Archives for category: Elections

The FBI is supposed to be a nonpolitical agency, although every FBI director chosen by every president was a Republican.

Over the past four years, the FBI was assigned the job of identifying and arresting those who planned and participated in the January 6, 2021, invasion of the U.S. Capitol. The mob was incited by Trump; its goal was to stop the certification of the 2020 election. The insurrection was an attempt to overthrow the Constitution and give Trump a position he lost in the 2020 elections.

The investigation of the January 6 insurrection was the largest in the history of the FBI.

Now Trump’s minions are asking FBI agents whether they were part on the investigation of January 6 or part of the investigation of Trump’s theft of classified documents.

Those who were will be fired because they can’t be trusted to faithfully execute Trump’s agenda.

Understand that the FBI agents who worked in these investigations were carrying out their duties. Understand that in no sane world is it right to send an angry mob to ransack the U.S. Capitol and to disrupt Congress in performing its prescribed duties.

Trump wants to rewrite history. He wants to make it official that the prosecution of the January 6 mob should never have happened. It was, he says, “a day of love.” The mob that beat up and bludgeoned police officers defending the Capitol and members of Congress were “patriots.”

Historians will ignore his lies. The criminal actions of Trump’s mob are well documented.

How can the FBI save itself from a mass purge?

Simple. Every single member of the FBI should sign a statement saying that they were part of the January 6 investigation. Every. Single. Member.

This is a true statement because who investigated the largest single attack in the Capitol were chosen at random. They were not there as volunteers or Trump-haters. They were there because FBI agents take their assignments seriously and execute them with fidelity.

To defend the FBI, sign your name. They can’t fire everyone. That might even offend the sombolent Republicans in Congress. Most were there on January 6. No matter what they say now, they know that their lives were in danger then. Will they sit by silently and let Trump eliminate the entire FBI? Not likely.

Their Trump obeisance must have limits.

Stand together. Sign your name.

Dr. Glenn Rogers, a staunch conservative from a rural district in Texas, opposed vouchers because the people who elected him didn’t want vouchers. Governor Greg Abbott promised his deep-pocketed donors that he would get vouchers. So Republican legislators like Glenn Rogers had to go.

Dr. Rogers is now a contributing columnist for The Dallas Morning News. He is a rancher and a veterinarian in Palo Pinto County. He served in the Texas House of Representatives from 2021-2025.

He explains here that Governor Abbott has no mandate for vouchers.

The 2024 Texas Republican primary was brutal and unprecedented in the volume of unwarranted character assassination, misdirection and, of course, money spent from both “dark” and “illuminated” sources.

Despite Gov. Greg Abbott’s persistent opposition to rural Republican House members and a fourth special legislative session, a bipartisan majority defeated school vouchers (called education savings accounts) by stripping off an amendment in Rep. Brad Buckley’s ominous omnibus education bill that tied critical school funding to vouchers.

The governor then proceeded to launch his scorched-earth attack on rural Republicans. Of the 21 that voted for their districts instead of Abbott’s pet project, five did not seek re-election, four were unopposed, nine lost their seats and three were victorious. Only one third remain in the House.

Reducing Republican opposition to vouchers was a resounding success for the governor and he has been crowing ever since that the 2024 slaughter proves Texans across the state desire vouchers (“school choice” in governor speak). But does it?

During the primary campaign, polling data clearly demonstrated vouchers were not a priority for Texas voters, including those in my district. The border, followed by property taxes and inflation were top of mind, with vouchers barely making the top 10.

With four special sessions, Christmas and a week with a major freezing-weather event, block-walking time before the early March primary was limited to about six good weeks. I hit the pavement hard and, true to the polling data and my consultant’s advice, the border and property taxes were on everyone’s mind. In fact, after knocking on thousands of doors throughout the district, I had only a handful of questions about vouchers and usually from current or retired educators who were anti-voucher.

Abbott frequently referred to Republican ballot Proposition 9 as proof of massive voucher support. “Texas parents and guardians should have the right to select schools, whether public or private, for their children, and the funding should follow the student,” the ballot measure read.

With only around 20% primary voter turnout and questions designed by the State Republican Executive Committee to confirm their often-radical views, the results are hardly a reputable referendum for anything. The wording and structure of the voucher proposition were flawed. Professional surveyors suggest that to receive the most genuine responses, questions should be asked one at a time. The proposition fails to follow this fundamental rule by asking two questions at once and only allowing for a single “Yes” or “No” response.

Of course, everyone wants choice and thankfully we already have a choice of public, charter, private and home school opportunities

The proposition also failed to ask whether voters supported taking tax dollars away from public education to fund a voucher program. That question certainly would have told a different story.

The goal was vouchers, but the tactic was misinformation about completely different issues that captured voters’ attention. The governor repeatedly stated that my fellow rural Republicans and I were weak on the border or that we couldn’t be trusted on border issues. He referred to my F rating from Tim Dunn-financed scorecards.

Ironically, the governor was fully supported by me on every one of his legislative priorities, especially the border, but with one major exception: school vouchers.

I served on the House Republican Caucus Policy Committee the last two sessions and voted 97.5% with caucus recommendations. I voted 96% of the time with the Republican majority. Yet Abbott stated in his rallies in my district that I consistently voted with Democrats. These are disingenuous tactics straight out of the Texas Scorecard playbook.

The governor may have an out-of-state mandate for vouchers, funded by Pennsylvanian TikTok billionaire and voucher profiteer Jeff Yass, who poured over $10 million into Abbott’s crusade to purge Republican House members.

But here in Texas, the mandate simply does not exist.

If Texans truly supported diverting public-school funds to private interests, there would have been no need for fearmongering and smear campaigns to achieve it. The fact that the governor resorted to such underhanded methods is not a show of strength or conviction. It is a tacit admission that Texans are not buying what he is trying to sell.

In 2001, after the hotly contested election that George W. Bush won by 537 votes in Florida, the nonpartisan Miller Center at the University of Virginia created The National Commission on Federal Election Reform to make recommendations about how to remedy defects in the election system. The co-chairs of the commission were former President Gerald R. Ford and former President Jimmy Carter. I had the good fortune to be a member of that distinguished commission. The commission was comprised of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. There was no partisan acrimony. We all agreed on two principles: first, that every qualified citizen should be encouraged to vote; and two, every vote should be counted.

How times have changed! Republicans are so fanatically devoted to the Great Con Artist Donald Trump that they minimize the brazen attempt to overturn the government and the Constitution to keep him in power. They dismiss the pardoning of those who brutalized police officers, smashed windows and doors at the U.S. Capitol and threatened to kill Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on behalf of their idol.

I immediately sensed that something smelled fishy about the election results in 2024. I saw his lethargic rallies and her passionate, enthusiastic rallies. I didn’t think he could possibly win. Her voters were motivated, his were not. When the results were in, I thought that the election was rigged. I thought that Musk or Putin had fixed the computers.

I was wrong. Not about the accuracy of the outcome but about the means of rigging the vote. Trump partisans couldn’t take the risk of a free and fair election. So they spent four years organizing voter suppression on a grand scale.

Greg Palast is expert at monitoring vote integrity. He did the statistical work, and his conclusion was that Trump lost. He lost due to a sustained Republican effort to suppress the votes of likely Democratic voters.

He wrote:

Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the Presidency with 286 electoral votes.

And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass “vigilante” challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump’s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million.

Stay with me and I’ll give you the means, methods and, most important, the key calculations.

The result: Trump is an illegitimate president.

Just like “miracle schools” rig test scores by excluding low-scoring students, MAGA desperados rigged the election by excluding likely Harris voters.

Now Trump is busily engaged in destroying the federal government and replacing independent career civil servants with Trump loyalists. Department after department will be led by Trump cronies who pledge allegiance to him, not to the country or the Constitution.

Long-standing policies against discrimination are being trashed.

A completely unqualified MAGA-man was confirmed by the Republican Senate majority and placed in charge of the Department of Defense. Soon, Senate Republicans will decide whether to place a woman with zero experience and dubious foreign connections in charge of all government intelligence agencies. And they will decide whether to place a crackpot in charge of public health.

I am a patriot. I love the United States of America .

I cry for my country.

I have frequently criticized Bill Gates for his half-baked efforts to “reform” American public schools, all of which have done terrible damage to the schools.

Now Elon Musk is sticking his nose into elections in other countries, and Bill Gates is calling him out.

This article appeared in Business Insider:

Bill Gates doesn’t like how Elon Musk has involved himself in the politics of foreign countries such as the UK and Germany.

“It’s really insane that he can destabilize the political situations in countries,” Gates said in an interview with the UK newspaper The Times published Saturday.

Musk has become increasingly vocal about his views on UK and German politics in recent weeks.

Earlier this month, Musk called for the removal of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The TeslaCEO accused Starmer of not doing enough to prevent the rape of girls when he was Britain’s chief prosecutor from 2008 to 2013.

And on Saturday, Musk spoke virtually at a campaign rally for the Alternative for Germany, Germany’s far-right party. Germany is set to hold national elections in February.

In December, Musk said in an op-ed for Welt am Sonntag, a prominent German newspaper, that the AfD was “the last spark of hope for this country.” He also praised the party for its “controlled immigration policy.”

“I think in the US foreigners aren’t allowed to give money. Other countries maybe should adopt safeguards to make sure superrich foreigners aren’t distorting their elections,” Gates told The Times.

Musk’s political influence has increased significantly following President Donald Trump‘s victory in November. Musk spent at least $277 million backing Trump and other GOP candidates in last year’s elections.

That bet has since paid off for Musk, who called himself Trump’s “first buddy.” The billionaire has joined Trump on calls with world leaderssuch as Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan.

Gates previously criticized Musk for his obsession with going to Mars. Gates said he would rather spend money on vaccines than on rockets. Go, Bill!

If only WE had laws limiting the contributions of billionaires to political campaigns!

This is the story of the takeover of a city and a political party and a state by the farthest right fringe of the Idaho Republican Party. These extremists want to defund education. They want to control everything, not just education.

The article focuses on one community college that they targeted, North Idaho College, which may lose its accreditation, not because of academic or financial problems but because its board is in chaos.

The extremists target all public education. They think education is indoctrination. They think it’s dangerous, even vocational and technical education.

Here are a few illustrative paragraphs:

The charter violations that kicked off this accreditation scandal four years ago never had anything to do with academics. The two-year community college offers a solid education and features the top nursing program in the state. Their finances are stable too. No, NIC might go under because the Board of Trustees has existed in a state of toxicity, chaos, and dysfunction ever since the far right gained a board majority four years ago.

It is difficult to overstate how catastrophic disaccreditation would be for the people of North Idaho. With a price tag 65 percent lower on average than four-year state institutions, community colleges place higher education within reach of the least advantaged Americans; over a third of their students make less than $20,000 per year. At NIC, 57 percent of students
receive financial aid. Local businesses depend on the college for employee training on everything from office software to forklift operation. High school students can enroll in dual credit programs, which let students get a head start on their first year of college and allow homeschoolers to obtain official transcripts….

How could this happen? The problem goes far beyond a three-person majority on the trustee board of a small community college. NIC and many other institutions are in danger because, over the last decade and a half, a core group of extremists has slowly taken over the Idaho Republican Party in the same way that a parasitic wasp slowly takes over its host. This required no astroturfing or Koch-fueled cash infusions, just a regular, everyday indifference to hyperlocal politics. The tactic is underway elsewhere, but Idaho got a head start. This crisis is what happens when insurgency bears fruit….

The consequences of that agenda go far beyond NIC’s accreditation crisis. Idaho’s abortion laws are among the strictest in the country; citing difficulty recruiting doctors given the risk of criminalization, two hospitals have already closed their labor and delivery departments, leaving many rural Idahoans hours from maternal care. Armed militia members have shown up in the children’s section of libraries looking for pornography, and libraries are limiting service due to legislation that holds librarians criminally liable for books deemed inappropriate. Idaho’s primary and secondary schools are literally falling apart; it spends less per student than any other state and ranks 43rd in education quality.

This “parasitic wasp” is at work in other red states.

In October 2020, near the end of his first term, Trump imposed a new classification for career civil servants called Schedule F. It was intended to strip job security from career civil servants so they could be replaced by Trump loyalists. One of Joe Biden’s first actions was to eliminate Schedule F.

Trump pledged during his 2024 campaign to implement Schedule F. He calls the Civil Service “the deep state.” He believes that career bureaucrats slow-walked or impeded some of his most extreme ideas. And he is on his way, with full control of the Executive branch, both Houses of Congress, and (usually) the Supreme Court.

By implementing Schedule F, Trump would gain control of 50,000 jobs that are now held by civil servants. He and his deputies could replace them with MAGA loyalists.

The creation of the Civil Service was considered a very important reform and has been sacrosanct for more than a century. Before the Civil Service Commission was created in 1883, government jobs were handed out based on party affiliation. This was known as “the Spoils System.” The saying went “to the victor goes the spoils.” Win the election and appoint the people of your own party, who will be loyal to you.

Trump wants a return to the Spoils System, so he can appoint Trump loyalists. He wants to turn the clock back more than a century.

Here is a brief description of the history of civil service reform:

The first comprehensive merit-based civil service system was put in place by the Pendleton Civil
Service Reform Act of 1883, which created the United States Civil Service Commission. The
Act ended the Spoils System by specifying that merit – qualifications measured by testing – is
the basis of hiring decisions. For the first time, appointments were open to all citizens, made
based on merit, and were given to the best qualified applicants. The Act also protected
incumbents from being thrown out of office simply because of a change in the Presidency,
providing tenure protection for employees and ensuring their political neutrality. Initially, only
about 10.5% of Federal jobs were included in the competitive civil service system. By the end
of the century, approximately 42% were included; by the early 1900s, it was over 60%; and by
1952, over 90% of Federal jobs were included in the civil service system.

Merit-based civil service systems followed in the states and at the local level. The first state civil
service law was enacted under the leadership of then-Assembly Member Theodore Roosevelt
and then-Governor Grover Cleveland in New York in 1883. Teddy Roosevelt also served as a
commissioner on the United States Civil Service Commission and was a staunch supporter of
the civil service during his presidency, leading to a period of major government expansion and
further reforms of the civil service system. Roosevelt is known as the “Father” of modern civil service….

After World War II, the rise of collective bargaining in the public sector and the civil rights movement affected the civil service system, bringing the ideas of Equal Employment
Opportunity, affirmative action, and equal pay for equal work into the world of personnel
administration. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans With Disabilities Act of
1990 all marked the growing inclusiveness of public personnel policies and procedures. These
movements clearly spoke to the fundamental civil service ideal that appointments are based on
merit established by competitive processes, not on any other factors.

By the 1970s, a new civil service reform movement began with the goal of making civil service more responsive to the personnel needs of executives and managers. While the first reforms begun in the late nineteenth century established the principles of competitiveness and merit, they also created a significant separation between management and personnel administration.

Managers had little control over personnel issues and their day to day operational needs were
often stymied by overly restrictive civil service rules. Despite the decentralization of civil service
systems during the Roosevelt era, personnel offices still retained significant control and
managers continually found there were significant barriers to effectively attracting, retaining, evaluating, disciplining, rewarding, and terminating employees.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was designed to address these issues at the Federal
level. The Act abolished the Civil Service Commission and created the Office of Personnel
Management in its place. Agency chief executives were given direct policy control over
personnel functions and the purpose of the civil service system moved from a regulatory
function to a service orientation in order to better support organizational and leadership efforts.

Civil service processes were streamlined and simplified; the merit system restated and
expanded to include an employee’s abilities, education, experience, and job performance; and
the emphasis turned to recruitment, career advancement, performance based compensation,
and performance appraisal. The Act also created the Senior Executive Service, which is
designed to help attract and retain high level senior executives outside of the civil service
system. Many of these changes were mirrored at the state and local levels.

This latest reform movement lost momentum under President Reagan during the early 1980s
and many of the same concerns brought to light during the 1970s regarding the responsiveness
of civil service systems continue to exist today.

The primary goal of the civil service system has been and continues to be to ensure that
appointments to government jobs are based on merit and ability as determined through a
competitive process. The principles of civil service specify that the most qualified person be
appointed to the job; that appointments not be based on any other factors such as political
activity or patronage; and that incumbents are protected from the political whims of elected
officials. This primary purpose of civil service has remained constant throughout the various
historical movements that have changed and shaped civil service over the last 200 years.

Adapted from the website for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (www.opm.gov) and
The New Public Personnel Administration by Nigro, Nigro, and Kelloug

At yesterday’s indoor inauguration, there were of necessity a limited number of seats. The first row was reserved for Trump and Vance family members. Tech billionaires and their wives and female companions sat in the second row. Trump’s choices for his Cabinet sat behind the billionaires. Elected officials were not allowed to bring their wives or companions.

Trump tamed the billionaires, who dutifully applauded his ascension, exchanging their independence for his toleration.

Jeff Tiedrich shows how the media tried to sanitize Elon Musk’s Nazi salute at the inauguration ceremonies.

Even the ADL (the Anti-Defamation League) issued a statement saying that Elon’s salute was merely “an awkward gesture.”

So Jeff does everyone a favor by inserting two clips, side by side. One shows Elon, the other shows Adolph.

What kind of salute do you think it was?

Trump freed all the J6 insurrectionists, even those convicted and sentenced to 20+ years for insurrection.

The Republican Party is not the party of law and order.

Read Jim Stewartson and be alarmed.

Attacking police officers, trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power is now a sign of patriotism.

Even JD Vance said that the J6 terrorists who committed acts of violence would not be pardoned. He was wrong.

Even the guy wearing the “Camp Auschwitz” T-shirt was pardoned.

All of Trump’s thugs.

Oliver Darcy was senior media critic for CNN, when he left to start his own Substack, called Status. There he reports on the latest buzz.

Here he writes about the moral collapse of the mainstream media in the Second Coming of the Convicted Felon. Despite the many admonitions by scholars of authoritarianism not to “obey in advance,” the media is normalizing the new Trump regime. Yesterday Trump unleashed a blizzard of executive orders and rescissions of Biden policies. Just a few: Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Accord (again) and from the World Health Organization. He declared that the Gulf of Mexico is now the Gulf of America. He rolled back Biden’s limit of $2,000 per year for the cost of prescription drugs for those on Medicare and Medicaid. He pardoned the J6 criminals, even those who violently assaulted police officers.

He wrote:

Four years ago, moments after Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election, Jake Tapper delivered a blistering sermon about Donald Trump’s legacy live on CNN. He looked into the camera and bluntly described Trump’s four years in office as a “time of cruelty,” a “time when truth and fact were treated with disdain,” and an “era of just plain meanness.” 

“It must be said, to paraphrase President Ford: For tens of millions of our fellow Americans, their long national nightmare is over,” Tapper concluded, ending his unsparing mini-monologue. 

That Jake Tapper was nowhere to be found on Monday as Trump was sworn back into office, becoming the 47th president of the United States. Instead, appearing on CNN was a Tapper incapable or unwilling to deliver the type of no-holds-barred commentary that sent his star soaring during Trump’s first administration.

As he narrated Monday’s proceedings, Tapper, CNN’s lead Washington anchor, glossed over how Trump was twice-impeached and a convicted felon. He made no mention about how the Capitol Rotunda was stuffed with right-wing extremists and conspiracy theorists. Instead, Tapper largely avoided delivering any commentary that might be perceived by the MAGA movement as inflammatory. Outside the physical body, the Tapper of 2025 shared little in common with the pugnacious Tapper of 2020.

To be fair to Tapper, he was not alone. In fact, Tapper embodies a larger trend gripping the news media, which has tamped down its once aggressive posture toward Trump. The appetite for hard-hitting reporting and stinging analysis has dissipated in the c-suites of several major news outlets, with executives wary of offending the new president and the muscular movement he leads.

That was all reflected in Monday’s inauguration coverage. Across the entire television news landscape, the reporting on Trump’s inauguration lacked firepower. The profession’s stable of news anchors and correspondents who branded themselves as truth-telling journalists willing to hold power to account were present on screen, but their fervid spirit had unmistakably evaporated. It was like the invasion of the body snatchers — familiar faces delivering the news, yet devoid of the passion and conviction that once defined them, as if their former selves had been hollowed out. 

It’s not like there wasn’t plenty to discuss. Trump repeated lies about the January 6 insurrection, claimed the 2020 election was rigged, and falsely alleged the Democrats tried to rig the 2024 election, among other things. He welcomed conspiracy theorists to the inaugural ceremony, such as Tucker CarlsonMarjorie Taylor GreeneVivek Ramaswamy, andRobert F. Kennedy Jr. And he put on display how he had bent the most powerful figures in Silicon Valley to his will.

In other words, it was a highly abnormal affair to watch. But the way in which television news outlets covered it — with the exception of MSNBC — was out of sync with that reality. Most of the commentary focused on the years-old traditions and ceremonies of Inauguration Day, which in turn framed the events as fairly ordinary. 

A search of closed captioning revealed that most networks almost entirely avoided using terms like “twice-impeached” or “convicted felon” when discussing Trump during the hours and hours of special coverage offered to viewers. In fact, no one on the Mark Thompson-led CNN (which found time to interview an outside expert about Melania Trump’s outfit choice) used either of those terms a single time, according to the closed captions search that I conducted. Yes, really. That important context was somehow missing from broadcasts of Trump’s resurgence to power.

After years of sounding the alarm about the very real threats that Trump poses to America’s bedrock democratic principles, and after years of watching Trump and his allies wage a historic disinformation war on the country, the on-air coverage was muted and failed to meet the moment. Even Trump took notice, lauding the press for its coverage. “Maybe the fake news is changing,” Trump said.

The dose of coverage the country was treated to on Monday is likely a sign of what is to come. Billionaire owners like Jeff Bezos and corporate parents like Warner Bros. Discovery have signaled that they want their outlets to be less hostile to the MAGA movement. They do not wish to be the so-called #Resistance. They would much rather be allies of the president, particularly while they have high-wire business matters before the federal government.

Which means that at a time when Trump, by all accounts, poses more of a threat than ever, the news media is less willing than ever to treat him to the tough coverage the moment calls for. It’s a troubling shift that will have far-reaching consequences for the country. And, frankly, it’s just bad journalism.