Showing posts with label Trump indictments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump indictments. Show all posts

Friday, October 6, 2023

"Trump’s Real Crime Is Opposing Empire" by Christian Parenti

 

Trump’s Real Crime Is Opposing Empire


Christian Parenti
April 7, 2023


Within 24 hours of former President Donald Trump’s arrest on 34 overhyped felony counts related to hush-money payments made to conceal an extramarital dalliance, his re-election campaign raised $4 million, and he widened his lead in the Republican primaries to almost 30 percentage points. Yet a CNN poll also found that 60 percent of Americans approve of the indictment. These numbers are probably less important than they might appear. The trial will likely mobilize the base in both parties and pull swing voters in both directions—for a net effect of zero.

“The indictment does real harm to the American body politic.”

FAKE: AI-generated image of Trump "being arrested", disseminated by Elliot Higgins, (Bellingcat), a shady UK Democrat/Deep State affiliated disinformation operative.

Even so, the indictment does real harm to the American body politic. It has already set off another Trump-centric media feeding frenzy, at the expense of issues far more serious than the former executive’s half-remembered infidelities, and it creates a dangerous precedent, further politicizing the judiciary and inviting escalation. Above all, it is a reminder that Trump has been investigated, impeached, and indicted not because of the crimes of which he is accused, but because he has dared to oppose the imperial foreign policy favored by elites.

Fans of the indictment insist that no man is above the law, not every case creates a precedent, and other countries indict their leaders. For example, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was sentenced to jail, and France is still a democracy. But the Trump indictment is of a piece with other developments that should be cause for worry. Just to name one example, a few weeks before the former president’s arrest, Internal Revenue Service agents visited the home of journalist Matt Taibbi while he was testifying at a hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

The IRS’s visit to the home of a prominent critic of the establishment [MATT TAIBBI] on the same day he was testifying about government overreach is a highly unusual occurrence, and almost seems like the Biden administration flipping the bird to its critics. Outrageously, the mainstream and left media by and large have ignored the IRS bullying of Taibbi. Federal law enforcement has long been deployed in blatantly political ways against the activist left. Heterodox critics like Taibbi are now also targets, and there is ample evidence that it is also being wielded against the MAGA right.

The Trump arrest is an act of sheer desperation, based on a tortured legal theory that seeks to turn mislabeled payments into federal election meddling. It should force us to ask once again: Why do they hate Trump so much? Alvin Bragg’s prosecution is part and parcel of a multifront war waged against the former president by the entire US establishment and its institutions. While in the White House, Trump gave the ruling class massive tax cuts and sweeping deregulation, so what’s the beef? His foreign-policy heresies. To the frustration of those who benefit from it, Trump worked to unwind the American empire. Indeed, he has done more to restrain the US imperium than any politician in 75 years.

Dream on TDS sufferers: The orange man is not likely to end up behind bars.

Within a few months of his arrival in the Oval Office, it became clear that Trump’s seemingly preposterous rhetoric about ending America’s “forever wars” wasn’t a joke. Yes, he ordered a few missile and drone strikes here and there, but unlike all of his recent predecessors, he didn’t start any new wars. Indeed, he wound down numerous small wars and negotiated a peace settlement in Afghanistan, even if the dirty work of the final withdrawal fell to President Biden.

By early summer 2017, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had become so worried that they held a meeting with Trump at the Pentagon at which they attempted to explain how America’s informal empire functions. Trump didn’t dig the presentation. Calling his generals “dopes and babies” and “losers,” he demanded to know why the United States wasn’t receiving free oil from the Middle East. “We spent $7 trillion; they’re ripping us off.… Where is the fucking oil?” After the meeting, Trump continued to take an executive-branch-sized hammer to the elaborate political, diplomatic, economic, and military architecture of US global hegemony.

Trump’s assault on the foreign-policy status quo is all the more remarkable for the near total lack of literature discussing it. Here is a very brief sketch of what he did: Trump ordered the withdrawal of one-third of all US military personnel from Germany, which is a central fulcrum for the entire American imperial project. The 40 German military installations housing US troops support American military operations in 104 countries and contain an estimated 150 nuclear weapons; among other projects, the military’s Africa Command is headquartered in Germany. Trump also ordered the Pentagon to explore withdrawing troops from South Korea, which plays a similar role to that of Germany as a central, high-tech node of US power projection throughout the entire East-Asian region.

Trump likewise drew down the US military role in Syria, even as the foreign-policy establishment urged him to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. He withdrew troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, refused to escalate in Libya, and withdrew almost all US special forces from Somalia. In the rest of Africa, he mused about closing all US embassies—important nodes of Central Intelligence Agency operations.

“At every turn, Trump’s foreign-policy staff sabotaged his efforts.”

On the economic and diplomatic front, Trump pursued similar anti-imperial policies. He repeatedly talked about withdrawing from NATO entirely. He insulted European leaders to their faces while he became buddies with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. He pulled the plug on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was to have been the mother of all free-trade agreements and the centerpiece of the “pivot to Asia” sought by Barack Obama. He renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement after having first attempted to scrap the whole thing unilaterally.

At every turn, Trump’s foreign-policy staff sabotaged his efforts. On two occasions, a top economic adviser stole documents while they were awaiting a presidential signature; one would have destroyed a trade agreement with South Korea, the other would have simply killed NAFTA. When Trump ordered the withdrawal of troops from Germany and South Korea, his defense secretary, Mark Esper, worked diligently to redeploy many of these personnel within the same theater. Such internal opposition limited Trump’s moves and helped the press play down the importance of Trump’s anti-imperial foreign policy.

Trump isn’t an anti-imperialist in the left-wing sense. Rather, he is an instinctual America-First isolationist who seems to harbor genuine disdain for global elites and policy insiders. He has also, of course, insulted whole populations in the Global South. But regardless of his deeper motives, the result was that more than any recent president, he sought to dismantle America’s informal global empire.

Trump is also a deeply intuitive politician, and his anti-militarist policy moves played well with his base, the flyover country working- and middle-class people who feel that they and their regions bear the brunt of the taxes, military recruitment, and deindustrialization that serve to support the American empire.

“Trump stressed the tremendous costs of America’s overseas commitments.”

As president, Trump stressed the tremendous costs of America’s overseas commitments. He seemed not to grasp how lavish public spending on the American imperium translates into considerable privatized gains for the American 1 percent. The nation’s richest citizens benefit from the informal empire not only thanks to lavish arms contracts, but also in the form of ready access to cheap labor and raw materials abroad. There are also the steady tribute payments in the form of foreign investment in America’s high-end real-estate markets, art scene, and financial sector. Servicing the Global South’s sovereign debt and managing vast deposits of often ill-gotten flight capital make for lucrative business.

This cavalier disregard for establishment interests is, at bottom, why the national-security class— as well as the political consultants, the media, and mainstream politicians—despise him. It is the real reason the Russiagate hoax had so much traction; that cartoonish fabrication was a way of telling the American public that Trump was bad for US foreign policy without also explaining the truth of what US foreign policy really looks like and who it really benefits.

Trump has remained outspoken in his disdain for “the National Security Industrial Complex,” as he has called it. In a little-remarked-upon Feb. 28 speech that the Trump campaign released as a video, the Republican frontrunner laid into the US foreign-policy establishment, denouncing it as “the America-last contingent” and promising to fire, en masse, “Washington’s generals, bureaucrats, and the so-called diplomats who only know how to get us into conflict but … don’t know how to get us out.”

Taking aim at the centerpiece of the Biden administration’s foreign policy and its key personnel, Trump went on:

For decades, we’ve had the very same people, such as Victoria Nuland and many others just like her, obsessed with pushing Ukraine toward NATO, not to mention the State Department support for uprisings in Ukraine.  These people have been seeking confrontation for a long time, much like the case in Iraq and other parts of the world, and now we’re teetering on the brink of World War III. And a lot of people don’t see it, but I see it. And I’ve been right about a lot of things.

Sounding simultaneously tough and peace-loving, the ex-president called the Russian invasion of Ukraine “outrageous and horrible” but asserted that it “would have never happened if I was your president, not even a little chance.” How do we achieve peace? According to Trump, change starts at home: “Here in America, we need to get rid of the corrupt globalist establishment that has botched every major foreign-policy decision for decades.”

The mass media are always eager to make the public hate Trump but can’t tell you the real reason why, because doing so would require acknowledging the realities of the American empire and explaining its workings. Instead, just as we were fed one pseudo-scandal after another during the Trump presidency, now—as his poll numbers are on the rise—we get wall-to-wall coverage of the indictment, arrest, and related air travel. The current case against Trump might be flimsy and operate on a highly attenuated legal theory, but the rhetoric around the case is the familiar “will democracy survive?” variety of millenarian hyperbole.

In the short term, all of this is good for the reproduction of ruling-class power in America, because it helps to preserve the status quo. It sidelines discussion of the many real crises created by decades of cross-partisan establishment rule. Endless war and nuclear brinkmanship? Environmental degradation and fentanyl deaths? Growing inequality and macroeconomic instability? Discussion of all this is canceled: Until further notice, it’s Trump Derangement Syndrome all the time.

So certain are the centrist and liberal chattering classes in the prejudices against Trump that they can’t understand how the Trump arrest appears to people in countries that have been pushed around by the US imperium. Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, spoke for many across the Global South when he tweeted: “Think what you want about former President Trump and the reasons he’s being indicted. But just imagine if this happened in any other country, where a government arrested the main opposition candidate. The United States’ ability to use ‘democracy’ as foreign policy is gone.”

“If the Trump arrest appears highly political, that’s because it is.”

If the Trump arrest appears highly political, that’s because it is, and honest people will admit that. The arrest’s repercussions may also be highly political. A New York Times op-ed by former federal prosecutor Ankush Khordori put it well:

Mr. Bragg may have been the first local prosecutor to do it, but he will probably not be the last. Every local prosecutor in the country will now feel that he or she has free rein to criminally investigate and prosecute presidents after they leave office. Democrats currently cheering the charges against Mr. Trump may feel differently if—or when—a Democrat, perhaps even President Biden, ends up on the receiving end of a similar effort by any of the thousands of prosecutors elected to local office, eager to make a name for themselves by prosecuting a former president of the United States.

Take Biden’s son. The entire contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop are available. Are there no loose ends from his influence-peddling business dealings that trace back to red states where creative local prosecutors might find a way to get their name in the news?

For better or for worse, American presidents have been shielded from prosecution. The downside of this is that our leaders haven’t faced consequences for their crimes, despite having done far worse than Trump. But the upside is that political struggles are confined to the realm of politics and electioneering, and the justice system is protected from contamination by partisan vendettas. The American judiciary, for all its faults, is often the last protection people have against the overreach of permanent state bureaucracies and corporate power. With the Trump arrest, we have crossed a dangerous threshold.


Christian Parenti is a professor of economics at John Jay College, CUNY. His most recent book is Radical Hamilton.




Monday, August 7, 2023

"The Great Unravelling: ‘For All That Is Ours, We Must Fight’" by Alastair Crooke


Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.


Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

The Great Unravelling: ‘For All That Is Ours, We Must Fight’

Alastair Crooke     
August 7, 2023

The entire American political set-up – with or without a FARA indictment, and with the 2024 elections looming – is fragile, Alastair Crooke writes.

❗️Join us on Telegram Twitter , and VK .

It is getting very messy. Verging on insanity. A new indictment with four charges in respect to the events of 6 Jan has been issued to former President Trump – who has now been charged with more than 75 crimes. These latest charges however are likely only to further eradicate confidence in the Federal Justice process, and in the integrity of the American political system itself. The indictment is to be heard in the District of Columbia which is notoriously politicised, and unlikely to empanel anything but a wholly hostile jury (the saying in DC is that the Justice Dept could convict a hamburger with a DC jury).

Charging Trump with conspiring to ‘steal’ the 2020 Presidential election entrenches more deeply than before that the country is headed for a great reckoning – in the courts and at the ballot box. It poses questions that cannot but further lead to an unravelling of politics in the U.S.

Contrast these two ‘visions’ of the meaning to this indictment. Firstly,

“In straightforward language with mountains of evidence, the 45-page Indictment document explains how Trump, acting with six unnamed co-conspirators, engaged in a scheme to repeatedly make false claims that the 2020 election was stolen or rigged, and to use those false claims as a predicate to try to steal the election: It’s not hyperbole to say that the conduct of this prosecution will greatly influence whether the U.S. remains a thriving democracy after 2024”.

Now turn to another ‘reading’ of the indictment:

[The DoJ indictment] “is ‘a declaration of war’ against American voters. It is not about Trump per se. It’s about criminalising dissent and punishing the millions who voted for him. [This week the Justice Department] took the unprecedented step of indicting former President Donald Trump — Biden’s chief rival in the upcoming 2024 election — for repeatedly expressing his opinion that the last election was stolen, rigged, and unfair”.

It’s an opinion millions of Americans share, and to which they are unquestionably entitled thanks to the First Amendment. And that includes Trump, who has said repeatedly (and recently) that the 2020 election was stolen. He will probably keep saying it until his dying day, and he has every right to do so. The idea that our Justice Department can indict someone, especially the sitting president’s main political rival, over speech that’s protected by the First Amendment is simply insane … Simply put, this indictment is nothing more than a declaration of war against American voters and their constitutional right to free speech.

“Consider what is alleged and what isn’t: The charges against Trump do not include ‘incitement to violence’ on Jan. 6, 2021. Critically, The indictment simply presupposes that there was no election fraud. It then characterizes Trump’s contrary assertions from November 14, 2020 through January 20, 2021 as “false” – as though this were self-evident. “Trump’s claims were false and that he knew they were false”. On this basis, the indictment claims that 6th Jan was a ‘conspiracy’ – based in deceit – to prevent Electors’ votes from being appropriately counted”.

Tom Fitton, president of the Conservative legal and election watchdog group, Judicial Watch, believes:

“This indictment is a naked threat and act of intimidation by the Democratic Party against any and all of their political opponents’”.

And The Federalist warns:

“If the prosecution of Trump succeeds, it means the First Amendment is a dead letter in America. It means you’re not allowed to have opinions that contradict the Justice Department’s official narrative”.

For the sake of clarity, what is being expressed here is that this indictment is part and parcel of the ongoing western ‘culture war’ – just as scientists were cancelled, dismissed from their professions and ostracised for expressing a view about mRNA science; just as views on human biology are subject now to official negation; just as ‘misgendering’ has become a potential criminal offence (hate speech), so ideological and institutional capture is being extended to the political sphere.

This is the issue, amongst others, that is set to unravel America – and, in unravelling the U.S., will unravel Europe too.

The earlier collapse of the Hunter Biden plea bargain too has left many in Washington shocked. Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional Law Professor at Georgetown wryly notes:

“After all, this is a city that knows how to fix a fight [i.e knows how to shut down DoJ investigations upon an appropriate consideration]”.

“After five years, the Biden corruption scandal was supposed to die with a vacuous plea bargain and no jail time. Most everyone was in on the fix, from members of Congress to the media to the prosecutors. The problem was the one notable omission: Judge Maryellen Noreika. The sentencing hearing was a moment that made the Hindenburg disaster look like a seamless landing. Noreika asked a basic question on the implications of the agreement, and the entire deal immediately collapsed”.

“Now the Justice Department is in a bind. It could not admit in the hearing that Hunter Biden could escape future liability for a host of uncharged crimes. Yet, when a defendant backs out of a generous plea deal, federal prosecutors ordinarily will pursue all of the available charges — and jail time. The Justice Department may now find it has no choice. It could be forced to proceed with a full prosecution.”

“A FARA charge could further expose Hunter’s alleged influence-peddling operations, with what House GOP investigators say were millions in foreign payments from a virtual rogue’s gallery of foreign officials. The Justice Department also would face pressure to seek the same long jail sentence given to Manafort; who was sentenced to 73 months of imprisonment”.

“Biden could give Hunter a pre-emptive or prospective pardon. That would effectively end any federal investigation, although the pardon would need to cover the full waterfront of possible charges. Of course, there is no guarantee that the congressional investigation would then end. Even if such a move dampened the demand for an impeachment inquiry, it would not likely stop Republicans from pursuing answers about the official handling of this investigation and claims of political interference”.

The point here is that the entire American political set-up – with or without a FARA indictment, and with the 2024 elections looming – is fragile, and exposes the U.S.’ political future to real jeopardy.

Separately, the allegations of influence-peddling inevitably tie the Biden father and son team – at the hip – to ‘Project Ukraine’. Policy on Ukraine will hinge increasingly on the Biden political future, whatever that may be.

Republicans will not give up on their Congressional investigations. And, to the degree to which President Biden hypes the ‘success’ of his ‘war against Russia’ and Ukraine, the more the scope will be for his opponents to raise the spectre of influence peddling in Ukraine, and to ask what ‘holds’, if any, Zelensky might have over the U.S.

Trump already is linking the Russiagate hoax of interference in the 2016 election to today’s proxy war with Russia – “fuelled in part by the lingering fumes of Russiagate delirium”. The more Team Biden keeps Ukraine centre-stage in foreign policy terms, the more the scope for his opponents to remind the electorate of Russiagate and the Burisma allegations.

This might argue for an early exit from Ukraine, or contrarily, the Clinton stratagem in respect to ‘imploding the Lewinski scandal’ – war on Serbia.

The reaction against the ‘politics of negation’ (as Chris Rufo terms it in his book, America’s Cultural Revolution) or cancellation in today’s vernacular has come to Europe too. In the UK, the scandal arising from the banking world’s blacklisting of Nigel Farage for his political views (the former leader of a pro-Brexit party), revealed the hitherto unknown fact that more than 1,400 companies are members of a corporate lobby ‘diversity scheme’ – one that insists corporate members stand against “all forms of oppression” and “dismantle racist systems, policies, practices, and ideologies”, and align with the interests of ‘wider society’.

Farage’s bank was accredited to the scheme, with the bank citing its ‘B Corp’ membership to contend that pro-Brexit Farage did not conform with the bank’s ‘diversity commitment’, or those of ‘wider society’, as cause for closing his account.

Behind the scenes then, it transpires, there is B Corp pursuing diversity correctness, and Stonewall (the LBGTQ charity) overseeing employment guidelines in the UK. With no bank account (as all other banks conformed to the blacklisting), Farage would have been ‘cancelled’ from society.

The point that Rufo makes in his book is that a political programme rooted in “negation” can offer no positive programme that won’t swiftly fall victim to its own politics of critique (as the Farage case illustrates). The result, Rufo argues, has not been utopia, but a harvest of “failure, exhaustion, resentment, and despair, and a proliferating class of peevish bureaucrats bickering about symbols and ephemera”.

What seemingly is happening here, as Naoïse MacSweeney writes in The West, is that the “origin myth of the West as a grand narrative that constructs history as a thread running singular and unbroken, from Plato to NATO” is now widely understood across the globe as both factually incorrect – and ideologically driven.

She asks: “Where does the West go from here? There are some who would have us go backwards”. Most people, however, she argues, no longer want an origin myth that serves to support either racial oppression or imperial hegemony. She postulates that the original narrative of “the West” is being replaced by a de-territorialised, structure-fluid western narrative centred around tolerance, rights for minorities, diversity, gender fluidity and ‘democracy’.

The problem however is that the new ‘grand narrative’ is as factually incorrect and as ideologically driven as the ‘from Plato to NATO’ myth. It is the substitution of one flawed repressive narrative by another.

Briefly put, if the traditional western myth ‘is fallen’ like the ancient city of Troy (in this analogy), the invaders of Tradition (Troy) are now inside the city walls – burning and looting.

Rufo’s book describes the modern history of Left-wing radicalism from the Sixties to Black Lives Matter, Mary Harrington relates; however Rufo seeks rather to offer a more expansive account of the political challenge:

“The arc of the book describes how the hated victors smuggled themselves into America’s institutions, hidden in [a Trojan] ‘wooden horse’ of civil rights, only to burst forth – in an attempt to destroy the founding ideals that granted them entrance”.

America’s Cultural Revolution is a shot across the bows. The citadel may have fallen, the temples looted. But Rufo challenges: “We are the besiegers now. It’s your turn to try to hold the walls”.

America’s Cultural Revolution nonetheless reads like a pivot point in American political discourse: Do you know what time it is? (It is eleven minutes after the eleventh hour).

Viktor Orbán speaks to another pivot point – echoing Rufo’s call for ‘counter-revolution’:

“If one is involved in European politics as I am – then today’s ‘western values’ mean three things: migration, LGBT and war … It is managing population replacement through migration, and it is waging an LGBT offensive against family-friendly European nations.

“… the migration crisis clearly cannot be dealt with on a liberal basis. And then we have an LGBT gender offensive which, it turns out, can only be repulsed on the basis of community and child protection.

“Europe today has created its own political class which is no longer accountable and no longer has any Christian or democratic convictions. And we have to say that federalist governance in Europe has led to an unaccountable empire. We have no other choice. For all our love of Europe, for all that is ours – we must fight.”

Friday, August 4, 2023

"Happy Indictment Day!" by Dr Naomi Wolf


Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.


Source: Outspoken with Dr Naomi Wolf

"Happy Indictment Day!"

In a Deep Blue State, Recoiling from the Celebrations

 
SHARE
 

I am in a deep blue small town in a deep blue state, here on the West Coast.

The natives are jubilant today.

“Happy Indictment Day!” shouted the neighbor of my host, as my host and I sat out on a balcony. The neighbor was emerging from a car, three stories below us. The building must have contained thirty apartments. The man was certain that everyone who was in earshot of his joyous shout, agreed with his sentiments.

He witnessed my silence. “Don’t you agree?” he goaded me, a near-stranger, still shouting. “Don’t you?”

Finally I responded, “I am not sure that this sets a great precedent. Every sitting President in the future will try to indict his or her political opponent.” He cut off the discussion — a reaction, from the Left, to which I am getting accustomed — and headed inside.

Earlier, at lunch, an otherwise lovely lady had celebrated the possible-near-incarceration of “that criminal.” Again, she assumed that everyone present shared her view of the events of the day.

I am experiencing considerable inner turmoil at the spectacle of President Trump’s indictment, as well as at the almost animalistic glee that this spectacle has triggered in the solid bloc of Democrats that currently surround me.

I am extraordinarily sad — at the thickheaded ignorance of history that those who are celebrating tonight, reveal; and at what has become of our country.

Don’t people understand — much as they may hate this fellow — that this is exactly what coup leaders in every banana republic, do? Seek to imprison their political opponents?

Especially while the political opponents are on the campaign trail?

Another reason for my discomfort and misery is that I have a horribly guilty conscience, because of what I experienced two decades ago and what I know — things that not that many people have experienced or know. These memories bear directly on current events.

The indictment of President Trump is for the crime of “election denialism”, among other alleged crimes. It’s a thought crime.

It is quite odd that many major news articles have links when the word “indictment’ is mentioned, but these links take the reader to other news articles, and do not link to the actual indictment. DailyClout.io, in contrast, published the indictment. The first few paragraphs make your head explode, as they directly contradict — themselves:

“1. The Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was the forty-fifth President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020. The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election.

2. Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.

3). The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.”

So — you are allowed to challenge the vote, and you are allowed to say what you want about the vote count, because of the First Amendment, but in fact you are not allowed to challenge the vote count, and you can’t say aloud why you are seeking to challenge the vote count?

Other news stories, understandably, do not link to this word salad.

It’s odd, for instance, that Reuters itself presented what is in the indictment, as late as Aug 1, as hearsay, and simply paraphrased it:

“Based on the descriptions, they appear to include Trump's former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who called state lawmakers in the weeks following the 2020 election to pressure them not to certify their states' results; former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, who tried to get himself installed as attorney general so he could launch voter fraud investigations in Georgia and other swing states; and attorney John Eastman, who advanced the erroneous legal theory that Pence could block the electoral certification.”

It seems that people around President Trump tried to pause the certification process until the votes could be fully verified. It seemed that his lawyers tried a legal theory to delay certification.

Hasn’t a version of all of that happened before in our nation’s history?

Is that not what is supposed to happen when there are charges of problems with the vote? Is that not what we are tasked with doing? Calling a halt and stopping the process until every vote is recounted and verified?

I am having relentless flashbacks to where I was and what I was doing in late 2000, when I was a campaign consultant for Vice President Gore’s campaign for the Presidency.

As I’ve written elsewhere — and as I am trying desperately to remind everyone who will now listen, on every podcast that will have me — I was advising from a distance, and looped in, intermittently, to discussions within the campaign that were both public and private, about exactly the same issues that are now apparently criminal offenses even to entertain, let alone to mention in actual words.

So were almost all of the lawyers, campaign consultants, advisors and staffers of Gore 2000. So was the candidate himself, visibly.

So were almost all of the lawyers, campaign consultants, advisors, and staffers — and visibly, the candidate himself — on the other side.

The Gore campaign denied the claimed outcome of the election. The Bush campaign denied the claimed outcome of the election.

Both campaigns, both candidates, denied it up and down; they denied it on podiums, in front of crowds, on television interviews. They denied it in soundbites that sought to prejudice popular opinion — such as the brilliantly juvenile epithet via Team Bush, coined while it was still November, “Sore Loserman” for “Gore/Lieberman.” They both denied it via flotillas of highly compensated attorneys, gathering on both sides to spin and to find “legal theories”, legal loopholes. The Bush team denied it by sending an awkward, suburban version of Blackshirts — guys in Oxford shirts and khaki pants, the “Brooks Brothers Riot” — to create a noisy, menacing crowd outside the Miami room where the critical Florida votes were being recounted. The Bush team astutely denied the claimed election results by inventing the phrase “hanging chad,” and then by popularizing it, to suggest that there was massive ambiguity in the casting of the vote, due to the reality of some unreadable, imperfectly punched paper ballots. The Gore team, for their part, denied the claimed outcome by seeking at one point to count only those counties in Florida that were most supportive of Vice President Gore. Both candidates denied the claimed outcome of the election, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Both stopped the process until every vote could be checked and rechecked.

Every conversation, public and private, for both campaigns, for both candidates, from the 35 days from the close of Election Day to Dec 12, 2000, the date of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v Gore, was about denying the claimed results of the election.

The drilling down — the need of the country to understand who actually won — went all the way to the level of a consortium of newspapers eventually recounting 175,000 “undervotes” and “overvotes”; and the margins of victory that they found, depending on how you are counting, were as narrow as triple digits.

And yet today, you are a criminal if you ask for everything — for anything — to pause so you can review reported voting irregularities in the tally of the race?

Why did the two sides fight so hard in 2000? Why did they battle for 35 days after the polls closed? Why go all the way to the highest court in the land?

Why?

Because that is how our system is supposed to work.

Today, based on the premise of President Trump’s indictment, all of those discussions, strategy sessions, consultations with attorneys, meetings with campaign staff, memos, emails, faxes, all of that litigation — would expose the candidates, and their campaign staffers, and their advisors, and their lawyers — to criminal charges.

Think for a moment, I beg you, about what President Trump’s indictment, for the thought crime of resisting — just as both Vice President Gore and George Bush Jr did 20 years ago — the pat, early declarations of CNN and Fox and The New York Times about who won the Presidential race, will do to the future of our nation.

In every future election, if both candidates, and all of their staffers, advisors and lawyers, do not immediately yield to the declarations of the official outlets — if they both don’t cave right away to early calls by CNN or The Washington Post or MSNBC regarding what the Powers That Be have decided for us in relation to whom our Dear Leader is to be — then they will face possible prison terms.

Why even have elections in the future, if this is the precedent that is now being set?

And there you have the answer. This kangaroo court, this 1930s-era show trial, is not about President Trump, though he is a convenient outsider to use as the much-hated exemplar for what The Powers That Be have decided needs to be done.

It is, as President Trump often reminds us, not about him; it is about us.

It is about setting a precedent that ends the right of the American people to ask any questions, in the future, about their election results.

Which is exactly how coups operate, once the coup leaders are in power.

In banana republics, they still hold elections.

You just don’t get to question who you are told the winners are.

So no, here in this beautiful deep blue state, in this mellow, sage-smelling, Western evening air, though people around me are festive and gleeful, I am not celebrating.

It is not President Trump’s funeral dirge, that I am hearing.

It is our Republic’s own.


Disqus