Thursday, December 30, 2021

Anyone Who Is Interested In The Survival Of American Democracy "Should" Read History Professor Heather Cox Richardson's Daily "Letters From An American'. (They're FREE.)

 image.png

Thank you, Gwen.

I totally agree.

Your evaluation is spot on!

Here is how I introduce Professor Richardson every time I post one of her superb Letters From An American:

Boston College Historian Heather Cox Richardson's Daily "Letter From An American"
Alan: Boston College History Professor Heather Cox Richardson provides an insightful, comprehensive and well-informed daily review of American politics. Professor Richardson specializes in the history of The Republican Party, and how the Civil War and subsequent Westward expansion affected the basic thrust of American history. She is exceptionally clear-headed, comprehensively knowledgeable and speaks in an engaging, straightforward, highly-readable style. She is the kind of intellectual who terrifies people who dismiss "the intellectual elites" because she knows what she's talking about and the picture she paints spotlights the relentless decline of the GOP ever since Newt Gingrich laid groundwork for The Tea Party.

In the span of five minutes, Heather gives the best historically-contextualized view of what happened "yesterday" in American politics. 

And she offers this gift every day.

  You can stay abreast of Boston College History Professor Heather Cox Richardson's daily reviews of American politics at Bill  Moyers' dedicated web page:  

*****

And, as you rightly point out, anyone can sign up for a free subscription to Heather's daily "letters" by hitting the "Subscribe" button at the bottom of her letter below.

Wishing you health and happiness in the New Year.

Alan

PS This postscript is NOT about Heather Cox Richardson per se, but intersects well - short videos by Jon Stewart and Robert Reich on 1.) how to avoid the political poison of oligarchically-orchestrated cynicism, and 2.) the corresponding nourishment of optimism.

Jon Stewart on Trump, Cancel Culture, and Optimism
A New Yorker Interview

The Oligarchy's Ultimate Political Weapon | Robert Reich

image.png


On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 12:45 PM Gwen wrote:

Hi everybody,

Heather Cox Richardson has a clear-eyed view of what’s going on behind the scenes in the political arena. I hope you will read her column I’m sending you.

Sincerely,
Gwen 

PS.  Heather has a daily free column you can sign up for on email.

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American <heathercoxrichardson@substack.com>
Date: December 30, 2021 at 1:50:15 AM EST
To: Gwen
Subject: December 29, 2021
Reply-To: Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American <reply+rldw7&phegd&&deb93fa18f74fe6e8ac81ca9d5cbbb930c33a897030319a510ccb7f7cb51d254@mg1.substack.com>



Yesterday, Josh Kovensky at Talking Points Memo reported that the Trump allies who organized the rally at the Ellipse at 9:00 a.m. on January 6 also planned a second rally that day on the steps of the Supreme Court. To get from one to the other, rally-goers would have to walk past the Capitol building down Constitution Avenue, although neither had a permit for a march.

The rally at the Supreme Court fell apart as rally-goers stormed the Capitol.

Trump’s team appeared to be trying to keep pressure on Congress during the counting of the certified electoral votes from the states, perhaps with the intent of slowing down the count enough to throw it into the House of Representatives or to the Supreme Court. In either of those cases, Trump expected to win because in a presidential election that takes place in the House, each state gets one vote, and there were more Republican-dominated states than Democratic-dominated states. Thanks to then–Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) removal of the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments, Trump had been able to put three justices on the Supreme Court, and he had said publicly that he expected they would rule in his favor if the election went in front of the court.

This story is an important backdrop of another story that is getting oxygen: Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro’s claim that he, Trump, and Trump loyalist Steve Bannon had a peaceful plan to overturn the election and that the three of them were “the last three people on God’s good Earth who wanted to see violence erupt on Capitol Hill.”

According to these stories, their plan—which Navarro dubs the Green Bay Sweep—was to get more than 100 senators and representatives to object to the counting of the certified ballots. They hoped this would pressure Vice President Mike Pence to send certified votes back to the six contested states, where Republicans in the state legislatures could send in new counts for Trump. There was, he insists, no plan for violence; indeed, the riot interrupted the plan by making congress members determined to certify the ballots.

Their plan, he writes, was to force journalists to cover the Trump team’s insistence that the election had been characterized by fraud, accusations that had been repeatedly debunked by state election officials and courts of law. The plan “was designed to get us 24 hours of televised hearings…. But we thought we could bypass the corporate media by getting this stuff televised.” Televised hearings in which Trump Republicans lied about election fraud would cement that idea in the public mind.

Maybe. It is notable that the only evidence for this entire story so far is Navarro’s own book, and there’s an awful lot about this that doesn’t add up (not least that if Trump deplored the violence, why did it take him more than three hours to tell his supporters to go home?). What does add up, though, in this version of events is that there is a long-standing feud between Bannon and Trump advisor Roger Stone, who recently blamed Bannon for the violence at the Capitol. This story exonerates Trump and Bannon and throws responsibility for the violence to others, notably Stone.

Although Navarro’s story is iffy, it does identify an important pattern. Since the 1990s, Republicans have used violence and the news coverage it gets to gain through pressure what they could not gain through votes.

Stone engineered a crucial moment for that dynamic when he helped to drive the so-called Brooks Brothers Riot that shut down the recounting of ballots in Miami-Dade County, Florida, during the 2000 election. That recount would decide whether Florida’s electoral votes would go to Democrat Al Gore or Republican George W. Bush. As the recount showed the count swinging to Gore, Republican operatives stormed the station where the recount was taking place, insisting that the Democrats were trying to steal the election.

“The idea we were putting out there was that this was a left-wing power grab by Gore, the same way Fidel Castro did it in Cuba,” Stone later told legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. "We were very explicitly drawing that analogy.” “It had to be a three-legged stool. We had to fight in the courts, in the recount centers and in the streets—in public opinion,” Bush campaign operative Brad Blakeman said.

As the media covered the riot, the canvassing board voted to shut down the recount because of the public perception that the recount was not transparent, and because the interference meant the recount could not be completed before the deadline the court had established. “We scared the crap out of them when we descended on them,” Blakeman later told Michael E. Miller of the Washington Post. The chair of the county’s Democratic Party noted, “Violence, fear and physical intimidation affected the outcome of a lawful elections process.” Blakeman’s response? “We got some blowback afterwards, but so what? We won.”

That Stone and other Republican operatives would have fallen back on a violent mob to slow down an election proceeding twenty years after it had worked so well is not a stretch.

Still, Navarro seems eager to distance himself, Trump, and Bannon from any such plan. That eagerness might reflect a hope of shielding themselves from the idea they were part of a conspiracy to interfere with an official government proceeding. Such interference is a federal offense, thanks to a law passed initially during Reconstruction after the Civil War, when members of the Ku Klux Klan were preventing Black legislators and their white Republican allies from holding office or discharging their official duties once elected.

Prosecutors have charged a number of January 6 defendants with committing such interference, and judges—including judges appointed by Trump—have rejected defendants’ arguments that they were simply exercising their right to free speech when they attacked the Capitol. Investigators are exploring the connections among the rioters before January 6 and on that day itself, establishing that the attack was not a group of individual protesters who randomly attacked at the same time, but rather was coordinated.

The vice-chair of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, Liz Cheney (R-WY), has said that the committee is looking to see if Trump was part of that coordination and seeking to determine: “Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceedings to count electoral votes?”

Meanwhile, the former president continues to try to hamper that investigation. Today, Trump’s lawyers added a supplemental brief to his executive privilege case before the Supreme Court. The brief claims that since the committee is looking at making criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, it is not engaged in the process of writing new legislation, and thus it is exceeding its powers and has no legitimate reason to see the documents Trump is trying to shield.

But also today, a group of former Department of Justice and executive branch lawyers, including ones who worked for presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging it to deny Trump’s request that the court block the committee’s subpoena for Trump’s records from the National Archives and Records Administration. The brief’s authors established that administrations have often allowed Congress to see executive branch documents during investigations and that there is clearly a need for legislation to make sure another attack on our democratic process never happens again.

The committee must see the materials, they wrote, because “[i]t is difficult to imagine a more compelling interest than the House’s interest in determining what legislation might be necessary to respond to the most significant attack on the Capitol in 200 years and the effort to undermine our basic form of government that that attack represented.”

Notes:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/january-6-supreme-court-rally-insurrection

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-advisor-peter-navarro-lays-out-how-he-and-steve-bannon-planned-to-overturn-bidens-electoral-win

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2018/11/15/its-insanity-how-brooks-brothers-riot-killed-recount-miami/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/racine-jan-6-lawsuit/2021/12/14/4e581d00-5c51-11ec-bda6-25c1f558dd09_story.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-932/206782/20211229145839584_210242a%20Supp%20for%20efiling.pdf

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-riots-capitol-siege-congress-a0615058cac4b42593935877de655376

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A272/206723/20211229075025712_Thompson%20SCOTUS%20Amicus%20Brief%20FINAL.pdf

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/587606-ex-white-house-doj-officials-urge-supreme-court-to-reject-trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/14/text-messages-meadows-renew-focus-trumps-inaction-during-jan-6-attack/

Share

LikeCommentCommentShareShare

You’re a free subscriber to Letters from an American. For the full experience, become a paid subscriber.

Subscribe

© 2021 Heather Cox Richardson Unsubscribe
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

Publish on Substack

No comments:

Post a Comment