SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
trump coup
'And Then What?' Asks Cori Bush After MTG Boasts About Armed Insurrection
GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed over the weekend that the January 6 insurrectionists "would've been armed" and "would have won" had she and Steve Bannon been in charge.
Dec 12, 2022
Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia asserted over the weekend that former President Donald Trump's right-wing mob would have pulled off a successful coup had she and erstwhile Trump adviser Steve Bannon organized the January 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol.
"I want to tell you something, if Steve Bannon and I had organized that, we would have won. Not to mention, we would've been armed," Greene said Saturday night at the annual New York Young Republican Club dinner, during which the club's president instructed a throng of white nationalists and other far-right figures, including Donald Trump Jr., to prepare for "total war."
U.S. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), who has called for the expulsion of Greene and other congressional Republicans accused of helping to plot the deadly insurrection, responded on social media by asking, "And then what?"
As Rolling Stone reported Sunday:
Greene's comments about that day seem to imply that she was not involved with the planning of Jan. 6. Two anonymous sources who organized the pro-Trump rally that preceded the Capitol attack have told Rolling Stone they recalled working with Greene on the rally. "I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically," one organizer said.
"I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs." Greene's communications director told Rolling Stone in October of last year that the congresswoman was involved only in planning to object to the electoral certification on the House floor, not the rally.
But in testimony she gave under oath this year, when Greene was asked if she recalled hearing anyone mention there would be potential violence on Jan. 6 or if she talked to fellow House Republicans or the White House about Jan. 6 protests, she answered repeatedly, "I don't remember."
Greene is among the GOP lawmakers accused of giving reconnaissance tours of the Capitol to insurrectionists before the deadly attack. She has also been a staunch defender of the rioters jailed for violently attempting to prevent Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's 2020 election victory, referring to them as "political prisoners."
More than 950 people have been arrested so far. That includes nearly 300 individuals who have been charged with assaulting or obstructing law enforcement as well as two leaders of the far-right Oath Keepers militia who were recently convicted of seditious conspiracy. In the immediate aftermath of Trump's failed coup, Greene and 146 other congressional Republicans voted to reverse Biden's decisive win.
"Very soon," historian Harvey Kaye warned Monday morning, House Democrats "hand over power to the likes of her."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Military Contractors Quietly Boost Donations to GOP Backers of Trump's Coup Attempt
One critic of the weapons industry called it "another example of how our system for awarding money to contractors is often pay-to-play."
Jun 24, 2021
After a brief lull in political spending following the January 6 insurrection, military contractors are ramping up PAC donations to members of Congress on committees with influence over the distribution of Pentagon funds, including dozens of GOP lawmakers who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
In the wake of former President Donald Trump's failed coup attempt, "nearly every major defense firm paused political contributions... and many expressed disgust at the sight of rioters storming the Capitol," The Hill reported Thursday.
BAE Systems described the incident as "deeply disturbing," and Boeing denounced the "violence, lawlessness, and destruction" that transpired.
"We will continue to carefully evaluate future contributions to ensure that we support those who not only support our company, but also uphold our country's most fundamental principles," Boeing said in a January statement.
Despite their professed aversion to the right-wing attack on the halls of Congress and vows to suspend donations to anti-democratic politicians, The Hill noted, BAE Systems, Boeing, General Dynamics, Leidos, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman "have quietly resumed" political giving to Republicans who--just hours after the deadly mayhem on Jan. 6--objected to the certification of President Joe Biden's Electoral College victory.
In May, weapons manufacturers even increased their spending on the GOP lawmakers who abetted the insurrection, the news outlet reported. Raytheon is alone among top U.S. military contractors in maintaining its pause on PAC donations.
According to The Hill's analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, arms dealers last month contributed to more than one-third of the 147 Republicans who endorsed Trump's anti-democratic revolt.
"The companies' reversal is another example of how our system for awarding money to contractors is often pay-to-play," Mandy Smithberger, director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight, told the news outlet. "The size of agency budgets and programs should be based on performance, but too often it's clear that even these companies see it's based on access and corruption."
The timing of the military industry's change of heart was notable. "Defense firms resumed giving through their political action committees as Congress began work on the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which is expected to go through initial markups before the August recess," The Hill reported.
Biden has requested a $753 billion military budget for 2022, a slight increase over the current amount of funding Congress approved last year during the Trump administration. Weapons manufacturers, meanwhile, are heavily dependent on massive levels of government spending, which generates a substantial portion of their revenue.
According to Sludge's David Moore, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman each "received more than 85% of their 2019 revenue from government contracts." Moreover, he wrote, "some 50-60% of the Pentagon's budget goes to the weapons contractors who often make maximum PAC contributions to the campaigns of congresspeople who approve funding for and oversee their contracts."
Lockheed Martin--the nation's biggest military contractor and recipient of nearly $76 billion in government contracts in 2020--last month contributed to "political action committees affiliated with 25 of the congressional Republicans who objected to the Electoral College vote after bankrolling only a few of them in April," The Hill reported. The company said in a statement Wednesday that it would "continue to observe long-standing principles of non-partisan political engagement in support of our business interests," the news outlet added.
Boeing, which declined to comment on its change in policy, "resumed its donations last month as well, shelling out around $900,000 to political action committees," the news outlet noted. "The company donated to several of the 147 Republicans, giving $5,000 each to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.)."
Five thousand dollars is the maximum amount that corporate PACs, which are funded by executives and employees, are allowed to donate per election cycle to lawmakers' campaign accounts and leadership PACs. "While that's a relatively small figure in pricey modern-day elections," The Hill pointed out, "company executives and lobbyists have credited PAC donations for helping them get their message across to lawmakers."
Other arms dealers "made their first donations to election objectors in April then increased their contributions the following month," according to the news outlet. While Leidos said in a statement that its renewal of PAC donations in the second quarter of 2021 was accompanied by the introduction of new criteria that considers recipients' "integrity" and "character," BAE Systems, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman declined to comment on their decisions to resume handing out tens of thousands of dollars to Republican lawmakers, including ones who supported Trump's coup attempt.
The Hill detailed which of the GOP's insurrectionist lawmakers have benefitted the most from weapons manufacturers' revival of PAC donations:
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) is the biggest recipient of defense PAC donations among lawmakers who voted against certifying President Biden's victory over former President Trump. Calvert is the top Republican on the powerful House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, which determines funding levels for defense contractors. His campaign account and leadership PAC took in a combined $31,000, according to FEC filings.
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, was the No. 2 recipient of PAC money, with $22,500. Her subcommittee manages contracts for pricey fighter jets that compete for funding, such as Lockheed Martin's F-35 and Boeing's F-15EX.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), a member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, also received significantly more than other lawmakers who voted to overturn the election.
According to OpenSecrets.org, the military industry's 52 PACs gave approximately $14.4 million to candidates in the 2020 cycle, with about $7.8 million going to Republicans and $6.6 million going to Democrats. Those donations, The Hill noted, "outpaced other influential industries, including pharmaceutical manufacturers, oil and gas companies, commercial banks, and law firms."
Keep ReadingShow Less
One Group Who Knew All Along How Dangerous Trump Was: Mental Health Experts
From the perspective of his psychopathology, Trump's coup attempt last week was wholly predictable.
Jan 16, 2021
Of course, the media environment was set up for the likes of Trump. America is filled with racism, sexism, and hatred, and with mass media outlets like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News that have no responsibility to the truth. The Fairness Doctrine, which used to protect us, was repealed decades ago by the Federal Communications Commission under Ronald Reagan, and in place of fairness jumped right-wing extremism. Social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, and Parler, also played a major role.
Yet Trump posed a special challenge. Into the brew of hatred and racism came a mentally disordered individual with a knack for self-promotion. Trump was not merely conniving, and that's the point. He suffers from severe impairments, including characteristics of sociopathy, pathological narcissism, and sadism. A mentally disordered leader in a country filled with inequalities and a mass media environment promoting extremism led to a terrifying situation.
"Trump was not merely conniving, and that's the point. He suffers from severe impairments, including characteristics of sociopathy, pathological narcissism, and sadism. A mentally disordered leader in a country filled with inequalities and a mass media environment promoting extremism led to a terrifying situation."
Mental health professionals started to warn Americans about Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, but they were shut down by none other than a professional organization of their own, the American Psychiatric Association. The APA was unique among mental health associations to adopt the so-called Goldwater Rule, which resulted from Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign, when some psychiatrists questioned Goldwater's mental health fitness for office. After that, the APA decreed that it was unethical for mental health professionals to diagnose public figures without a personal examination and without consent.
With the arrival of the Trump administration, however, the APA expanded the Goldwater rule dramatically. Originally, the rule applied to diagnoses. Now, according to the APA, any offer of professional comment regarding the mental health of a public figure was deemed to be unethical. When some mental health professionals started to warn specifically about Trump, the APA pushed back hard, invoking the Goldwater Rule. There were reports that the APA may have acted to protect its federal funding. Whatever was the actual motivation, the APA revisions under the Trump administration troubled many mental health professionals.
Several psychiatrists convened at Yale School of Medicine in early 2017 and published the proceedings in a book, "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President," which raised the topic of Trump's mental unfitness in public discussion.
The mental health experts correctly predicted that the dangers of Trump's presidency were greater than the public and the politicians suspected, that the dangers would grow over time, and that they would possibly become uncontainable. Of course, these experts did not predict the coronavirus pandemic, but they recognized right away that the US death toll from COVID-19 -- now at nearly 390,000 -- would depend more on the president's mental state than on characteristics of the virus. Well before the 2020 election, they warned that Trump would refuse to concede, declare the results a fraud, and refuse to leave office. They warned that the post-election transition would be the most dangerous days of this presidency. Though they were correct in these predications, many political leaders continued to treat Trump as a normal, albeit highly manipulative and unprincipled politician, not as dangerously disordered.
Trump's coup attempt last week was predictable from the perspective of Trump's psychopathology. Convicting him in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial is also important to keep Trump from running for office again. Yet we must draw further lessons.
We must find formal ways to incorporate psychological insights into political discourse. This would involve, among other measures, correcting the Goldwater Rule, adjusting the 25th Amendment to ensure that it can be applied to dangerous psychological disorders, and taking steps to reduce the powers of the presidency so that the nation is not vulnerable to the whims of one mentally unbalanced individual.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump, the Coup, and the Collusion That Made It Possible
It will be hard to disentangle the levels of causal, moral, and legal responsibility, and harder still to repair the damage.
Jan 09, 2021
The U.S. Capitol building was assaulted and occupied this past Wednesday, by an angry and violent insurrectionary mob incited by Donald Trump and his closest family members and cronies.
Was it a "coup?" Republican House member Adam Kinzinger said so. Many have called it that. Republican Senator Mitt Romney called it an "insurrection." Many have used this term as well. We can argue about which terms best apply and how, and also about the moral and legal implications of applying such terms. What is beyond argument is a fact: there was a violent takeover of Congress-the representative arm of the U.S. government-as it was discharging its constitutional duties, and this takeover was incited by, and then justified by, Donald Trump, the sitting president of the U.S. [I note here his subsequent, belated, so-called "hostage video" in which he called for peace, but only parenthetically, for I regard it as irrelevant in legal, moral, and political terms.]
Trump must be constrained, and eventually held legally and criminally accountable, in every way possible.Trump poses a clear and present danger to constitutional democracy in the U.S., and indeed he now clearly poses a clear and present danger to simple civil peace and legal order. He is the primary instigator of this debacle, he deserves to be named and shamed, and to be removed from office. And we deserve to be free of him and the danger he poses, and now. Talk of the 25th Amendment is appropriate and necessary. Talk of impeachment is appropriate and necessary. And, short of these legitimate steps, it is essential that those who occupy the central positions in the U.S. government fulfill their duty to uphold the Constitution, which right now means ensuring that Trump does no harm and then quietly departs. They need to do all that they can to hedge in the madman, and to make clear to all subordinates that we are in the middle of a democratic transition and that orders that disturb the status quo ante will not be followed.
Trump must be constrained, and eventually held legally and criminally accountable, in every way possible.
At the same time, Trumpism, and indeed "Trump" himself the politician, has never been simply a matter of Donald Trump the individual, even if, paradoxically, it has largely been about subservience of millions of people and major institutions to the corrupt will of Trump the individual.
And what happened this week involved a broader and deeper danger that far exceeds Trump.
What happened involved a massive collusion of a great many actors to overthrow the legitimate results of the November presidential election, to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and thus to overthrow constitutional democracy itself.
Collusion. The word appears inescapable in the age of Trump.
According to the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary, "collusion" means "secret cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose." The term, broadly, refers to a kind of collaboration that is somehow nefarious in ways that at least skirts illegality. "Collusion" has been a central theme of the Trump administration, motivating the Mueller Report investigation into 2016 ties between the Trump campaign and Moscow, and laying in the background of the House impeachment of Donald Trump for working behind the scenes to extort the government of Ukraine for personal benefit.
As we know, the Mueller Report did not find any evidence of collusion. But this is because "collusion" is not a relevant legal category and so, as a point of law, it was never treated as a relevant consideration. The Report was unable to conclude that the Trump campaign had conspired with Moscow to win the election. There was insufficient evidence to support such a legal charge, which required evidence of conscious and very explicit agreement to bring about an illegal end.
Trump, Barr, and their cronies loudly screamed "no collusion, no collusion!"
But in fact, while the Mueller investigation did not address collusion, it furnished extensive evidence of collusion in the only relevant, colloquial meaning of the term: "secret cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose."
Trump apparently cannot resist engaging in collusion, either to questionably win election then or to obstruct a decisive election loss now.
And the real danger presented by this week's assault on Congress and ransacking of the Capitol is that it represents a massive collusion, one that has been sometimes hidden, and sometimes very public, and has involved both explicit calls to and plans for insurrection, and less explicit encouragements and incitements to engage in activities that intersect with the explicit calls, and all of these efforts converged in a perfectly predictable storm to generate the event we witnessed this past Wednesday.
This collusion involves many parties, so many that it raises big questions about the political system itself.
First, of course, there is Trump himself who, along with his despicable progeny and malevolent advisers, has promoted conspiracy theories and levelled accusations and threats against opponents and encouraged and incited "wild" conduct and an angry march on the Capitol. Trump did not have to say "assault the Congress" in order for his words to have this effect and for him to know that his words would have this effect.
Second, of course, was the mob itself, many thousands of angry and violent individuals who descended upon the Capitol under the banner of "stop the steal," i.e., who willingly engaged in collective action intended to physically obstruct Congress from doing its duty, to prevent the election from moving forward to a peaceful transfer of power, and thus to overthrowing the Constitution.
Third were the groups that mobilized these individuals, and prepared them for the riot that was clearly planned in advance--groups such as Proud Boys, Turning Pont Action, Stop the Steal, Tea Party Patriots and a wide range of local Q-anon, conspiracist, and militia groups. The rioters came prepared, with gear and explosives and arms and knowledge of the Capitol building complex itself, the location of Nancy Pelosi's office, etc. And the groups that mobilized these individuals had been planning this event for months, something that has long been known by all levels of law enforcement, as has been reported by Brandy Zadrozny and Ben Collins for NBC News, among many others.
Many of these groups also organized similar forms of "stop the steal" intimidation across the country--in Michigan, Georgia, Washington state, etc., timed to coincide with The Big Event at the Capitol. Many of these groups comprise a network of violent right-wing hate groups and militias that has been on the rise in recent years, that has been involved in efforts to kidnap Democratic Governors, and that has indeed been identified by the current FBI Director as the primary terrorist threat we face. These fascists have made clear that this week's insurgency is the beginning, not the end, of their effort to challenge an election they consider illegitimate. And these groups have demonstrated a facility at using social media to organize themselves that surely ought to give all believes in constitutional democracy pause.
It is now clear that if much collusion was necessary for the insurrection to commence, further collusion was necessary to allow it to succeed so quickly.But the insurrection also includes some very establishment Republican organizations. It has been reported that the Rule of Law Defense Fund, an arm of the Republican Attorneys General Association, was involved in mobilizing for the riot. The group apparently put out a Robocall urging people to "march to the Capitol building and call on Congress to stop the steal," and indeed the leader of the group, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, has apparently acknowledged this effort, claimed it was undertaken by "rogue" staff members without authorization, and is promising an investigation.
We know that many Republican state and local leaders, including elected public officials, have been heavily involved in "Stop the Steal," and that at least some of them participated in the march. Indeed, most Republican members of the House and the Senate have strongly supported "stop the steal" for weeks and months. The effort to obstruct the Electoral College Count was a very organized and very public effort that involved a dozen Senators and over 140 Representatives, most of whom continued to obstruct even after the riot had taken place. At least a few, most notably Congressmen Mo Brooks, spoke at the rally before the march, calling upon marchers to "start kicking ass" (Brooks has since doubled down on his support for violence). Most of these Republican leaders were probably uninvolved in the planning of the march and the riot. But all of them supported the rally, its angry rhetoric, and the march on the Capitol. Most of them have been telling the people who assaulted the Congress--and them!--that that they are the true patriots, and that Biden's presidency must be stopped, the Constitution be damned. There can be no doubt that every Republican leader, at every level, who has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the election and has demanded its overturning, is responsible for the toxic and angry situation that erupted in violence on Wednesday.
These are the principal political actors who colluded, broadly, to create the violent situation at the Capitol. Some explicitly intended violence. Some knew that violence was possible but considered it a risk worth taking, and considered its costs to be less troubling than the possibility of a Biden presidency. Some were perhaps clueless about the practical effects of their incendiary rhetoric and manifest public support for illegality. All played an indispensable role, and all remain on the political scene, poised to do more of the same.
But there is more.
It is now clear that if much collusion was necessary for the insurrection to commence, further collusion was necessary to allow it to succeed so quickly.
A few things are clear.
One is that the Washington, D.C. mayor, and other D.C. public officials, explicitly requested that the federal government coordinate law enforcement efforts in the city and on the scene, and that these requests, made weeks ago, were ignored.
A second is that orders were given in advance by federal authorities that federal national guard forces should stand by but not deploy, should not be armed, and should not engage any violence if deployed, etc. In other words, someone in the Executive Branch, presumably the Secretary of the Army, clearly anticipated the possibility of deployment and sought to forestall it, and limit its effectiveness, in advance.
A third is that, as Maryland's Republican Governor Larry Hogan has very publicly stated, when the Pentagon was phoned by him, as per procedure, to authorize the deployment of Maryland National Guard, he received no response for almost two hours, and then received a rushed response outside of normal channels.
In short, while the insurrection was going on, and Hogan had National Guard troops ready to deploy, and requested proper authorization, he was denied authorization. The Pentagon refused to authorize National Guard deployment for almost two hours while the Capitol building was being rampaged by rioters. There were decisions taken to produce this "nondecision." There are authorities, and institutions, who were clearly responsible for non-action in the protection of the Congress and the enforcement of federal law.
There is complicity here at the highest level. And a kind of collusion, between the relevant Pentagon officials and, on the one hand, their insurrection-instigating boss, and on the other hand the rampaging mob, who were allowed free reign on federal property by federal forces.
And finally, if there was complicity at the highest level of law enforcement, there was also complicity at the lowest level, at the level of the behavior of certain members of the Capitol Police itself. It is clear from video footage that some officers cooperated with or gave aid to rioters. Maggie Haberman reported in a Tweet that "cops gave rioters directions to Schumer's office but aimed a gun at a photographer and didn't believe she was a journalist." And clearly the effective employment of police force, and the number of arrests, was paltry given the thousands of rioters, the importance of the Capitol, and the fact that the riot was an insurrection that endangered the lives of members of Congress.
As Todd Gitlin argues in yesterday's USA Today, at every level of law enforcement, huge questions remain to be answered about how this insurrection was allowed to proceed, and succeed, for so long.
When you put it all together, what you have is a vast, right-wing collusion to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power by mobilizing a violent assault on Congress and then standing back and standing by for hours while the assault proceeds.
Clearly this organized effort was in many ways feckless. Clearly it did not succeed in overthrowing the government or even obstructing Congressional certification of the November election. Clearly it was not a "coup" in the sense of a carefully-executed plot, by elements of the armed forces, to seize control of the apparatus of the state. It was insurrectionary, and seditious, and it did involve the attempt to obstruct constitutional processes. There is no doubt that few of its protagonists, probably including Trump, had very clear ideas about what the outcome was likely to be. Some, including Trump, might have believed that it would pressure Pence, and his Congressional allies, to somehow invalidate Biden's victory. Some probably hoped for nihilistic destruction, and perhaps a violent repression that would justify further armed insurrection. It is possible that Trump himself hoped for such a scenario, that this is why federal forces were held back, and that he was hoping that the insurrection would provoke a crisis sufficient to allow him to declare martial law--as his "reasonable" and "constitutional" ally Tom Cotton has long supported.
As with all such events, a range of intentionalities and mixed motives and vague sentiments and powerful passions were brought together to generate a mobilization whose proximate outcome was obscure, and whose ultimate outcome is yet to be seen. But there can be no doubt that this event was violent and very public assault on constitutional democracy that implicates a great many actors, organizations, and institutions.
It will be hard to disentangle the levels of causal, moral, and legal responsibility, and harder still to repair the damage.
There are dark times ahead.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What I Told My Students About Wednesday's Attempted Trump Coup
The day after domestic terrorists try to steal our system of government isn’t the time to hold back.
Jan 08, 2021
The moment I had been dreading happened.
Student names started popping up on my screen waiting to be admitted into this morning's first Zoom meeting.
What was I going to say to them?
Wednesday in Washington, DC, thousands of Trump supporters charged into the Capitol Building at his urging in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying his Presidential defeat.
What would I tell my middle schoolers?
What COULD I say?
We can't offer you equitable resources. We can't stop judging you with biased standardized tests. We can't desegregate your schools. We can't protect you from gun violence. We can't even give you in-person classes because of a global pandemic the government has given up even trying to control!
And now I'm supposed to say that even the semblance of our democracy is up for grabs?
I started clicking on their names.
I only had a few moments before I had to speak.
I cleared my throat and began welcoming them, one-by-one as always.
And then it was time.
I stared at all these empty black boxes, and began.
"We've got to talk about yesterday," I said.
"Not yesterday in class. That was fine. Everyone did an outstanding job on yesterday's assignment.
"We have to talk about what happened yesterday in Washington, DC. Does anyone know what that was?"
And I waited.
Eventually I saw a few messages that individuals had their hands raised.
A few kids said that people had charged the Capitol. But that they didn't know why.
So I explained it to them.
I told them how Trump was refusing to accept the results of the election. That he had lost, but continued to challenge it in the courts. Both Republican and Democratic judges had turned him down saying that he had no proof. So Trump spoke outside of the White House yesterday telling his followers to march on the Capitol, which they did.
At this point I noticed something strange on my screen.
The rows of empty boxes had turned into windows. No more memes or messages or generic names. Most of my kids had turned on their cameras and were meeting my eyes - in some cases - for the first time.
So that's what Kelsey looks like, I thought. Wow! Marquis is really built. Is that little kid in the grey hoodie really Caulin?
I got flustered and stopped talking, but the students took up the narrative for me.
Some of them mentioned watching videos on-line of the riot. They saw a guy with horns in the President's chair?
"No, I said. "That was the Vice-President's chair in the Senate."
"Wasn't there someone at someone's desk?"
"Yes, that was Nancy Pelosi's desk," I said. "A rioter broke into her office and put his feet up. She's the Speaker of the House."
And so it went on for a few minutes. They brought up things they had seen and I either clarified or supported them.
As a whole, they were wealthy in details but poor in meaning.
Most of the white kids seemed to be taking it ironically. The black and brown kids were more quiet and subdued.
A white boy wrote in the chat that it was "Civil War 2: electric bugaloo."
I said, "Yes, you've hit on an important point. Some of these folks may have been trying to start a new Civil War."
I tried to put the event in historical context.
I told them how nothing like this had ever happened in my lifetime. That the last time people broke into the Capitol Building like this was during the War of 1812 when the British tried to force the US to become a colony again. However, that was a foreign power invading our country. Wednesday was our own citizens seeking to overturn the results of an election, trying to overwrite the will of the people.
That's when the first black student spoke up.
"Mr. Singer, why were they waving Confederate flags?"
"Yes! That's true, Jamal. Many of them DID have Confederate flags and that's really important."
Before I could say more I got a series of rapid-fire questions from the same group who had been silent up to this point.
"Why didn't the police stop them?"
"Why'd they steal stuff? I saw some guy walking away with a podium."
"Why they so mad?"
I smiled and said that these were all excellent questions.
I asked if any of them knew who George Floyd was.
No one responded.
I told them he was a black guy who was murdered by police when an officer knelt on his neck.
After that happened, there were protests by Black Lives Matter activists and others in several cities including Pittsburgh. The police showed up in riot gear. As these protestors demonstrated almost entirely peacefully - certainly more peacefully than what we saw in DC yesterday - more than 14,000 people were arrested.
"How many people do you think were arrested yesterday?" I asked.
"Didn't someone die?"
"Yes, a woman was shot in the Capitol and three others died of medical emergencies. How many people were arrested?"
"None," said a student of color who hadn't participated before.
"Why none?" I asked.
"Because they was white."
I told him that he right and wrong. Out of thousands of rioters who broke into the Capitol, thirteen people were arrested. And the reason there were only 13 was because they were white.
I told them that this whole affair needed to be investigated. That we needed to know how and why the police responded the way they did. That we needed to hold the rioters accountable. That we needed to make sure those who instigated this violence were made to pay for it, too.
"Is Trump still President?" Someone asked.
"Yes," I said. "For about two more weeks. But there are a lot of people who think he should have to step down sooner."
So we talked about how he could be removed from office. We talked about impeachment and the 25th Amendment. We even talked about how Trump was banned from Twitter and Facebook - how he couldn't post or tweet but still could send a nuclear missile anywhere he wanted.
And then it quieted down.
I asked them if there was anything more they wanted to know or if there was anything else they wanted to say.
They were still.
A few cameras clicked off.
I told them that I was there if anyone needed anything, that their teachers were here if they were feeling anything and wanted someone to talk to.
And then that was it.
I made one of the most abrupt and inelegant transitions in my career and we returned to our normally scheduled lesson.
Did it help any?
I don't know, but I told them what I could. I told them the truth as I saw it.
There was a time when I would have been more reticent about it.
But the day after domestic terrorists try to steal our system of government isn't the time to hold back.
As a teacher, sometimes I feel so helpless.
There's so much I'd like to do for my students.
I want them to get the resources they need. I want to stop the unfair testing, integrate their schools, keep them safe from gun violence and control Covid-19 so we can return to the classroom.
I want to live in a country where majority rule is cherished and protected, where no one thinks the collective will should be trumped by white privilege.
But when all those things are out of reach, I still have one thing left to give.
The truth.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Failed Trump Coup Gives Way to 'Brazen Attempt' by GOP to Undermine Voting Rights
"This appears to be laying the groundwork for what may be a more massive and coordinated voter suppression effort in the new year."
Dec 21, 2020
Civil rights advocates and political observers are warning that while President Donald Trump has failed to introduce any successful challenges to the presidential election, which he decisively lost to President-elect Joe Biden on November 3, he and other Republicans have likely succeeded in laying the groundwork for a significant rollback of voting rights, particularly targeting communities where disenfranchisement is already rampant.
Trump and the Republican Party have now had more than 50 lawsuits dismissed by federal and state courts, and the Electoral College last week officially affirmed Biden's victory while the federal government's top cybersecurity official--a Trump appointee--called the election "the most secure in American history."
According to a Northeastern University survey, nearly 40% of GOP voters in states that flipped from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020 believe the president actually did not lose. And Republican officials are capitalizing on those beliefs and Trump's false claims of fraud to undermine efforts designed to expand voter access.
The doubt and distrust sowed by the president and dozens of Republican lawmakers over the last six weeks has now allowed Wisconsin Republicans to argue that events in public parks where absentee ballots were collected were unlawful, and that Democratic and nonpartisan attempts in the state to make it easier for residents to vote during the coronavirus pandemic "overstepped state law," according to Reuters.
Republicans, who control the Wisconsin state legislature, are expected to consider legislation to curtail in-person early voting, which has been permitted in previous elections.
In Georgia, where voting rights advocates and progressive grassroots groups worked tirelessly to register young voters and people of color--two years after a gubernatorial election in which Republican Gov. Brian Kemp narrowly won after overseeing the closure of dozens of polling locations--state GOP lawmakers said earlier this month that they would seek to end "no excuse" voting-by-mail, which the GOP itself introduced in 2005.
Party officials said doing away with the system would "secure our election process," despite several clear statements from Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger that there was no evidence of election fraud or irregularities in Georgia.
"This appears to be laying the groundwork for what may be a more massive and coordinated voter suppression effort in the new year," Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told Reuters on Monday. "It is a brazen attempt to undermine and obstruct the progress that has been made in 2020 to make it easier for people to vote amid the pandemic."
The Brennan Center for Justice found that 29 states and the District of Columbia changed voting procedures this year to expand voting access, easing rules for voting by mail or by absentee ballot and expanding early voting so people could vote safely. The new rules made it possible for a record 158 million people to cast ballots amid the coronavirus pandemic, despite significant efforts by Trump and other Republicans to cal into questionl the validity of voting by mail and the use of drop boxes.
As Common Dreams reported, Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) admitted shortly after the election that Republican efforts to place strict controls on mail-in voting are aimed at hurting Democrats' electoral chances.
"If we don't do something about voting by mail, we're going to lose the ability to elect a Republican in this country," Graham told Fox News last month.
As lawsuits brought by Trump and the Republican Party repeatedly failed in the courts over the past month, Paul Blumenthal wrote at HuffPost that the claims being pushed by the president "could be used in years to come to justify unnecessary and damaging voting restrictions that would disproportionately affect Black voters."
"Just because this is all incredibly dumb and has no chance of successfully overturning Biden's win doesn't mean it's not incredibly dangerous," wrote Blumenthal. "The entire scheme involves the delegitimization and disenfranchisement of voters in predominantly Black municipalities. It undermines his supporters' faith in democracy."
While election law expert and former Justice Department attorney Justin Levitt told NBC News earlier this month that Trump's claims of fraud were unlikely to lead "to a different result in January... I am really afraid about what Donald Trump is currently doing to the country for February and beyond."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Citing 14th Amendment, Pascrell Says These GOP House Members Shouldn't Even Be Sworn In
"The text of the 14th Amendment expressly forbids members of Congress from engaging in rebellion against the United States. Trying to overturn a democratic election and install a dictator seems like a pretty clear example of that."
Dec 10, 2020
Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell on Friday charged that some of his Republican colleagues shouldn't be sworn in for the next session of Congress, accusing them of violating the U.S. Constitution and attempting to "demolish democracy" by backing President Donald Trump's effort to overturn the November election, which he lost to President-elect Joe Biden.
In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), chair of the Committee on House Administration, the New Jersey congressman specifically condemned the more than 100 House Republicans who are supporting a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that aims to block the four key battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin--all of which Biden won--from voting in the Electoral College.
Pascrell cites Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which gives each chamber of Congress final authority over membership, as well as Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says:
No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
"Stated simply, men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart cannot serve as members of the Congress," writes the longtime Trump critic.
"These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election attack the text and spirit of the Constitution, which each member swears to support and defend, as well as violate the rules of our House of Representatives, which explicitly forbid members from committing unbecoming acts that reflect poorly on our chamber," he adds.
Pascrell urges Pelosi and Lofgren to exercise their power to figure how they can respond to these alleged constitutional violations and, if possible, refuse to seat incoming members who, in his words, are "seeking to make Donald Trump an unelected dictator."
Their actions "must be repudiated in the strongest possible terms," he argues. "The moment we face now may be without parallel since 1860. The fate of our democracy depends on us meeting that moment."
The congressman was far from alone in condemning the behavior of GOP officials who have rallied around Paxton's long-shot lawsuit and other legal challenges to Biden's decisive victory. Earlier Friday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also slammed supporters of Trump's attempt to sow doubt about the security of the election.
"House Republicans are spending critical time when people are starving and small businesses are shuttering trying to overturn the results of our election," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, "but please tell us more about how 'both sides are just as bad.'"
Fellow Squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said Thursday that "they are attempting a coup in broad daylight and it should not be treated as anything less."
Keep ReadingShow Less
On the Current Status of Trump's Coup Attempt--and Its Future
It may look like this is one frivolity and absurdity after another—and it is. But if this electoral clash reaches the Supreme Court, all bets are off.
Nov 19, 2020
Joe Biden has won states worth 306 Electoral College votes, 36 more than the 270 needed to win, and received in excess of 5 million more popular votes than Donald Trump. Yet Trump insists the election was stolen from him and he is the victor.
Trump started attacking the election months before it happened. He leveled unsupported charges of massive voter fraud from mail-in ballots to create doubt about the integrity of the election. Knowing that Democrats would cast mail ballots in the midst of the pandemic, Trump told his supporters to vote in person on Election Day to prematurely inflate his vote totals.
When he had an apparent lead on election night, Trump claimed victory and demanded that the vote-counting stop. Sure enough, as the tabulations continued, the mail ballots counted after Election Day put Biden over the top.
Trump Files Frivolous Lawsuits to Delay State Vote Count Certifications
Trump is setting the stage for an electoral coup. Republicans and the Trump campaign have filed frivolous lawsuits, alleging mostly technical violations of voting procedures, which would not change the outcome of the election even if they were meritorious.
"The real goal of this litigation is to create the perception of widespread voter fraud to whip up distrust for the election results."
The real goal of this litigation is to create the perception of widespread voter fraud to whip up distrust for the election results. This would "give state legislatures political cover to appoint their own electors," Robert Reich wrote.
Trump's lawyers are seeking court orders to delay the certification of the votes in key states so GOP-controlled legislatures can appoint Trump electors notwithstanding Biden's victories. Trump's legal team has filed litigation in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona to prevent state officials from certifying the vote count.
On November 13, judges in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona dismissed Trump lawsuits State judges in Michigan have refused Trump's requests to delay the certification of the vote count. Judge Timothy Kenny rejected the petition of two Republican poll watchers to delay ballot count certification in Detroit, calling misconduct allegations "not credible." The plaintiffs' request for an outside audit of the voting tallies would cause such a delay that electors might not be chosen by the mid-December vote in the Electoral College. Kenny, who characterized some accusations as "rife with speculation and guesswork," said, "It would be an unprecedented exercise of judicial activism for this court to stop the certification process.
The same day, the law firm Porter Wright Morris & Arthur abruptly withdrew from the federal lawsuit they had filed in Pennsylvania on Trump's behalf earlier in the week, out of concerns they were being used to undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Also last week, Snell & Wilmer withdrew from representation of Arizona's Republican National Committee.
"These law firms have been under tremendous pressure as it became clear these claims were baseless, and that they were part of a broader campaign to delegitimize the election," Wendy Weiser from the Brennan Center for Justice told ABC News.
Both Democratic and Republican election officials in virtually every state reported to The New York Times that there was no evidence fraud or other irregularities affected the election results.
Moreover, on November 12, a joint committee of the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) confirmed the reliability of the election results, calling the November 3rd election "the most secure in American history " The high-level committee concluded, "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised."
On November 17, CISA Director Christopher Krebs denied that there was a manipulation of the election systems, tweeting, "59 election security experts all agree, 'in every case of which we are aware, these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.' " Later that day Trump fired Krebs for making a "highly inaccurate" statement, but Trump provided no evidence of his allegation.
Even Trump advisor Karl Rove wrote in a November 11th Wall Street Journal op-ed that Trump's challenges "are unlikely to move a single state from Mr. Biden's column, and certainly they're not enough to change the final outcome."
Attorney General William Barr is aiding and abetting Trump's attempted coup. Just weeks before the election, the Justice Department changed its longstanding ban on voter fraud investigations before an election. Although he told department officials after the election that he didn't see massive voter fraud, Barr saluted and marched to Trump's orders. On November 9th, Barr empowered federal prosecutors to investigate "substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities." Sixteen federal prosecutors in charge of monitoring the election wrote to Barr that there is no evidence of substantial voting irregularities.
Richard Pilger, the Justice Department official in charge of voter fraud investigations left his job in protest against Barr's order. But just the fact that the Department of Justice is authorizing investigations is designed to cast a cloud over the election. Indeed, a Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 70% of Republicans now think the election was not fair or free, compared with 35% of Republicans before the election. The purpose of Trump's strategy of falsely alleging fraud from mail ballots combined with Barr's baseless edict establishes fake doubt about the reliability of the vote tallies.
Trump Cannot Legally Steal Biden's Electoral Votes
The Constitution gives state legislatures the power to decide how electors are selected. Article II says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 1 requires that electors be chosen on Election Day. However, when a state "has failed to make a choice on [that] day," then "the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct," under Section 2.
But the states did not fail to choose the electors on Election Day. As a result of the voting process, which ended on November 3, Biden garnered more than 270 electoral votes. Trump's own Department of Homeland Security affirmed that the election was the most secure in U.S. history. Even if charges of fraud were supported, that would not amount to a failure of state voters to choose electors on Election Day. Thus, state legislatures have no authority to select Trump's electors in the states Biden won.
Trump supporters are targeting Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona--all of which Biden won--by raising allegations of fraud in hopes of persuading their state legislatures to override the will of the voters and appoint pro-Trump electors. All four states require that electors be awarded to the winner of the state's popular vote on Election Day.
In October, the Republican majority leaders from Pennsylvania's Senate and House co-authored an op-ed saying that the GOP-controlled legislature would not select electors to overrule the popular vote. They wrote, "The Pennsylvania General Assembly does not have and will not have a hand in choosing the state's presidential electors or in deciding the outcome of the presidential election." But on November 10, members of the Pennsylvania legislature announced their intention to investigate voter fraud allegations.
The Republican leader of Wisconsin's assembly has long maintained that the legislature would not override the will of the voters and he reiterated that view on November 13. But the Wisconsin legislature is also investigating the election.
Republican leaders in Michigan's legislature say legislative intervention would violate state law although the GOP-controlled legislature has mounted an investigation of the election. Michigan's majority leader said, "It is not the expectation that our analysis would result in any change in the outcome."
On November 17, in a dramatic and overtly political move, the two Republican officials on the four-member board of canvassers in Michigan's largest county blocked certification of Wayne County's vote count. But hours later, after powerful public comment and fierce outcry on traditional and social media, board chair Monica Palmer and William Hartmann reversed their "no" votes and the board unanimously certified the tally.
Trump called Palmer after the board meeting and also spoke with Hartmann. The next day, the two GOP board members tried to rescind their "yes" votes, claiming they were pressured into certifying the election with the promise of an audit of voting tallies in Detroit, which is 80% black. Jocelyn Benson, Michigan's Secretary of State, said the resolution requesting an audit was not binding. The small number of votes that could be affected by the audit is not enough to change the election results.
Benson's spokeswoman stated, "There is no legal mechanism for them to rescind their vote."
On November 19, Trump invited the Republican leaders in the Michigan legislature to visit the White House on November 20. The Michigan Board of State Canvassers will review and certify the county certifications on November 23.
Arizona's Republican House speaker affirmed that the legislature is "mandated by statute to choose according to the vote of the people," but left open the possibility of changing electors if there is "some type of fraud--which I haven't heard of anything." At this point, he added, "I don't see us in any serious way addressing a change in electors."
Although Republican leaders in those four states deny they intend to replace Biden electors with Trump electors, allegations of fraud--however spurious--could reverse those intentions. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is hinting that Trump could win in the Electoral College.
States must count electoral votes and settle election disputes by December 8, the "safe harbor" deadline. On December 14, members of the Electoral College in each state will meet to elect the president.
If legislatures in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin attempt to appoint Trump electors against the will of their voters, the Democratic governors in those states would refuse to sign the certification of electors and submit Biden slates. Arizona has a Republican governor, who may well sign a slate of Trump electors notwithstanding Biden's victory in that state, according to Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig.
On January 6, Vice President Mike Pence will preside over the opening of the certified results before a joint session of the new Congress. If there are competing slates of electors in Arizona, Pence might decide to recognize the slate signed by the governor, Lessig says. If both a senator and a member of the House of Representatives sign an objection, the Senate and House would vote on whether to uphold the objection. In all likelihood, the House would vote to sustain the objection. If the Senate votes to overrule the objection, the slate signed by the governor would be counted. Even without Biden electors from Arizona, however, Biden should still have more than 270 electoral votes. But if the state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and/or Wisconsin submit competing slates of electors, that dispute would also end up in Congress.
If neither Biden nor Trump secure 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment provides that the House would decide who becomes president. Each state gets one vote and since there are more red states than blue ones, Trump would win.
In the event that an electoral clash reaches the Supreme Court, all bets are off. In a recent concurrence, Brett Kavanaugh adopted the position that state legislatures are unconstrained in their selection of electors regardless of the popular vote. Kavanaugh based his theory on Chief Justice William Rehnquist's concurrence in Bush v. Gore--the case that selected George W. Bush as president in 2000. But that theory has not attained majority support on the high court.
"In the event that an electoral clash reaches the Supreme Court, all bets are off."
Indeed, in Chiafalo v. Washington earlier this year, a unanimous Supreme Court cited the "tradition more than two centuries old" that "electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State's voters have chosen." Chiafalo affirmed the power of states to punish "faithless electors," who don't vote in accordance with the popular vote.
But in light of the willingness of Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch to stay the counting of votes mailed by November 3 but arriving by November 6, in spite of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's allowance of the three-day extension, those three might vote for Trump in a case of dueling electors. And Amy Coney Barrett could provide the fifth vote to hand the presidency to Trump.
Trump May Be Preparing for Armed Support of His Coup
Trump is apparently taking steps to quash popular opposition to his attempted electoral theft. On November 9, he fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Last summer, Esper refused to support Trump's proposed deployment of active-duty troops against anti-racist protesters in the wake of the public lynching of George Floyd. Esper opposed the invocation of the Insurrection Act to call out active-duty military on U.S. soil. Mindful that massive protests would erupt if he succeeds in launching an electoral coup, Trump wants his loyalists in place to attack anti-coup demonstrators. Service members, however, have a duty to disobey unlawful orders and may refuse to follow Trump's illegal directives to repress protesters.
On November 14, thousands of Trump loyalists, including the Proud Boys and other right-wing groups, assembled in Washington D.C. and claimed that Biden was stealing the election. Trump drove by on his way to play golf and gave the demonstrators a thumbs-up. Later that day, in a violently inciteful tweet, Trump urged police not to "hold back" and to crack down on "antifa scum."
During the campaign, while he leveled false accusations of massive voter fraud, Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. His refusal to concede and his strategy to illegally overturn the election results by stealing Biden's electoral votes confirm his intention not to go peacefully.
"Since 1800, when the incumbent John Adams was defeated, every president who lost a reelection bid has left office," Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told this author. "Not every transition was graceful, but every one occurred. We have seen so many instances around the world where that didn't happen. I am hopeful that our institutions will work again and keep Trump from impermissibly remaining in office."
The results of the election must be honored and the presidency awarded to Joe Biden. Hopefully, that will be accomplished with all deliberate speed and the absence of bloodshed. Donald Trump must leave the White House on January 20. As Elena Kagan wrote in the last line of the Chiafalo opinion, "Here, We the People rule."
A version of this article first appeared on Jurist.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Coup Attempt? Petition Urges US Military Leaders to Refuse Any Order to Interfere in Election
"The public very much needs media outlets and prominent officials, including the Secretary of Defense, to state clearly that the president's use of the military to interfere in the election will not be tolerated."
Nov 01, 2020
Amid persistent fears that President Donald Trump could attempt to use his authority as commander in chief to involve American troops in potential disputes over the outcome of Tuesday's high-stakes presidential contest, more than 15,000 people have signed a new petition demanding that U.S. military leaders "refuse any order" to interfere with the election.
"You have a legal, constitutional, and moral responsibility to refuse to comply with any and all attempts by President Trump to interfere with the 2020 presidential election," reads the brief petition directed at Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
"As commander-in-chief at the top of the chain of command, he could make use of the military, not just the courts, to sabotage the vote counting and aim for what would amount to a coup."
--Norman Solomon, RootAction.org
Last month, as Common Dreams reported, Esper refused to definitively rule out deploying troops to polling places on Election Day, telling a pair of Democratic lawmakers who pressed him on the matter that the "U.S. military has acted, and will continue to act, in accordance with the Constitution and the law."
Organized by progressive advocacy group RootsAction.org and backed by prominent organizations--including Progressive Democrats of America, Demand Progress, and Veterans for Peace--the petition comes in the wake of Trump's repeated attacks on the legitimacy of the election and refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power should he lose to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
Axios reported late Sunday that if he jumps out to a lead in early vote tallies, Trump plans to falsely declare victory on Election Night and dismiss ballots counted thereafter as fraudulent.
"President Trump has made it clear that he will not accept losing the election," RootsAction national director Norman Solomon said in a statement. "As commander-in-chief at the top of the chain of command, he could make use of the military, not just the courts, to sabotage the vote counting and aim for what would amount to a coup."
Noting that the president "is already encouraging violence by his supporters," RootsAction co-founder Jeff Cohen said the American public "very much needs media outlets and prominent officials, including the Secretary of Defense, to state clearly that the president's use of the military to interfere in the election will not be tolerated."
The question of which side the military will be on should Trump refuse to accept the election results has been a topic of serious conversation for weeks in the face of the president's authoritarian rhetoric and behavior in the lead-up to the November 3 contest.
In a Fox News appearance in September, Trump--who over the summer sent National Guard troops to confront racial justice demonstrators--indicated he would be willing to mobilize troops to quash election-related unrest in the streets.
"Look, it's called insurrection," the president said. "We just send them in and we do it very easy."
The Atlantic's Barton Gellman warned Monday that ordering the military to intervene in the election is one of several ways Trump "could attempt a coup." Calling such a scenario "not likely" but "not impossible either," Gellman noted that the president would run up against numerous legal and practical barriers to the deployment of troops for his political benefit, including opposition from Pentagon brass.
"Biden's team has emergency legal papers prepared, but a senior adviser said flatly that 'there is no way that he's going to persuade the Pentagon to send troops,'" Gellman reported. "There is a caveat here, even so, the adviser acknowledged. It is also a serious crime, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to disobey a lawful order. Disobedience flies in the face of a lifetime's training for a man or woman in uniform. Anyone who defies the commander in chief had better be sure."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Workers Can Help Defeat a Trump Coup
Donald Trump, desperately behind in the polls, appears to be laying the groundwork for illegally attempting to remain in office if he loses the election. This commentary focuses in on the role of workers—union and nonunion—in resisting a Trump Coup.
Oct 23, 2020
In a fiery October 10 speech, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's 2016 campaign CEO, said that at 10 or 11 o'clock November 3 Trump is going to walk into the Oval Office "having won Ohio, and being up in Pennsylvania and Florida," and he's going to say, "Hey, game's over." If President Trump loses the November election but refuses to concede defeat and leave office, whatever words are used to justify his action the result will be a coup d'etat-an illegal, unconstitutional takeover of government power. Here's how workers-whatever their degree and kind of previous organization--can play a crucial role in resisting usurpation and restoring democracy.
How coups are defeated
While the US doesn't have a tradition of popular mobilization to overcome coups, around the world popular resistance has repeatedly helped defeat attempts to overthrow democratic governments. Two studies, The Anti-Coup by Gene Sharp and Bruce Jenkins and Civil Resistance Against Coups by Steven Zunes, examine civilian resistance to 15 coups. In 13 cases the resistance succeeded in overcoming the coups, primarily through nonviolent mass action.
The key lessons of these past anti-coup movements are summarized by Zunes:
- Civil resistance movements generate "bottom-up legitimacy."
- The "physical control of government facilities" is not the same as the "political control of the state."
- Those who take part in a coup are "ultimately dependent" on the willingness of "local governments, independent social institutions, and the general population" to "recognize their authority and cooperate with them."
- The key to resisting or reversing a coup is "nonrecognition and noncooperation" by society.
- The coups that were defeated were those in which "citizens successfully denied legitimacy" to the usurpers and resisted their attempt to rule with "noncooperation and defiance."
- All successful cases of coup reversals included "large public demonstrations and noncooperation."
- Pro-democracy elements must "mobilize quickly" and engage in what may be "unplanned and largely spontaneous acts of resistance."
Sharp and Jenkins offer guidelines for resisting a coup:
- Repudiate the usurpers as "illegitimate" with "no rightful claim to become the government";
- Make society "unrulable" by the usurpers and their supporters;
- Block the "imposition of a viable government" by the usurpers;
- "Maintain control and self-direction" of society;
- Make the institutions of the society into "omnipresent resistance organizations" against continued illegal rule;
- Deny the usurpers "any additional objectives";
- Make the "costs of the coup and the attempted domination unacceptable";
- "Subvert the reliability and loyalty" of the usurpers' "troops and functionaries" and "induce them to desert" those who back the coup;
- Encourage "dissension and opposition" among the usurper's supporters
A resistance scenario
How do we apply these principles to the specific situation of a Trump coup and the specific role of workers in defeating it?
The strategy of a Trump coup is based not on a military seizure of power, but on executive usurpation of authority under cover of a stolen election. Trump and his supporters are already trying to prevent people from voting through legal and illegal means. Their strategies for disrupting a democratic election include preventing votes from being counted; insisting that votes are illegal; and creating chaos and disruption that will make the entire election process appear illegitimate.
Our electoral process offers an enormous range of opportunities for disruption, from armed gangs menacing voters at the polls, to shutting the polls before everyone has voted, to replacing members of the electoral college who have won the popular vote with others appointed by state legislatures. This summer the Transition Integrity Project, composed of more than 100 current and former senior government and campaign leaders and other experts, held a series of "war games" that concluded "with a high degree of likelihood" that the election will be marked by a "chaotic legal and political landscape." President Trump is likely to contest the result by "both legal and extra-legal means." He may be willing to go to "extreme lengths" to stay in office.
Preparations to respond are already under way. A manual titled Hold the Line lays out how to form local "election protection" committees and start organizing for coup resistance.[6] Numerous organizations and coalitions are actively preparing for responding if Trump and his supporters disrupt the election and attempt to nullify its results. They include Choose Democracy, National Council On Election Integrity, Keep Our Republic , Stand Up America , and People's Strike!. Others are keeping a low public profile unless and until open resistance is necessary. Protect the Results, a joint project of Indivisible and Stand Up America, has already organized actions in 233 locations for 5:00 p.m. local time on November 4.
Stopping Trump from stealing the electionWe're just a few weeks away from the election, and if you're like us you're feeling lots of things about it. Trump is worried he's ...
A leading role is likely to be played by organized young people. A youth coalition called We Count on Us is already organizing and mobilizing to resist such a coup. It includes the Sunrise Movement, March For Our Lives, Dream Defenders and United We Stand-groups that have played a leading role in mass youth mobilizations for climate protection, gun control, immigrant rights, and Black Lives.
An on-line training by the Sunrise movement laid out principles for youth mobilization and nonviolent resistance in what may be a long fight. People can start right now to gather a few friends to work with. Even before election day officials - for example, governors, attorneys-general, secretaries of state, legislative leaders, and congresspeople-can be called on to commit to counting every vote. Election day efforts will include getting out the vote and ensuring that every vote is counted. Masses of young people will stay at polling places-for multiple days if necessary -- until everyone has voted and every vote has been counted. If the votes are not counted or the results of the election not respected, there will be a call for a mass youth strike from school and work. As the "We Count on Us" webpage puts it, "If Trump tries to steal the election, we need to be ready to lead a mass strike to make sure every vote is counted. We make this country run and if we all refuse to go to work or school, there's no way for Trump to govern."Such a strike will involve not only withdrawal from school and work but active interventions ranging from tweet storms and demonstrations targeting decisionmakers to socially-distanced and virtual rallies.
What can workers do?
Around the world workers and labor organizations have been crucial for popular movements to resist coups. According to Zunes, "general strikes played an important role" in Bolivia, Burkina Faso, France, Argentina, Mali, Sudan, and Egypt and in resisting the 1920 Kapp Putsch in Germany. But there is no tradition of using general strikes for political purposes in the US.
Ten percent of US workers are organized in unions-that's about 14 million people. Many millions more are organized in professional associations of one kind or another. Most of the rest are in frequent contact with co-workers and are often organized in informal networks that share information and cooperate in other ways. However organized, workers are an essential part of every social institution; they are positioned to organize themselves and make the institutions they work in "omnipresent resistance organizations" against illegal Trump rule. Resistance to a Trump usurpation needs participation of both unionized and non-unionized workers. This section examines what all workers can do; the next section addresses what unionized workers in particular can do.
Talk with co-workers: All workers can start by talking with the people they work with and the people they know through various networks to discuss the danger and what to do about it. A starting question might simply be, what do you think people should do if Trump loses but refuses to leave the White House? Those who think action is necessary can simply form their own informal or formal "election protection" group.
There are several steps workers can take before election day. They can get in touch with youth and other groups in their community and offer support and cooperation with what they are planning. They can participate in voter education and anti-voter-suppression activities.
On election day: Besides voting yourself, you can participate in get-out-the-vote efforts with your co-workers, neighbors, and the wider public. Youth will be showing up to help protect voters against misinformation, denied access, intimidation, and violence. They need workers and the entire population to show up and support their efforts to preserve democracy for all of us. These efforts need to continue for as many days as necessary until all the votes are counted and valid results announced.
Join the strike: If vote counting is interrupted or interfered with or Trump loses but refuses to concede, major youth organizations have already pledged a youth strike in schools and workplaces. There are likely to be significant efforts to break their strike, ranging from school and employer retaliation to arrests to vigilante violence. Supporting and protecting youth strikers will be necessary for preserving democracy against brutal authoritarianism. That means joining the strike, getting out in the streets, and participating in active interventions that show the people reject the coup. The thousands of strikes by Fight For Fifteen workers and the 900 wildcat strikes for COVID-19 protection since March show that-to paraphrase Mother Jones-you don't need a union to raise hell. Even though they don't have jobs to strike from, the millions of workers who are currently unemployed due to the COVID-19 Depression can participate in demonstrations and other public actions and can help put pressure on political decisionmakers.
Workers can organize in schools, hospitals, businesses, government offices, and every other venue to show that the entire society refuses to recognize or to cooperate with the usurpation of democracy. They can organize with others in their institutions to pass resolutions and impose policies of non-recognition and non-cooperation. For example, teachers and other education workers can demand that PTAs and school boards work with them to close schools and make them available as a base for anti-coup activists. Lawyers and their organizations can solicit cooperation from everyone in the legal system from judges to janitors to close the courts and issue statements rejecting the coup and stating that resistance to it is obedience to law. Municipal and state government workers can shut down normal operations and organize to continue socially necessary emergency operations under the authority of the local community and its representatives, making explicit that they are not operating under the authority of the usurpers of lawful government.
Certain workers are in locations that provide them special power. It was when airline workers stopped showing up for work and the Association of Flight Attendants called for mass mobilization at airports and a general strike that President Trump and his Senate supporters abandoned their shutdown of the federal government. Amazon, UPS, airline, and fossil fuel delivery workers among others could bring normal social life to a screeching halt.
What can unions do?
On September 25 AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka released this statement about the post-election transition:
The AFL-CIO categorically rejects all threats to the peaceful transition of power. The labor movement simply will not allow any breach of the U.S. Constitution or other effort to deny the will of the people. Union members across the political spectrum are united in our fundamental belief that the votes of the American people must always determine the presidency. America's workers will continue to be steadfast in defense of our democracy in the face of President Trump's antics, and we stand ready to do our part to ensure his defeat in this election is followed by his removal from office.
Discussions are under way within organized labor about how to make such a "removal from office" real. A number of unions-some of them in critical industries-are discussing strikes and other actions against a Trump coup internally and with each other. The Service Employees International Union and the Communication Workers of America are participating in Protect the Results, which has organized post-election meetings in nearly 200 locations to "activate their members and take coordinated action" if "Donald Trump loses the election and refuses to concede."
At the local level unions are already organizing. The Rochester Labor Council, AFL-CIO, passed a resolution October 8 that calls on "the National AFL-CIO, all of its affiliate unions, and all other labor organizations in the United States of America to prepare for and enact a general strike of all working people, if necessary, to ensure a Constitutionally mandated peaceful transition of power as a result of the 2020 Presidential Elections." The Seattle Education Association passed a resolution calling for post-election meetings for members to consider "work actions" in the event of interference with the elections. The American Postal Workers Union in Detroit called on its members to pledge that:
- We will vote.
- We will refuse to accept election results until all the votes are counted.
- We will nonviolently take to the streets if a coup is attempted.
- If we need to, we will shut down this country to protect the integrity of the democratic process.
If Trump loses but refuses to concede, labor organizations at every level can pass resolutions of nonrecognition and non-cooperation. Local unions can call on their central labor councils and higher bodies in their own unions to do so. Where official labor organizations are slow to respond, local labor activists can create "coalitions of the willing" to work around centers of inertia and resistance. Working with other stakeholders unions can pressure institutions whose workers they represent - like hospitals, schools, local governments, and civic institutions - to establish policies of non-recognition and non-cooperation with the Trump regime and take concrete acts to implement those policies. They can demand that their employers support electoral integrity, refuse to recognize and cooperate with an illegal Trump regime, and not retaliate against workers who join strikes for democracy. Unions can support and join the youth strikes and direct actions and help protect them against violent attack.
Guidelines for resistance
The US 2020 anti-coup movement, like those elsewhere in the past, will have to depend on "unplanned and largely spontaneous acts of resistance." Its strategy and tactics will often have to be improvised on the spot. Here are some guidelines that may help with that process.
Organizing the resistance: Successful resistance will depend on millions of people organizing themselves in their own localities and institutions. There are already multiple centers organizing coup resistance. No one organization is preordained or likely to be in a position to claim legitimate leadership for the movement as a whole. Leadership will need to actively coordinate across organizations and seek alignment on goals and strategies. Constituents can support and demand such cooperation.
Defining the frame: The anti-coup movement does not represent Joe Biden or the Democratic Party. It represents the right of the American people to govern themselves through representatives of their own choosing. It asserts that the people determine our government, not a usurping tyrant.
Unifying demands: A small set of very similar demands has been articulated by a wide range of anti-coup efforts. The nearly universal demand is Count Every Vote. Various groups have proposed supplementary "red lines" that are essentially means to the same end, such as "impartially investigate and remedy all irregularities" and "respect election results regardless of who wins." Whatever their other disagreements, all anti-coup groups should strive to create agreement around a small set of such core demands.
Using nonviolence: The core strategy of the anti-coup movement is to organize society to generate "bottom-up legitimacy." The key to doing so is to demonstrate organized action by millions of people expressing their refusal to recognize and cooperate with the coup. As the recent Sunrise training pointed out, Trump is "waging a narrative battle" to "paint our actions as violent and fringe." The movement can best win that battle by painting an alternative picture of the people peacefully rising to disenthrone an aspiring tyrant. Participants can ask each other to agree to and abide by pledges of nonviolence. If those who oppose this peaceful uprising choose to paint a picture of themselves as a violent mob menacing safety and democracy, that is their choice.
While fantasies of violent resistance to the forces of violence may satisfy some psychological needs, violence by democracy defenders will play right into the hands of Trump and his supporters. It will confirm to the general public their claims about the threat of "violent leftists." And it will give both armed terrorists and police and other security forces the perfect excuse to wreak violence against peaceful demonstrators. The main effect of lefties brandishing guns will be to get a lot of peaceful demonstrators killed.
Disabling Trump's support: While pre-election polls indicate that Trump's support is declining to a modest minority, a third or more of the population still supports him. Trump has urged his supporters to go to the polls to prevent the election from being stolen-one can only imagine by what means. Trump supporters have already shot demonstrators dead-and been celebrated by the president for doing so. Nonviolent democracy defenders will sometimes be confronted by rightwing, white supremacist Trump supporters, some armed, some part of organized terrorist "militias." They will be encouraged by the rightwing media echo chamber which will feed them with lies, fears, and incitements. In some cases they will be supported by a segment of police and other security forces.
Nonviolent movements have developed a host of techniques for dealing with threats of violence and de-escalating conflict, like linking arms to protect demonstrators and create a barrier against attacks. On-line training is available on how to use them; groups going into nonviolent action should watch them and role-play their techniques.[17] Of course, no techniques will always immediately cool out angry violent attackers, and a threatened democracy cannot be defended without risk. But history shows that in most instances the perpetrators of violence against peaceful people seeking to protect the public good undermine their own support and increase support for those they attack. The best way to counter violence is to render it self-defeating for those who would use it.
Neutralizing and winning over the security forces: Unlike a classic military coup, the role of the military and other security forces in the event of a Trump executive usurpation is far from predetermined. The New York Times recently reported that several Pentagon officials said there could be resignations among many of Trump's senior generals, starting at the top with chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark A. Milley, should troops be ordered into the streets at the time of the election. The intelligence apparatus is similarly sending signals of dealignment with Trump's machinations. In a video message, William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, with the agreement of the directors of the FBI, National Security Agency, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said the "election system remains resilient." In sharp contrast to Trump's contentions that the elections will be "rigged," "corrupt, and "illegal," Evanina stated "it would be very difficult for adversaries to interfere with, or manipulate, voting results at scale."
The role of various sectors and levels of the security forces in the event of a Trump coup will no doubt be contested. Some police and military forces support democracy and legitimate government and will refuse to take orders from a usurper. Some will strive to present themselves as neutral or "non-political." Some sympathize or even ally themselves with white nationalist, rightwing, Trumpist movements and organizations. What is most likely to win their support or at least neutralize opposition from the security forces is to paint a portrait of the people peacefully rising to defend democracy against the attempt to establish a tyranny.
Endgames: While many social movement campaigns end with negotiations, the movement against a Trump coup may not. Rather, it may result in a collapse of the coup and the restoration of constitutionally mandated democratic procedures and principles. If the demands of the movement are clear and unambiguous, everyone should be able to tell whether they have been met and there will be no opportunity for leadership sellout. Democracy is not negotiable.
Resisting a Trump coup and protecting democracy will undoubtedly involve sacrifice and suffering. It may well be easier and safer to simply defer to illegitimate authority. But as the abolitionist former slave Frederick Douglass noted long ago, "There is no disguising the fact that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and if we maintain our high estate in this republic, we must be something more than driftwood in a stream."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy