Archives for category: Trump

NBC showed the nation how NOT to hire a conservative commentator. They picked a MAGA firebrand who stood squarely behind Trump’s lies about the election. Their entire stable of in-air stars at MSNBC revolted, along with Chuck Todd of NBC, the network’s chief political honcho.

It was not Ronna McDaniel’s conservative views they rejected, but her lying. Lying is unethical.

Jill Lawrence, a journalist who writes at The Bulwark, a site for anti-Trump Republicans, offered the following advice:

YOU HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE, and where if not at the Big Lie?

If the Ronna McDaniel saga were a miniseries or magazine piece, it would be called “The Five-Day Tenure of a Great Get”: It starts last Friday when NBC News announces that it has hired the former chairwoman of the Republican National Committee as a political commentator. A massive backlash ensues, led by the network’s on-air talent, over McDaniel’s role in trying to reverse the 2020 election results, her year of denying them, and her continued attempts to underminethem. Okay, maybe not that great a get. By Tuesday, she’s out.

We live in complicated media times, and mistakes are constantly made—even now. They’ve been made since 2015 and the struggle will continue as long as Donald Trump is a dominant presence in American life.

I’ve been through it on the inside, and the McDaniel debacle brought back a lot of memories. The hardest journalism job I’ve ever had was being commentary editor of USA Today during “the reign of Donald Trump and his loyalists’ deadly attack on the Capitol to try to keep him in power,” as I called it in a 2021 interview. “Handling op-eds during this period was the challenge of a lifetime. I’ve never been so familiar with the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the criminal code and the unique angst of fact-checking in the Trump era.”

As that era continues to drag on, so do the challenges. And let’s be blunt: This is an asymmetrical problem. With so many Republicans tethered to Trump, MAGA, and their self-serving fictions, how do you showcase conservative voices while maintaining professional standards of truth, reality, and facts that aren’t “alternative”?

At USA Today, our editing team of liberals and conservatives tried like hell to do both. We had conservative regulars, conservative guest columnists, and first-person essays by conservatives. One column I edited mentioned the “liberal mob” and I remember chuckling at the phrase—it was an opinion, and the author was certainly entitled to it. I also remember fact-checking a Joe Biden op-ed during his 2020 campaign, and it was not difficult—because there were facts in it, and they were confirmable.

Most if not all traditional news outlets want very much to publish viewpoints across the ideological spectrum. David Mastio, my center-right editor and immediate boss at USA Today, used to mock-sigh as he told me that “You do ‘wrong’ so well.” He did, too, from my center-left perspective.

A commitment to viewpoint diversity is part of a business model, of course, but it’s also part of a fairness model—and a way to sharpen readers’ thinking, as well as our own. Whatever the motivation for this commitment, it can be difficult to maintain in our fraught media moment: the ongoing clashes over evidence and reality make it easy for a journalist or manager or organization to get into trouble.

I saw it when a conservative friend lost a job over insisting on facts in a commentary about Trump—by a pro-Trump writer. We all saw it when CNN aired a live Trump town hall with a cheering audience and an outgunned moderator, reviewed by the network’s own media writer as “a spectacle of lies.” And don’t even get me started about the time the news section of USA Today fact-checked a high-level Trump official’s “opposing view” to a USA Today editorial. (Spoiler: It was Peter Navarro, who reported to prison last week to serve four months for contempt of Congress.)

The temptation to hire big names like McDaniel is understandable, especially if—like NBC News—you have $300,000 lying around to pay her. Trump himself had the occasional byline on our page, and he was fact-checked. Vice presidential nominee Mike Pence wrote the “opposing view” in 2016 when the editorial board, breaking with USA Today tradition, said Trump was “unfit for the presidency.” Pence also wrote it in 2020 after we went even further and endorsed Biden—the first time in the paper’s history that the board endorsed a presidential candidate.

That election was, or should be, a line of demarcation. Before the Big Lie, and after it. Before the January 6th Capitol attack, and after it.

My 2021 Christmas wish was zero tolerance for the Big Lie, Stop the Steal crowd in Congress. I laid it all out in a column that ran with the headline “Oust Trump coup planners, enablers and provocateurs from public office. They betrayed us.” But they’re still there, from House Speaker Mike Johnson on down.

There’s nothing news organizations can do about that, or about Trump’s current starring roles as presumptive GOP presidential nominee and defendant in his many criminal and civil trials, or about the endless dilemma of when and how and whether to cover him in year nine of his lies and outrages.

What they can do, at the very least, is stop rewarding Big Lie opportunists like McDaniel.

Top brass at NBC thought it was a brilliant idea to hire Ronna McDaniel, former chair of the Republican National Committee, as a paid contributor. They did not check with their on-air commentators, who had taken the brunt of McDaniels’ criticism of the “fake news” on behalf of Trump. They knew she had fiercely defended his lies about election fraud. She has now retracted her lies, but that didn’t erase her history as a liar.

When the on-air commentators lambasted the hiring of McDaniel during their shows on Sunday and Monday, NBC leadership withdrew their offer.

But they had signed a contract to pay McDaniel $300,000 a year for two years, and she’s expecting to be paid in full.

Politico reports that she’s also considering a lawsuit for defamation and a hostile work environment.

If NBC wanted to add a Republican commentator who did not participate in the effort to overthrow the election and subvert the Constitution, they could have hired Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, or Mitt Romney (Ronna McDaniel’s uncle). She used to call herself Ronna Romney McDaniel but Trump insisted that she drop her middle name and she did.

NBC decided not to hire Ronna McDaniel, former chair, of the Republican National Committee, after an on-air revolt by its biggest stars.

Her loud defense of Trump’s lies about the 2020 election were unacceptable to the NBC and MSNBC commentators.

Amid a chorus of on-air protest from some of the network’s biggest stars, NBC announced on Tuesday night that former Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel will no longer be joining the network as a paid contributor.


The announcement came in a memo from NBCUniversal News Group Chairman Cesar Conde, who said he had listened to “the legitimate concerns” of many network employees. “No organization, particularly a newsroom, can succeed unless it is cohesive and aligned,” he wrote. “Over the last few days, it has become clear that this appointment undermines that goal.”


Conde also apologized to employees “who felt we let them down” and took “full responsibility” for the hiring…

But the company’s on-air personalities — especially those on NBC’s liberal-leaning cable affiliate MSNBC — disagreed vehemently, saying that McDaniel’s promotion of Donald Trump’s media-bashing and false election-fraud claims disqualified her for a role in their news divisions.

And one by one, they took to the airwaves to deliver that message to their bosses in front of their live audiences Monday.


“Take a minute, acknowledge that maybe it wasn’t the right call,” MSNBC’s top-rated star Rachel Maddow said on her show that night. “It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to acknowledge when you are wrong.”

The commentators at NBC and MSNBC are furious that NBC top brass hired Ronna Romney McDaniel as a paid commentator for the network. Presumably, the executives thought it would broaden their audience to bring on someone who had led the Republican National Committee for the past eight years.

They now face an internal rebellion. As Dan Rather explains on his blog Steady, prominent newscasters at NBC were apoplectic. The commentators at MSNBC—where Trump is despised—were assured that they did not have to invite her onto their programs.

Last night, I watched MSNBC, and every commentator lashed out against the hire. Joy Reid, Jen Psaki, Rachel Maddow, and Laurence O’Donnell expressed their outrage. They did not care that she was a Republican. They did not care that she was a conservative. They cared that she was an election denier and a liar. She did whatever Trump wanted, and he booted her anyway. She was actively involved in the fake electors scheme in Michigan. She even dropped her middle name (Romney) to please Trump. She lacks integrity. She insulted the media, as Trump did. As Jen Psaki said, she is not honest.

Dan Rather shared their views:

Journalism Lesson #1 for 2024:

The mainstream media should not normalize Donald Trump’s behavior, nor should they give a platform to his lies or those of his sycophants, who for years have spread disastrous untruths that may have irreparably damaged our nation.

But in one fell swoop, NBC News has managed to do both. By hiring former Republican National Committee chief Ronna McDaniel, NBC has given credence and legitimacy to a Republican who has been in lockstep with the lies, helping spread plenty of the former president’s falsehoods. Allowing McDaniel to be in the same area code as NBC News is a huge mistake and will only further shred the small amount of trust Americans still have in the mainstream media. I don’t blame journalists at NBC. They have long been some of the finest in the business. But one wonders what the hell executives at the network were thinking.

Before she sold her soul, Ronna McDaniel was considered Republican royalty. She’s the granddaughter of George Romney, former GOP governor of Michigan, and niece of Senator Mitt Romney, former Republican presidential nominee and former governor of Massachusetts. She has been the chair of the RNC since the day Donald Trump took office in 2017. And she has been loyal to him at all costs, especially the truth.

During her tenure, she was a prolific fundraiser yet oversaw the net losses of Republican governorships and congressional seats. But her biggest claim to fame during her seven years on the job is that she was a Trump supporter, loyalist, and apologist above all else.

One could argue that this is the role of the head of a political party: to support the highest-ranking member of said party. Yes, that is typically true. But McDaniel spent years repeating Trump’s disinformation, making cases for his lies and paying his legal bills. Here are just a few of her misdeeds:

  • Told CNN’s Chris Wallace of Joe Biden’s election win, “I don’t think he won it fair.”
  • Characterized the January 6 insurrection as “legitimate political discourse.”
  • Orchestrated the censure of Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the two Republican January 6 Committee members.
  • Encouraged Michigan canvassers not to certify the 2020 election results, promising them lawyers.
  • Took part in Trump’s scheme to assemble fake electors.
  • Refused to condemn QAnon to George Stephanopoulos on ABC News.
  • Mocked Senator John Fetterman and President Biden for speech impediments.
  • Warned that those Republicans who didn’t embrace Trump’s policies “will be making a mistake.”

McDaniel made her NBC News debut on this Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” At the top of the broadcast, host Kristen Welker disclosed McDaniel’s new role. She said, “This interview was scheduled weeks before it was announced that McDaniel would become a paid NBC News contributor. This will be a news interview, and I was not involved in her hiring.”

During the interview, McDaniel defended her time as chair with what may be the quote of the year. “When you’re the RNC chair, you kind of take one for the whole team. Now I get to be a little bit more myself, right?”

No, Ms. McDaniel, you don’t get to have it both ways. The truth does not change depending on who signs your paycheck. Whom are we supposed to believe, your RNC or NBC self?

McDaniel walked back some of her more outrageous statements, sort of. As of yesterday, she now admits that Joe Biden won the election “fair and square.” However, she continued to insist there were issues with the election. When pushed, she mentioned the huge increase in mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania and suggested voter fraud. Reminder: No significant fraud of any kind was found in any state in the 2020 election.

In defending their hire, NBC News’s Carrie Budoff Brown, senior vice president of politics, said, “It couldn’t be a more important moment to have a voice like Ronna’s on the team.”

Many on the NBC team vehemently disagreed. “We weren’t asked our opinion of the hiring, but, if we were, we would have strongly objected to it for several reasons,” Joe Scarborough, the “Morning Joe” co-host, said at the top of the broadcast Monday. Mika Brzezinski added, “We hope NBC will reconsider its decision. It goes without saying that she will not be a guest on ‘Morning Joe’ in her capacity as a paid contributor.”

Chuck Todd, NBC’s chief political analyst, could barely contain his anger and disbelief on “Meet the Press.”. “She [McDaniel] wants us to believe that she was speaking for the RNC when the RNC was paying for it. So she has — she has credibility issues that she still has to deal with. Is she speaking for herself or is she speaking on behalf of who’s paying her?”

He continued, “There’s a reason why there’s a lot of journalists at NBC News who are uncomfortable with this because many of our professional dealings with the RNC over the last six years have been met with gaslighting, have been met with character assassination.”

Now we come to the why. Why would NBC News hire someone as controversial as Ronna McDaniel? 

News gathering is a business, as unfortunate as that is. As a business, it needs to make money. In television news, more viewers equals more money. So news organizations feel they need to appeal to the broadest spectrum of viewers possible. We will exempt Fox, which calls itself a news organization but is more of a propaganda outfit for the GOP.  

The mainstream middle is a much more crowded field that is bombarded by accusations of bias and liberalism. So they feel the need to show their Republican bona fides by hiring conservative voices.

But that is the crux of the problem. Which Republicans? Trump loyalists who are election deniers and January 6 apologists? Never-Trumpers who are as likely to appeal to many Republican viewers as progressives? How do they represent the political right without alienating their loyal viewers and their correspondents? These are the new political realities ushered in by Donald Trump. And another reason independent journalism is essential right now, essential to provide unvarnished coverage in one of the most important elections in American history and to hold the mainstream media accountable.

This is a video listing some of Trump’s biggest business failures.

What’s especially amusing about the video is the archival footage of Trump, boasting about the success of a venture he just launched and praising himself for his latest venture. It’s the best, the most, the greatest. Then it goes bust. As you watch, you realize that his greatest talent is as a pitchman, the guy who gets you to buy or invest in his latest moneymaking scheme. He is the guy selling snake oil to cure everything that ails you. They did not include “Trump University,” surely a major fraud and a financial disaster. Trump claimed that those who enrolled in his online “university” would learn how to get rich, learning his secrets. He hoodwinked widows and vets. Trump was ordered to repay $25 million to people who registered for his fake university.

Anand Giridharadas is a brilliant thinker who has a blog called The Ink. In his latest post, he prints whole sections of Trump’s incendiary campaign speech in Vandalia, Ohio, and gives a close reading to his language. (Something oddly appropriate about the location since Trump is the King of Vandals.)

Anand’s parsing of Trump’s words is incisive. I’m posting only part of it, and Anand has made this post available for free. I urge you to open the link and read it all.

He writes:

Former President Donald Trump’s fascist performance art this past weekend in Vandalia, Ohio, was ostensibly a stump speech for someone else. But you could be forgiven for forgetting that. In what was effectively his first real rally since clinching the GOP nomination, Trump offered a grim vision of America and a patchwork of unhinged tirades against his usual targets. Yet there was more to it than that.

There is little value in fact-checking the former president’s words, given that the great majority of them bore so little relationship to reality that you quickly realize their purpose could only be to destabilize reality altogether. They simply restate dozens of well-worn lies, from birtherism up through the Big Lie, interspersed with a smattering of playground insults, projection, and a stew of misunderstood economic schemes and xenophobic delusions that do the work of standing in for policy ideas. This is a hole of lies that cannot be filled with facts.

But that doesn’t mean the speech wasn’t worth paying attention to. And, being of the reading sort, we suggest there is value in reading the text, not just rage-consuming the viral videos everyone has been rehashing.

We think all Americans need to take Trump’s speech both seriously and literally as the what-you-see-is-what-you’ll-get messaging of a would-be dictator. These are things that are actually being said, in public, by a person who has already occupied the world’s most powerful position and seeks to occupy it again. It’s an advertisement for autocracy that — give it this at least — complies with the notion of truth in advertising. And as Masha Gessen has reminded us, “Rule no. 1 is to listen to and believe the autocrat.”

What we look at below is how Trump’s rhetorical performance works, how it functions. In many of these examples, the “meaning” isn’t important, and that’s why the goal here isn’t to question his command of the facts. He’s making these statements without much pretense to knowing the facts in the first place; rather, he’s looking for maximum emotional impact. He fights entirely on the battleground of emotion, and that, Ruth Ben-Ghiat has reminded us, is pretty much what autocrats have always done. 

Trump’s language here — from stabs in the back to dystopian visions of foreign nations seeking to flood the American body politic with their unwanted criminals — has plenty of precedent in the words of the strongmen of the past and present. He goes out of his way to praise Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, perhaps returning thefavor for Orban’s snub of the sitting U.S. government on his recent visit to the U.S. 

And it’s the fact that this speech follows that well-established playbook that demands we pay attention. His words may be murky. What he plans to do to us is clear.

We’ve made this piece free and open to all. We hope it will make you think about these critical issues in new ways, and give you a glimpse of the posts that go out to our supporting subscribers each week. We encourage you to join our community, and to share our work with yours! And we have a rare special offer to entice you: 20% off forever!

The Victim King

Because I’m being indicted for you and never forget our enemies want to take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom.

I’m being persecuted. I think more than anybody, but who the hell knows? You know, all my life…you’ve heard of Andrew Jackson. He was actually a great general and a very good president. They say that he was persecuted as president more than anybody else. Second was Abraham Lincoln. This is just what they said. This is in the history books. They were brutal. Andrew Jackson’s wife actually died over it, they say, died of a broken heart, but she died over it. He was never quite the same.

But they say Andrew Jackson, they say Abraham Lincoln was second, but he had a, you know, in all fairness, he did have a civil war. So you would think that would cause a problem, right? So you could understand it. But nobody comes close to Trump. 

Elementary school historical analysis aside, this passage is a reminder that, more than anything, Trump relishes playing the role of the Victim King. He’s casting attacks on him as attacks on his subjects, and valiantly stepping into the breach to block the slings and arrows so his loyal supporters won’t suffer. It’s part of the personalization of leadership that’s always been at the center of cults of personality — the devotional, movement-building side of authoritarianism.

The notion that the leader acts as both weapon and human shield is a central rhetorical tool in the arsenal of autocrats. And of course he’s done this better — or maybe just “more” — than anybody. More than Lincoln; more than Jackson. 

Trump’s victimhood here is absolute. He’s devoted himself entirely to protecting his flock. An attack on him is an attack on them; a win for him a win for them.

We dig here more deeply into Trump’s pursuit of absolute power through his performance of weakness.

The Horst Wessel song

And you see the spirit from the hostages, and that’s what they are, is hostages. They’ve been treated terribly and very unfairly. And you know that. And everybody knows that. And we’re going to be working on that soon. The first day we get into office, we’re going to save our country, and we’re going to work with the people to treat those unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots and are. You see the spirit, this cheering. They’re cheering while they’re doing that. And they did that in prison. And it’s a disgrace, in my opinion. 

Here Trump returns the favor, in a sense, to his shock troops. The speech opened with a playback of “Justice for All,” the MAGA fundraising release by the “J6 Prison Choir” that interpolates Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance over a backing track of the inmates singing “The Star-Spangled Banner.” 

The track is meant as a legal defense effort for the January 6 insurrectionists, but the role it plays here is to define those insurrectionists as true patriots, and to link Trump’s own persecution with that endured by his most devoted followers — the ones who’ve demonstrated their willingness to go into battle on his account. It’s a barter of martyrdoms.

This, as with the rest of the rhetoric here, is a classic authoritarian strategy. If you consider the insurrectionists cast in the role of Sturmabteilung(“SA,” the original paramilitary forces of the Nazi Party) martyr Horst Wessel (Ashli Babbitt specifically, though the group as a whole plays the same part generally here), this patriotic mashup recalls the Nazi anthem.

The Big Lie

I happen to think we won most of the country. You want to know the truth. If the voting…if the voting were real, I actually think we won most of the country.

Central to Trump’s identity is infallibility, and, given that, his mass popularity is without question. Again, this is classic autocratic positioning. Thus his obsessions with ratings, with polls, with casting primary victories that were never in doubt as fantastic triumphs.

Jokes about huge numbers aside (and the speech is rife with riffs on poll results), there is simply no way that he could have lost a legitimate electoral contest, and any such contest he might have lost would be, by definition, illegitimate. One need only look to Vladimir Putin’s “landslide” victory this week for an example of the way elections function in an authoritarian state.

The Big Lie is Trump’s truth, and it’s not just a boast. It’s key to the story he’s trying desperately to sell to the crowd, the story of a guy who can’t lose.

I was asking Jim Jordan about it because he was commenting that we have the largest crowds in the history of politics. Nobody comes close. If Ronald Reagan came to a place called Dayton, Ohio — have you heard of it? If he came to Dayton, Ohio, honestly, J.D., if he had three or 400 people in a ballroom, that would be great. We get 25-30,000 people for a small rally…We had 88,000 people show up in South Carolina.

An addendum: In his bid for recognition as the greatest of all Republicans, Trump is even willing to throw Ronald Reagan under the bus if it helps make the case.

Not even people

They’re very smart, very streetwise. And I would do the same thing. If I had prisons that were teeming with MS-13 and all sorts of people that they’ve got to take care of for the next 50 years, right? Young people, they’re in jail for years. If you call them people, I don’t know if you call them people. In some cases, they’re not people, in my opinion. But I’m not allowed to say that because the radical left says that’s a terrible thing to say…

We have so many people being hurt so badly and being killed. They’re sending their prisoners to see us. They’re sending and they’re bringing them right to the border and they’re dropping them off and we’re allowing them to come in. And these are tougher than anybody we’ve got in the country. These are hardened criminals. And we’ve got hundreds of thousands of them. 

If you take Trump at his word here — and we think you should — the leaders of countries around the world are conspiring to conduct an organized invasion, deploying their criminals to the United States in order to submerge it in violence. On one level, there’s nothing here but racism and xenophobia, but this works on the level of the conspiratorial ideas of mysterious foreign threats to the body politic that have long been part and parcel of the autocrat’s appeal. 

Migrants, in this account, aren’t fleeing refugees or people looking for a better life against all odds, but have been mobilized and directed against the U.S., a superhuman and yet subhuman army, “dropped off” by a shadowy cabal of foreign interests who aren’t content merely to sell us cheaper cars and fentanyl precursors.

Just insert “bankers” or “Jews” or “capitalist roaders” or even “globalists” here and you’re on the right track towards understanding what Trump’s trying to do.

Migrant crime

These are the roughest people you’ve ever seen. You know, now we have a new form of crime. I call it Biden migrant crime, but it’s too long. So let’s just call it migrant crime. We have a new category. You know, you have vicious crimes. You have violent crimes. You have all these. Now we have migrant crimes, and they’re rough. They’re rough. And it’s going to double up. And you see what’s happening. 

You know, throughout the world right now, I don’t know if you know this. Crime is way, way down. You know why? Because they sent us their criminals. That’s why. It’s true. It’s true. They sent, you know, Venezuela is down 66 percent because they sent us their gang members and gangsters. They sent us their drug dealers and their murderers. They’re all coming into our country. And Venezuela now, their crime is down 66 percent.

The supposed statistics here are just a “gish gallop,” in which the speaker simply overwhelms the opponent (or in this case the audience) with a flurry of inaccurate statements, knowing that the very attempt to correct them will both derail any reasonable argument and delay a response until the time has run out.

But this, again, is the story of the alien threat, here described as entering at the behest of their domestic collaborator, Joe Biden. It’s a “stab-in-the-back” accusation (there are several in the speech), in which a leader is identified as a secret traitor, betraying the nation to foreign interests.

The truth is that crime rates are down worldwide, and these statistics are pulled out of the air. The fear people have of the loss of control of the border, and of what it means to be “American” is real, however — even if Trump’s helped in its creation — and that’s what he’s playing to so effectively.

Please open the link and continue reading this insightful exegesis of Trump’s rhetoric. He is a talented orator. So was Hitler.

Following a vigorous debate on the blog about the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Colorado‘a disqualification of Trump from the ballot, our reader Democracy reviews the article in The Atlantic by Laurence Tribe and Michael Luttig. (It is available on The Atlantic website for a free trial.)

Democracy writes:

I don’t know who titled the piece by Luttig and Tribe in The Atlantic, but I thought it was both brilliant and accurate. The title:

“Supreme Betrayal”

These are some of the most compelling passages in the article:

“What ought to have been, as a matter of the Constitution’s design and purpose, the climax of the struggle for the survival of America’s democracy and the rule of law instead turned out to be its nadir, delivered by a Court unwilling to perform its duty to interpret the Constitution as written. Desperate to assuage the growing sense that it is but a political instrument, the Court instead cemented that image into history. It did so at what could be the most perilous constitutional and political moment in our country’s history, when the nation and the Constitution needed the Court most—to adjudicate not the politics of law, but the law of the politics that is poisoning the lifeblood of America.”

Bam!

“As the extraordinary array of amicus briefs filed in Trump v. Anderson made clear, the voluminous historical scholarship exploring the origins of the disqualification clause and its intended operation left no genuine doubt that the Colorado Supreme Court got it exactly right in its decision explaining why the former president was ineligible to ‘hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,’ certainly including the presidency.

The Colorado Supreme Court entered into some extensive fact-finding in declaring Trump an insurrectionist. None of those facts has been questioned, even at the Supreme Court, where the justices just tiptoed around the factual issues and pretended they didn’t exist. Oh, but they did:

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/nation/2021/01/07/front-pages-capture-chaos-riots-us-capitol/6577931002/

Back to Luttig and Tribe, and the three “liberal” justices:

“For Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—who wrote a separate concurrence that in parts read more like a dissent—we can only surmise that any discomfort they felt was outweighed by the extra-constitutional allure of going along with the other justices on the decision’s bottom line and thus enabling the nation’s electorate to work its will, rather than the Constitution’s. Those three justices took the opportunity to distance themselves from at least part of what the Court’s majority did by criticizing its ‘attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.’ Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson convincingly dispatched as ‘inadequately supported as they are gratuitous’ the majority’s unnecessary holdings that only Congress can enforce the disqualification clause and that Congress’s implementing legislation must satisfy the majority’s made-up insistence upon ‘congruence and proportionality.’ Those three justices left in tatters much that all the other justices, with the exception of Amy Coney Barrett, wrote about the operation of the disqualification clause against federal officeholders, making plain that the majority’s ‘musings’ simply cannot be reconciled with the Fourteenth Amendment’s language, structure, and history.”

Luttig and Tribe note clearly that there were two “majorities” in this case. There was the 9-0 majority, that some commenters here cling to, and there was the 5-4 majority that went w-a-y too far in insulating Trump from disqualification even though he IS an insurrectionist. And that 9-0 majority? Luttig and Tribe state that the step “that all nine justices took represents a constitutionally unforgivable departure from the fundamental truth of our republic that ‘no man is above the law.’ ”

And that Colorado decision?

“… the week-long trial by the Colorado state court, which had indisputable jurisdiction to consider the matter, undoubtedly more than satisfied the constitutional requirements for disqualifying the former president under Section 3. At that trial, he was afforded every opportunity to defend himself against the charge that he had personally ‘engaged’ in an ‘insurrection or rebellion’ against the Constitution. Not a single justice suggested that the process was less than what the former president was due. That trial ended in a finding by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that he had not only engaged in that insurrection but had orchestrated the entire months-long effort to obstruct the joint session’s official proceeding, preventing the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history. Not a single justice suggested that a more stringent standard of proof was required or that the courts below applied an insufficiently rigorous definition of insurrection. No justice suggested that the First Amendment or anything else in the Constitution shielded the former president from the reach of Section 3.”

And yet they shielded him.

Luttig and Tribe conclude with this:

“Our highest court dramatically and dangerously betrayed its obligation to enforce what once was the Constitution’s safety net for America’s democracy. The Supreme Court has now rendered that safety net a dead letter, effectively rescinding it as if it had never been enacted.”

I’m curious. Is there anyone commenting on this blog who genuinely believes that Trump is NOT an insurrectionist?

Laurence H. Tribe, the eminent professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School (Democrat), and Judge Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge (Republican), co-authored a lengthy article in The Atlantic, condemning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overrule the Colorado Supreme Court, which removed Trump from the 2024 ballot.

It seemed, after the Court’s decision, that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendnent had been excised from the Constitution. But just yesterday the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by a New Mexico man who was convicted for taking part in the January 6 insurrection.

Couy Griffin was convicted for his role as a member of the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol. Because he previously served as a member of the Otero County board of commissioners, the courts in New Mexico said he was ineligible to hold office ever again. Griffin was a founder of Cowboys for Trump and an outspoken purveyor of lies about election fraud.

The Supreme Court concluded that states could disqualify persons from attempting to hold state offices, but Congress had to enact legislation to implement the disqualification of federal officials.

Since Congress is unlikely to muster a majority of both Houses—or 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster—oath-breaking insurrectionists will not be barred from seeking or holding federal offices.

One good thing: the Griffin decision implicitly agreed that the mob action of January 6 was an insurrection.

Last week, before the Griffin decision, Tribe and Littig wrote in The Atlantic:

The Supreme Court of the United States did a grave disservice to both the Constitution and the nation in Trump v. Anderson.

In a stunning disfigurement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court impressed upon it an ahistorical misinterpretation that defies both its plain text and its original meaning. Despite disagreement within the Court that led to a 5–4 split among the justices over momentous but tangential issues that it had no need to reach in order to resolve the controversy before it, the Court was disappointingly unanimous in permitting oath-breaking insurrectionists, including former President Donald Trump, to return to power. In doing so, all nine justices denied “We the People” the very power that those who wrote and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment presciently secured to us to save the republic from future insurrectionists—reflecting a lesson hard-learned from the devastation wrought by the Civil War.

For a century and a half before the Court’s decision, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment was the Constitution’s safety net for America’s democracy, promising to automatically disqualify from public office all oath-breaking insurrectionists against the Constitution, deeming them too dangerous to entrust with power unless supermajorities of both houses of Congress formally remove their disability. This provision has been mistakenly described by some as “undemocratic” because it limits who may be elected to particular positions of power. But disqualification is not what is antidemocratic; rather, it is the insurrection that is antidemocratic, as the Constitution emphatically tells us.

In any event, all qualifications for office set by the Constitution limit who may be elected to particular positions of power. And no other of these disqualifications requires congressional legislation to become operative, as the Court now insists this one does. To be sure, the other qualifications—age, residence, natural-born citizenship—appear outside the Fourteenth Amendment, whose fifth section specifically makes congressional action to enforce its provisions available. But no such action is needed to enforce the rights secured to individuals by Section 1 of the same amendment, so deeming congressional action necessary to enforce Section 3 creates a constitutional anomaly in this case that the majority could not and did not explain. For that matter, no other provision of the other two Reconstruction amendments requires congressional enforcement either. As the concurring justices explained, the majority “simply [created] a special rule for the insurrection disability in Section 3.”

To read the rest of this brilliant article, open the link or subscribe to The Atlantic.

Michael Tomasky writes for The New Republic. He understands that when Trump goes off-script, as he often does, he becomes incoherent. But whenever he can’t read the teleprompter, he goes to stream-of-consciousness and whatever he says is difficult to decipher. That’s because he tends not to speak in complete sentences and forgets what he was talking about. Trump is obsessed with doom and gloom. If he’s elected, America will be great again, but if he is not elected, the country will continue to be a “third-world country,” a cesspool of despair, a failed state. Ronald Reagan, by contrast, spoke of America as “a city on a hill,” “morning in America,” not a country trapped in “carnage.” Reagan tried to lift spirits. Trump aims to encourage desperation and fear. Trump’s dystopian perspective is always there. He can’t hide it.

Tomasky wrote:

Saturday afternoon, at yet another poorly attended rally in Ohio, Donald Trump spoke these shocking words: “Now if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole—that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country, that will be the least of it.”

As is always the case with a man who only finishes about every seventh sentence that he embarks upon, it’s hard on one level to make sense of what he said. In this short clip, you can see that he’s holding forth on the subject of cars and automobile factories. On Sunday, many outlets reported the “bloodbath” line without much in the way of context, which had MAGA world howling on X (f.k.a. Twitter).

CNN’s reporting added more context. Here’s the fuller quote from the CNN story: “We’re going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those guys if I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole—that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.”

It does seem that, in that half-finished sentence, he was briefly heading in the direction of saying, “It’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole auto industry.” If he’d said that and stopped there, I’d agree that his words were being taken badly out of context.

Notably, he didn’t stop there. What made him say “that’s gonna be the least of it”? Where was he going, in that mildewed brain of his? He stopped himself mid-sentence. Why? Based on what he went on to say, it’s a reasonable guess that he stopped himself because the words that were about to come out of his mouth, “auto industry,” just weren’t big enough—weren’t aggressive enough. So he had to amplify it and make it more threatening. The auto-industry bloodbath, he said twice, will be the least of it. It will be a bloodbath “for the country.”

Still, maybe he only meant an economic bloodbath. In fact, that’s just typical Trump bluster—built as usual on lies. The Biden economy as we all know reeled from inflation in 2022 and 2023, and that overwhelmed the narrative. Beyond that, the 289,000 jobs gained per month during Biden’s term is the highest for any president in modern history. And I could offer similar huzzahs with respect to wages and GDP.

To drill down to the auto industry, it’s doing far better during Biden’s tenure than it did during Trump’s. In the first place, the auto industry under Trump lost jobs, but here we need to provide the fuller context that those losses came after the pandemic.

Nevertheless, even if we don’t count the pandemic against Trump, the Biden-era numbers easily top the Trump-era numbers. Trump’s pre-pandemic tally saw auto and parts manufacturing employment go up by 27,900. Under Biden, those two categories have gained 127,800 jobs.

Moreover, it shouldn’t go unmentioned that slapping hefty tariffs on certain imports might make for a great applause line at a rally. But outside of the sugar high that comes from that, they pave the way for retaliatory tariffs that hurt U.S. consumers. The U.S.-China Business Council, that well-known outpost of Marxist vermin, estimated in a 2021 study that Trump’s trade policies cost nearly 250,000 American jobs.

So much for the economic bloodbath if he’s not elected. But now let’s cut to the chase.

It is true that many outlets Sunday yanked the “bloodbath” remark out of context. But this is also true: Trump is the king of no context. He speaks in constant half-utterances, uncompleted thoughts, sentences constructed like straw huts in hurricane zones (“Nobody’s been treated like Trump, in terms of badly”), and even facial expressions and grunts…

So: Did Trump call for a bloodbath if he loses? No. However: Did Trump stop himself mid-sentence to broaden his indictment and deliberately use a phrase—not once but two times, for emphasis—that is ambiguous, open to dark interpretation? He most certainly did.

And having done that, he will now, at some future rally, get a little closer to just saying it. And then a little closer, and then a little closer still. By October—still probably without Trump ever saying it outright—the message will have been clearly communicated that any scenario that ends with Trump as the loser, even a clear-cut one that isn’t close enough to dispute, will be one in which the shedding of blood to water the tree of liberty will be necessary…

So let’s not exaggerate what Trump said Saturday. But let’s be clear—it wasn’t just car talk.

There was some back-and-forth on the blog today about what Trump meant when he referred to a “bloodbath” in a campaign speech.

George Conway 3rd has a wonderful twitter feed. He is a great explainer of Trump.

He tweeted today about the confusion surrounding Trump’s use of the term “bloodbath.” Did he mean that there would be a bloodbath if Biden won? Or did he refer to a financial bloodbath if his plan to slap 100% tariffs on foreign cars was not enacted?

Conway tweeted the following:

There’s some commentary on here saying we should disregard Trump’s “bloodbath” remarks last night because he was talking about potential harms to the auto industry.

That is misguided. 1/x

Trump may well have been referring to a “bloodbath” in that industry. He’s sufficiently incoherent that, as is so often the case with him, it’s hard to tell one way or the other what exactly he’s talking about at any given moment. 2/x

I’m willing to assume for the sake of argument that he was referring to cars. And it makes no difference to his malicious intent or the danger he and his rhetoric pose. 3/x

What matters is that he consistently uses apocalyptic and violent language in an indiscriminate fashion as a result of his psychopathy and correlative authoritarian tendencies, and because he’s just plain evil. 4/x

It’s a classic trait and technique of authoritarian demagogues. He catastrophizes everything to rile up his cultish supporters, and to bind them to him, and to make them willing to do his bidding. 5/x

That’s dangerous all around because he’s encouraging them to believe that conditions are so bad or will become so bad, and that the political opposition is so awful, that anything is justified—including law-breaking and violence—to prevent those conditions and to destroy the opposition. 6/x

And so it doesn’t matter what he’s specifically referring to at the moment. He could be talking about trans people in public bathrooms or the state of the auto industry or the border—it doesn’t matter. 7/x

He’s a dangerous psychopath, and after more than eight years of watching his sick behavior, we must not give him the benefit of the doubt. 8/8 (end).