Skip to content

Month: January 2022

“He can’t mention the election again, ever.”

Well, lookie here. The January 6th Committee is asking Sean Hannity to kindly respond to their questions regarding the following:

Boy, it sure looks like Mark Meadows turned over the store.

We had heard that WH Counsel Pat Cipolone thought Trump would be charged on January 6th. Was he in touch with Hannity? Were they all talking about resigning if the Power Point -Green Bay plan went forward that day? Was that what he was concerned about happening in the “next 48 hours?” Or was it something else?

And who was talking about the 25th Amendment and telling Sean Hannity about it? I imagine the Committee already knows that …

I’m going to take a wild guess that Hannity isn’t going to cooperate. This is just a way of letting people know that they have access to this kind of communication in the days around January 6th. It’s going to come out.

Good News

Krugman sez:

There probably weren’t many Americans who started 2022 feeling celebratory. We’re going through yet another Covid wave, which is scary and wearying even though Omicron appears to pose a relatively low risk of serious illness if you’re fully vaccinated. Holiday travel was a mess, with the combination of the pandemic and severe weather causing thousands of flight cancellations.

Yet there’s a good chance that once time has passed and we’ve had a chance to regain perspective, we’ll consider 2021 to have been a very good year, at least in some ways. In particular, although nobody seemed to notice, it was a year of spectacular economic recovery — and one in which many dire warnings failed to come true.

Let me give you some background. Here’s the U.S. unemployment rate since 1979, the beginning of a nasty double-dip recession that was, at the time, the worst slump to hit America since the 1930s:

The good news about that episode was that when the slump finally ended, the economy bounced back quickly — so quickly that Ronald Reagan was able to boast about “morning in America” and ride the recovery to a landslide electoral victory.

After that, however, we seemed to lose our knack for economic recovery. The next three recessions — 1990-91, 2001 and 2007-9 — were followed by sluggish recoveries in which unemployment took years to come down.

Then came Covid. The economics of 2020 were, to use the technical term, weird: The economy went into lockdown, experiencing a huge but temporary spike in unemployment. But what would 2021 look like? Many people expected at least a partial replay of the sluggish recovery that followed the 2008 financial crisis; in late 2020, forecasters surveyed by the Philadelphia Fed expected a 5.8 percent unemployment rate at the end of 2021. In fact, unemployment was already down to 4.2 percent by November.

Here’s a comparison you may find illuminating: the cumulative decline in the unemployment rate starting in December 1982 — the beginning of Reagan’s boom — compared with the decline over the course of 2021:

Yes, by this measure (and many others) we’re in the middle of another morning in America, despite the drag caused by a lingering pandemic and supply-chain disruptions.

So, about those disruptions: Can we talk for a moment about the Grinch that didn’t steal Christmas? There was a lot of skepticism a couple of months back, when major retailers said that despite supply issues, they expected to be able to meet consumer demand. But I’ve seen almost no reports of empty shelves and frustrated shoppers. And in this case absence of evidence really is evidence of absence, because you know that some media organizations would have loved to hype stories of holiday woe if they could find them. But because Fox News and Newsmax recently got busted using photos of empty shelves taken in other years and other countries to bash Joe Biden, they appear to have been cautious about reporting a miserable Christmas experience unless they could find actual examples — and apparently they couldn’t.

Yes, inflation is still here, but Krugman sees signs that it’s easing. And that doesn’t change the fact that 2021 was a very, very good year economically.

So why is everyone so upset? Well…

There continues to be a huge divergence between people’s negative views about “the economy” — a perception based in part on partisan attitudes, in part on media coverage — and their mostly favorable reporting on their own financial situation:

Gosh, I wonder why people think the economy is going to hell in a handbasket even though they know their own situation is quite good. (Hint: it’s the media…) And, of course, the pandemic is making everyone surly at this point.

However, if the media shifts from gloom and doom and the pandemic finally lets up after this surge, maybe the people will begin to feel more upbeat. The economic news is much better than they realize.

The Most Popular Right Wing Personality in America

I think this says it all:

AOC was responding to this from right wing personality (and former CNN commentator) Steve Cortes:

A Rare Moment of Sanity

Hutchinson is term limited out this year so I guess he doesn’t have to worry about Trump coming after him. Of course, that hasn’t stopped other retiring Republicans from kowtowing anyway. So, this is what counts for heroism in today’s GOP.

Smoking gun?

I wrote about the new documents provided to the January 6th Committee by Trump toadie Bernie Kerik a couple of days ago. In a nutshell, Trump “released” Kerik from attorney client privilege and told hims to cooperate with the committee. Keris is doing that (sort of) but has claimed attorney-client privilege anyway on some documents for which he nonetheless inexplicably provided a “log” to the committee. One of the documents he is not providing is very intriguing. Will Bunch discussed this in this Philly Inquirer column:

According to a letter from Kerik’s attorney, the document is called “DRAFT LETTER FROM POTUS TO SEIZE EVIDENCE IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY FOR THE 2020 ELECTIONS” — and it’s believed to have been written on Dec. 17, 2020. That was a critical time for the Trump insiders who were accelerating their schemes to deny the presidency to Biden, even after the Democrat won 7 million more popular votes and the Electoral College by a 306-232 margin.

Here’s the catch: While Kerik, a longtime close associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani, last week turned over some election-related materials to the House Select Committee tasked with getting to the bottom of Jan. 6, the draft letter from Trump is on a list of records that Kerik is refusing to turn over — claiming that the document is shielded as “attorney work product.” While some legal experts are already throwing cold water on that claim, the reality is that Team Trump has been remarkably successful for months in stonewalling — in keeping both key records and important witnesses out of investigators’ reach. In an echo of Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal, the future of democracy may hinge on Trump’s ability to thwart the probe.

Understanding why the 12/17/20 document could be a “smoking gun” means understanding where the concept of a national emergency and “seizing evidence,” which could include paper ballots or voting machines from the 2020 election, fits into the growing body of data showing both that an attempted Trump coup was afoot — and why it failed.

First of all, the evidence that Trump had drafted a proposed “National Emergency” letter is completely in sync with last month’s bombshell revelation of a 38-page PowerPoint presentation that circulated among Trump’s inner circle and their allies in Congress just before Jan. 6. The PowerPoint laid out a scenario in which Trump would declare “a National Security Emergency” as a pretense to invalidate electronic voting and possibly prompt lawmakers to award electoral votes to the incumbent president in states that he’d in reality lost.

Of course, Trump didn’t ultimately declare such an emergency. But a series of new revelations has now deepened our understanding of what happened — and, just as important, what didn’t happen — on Jan. 6, and thus shed a lot of light on just how close America came to a full-blown coup attempt.

Nearly one year ago, there were a lot of loose threads about the events of Jan. 6 — and the violence that disrupted but didn’t prevent the official certification of Biden’s election victory — that didn’t seem to add up. Why was the Capitol so lightly defended, and why didn’t National Guard troops respond for hours as the building was overrun? Why didn’t the most militant groups, like the Oath Keepers, fight harder once the Capitol had been breached, and what was Trump himself doing as he watched the events unfold?

Now we know that learning what was happening behind the scenes at the Pentagon, which has operational control over the National Guard in Washington, D.C., may be the critical link to understanding how Trump’s inner circle thought it could stop the certification of Biden, and why it ultimately could not. A tell came exactly one year ago on Jan. 3, 2021, with a stunning op-ed from all 10 living ex-Pentagon chiefs warning against a role for the military in the election.

This came after Trump spent the weeks after Election Day replacing many Pentagon higher-ups with hard-core loyalists. But we now know the Joint Chiefs chair, Gen. Mark Milley, and the permanent military brass worked hard to make sure the National Guard didn’t get involved on Jan. 6 — thus blocking any chance troops would support a coup, yet also raising understandable questions why they didn’t quickly respond to violent pro-Trump insurrectionists.

Trump wouldn’t invoke the Insurrection Act against his own people — but his team fully expected bloody clashes with left-wing counterprotesters whom POTUS 45 had been pumping up as a threat for weeks. We now know, from the House investigation, that Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows stated in an email on Jan. 5 that the Guard was expected to act to “protect” pro-Trump demonstrators. Likewise, hard-core armed members of the militarized Oath Keepers were making plans to wait in a staging area in an Arlington motel.

What were Meadows, the Guard, Trump’s embedded allies in the Pentagon, and the Oath Keepers all waiting for? Presumably what they’d seen throughout 2020, peaking with mayhem in D.C. streets during a kind of trial run on Dec. 12, 2020 — violent clashes between Trumpists and left-wing counterprotesters. But leftists smartly stayed home on Jan. 6, egged on by a social media hashtag #DontTakeTheBait. Lacking the expected trigger for invoking the Insurrection Act and perhaps declaring a “national emergency,” both Trump and the Pentagon-led National Guard both were AWOL for hours.

Until now, little has been made public that would tie these schemes to invoke the Insurrection Act directly to Trump — instead connecting allies like Meadows and ad hoc advisers like the ex-Army colonel and psyops specialist Phil Waldron, likely author of the PowerPoint. That’s why the draft letter described last week by Kerik should be seen as a potential “smoking gun,” because it would prove that Trump was personally involved in the planning for a scenario that could have shut down the Capitol on Jan. 6.

And evidence that Trump himself was an active participant in a plot that saw the disruption of Congress, and its Electoral College certification, on Jan. 6 as its ultimate goal would also, legal experts argue, place the ex-president in the middle of a felony conspiracy scheme. Indeed, a key figure on the House Select Committee — the rogue Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming — recently pointed specifically to Trump’s known or potential actions on Jan. 6 in the context of the federal law against impeding Congress.

Is this document a smoking gun? I don’t think we know. But the scenario Bunch lays out certainly does sound like it may be the direction th committee is heading.

It is very difficult for me to believe that they are going to be able to hold Trump criminally liable for what he did. Sure there are some laws on the books that could apply and maybe there’s evidence that we haven’t seen yet that make such cases a slam dunk.

But what is most unsettling, even beyond the fact that there seems to be no accountability, ever, for this man, is the fact that a very large minority of this country thinks what he did was right. They believe the violent insurrectionists were patriots. Tens of millions of Americans believe this.

Trump’s Top Piece O’ Work

Check out this interview with Peter Navarro:

When the 2020 election didn’t go Trump’s way, Peter Navarro did something dangerous. He began to do his own research.

Navarro, an economist whom Donald Trump tapped to lead his trade war against China, didn’t stay in his lane at the White House. He’d already inserted himself in the administration’s botched pandemic response, pushing the unproven hypothesis that Covid-19 escaped from a Wuhan lab. And after the 2020 vote, Navarro began compiling a series of inflammatory dossiers on the outcome — with names like “The Immaculate Deception,” “The Art of the Steal,” and “Yes, Trump Won” — pushing the Big Lie that the election was stolen.

Navarro’s reports include debunked allegations of “outright voter fraud” across six battleground states, including “the large-scale manufacturing of fake ballots, bribery, and dead voters” as well as roundly discredited conspiracy theories alleging sordid connections between voting machine companies, a former Venezuelan dictator, the Clinton Foundation, and George Soros.

Unlike most amateur-hour election sleuths, however, Navarro had direct access to the aggrieved president. In an extended interview with Rolling Stone, Navarro revealed that he personally briefed Trump on his research in the Oval Office — and that Trump directed, on the spot, that Navarro’s findings be distributed to the entire GOP conference on Capitol Hill.

That advocacy by Trump helped Navarro, along with close ally Steve Bannon, prepare for a Jan. 6 plot they hoped could overturn Joe Biden’s victory. Together with Bannon, Navarro developed a plan to block the Electoral College vote count, called the Green Bay Sweep after a daring football play run by the NFL’s Packers in the Vince Lombardi era. (Bannon did not respond to a detailed list of questions about his involvement in this effort.)

The ploy called on sitting congressmen and senators, during the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, to object to the counting of votes from six battleground states, where Navarro had decried fraud and electoral irregularities. Across both chambers, each state challenge would prompt four hours of debate. The intention was to create a 24-hour Republican propaganda blitz that could “punch through” directly to the public and give Mike Pence, in his capacity as Senate president, cover to delay certification of the Electoral College vote, sending the contested tallies back to the states.

Navarro, Bannon, and their GOP allies on the Hill hoped the contested states would revoke their certifications, deprive either candidate of the required 270 Electoral College votes, and give Trump one last shot victory — with the House of Representatives ultimately voting to decide the outcome of the 2020 election, using an arcane protocol that favored Trump.

What follows is an edited transcript of Rolling Stone’s conversation with Navarro. Misinformation Navarro pushed about election fraud has been omitted.

How did the Green Bay Sweep plan come together?
By the time early January was rolling around. Two things are obvious. One is that [Trump campaign manager Bill] Stepien, [deputy manager Justin] Clark and [Trump son-in-law Jared] Kushner, were not prosecuting a challenge [to Biden’s victory], and more importantly, they weren’t providing the logistical or financial support to this very small band of people led by Giuliani and Bernie Kerik to look at things. And the other thing that’s happening is the courts were rejecting challenge after challenge, not based on the evidence. But rather on procedural technicalities.

So the whole concept of the Green Bay Sweep was twofold. One was to provide a public forum whereby grievances we had regarding possible fraud and election irregularities could be aired in 24-hours of televised hearings to the American public, and thereby bypass the mainstream media’s biased coverage. And then the second part was to have a mechanism, following in the constitution, that would allow those likely illegal [Electoral College] votes to be sent back to the states for further review.

What was the endgame? You get Pence to delay certification of the Electoral College vote, send this to overtime — and then what?
One of two things could happen. They go back there [to the states], they look at it and they say, “Nope. It’s certified.” [The votes] come back, and that would be it. Fair enough.

But the more likely scenario based on our assessment of the evidence was that states would withdraw any certification. And the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives. And even though the House is controlled by Democrats, the way votes would be counted in a presidential election decided by the House, Trump would almost certainly win.

To clarify for readers: The Constitution allows that if neither candidate receives 270 votes in the Electoral College, the election is decided by the House. But in that scenario, it’s a unique process: Each state’s congressional delegation gets to cast a single vote. So while Democrats controlled more House seats, Republicans controlled more state delegations, and Trump would have likely emerged the victor?

That was the essence of the plan. It’s a well thought-out plan based on sound, constitutional law and existing legislative precedent. And all it required was peace and calm on Capitol Hill for it to unfold. And then you have two things that went awry: Pence’s betrayal, and, of course, the violence that erupted on Capitol Hill, which provided Pence, McConnell, McCarthy, Pelosi, and Schumer an excuse to abort the Green Bay Sweep, effectively, and certify the election.

Were GOP leaders McConnell and McCarthy read in on this Green Bay Sweep plan? 

I don’t know. I primarily — almost exclusively — just worked with Steve Bannon. He was the strategist involved. He was the guy who was coordinating the whipping of the votes, right? There were over 100 congressmen — both the House of Representatives and senators — that were lined up to execute that plan.

It started flawlessly when [Arizona Rep. Paul] Gosar and [Texas Sen.] Cruz promptly at 1 p.m. called on scrutiny of the Arizona vote. Arizona was one of six battlegrounds: They were Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. And it started flawlessly, but the violence overtook that event. The rest, as they, say is history.

Who were the leaders of this plan on the Hill? Cruz and Gosar? 

I wasn’t really involved in that. Again, that was Steve’s job. My whole thing — all the way through Jan. 6 — I continued to work on my research, and that was that was a time-consuming process. … My role in the whole thing was basically to provide Congress, via my reports, the analytical material they needed to actually make the challenges. And the president himself had distributed Volume One of the report to every member of the House and Senate a week or so earlier.

What were your communications with President Trump about this effort? 

The only conversation I had with him was about the reports themselves. There was a couple of times I walked over to the Oval — both times after I finished a report — and personally handed him one and briefed him on it. In the first case, in front of me, he asked Molly Michael, his assistant, to make sure everybody on the Hill promptly got a copy of it.

You mention in your book that Trump wanted you to talk to Pence, that this was a directive from Trump, that Pence should speak to you. 

When I was in the Oval briefing the president on the results, I expressed frustration with the fact that Mike wouldn’t return my calls. And that it would be useful, as we were moving to Jan 6, if that problem could be fixed. He said, yeah, he’d have Mike call me. Which Mike, in fact, did. The only problem was he hung up before he even spoke to me.

To be clear, prior to Jan. 6, I had great love and respect for Vice President Pence. The problem, as I describe it in the book, was he effectively got captured by his own staff. Marc Short and his general counsel, Greg Jacob, who I had had previous run-ins with during the pandemic. Short and Jacob were just bad people. Just bad people. Had no business being in the in the White House. They weren’t Trump people. They were just bad people. They hurt the president in a lot of different ways, not the least of which is how they handled this particular issue we’re talking about.

Bannon, obviously, has been subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 committee. Have you spoken to them or are they seeking information from you? 

I have gotten no communication whatsoever from them. It’s my view that they simply do not want to hear anything I have to say, because it is so contrary to their narrative. Their narrative rests on the premise that President Trump wanted to instigate violence to overthrow the election. My premise — which is fact — is that President Trump wanted only peace and calm so that we could meticulously implement the Green Bay Packers Sweep play, and thereby remand the votes to the back to the states, and in all likelihood, then move the election into the House of Representatives, because of the substantial fraud that was visible.

Let me stop you there. You’ve told me that President Trump wasn’t really read in on this plan, and yet you say he backed it?

You asked me whether I spoke to him about it. And I said, accurately, no, it wasn’t me who briefed him on this. OK.

Are you saying that Bannon briefed him on it? 

You’ll have to track that down. I’m not going to speak for Steve or anybody else.

Let me simplify the question: Was President Trump read in on the Green Bay Packers Sweep plan? 

I don’t know that for a fact.

But you just cited his backing of the plan as the reason why Trump was not for the violence that ensued. What do you know and what you are speculating about?

You asked me whether he was read in on the Green Bay Packers Sweep plan, OK? He understood what was supposed to happen that day. All you need to do is listen to this speech from the Ellipse that morning. You know, “If Mike does the right thing” — you just have to listen to what he said.

My clear understanding, but not from speaking to him directly, is that he [Trump] understood what the strategy was. The strategy was to challenge the votes with the 100 plus-group of congressmen that day, send them back to the states and let the chips fall where they may. But it wasn’t me who sat down and said, “Hey, boss, we can run the Green Bay Packers Sweep, we do X, Y and Z.” That wasn’t my role.

And you’re not able to tell me who did that?

I actually don’t know, factually.

But again: How you know that this thing happened, but you don’t know who did it? 

I know that there were over 100 congressmen ready to implement the plan. I know that. I know what the plan was, right? It all hinged on getting the plan done at the state level. I know that the president met with people like [John] Eastman, and that there was a legal opinion explaining exactly what Pence can do. I know that that’s the reason why I wanted to talk to Mike — to assure him that there was substantial evidence of fraud and that he should exercise his duty, as president of the Senate, to send these things back to the states for 10 days.

Knowing all that, I think it’s fair to say that the president clearly understood the strategy. I don’t know if he called it “the Green Bay Sweep.” I doubt that. That was me and Steve’s description of it. You know: call a play; run the play. Based on what I know, the president understood what was going to happen that day. It required peace and calm. It was well within constitutional law, and we were basically exercising the constitutional right and democratic freedoms to challenge what we believed was a stolen election.

Everything that was done was done honorably and with good intentions. We were fighting what I believe was an attempt at a coup d’etat. We weren’t the ones trying to steal the election or engineer a coup. It was clearly the Democrats… . These folks bragged about stealing the election. They didn’t use the word “steal” — they did say they had to do it in order to “save the republic,” which I think is as close to an admission of guilt as you can get.

Bannon has been charged with criminal contempt of Congress. There are people who would call what you were plotting very much akin to a coup. Are you concerned about your own legal liability in this case?

You think people would call what I did akin to a coup?

I know you don’t see it that way, but I assure you there are people in America who see the activity that was taking place and think it was trying to overturn the duly determined democratic outcome of a national presidential election. 

Yeah, I see. I see that point. But also remember a lot of the people who might hold that point of view were being fed the steady stream of MSNBC and CNN and New York Times and Washington Post lies that the election was fair and absent of any fraud or election irregularities, and that it was all sour grapes. But you know, I went through four years listening to that noise, rather than signal, from the corporate media. And if I had a dime for every time they reported something which I knew on its face to be untrue. I know you have enough money to comfortably retire.

There have been audits in Arizona. There have been court challenges everywhere. There have been studies of whether there were deceased voters in Georgia. None of it has revealed anything that would change the outcome of this election. So as you sit here now, do you feel like your analysis was square? 

Yeah, I do.

You haven’t learned any new information since this election took place that has left you chagrined or regretful of the analysis that you created?

To the contrary. Let’s say that there’s two possible states of reality here. One is that history will show that it was a free and fair election, or as with Nixon v. Kennedy history will show that, yeah, it was stolen.

Living in two different realities — that’s an apt description of where we find ourselves in America. Do you think the American people will find agreement about the 2020 election or what happened on Jan 6?

I want to get to the bottom of what happened on Jan 6, just as much as anybody. I want to get to the bottom of it in a nonpartisan way. Kevin McCarthy is an idiot. I mean, he’s like a checkers player in the chess world. The fact that there are no legitimate Republicans on that committee, it turned it into a star chamber rather than a proper investigatory body.

I’d love to know how that violence erupted. I’m telling you I was one of the most crestfallen people on the planet at the end, when that happened, because I knew immediately: This won’t end the way we wanted it to.

He is certifiably out of his ever-loving mind. Totally gone.

I mean:

“You think people will think was I did is akin to a coup?”

His attempt to backtrack on whether Trump was read in on his plans is just pathetic. He says he briefed him and that Trump placed the order to get it to congress in front of him. And then he tries to say he doesn’t know if Trump knew about it. Ridiculous.

The big news here is that he passed out his “Green Bay Sweep” plan to 100 members of congress and believes they were ready to act. (I think we knew Trump was all in — that’s been firmly established.) And we knew that there were members of congress involved — Mike Lee, Lindsey Graham and the House MAGA caucus did nothing and said nothing, just let Trump play out his string. But if 100 members of congress including the leadership knew about it and simply sat on their hands waiting to see if Mike Pence would come through, we were much, much closer to the coup that we realized.

It is literally insane that this man believed what he was doing was perfectly normal and uncontroversial despite the fact that all the courts and GOP officials all over the country said the election was legitimate. He’s nuts.

Covid kills

Detroit “unveiled a collage Wednesday of 900 portraits submitted by families who have lost loved ones to COVID-19.” That was August 2020.

Boris Grishenko I am invincible!

Posting this again, for what it’s worth:

Why am I vaccinated?
Why am I wearing a mask?
So when you or someone you love has a heart attack or a stroke or a car accident, or when your kid gets pneumonia, there will be a hospital bed for them because I won’t be in it.

This is madness. Just madness:

There seems to be an ongoing, national mental health epidemic flourishing alongside the Covid pandemic.

“Don’t dance on the graves of anti-vaxxers who die. It won’t help get shots in arms,” argued a USA Today opinion columnist just last month. I agree.

Instead, do what you can to model responsible behavior. Those refusing the vaccine and mask-wearing are already an electoral minority. That minority will be even smaller by November 8th if this keeps up. Are they trying to winnow themselves?

Hooper I’m not going to waste my time arguing with a man who’s lining up to be a hot lunch.

Not on our watch. Not in our country.

Arches National Park (and a little “purple mountain majesties”). NPS photo by Kait Thomas via Wikipedia (CC BY 2.0).

Doomsplaining is in vogue. There is lots of it. I know a few people already who have relocated to other countries, are planning to, or are exploring their options. The New York Times Editorial Board, never a hair-on-fire bunch, recently declared “the Republic faces an existential threat” from the Trump-led Republican Party and its associated malcontents.

Cultural commentator Stephen Marche declares in The Guardian that the U.S. faces a grave legitimacy crisis. The country today “is, once again, headed for civil war, and, once again, it cannot bear to face it.” The left, he means. The right is already “preparing for a breakdown of law and order.” Meaning, the breakdown the right is fomenting.

Disruption from the ongoing pandemic surely is not helping. The fact that a significant portion of the country is delusional about the Jan. 6 insurrection is deeply unsettling.

A report from Robert Pape at the University of Chicago finds that the fervor of the Trump-ispired “American insurrectionist movement” has not waned as one might suspect a year after the insurrection:

A survey fielded by NORC, at the University of Chicago, discovered the following “that nine percent of Americans…believe the ‘Use of force is justified to restore Donald J. Trump to the presidency. More than a fourth of adults agree, in varying degrees, that, ‘The 2020 election was stolen, and Joe Biden is an illegitimate president.’”

Pape explained that “today’s 21 million adamant supporters of insurrection also have the dangerous potential for violent mobilization.” This just adds more worry as we approach the upcoming 2022 Mid-term elections and the 2024 Presidential election.

NORC also discovered that 8.1 percent of American adults share both of these two beliefs. They also asked about membership and support for militias and extremist groups. One million know someone in one of the groups, six million show support, seven million own a gun, and lastly three million have US military service.

Stories like these lead because they bleed (or promise to). The problem for the left is spending so much time (as I just did) focusing on the threat from the right without selling itself. Doomsaying is a downer. Rather than frightening people into immobility, we need to inspire them to action.

Digby posted Sunday on E.J. Dionne’s recommendation that Democrats run on democracy this year. Dionne wrote:

Democrats will face big losses unless they simultaneously win back middle-ground voters and mobilize their disheartened loyalists. Governing with urgency is a good place to start, but overcoming the midterm blues will require more. They must make the election about something that matters. If democracy isn’t worth fighting for, what is?

What is “democracy” to Americans, deep down? What elements do they embrace with heart-swelling pride that speak to their deepest ideals? What elements, if they went away, would they experience as a grievous loss, a serious “hit” to their exceptionalist myth? 

Last month, Anat Shenker-Osorio visited with Dr. Volts (David Roberts) to discuss Democrats’ message fails. (They are many.) There is a pattern to how Shenker-Osorio frames messages that state a shared value, identify an enemy threatening it, and propose a path forward together. Rather than make 2022 about Democrats and Republicans, she suggested, progressives need to make the elections about the voters themselves.

Make voters the protagonists in this drama. Inspire defiance instead of fear. We beat back Trumpism in 2018, and in 2020, she says. We can do it again. (She is by nature an optimist, she says.) We need an optimistic message.

Shenker-Osorio summed up for Roberts [timestamp 1:22:00], “If Republicans think they are going to silence our voices and block our votes, they’ve got another thing coming. We showed up and we showed out in 2020, and we’re going to do it again. Not on our watch. Not in our state. Not in our country.”

Trump’s Braintrust

Trump issues “statements” every day that are filled with arcane gibberish about the 2020 election. If you wonder where he’s getting his information look no further:

Inventor Jovan Pulitzer is a pillar of the MAGA election-fraud movement. His theories were integrated into the Arizona audit and a pro-coup PowerPoint presentation that reached Donald Trump’s chief of staff.

But last week, Trumpworld’s genius inventor prank-called one of his haters by posing as a restaurant employee clarifying an order for a “cock sandwich.”

“I have a text order on our system for a cock sandwich,” Pulitzer told the man’s voicemail, live-streaming the video to his fans. “I need to know: Do you want that circumcised, uncircumcised? We can serve you the circumcision like calamari if you want. But we need to know if you want dipping sauce.”

Also on the night’s prank agenda: Calling a woman who had criticized him by offering to talk about the size of his penis. “I actually like women that want to call me and talk about my dick,” Pulitzer said.

Pulitzer’s change from a leading light of the Arizona audit into a juvenile prank-caller comes in the aftermath of the Arizona audit’s failure, as figures who promised the audit would uncover serious election malfeasance point fingers at one another over who’s to blame. Amid that disappointment, Pulitzer and a one-time ally, former New Mexico State University professor turned itinerant audit advocate David Clements, have turned on each other in a bitter feud that’s featured doxxing and allegations that Pulitzer is taking advantage of his followers by packaging his election-fraud theories into a book that costs a whopping $250.

The crackup between Clements and Pulitzer mirrors the larger chaos in the world of election-fraud personalities on the right. While the false claims of election tampering have provided great fodder for conservative media and Republican lawmakers looking to limit voting, the personalities behind the conspiracy theories have found themselves holding the bag.

And Pulitzer and Clements aren’t the only ones fighting as the failed effort to overturn the election passes its one-year anniversary. Defamation lawyer Lin Wood and former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn have been slamming each other for over a month, with Wood releasing surreptitiously recorded audio of Flynn, who has been embraced by QAnon believers, criticizing the conspiracy theory.“ I have a text order on our system for a cock sandwich. ”— Jovan Pulitzer

Pulitzer’s clash with Clements began after the former professor suggested that Pulitzer was slow-rolling the release of his own information about the election and criticized the handling of the Arizona audit.

“How many millions of dollars were needlessly spent on a scanning show?” Clements wrote in a Telegram post.

Pulitzer ratcheted up his feud with Clements, who was fired from his tenure-track position as a business professor after he refused to be vaccinated. In a furious audio recording posted to Telegram on Wednesday, Pulitzer raged against Clements, calling him a “fucking fraud” who had exaggerated his academic bona fides to dupe Trump supporters and alleging Clements had sabotaged audits in other states.

“I will stab you in the face with the truth,” Pulitzer said, addressing Clements, adding, “You’re the last son of a bitch I want praying for me.”

In an email to The Daily Beast, Pulitzer said his remark about stabbing was a play on words, rather than a threat. Clements didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Pulitzer’s audio incensed Clements and his supporters.

“I really haven’t hung my head on being a college professor,” Clements, whose Telegram account and personal website are called “The Professor’s Record,” said in a video.

Clements went on the attack himself, accusing Pulitzer of grifting gullible Trump supporters with a recent book. The origins of Pulitzer’s fame on the right centers on his invention of “kinematic artifact detection,” an unproven technology that Pulitzer insists can detect folds in ballots that can then miraculously determine if they’re fraudulent. Pulitzer has been vague about the details of his technology, but in October he released a $250 book that promises to reveal how it works.

Amazon reviewers haven’t been impressed, with one one-star reviewer claiming it’s a “pseudo-sci grift” packed with content already available elsewhere. In a video to his supporters, Clements agreed, claiming Pulitzer was hurting the audit cause by packaging his information in a typo-ridden book that’s “clear as mud.”

“You don’t have to take my word for it—just look at the spine of the cover alone,” Clements said.

Clements then held up his copy of Pulitzer’s book, which had a typo, “Kinematic Artifac Detection,” written on its spine.

For his part, Pulitzer told The Daily Beast he deliberately set the price high so he could make copies for himself while preventing people from buying the book.

Pulitzer’s clash with Clements went even further Wednesday night when Pulitzer published Clements’s phone number on Telegram to his more than 70,000 followers, prompting waves of harassment for the former professor. Clements responded by doing the same to Pulitzer, directing his supporters to contact the inventor and inspiring Pulitzer’s prank calls to his critics.

The Big Lie crack-up has also included recent allegations that Pulitzer and others were poisoned with anthrax at a conference, with the intimation that a rival conservative personality might have been behind the attack. Given the spread of the coronavirus, however, the culprit behind several people becoming sick at an indoor conference devoted to flouting vaccine and masking recommendations seems more obvious.

These people are nuts but they are taken seriously by the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2024.

This is where we are.

Oh, Ivanka (Part XXIV)

Daddy’s little girl and her big brother are refusing to comply with subpoenas. Junior is still an executive with the trump organization although there’s no evidence that he ever works at that job. And Ivanka was also a former executive and was intimately involved in Trump’s scams:

The Trump family was supposed to turn over records and testimony to the New York Attorney General surrounding the Trump family’s alleged tax dodging. Predictably, they didn’t. So now, investigators are turning up the heat on former President Donald Trump himself, Don Jr., and Ivanka.

The three Trump family members are being added as “respondents” in an ongoing legal fight with New York Attorney General Leticia James, according to a document filed in New York state court Monday morning.

In the court filing, the AG’s office said it recently issued subpoenas for the former president and two of his adult kids “for testimony and documents ‘in connection with an investigation into the valuation of properties,’” but that “a dispute has arisen.” Now the state’s top prosecutor wants to force them to cooperate.

In a statement, the law enforcement agency said: “Despite numerous attempts to delay our investigation by the Trump Organization, we are confident that our questions will be answered and the truth will be uncovered because no one is above the law.”

We saw this coming, didn’t we? I wrote about this last year.

Vanity Fair on Ivanka’s little temper tantrum:

Among the many consequences of Donald Trump losing the election to Joe Biden is the fact that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner will likely do everything they can to reenter polite society, which will likely slam the door in their faces. Oh, sure, as a source put it to my colleague Emily Jane Fox, they’ll “probably be welcomed by real estate types and that group of Upper East Side and Palm Beach families that read about themselves in Quest magazine but don’t matter,” but the people whose opinions the couple actually care about will presumably have lost their numbers. Also probably at the top of Javanka’s mind are the billboards circling Trump Tower reminding passersby about their role in the COVID-19 crisis, which they really, really don‘t appreciate. But seemingly the most pressing issue keeping the first daughter up at night is the prospect of her father going to prison, if her unusually huffy response to the news that he’s being investigated for tax fraud is any indication.

Commenting on a New York Times report that both Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance and New York state attorney general Letitia James have expanded their probes of Trump and his businesses to include suspicious tax write-offs on millions of dollars of consulting fees, some of which appear to have gone to his favorite child, Ivanka fumed on Twitter that this whole thing is apparently a witch hunt designed to take her extremely innocent father down:

She added: “This fishing expedition is very clearly part of a continued political vendetta.”

According to the Times, both Vance and James’s office issued subpoenas to the Trump Organization in recent weeks relating to the consulting fees, following an investigation by the paper that revealed the president paid little to no income tax in the last two decades. That report also showed that Trump was able to reduce his taxable income by deducting approximately $26 million in fees to “consultants” as business expenses between 2010 and 2018. While the consultants’ identities were not shown on tax records, some of the fees definitely seem like the were paid to Princess Purses, which might explain her testy reaction:

On a 2017 disclosure she filed when joining the White House as a presidential adviser, she reported receiving payments from a consulting company she co-owned, totaling $747,622, that exactly matched consulting fees claimed as tax deductions by the Trump Organization for hotel projects in Hawaii and Vancouver, British Columbia.

The subpoenas were focused on fees paid to the firm on her disclosures, TTT Consulting LLC, and represented just a portion of the $26 million, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. The name of the firm appears to be a reference to Ms. Trump and other members of her family. Ms. Trump was an executive officer of the Trump companies that made the payments, meaning she appears to have been treated as a consultant while also working for the company. While companies can deduct professional fees, the Internal Revenue Service requires that consulting arrangements be market-based and reasonable, as well as “ordinary and necessary” to running a business.

The examination of fees apparently paid to his older daughter is likely to arouse even more vitriol from the outgoing president. And it raises questions about whether the payments were a tax-deductible way for him to compensate his children, or avoid gift taxes he might incur from transferring wealth to them, something Mr. Trump’s father had done through legally questionable schemes uncovered by the Times in 2018.

Also this:

The Trumps’ propensity to overstate sales led them, as ProPublica, WNYC and the New Yorker reported last year, to be investigated on potential felony fraud charges in one case. Ivanka had announced in June 2008 that 60 percent of the units at the SoHo  tower had been bought when in fact 15 percent had, according to an affidavit filed by a Trump partner. The Manhattan district attorney’s office considered charging the Trumps but backed off after a visit from a donor — Trump’s attorney Marc Kasowitz . (The DA, Cyrus Vance , denied he was influenced by the donation but later changed his policy and now refuses donations from lawyers with cases before him.)

That’s from the great WNYC/Pro-Publica podcast called Trump Inc. Read the whole thing to understand just what a gigantic grift they had going. Check this out:

Trump arranged financing — his promised commission: $2.2 million or more — by bringing in investment bank Bear Stearns , which issued the bonds that paid for the Panama project’s construction.

Trump touted himself as a “partner” of the developer. His daughter Ivanka  briefly boasted that she had personally sold 40 units. (A broker on the project said he couldn’t remember her selling even one.) Meanwhile, Ivanka told a journalist at the time that “over 90 percent” of the Panama units had sold — and at prices five times as high as comparable buildings. Both statements were untrue.

Not only were the Panama sales figures inflated, but many “purchases” turned out to be an illusion. That was no coincidence. The building’s financing depended on obtaining advance commitments from buyers, often before concrete had started pouring. But in between the sale of the bonds in 2007 and 2013, the year the building went bankrupt, buyers of 458 units in the 1,000-unit building abandoned their purchase contracts. Those buyers forfeited more than $50 million in deposits, and they never took possession of finished units. Given that the “buyers” were often shadowy shell companies or other paper entities, it was nearly impossible to discern who the actual purchasers were, let alone why they backed out.

Trump licensed his name for an initial fee of $1 million. But that was just the beginning of the revenue streams, a lengthy and varied assortment that granted him a piece of everything from sales of apartment units to a cut of minibar sales, and was notable for the myriad ways in which both success and failure triggered payments to him.

Consider the final accounting: In the wake of the project’s bankruptcy, a 50 percent default rate and his company’s expulsion from managing the hotel, Donald Trump walked away with between $30 million and $55 million.

Somehow, I doubt that was the last time they pulled that con. Bears Stern is no longer but his arrangements with all financial institutions are just as shady. How much did he lie to Deutsche Bank?

Ivanka was up to her neck in these scams, even more than Don Jr. He had her outfront lying to everyone. No wonder she’s worried.