Dear Leader is mad that he didn’t stack the committee with cultists
I doubt very much that Kevin made his decision without consulting Trump. But Trump is unhappy with the decision, either way.
Former President Trump jabbed House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) decision to yank all five of his GOP picks for the Jan. 6 Select Committee last year.
In an interview with conservative radio host Wayne Allyn Root, the former president heaped praise onto Jordan and Banks for doing his bidding of pushing the Big Lie.
Trump then complained about the “bad decision” made by McCarthy that jeopardized GOP representation on the Jan. 6 Select Committee. Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) are the only Republicans who serve on the committee investigating the events surrounding Jan. 6.
“This committee, it was a bad decision not to have representation on that committee,” Trump said. “That was a very, very foolish decision because they try to pretend like they’re legit, and only when you get into the inner workings you say ‘what kind of a thing is this?’ Just a one-sided witch hunt.”
McCarthy’s move came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rejected two out of five of the minority leader’s picks over their votes against certifying Joe Biden’s electoral victory: Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Jim Banks (R-IN). All five of McCarthy’s picks voted against impeaching Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”
Shortly after Pelosi rejected two of his picks, McCarthy swiftly withdrew his other picks altogether from the committee.
If all those Republicans and Trump staffers who testified want to come forward and “tell the truth” about “everything good” I’m pretty sure they can do it. Fox would be more than happy to host them. So where are they?
The convening of the electoral college on Dec. 14, 2020, was supposed to mark the end of the wild, extended presidential election that year.
But when the dayarrived, a strange thing happened. In seven swing states won by JoeBiden, when the Democrat’s electors assembled to formally elect him president, Trump supporters showed up, too, ready to declare that their man had actually won.
“The electors are already here — they’ve been checked in,” a state police officer told the group in Michigan, according to a video of the encounter, as he barred the Republicans from the Capitol in a state Biden won by more than 154,000 votes.
In Nevada,a state Biden had won by about 33,600 votes,a photo distributed by the state Republican Party showed Trump supporters squeezing around an undersize picnic table dressed up with a bit of bunting, preparing to sign formal certificates declaring that they were “the duly elected and qualified” electors of their state.
At the time, the gatherings seemed a slapdash, desperate attempt to mimic President Donald Trump’s refusal to concede.
But internal campaign emails and memos revealthat the convening of the fake electors appeared to be a much more concerted strategy, intended to give Vice President Mike Pence a reason to declare the outcome of the election was somehow in doubt on Jan. 6, 2021, when he was to preside over the congressional counting of the electoral college votes.
Oh…
The documents show Trump’s team pushed ahead and urged the electors to meet — then pressured Pence to cite the alternate Trump slates — even as various Trump lawyers acknowledged privately they did not have legal validity and the gatherings had not been in compliance with state laws.
In a public hearing Thursday, the House committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 explored the end of the story — the pressure campaign placed on Pence to accept the Trump electors as somehow legitimate.
Committee members have said that Tuesday’s hearing will focus on what came before that, how the elector scheme was organized and the ways Trump pressured officials in swing states to go along with his false claims that Biden had lost.
“We’ll show evidence of the president’s involvement in this scheme,” committee member Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’ll also, again, show evidence about what his own lawyers came to think about this scheme. And we’ll show courageous state officials who stood up and said they wouldn’t go along with this plan to either call legislatures back into session or decertify the results for Joe Biden.”
Here comes the coup in search of a legal theory:
The testimony and evidence presented by the committee will build on an argument it made in a federal court in California, where it successfully obtained a judge’s order forcing Trump lawyer John Eastman to turn over records to the committee. In ordering Eastman to produce the documents, Federal District Court Judge David O. Carter wrote that Eastman and Trump’s endeavor amounted to “a coup in search of a legal theory.”
The shifting internal explanations over whether the elector strategy could be considered legitimate was typified in two emails sent in late December by Eastman, a constitutional law professor who was a leading proponent of the idea. In an email sent on Dec. 19 to a California activist with whom Eastman exchanged periodic notes about the election, Eastman wrote that the electors would be “dead on arrival in Congress.” His reasoning — no state legislature had acted to certify them as valid.
Just four days later, however, Eastman wrote to other Trump advisers that he believed Pence could indeed recognize the Trump electors on Jan. 6, apparently despite their lack of state legislative certification. “The fact that we have multiple slates of electors demonstrate the uncertainty of either. That should be enough,” he wrote.
They planned it from the very beginning, obviously fully aware that they had legitimately lost the election:
The emails show some Trump advisers began strategizing just days after the election about how to construct a legal argument for advancing their own electors, even though laws in every state hold that electors are determined by the certified vote of the people.
In particular, they started mulling whether state legislatures, which in a number of key states were controlled by the GOP, could appoint Trump electors even if the certified results showed Biden won.
“John — what would you think of producing a legal memo outlining the constitutional role of state legislators in designating electors?” conservative activist Cleta Mitchell, another lawyer advising Trump’s team, wrote to Eastman two days after the November vote. “A movement is stirring. But needs constitutional support.”
The notion that state legislatures could choose electors in defiance of voters would be a radical one in modern American history. But the documents show Trump strategists quickly began to pursue the theory, especially as lawyers for the campaign and allied groups racked up losses in court cases that they had urged judges to hear expeditiously, before the electors could meet.
Their idea was that state legislatures could step in if the election had been marred by massive fraud or illegality. The Trump campaign pushed the fraud narrative even though the president and other top officials were told over and over, even by allies, that there was no evidence to support it,committee evidence and testimony has shown.
“That’s the most important point to keep in mind here: The whole predicate was nonsense,” said Edward Foley, an Ohio State University law professor who has studied disputed elections.
By Nov. 28, Eastman had penned a seven-page memo entitled “The Constitutional Authority of State Legislatures to Choose Electors.” Internal emails show a copy was sent to White House staffers, with a cover note that read, “For POTUS.” Another copy was circulated to members of the Arizona House of Representatives by a member who added that it would take only “courage to act.”
Already, Trump advisers were considering how they might attempt to use the alternate elector slates to derail Biden’s win at the joint session of Congress in January. Kenneth Chesebro, a Trump legal adviser, argued in an internal memo that Jan. 6 — not Dec. 14 — was the “hard deadline” for winning the election, particularly if Trump’s electors met and declared him the victor in December.
“It may seem odd that the electors pledged to Trump and Pence might meet and cast their votes on December 14 even if, at that juncture, the Trump-Pence ticket is behind in the vote count, and no certificate of election has been issued in favor of Trump and Pence. However, a fair reading of the federal statutes suggests that this is a reasonable course of action,” he wrote.
They did everything they could to get around state laws preventing them from carrying out this fraud. The evidence that they knew it was illegal is overwhelming. […]
Four days later, after Congress confirmed Biden’s win and Trump prepared to leave office, Eastman received an email demanding to know what had happened.
“Tell us in layman’s language, what the heck happened with the dual electors? Please?” read the email, which was from a person whose name is redacted in a version released publicly.
In his response, Eastman admitted the facts: The electors never had legal standing.
“No legislature certified them [because governors refused to call them into session], so they had no authority,” he wrote.
“Alas,” he concluded.
Always keep in mind that they knew from the start that they had lost. They were trying to overturn a legitimate election and they knew it.
This is the case we know the DOJ is looking into. If you want a perfect example of voter fraud, this is it.
Paul Waldman takes a look at one insane item in the Texas GOP platform. It’s a doozy:
The whole Texas GOP platform is insane but the piece that jumped out to me was the endorsement of a state-level electoral college, eliminating one person-one vote in favor of a system they could gerrymander so that the votes of white rural Republicans will count more.
This is not the first time this has come up. Not long ago a Colorado GOP governor candidate offered such a plan; an analysis found it would give 2,000 voters in three rural counties twice as many electoral votes as 761,000 voters in three urban counties.
This is a road test: Does the base like this? How much blowback does it get? Based on the results, more and more Republicans will probably start advocating the same thing in their states.
The GOP is now in a stage of radical experimentation. They’re feeling so empowered that they’re throwing around ideas that two years ago they’d never have spoken aloud because they’re so radical. Now there are literally no limits.
Eliminating democracy is THE KEY to every other ideological goal. If you can engineer the system so you always have power no matter what, the voters can’t stop you and all your darkest fantasies can be realized.
They’re still figuring out the shape of this new program; calling it 21st century fascism isn’t totally inaccurate, but we may need a new word to describe it. Either way, it’s impossible to overstate how dangerous it is.
But sure, let’s just put our fingers in our ears and sing la-la-la-la in hopes that it all just goes away. Because sure, what’s the worst that could happen?
The right has found that they no longer have to even give lip service to the idea of democracy or even the constitution. They can literally do whatever they want and their followers will cheer (and the government will apparently do nothing to stop them.) The most insightful comment Donald Trump ever made was:
Here’s one of the most explicit threats we’ve seen in this campaign season.
This is really something:
After former Missouri governor Eric Greitens was charged with violent sexual misconduct, his ex-wife says he bought and hid a gun. He also threatened to shoot himself unless she supported him publicly. Now he’s threatening to kill his political opponents. https://t.co/5Ty98ghxb3
A few details about this guy. Kimberley Guilfoyle is working for him.
He’s quite a guy …
Oh, an by the way, there’s nothing new about this idea. The only thing that distinguishes it is the fact that he;s threatening Republicans instead of Democrats. This is from 2007:
“If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to “thin” the herd.”
He later said he meant to “thin the herd” with votes, not bullets and that he just hit the send button to early and then just left it there because he didn’t think anyone would take it seriously. That’s nice.
But the truth is that this is a very old joke, which I’m sure this numbskull has seen:
These are the kind of things they sell CPAC every year. It’s perfectly common right wing rhetoric.
What Americans have taken away from the recent public discussion about the riot spurred by the committee’s work, it seems, is that Trump should face criminal charges for his role in spurring it.
There have been several polls conducted since the riot that have measured the extent to which Americans think Trump should face this very specific form of accountability. In the most recent, ABC News and Ipsos found that nearly 3 in 5 Americans think Trump should face criminal charges. That follows a poll conducted at the end of April by The Washington Post and ABC News that put the figure at just over half, which is about where things stood shortly after the riot, too.
You can see the recent shift below. While Democrats have consistently thought Trump should face criminal charges, only about 1 in 10 Republicans did in that April poll. In the new ABC-Ipsos poll, that jumped to nearly 1 in 5. Margins of error are important here; the shift may be more modest than the top-line numbers make it seem. But there’s little question that most Americans think Trump should face criminal charges.
This is important for two reasons.
The first is that shift. This is a change seen in two polls on a specific question, so we can’t directly state that it’s a function of the House committee’s work. But if broader public sentiment on the Capitol riot shifts as a result of the committee’s hearings, that’s notable. This is a “let’s wait and see” issue.
The other reason the polling is important, though, is because it establishes a baseline of expectations. Americans generally think Trump should be charged. But even with the apparent shift among Republicans, the subject is deeply polarized along party lines. And that, of course, colors the question of whether it would happen.
Writing for the New York Times, former assistant attorney general Jack Goldsmith walks through the questions facing Attorney General Merrick Garland when it comes to charging Trump. Garland might need to appoint a special counsel, Goldsmith argues, to isolate the decision from the political complexities of filing charges against Garland’s boss’s most likely 2024 opponent. He notes that, from the viewpoint of a prosecutor, the evidence at hand might not make a conviction likely — that, unlike the House committee’s hearings, a criminal trial with standards of evidence and cross-examination would necessarily give jurors a much less clear-cut picture of Trump’s guilt.
One important question here is whether Trump actually believed his assertions that he thought the election was stolen. There’s a surfeit of evidence to suggest that he didn’t, of course, and Trump certainly has an established record of saying things he obviously doesn’t believe to be true. But if the Justice Department wanted to charge Trump with obstructing an official proceeding — a crime the House committee has argued it thinks the former president committed — he might be able to convince jurors that he was simply trying to defend what he thought was the true will of voters.
That sentence alone can be spun off into a range of other directions. For example, the Justice Department might charge Trump with something other than the charges that the House committee appears to be targeting, such as fraud for his efforts to fundraise off his false election-fraud claims. Former U.S. attorney Harry Litman has argued that Trump’s culpability for the riot on Jan. 6 isn’t necessarily moderated by any argument that he believed the election was stolen: He still brought them to Washington, stoked their anger and pointed them at the Capitol.
Where Goldsmith’s essay closes, though, is probably the most important point. Not indicting Trump if Garland believed a prosecution was warranted would indicate that presidents are above the law, emboldening future presidents, including, possibly, Trump himself. But prosecuting him would be seen by a large segment of the public as itself an abuse of presidential power and would “further enflame our already-blazing partisan acrimony.”
What abstract discussions of the possibility of charging Trump often avoid is the practical reality of doing so. What’s at issue is not simply a white-collar sort of finagling by a president, not simply a secret Nixonian plot to quietly undercut political opponents. What is at issue is specifically a violent attack conducted by Trump supporters! Not only is Goldsmith’s concern about “enflaming” warranted, we’re talking here about a situation in which violence has already erupted in Trump’s defense. The threat of violence following potential criminal charges is not at all theoretical; if anything, it would be likely.
One imagines that, even as it gathers evidence and considers its path forward, federal law enforcement finds itself in a position to the one the Republican Party’s establishment faced for the past seven years: hoping things just sort of fade out in an acceptable way. Do nothing and hope it works out.
That has so far not worked out for the Republican establishment.
This analysis is probably correct. And it’s also infuriating and intensely frustrating. Basically, the Republicans staged a violent insurrection and the government is afraid of holding their leader accountable because his followers are violent insurrectionists. So yes, it’s entirely possible they are just hoping that somehow everything turns out all right without having to take any risk that right wingers might be unhappy about the results. Of course, what that really means is that Republicans must win every election no matter what. That’s the only thing that will satisfy them — and even then, they must be allowed to wreak painful revenge on their enemies.
I don’t see how that hasn’t worked out for the Republican establishment. They will benefit from this as long as they toe the line and keep the violent cultists happy. So of course they aren’t speaking out. Allowing Trump to get away with the Big Lie and all the crimes that emanated from it, run for president again, possibly become president again … well, that’s the end of our democracy, isn’t it? And that is apparently what Republicans want.
I heard someone mention on TV this morning that one thought currently in circulation is that they should indict Trump and then Biden should pardon him immediately to “heal the nation’s wounds.” I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything more fatuous. Do they think that his people won’t react violently to the simple fact that he was indicted? That he won’t incite them to even more violence if he’s not allowed to become president again?
The right is being primed to commit violence unless the candidates of their choice are elected, period. And if that candidate doesn’t do what these violent cultists (meaning the right wing fever swamp) says they should do, they’ll be in the cross hairs too.
Honestly, I think a whole lot of people are just waiting for Trump to die in the hopes that “the fever will break.” But it’s not just about Trump anymore. This is the current right wing ethos, Trump or not. And I just have a feeling that letting these people run wild and have their way in the hopes that it will all go away isn’t the smartest plan.
Newly released footage of violence during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is raw and even more disturbing than previous video. Broadcast during the televised hearings by the House committee investigating the insurrection, the evidence must be triggering Donald Trump’s authoritarian cultists (Business Insider):
Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger warned of “violence in the future” after he said he received a mailed threat against him and his family.
Kinzinger made the comments Sunday on “This Week” on ABC News while discussing his work on the January 6 committee. His position as one of only two Republicans on the committee has subjected him to threats, he said.
“This threat that came in, it was mailed to my house. We got it a couple of days ago, and it threatens to execute me, as well as my wife and 5-month-old child. We’ve never seen or had anything like that. It was sent from the local area,” said Kinzinger, who represents Illinois’ 16th congressional district.
He added that he’s not worried about his personal safety, but he is concerned about his family.
Here is the letter. Addressed to my wife, sent to my home, threatening the life of my family. The Darkness is spreading courtesy of cowardly leaders fearful of truth. Is the what you want @GOP? Pastors?
— Adam Kinzinger (Slava Ukraini) 🇺🇸🇺🇦🇮🇱 (@AdamKinzinger) June 19, 2022
Members of the MAGA mob erected a mock gallows on the Capitol gounds that day, chanted “Hang Mike Pence,” and at least one threatened to behead the vice president.
And why? Because they believe Trump’s repeated lies that the 2020 election he lost by seven million votes was stolen from him, and from them. “They believe him because they believe In him,” Ruth Ben-Ghiat writes of Trump in “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present.” They believe the man who told them 30,000 lies. They believe enough to stand behind Trump’s lies, to run for office on them, to kill for him, to burn down the country if necessary, and to threaten to murder Kinzinger, his wife, and their 5-month-old child.
In the fall of 2018, a Trump supporter mailed 16 pipe bombs to CNN, to current and former Democratic officials, and to prominent Trump critics. And another man “echoing Trump’s rhetoric on immigration” shot and killed 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue.
Karen Travers of ABC News asked Trump if his rhetoric was encouraging violence. Trump answered in his schoolyard “I know what you are but what am I?” way:
“No, no. You know what? You’re creating violence by your questions,” Trump said, pointing at her.
“Me?” she replied.
“You are creating — you,” he said. “And also a lot of the reporters are creating violence by not writing the truth.”
“The fake news is creating violence,” Trump continued.
It turns out fake news is creating violence. His.
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us. If in a position to Play to win in 2022 (see post first), contact tpostsully at gmail dot com
High inflation is a pain in the gas. The cost to fill up the tank takes a noticeable bite out of the wallet lately. Republicans are counting on irritation at rising costs to help them retake control of both houses of Congress in the November elections. Gas prices are the new shiny object for distracting voters from what an antidemocratic, un-American authoritarian cult their party has become.
Catherine Rampell reminds voters that backlash against inflation 40 years ago ushered in Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Meaning stagnant wages, the middle-class squeeze and deepening inequality. (Then again, some people prefer inequality.)
Rampell cautions voters to consider what their choices will mean once the satisfaction of throwing out some bums wears off. Because for one, there are few tools either major party has for lowering gas prices. Second, neither Democrats nor Republicans have any real plans for curbing inflation and lowering gas prices anyway.
Biden and fellow Democrats once promised a cradle-to-grave expansion of the safety net, plus measures intended to combat climate change. Love or hate this platform — I liked much, if not necessarily all, of it — it’s no longer terribly relevant to the choices voters face this November.
Not unless Democrats hold the House and add a few members to their caucus in the Senate.
And what do Republicans offer? They won’t say. Not explicitly. But beside “fighting with Mickey Mouse and drag queens,” we can deduce a few of their priorities from their actions and rhetoric, Rampell suggests.
Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, of course. Repealing Obamacare. Slashing Medicaid. The usual.
What else?
They care about installing judges who will roll back reproductive rights.
And they care about undermining the integrity of our election system and overturning the will of the voters, if and when vote tallies don’t go their way.
Republicans have rejected democracy for autocracy, if you haven’t noticed. Voting for them will help make your vote and your voice irrelevant going forward. The “voter fraud steals your vote” people are out to steal yours. Permanently.
Consider that the next time you’re grinding your teeth while filling the tank this summer. Don’t get distracted by the shiny, shiny.
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us. If in a position to Play to win in 2022 (see post first), contact tpostsully at gmail dot com
As Ron DeSantis gears up for a likely 2024 White House bid — with or without Donald Trump in the race — the Florida governor is winning over some of the former president’s biggest benefactors.
DeSantis has attracted the attention of some of the nation’s wealthiest Republican donors, including many who were key financiers of Trump’s reelection bid or backers of high profile Republican candidates and causes, according to POLITICO analysis of campaign finance data.
A DeSantis-aligned political committee, Friends of Ron DeSantis, has received $3.4 million this election cycle from 10 donors who collectively spent $24 million on Trump’s reelection bid. Most of the high-dollar donors had never given contributions in state-level Florida elections, while those who have previously provided funds have significantly increased their spending for DeSantis during the 2022 midterms.
Though many donors are focused on November, when the governor is up for reelection, DeSantis’ fundraising signals that he is both a viable 2024 candidate who may not need the former president’s backing and one whois sapping some financial support from Trump.
“I think Ron’s fundraising really speaks for itself,” said Francis Rooney, a former construction company owner, longtime Republican donor and former Florida congressman who was open to impeaching Trump in 2019. “It is possible Trump’s percentage of the Republicans keeps going down and I think it’s possible people will start looking elsewhere.”
DeSantis has already raised more than $100 million — a record setting pace for a single election cycle in Florida — and is an overwhelming favorite to win reelection this year, a victory that could leave him with a huge war chest as the 2024 election cycle begins.
DeSantis has long been expected to run for president in 2024 but over the past year has drastically expanded his national footprint and following among conservatives across the country, who were drawn to his anti-shut down Covid-19 policies and staunch opposition to pandemic-related mandates. He has recently started to run neck-and-neck with Trump or even beaten the former president in early 2024 straw polls, leaving some of the GOP’s biggest donors writing huge checks for DeSantis at a time when that could still come with political risk.
“I know a lot of donors who are kind of in wait-and-see mode,” said Shiree Verdone, who served as Trump’s campaign co-chair in Arizona for both his presidential campaigns. “They really, really like DeSantis, who is very popular, but you don’t want to upset Trump.”
Major Trump donors contributing to DeSantis since his 2018 campaign for governor includes William Buckley, a retired venture capitalist with a home in Lost Tree Village — a wealthy Palm Beach County enclave that’s home to some of the nation’s largest political donors. Buckley gave $1 million.Major GOP donor Richard Uihlein, an Illinois-based businessman who supported DeSantis in 2018, contributed $700,000 to the governor four years ago. He and his wife, Elizabeth, have given $1.2 million in 2022.
Since his first campaign for governor, DeSantis’ committee has also received $500,000 from Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus — double what he gave DeSantis in 2018 — and $100,000 each from Steven Witkoff, real estate investor, and Willis Johnson, a Tennessee billionaire who founded a vehicle auction and salvage company. Neither had previously given significantly to any Florida candidate.
Las Vegas Casino mogul and Trump friend Phil Ruffin has also given DeSantis $100,000 this cycle, double what he gave the governor four years ago.
Johnson is supporting DeSantis financially, but has also signaled his support for other potential 2024 Republican candidates, including South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. He funded Noem’s efforts to send 50 South Dakota National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, something several Republican governors, including DeSantis, did last year to try and spotlight the Biden administration’s border policies.
John North, chief financial officer of Copart, the company Johnson founded, said Johnson “isn’t interested” in discussing his support for Trump or political contributions.
Trump’s team, as they have in the past, brushed off any suggestion that their key donors giving heavily to DeSantis indicates they would not support any future Trump White House run.
“Like other candidates who have been propelled to victory thanks to the endorsement of President Trump, Governor DeSantis is among a large group of elected officials from across the country who continue to benefit from President Trump’s MAGA movement,” said Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich.
That sounds just a little bit snotty. They aren’t happy…
The big money wingnuts are hedging their bets. They don’t know if Trump is going to survive but they like Trumpism very much so they’re already putting money on the man who is doing the best job of institutionalizing it.
And yes, these rich miscreants want to protect their money, first and foremost, but they are true believers too. There has never been a shortage of rich, right wing extremists in this country.
Mehmet Oz made the first ‘Juneteenth’ post on Truth Social on the left, where he said America was great because of our “freedoms, unity, and equality.” It wasn’t well received. He then deleted, then reposted the second one on the right, taking out the word “equality.”
What was I saying about the GOP’s bad case of arrested development?
They were itching for a ballroom brawl.
Right-wing internet personalities attempted to confront Rep. Dan Crenshaw at Texas’ Republican Party convention Saturday, calling him “eyepatch McCain” and saying he should be “hung for treason.”
Videos posted by the combative conservatives showed Crenshaw walking through a convention center while they hurled insults at him. Crenshaw’s security team manhandled the hecklers to keep them from reaching the congressman.
“Dan Crenshaw is a traitor!” shouted a man in a pro-Donald Trump hat. “He needs to be hung for treason!”
Crenshaw was quiet at the convention center but responded on Twitter with a schoolyard taunt.
“This is what happens when angry little boys like @alexstein99 don’t grow up and can’t get girlfriends,” he tweeted.
Fox News’ Tucker Carlson was the one who came up with the “eyepatch McCain” joke while criticizing Crenshaw for supporting a bill to send money and weapons to Ukraine. Crenshaw lost his right eye to an improvised explosive device while serving as a Navy SEAL in Afghanistan.
https://youtu.be/2I5bd6XGh3s
It gets harder and harder to bring the outrage when the party is already so nuts. It’s inevitable that they would start attacking each other. It’s Lord of the Flies time.
