almost nearly four years ago.

Trump launched his general election campaign in March by not merely trying to rewrite the history of that riot, but positioning the violent siege and failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election as a cornerstone of his bid to return to the White House. As part of that, he called the rioters “unbelievable patriots” and promised to help them “the first day we get into office.”

As president, Trump can pardon anyone convicted in federal court, District of Columbia Superior Court or in a military court-martial. He can stop the continued prosecution of rioters by telling his attorney general to stand down.

“I am inclined to pardon many of them,” Trump said on his social media platform in March when announcing the promise. “I can’t say for every single one, because a couple of them, probably they got out of control.”

Dismantle the ‘deep state’ of government workers

Trump could begin the process of stripping tens of thousands of career employees of their civil service protections, so they could be more easily fired.

He wants to do two things: drastically reduce the federal workforce, which he has long said is an unnecessary drain, and to “totally obliterate the deep state” — perceived enemies who, he believes, are hiding in government jobs.

Within the government, there are hundreds of politically appointed professionals who come and go with administrations. There also are tens of thousands of “career” officials, who work under Democratic and Republican presidents. They are considered apolitical workers whose expertise and experience help keep the government functioning, particularly through transitions.

Trump wants the ability to convert some of those career people into political jobs, making them easier to dismiss and replace with loyalists. He would try to accomplish that by reviving a 2020 executive orderknown as “Schedule F.” The idea behind the order was to strip job protections from federal workers and create a new class of political employees. It could affect roughly 50,000 of 2.2 million civilian federal employees.

Democratic President Joe Biden rescinded the order when he took office in January 2021. But Congress failed to pass a bill protecting federal employees. The Office of Personnel Management, the federal government’s chief human resources agency, finalized a rule last spring against reclassifying workers, so Trump might have to spend months — or even years — unwinding it.

Trump has said he has a particular focus on “corrupt bureaucrats who have weaponized our justice system” and “corrupt actors in our national security and intelligence apparatus.”

Beyond the firings, Trump wants to crack down on government officials who leak to reporters. He also wants to require that federal employees pass a new civil service test.

Impose tariffs on imported goods, especially those from China

Trump promised throughout the campaign to impose tariffs on imported goods, particularly those from China. He argued that such import taxes would keep manufacturing jobs in the United States, shrink the federal deficit and help lower food prices. He also cast them as central to his national security agenda.

“Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented,” Trump said during a September rally in Flint, Michigan.

The size of his pledged tariffs varied. He proposed at least a 10% across-the-board tariff on imported goods, a 60% import tax on goods from China and a 25% tariff on all goods from Mexico — if not more.

Trump would likely not need Congress to impose these tariffs, as was clear in 2018, when he imposed them on steel and aluminum imports without going through lawmakers by citing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. That law, according to the Congressional Research Service, gives a president the power to adjust tariffs on imports that could affect U.S. national security, an argument Trump has made.

“We’re being invaded by Mexico,” Trump said at a rally in North Carolina this month. Speaking about the new president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, Trump said: “I’m going to inform her on Day 1 or sooner that if they don’t stop this onslaught of criminals and drugs coming into our country, I’m going to immediately impose a 25% tariff on everything they send into the United States of America.”

Roll back protections for transgender students

Trump said during the campaign that he would roll back Biden administration action seeking to protect transgender students from discrimination in schools on the first day of his new administration.

Opposition to transgender rights was central to the Trump campaign’s closing argument. His campaign ran an ad in the final days of the race against Vice President Kamala Harris in which a narrator said: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”

The Biden administration announced new Title XI protections in April that made clear treating transgender students differently from their classmates is discrimination. Trump responded by saying he would roll back those changes, pledging to do some on the first day of his new administration and specifically noting he has the power to act without Congress.

“We’re going to end it on Day 1,” Trump said in May. “Don’t forget, that was done as an order from the president. That came down as an executive order. And we’re going to change it — on Day 1 it’s going to be changed.”

It is unlikely Trump will stop there.

Speaking at a Wisconsin rally in June, Trump said “on Day 1″ he would “sign a new executive order” that would cut federal money for any school “pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity and other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content onto the lives of our children.”

While it is likely that any of these actions would end up in court, as Biden’s change to Title XI has. Trump does have considerable power through executive orders to implement these promises.

Drill, drill, drill

Trump is looking to reverse climate policies aimed at reducing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

With an executive order on Day 1, he can roll back environmental protections, halt wind projects, scuttle the Biden administration’s targets that encourage the switch to electric cars and abolish standards for companies to become more environmentally friendly.

He has pledged to increase production of U.S. fossil fuels, promising to “drill, drill, drill,” when he gets into office on Day 1 and seeking to open the Arctic wilderness to oil drilling, which he claims would lower energy costs.

Settle the war between Russia and Ukraine 

Trump has repeatedly said he could settle the war between Russia and Ukraine in one day. 

When asked to respond to the claim, Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, said “the Ukrainian crisis cannot be solved in one day.”

Trump’s national press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told Fox News after Trump was declared the winner of the election that Trump would now be able to “negotiate a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.” She later said, “It includes, on Day 1, bringing Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table to end this war.”

Russia invaded Ukraine nearly three years ago. Trump, who makes no secret of his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, has criticized the Biden administration for giving money to Ukraine to fight the war.

At a CNN town hall in May 2023, Trump said: “They’re dying, Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done — I’ll have that done in 24 hours.” He said that would happen after he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Putin.

Begin mass deportations of migrants in the US

Speaking last month at his Madison Square Garden rally in New York, Trump said: “On Day 1, I will launch the largest deportation program in American history to get the criminals out. I will rescue every city and town that has been invaded and conquered, and we will put these vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail, then kick them the hell out of our country as fast as possible.”

Trump can direct his administration to begin the effort the minute he arrives in office, but it’s much more complicated to actually deport the nearly 11 million people who are believed to be in the United States illegally. That would require a huge, trained law enforcement force, massive detention facilities, airplanes to move people and nations willing to accept them. 

Trump has said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act. That rarely used 1798 law allows the president to deport anyone who is not an American citizen and is from a country with which there is a “declared war” or a threatened or attempted “invasion or predatory incursion.”

He has spoken about deploying the National Guard, which can be activated on orders from a governor. Stephen Miller, a top Trump adviser, said sympathetic Republican governors could send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate.

Asked about the cost of his plan, he told NBC News: “It’s not a question of a price tag. It’s not — really, we have no choice. When people have killed and murdered, when drug lords have destroyed countries, and now they’re going to go back to those countries because they’re not staying here. There is no price tag.”

As you recall, I wrote here that I believe that Putin rigged our election. I don’t know how but the best hacking leaves no tracks. But “no evidence” is not evidence. No one is investigating.

But there is more.

A woman named Julia Davis translates Russian media and posts what the Russian press reports.

Tass, the main Russian newspaper, wrote this on November 11:

Trump to rely on forces that brought him to power — Russian presidential aide

Nikolay Patrushev agreed that Trump, when he was still a candidate, “made many statements critical of the destructive foreign and domestic policies pursued by the current administration”

MOSCOW, November 11. /TASS/. In his future policies, including those on the Russian track US President-elect Donald Trump will rely on the commitments to the forces that brought him to power, rather than on election pledges, Russian presidential aide Nikolay Patrushev told the daily Kommersant in an interview.

“The election campaign is over,” Patrushev noted. “To achieve success in the election, Donald Trump relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations. As a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them.”

He agreed that Trump, when he was still a candidate, “made many statements critical of the destructive foreign and domestic policies pursued by the current administration.”

“But very often election pledges in the United States can diverge from subsequent actions,” he recalled.

Republican Donald Trump outperformed the candidate from the ruling Democratic Party, Vice President Kamala Harris, in the US elections held on November 5. Trump will take office on January 20, 2025. During the election campaign Trump mentioned his peace-oriented, pragmatic intentions, including in relations with Russia.

TAGS

Foreign policy

It remains a fact that vouchers have never won a state referendum. Typically, voters reject vouchers by large margins. Yet Republicans continue to push them. This election, three states that voted for Trump defeated vouchers.

ProPublica reported on the public’s rejection of vouchers:

In 2018, Arizona voters overwhelmingly rejected school vouchers. On the ballot that year was a measure that would have allowed all parents — even the wealthiest ones — to receive taxpayer money to send their kids to private, typically religious schools.

Arizonans voted no, and it wasn’t close. Even in a right-leaning state, with powerful Republican leaders supporting the initiative, the vote against it was 65% to 35%.

Coming into this week’s election, Donald Trump and Republicans had hoped to reverse that sort of popular opposition to “school choice” with new voucher ballot measures in several states.

But despite Trump’s big win in the presidential race, vouchers were again soundly rejected by significant majorities of Americans. In Kentucky, a ballot initiative that would have allowed public money to go toward private schooling was defeated roughly 65% to 35% — the same margin as in Arizona in 2018 and the inverse of the margin by which Trump won Kentucky. In Nebraska, nearly all 93 counties voted to repeal an existing voucher program; even its reddest county, where 95% of voters supported Trump, said no to vouchers. And in Colorado, voters defeated an effort to add a “right to school choice” to the state constitution, language that might have allowed parents to send their kids to private schools on the public dime.

Expansions of school vouchers, despite backing from wealthy conservatives, have never won when put to voters. Instead, they lose by margins not often seen in such a polarized country.

Candidates of both parties would be wise “to make strong public education a big part of their political platforms, because vouchers just aren’t popular,” said Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, a teachers union. Royers pointed to an emerging coalition in his state and others, including both progressive Democrats and rural Republicans, that opposes these sweeping “school choice” efforts. (Small-town Trump voters oppose such measures because their local public school is often an important community institution, and also because there aren’t that many or any private schools around.)

Yet voucher efforts have been more successful when they aren’t put to a public vote. In recent years, nearly a dozen stateshave enacted or expanded major voucher or “education savings account” programs, which provide taxpayer money even to affluent families who were already able to afford private school.

That includes Arizona, where in 2022 the conservative Goldwater Institute teamed up with Republican Gov. Doug Ducey and the GOP majority in the Legislature to enact the very same “universal” education savings account initiative that had been so soundly repudiated by voters just a few years before.

Another way that Republican governors and interest groups have circumvented the popular will on this issue is by identifying anti-voucher members of their own party and supporting pro-voucher candidates who challenge those members in primary elections. This way, they can build legislative majorities to enact voucher laws no matter what conservative voters want.

In Iowa, several Republicans were standing in the way of a major new voucher program as of 2022. Gov. Kim Reynolds helped push them out of office — despite their being incumbents in her own party — for the purposes of securing a majority to pass the measure.

A similar dynamic has developed in Tennessee and in a dramatic way in Texas, the ultimate prize for voucher advocates. There, pro-voucher candidates for the state Legislature won enough seats this Tuesday to pass a voucher program during the legislative session that starts in January, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has said.

The day after the election, Abbott, who has made vouchers his top legislative priority, framed the result as a resounding signal that Texans have now shown a “tidal wave of support” for pro-voucher lawmakers. But in reality, the issue was conspicuously missing from the campaigns of many of the new Republicans whom he helped win, amid polling numbers that showed Texans hold complicated views on school choice. (A University of Houston poll taken this summer found that two-thirds of Texans supported voucher legislation, but that an equal number also believe that vouchers funnel money away from “already struggling public schools.”)

In the half dozen competitive Texas legislative races targeted in this election by Abbott and the pro-voucher American Federation for Children, backed by former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Republican candidates did not make vouchers a central plank of their platforms. Most left the issue off of their campaign websites, instead listing stances like “Standing with Public Schools” and “Increased Funding for Local Schools.”

Corpus Christi-area Republican Denise Villalobos pledged on her website that if elected she would “fight for increased funding for our teachers and local schools”; she did not emphasize her pro-voucher views. At least one ad paid for by the American Federation for Children’s affiliated PAC attacked her opponent, Democrat Solomon Ortiz Jr., not for his opposition to vouchers but for what it claimed were his “progressive open-border policies that flood our communities with violent crime and fentanyl.” (Villalobos defeated Ortiz by 10 points.)

Matthew Wilson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, said that this strategy reflects a belief among voucher advocates that compared to the border and culture wars, vouchers are not in fact a “slam-dunk winning issue.”

In the wake of Tuesday’s results in the presidential election, NBC News chief political analyst Chuck Todd said thatDemocrats had overlooked school choice as a policy that might be popular among working-class people, including Latinos, in places like Texas. But the concrete results of ballot initiatives around the nation show that it is in fact Trump, DeVos and other voucher proponents who are out of step with the American people on this particular issue.

They continue to advocate for vouchers, though, for multiple reasons: a sense that public schools are places where children develop liberal values, an ideological belief that the free market and private institutions can do things better and more efficiently than public ones, and a long-term goal of more religious education in this country.

And they know that popular sentiment can be and has been overridden by the efforts of powerful governors and moneyed interest groups, said Josh Cowen, a senior fellow at the Education Law Center who recently published a history of billionaire-led voucher efforts nationwide.

The Supreme Court could also aid the voucher movement in coming years, he said.

“They’re not going to stop,” Cowen said, “just because voters have rejected this.”

CBS News in Detroit reported on the latest study by the Network for Public Education, which showed that more than one-third of charter schools close within the first five years. The NPE study is based on federal data. Most charter schools in Michigan operate for-profit. Please open the link to see the video.

(CBS DETROIT) — A new national report finds that more than one in four charter schools fail in their first five years. And by year 15, nearly half have closed. The numbers are even more stark in Michigan charter schools.

The report, “Doomed to Fail: An Analysis of Charter Closures from 1998-2022,” was done by the Network for Public Education. It found that 36% of Michigan charter schools closed within their first five years.

The state’s population is dropping, and traditional public schools are closing as well, but at about half the rate of Michigan’s charter schools.

“I’ve kind of looked at Michigan as the wild Midwest of the charter sector,” said Mitchell Robinson, an associate professor at Michigan State University and a member of the Michigan State Board of Education. 

He said he wasn’t surprised by the report’s findings.

“When we treat education like banks and dollar stores and dry cleaners and McDonald’s franchises, that’s the kind of results we’re going to get.”

Robinson said charter schools popping up and closing soon after hurt students, teachers, and other schools, sometimes creating public school deserts.

“There are parts of Detroit where kids have to travel up to two hours a day to get to a school because charter schools have come in, public schools have closed, then the charter school closes, then there’s no school at all,” he said.

The report by the Network for Public Education analyzed charter school closures across the country from 1998 to 2022. They found Michigan faces its particular challenges as charter schools here have less oversight and can be big money makers. 

“Seventy percent of the charter schools in Michigan are run by for-profit entities. That is the highest percentage in the nation,” said Carol Burris, the Executive Director of the Network for Public Education.

She said every charter school in Michigan must have an authorizer that oversees it, and that authorizer receives up to three percent of the state money that goes to the school.

“Now 3% doesn’t sound like a lot, but it really is,” said Burris. “One case in point, Walker Charter Academy; it’s a National Heritage Charter Academy school. It received about $7.8 million last year in state funding, so 3% of that is $234,000. Now Grand Valley is its authorizer; they have 62 charter schools. You start doing the math; you’re talking about between $10 million and $14 million a year. That’s a lot of money.”

The President of the Michigan Charter School Association was not impressed:

“I’m not sure I understand their assumptions or their basic premises because their conclusions don’t align,” said Dan Quisenberry, the President of Michigan’s Charter School Association.