Wednesday, June 22, 2022

Trump and Rudy Destroyed Two Women's Lives with their Filthy Lies - They Need to Go to Jail for their Crimes

 

June 21, 2022

Today, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol held its fourth public hearing. The agenda was to lay out the scheme to pressure swing state electors to switch their states’ votes to Trump and then, when that failed, to get state operatives to create a false slate of electors to submit to Congress and the National Archives to set up an argument that there was confusion about who had won. That, Trump’s operatives hoped, would give then–vice president Mike Pence an excuse either to refuse to count Biden votes on the grounds that there was confusion over which slate was legitimate (there was no confusion: the Biden votes were certified and the Trump votes were not), or to send the certified electoral votes back to the state legislatures, where Republican-dominated bodies could recertify for Trump.The scheme was illegal across the board.It failed, committee chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) pointed out, because the system held. But that system has been under attack by Trump supporters for the past year and a half, and it is no longer clear that it will continue to hold. As proof, Thompson offered the case of the New Mexico panel that refused to certify the results of the recent election there. While two of the three panel members finally agreed to certify the results after pressure the state courts demanded they do so, one continued to refuse, citing “his gut feeling” that the results were wrong. That man was at the January 6th attack on the Capitol.The theme of the day was our election systems, and how Trump’s attack on them continues to threaten our democracy.The panel laid out how Trump and his people tried to get state legislators to throw out Biden votes and certify electoral votes for Trump, calling the lawmakers, inviting them to the White House, and, finally, threatening them over social media and sending protesters to their homes. When that didn’t work, they urged pro-Trump state politicians to produce alternative, false, slates of electors, promising that those slates would be used only if courts ruled the certified votes illegitimate. That promise, though, was a lie. Trump’s team planned to use the existence of two sets of electoral votes to justify throwing out both, thereby getting rid of legitimate Biden electors and giving the election to Trump.The committee’s first panel included officials who had borne pressure from the Trump camp: Russell “Rusty” Bowers, the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives; Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state; and Gabriel Sterling, the chief operating officer in the office of the Georgia secretary of state, responsible for overseeing elections.All three are Republicans, at least two of whom supported Trump in the election but refused to do his illegal bidding after it. Once again, the committee told its story using only Republican testimony, making it hard for opponents to argue that the hearings are a political hit job. Schiff made a point of asking Bowers about his admiration for President Ronald Reagan, and Bowers talked about Reagan’s celebration of the orderly transfer of power in the United States, a tradition that Trump, of course, shattered.The three men detailed pressure from Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, from lawyer John Eastman, from Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, and from Trump himself.Bowers outlined weeks of pressure to produce a competing set of electors or to decertify the existing ones, even as Giuliani and Ellis refused to produce any evidence to back up their wild claims. Bowers refused to go along. Today, he testified passionately about the importance of his oath to the Constitution and his duty to the state of Arizona, and how Trump and his people were asking him to break an oath to a document he considers divinely inspired for the benefit of one man. Giuliani tried to convince him that, as Republicans, they should stick together to put their man back into the White House.It wasn’t going to happen. Bowers wrote in his diary: “It is painful to have friends…turn on me with such rancor.” But “I do not want to be a winner by cheating. I will not play with laws I swore allegiance to.”Raffensperger explained that the claims of fake “suitcases” of ballots in Georgia and other irregularities were false, that the election was “remarkably smooth,” and that two recounts produced the same results as the original counting of the votes. He talked of pressure from the Trump camp over its election lies. Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), who was directing the proceedings today, noted that Meadows reached out 18 times to set up a phone call between Raffensperger and then-president Trump.Once underway, the call took an extraordinary 67 minutes, as Trump repeatedly pushed Raffensperger to “find” 11,780 votes, one more than Biden had won in the state. Trump told Raffensperger that it was “very dangerous” for him to say there was no fraud, a suggestion Raffensperger interpreted as a threat. “Why wouldn’t you want to find the right answer, Brad?” Trump demanded.Sterling walked us through the “suitcases” allegation again, but his testimony focused on his anger at the disinformation coming from the Trump campaign and then-president Trump himself. He asked Trump directly, on camera, to stop inciting violence. “It’s not right,” he said. Rather than backing off, Trump escalated his pressure on Georgia, alleging “massive voter fraud” there.The witnesses told the committee that Trump had tried to pressure them by whipping up his followers to harass them at home, terrifying them and their families. Bowers said he is still harassed every week, with people staking out his home and calling him a pedophile and a pervert. Raffensperger detailed the threats coming to him and his wife, and said that people broke into his widowed daughter-in-law’s home.The threats provided the introduction to the next witness, who sat before the committee alone. After Thompson dismissed the first panel, the committee swore in Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss. Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, were the two Georgia election workers Trump and Giuliani targeted as rigging the vote. If Bowers represented the heights of political lawmaking, and Raffensperger and Sterling the bureaucracy of it, Moss and her mother, who was sitting behind her, represented the rest of us.But Moss was not at all ordinary. She gave a passionate account of why she had chosen to become an election worker and how she had loved helping older people—people who had not been able to vote when they were young—submit their ballots. On the anniversary of the 1964 murder of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner for their efforts to register Black voters in Mississippi, Ms. Moss articulated just what the struggle for voting rights continues to mean.Her testimony also outlined what that struggle continues to cost. Both she and her mother explained how they and Moss’s grandmother had been doxxed and harassed until they are now virtual prisoners in their homes—when they can be in them at all. The FBI warned Ms. Freeman to leave her home for two months around the time of January 6 because agents worried for her safety.“Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you?” Freeman said on video. “The President of the United States is supposed to represent every American. Not target one. But he targeted me: Lady Ruby, a small business owner, a mother, a proud American citizen, who stood up to help Fulton County run an election in the middle of the pandemic."Taken together, today’s testimony showed the human side of the rule of law in the United States, and how Trump’s pressure on officials and weaponization of gangs to harass them threatens to destroy the system. Both Moss and Freeman have had to quit their jobs, along with all the permanent workers in the Georgia counting venue Trump and Giuliani attacked.The committee revealed some other interesting information today. It said that protests at state houses, organized by Trump people, had some of the same characters who later showed up in Washington on January 6, including Jacob Chansley (the “QAnon Shaman” who showed up on January 6 in an animal headdress) and various Proud Boys.It showed testimony from Ronna McDaniel, the head of the Republican National Committee, confirming that the RNC helped the Trump campaign collect the false electoral slates.It named two lawmakers who appeared to participate in the attempt to overthrow the election. Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) apparently called Bowers to pressure him, and Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) wanted to hand the fake slates of electors from Michigan and Wisconsin to Pence on January 6.Striding quickly past reporters today, Johnson told CNN’s chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju that he had “no idea” who asked him to share the fake electors with Pence. He said he had “no involvement” in the attempt to provide fake electors to overturn the legitimate outcome of the 2020 election and claimed he didn’t know who handed his office the envelope that was supposed to go to Pence. It was, he said, “some staff intern” who handed another staff member the envelope. When asked if he would try to find out, he said, “No. No, because there’s no conspiracy here. This is a complete non-story, guys. Complete non-story.”

Notes:

https://www.businessinsider.com/shaye-moss-ruby-freeman-jan-6-committee-testimony-photos-2022-6#the-committee-also-showed-clips-of-freemans-powerful-closed-door-testimony-4


Tuesday, June 21, 2022

TWO FILTHY CROOKED PIGS

                                      THE SCUM KEEPS RISING



    

     DRUNK OR STUPID - YOU BE THE JUDGE




NEW INC. MAGAZINE COLUMN BY HOWARD TULLMAN

 

Like It or Not, There's No Avoiding Hot-Button Issues Anymore

The rules that apply to 5-year-olds and swimming pools also apply to founders and managers trying to sidestep dicey political and social issues

 

BY HOWARD TULLMAN, GENERAL MANAGING PARTNER, G2T3V AND CHICAGO HIGH TECH INVESTORS@TULLMAN



Summer's here and it seems like the ideal time to remind both our children and our CEOs of an immutable law of physics as well as a long-standing tenet of swimming pool etiquette -- which is that you can't pee in just part of the pool. For the kids, this simply makes good sense and a much more pleasant experience for all. For the CEOs, especially as we roll into another year when electoral politics will be front and center, it's more by way of fair warning that the rules have changed. Sticking your head in the sand and hoping that no one will notice your absence until the storm passes makes no sense at all.  

Any CEO who thinks he or she can still separate, isolate, and insulate their business policies and practices from the sordid politics, culture wars, and sewers of social media slander that have engulfed us and drowned out any civil discourse is seriously deluded. The concept that you're just going to pay attention to your business and not get involved with these other issues is beyond naïve at this point. The noise, the concerns, the exposures, and the risks are inescapable - just like pee in the pool - and they're increasingly bound up with every part of your company as well. That includes customers, employees, products, safety and environmental concerns and yes, sad to say, social and political issues as well.

You're in the thick of it, like it or not, and you're going to have to do something about it because the success of your company depends on it. Even if your customers and clients aren't on your case about some of these questions and controversies, you're not out of the woods. Because there are many other parties to the conversation.

Just to be crystal clear, those angry, crazy barbarians outside your walls aren't the only ones storming the gates. In fact, just as much grief, angst and upset is likely to be coming from some of your own people inside as well, and those numbers seem to be growing more rapidly every day. Whether this is due to increased employee malaise, leading to more unionization drives by unhappy MBAs now working as baristas, or the sheer pain of having to deal with angry, over-stressed customers who haven't the slightest inclination to be civil or understanding, the gloves are off.  

At one point, it made a great deal of sense to propose that - especially in terms of conversations and confrontations with customers - your employees leave their own politics and issues at home, although in terms of matters like masking, it's not always possible.

Unfortunately, post-pandemic, personal politics is still a big issue, with loaded and volatile employee-to-employee conversations, so I recently suggested that  in terms of tamping down the internal turmoil, the best plan might be to simply make it clear that certain tense topics and touchy subjects simply aren't appropriate any longer for the office if they ever really were.

But honestly, I'm afraid that boat has sailed. If you don't step up and step in, you can be sure that someone else will fill the vacuum and carry on these conversations. And your efforts and actions will need to differentiate between the varying nature of the discussions, which is mainly a matter - like navels - of innies and outies. Let your belly button be your guide.

Innies relate to a company's rules, regulations, procedures and policies - including editorial matters and content choices - which directly relate to the business and its operations. Netflix's decision to continue to offer creative content acceptable to some viewers and hateful to others is one such internal area. Netflix's bold direction to employees is that the company will underwrite a wide variety of content that is guaranteed to offend everyone at some point. Oh, and if you don't like it, you can leave.

Office hours and remote or hybrid work are also internal matters. Here again, at least in the case of Tesla, Elon Musk's position couldn't be clearer: "Come back to the office 40 hours a week or go work somewhere else." The bottom line is that these are direct concerns of your company and your employees and, for better or worse, they are entitled to a statement from management as to where things stand and ideally why certain decisions are being made.

Outies, on the other hand, are issues - especially cultural and political concerns - that have to do with the outside world. Don't fool yourself: these matters will eventually and directly impact your own life, family, and livelihood and those of your people as well. Notwithstanding that inevitable prospect, I still advise that the better, smarter course is discretion. Your team (and maybe your customers) is still entitled to an explanation, but it's perfectly appropriate to ignore the bullying and BS of a vocal and woke minority and simply take the position that the company isn't going to take a position.  

If you need any obvious evidence of the difficulty and danger of stepping outside of your comfort zone and trying to straddle your way into any of these cultural wars, Disney's continuing problems are a clear case in point. There were plenty of Disney customers and cast members on both sides of the gay rights issue and Disney's first instinct was to try to stay out of the fray. When the CEO was quite quickly shamed into changing his mind, everything went sideways. Sadly, it's pretty clear that disgraced former president Donald Trump and shameless Florida Governor Ron DeSantis - aided and abetted by their thugs - will continue to harass corporate targets such as Disney in order to keep scamming money from MAGA suckers.

The situation only gets worse when the lines between inside and out get further blurred. Amazon had a similar issue arise when some employees objected to the company selling books that they deemed to be negative towards trans people. When external concerns get pulled into the business environment and interfere with operations, attitudes, and interpersonal relationships at work, it becomes an unending can of worms where no one, even with the best of intentions, can ever win. 

The most insane field of GOP candidates since Trump dined alone.

Eric Greitens + Herschel Walker + Doug Mastriano + Kari Lake + Blake Masters + Dr. Oz + Ron Johnson + a bunch of “Stop the Steal” Secretaries of State + whatever lunatic emerges in the MI GOP Gubernatorial primary = The most insane field of GOP candidates since Trump dined alone.

Monday, June 20, 2022

The wheels of justice are said to move slowly, but here they are moving at a snail’s pace.


The challenge of prosecuting Trump

BY JAMES D. ZIRIN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 06/20/22 1:00 PM ET


We are living in a worrisome time, in case you didn’t know. I met a woman in the fitness center of my Paris hotel the other day. She said she was from Texas. I asked her who would be her next governor. “Frankly,” she said, “I am worried. I might even move to France.”

I am worried too, about our foreign policy and domestic economy. But, as a lawyer, I find that my worries focus on the rule of law. I was trained as a prosecutor believing that justice would be vindicated without fear or favor. I thought that the Jan. 6 committee’s revelations would make former President Trump’s indictment inevitable, even with a timid attorney general like Merrick Garland.

Six in 10 Americans, according to new polling, think Trump should be indicted for his role in the Jan. 6 melee. Still, nothing happens. I thought the story about Trump’s admission that he lost the election, told by former Trump aide Alyssa Farah, might persuade some influential Republican to repudiate the “Big Lie.” Apparently not.

The evidence, masterfully captured and presented by the Jan. 6 committee, elicited that Trump was advised it would be illegal for Vice President Pence to reject the certified vote from the swing states, and throw the election to the House of Representatives. Yet, Trump and his claque pushed this vacant theory, pressuring Pence for months to do just that.

And the Georgia case, the famous “find me 11,780 votes” telephone conversation between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, has apparently been lost in the shuffle. Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Ackerman may well be right that Trump has “zero” defenses to the felony of trying to steal Georgia’s 16 electoral votes on Jan. 2, 2021. The attempted theft is on tape. You don’t need much more evidence to indict.

The wheels of justice are said to move slowly, but here they are moving at a snail’s pace. Weeks are becoming months; months, years. The clock is ticking while the Georgia grand jury dithers with witnesses.

Delay always redounds to the benefit of a high-profile defendant in a criminal case. Memories grow dim. Witnesses disappear. The jury wonders what took the prosecutor so long if there was really something to be excited about. And then, there is the factor that the public may just be bored with it all.

A famous prosecutor once said that the secret of effective advocacy is to get on the right side. But a great lawyer cannot be afraid to lose. The Department of Justice is reportedly afraid of the political unrest that might flow from a Trump indictment or a possible Trump acquittal. That’s the risk Attorney General Garland must take to vindicate the rule of law and preserve our democracy. While he says he will follow the law and the facts, Garland seems to be guided by neither. Trump’s participation in the Jan. 6 conspiracy seems easy to prove in a court of law, particularly before a D.C. jury.

The problem is the banana republic argument. We are not a country that indicts its former rulers. If Trump beats the rap, as he did in New York, it will be because no one has the fortitude to take him on. And if this is so, we truly are a banana republic.

J. Michael Luttig, the former federal judge who George W. Bush thought was too conservative for the Supreme Court, phrased the issue so eloquently when he pleaded for an American renewal of the two-party system:

“America is in peril. …The settlement of this war over our democracy is necessary to the settlement of any war that will ever come to America, whether from her shores or to her shores. Though disinclined for the moment, as a political matter of fact only the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war.”

I take his warning very seriously, as must we all. But lots of luck. A coming together is not likely to occur any time soon.

Trump’s comeuppance, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) observed on Feb. 13, 2021, is left to the prosecutors and the courts. “We have a criminal justice system in this country,” he said, “And former presidents are not immune from being accountable ….”

Most Republicans don’t seem particularly upset by an assault on our Constitution and our democracy. Instead, the GOP is bordering on lunacy in its pursuit of raw power.

There is something rotten in the state of Texas — and the madness could readily metastasize. Consider the far-right platform planks just approved by the Texas Republican Party, rejecting, among other things, “the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election.”

No wonder the Texas woman I met in the fitness center is worried. Trump complains that the Jan. 6 committee has denied him due process, the right of confrontation of witnesses and to tell his side of the story. In some sense, he is right. Garland should indict him. So should Fani Willis, the Fulton County, Ga., prosecutor who is also weighing a racketeering case. The Constitution would then guarantee him a lot of due process.

James D. Zirin is a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.


GARLAND NEEDS TO GET GOING

 


The insurrection won’t end until Trump is prosecuted and disqualified from future office

 

Op-Ed: The insurrection won’t end until Trump is prosecuted and disqualified from future office

BY LAURENCE H. TRIBE, PHILLIP ALLEN LACOVARA AND DENNIS AFTERGUT

JUNE 20, 2022 2:50 AM PT

In a powerful warning Thursday, the patron saint of the conservative legal movement, former federal appellate Judge J. Michael Luttig, testified before the Jan. 6 Committee and pronounced former President Trump and his allies a “clear and present danger” to American constitutional democracy. As Luttig knows better than most, this historic phrase generates an extraordinary constitutional power of government to act — and a duty to do so.

Luttig’s verdict should be understood as a plea for Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland to proceed toward charging Trump with federal crimes that the public record now amply establishes. Only then will this nation be able to move forward from the ongoing insurrection.

Beyond the avalanche of documents and testimony pointing to Trump’s guilt and the principle that no one is above the law, there is an additional reason to indict Trump for his multi-faceted conspiracy in 2020 to override the vote. Upon a conviction for inciting insurrection, or being an accessory to insurrection, Trump would be subject to disqualification from acquiring federal office.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment directs: “No person shall . . . hold any office . . . under the United States . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . as an officer of the United States . . . to support the Constitution shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.’'

There is ample evidence that Trump’s objective was the insurrection’s success. Among that evidence was his three-hour delay in calling on the attackers to go home and his vengeful tweet demeaning Vice President Mike Pence after Trump knew that the savage invasion of the U.S. Capitol had begun. That was “pouring gasoline on the fire,” testified former deputy White House press secretary Sarah Matthews.

Even without a direct charge of insurrection, allegations of such insurrectionist activities in an indictment for conspiring to defraud the United States or to obstruct an official proceeding or for seditious conspiracy might suffice for 14th Amendment disqualification if Trump were convicted.

Holding Trump accountable — and disqualifying him from future office — would not be a partisan act, but one needed to preserve the republic.

Without a prosecution of Trump, here are three things that seem sure to happen if he were allowed to run again and either be lawfully elected or succeed in installing himself in office despite defeat in the electoral college, as he attempted to do in 2020:

The end of elections in which a majority of voters choose their leaders

As Judge Luttig put it at Thursday’s hearing: The clear and present danger now is because “to this very day the former president and his allies and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican Party presidential candidate were to lose that election, they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election.”

Republican-controlled state legislatures are already institutionalizing election sabotage — with GOP election officials determining election results no matter the vote winner. More than a dozen “election deniers” like Jim Marchant, who just won the Republican primary for secretary of state in Nevada, are GOP nominees for secretary of state and other election-controlling positions.

So even though Trump won’t hold the levers of presidential power in 2024 the way he did in 2020, he won’t need to: His allies and his disinformation are putting officials in place around the country who will certify his win whatever the vote.

The use of the military for domestic control

Trump’s administration deployed military helicopters in an unprecedented show of military force over peaceful demonstrators whom police attacked in Washington’s Lafayette Park in July 2020. Retired military leaders excoriated the abuse.

In early December 2020, Trump’s close ally, his former national security advisor and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, reportedly urged Trump to declare martial law.

On Nov. 9, 2020, Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper and installed a more compliant Christopher Miller. On Jan. 4, 2021, Miller issued a memo requiring his approval to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C. On Jan. 6, Defense Department leadership delayed the National Guard’s response to the Capitol siege by three hours.

You don’t have to be a clairvoyant to imagine how military force against political foes — and restraint of force to protect violent supporters — will be used if Trump regains office.

The end of accountability

On June 17, in Nashville, Trump said that if reelected, he would consider “very, very seriously” pardoning all the participants in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

That could clear more than 310 insurrectionists who have pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. Deterrence of future violence depends on judicially imposed sanctions. Trump would remove them, signaling that violent extremism in defense of Trump is no vice.

If he returns to the White House, he will install his people in the Justice Department and turn the machinery of prosecution against his enemies and toward protecting his friends and his schemes.

And should Trump get an encore, look to pre-World War II Germany for a mirror. A failed coup in 1923 taught Hitler a better route to dictatorship nine years later.

Those who repeat history are doomed to learn it. The hard way.

Laurence H. Tribe is professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard. Phillip Allen Lacovara was deputy solicitor general of the United States, counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor, and argued the case of United States vs. Nixon. Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor, currently of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

The Republican blueprint to steal the 2024 election

 

Must-read CNN Oped by Judge Luttig: “The Republican blueprint to steal the 2024 election”

Judge Luttig:

That objective is not somehow to rescind the 2020 election, as they would have us believe. That’s constitutionally impossible. Trump’s and the Republicans’ far more ambitious objective is to execute successfully in 2024 the very same plan they failed in executing in 2020 and to overturn the 2024 election if Trump or his anointed successor loses again in the next quadrennial contest.

The last presidential election was a dry run for the next.

From long before Election Day 2020, Trump and Republicans planned to overturn the presidential election by exploiting the Electors and Elections Clauses of the Constitution, the Electoral College, the Electoral Count Act of 1877, and the 12th Amendment, if Trump lost the popular and Electoral College vote.

The cornerstone of the plan was to have the Supreme Court embrace the little known “independent state legislature” doctrine, which, in turn, would pave the way for exploitation of the Electoral College process and the Electoral Count Act, and finally for Vice President Mike Pence to reject enough swing state electoral votes to overturn the election using Pence’s ceremonial power under the 12th Amendment and award the presidency to Donald Trump….

Trump and his allies and supporters in Congress and the states began readying their failed 2020 plan to overturn the 2024 presidential election later that very same day and they have been unabashedly readying that plan ever since, in plain view to the American public. Today, they are already a long way toward recapturing the White House in 2024, whether Trump or another Republican candidate wins the election or not.

Trump and Republicans are preparing to return to the Supreme Court, where this time they will likely win the independent state legislature doctrine, now that Amy Coney Barrett is on the Court and ready to vote. Barrett has not addressed the issue, but this turns on an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and Barrett is firmly aligned on that method of constitutional interpretation with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, all three of whom have written that they believe the doctrine is correct.

Only last month, in a case from North Carolina the Court declined to hear, Moore v. Harper, four Justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) said that the independent state legislature question is of exceptional importance to our national elections, the issue will continue to recur and the Court should decide the issue sooner rather than later before the next presidential election. This case involved congressional redistricting, but the independent state legislature doctrine is as applicable to redistricting as it is to presidential elections.

The Republicans are also in the throes of electing Trump-endorsed candidates to state legislative offices in key swing states, installing into office their favored state election officials who deny that Biden won the 2020 election, such as secretaries of state, electing sympathetic state court judges onto the state benches and grooming their preferred potential electors for ultimate selection by the party, all so they will be positioned to generate and transmit alternative electoral slates to Congress, if need be.

Finally, they are furiously politicking to elect Trump supporters to the Senate and House, so they can overturn the election in Congress, as a last resort.

Forewarned is to be forearmed.

Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine (thus allowing state court enforcement of state constitutional limitations on legislatively enacted election rules and elector appointments) and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress’ own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency.

Sunday, June 19, 2022

America’s democracy was almost stolen from us on January 6.

 

Judge J. Michael Luttig’s opening remarks below as prepared for the Jan. 6 select committee’s public hearing Thursday.

 

Honorable Members of the House Select Committee --

A stake was driven through the heart of American democracy on January 6, 2021, and our democracy today is on a knife’s edge.

America was at war on that fateful day, but not against a foreign power. She was at war against herself. We Americans were at war with each other -- over our democracy.

January 6 was but the next, foreseeable battle in a war that had been raging in America for years, though that day was the most consequential battle of that war even to date. In fact, January 6 was a separate war unto itself, a war for America’s democracy, a war irresponsibly instigated and prosecuted by the former president, his political party allies, and his supporters. Both wars are raging to this day.

A peaceful end to these wars is desperately needed. The war for our democracy could lead to the peaceful end to the war for America’s cultural heart and soul. But if a peaceful end to the war for America’s democracy is not achievable, there is little chance for a peaceful end to that war. The settlement of this war over our democracy is necessary to the settlement of any war that will ever come to America, whether from her shores or to her shores. Though disinclined for the moment, as a political matter of fact only the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war.

Like our war from a distant time, these twin wars are “testing whether th[is] nation or any nation . . . so conceived in Liberty . . . can long endure.” We must hope that January 6 was the final battle of at least the deadly war for America’s democracy.

These senseless wars are of our own making, and they are now being waged throughout the land, in our city centers and town squares, in our streets and in our schools, where we work and where we play, in our houses of worship -- even within our own families. These wars were conceived and instigated from our Nation’s Capital by our own political leaders collectively and they have been cynically prosecuted by them to fever pitch, now to the point that they have recklessly put America herself at stake.

America is now the stake in these unholy wars.

Serious thinkers about the American experiment who are not given to apocalyptic prophesying question whether America is on the verge of a literal civil war. But is even this figurative civil war to be our generation’s legacy to posterity?

These wars that we are waging against each other are immoral wars, not moral ones, being immorally waged over morality itself. We Americans no longer agree on what is right or wrong, what is to be valued and what is not, what is acceptable behavior and not, and what is and is not tolerable discourse in civilized society. Let alone do we agree on how we want to be governed or by whom, or where we go from here and with what shared national ideals, values, beliefs, purposes, goals, and objectives -- if any at all.

America is adrift. We pray that it is only for this fleeting moment that she has lost her way, until we Americans can once again come to our senses.

The war on democracy instigated by the former president and his political party allies on January 6 was the natural and foreseeable culmination of the war for America. It was the final fateful day for the execution of a well-developed plan by the former president to overturn the 2020 presidential election at any cost, so that he could cling to power that the American People had decided to confer upon his successor, the next president of the United States instead. Knowing full well that he had lost the 2020 presidential election, the former president and his allies and supporters falsely claimed and proclaimed to the nation that he had won the election, and then he and they set about to overturn the election that he and they knew the former president had lost.

The treacherous plan was no less ambitious than to steal America’s democracy.

Called to Washington D.C. that day by the president, the president himself, and the president’s followers, supporters, and allies gathered near The White House for a “Stop the Steal” rally. The president maintained at that rally that the 2020 presidential election had been “fraudulently stolen” from him. The president addressed his faithful followers thus: “We’re going to the Capitol. . . . We’re going to try and give them [the Republicans in the Congress, presumably] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. . . . We will never give up. We will never concede.”

Inflamed, the gathered mob marched up the hill from The White House to the United States Capitol to protest, disrupt and prevent the counting of the electoral votes for the presidency, which the president falsely charged were wrongly about to be counted by the Congress in his political opponent’s winning favor and in his own losing favor.

Once staged at the Capitol, the mob soon erected gallows on the United States Capitol grounds, chanting that Vice President Mike Pence should be hanged. Hanged, the mob chanted, for “cowardly” refusing the president’s lawless entreaties that his Vice President declare their president reelected, against the will of the American People, though he had lost both the Electoral College and the popular vote for the presidency.

There were many cowards on the battlefield on January 6. The Vice President was not among them.

Soon thereafter, the rioters stormed the Capitol itself, breaching, occupying, and ransacking the temple of our democracy for seemingly endless wrenching hours -- at the precise democratic moment when the Congress of the United States convened in Joint Session to begin the constitutional counting of the votes for the presidency of the United States.

Not until over three hours after the riot had begun, and then only after the siege had achieved what by that time was its truncated objective to interrupt and indefinitely delay the counting of the vote, did the president finally yield to the pleas and prayers from his own family, friends, and political allies, and grudgingly ask his supporters in a hastily forced video tweet to disperse and return to their homes.

The Nation wept during the evening of January 6, as the Capitol police began to clear and resecure the Capitol at day’s end. Finally, at 8:00 p.m. on January 6, seven hours after the siege on the Capitol had begun, Vice President Pence gaveled the Joint Session back into order with measured, understated resolve: “Today was a dark day in the history of the United States Capitol. . . . Let’s get back to work.”

January 6 was a dark day in the history of the United States, too. It was not until the next day, January 7, 2021, at 3:42 a.m. in the morning -- almost fifteen hours after the Joint Session had first been gaveled into session by Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- that the Vice President finally declared that Joe Biden had been elected the 46th President of the United States.

On January 6, 2021, the prescribed day for choosing the American president, there was not to be a peaceful transfer of power -- for the first time in the history of our Republic.

Over a year and a half later, in continued defiance of our democracy, both the former president and his political party allies still maintain that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from him, despite all evidence -- all evidence now --that that is simply false. All the while, this false and reckless insistence that the former president won the 2020 presidential election has laid waste to Americans’ confidence in their national elections. More alarming still is that the former president pledges that his reelection will not be “stolen” from him next time around, and his Republican Party allies and supporters obeisantly pledge the same.

False claims that our elections have been stolen from us corrupt our democracy, as they corrupt us. To continue to insist and persist in the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen is itself an affront to our democracy and to the Constitution of the United States -- an affront without precedent.

Those who think that because America is a republic, theft and corruption of our national elections and electoral process are not theft and corruption of our democracy are sorely mistaken. America is both a republic and a representative democracy, and therefore a sustained attack on our national elections is a fortiori an attack on our democracy, any political theory otherwise notwithstanding.

Accordingly, if, and when, one of our national elections is actually stolen from us, our democracy will have been stolen from us. To steal an election in the United States of America is to steal her democracy.

As in all things, the essence of our participation in democracy is not knowledge, but judgment -- studied, discerning judgment. No more so is this true than in the Constitution and in the Law.

Very few ever have the honor of counseling the President of the United States of America. That highest of honors carries with it the highest of obligations. Counsel provided to the President of the United States must be the product of not only exquisite, penetrating legal analysis but also profound, insightful legal judgment. These two combined are so far from mere technical legal competence as almost to be its polar opposite. The President and the country deserve nothing less from those who counsel the President, so consequential are the stakes for the Nation when the President acts upon the advice of his or her Counsel.

Whatever else, the President of the United States did not receive such counsel during his sustained effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. It is as much the former president’s fault as anyone’s that he did not.

Irrespective of the merits of the legal arguments that fueled the former president’s efforts to overturn that election -- irrespective of them, though there were none -- those arguments, and therefore those efforts, by the former president were the product of the most reckless, insidious, and calamitous failures in both legal and political judgment in American history.

From their inception, the legal arguments that underlaid the efforts to overturn the 2020 election were, in that context, little more than beguiling and frivolous, perhaps appropriate for academic classroom debate, but singularly inappropriate as counsel to the President of the United States of America in his effort to overturn the presidential election -- an election he had lost fair and square and as to which there was not then, and there is not to this day, evidence of fraud.

It is breathtaking that these arguments even were conceived, let alone entertained by the President of the United States at that perilous moment in history.

Had the Vice President of the United States obeyed the President of the United States, America would immediately have been plunged into what would have been tantamount to a revolution within a paralyzing constitutional crisis.

The former president’s accountability under the law for the riot on the United States Capitol on January 6 is incidental to his responsibility and accountability for his attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election from the American People and thereby steal America’s democracy from America herself. This said, willful ignorance of law and fact is neither excuse nor defense in law. Willful ignorance, thus, is neither political nor legal excuse or defense available to the former President of the United States, his allies, and his supporters.

On January 6, 2021, revolutionaries, not patriots, assaulted America and American democracy. The walls of all three of our institutions of democracy were scaled and breached on that appalling day. And almost two years thence, one of America’s two political parties cannot even agree whether that day was good or bad, right or wrong. Worse, it cannot agree over whether January 6 was needed, or not. Needed or not. Pause for a moment and reflect on that. The former president and his party cannot decide whether the revolt at the United States Capitol to disrupt and prevent the constitutional counting of the votes for the presidency was needed, and therefore whether another revolt might be needed at a future date to accomplish that which the previous revolt failed to accomplish.

If one of our national political parties -- one of the two political guardians of our democracy -- cannot agree even as to whether the violent riot and occupation of the United States Capitol, inspired by the President of the United States and carried out by his followers to prevent Congress from counting the votes for the presidency of those same United States, was reprehensible insurrection or needed, legitimate political discourse, we all can agree on nothing.

Nor should we.

The former president’s party cynically and embarrassingly rationalizes January 6 as having been something between hallowed, legitimate public discourse and a visitors tour of the Capitol that got out of hand. January 6, of course, was neither, and the former president and his party know that. It was not legitimate public discourse by any definition. Nor was it a civics tour of the Capitol Building -- though that day proved to be an eye-opening civics lesson for all Americans.

January 6 was, rather, a defining, and a redefining, day in American history -- defining and redefining of America itself. On that day, America finally came face to face with the raging war that it had been waging against itself for years. So blood-chilling was that day for our democracy, that America could not believe her eyes and she turned them away in both fear and shame. Even so, many have already forgotten, and many more have chosen to forget. Some who rioted and occupied the Capitol that day had already decided how this war for our democracy must end, while others of their compatriots, upon sober reflection afterward, decided that no, no, this war must end now, before there is further bloodshed.

As did we, these latter saw how this war ends, and they realized that no one should want for such end.

For their part, the former president and many of his party remain to this day undecided as to which end of this war they will commit themselves -- undecided, that is, as to which end they want to commit themselves. To be undecided today as to whether to end this war over our democracy is to have decided how one wants this war to end.

Thus, for the rest of us Americans, the time has come for us to decide whether we allow this war over our democracy to be prosecuted to its catastrophic end or whether we ourselves demand the immediate suspension of this war and insist on peace instead.

We must make this decision because our political leaders are unwilling and unable, even as they recklessly prosecute this war in our name. We Americans begin to make this consequential decision this week, when Congress, rightly if painfully, takes us back to that day in January we want so much to forget but mustn’t, and reminds us of what was at stake that day and still, in what is this most unholy of wars.

America is at a perilous crossroads. Who is it that we have become and what is it that America has become? Is this who we want to be and what we want America to be? And if not, just who is it that we Americans want to be? And just what is it that we want our America to be?

Many will again turn their eyes away, miscalculating that this is the last time they must see, and thus remember. The partisan mercenaries, who have no interest in either understanding or peace, will be the first who turn away and, in their determined ignorance, ignore. The mercenaries know better than we that what we forcibly put out of our minds or what we forget, we are destined to repeat.

No American ought to turn away from January 6, 2021, until all of America comes to grips with what befell our country that day, and we decide what we want for our democracy from this day, forward.

The genius that is America’s democracy is this. The Constitution vests all power in “We the People.” We agreed in the Constitution to delegate our power to our representatives, only during their time in our service, and at that, exclusively for the purpose of representing our interests in the Nation’s Capital, not theirs. Our democracy is the process through which our representatives, using the power that we have delegated to them, in turn and in trust, govern us. We choose in our national elections those who we want to represent us, including most importantly the President of the United States. It is for this simple reason that to steal an election for the presidency from us is to steal our democracy from us.

America’s democracy was almost stolen from us on January 6.

Our democracy has never been tested like it was on that day and it will never be tested again as it was then if we learn the lessons of that fateful day. On the other hand, if we fail to learn the lessons that are there to be learned, or worse, deny even that there are lessons there to be learned, we will consign ourselves to another January 6 in the not-too-distant future, and another after that, and another after that. While for some, that is their wish, that cannot be our wish for America.

America can withstand attacks on her democracy from without. She is helpless to withstand them from within. The relentless assaults on America and its democracy from within, such as January 6, which designedly call into question the very legitimacy of the institutions and instrumentalities of our democracy, are simply not contemplated by the Constitution of the United States and are therefore not provided for by that Great Charter for our governance.

America is not in constitutional crisis until and unless the Constitution and the institutions and instrumentalities of our democracy are under withering, unsustainable, and unendurable attack from within. Then, and only then, is the constitutional order in hopeless constitutional disorder. Only then is America in peril. Today, America is in constitutional crisis -- and at a foreboding crossroads with disquieting parallels to the fateful crossroads we came to over a century and a half ago.

It is no wonder that America is at war over her democracy. Every day for years now we have borne witness to vicious partisan attacks on the bulwarks of that democracy -- our institutions of government and governance and the institutions and instrumentalities of our democracy -- by our own political leaders and fellow citizens. Every day for years now we have witnessed vicious partisan attacks on our Institutions of Law themselves, our Nation’s Judiciary, and our Constitution and the Laws of the United States -- the guardians of that democracy and of our freedom. For years, we have been told by the very people we trust, and entrust, to preserve and to protect our American institutions of democracy and law that these institutions are no longer to be trusted, no longer to be believed in, no longer deserving of cherish and protection.

If that is true, then it is because those with whom we entrusted these institutions have themselves betrayed our sacred trust.

And, indeed, it does seem at the moment that we no longer agree on our democracy. Nor do we any longer seem to agree on the ideals, values, and principles upon which America was founded and that were so faithfully nurtured and protected by the generations and generations of Americans that came before us. Yet we agree on no other foundational ideals, values, and principles, either.

All of a sudden it seems that we are in violent disagreement over what has made America great in the past and over what will make her great in the future. In poetic tragedy, political campaign slogan has become divisive political truth. And there is no reason to believe that agreement about America by we Americans is anywhere on the horizon, if for no other reason than that none of us is interested in agreement. In the moral catatonic stupor America finds itself in today, it is only disagreement that we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

This is not who we Americans are or who we want to be. Nor is this America or what we want America to be.

Reeling from twin wars, leaderless, and rudderless, America is in need of help. Our polarized political leaders have shamefully and shamelessly failed us. They have summoned our worst demons at the very moment when we needed summoned our better angels.

As a consequence, America finds itself in desperate need of either a reawakening and quickening to the vision, truths, values, principles, beliefs, hopes, and dreams upon which the country was founded and that have made America the greatest nation in the world -- a revival of America and the American spirit.

Or, if it is to be, we are in need of a revival around a new vision, new truths, new values, new principles, new beliefs, new hopes and dreams that hopefully could once again bind our divided nation together into the more perfect union that “We the People” originally ordained and established it to be.

We cannot hobble along much longer, politically paralyzed and hopelessly divided, directionless and undecided as to which revival it will be -- if any at all.

Where do we begin? This is the easier question. Who has the patriotic and political courage to go first? This is the harder question.

As to the first question, we begin where the reconciliation of all broken human relationships, be they broken from war, anger, betrayal, or love, begins -- by talking with each other, and listening to one another again, as human beings and fellow citizens who share the same destiny and the same belief in America and hope for her future. For years now, taking the lead from our politicians, we Americans have spoken only coarse, desensitizing, dehumanizing political vile at each other, which enables us to speak to each other without guilt or regret. For too many years now, we have spoken to each other as charlatanic political gladiators in an arena that today has become annihilative of America’s future, not promising of that future.

By constitutional order, We the People of this great Nation confer upon our elected representatives the power that they are then, by solemn constitutional obligation, directed to wield on our behalf and on America’s behalf. But today our politicians live in a different world from the rest of us, and in a different world than that ordained by the Constitution. They live in a fictional world of divided loyalties between party and country, a world of their own unfaithful making.

Today’s politicians believe that they never have to choose between partisan party politics and country, when in fact they are obliged by oath to choose between the two every day, and every day they defiantly refuse to choose. For today’s politicians, never the twain shall meet between partisan ambition and country, and never the latter before the former, either. The politicians in today’s America only sponsor partisan incitement and only traffic in the same, rather than sponsor bipartisan reason and lead in thoughtful deliberation. They have purposely led us down the road not in the direction toward the bridging of our differences, but in the direction away from the bridging of those differences. They have proven themselves incapable of leading us.

But still, all it would take to turn America around is a consensus among some number of these political leaders who possess the combined necessary moral authority and who would agree to be bound together by patriotic covenant, to stand up, step forward, and acknowledge to the American People that America is in peril.

In order to end these wars that are draining the lifeblood from our country, a critical mass of our two parties’ political leaders is needed, to whom the remainder would be willing to listen, at least without immediate partisan recrimination. The logic for reconciliation of these wars being waged in America today dictates that this number needs to include a critical mass of leaders from the former president’s political party and that those leaders need to go first. All of these leaders then need to summon first the moral courage and then the political courage, the strength, and the patriotic will to extend their hands, and ask of the others -- and of all Americans -- “Can we talk? America needs us.”

While Memorial Day is still fresh in our minds, we would all do well to remind ourselves of the immortal words spoken to the West Point cadets at the United States Military Academy a half century ago: “Duty, Honor, Country.” Those three sacred words of profound American obligation were spoken on that occasion to reassure those who had given their lives for their country in the past, and who would give them in the future, that their sacrifice would not be in vain. Those words are as apt today for this occasion as they were on that day for that occasion, if not more.

Then we need to get back to work, and quickly. We need to get back to the solemn business of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States and the United States of America.

The hour is late. God is watching us.

 

Total Pageviews

GOOGLE ANALYTICS

Blog Archive