#in support of an informed and engaged electorate | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

patriottruth · 5 months ago

Text

This is a reminder that on March 4th, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered donald j. trump to have 87 Democrats in both houses of Congress remove his insurrectionist disqualification from ever holding any federal office again; because if he didn't, nothing, including MAGA SCOTUS, could stop Democrats in the House and Senate from disqualifying him; even if he wins the 2024 presidential election. He failed to do so prior to November 5, 2024.

*** Just wanted to include a huge thank you to everyone who is liking and reblogging this post and engaging by writing to your congressional representatives AND Democratic Leaders Schumer and Jeffries. You're all amazing and I appreciate you so much! For those asking when we'll be seeing this in the news, I'm working on that every day; and every time anyone here on Tumblr engages like I mentioned above, it increases the chances that Leaders Schumer and Jeffries will speak about it on major media outlets. For everyone wanting to see this in the news sooner than later, please copy and paste this entire message into an email and send it to everyone you know, and then please also share this information with Marc Elias of Democracy Docket and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington via [email protected] and [email protected]; because if enough people contact those attorneys, those attorneys have all of the media contacts they need to gain even more support for this effort.

I'm being asked what people can do once they've contacted their representatives and Democratic Leaders Schumer and Jeffries. The next step is lawyering up for United States vs. trump et. al. (donald trump and every state elector in the Electoral College who attempts to engage in and further insurrection against the United States by voting for disqualified insurrectionist donald j. trump). MAGA and trump are constantly being defeated in court by Marc Elias and his Democracy Docket team across the United States, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington are the attorneys from the Anderson vs. trump case and numerous other cases against MAGA, donald trump, and the trump administration. Those attorneys can and will represent the United States, alongside the actual U.S. Department of Justice, in stopping donald trump from being elected by the Electoral College on December 17, 2024.

I'm so thankful that people here on Tumblr are feeling more hopeful after reading this post; because it was heartbreaking for me to witness the extent of the trauma and misery around this site immediately after the election. I hope this message finds everyone in a much better situation than they were in November 6th. Have a great day, everyone! ***

*** For those asking about a normal presidential line of succession when donald trump is disqualified via Section 3/14A, MAGA SCOTUS addressed this on March 4th, 2024 in their Anderson opinions about how federal enforcement that disqualifies donald trump post-election would change the President-elect to Kamala Harris, not j.d. vance; and technically, j.d. vance is conspiring with a known insurrectionist to assist that disqualified insurrectionist in holding office in violation of the U.S. Constitution, so he's disqualified as well. But if vance wasn't disqualified for giving aid to an insurrectionist, there is no presidential line of succession prior to a President-elect being inaugurated and sworn in; especially when that disqualified insurrectionist President-elect can't even be elected by the Electoral College; so it's just a disqualified presidential candidate dragging down everyone with them due to their insurrectionist disqualification. The Republican party knew that donald trump was and is nothing more than a disqualified presidential candidate who never had a real chance of being elected, thus they knowingly forfeited the 2024 presidential race to Harris when they nominated trump; and MAGA SCOTUS acknowledged this when even they acknowledged that donald trump is, and would continue to be, at the mercy of the Democrats in the House and Senate if he somehow managed to win the election and attempted to hold office as a disqualified insurrectionist. ***

Between today and December 17th, 2024, donald j. trump has no choice but to go to Congress and have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification, as he was ordered to do by SCOTUS on March 4th, 2024, or he's not legally the President Elect and cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, or hold federal office again on January 20, 2025. The clock is ticking!

What will happen on December 17th, 2024 if donald j. trump hasn't cleared his insurrectionist disqualification via a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress? Every Elector attempting to elect a known insurrectionist will be disqualified from being an Elector for engaging in and furthering insurrection against the United States. It is impossible for donald j. trump to remain as President Elect on December 17th, 2024; because every Elector in every state who attempts to vote for donald j. trump for President would then have to be immediately cleared of their insurrectionist disqualification by a two-thirds vote of their state legislature so that they could then vote for the only remaining legal, non-insurrectionist candidate. If donald j. trump hasn't cleared his insurrectionist disqualification by December 17, 2024, the only legal presidential candidate the Electoral College can vote for is Kamala Harris.

Article 2: Clause 3: Electoral College See also: Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Contingent election, Electoral College abolition amendment, Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College, and National Popular Vote Interstate Compact The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Electoral College Elector Selection Process Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires each state legislature to determine how electors for the state are to be chosen, but it disqualifies any person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, from being an elector. Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, any person who has sworn an oath to support the United States Constitution in order to hold either a state or federal office, and later rebelled against the United States directly or by giving assistance to those doing so, is disqualified from being an elector. Congress may remove this disqualification by a two-thirds vote in each house. (Wikipedia)

For those who would argue this is misinformation due to donald trump's MAGA cult allies in the Senate preventing him from being convicted, the bipartisan congressional J6 Committee investigated donald j. trump for insurrection, found him guilty of insurrection, referred him for criminal prosecution for insurrection, and donald j. trump was indicted and is currently being prosecuted for insurrection by the Department of Justice (unless the case gets dropped). Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't require a formal conviction, so the congressional investigation, finding of insurrection, and the congressional committee referral for criminal prosecution, along with the federal indictment and prosecution for insurrection, can easily be used to keep donald j. trump from ever holding federal office again. Per the Supreme Court of the United States' own Berger Test to disqualify judges, the ridiculous, nonsensical, unethical and illegal MAGA SCOTUS majority "ruling" pertaining to their attempted declaration of donald j. trump's permanent immunity from federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment means absolutely nothing for him, or any other insurrectionist; because it lacks standing in precedent, law, constitutionality, and relevance.

The three dissenting justices clarify that the only matter that was actually legally settled and, therefore, legally enforceable, pertained to state actions, not federal law enforcement actions against a disqualified insurrectionist presidential or federal candidate, such as donald j. trump, committing the federal crime of being an insurrectionist attempting to hold office without having their insurrectionist disqualification removed via a two-thirds vote of both houses. And so it is legal fact that the Supreme Court did, in fact, order donald j. trump to have his insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses on March 4th, 2024; it's just that donald j. trump and his legal team were too illiterate and unintelligent to actually read what was legal and had standing (state enforcement against federal candidates), and what didn't (MAGA SCOTUS whining and crying about federal enforcement against federal candidates/their presidential candidate). And MAGA SCOTUS is now permanently legally barred from ever addressing any matter pertaining to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump, so they can't even try to interfere on his behalf again should Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate demand and force a vote on the matter of donald j. trump's disqualification for holding federal office.

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court decision overruling a trial court decision by U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis against Rep. Victor L. Berger, a Congressman for Wisconsin's 5th district and the founder of the Social Democratic Party of America, and several other German-American defendants who were convicted of violating the Espionage Act by publicizing anti-interventionist views during World War I.

The case was argued on December 9, 1920, and decided on January 31, 1921, with an opinion by Justice Joseph McKenna and dissents by Justices William R. Day, James Clark McReynolds, and Mahlon Pitney. The Supreme Court held that Judge Landis was properly disqualified as trial judge based on an affidavit filed by the German defendants asserting that Judge Landis' public anti-German statements should disqualify him from presiding over the trial of the defendants.

The House of Representatives twice denied Berger his seat in the House due to his original conviction for espionage using Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding denying office to those who supported "insurrection or rebellion". The Supreme Court overturned the verdict in 1921 in Berger v. U.S., and Berger won three successive terms in the House in the 1920s.

Per the United States Supreme Court's "Berger test" that states that to disqualify ANY judge in the United States of America: 1) a party files an affidavit claiming personal bias or prejudice demonstrating an "objectionable inclination or disposition of the judge" and 2) claim of bias is based on facts antedating the trial.

All 6 criminal MAGA insurrectionist and trump-loyalist U.S. Supreme Court Justices who've repeatedly and illegally ruled in donald j. trump's favor are as disqualified from issuing any rulings pertaining to donald j. trump (a German immigrant) as the United States Supreme Court ruled U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was when he attempted to deny Victor L. Berger (a German immigrant) from holding office for violating the Espionage Act and supporting or engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States of America.

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Rule 8. Disbarment and Disciplinary Action

Whenever a member of the Bar of this Court has been disbarred or suspended from practice in any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court, the Court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this Court and affording the member an opportunity to show cause, within 40 days, why a disbarment order should not be entered. Upon response, or if no response is timely filed, the Court will enter an appropriate order.

After reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken, and after a hearing if material facts are in dispute, the Court may take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who is admitted to practice before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar or for failure to comply with these Rules or any Rule or order of the Court.

The only misinformation that exists surrounding the Anderson vs. trump ruling is the belief that the MAGA SCOTUS ruling on federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump settled the matter and handed him permanent immunity from prosecution should he ever commit the federal crime of attempting to hold federal office. In legal fact, MAGA SCOTUS' nonsensical ruling attempting to grant donald j. trump permanent immunity from prosecution for insurrection is grounds for immediate and permanent disbarment; as they're clearly attempting to legislate from the bench and prevent Congress from legislating in a way that's unfavorable to their presidential candidate.

This is the only pertinent and legally important part of the Anderson vs. trump ruling with regards to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump or any other insurrectionist committing the federal crime of attempting to hold office without first having their insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses:

Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson Opinion on the Majority Ruling (supremecourt.gov):

Yet the majority goes further. Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “ ‘ “ascertain[ ] what particular individuals” ’ ” should be disqualified. Ante, at 5 (quoting Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7, 26 (No. 5,815) (CC Va. 1869) (Chase, Circuit Justice)). These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous.

To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate. Section 3 states simply that “[n]o person shall” hold certain positions and offices if they are oathbreaking insurrectionists. Amdt. 14. Nothing in that unequivocal bar suggests that implementing legislation enacted under Section 5 is “critical” (or, for that matter, what that word means in this context). Ante, at 5. In fact, the text cuts the opposite way. Section 3 provides that when an oathbreaking insurrectionist is disqualified, “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation. Even petitioner’s lawyer acknowledged the “tension” in Section 3 that the majority’s view creates. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 31.

Similarly, nothing else in the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment supports the majority’s view. Section 5 gives Congress the “power to enforce [the Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” Remedial legislation of any kind, however, is not required. All the Reconstruction Amendments (including the due process and equal protection guarantees and prohibition of slavery) “are self-executing,” meaning that they do not depend on legislation. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 524 (1997); see Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883). Similarly, other constitutional rules of disqualification, like the two-term limit on the Presidency, do not require implementing legislation. See, e.g., Art. II, §1, cl. 5 (Presidential Qualifications); Amdt. 22 (Presidential Term Limits). Nor does the majority suggest otherwise. It simply creates a special rule for the insurrection disability in Section 3.

The majority is left with next to no support for its requirement that a Section 3 disqualification can occur only pursuant to legislation enacted for that purpose. It cites Griffin’s Case, but that is a nonprecedential, lower court opinion by a single Justice in his capacity as a circuit judge. See ante, at 5 (quoting 11 F. Cas., at 26). Once again, even petitioner’s lawyer distanced himself from fully embracing this case as probative of Section 3’s meaning. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 35–36. The majority also cites Senator Trumbull’s statements that Section 3 “ ‘provide[d] no means for enforcing’ ” itself. Ante, at 5 (quoting Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., 626 (1869)). The majority, however, neglects to mention the Senator’s view that “[i]t is the [F]ourteenth [A]mendment that prevents a person from holding office,” with the proposed legislation simply “affor[ding] a more efficient and speedy remedy” for effecting the disqualification. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., at 626–627.

Ultimately, under the guise of providing a more “complete explanation for the judgment,” ante, at 13, the majority resolves many unsettled questions about Section 3. It forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score. The majority further holds that any legislation to enforce this provision must prescribe certain procedures “ ‘tailor[ed]’ ” to Section 3, ante, at 10, ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law. By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.

“What it does today, the Court should have left undone.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 158 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting). The Court today needed to resolve only a single question: whether an individual State may keep a Presidential candidate found to have engaged in insurrection off its ballot. The majority resolves much more than the case before us. Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.

Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role in our democracy. The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. §3. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment.

What all of that means is that between now and December 17th, 2024, donald j. trump has no choice but to go to Congress and have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification, as he was ordered to do by SCOTUS on March 4th, 2024, or he's not legally the President Elect and cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, or hold federal office again on January 20, 2025. The clock is down to 19 days, and ticking!

Here's why this will work: donald trump's legal tactics are deny, attempt to wiggle out of it on technicalities, and delay, delay, delay. Well, from November 2023 to March 4, 2024, donald trump not only said that he was never an officer of the United States, but that he also never swore an oath to support the United States Constitution. And then he said that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says nothing about running for office, only holding office, and since he's only running for office, nothing can keep him off the ballot. And that's where this has finally caught up to him.

SCOTUS illegally took the case to begin with. Per the U.S. Constitution, SCOTUS was required to kick the case back to Congress immediately to force a two-thirds vote of both houses to remove or enforce donald trump's insurrectionist disqualification, and that would've settled the entire matter within a day. But they illegally denied Congress the ability to vote on it at the time, illegally legislated from the bench to keep donald trump on the ballot by illegally amending Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and dismissed the clear two-thirds vote requirement to replace it with "Congress must pass new legislation and amend Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in order to keep insurrectionists off of the ballot and out of office in the future. All six MAGA SCOTUS injustices can now be immediately and permanently disbarred from ever judging or practicing law anywhere in the United States now and in the future for that illegal legislating from the bench; because the U.S. Constitution clearly says that the Judiciary can never interfere with Congress legislating, or with the President enforcing the laws of the United States.

donald trump and his allies figured that was a win, that SCOTUS couldn't be challenged, that the Democrats could never get legislation passed to keep him off the ballot or from holding office again, and the matter was dropped. But that's where he was wrong; because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment still reads, and only legally reads, that the only way an insurrectionist can hold federal office again is by a two-thirds vote removing their insurrectionist disqualification in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; and that means that now that donald trump can't try and use the technicality of "I'm not even trying to hold office, I'm just running for office," and he's actively trying to hold office with no technicality wiggle room, donald trump's only path to the White House is to have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification by December 17th, 2017; and his favorite tactic of delay, delay, delay won't work because delaying means he can't be inaugurated, sworn in, and serve as the 47th President of the United States; and that means Kamala Harris would become 47th President of the United States by default.

donald j. trump is actively engaging in the federal crime of attempting to hold federal office while being an impeached and criminally indicted insurrectionist. Chuck Schumer can easily force the Section 3 vote in the Senate; and if donald j. trump gets no Democrat votes in the Senate, then the House vote is unnecessary. If MAGA mike johnson refuses to allow a House vote, then that's an instant disqualification for insurrectionist donald j. trump.

Hakeem Jeffries Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives https://www.congress.gov/member/hakeem-jeffries/J000294 https://democraticleader.house.gov/contact

Chuck Schumer Democratic Leader of the Senate https://www.congress.gov/member/charles-schumer/S000148 https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact/message-chuck

Here's a form letter that'll be under 1980 characters no matter if you're contacting House Democratic Leader Jeffries or Senate Democratic Leader Schumer. Just copy and paste the text into the contact form. If these Democratic leaders receive hundreds of these messages from different IP/Internet addresses, we'll have their attemtion. If they receive thousands of these messages from different IP/Internet addresses, we might see this in the news. If they receive tens of thousands of these messages from different IP/Internet addresses, we might finally be free from the threat of another donald trump presidency (turnout is everything in this fight for our human and civil rights, freedoms, and literal survival as non-trump supporters and non-MAGA cult members).

Dear Democratic Leader Jeffries,

My family, loved ones, friends, and I are greatly concerned that Donald J. Trump and all of his MAGA allies, supporters, enablers, donors, and voters have what clearly appear to be genocidal intentions to all American non-Trump supporters and voters whom they call, "traitors, anti-American, enemies from within, very bad people, very dangerous people, racists, radicals, extremists, communists, Marxists, fascists, thugs, liars, sick, ugly, stupid, mindless, thoughtless, brainless, disabled, deranged, criminals, rapists, cheaters, sleazebags, low-lifes, scum, trash, genetically inferior, weak, poison, insects, animals, rats, snakes, and vermin" on a regular basis. As I'm sure that you and all elected Democrat representatives at every level across the United States are aware, Donald J. Trump was not granted permanent immunity from federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the SCOTUS ruling for Anderson vs. Trump on March 4, 2024; and the moment Donald J. Trump was declared the President Elect, he was committing the federal crime of attempting to hold office while being an impeached and indicted insurrectionist without first having that insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. Donald J. Trump and his MAGA cult appear to intend to not only deport 15 million people, but to also engage in undeniable genocide and ethnic and cultural cleansing against half the population of the United States (using voter registration as a "vermin" purge mechanism). Thankfully, per the Supreme Court's own Berger Test to disqualify judges, Donald J. Trump's MAGA SCOTUS allies can never intervene on any of his legal cases again, so if you would please bring the matter of a two-thirds vote to the House of Representatives for an immediate vote by no later than December 11th, 2024, my fellow Americans and I would greatly appreciate it.

Respectully,

An American patriot

Dear Democratic Leader Schumer,

My family, loved ones, friends, and I are greatly concerned that Donald J. Trump and all of his MAGA allies, supporters, enablers, donors, and voters have what clearly appear to be genocidal intentions to all American non-Trump supporters and voters whom they call, "traitors, anti-American, enemies from within, very bad people, very dangerous people, racists, radicals, extremists, communists, Marxists, fascists, thugs, liars, sick, ugly, stupid, mindless, thoughtless, brainless, disabled, deranged, criminals, rapists, cheaters, sleazebags, low-lifes, scum, trash, genetically inferior, weak, poison, insects, animals, rats, snakes, and vermin" on a regular basis. As I'm sure that you and all elected Democrat representatives at every level across the United States are aware, Donald J. Trump was not granted permanent immunity from federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the SCOTUS ruling for Anderson vs. Trump on March 4, 2024; and the moment Donald J. Trump was declared the President Elect, he was committing the federal crime of attempting to hold office while being an impeached and indicted insurrectionist without first having that insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. Donald J. Trump and his MAGA cult appear to intend to not only deport 15 million people, but to also engage in undeniable genocide and ethnic and cultural cleansing against half the population of the United States (using voter registration as a "vermin" purge mechanism). Thankfully, per the Supreme Court's own Berger Test to disqualify judges, Donald J. Trump's MAGA SCOTUS allies can never intervene on any of his legal cases again, so if you would please bring the matter of a two-thirds vote to the Senate for an immediate vote by no later than December 11th, 2024, my fellow Americans and I would greatly appreciate it.

Respectully,

An American patriot

2K notes · View notes

the-cimmerians · 1 year ago

Text

It is crucial to remember that the impact of a presidency on the courts outlasts any other presidential legacy and can change the entire course of American life for decades.

#us politics #in support of an informed and engaged electorate #your vote matters SO MUCH #scotus

44K notes · View notes

crag-dreams · 5 months ago

Text

It’s the Saturday before Election Day 2024 here in the US, and stress/anxiety/fear/etc… is pretty high for a lot of people. That’s warranted, because another 4 years of Trump/GOP rule will harm so many people. You should do whatever you need to manage the next few days (including voting if you haven’t already), but I really want to encourage you to stop giving polls and “close race” media coverage much / any of your time or consideration.

Polling processes are wildly obsolete for how Millennial and Gen Z voters act compared to Gen X and Boomers (this is not a dig at these generations, just a factual observation). Polls are also easily manipulated to return a desired result, and the people running polls have a vested interest in getting your engagement. Keeping the results tight keeps eyeballs on them.

Similarly, the 24/7 media environment needs you constantly on edge and worried so you keep checking in and listening. They have no interest in a boring election or landslide victory. The majority of journalists have not risen to address this moment with the deliberate, in-depth reporting that we need. It’s far easier to throw together click-bait headlines to pump their numbers. It’s why they spend days covering the tiniest slip by Harris/Walz (and previously, Biden) while giving Trump/Vance a pass on every insane thing they say. Trump is *incredible* for news companies. He is so outrageous that their headlines write themselves, and as long as they don’t follow-up to truly report on him in a way that would end any other politician, they have unlimited content. Whatever you think about Biden, just remember: a single debate performance that wasn’t great was seized upon by the media (because it made for great engagement) and ended his candidacy. Trump can say the most batshit things (they’re eating the dogs!), and they minimize it at every opportunity, because he is good for them. They are sacrificing their journalistic integrity and responsibility at the expense of real people’s lives and rights.

So, what do we do if polls and most news coverage isn’t useful? Remember:

Trump lost the 2020 election. The Electoral College is the only reason it was even close. People were fed up then, and they are even more fed up now.

Roe was overturned by an activist Supreme Court that Trump is responsible for. In virtually every state-level election since then, the results have been outstandingly positive for Democrats, including in the Deep South™. This is why so many GOP politicians have stopped talking about abortion, even going so far as to remove their position from their websites, or directly contradicting themselves when asked about it. The only person making a decision about a woman’s body should be that woman, and these predominantly white dudes still don’t realize how badly they fucked up.

The majority of Trump’s former Cabinet and senior leadership have very publicly turned on him. While it would have been nice for them to do this earlier, it’s unprecedented to see so many prominent Republicans declare they will not vote for him. This doesn’t impact the hardcore MAGA crowd, but it absolutely speaks to more centrist Republican voters.

Trump has been convicted of sexual assault, and he is an adjudicated rapist. He’s been convicted of 34 felony indictments, with more to potentially come. Even though it seems like he never suffers consequences for these legal issues, it costs him voters. People who could justify supporting him before are finally reaching a limit, even if they don’t publicly admit it. (Some do!)

Also, more and more people who voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 are willing to publicly admit they are tired of him and can’t do it again. His rallies are smaller and smaller, the crowds are less engaged, and, yes, people leave during his rambling rants more and more often.

Gen Z is getting to vote for the first time at any real scale. Say what you will about TikTok and other platforms, but they are more informed and showing up and caring about issues that didn’t move the needle for Gen X or Boomers. Remember the Access Hollywood, grab ‘em by the pussy, tape? That should have ended his original campaign, but it didn’t. Gen Z has found out about that, and it’s just one of so many things driving them to get out and vote. The turnout is going to be incredible.

Because we still use the stupid Electoral College, this election largely comes down to swing states. The Trump campaign has done almost everything imaginable to lose those voters. Whether it’s bashing unions (Trump said a child could do the same job as automotive workers building cars, he bragged about not paying overtime, etc…), immigrants (they’re eating the dogs, GOP-led states demonizing them), Puerto Ricans (calling their home a floating pile of garbage, Trump denying hurricane relief for almost two years), or women (abortion, telling women they should vote how their husband wants them to, Vance thinking their purpose is nothing more than baby-making, stay-home, wait-on-a-man’s every need), they are losing the swing states.

Elections are *incredibly secure and trustworthy.* The Trump/GOP camp has attacked this at every opportunity with virtually no success. The few instances of voter fraud we’ve seen in the last few years are almost entirely from Republicans. They have already started the narrative that the election is rigged if Trump loses. This narrative will only increase as results start to roll in on Tuesday. Don’t even worry about it. They will lose every / almost every single lawsuit they try to bring. It will have no impact on the eventual outcome.

Early voting, including absentee and mail-in ballots, turnout is incredibly encouraging. The higher the turnout, the better, and people are showing up. There’s fatigue and embarrassment on the GOP side (you’re gonna eventually hear from those voters that they stayed home, voted for Harris, etc…), and there’s excitement and motivation on the Dem side.

Are there reasons to be worried? Of course. The Trump campaign is going to try and obstruct the voting process in every way they can. They’re blocking poll monitors in Texas and Florida. Drop boxes in some states have been attacked. Voter rolls have been illegally purged. They’re bringing lawsuits (most of which they’ve already lost) even before Election Day. They’re going to claim fraud. They’ll probably incite violence again.

These are the actions of a desperate campaign that isn’t trying to actually win, because they know they’ve already lost.

So, we can acknowledge our stress, anxiety, and fear, but we don’t have to let it ruin the next few days. Get outside and enjoy (hopefully) beautiful Fall weather. Snuggle your pets. Listen to your favorite albums. Read a great book. Hang out with your people. Vote.

We’re a few days away from a massive weight being lifted from our shoulders. Don’t let it weigh you down until then.

#2024 election #elections #election #election 2024 #hope #vote 2024 #vote #mine

109 notes · View notes

anyataylorjoys · 1 month ago

Text

We must act NOW.

The United States is under siege from within — hijacked by an illegitimate president and administration and protected by a system unwilling to uphold our constitutional safeguards.

The system refuses to act. Now, the people must.

#14thNOW, the historic moment that stood in the breach to stop this authoritarian coup before it started, extends this movement to ALL, calling for immediate action against the destruction of our democracy on March 14th with #NowDC.

On March 14, 2025, We the People will change the course of history.

March 14 (3.14) is more than a date — it is a symbol, it is a statement, and it is a sign of our story.

3.14 represents Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the Constitution demands that those who engage in insurrection be barred from office.

3.14 represents the power of the circle — the universal symbol of infinity, continuity, and unbreakability. Just as a circle has no weak or unequal points, this movement will have no breaks, no fractures, no surrender.

On March 14, we peacefully flood Washington, D.C., encircling the institutions of power, demanding action, and making our presence undeniable. We will convene at noon on the National Mall between 4th and 6th Streets N.W. Please see the Resources page for more information.

March 14 has also been designated as a National Strike Day. We encourage workers from around the country to join us in DC.

14th Amendment. Section 3. 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.

If you are anywhere near D.C., show up and make your voice heard!

#us politics #impeach trump

30 notes · View notes

theconstitutionisgayculture · 2 months ago

Note

starting to wonder just how much of 2020 can be traced back to USAID. they were funding the Wuhan gain-of-function research, giving money to BLM, organizing the Hunter laptop coverup, and paying media outlets who JUST SO HAPPENED to report that "lab leak" was a racist conspiracy theory, lockdowns were great, lockdown protests were horrible, race riots were good and not riots and totally not a violation of the rules everyone else was forced to follow, the laptop was a Russian op, etc.

Hey, buddy, FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION THAT

From the article:

"IRI has operated in Dhaka since 2003, ostensibly “to help political parties, government officials, civil society, and marginalized groups in their advocacy for greater rights and representation.” In reality, as the documents make abundantly clear, IRI has funded and trained a wide-ranging shadow political structure, comprising NGOs, activist groups, politicians, and even musical and visual artists, which can be deployed to stir up unrest if Bangladesh’s government refuses to act as required. The student protests of 2018, and the overwhelming electoral victory by Hasina’s Awami League in December of that same year, appear to have inspired the IRI’s regime change aspirations. In 2019, the Institute began conducting research to inform its “baseline assessment” of the country, which consisted of “48 group interviews and 13 individual interviews with 304 key informants.” In the end, “IRI staff… identified over 170 democratic activists who would cooperate with IRI to destabilize Bangladesh’s politics,” according to an IRI report which was submitted to the State Department."

I love the smell of regime change in the morning. And, have you noticed, the tactics used here seem remarkably similar to what the transnational elite did in the runup to the 2020 election? Is that why USAID was funneling funds to BLM? Of course, it is. We got a "summer of love" and regime change right here at home.

...

In total, between 2019 and 2020, “IRI issued 11 advocacy grants to artists, musicians, performers or organizations that created 225 art products addressing political and social issues,” which it claimed were “viewed nearly 400,000 times.” Additionally, the Institute bragged that it “supported three civil society organizations (CSOs) from LGBTI, Bihari and ethnic communities to train 77 activists and engage 326 citizens to develop 43 specific policy demands,” which were apparently “proposed before 65 government officials.” Between October and December of 2020, the IRI hosted three separate “transgender dance performances” across the country. Per the report, “the goal of the performance was to build self-esteem in the transgender community and raise awareness on transgender issues among the local community and government officials.” At the final performance, in Dhaka City, the US Embassy sent its “deputy consul general and deputy director of the Office for Democracy, Rights and Governance” to participate.

Mobilizing transgender activists for regime change. FFS. Sounds familiar again... You should go read the report both because it is enraging on its face and especially enraging because all the tactics they describe are mirrored by things happening here in the United States. Read the full report here. And weep for our country.

SURE DOES SOUND A LOT LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN 2020 DOESN'T IT?!

19 notes · View notes

txttletale · 1 year ago

Note

do you have any response to people who treat voting like a trolley problem? because that seems to be where a lot of people here are coming at it from. like no faith in electoralism no care for the process, just a decision with a level of four bad and a level of five bad. to be clear thats not the way i come at it but i do think thats how many people think abt it

i mean the response is that, like, voting is not like the trolley problem because it happens more than once and not in a vacuum. it's more like... i don't know, one of those game theory games that unfolds across multiple play sessions. there will be a 2028 election and a 2032 election and the results of the previous elections will inform democratic party strategy, candidate selection, and policy in both of those. if you pledge to always support the democratic party as long as they're better than the republican party, then they can do 99.9% of what the republican party does without worrying about your unwavering support. if you have actual red lines (and this is you, as a bloc, as a group, individual political actions never matter) then the party will in fact think twice before crossing them about whether the hit to electoral support is worth it.

obviously, i'm a communist, i don't think you will ever get anything good out of the democratic party. bourgeois elections are ultimately choices of which representatives will repress you (that's some vintage marxist humour for ya). but if you think it's worth voting at all then you should also be aware of how your vote and the withdrawal thereof can be used to play chicken/hardball with political parties that need it. the right is well fucking aware of this--right-wing labour party members in the UK ran a huge sabotage campaign against the social democrat jeremy corbyn, losing the election and using that loss to oust all the left-wing elements of the party. the tea party have been using threats like this to push the republican party rightwards for decades now.

of course, you will never get something outside of the overton window of acceptable ruling-class politics by voting but if you believe there are meaningful gradations within that window (as, if you plan to ever vote at all, you logically must) then those concessions should still matter and should still be worth pursuing if you're already making the decisions to engage with electoral politics at all

#ask #rain-rome

184 notes · View notes

whenyoulookupatnight · 5 months ago

Text

WORRIED?

About the state of the U.S.? Of the world?

Me too.

But I am tired of just being worried.

First of all, VOTE! If you haven’t yet!Time is running out!! See my recent repost, but also it’s long, so very short tl;dr: go to vote.org ! And then if you still have all the requirements to go vote, hurry to your nearest polling station!

But after that? Here’s some honesty, and gentle advice, from yours truly:

My New Year’s resolution, two months early, is to take more direct action to make the world a better place. I have before, but I want to return to doing that, and I hope you do too, no matter the election result.

Here are four videos I find extremely important. You might dislike the people relaying the messages, and hey, that’s fine, but even so, please give them a chance. They aren’t too long each (16 min, 4.5 min, 1.5 min, and 13 min respectively). Comforting is not the right word, but I feel a good deal more motivated after watching them:

youtube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8N4Sgk5HTE

youtube

After you vote, I would say you are allowed to tune out for a moment. For just one evening. Cast your ballot, but then leave your worries to rest as best you can, just for this evening. Try not to obsess over the live polls or electoral maps or the news stations live reporting. Watch TV or a movie, or read, or play a game, or knit, or listen to music, etc etc- whatever calms you down, whatever puts you at ease.

But tomorrow? Or as soon as you can?—Make an action plan.

You can start small! You’ll be surprised with how you can improve your life with just a small change. Just one. It can be a small thing. Do your laundry, take a shower, take a walk, listen to some of your favorite music. Baby steps. Will you crack open that planner or calendar finally, and just start with today and tomorrow first, making a to-do list? I struggle to do that, but it always helps.

What I need for myself right now is just that, to make a wellness plan. I always share the oxygen mask metaphor: the emergency information for planes is to put your oxygen mask on before helping someone else. You cannot help anyone if you do not start with little things for yourself. And yes, that is easier said than done. But again- baby steps.

First, make changes for yourself.

And then, soon—when you feel able—make a change for another person.

Will you call or text a friend you haven’t talked to in a while?

Will you get together to support friends and family today and tomorrow? Or next week?

Will you do a random act of kindness, for your neighbor? For a stranger?

And then—and only then—but also not too long from now: How can you take direct actions to change your community, and your world, for the better?

Will you start the process of joining a union, to demand better pay and conditions for you and your coworkers?

Will you search online, “[issue important to you] [organizations/activism/activist group]”—and make a commitment to get engaged? Show up for a meeting?

Will you choose to volunteer somewhere?

Will you write a letter to or call a lawmaker about an issue you care about?

Will you go to a local city council meeting? (Boring, sure, but you may be surprised by what you learn!)

Will you do one of these things, today?

This week?

Will you add one or two more, this month?

The next three months? The next six? Twelve?

I am not sure what I will do first. But I will take it one step at a time. And after some self care steps, I’m going to make a plan to take care for my friends and family. Then, some small acts to engage and support in my community. Then, I will organize with people take direct actions to make the world a better place too.

*That* is what truly squashes the seemingly endless dread, the anxiety, and yes, the worry.

Thank you all. Thank you for reposting my recent longwinded election post.

Lastly, a loving reminder:

You are valid.

You are loved.

You deserve the same love for yourself that you give to others. (That is a tough ask, I know- but in the near future, recall it as best as you can).

And you are not alone, no matter how bleak it seems right now.

Let’s love ourselves as best we can, love our friends and family and neighbors and strangers and community and the people who make up countries and the people and animals and plants and everything that makes up our scary yet endlessly beautiful world.

With all that said:

Love. 💙

Peace.✌️

And? Sooner, rather than later?

Let’s hit the pavement, and get to work y’all!

Let’s go!! ✊

22 notes · View notes

ramseyian · 5 months ago

Text

The Evolution of Political Engagement in the Digital Age

In recent years, the landscape of political engagement has undergone a profound transformation, driven by technological advancements and shifting societal norms. As traditional methods of political participation, such as rallies and town hall meetings, face challenges from a new generation of voters, the rise of digital platforms has reshaped how individuals connect with political issues and one another. Social media has become a powerful tool for political engagement. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram allow politicians to communicate directly with constituents, bypassing traditional media channels. This direct communication fosters a sense of immediacy and connection, enabling leaders to respond swiftly to events and public sentiment. Moreover, social media serves as a battleground for political discourse. Users share news, express opinions, and mobilize support for causes, often leading to viral movements. The Arab Spring and the Black Lives Matter movement are prime examples of how digital platforms can catalyze real-world change, empowering individuals to organize and advocate for their beliefs. However, the digital age has also introduced challenges, particularly in the form of misinformation. The rapid spread of false information can skew public perception and influence electoral outcomes. Platforms have faced criticism for their role in disseminating misleading content, prompting calls for increased regulation and accountability. In response, many organizations and fact-checking initiatives have emerged, aiming to educate voters about identifying credible sources and understanding complex issues. The battle against misinformation highlights the need for digital literacy as a critical component of political engagement in today’s world. One of the most notable trends in contemporary politics is the surge in youth engagement. The rise of digital tools has empowered younger generations to participate in politics in ways that resonate with their values. Issues such as climate change, social justice, and mental health are increasingly championed by young activists who utilize online platforms to raise awareness and mobilize support. This new wave of activism has transformed political landscapes, forcing established parties to address issues that may have been previously overlooked. The voices of young voters are now louder than ever, challenging the status quo and demanding accountability from their leaders. As we navigate this evolving political landscape, it is clear that digital engagement is here to stay. The challenge lies in harnessing the potential of these platforms while addressing the pitfalls they present. For democracy to thrive, it is essential to cultivate a politically informed and active citizenry, equipped with the tools to engage thoughtfully and responsibly in the digital age. The future of politics will likely be defined by this ongoing interplay between technology, engagement, and accountability. As citizens continue to adapt to new forms of participation, the political arena must evolve to meet their needs and aspirations, ensuring a vibrant and inclusive democracy for generations to come.

13 notes · View notes

the-cimmerians · 7 months ago

Text

Also also, school board elections matter SO MUCH. Judicial appointments matter so much. Your vote matters so much!

But I don't live in a swing state?!

every 4 years I see people talking about how they live in a red state (or more rarely a blue state) so their vote doesn't matter and I just want to briefly point out that I think nearly every state is either a swing state for the Presidential election, having a key Senate Race that will decide control of the Senate, has one or more key House races that'll decide control of the House, or is having an important Governor's race that'll could flip control of the state

Presidential Swing states:

Arizona

Georgia

Michigan

Nevada

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Key Senate Races:

Arizona

Florida

Maryland

Michigan

Montana

Nevada

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Texas

Wisconsin

States With Key House Races:

Alabama

Alaska

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Maine

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Swingable Governor Races:

New Hampshire

North Carolina

there are lots of local and state level races that are very important to, but my point was basically odds are very very good, you live somewhere where your vote will help decide what America looks like in 2025. Don't get tricked into thinking just because your state isn't one of the ones always mentioned in the news as a swing state that it doesn't matter what you do

#us politics #in support of an informed and engaged electorate #please vote the whole ballot

6K notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 2 months ago

Text

David Pepper at Pepperspectives:

Like Project 2025 and the Mueller Report, most Americans will not read the Jan. 6 Report released by Jack Smith early this morning. So I thought it would be of service to read, review and summarize it for my subscribers. I will focus on facts and arguments that are new or less known: In his cover letter, Smith summarizes: “after conducting thorough investigations, I found that, with respect to both Mr. Trump's unprecedented efforts to unlawfully retain power after losing the 2020 election and his unlawful retention of classified documents after leaving office, the Principles compelled prosecution. Indeed, Mr. Trump's cases represented ones “in which the offense [was] the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain." Jackson, "The Federal Prosecutor."

The Report:

Overall

“As alleged in the original and superseding indictments, substantial evidence demonstrates that Mr. Trump…engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power. Although he did so primarily in his private capacity as a candidate, and with the assistance of multiple private co-conspirators, Mr. Trump also attempted to use the power and authority of the United States Government in furtherance of his scheme…” “[W]hen it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power. This included attempts to induce state officials to ignore true vote counts; to manufacture fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states that he had lost; to force Justice Department officials and his own Vice President, Michael R. Pence, to act in contravention of their oaths and to instead advance Mr. Trump's personal interests; and, on January 6, 2021, to direct an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then leverage rioters' violence to further delay it.…” “The throughline of all of Mr. Trump's criminal efforts was deceit—knowingly false claims of election fraud—and the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States' democratic process.”

The Facts

Trump Knew His Claims Were False

“The Office investigated whether Mr. Trump believed the claims he made. Evidence from a variety of sources established that Mr. Trump knew that there was no outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 election, that many of the specific claims he made were untrue, and that he had lost the election. He knew this because some of the highest-ranking officials in his own Administration, including the Vice President, told him directly that there was no evidence to support his claims….State officials and legislators whom Mr. Trump pressured to change vote tallies or stop certifications of results rebuffed him and informed him that his fraud claims were wrong, both privately and through public statements….”

“[S]tate officials-better positioned than Mr. Trump to know the facts in their states-repeatedly told Mr. Trump that his fraud claims were unfounded and that there was no evidence of substantial election fraud in their states…” “Mr. Trump and co-conspirators could not have believed the specific fraud claims that they were making because the numbers they touted-for instance, of dead voters in a particular state- frequently vacillated wildly from day to day or were objectively impossible…” “Finally, at times, Mr. Trump made comments implicitly acknowledging that he knew he had lost the election. For example, in a January 3, 2021 Oval Office meeting regarding a national security matter, Mr. Trump stated in part, "[I]t's too late for us. We're going to give that to the next guy," meaning President-elect Biden.”

Pressure on State Officials To Change Results

“Mr. Trump contacted state legislators and executives, pressured them with false claims of election fraud in their states, and urged them to take action to ignore the vote counts and change the results. Significantly, he made election claims only to state legislators and executives who shared his political affiliation and were his political supporters, and only in states that he had lost….” Trump not only appealed to partisan loyalty to get officials to change outcomes (Arizona — "we're all kind of Republicans and we need to be working together”), he made threats to those who wouldn’t cooperate (Georgia — “not reporting it ... that's a criminal offense. And you know, you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you ....").

The Fraudulent Elector Plan

“Under this plan, they would organize the people who would have served as Mr. Trump's electors, had he won the popular vote, in seven states that Mr. Trump had lost-Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin-and cause them to sign and send to Washington false certifications claiming to be the legitimate electors.3 Ultimately, as explained below, Mr. Trump and co-conspirators used the fraudulent certificates to try to obstruct the congressional certification proceeding….” [...]

January 6 Certification Plan

“At the same time that Mr. Trump's elector nominees in the targeted states were preparing to gather and cast fraudulent votes, his co-conspirators were planning to use them to overturn the election results at the January 6 certification….” “On December 13, Co-Conspirator 5 sent Co-Conspirator 1 a memorandum that envisioned a scenario in which the Vice President would use the fraudulent slates to claim that there were dueling slates of electors from the targeted states and negotiate a solution for Mr. Trump to seize power. And on December 16, Co-Conspirator 5 traveled to Washington with a group of private attorneys who had done work for Mr. Trump's Campaign in Wisconsin for a meet-and-greet with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office; as the group left, Co-Conspirator 5 had a direct, private conversation with Mr. Trump. Days later, on December 19, Mr. Trump publicly posted a Tweet demonstrating his own focus on the certification proceeding and directing his supporters to gather in Washington, D.C., to oppose it.”

Conclusion

“The parties were in the middle of th[e litigation] process when the results of the presidential election made clear that Mr. Trump would be inaugurated as President of the United States on January 20, 2025. As described above, it has long been the Department's interpretation that the Constitution forbids the federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting President, but the election results raised for the first time the question of the lawful course when a private citizen who has already been indicted is then elected President. The Department determined that the case must be dismissed without prejudice before Mr. Trump takes office, and the Office therefore moved to dismiss the indictment on November 25, 2024…. The Department's view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not tum on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

David Pepper has a complete and handy guide to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report on the January 6th Insurrection.

#Capitol Insurrection #Jack Smith Report #Fake Electors #The Big Lie #Donald Trump #Green Bay Sweep #Jack Smith

4 notes · View notes

the-cimmerians · 1 year ago

Text

Today, ProPublica reports on yet another big change that stands to solve a decades-long problem we first learned about back in 2016, closing a huge loophole that allowed states to divert federal antipoverty funds to governors’ pet projects, like promoting abstinence, holding “heathy marriage” classes that did nothing to prevent out-of-wedlock births, funding anti-abortion “clinics” to lie about abortion “risks,” sending middle-class kids to private colleges, and other schemes only tangentially related to helping poor kids. It’s the same loophole that Mississippi officials tried to drive a truck through to divert welfare funds to former sportsball man Brett Favre’s alma mater, for a volleyball palace. [ ]

The agency has proposed new rules — open for public comment until December 1 — aimed at nudging states to actually use TANF funds to give cash to needy parents, not fill budget holes or punish poor people.

One change will put an end to the scheme Utah used to substitute LDS church funds for welfare, by prohibiting states

from counting charitable giving by private organizations, such as churches and food banks, as “state” spending on welfare, a practice that has allowed legislatures to budget less for programs for low-income families while still claiming to meet federal minimums.

Another new rule will put the kibosh on using TANF to fund child protective services or foster care programs, which are not what TANF is supposed to be for, damn it.

And then there’s the simple matter of making sure that funds for needy families go to needy families, not to pet projects that have little to do with poverty:

The reforms would also redefine the term “needy” to refer only to families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty line. Currently, some states spend TANF money on programs like college scholarships — or volleyball stadiums — that benefit more affluent people.

#us politics #in support of an informed and engaged electorate #TANF #cash assistance

4K notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 2 months ago

Text

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 14, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Jan 15, 2025

Shortly after midnight last night, the Justice Department released special counsel Jack Smith’s final report on former president Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The 137-page report concludes that “substantial evidence demonstrates that Mr. Trump…engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power.”

The report explains the case Smith and his team compiled against Trump. It outlines the ways in which evidence proved Trump broke laws, and it lays out the federal interests served by prosecuting Trump. It explains how the team investigated Trump, interviewing more than 250 people and obtaining the testimony of more than 55 witnesses before a grand jury, and how Justice Department policy governed that investigation. It also explains how Trump’s litigation and the U.S. Supreme Court’s surprising determination that Trump enjoyed immunity from prosecution for breaking laws as part of his official duties dramatically slowed the prosecution.

There is little in the part of the report covering Trump’s behavior that was not already public information. The report explains how Trump lied that he won the 2020 presidential election and continued to lie even when his own appointees and employees told him he had lost. It lays out how he pressured state officials to throw out votes for his opponent, then-president-elect Joe Biden, and how he and his cronies recruited false electors in key states Trump lost to create slates of false electoral votes.

It explains how Trump tried to force Justice Department officials to support his lie and to trick states into rescinding their electoral votes for Biden and how, finally, he pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, to either throw out votes for Biden or send state counts back to the states. When Pence refused, correctly asserting that he had no such power, Trump urged his supporters to attack the U.S. Capitol. He refused to call them off for hours.

Smith explained that the Justice Department concluded that Trump was guilty on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States by trying “to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest”; obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct by creating false evidence; and conspiracy against rights by trying to take away people’s right to vote for president.

The report explains why the Justice Department did not bring charges against Trump for insurrection, noting that such cases are rare and definitions of “insurrection” are unclear, raising concerns that such a charge would endanger the larger case.

The report explained that prosecuting Trump served important national interests. The government has an interest in the integrity of the country’s process for “collecting, counting, and certifying presidential elections.” It cares about “a peaceful and orderly transition of presidential power.” It cares that “every citizen’s vote is counted” and about “protecting public officials and government workers from violence.” Finally, it cares about “the fair and even-handed enforcement of the law.”

While the report contained little new information, what jumped out from its stark recitation of the events of late 2020 and early 2021 was the power of Trump’s lies. There was no evidence that he won the 2020 election; to the contrary, all evidence showed he lost it. Even he didn’t appear to believe he had won. And yet, by the sheer power of repeating the lie that he had won and getting his cronies to repeat it, along with embellishments that were also lies—about suitcases of ballots, and thumb drives, and voting machines, and so on—he induced his followers to try to overthrow a free and fair election and install him in the presidency.

He continued this disinformation after he left office, and then engaged in lawfare, with both him and friendly witnesses slowing down his cases by challenging subpoenas until there were no more avenues to challenge them. And then the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in.

The report calls out the extraordinary July 2024 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. United States declaring that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts. “Before this case,” the report reads, “no court had ever found that Presidents are immune from criminal responsibility for their official acts, and no text in the Constitution explicitly confers such criminal immunity on the President.” It continued: “[N]o President whose conduct was investigated (other than Mr. Trump) ever claimed absolute criminal immunity for all official acts.”

The report quoted the dissent of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, noting that the decision of the Republican-appointed justices “effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding.”

That observation hits hard today, as January 14 is officially Ratification Day, the anniversary of the day in 1784 when members of the Confederation Congress ratified the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War and formally recognized the independence of the United States from Great Britain. The colonists had thrown off monarchy and determined to have a government of laws, not of men.

But Trump threw off that bedrock principle with a lie. His success recalls how Confederates who lost the Civil War resurrected their cause by claiming that the lenience of General Ulysses S. Grant of the United States toward officers and soldiers who surrendered at Appomattox Court House in April 1865 showed not the mercy of a victor but rather an understanding that the Confederates’ defense of human slavery was superior to the ideas of those trying to preserve the United States as a land based in the idea that all men were created equal.

When no punishment was forthcoming for those who had tried to destroy the United States, that story of Appomattox became the myth of the Lost Cause, defending the racial hierarchies of the Old South and attacking the federal government that tried to make opportunity and equal rights available for everyone. In response to federal protection of Black rights after 1948, when President Harry Truman desegregated the U.S. military, Confederate symbols and Confederate ideology began their return to the front of American culture, where they fed the reactionary right. The myth of the Lost Cause and Trump’s lie came together in the rioters who carried the Confederate battle flag when they breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Fox News Channel host Pete Hegseth, is adamant about restoring the names of Confederate generals to U.S. military installations. His confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee began today.

The defense secretary oversees about 1.3 million active-duty troops and another 1.4 million in the National Guard and employed in Reserves and civilian positions, as well as a budget of more than $800 billion. Hegseth has none of the usual qualifications of defense secretaries. As Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare pointed out today, he has “never held a policy role…never run anything larger than a company of 200 soldiers…never been elected to anything.”

Hegseth suggested his lack of qualifications was a strength, saying in his opening statement that while “[i]t is true that I don’t have a similar biography to Defense Secretaries of the last 30 years…as President Trump…told me, we’ve repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon with supposedly ‘the right credentials’...and where has it gotten us? He believes, and I humbly agree, that it’s time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm.”

The “dust on his boots” claim was designed to make Hegseth’s authenticity outweigh his lack of credentials, but former Marine pilot Amy McGrath pointed out that Trump’s defense secretary James Mattis and Biden’s defense secretary Lloyd Austin, both of whom reached the top ranks of the military, each came from the infantry.

Hegseth has settled an accusation of sexual assault, appears to have a history of alcohol abuse, and has been accused of financial mismanagement at two small veterans’ nonprofits. But he appears to embody the sort of strongman ethos Trump craves. Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”

When Hegseth was in the Army National Guard, a fellow service member who was the unit’s security guard and on an anti-terrorism team flagged Hegseth to their unit’s leadership because one of his tattoos is used by white supremacists. Extremist tattoos are prohibited by army regulations. Hegseth lobbied Trump to intervene in the cases of service members accused of war crimes, and he cheered on Trump’s January 6, 2021, rally. Hegseth has said women do not belong in combat and has been vocal about his opposition to the equity and inclusion measures in the military that he calls “woke.”

Wittes noted after today’s hearing that “[t]he words ‘Russia’ and ‘Ukraine’ barely came up. The words ‘China’ and ‘Taiwan’ made only marginally more conspicuous an appearance. The defense of Europe? One would hardly know such a place as Europe even existed. By contrast, the words ‘lethality,’ ‘woke,’ and ‘DEI’ came up repeatedly. The nominee sparred with members of the committee over the difference between ‘equality’ and ‘equity.’”

Senate Armed Services Committee chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) spoke today in favor of Hegseth, and Republicans initially uncomfortable with the nominee appear to be coming around to supporting him. But Hegseth refused to meet with Democrats on the committee, and they made it clear that they will not make the vote easy for Republicans.

The top Democrat on the committee, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) said he did not believe Hegseth was qualified for the position. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) exposed his lack of knowledge about U.S. allies and bluntly told him he was unqualified, later telling MSNBC that Hegseth will be an easy target for adversaries with blackmail material.

Hegseth told the armed services committee that all the negative information about him was part of a “smear campaign,” at the same time that he refused to say he would refuse to shoot peaceful protesters in the legs or refuse an unconstitutional order.

After the release of Jack Smith’s report, Trump posted on his social media channel that regardless of what he had done to the country, voters had exonerated him: “Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide,” he wrote, lying about a victory in which more voters chose someone other than him. “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

It’s as if the Confederates’ descendants have captured the government of the United States.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters From An American #Heather cox Richardson #jack smith's report #Rule of Law #Hegseth #The Confederacy #Civil War #american history #history #confirmation hearings #justice department

6 notes · View notes