WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2022
Tapper, Gangel get it right: Did Donald J. Trump know that violent groups were going to invade the Capitol Building on January 6? Had that been a part of the plan?
Way back when, we identified that as the one question which remains concerning Trump's behavior and intent. Had he actually planned for the violence with these groups? Inquiring minds needed to know.
Last night, Jake Tapper and Jamie Gangel engaged in some heretical conduct. Speaking on CNN, they said that, in their view, this question still hasn't been answered.
In our view, Donald J. Trump seems to be badly disordered. But did he plan for the violence which occurred on January 6?
On this point, we agree with Tapper and Gangel. As we noted yesterday afternoon, we thought the latest hearing by the January 6 Committee failed to establish this point. Indeed, we thought the committee failed to take us where they'd suggested they would.
Earlier, speaking with Cassidy Hutchinson, the committee had whetted our appetite. They'd floated testimony in which Hutchinson said that Mark Meadows may have communicated with the "war room" at the Willard Hotel on the evening of January 5.
(For the relevant transcript, see below.)
Within the novels our blue tribe constructs, this suggested nefarious intent—guilt—on Meadows' part. But what did Meadows actually say if he did speak to the war room?
What did Meadows actually say if he spoke to the war room? During the hearing with Hutchinson, no evidence of that was supplied.
Through such means as that possible call to the war room, was "the Trump orbit" conspiring with such violent groups as the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys? Was Trump's chief of staff planning for a violent assault on the Capitol?
Everything is possible! But nothing is fact till it's shown.
Yesterday, we were struck—and disappointed—by the way the committee avoided this general question. Earlier teases were set aside. As a general matter, the war room was disappeared.
This doesn't mean that there wasn't a conspiracy to engage in violence; it simply means that no such conspiracy has been shown. And to their credit, Tapper and Gangel noted this fact at roughly 8:20 last night.
Following a "hang him high" statement by Norm Eisen, their brief exchange went like this:
TAPPER (7/12/22): I have to say, though, and Jamie, I'm interested in what you think, I don't doubt that there were shenanigans with the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, and I see tenuous connections. But I have not seen enough evidence to know that, you know, that that was—that part of it was criminal intent, that Trump knew that these far-right militia groups were coming because of what he said. And you know what I mean? Like, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence about it.
GANGEL: I completely agree. We know that was, that the Proud Boys were acting as security guards—
TAPPER: Oath Keepers.
GANGEL: Oath Keepers, for Roger Stone. But I would say that, in general, the committee has underpromised and overdelivered. This was the one hearing where they said there was going to be a link with the Trump orbit. I didn't see it.
TAPPER: See you all again, shortly.
In Gangel's view, this was the hearing "where [the committee] said there was going to be a link with the Trump orbit" and those violent groups.
"I didn't see it," Gangel said. Tapper had voiced the same point.
In our view, Donald J. Trump is deeply disordered. As disordered people will do, he often surrounded himself with The Crazies—with Giuliani, Powell and Flynn.
His conduct had been bizarre—and grossly unacceptable—for at least seven years by this point. But was there a conspiracy between "the Trump orbit" and the Proud Boys / Oath Keepers coalition?
We thought that topic would be addressed yesterday. We were surprised—and disappointed—when it wasn't.
In closing, we offer you this:
In our view, Donald J. Trump is deeply disordered. That said, various elements of the upper-end press corps have long been journalistically disordered too.
For years, they chased after Clinton, Clinton and Gore. As a result of this group misconduct, Samuel Alito sits on the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade is dead.
Today, they're uniform in their loathing of Trump—and they tend to jump beyond what they've actually shown in their pursuit of him. Dating to the Clinton / Gore / Clinton years, this is the way they tend to play the game once a target has been chosen.
Their novelizing is endless and far-reaching. Yesterday, their novelizing was on wide display.
(We've been especially struck by the way they keep putting their thumbs on the scales concerning Meadows' conduct. It would take far too long to explain any of this.)
That said, our tribe is currently on their side. We're happy when they cut their many corners to hand us the simplified stories we like.
We simply love our tribal novels. Being "human all too human," we don't notice—and we're happy— when corners are sanded, shaved, cut.
A pair of background transcripts: Last evening, the exchange between Tapper and Gangel followed a presentation by Norm Eisen.
Eisen is, for better or worse, a CNN legal analyst. In this presentation, he engaged in the conduct typical of this large "cable news" class:
EISEN (7/12/22): Jake, we heard from Cassidy Hutchinson at the last hearing about Trump's violent intent—intent is so important in criminal cases, his violent intent on January 6th.
They built a bridge today, from December 14, when, as we heard from Pat Cipollone, we see now why they wanted him and so many others, the legal avenues were exhausted.
He had a turning point on December 18th in this meeting. He chose the road of Team Crazy and then, December 19th, "Will be wild." That shows intent of the violence that we ultimately got on January 6th. We got a lot of premeditation, all of the planning.
So I think they added to the quantum of evidence. They're moving towards proof beyond a reasonable doubt of crime in these hearings.
Dating back through the Mueller years, the "hangin' prosecutors" of cable news have persistently assured us that criminal indictments of Trump are right around the corner.
Trump's next crime is always visible to these pundits. Over time, their conduct has helped us understand why our prisons sometimes seem to be full of innocent people.
Eisen isn't a former prosecutor, but he tends to play one on TV. In that statement, he's saying that Trump's one tweet, "Will be wild," somehow shows that he wanted the violent assault on the Capitol Building. This follows the creed of this intrepid breed:
In all cases, every item will establish the target's guilt.
Eisen drew a ton of meaning—a ton of intent—from that three-word tweet. The debunking exchange between Tapper and Gangel followed Eisen's statement.
Concerning Meadows and the war room, here's an exchange between Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson from the previous hearing. Warning to us lovestruck liberals! The fact that Cheney makes a statement doesn't prove that the statement is true:
CHENEY (6/28/22): The night before January 6th, President Trump instructed his Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to contact both Roger Stone and Michael Flynn regarding what would play out the next day. Ms. Hutchinson, is it your understanding that President Trump asked Mark Meadows to speak with Roger Stone and General Flynn on January 5th?
HUTCHINSON: That's correct. That is my understanding.
CHENEY: And Ms. Hutchinson, is it your understanding that Mr. Meadows called Mr. Stone on the 5th?
HUTCHINSON: I'm under the impression that Mr. Meadows did complete both a call to Mr. Stone and General Flynn the evening of the 5th.
CHENEY: And do you know what they talked about that evening, Ms. Hutchinson?
HUTCHINSON: I'm not sure.
CHENEY: Is it your understanding that Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Eastman, and others had set up what has been called, quote, a war room at the Willard Hotel on the night of the 5th?
HUTCHINSON: I was aware of that the night of the 5th.
CHENEY: And do you know if Mr. Meadows ever intended to go to the Willard Hotel on the night of the 5th?
HUTCHINSON: Mr. Meadows had a conversation with me where he wanted me to work with Secret Service on a movement from the White House to the Willard Hotel so he could attend the meeting or meetings with Mr. Giuliani and his associates in the war room.
CHENEY: And what was your view as to whether or not Mr. Meadows should go to the Willard that night?
HUTCHINSON: I had made it clear to Mr. Meadows that I didn't believe it was a smart idea for him to go to the Willard Hotel that night. I wasn't sure everything that was going on at the Willard Hotel, although I knew enough about what Mr. Giuliani and his associates were pushing during this period. I didn't think that it was something appropriate for the White House Chief of Staff to attend or to consider involvement in, and made that clear to Mr. Meadows.
Throughout the afternoon, he mentioned a few more times going up to the Willard Hotel that evening, and then eventually dropped the subject the night of the 5th and said that he would dial in instead.
According to Hutchinson, Meadows had wanted to go to the Willard; in the end, he may have "dialed in" instead. But what had Meadows planned to say when he went there?
Within our tribe, we were encouraged to assume that he wanted to say the worst. No evidence was offered to establish that point—and yesterday, this whole well-teased avenue completely disappeared.
We were disappointed by that. But when Tapper and Gangel noted this fact, we'd say they got it right!
Did Donald J. Trump plan, conspire, for the violence which occurred?
In our view, that hasn't been established yet. Whatever the truth may turn out to be, we hope the committee delves further.
"In our view, Donald J. Trump seems to be badly disordered. But did he plan for the violence which occurred on January 6?"
As far as we're concerned, you, dear Bob, are free to pursue your interests. If this is what interests you, dear Bob, that's your problem.
Now, if you want our view, dear Bob, here it is: Brandon seems to be a veg. In fact, he is a veg. We wouldn't give a shit for what he might have planned, if anything.
We just want to know when your tribe's rule, your tribe's endless absurd buffoonery, is going to end. When things get back to normal.
With supreme self regard, Bob reminds us we must play by the rules he has established for us. "Early on, we identified as the one real question..."ReplyDelete
No you didn't Bob, you found a way to please yourself
by letting Trump off the hook. Liz Cheney pretty much
destroyed you and your hero with the reminder, which
should not be needed for any adult, that Trump, either as
a idiot with a stupid TV or as leader of the free world,
is accountable for his actions.
So "but her emails" Tapper finds the evidence
circumstantial? Well, maybe he's right. But the fact
that Bob constantly has to plead insanity to justify
his sickening actions should suggest that maybe they
aren't all the circumstantial. That Bob has to
constantly berate those who describe the basic
facts as "novelists" (and worse insults) should tell
you a lot too.
Finally, that Bob equates, what, the trivial
"Clinton Scandals" (however they are rewritten
and distorted by virtually everyone today) with
the murder and desecration at our Capital
Trump obviously inspired is a sad moment for
those of us who were once foolish enough to
It appears to me that Trump was happy that the rioting was taking place inside the Capitol. It appears to me that Trump had a wild idea that with delay, the election could be shown to be fraudulent, and he could still be President. That's not a legal crime, but it's certainly immoral.ReplyDelete
I think it was rational for Trump to think the election might have been stolen. However, It was irrational to think that on Jan 6 there was anything he could do about it. And, it's definitely irrational to keep fighting this battle long after the fact. Even if he could prove today that the election was stolen, that wouldn't change the results. Biden would still be President, not Trump.
No, David, there was absolutely nothing rational about it. It was one large pile of bullshit from the world's biggest bullshitter.Delete
“What Trump’s gonna do, is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner,” Bannon, laughing, told the group, according to audio of the meeting obtained by Mother Jones. “He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”“He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner.”
“As it sits here today,” Bannon said later in the conversation, describing a scenario in which Trump held an early lead in key swing states, “at 10 or 11 o’clock Trump’s gonna walk in the Oval, tweet out, ‘I’m the winner. Game over. Suck on that.’”
Trump’s plan to falsely declare victory while tens of millions of votes were still being counted was public knowledge even before the election. Axios reported on the scheme at the time. Bannon himself discussed the idea on November 3—Election Day—on his War Room podcast. Weeks earlier, Bannon had interviewed a former Trump administration official who outlined how Trump would would use allegations of fraud to dispute an electoral defeat and would seek to have Congress declare him the winner. Last month, the congressional committee investigating January 6 detailed how Rudy Giuliani convinced Trump to go ahead with a victory declaration after 2 a.m. on November 4, over the objections of campaign staff. “Frankly, we did win this election,” Trump insisted in that infamous news conference.
The nearly hour-long audio obtained by Mother Jones is new evidence that Trump’s late-night diatribe—which came a few hours later than Bannon had anticipated—followed a preexisting plan to lie to Americans about the election results in a bid to hold onto power. https://digbysblog.net/
Thanks for the comment @10:58. I don't know what to make of Bannon's comment that Trump planned to claim victory before all the votes were counted. After all, Trump didn't do it.Delete
I think Digby is exactly right in saying, The committee may not have drawn a direct link Tuesday between Trump and the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who led the riot, but the way the committee has orchestrated its presentations suggests members know more than they are letting on.
However, my interpretation of this comment is to fault the committee. The presentation was indeed orchestrated. And, it was designed to convince us of things that they could not prove. It's OK for a campaign to spin. But, it's disgusting to use the prestige and power of the Congress to spin.
Trump didn't do what, David?Delete
“This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election,” Trump falsely claimed.
“It’s a very sad moment to me, a very sad moment, and we are going to win this,” he said. “As far as I’m concerned, we already have won this, so I want to thank all of our supporters and I want to thank everybody that worked with us.”
He's been doing every day since, you lying sack of shit.
"Even if he could prove today that the election was stolen, that wouldn't change the results. Biden would still be President, not Trump."
Meh. Yes, Brandon would still have the title. But many things would've changed dramatically. Current things, and future things.
You attempt to appear rational while hanging onto the big lie, which you cannot support in any way. How did the committee “spin” anything? They failed to provide tape of Trump sayingDelete
“It was illegal and I did it on
purpose to create a riot that
would keep me in power.” Some of
us can do the math, which is
pretty much one plus one
Don't expect a good faith intellectually honest response from David. He is a bullshitter just like his hero, Donald J Chickenshit. David has no core principles, and is also a ginormous hypocrite. He spent the better part of a quarter century peeping up Hillary's skirt, hoping to find something, anything with which to send her to prison. But Donald J Chickenshit, a one man crime wave, David sees no evidence.Delete
Remember when David claimed, just as the Committee hearings were starting, without a shred of evidence and belied by all reasonable evidence and observation of DJChickenshit's past behavior, that it was Donald J Chickenshit alone who "REJECTED" all the crazy schemes everyone was bringing to him?Delete
Now, after witness after witness testified how it was Trump alone who rejected the sound advise he was getting and kept plotting the coup, when will David come back here to tell us how embarrassingly wrong he was? It was literally the exact opposite of what David was claiming happened.
The answer of course is David will never admit he was wrong and in fact will continue arguing that it was Trump, and Trump alone, who rejected all the crazy ideas. Right David. You don't own a mirror, do you, David?
If you have any belief that Trump thought the election results would be overturned without violence, you're the one who belongs in a mental institution. Not Trump.ReplyDelete
Somerby has heard the sworn testimony of various people who were in the rooms "where it happened" and he still doesn't believe Trump did what he plainly did. This illustrates why it is so hard for those of us with Trump-supporting friends and relatives to deprogram them. They will not accept factual evidence that runs counter to their preferred beliefs.ReplyDelete
The key word in the phrase "circumstantial evidence" is evidence, not circumstantial. It is not possible to crawl inside Trump's mind. We cannot be flies on his wall. He wasn't stupid enough to video his revolution. So we are left with the best evidence we can find, which consists of those who were there telling us what they heard and saw and did. You would have to believe that Democrats had orchestrated a huge plot, involving hundred and thousands of people, all coordinated in their testimony, all trying to torture Trump with suspense over whether he will ever be charged with anything, to think that these people are not finally telling the truth about what happened.
I have said before that Somerby would not admit that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow because "anything is possible." He has invoked this defense on behalf of people who are plainly guilty, even in the eyes of the law. Now he wants to exonerate Trump and he attacks what he considers to be the weakest link, which isn't weak at all.
The biggest evidence against Trump is that his coup involved multiple coordinated activities involving people from very different spheres, all working toward the single aim of keeping him in office. This all centered around Trump and he kept it going, and that is the converging evidence of his guilt.
Somerby's doubts here are unreasonable. They are desperate.
1. Trump stoked the violence in his speeches and tweets -- there are many examples of this.ReplyDelete
2. Trump tried to prevent the secret service from keeping armed supporters out of his 1/6 rally, saying "They aren't here to hurt me." He tried to stop the screening for weapons. Who did Trump think those weapons were for?
3. Trump egged on the violence threatened against Mike Pence, saying "He deserves it." He could have defused it but instead tweeted words that increased the threat against Pence.
4. Trump told the Proud Boys to "stand back and wait" instead of to stand down. These words have specific meanings to militia members.
5. The militias and their media voices (Alex Jones et al.) began their organizing immediately after Trump's 1:40 am tweet to be there on 1/6, "It will be wild." By later that morning they were already on air with their call to arms and they were sending texts to each other to coordinate efforts.
6. The organizational structure for the militias to coordinate with each other came from the Trump organization, according to testimony on 7/12 from HHS.
7. The people carrying out the coup had access to Trump at the White House, circumventing Trump's staff. The same people had a war room at the Willard Hotel where the Proud Boys and Oath Keeper leaders were filmed meeting with each other.
8. Trump did everything he could to go to the Capitol along with the marchers, promising he would be there.
9. Trump refused to mobilize security ahead of the coup and interfered with efforts to provide more help for police.
10. Trump continued to pressure congress during the coup attempt, via phone.
11. Trump refused to call off the violence by speaking to his supporters until much later, when it was obvious they were losing. He repeatedly told his rioting supporters he loved them.
12. Trump coordinated activities with Republican members of congress who met with him the morning of 1/5.
13. Trump investigated the possibility of invoking martial law. Oath Keepers thought they would be deputized by Trump. He tried to invoke the Defense Department to help by seizing voting machines and to prevent use of national guard troops in DC. He had planted his own staff at the Pentagon after losing the election. What for?
14. Top Trump staff knew there would be violence on 1/6, as Mark Meadows told Cassidy Hutchinson.
Trump needs to be tied directly to the planning in order to move the needle.Delete
He IS directly tied to the planning. That is what this list shows.Delete
These are not direct ties my friend. Circumstantial navel gazing won't cut it. Let's see some direct evidence tying him to the planning and then we'll talk.Delete
When Michael Avenatti is elected president, Enemies of The People will feel his rage.Delete
The 1/6 Report will contain all testimony, including more that links Trump directly to the coup plotting. Also, the 1/6 Commission will be turning over evidence to the DOJ. Trump is not off the hook simply because the 1/6 committee decided to feature more testimony from Cipollone and less about the Willard Hotel meeting in its 7th session.
Somerby often seems impaired when it comes to considering a wider context. These various actions provide converging evidence. That is how a circumstantial case is built -- a big picture emerges from the details. Somerby's tactic is to isolate one or two details he considers problematic and attack them, as if the entire structure of an argument will fall if a detail can be impeached.ReplyDelete
Somerby tells us that Cheney may be lying when she phrases questions to Hutchinson during the hearing -- as if that script were not vetted by staff and other committee members, but were solely Cheney's invention. The questions are motivated by other testimony and their purpose is to present info to the public via the hearing, not to elicit new facts from Hutchinson. Nothing said hinges on Cheney's veracity. It rests on the sworn testimony of Republicans who were present and witnessed what happened.
Somerby thinks that if he can accuse Tapper of predicting Trump's conviction based on the Mueller investigation, which was not pursued because Mueller was a Republican and Attorney General Barr, a Trump appointee, was also a Republican partisan who covered up Mueller's findings, then Tapper must be wrong about Trump's guilt too. It doesn't work that way either. Mueller had the goods on Trump and the Mueller report was a blueprint for prosecution based on obstruction of justice. It wasn't pursued because Republicans protected Trump, not because Tapper was wrong.
But the larger point is that attacking the messengers cannot destroy the message of the latest hearing -- that Trump colluded to produce and was delighted by the violence in his name, that numerous links exist between Trump and his conspirators Giuliani, Eastman, Flynn, Stone and militias including The Proud Boys and The Oath Keepers, who have already pled guilty or been convicted of their crimes. The meetings to set up and coordinate the coup were witnessed by numerous staff who have testified under oath. Somerby needs to address this large body of evidence before he can claim that the committee has failed to link Trump to what happened. He has not even begun to do that. He simply refuses to accept what was presented, on the grounds that Cheney is a Republican and Tapper made a prediction that didn't pan out.
Meadows gave the Proud Boys internal polling data.ReplyDelete
"Did Donald J. Trump plan, conspire, for the violence which occurred?"ReplyDelete
Phrasing the sentence this way implies that the violence was the goal. More likely, Trump didn't think about violence. He thought about a show of support and strength that would push legislators to refuse the ratify the elector tallies for each state, overturning the election results. I think Trump more likely was trying to emulate Putin and other strongmen, to flex his dictator muscles and use a show of public support to stay in power. It was about the coup, not the violence. The violence was a by-product of Trump's show of force.
Somerby may think that if Trump didn't want anyone to be hurt or killed, then he is absolved of guilt. The reality is that the violence arising from his attempts to stay in office are his fault, his responsibility, the result of his criminal actions, whether he wanted violence or not. So, this isn't about whether Trump wanted violence or not. It is about whether he wanted to stay in power and used illegal means to achieve that goal. Clearly he has done the latter. Even Somerby should be able to see that.
Absolved of guilt about what?Delete
Breaking the law.Delete
ATTEMPTING A COUP.Delete
You have to tie Trump to the planning.Delete
What was the meeting on the evening of the 18th, when Flynn crashed the White House and spend 6-7 hours arguing with White House staff? At 1:40 am, immediately after that meeting, Trump sent out his tweet to come to DC on 1/6 "It will be wild!"Delete
What was the change in venue by the Rally organizer, who originally planned something very different but switched the venue on her permit at that same time? Planning.
Mark Meadows ties Trump to the meeting at the Willard Hotel, the evening of 1/5.
Roger Stone ties Trump to the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
Trump is right in the middle of the attempts to pressure Mike Pence to refuse to certify, and the alternate elector schemes. Members of Congress met with Trump the morning of 1/5. What for? Planning.
There are texts and tweets and phone calls tying the various members of this conspiracy together and to Trump.
Trump was behind the Big Lie, the lawsuits to overturn swing state votes, the Eastman plot to create alternate elector slates, and the attempts to pressure Govs and Secs of State and election officials into finding him extra votes and declaring their elections fraudulent. Trump pressured Barr and Rosen and tried to replace him with Clark, so he could declare election fraud. Trump wanted to use the Defense Dept and HHS to confiscate voting machines in order to declare the election a fraud. Trump is at the center of all of these schemes. He is tied to the 1/6 coup attempt too, via phone calls and meetings and his own actions and statements on that date.
He has been tied to the planning. Failure to accept that, demands for more proof, represent denial and ongoing support for Trump, not any kind of open mind. A reasonable person would see that such ties were made during the 7 hearing sessions. It won't convince unreasonable people, because nothing will.
Those ties are not substantial. You have to tie him directly. This is not a Digby article, this is real life.Delete
Directly, like Trump had to call up Rhodes himself. No, that isn’t how this works.Delete
All of that is hearsay. It won't hold up in court. Let's respect the rule of law.Delete
These witnesses are testifying to what they heard and saw. Hearsay doesn’t apply.Delete
In order to hold up in court Trump has to be tied directly to the planning, not a tenuous second or third hand connection like a game of telephone between slobbering children.Delete
These hearings are not court. The DOJ will have their evidence. He is tied to plenty.Delete
At this point what we need to see is direct evidence. Until then, we are all waiting for itDelete
If you are STILL waiting for evidence, you are not watching the hearings in good faith.Delete
Additional info tying Trump directly to the militia groups was removed in order to provide Cipollone's testimony. It will be in the 1/6 Commission's report and it will be turned over to the DOJ. Similarly with additional info about the Willard Hotel planning meeting on 1/5 and Mark Meadows' participation.
That's what people said about Trump and Russia and where did that get us? Looking like fools that's where.Delete
Just tie him directly and we'll talk. I'll wait for the report.Delete
The black ones.Delete
From Politicus website:ReplyDelete
"...it seemed as though some members of Congress, especially Republicans, knew that the Capitol would at least be vulnerable to MAGA supporters in a rage over the election certification on January 6th. For example, when Rep. Jim Jordan heard the chaos descending on the House, he said something about helping and protecting “the ladies” and reached for Liz Cheney, who said ‘Get away from me. You f*cking did this,’ and many of us have long believed that to be a very personal message to Jordan, that Cheney knew that “this” was part of a plan in which Jordan was personally involved. Today, the Committee presented evidence that even the MAGA Republicans that were planning to “Object” on January 6th knew that it could be violent and explosive around the Capitol.
The Committee played the haunting voice of Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona, a woman who objected to Biden’s clear victory, talking on a conference call on January 5th about her concerns for a plan for “members’ safety” for the next day. Like every good MAGA, Lesko noted that “Antifa will be there” (except they were not), but then went on to admit that Trump had pushed his supporters to the point that they expect Congress to reverse the election and when that didn’t happen, “they will go nuts.”"
How could Trump not know there would be violence if he planned to storm the Capitol? Here is who he was playing footsie with:ReplyDelete
Stewart Rhodes was videoed coordinating the Proud Boys leader at the Jan 5th meeting at the Willard Hotel. These are the folks he called beautiful people after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. These are the folks videoed acting as bodyguards to Roger Stone on several occasions. Stone is a longtime political mentor and advisor to Trump. The 7/12 committee showed video of stone repeating the 1st stage Proud Boys oath.
When you have Young Republicans asking, "When do we get to use our guns?" during Q&A at Republican events, the right is primed for violence. That makes Trump's call to arms so irresponsible that there can be little doubt that he wanted violence to support his coup.
Back in the days when Trump was a property developer, he hung with the NYC mob and let them do his dirty work. The right wing militias took over that strong-arm role when he became president.
Somerby will not acknowledge any of this. He didn't believe Stormy Daniels when she said that two goons threatened her in a parking lot, forcing her to sign Trump NDA. Trump may come across as a buffoon, but he is also a nasty piece of work. Who defends someone like that?
Hispanics are hot for Melania.Delete
The good news is they can fly FLOTUS in to condescend them in person.Delete
Complaints about Jill Biden are not coming from Hispanics but from the RNC.Delete
According to The Hill:
"The GOP this week seized on a flub by Jill Biden comparing the Hispanic community to breakfast tacos, which the first lady has since apologized for, to help fuel Republicans’ argument that Democrats are not in touch with Hispanic voters.
Alvarez [RNC Communications Director] called the comment “disrespectful” and argued that it is “a window into how Democrats view Hispanics.” The RNC started selling shirts that read “Not your breakfast taco.”
Hispanics in general tend to think such complaints are trivial and stupid.
Affluent white liberal women are pushing Hispanics away at the moment.Delete
Everyone who isn't a bigot, or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party more than two decades ago.Delete
These white liberals are dead set on being the ones who decide who has a vagina and who doesn't which rubs Hispanics the wrong way. That's why so many are leaving.Delete
Hispanics aren't leaving the Democratic Party.Delete
That's just something people who lie about Republican voters being 'economically anxious" say.
As long as Nancy Pelosi is the speaker, we ain't going nowhere, cabrón. 'cause she so sexy!Delete