Slouching Towards Oblivion

Showing posts with label civil war redux. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil war redux. Show all posts

Sunday, February 18, 2024

The Rubes Are Getting Restless

Seems the MAGA elitists are getting a little bored and beginning to lose interest.

Maybe they know the game is almost up, and they won't be able to tag along, picking up the perks they've been getting from associating with a guy who was never a winner in the first place, but who could snooker enough rubes to create opportunities for the hangers-on to make a few bucks.

The fever has to break sometime, in some way, and maybe we're seeing it come down now so we won't run quite the risk of bloodshed that has seemed so inevitable.



Wednesday, February 14, 2024

The Great Divide

She gets pretty close to it, but pulls up short.

It's a good look at how fucked up American politics is, and how we may be able to get thru some of by applying a few techniques that sound like they came straight out of Family Counseling For Dummies. (I'm not mocking that btw - some things just kinda land funny for me sometimes)

Anyway, what's missing here is attention to an effort at finding the source of the problem. Like I said, she mentions politicians and wealthy benefactors, but she doesn't address the bad actors coming at us thru social media - and cable TV, and traditional media - that (IMO) are being sponsored &/or supported by the Russians or the Chinese or or or.

Manage the symptoms as best you can, and the patient either gets better or croaks pretty much on his own. But ya gotta nail the fuckin' diagnosis, y'know?

Leeja Miller has found some good guidance on how to de-escalate and maybe get ourselves a chance to avoid killing each other.


Saturday, April 01, 2023

What They Won't Do


Now here's a headline:
The Far Right Is Calling For Bloody ‘Civil War’ After Trump’s Indictment

Like most of us (I think), I recognize this as potentially very dangerous, but just too silly to believe it'll come to anything more than some really shitty people doing some really shitty things, as they try to show somebody (fake lord knows who) what great "patriots" they are, while actually proving what a buncha gullible fuckin' rubes they've always been and continue to be.

I'm not trying to minimize anything here - the shitty things some of these dipsticks will do are likely to be truly shitty. Americans will die.

Plutocrats will keep working to destabilize American democracy, and they'll always have a receptive audience because there's always a double-digit segment of people who just want trouble.

Watching an old western movie on TV - about a thousand years ago - the usual bar fight scene unfolds, and I asked my dad how come a couple of drunks start trading punches, and suddenly you've got 30 guys throwing furniture and beer mugs, and generally trashing the whole joint?

"Because some of these jokers got nothin' better to do. They're always waiting for a chance to prove they can scrap - just for the hell of it. They think bustin' their knuckles on some other joker's head is how you go about bein' a man."


Minutes after former President Donald Trump was indicted by a grand jury in New York, his supporters flooded social media and extremist message boards with violent and racist threats against the officials prosecuting Trump, as well as bloody civil war.

“This cannot go unpunished,” one member of the rabidly pro-Trump message board The Donald wrote on Thursday night. “The DA needs to pay dearly.”

“None of this will stop unless there is blood in the streets,” another poster wrote.

In Trump’s own statement, the former president called the indictment a “political persecution” and referred to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg as “hand-picked and funded by George Soros,” and stated that Bragg is “doing Joe Biden’s dirty work.”

His far-right supporters mobilized quickly online to echo these comments. Through their vitriol, and calls for war, some supporters also promoted a narrative where Trump’s indictment was actually going to help him win victory in 2024. In some cases, supporters falsely said the indictment was simply a ruse to distract everyone from the shooter in Nashville earlier this week.

“The whole trans terrorist thing must have been polling badly so they decided to indict Trump based on the testimony of a lying jew and lying whore,” one influential neo-Nazi account on Telegram wrote, alongside an AI-generated image of a tattooed, topless Trump in a prison yard.

While Trump supporters did not publicly make specific plans for protests or violence, there were numerous examples of violent rhetoric in response to Trump’s indictment, including calling for violence against Bragg, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, and law enforcement.

On platforms like The Donald, where all five of the top pinned posts on the homepage on Thursday night related to Trump’s indictment, commenters openly called for violence that was largely racist in nature.

Under a post with a photo of Bragg captioned “FAT PIECE OF SHIT!” another user commented: “There once was a time when he would have been lynched for much less.”

“Can’t we put a bounty on Bragg’s head? Time to fight lawlessness with lawlessness,” one user wrote. In response, someone said: “Hey man a lot of us are thinking the same thing, but if I said what should really happen I'd be charged with ‘terroristic threats.’” Another added: “The unjustified prosecution of President Trump is state terrorism. Respond to terrorism with terrorism.”

When one member of The Donald pointed out that the New York Police Department has ordered all officers to report for duty on Friday morning as a precautionary measure,” another user, while talking about the day after the indictment, commented: “Hopefully, it will be remembered as a day of slaughter.”

There were also many users calling for civil war on the platform. “Yeah. I’m down with just getting 1776 round 2 over with. The build up is infuriating,’ one user wrote in response to the news, while another added: “They want you pissed. Looks like WW3 could be off the table for now, so onto plan B: civil war.”

Some users laid out more detailed plans, discussing militias and boycotts and tax avoidance, while another simply wrote: “War.”

The threats of violence, found on a wide variety of platforms ranging from Trump’s own Truth Social to more mainstream platforms like Twitter, notorious message board 4chan, and The Donald, were located by VICE News and researchers from Advance Democracy, a nonpartisan group that tracks extremists online. And though there are no specific plans detailed right now, users on The Donald played a significant role in the planning, incitement, and coordination of violent events on January 6, 2021.

It’s also not just anonymous users on fringe message boards who are using incendiary language to incite anger about Trump’s indictment.

“The political Rubicon has been crossed. There's no going back from this,” Charlie Kirk, a right-wing talk show host, wrote on Truth Social. One of Kirk’s followers responded writing: “There is only one way back & that is WAR!”

Also on Truth Social, Pizzagate conspiracist, right-wing troll and organizer of the Stop the Steal movement, Jack Posobiec simply wrote: “Are you ready” to which many followers replied: “Let’s go.”

Ali Alexander, the Stop the Steal organizer, also posted a video of himself reacting to the news: “You want to raise me an indictment? I’ll raise you a civil war, I’ll raise you a World War 3, I’ll raise you a cap in your ass.” before claiming that “all of these are metaphors.”

On Fox News, sports columnist Jason Whitlock called for men to prepare for what’s coming. "I hope every other man out there watching this show, I hope you're ready for whatever's next. If that's what they want let's get to it,” Whitlock told Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The host himself also weighed in, responding to another quest on his show who claimed the country was becoming an authoritarian state, by saying: “Probably not the best time to give up your AR-15s. And I think most people know that.”

The New York Young Republican Club issued a statement on the indictment that concluded with the line: “President Trump assured us that he was our retribution. Now we must return the rejoinder: our victory will be the joint vindication that our great President Donald J. Trump and our American people both deserve. This is Total War.”

However, though many Trump supporters openly called for violence, members of The Donald also cautioned against protests of any kind, claiming the FBI was simply “baiting” people “to do something.”

“Everyone is too scared to get J6ed,” one user wrote, referencing arrests surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.

This claim was echoed by far-right disinformation superspreader Alex Jones, who claimed the “deep state” was looking to provoke Trump supporters into a “summer of rage or a civil war” or stage false flag events that would be blamed on Trump supporters. He urged Trump supporters not to take the bait. “We don’t want violence, we want a cultural revolution,” he tweeted.

On 4chan, an anonymous user commented: “Garland should be assassinated.”

On Telegram, neo-Nazi groups were sharing a note that compared the current situation in the U.S. to the build-up to the Spanish Civil War. “Today's indictment of Trump, the Transgender terrorism, the massive recession we are plunging into, countries of the world gravitating commercially/politically away from the United States, and the general Communist agitation happening at every level of the government is simply part of the perfect storm which is likely to cause a calamity that we have yet to come to know,” a post shared by a neo-Nazi active club wrote on Telegram, advocating for followers to create chaos rather than plan specific violent attacks.

Other Nazi figures, unsurprisingly, tried to agitate followers to action. The former leader of a neo-Nazi group designated a terrorist organization in multiple countries declared that this indictment makes the “GOP look spineless,” and urged that the “right must embrace militancy.” He gave his followers a warning that “Trump being thrown in prison will signal the Left's total victory in its multi-generational battle to infiltrate and usurp power in [the] USA. It will require nothing less than a revolution by patriots to reacquire any degree of political agency.”

And in some spaces, like in pro-Trump conspiracy communities like QAnon, the reaction to his indictment has been almost entirely positive. Influencers in the movement have claimed that the imminent arrest is what they have, in fact, been waiting for all along, and means that Trump will eventually be able to arrest other politicians like Hillary Clinton. Some users are claiming that the indictment will be positive forTrump’s election chances as well.

This claim was backed up by the notorious pro-Trump Twitter troll known as Catturd, who tweeted: “President Trump just won 2024.” a post that has been viewed over 1.2 million times and shared widely on other platforms.

“There is NOTHING that will UNITE the MAGA movement on all sides like [them] indicting Trump, NOTHING,” one prominent QAnon influencer wrote on Telegram. “There are MANY who didn’t know who they would be voting for in 2024, who now know FOR SURE after today.”

Sunday, November 27, 2022

Approaching Boiling Point

When one side always shows up at any given event dressed and equipped like they're looking for a fight, and the other side is there looking like they expect a day of hotdogs and slogans, there's likely to be a bad problem eventually.

People will get hurt and killed.

Not to get all Gandhi and shit about it, but:
You might end up killing my sorry old ass with your Emotional Support Weapon, but my death will strengthen my argument, while your murder conviction will weaken yours.



At Protests, Guns Are Doing the Talking

Armed Americans, often pushing a right-wing agenda, are increasingly using open-carry laws to intimidate opponents and shut down debate.

Across the country, openly carrying a gun in public is no longer just an exercise in self-defense — increasingly it is a soapbox for elevating one’s voice and, just as often, quieting someone else’s.

This month, armed protesters appeared outside an elections center in Phoenix, hurling baseless accusations that the election for governor had been stolen from the Republican, Kari Lake. In October, Proud Boys with guns joined a rally in Nashville where conservative lawmakers spoke against transgender medical treatments for minors.

In June, armed demonstrations around the United States amounted to nearly one a day. A group led by a former Republican state legislator protested a gay pride event in a public park in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Men with guns interrupted a Juneteenth festival in Franklin, Tenn., handing out fliers claiming that white people were being replaced. Among the others were rallies in support of gun rights in Delaware and abortion rights in Georgia.

Whether at the local library, in a park or on Main Street, most of these incidents happen where Republicans have fought to expand the ability to bear arms in public, a movement bolstered by a recent Supreme Court ruling on the right to carry firearms outside the home. The loosening of limits has occurred as violent political rhetoric rises and the police in some places fear bloodshed among an armed populace on a hair trigger.

But the effects of more guns in public spaces have not been evenly felt. A partisan divide — with Democrats largely eschewing firearms and Republicans embracing them — has warped civic discourse. Deploying the Second Amendment in service of the First has become a way to buttress a policy argument, a sort of silent, if intimidating, bullhorn.

“It’s disappointing we’ve gotten to that state in our country,” said Kevin Thompson, executive director of the Museum of Science & History in Memphis, Tenn., where armed protesters led to the cancellation of an L.G.B.T.Q. event in September. “What I saw was a group of folks who did not want to engage in any sort of dialogue and just wanted to impose their belief.”

A New York Times analysis of more than 700 armed demonstrations found that, at about 77 percent of them, people openly carrying guns represented right-wing views, such as opposition to L.G.B.T.Q. rights and abortion access, hostility to racial justice rallies and support for former President Donald J. Trump’s lie of winning the 2020 election.

The records, from January 2020 to last week, were compiled by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, a nonprofit that tracks political violence around the world. The Times also interviewed witnesses to other, smaller-scale incidents not captured by the data, including encounters with armed people at indoor public meetings.

Anti-government militias and right-wing culture warriors like the Proud Boys attended a majority of the protests, the data showed. Violence broke out at more than 100 events and often involved fisticuffs with opposing groups, including left-wing activists such as antifa.

Republican politicians are generally more tolerant of openly armed supporters than are Democrats, who are more likely to be on the opposing side of people with guns, the records suggest. In July, for example, men wearing sidearms confronted Beto O’Rourke, then the Democratic candidate for Texas governor, at a campaign stop in Whitesboro and warned that he was “not welcome in this town.”

Republican officials or candidates appeared at 32 protests where they were on the same side as those with guns. Democratic politicians were identified at only two protests taking the same view as those armed.

Sometimes, the Republican officials carried weapons: Robert Sutherland, a Washington state representative, wore a pistol on his hip while protesting Covid-19 restrictions in Olympia in 2020. “Governor,” he said, speaking to a crowd, “you send men with guns after us for going fishing. We’ll see what a revolution looks like.”

The occasional appearance of armed civilians at demonstrations or governmental functions is not new. In the 1960s, the Black Panthers displayed guns in public when protesting police brutality. Militia groups, sometimes armed, rallied against federal agents involved in violent standoffs at Ruby Ridge and Waco in the 1990s.

But the frequency of these incidents exploded in 2020, with conservative pushback against public health measures to fight the coronavirus and response to the sometimes violent rallies after the murder of George Floyd. Today, in some parts of the country with permissive gun laws, it is not unusual to see people with handguns or military-style rifles at all types of protests.

For instance, at least 14 such incidents have occurred in and around Dallas and Phoenix since May, including outside an F.B.I. field office to condemn the search of Mr. Trump’s home and, elsewhere, in support of abortion rights. In New York and Washington, where gun laws are strict, there were none — even though numerous demonstrations took place during that same period.

Many conservatives and gun-rights advocates envision virtually no limits. When Democrats in Colorado and Washington State passed laws this year prohibiting firearms at polling places and government meetings, Republicans voted against them. Indeed, those bills were the exception.

Attempts by Democrats to impose limits in other states have mostly failed, and some form of open carry without a permit is now legal in 38 states, a number that is likely to expand as legislation advances in several more. In Michigan, where a Tea Party group recently advertised poll-watcher training using a photo of armed men in camouflage, judges have rejected efforts to prohibit guns at voting locations.

Gun rights advocates assert that banning guns from protests would violate the right to carry firearms for self-defense. Jordan Stein, a spokesman for Gun Owners of America, pointed to Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager acquitted last year in the shooting of three people during a chaotic demonstration in Kenosha, Wis., where he had walked the streets with a military-style rifle.

“At a time when protests often devolve into riots, honest people need a means to protect themselves,” he said.

Beyond self-defense, Mr. Stein said the freedom of speech and the right to have a gun are “bedrock principles” and that “Americans should be able to bear arms while exercising their First Amendment rights, whether that’s going to church or a peaceful assembly.”

Others argue that openly carrying firearms at public gatherings, particularly when there is no obvious self-defense reason, can have a corrosive effect, leading to curtailed activities, suppressed opinions or public servants who quit out of fear and frustration.

Concerned about armed protesters, local election officials in Arizona, Colorado and Oregon have requested bulletproofing for their offices.

Adam Searing, a lawyer and Georgetown University professor who helps families secure access to health care, said he saw the impact on free speech when people objecting to Covid restrictions used guns to make their point. In some states, disability rights advocates were afraid to show up to support mask mandates because of armed opposition, Mr. Searing said.

“What was really disturbing was the guns became kind of a signifier for political reasons,” he said, adding, “It was just about pure intimidation.”

Armed Speech

The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project has been tracking such incidents in the United States for the past few years. Events captured by the data are not assigned ideological labels but include descriptions, and are collected from news sources, social media and independent partners like the Network Contagion Research Institute, which monitors extremism and disinformation online.

The Times’s analysis found that the largest drivers of armed demonstrations have shifted since 2020. This year, protesters with guns are more likely to be motivated by abortion or L.G.B.T.Q. issues. Sam Jones, a spokesman for the nonpartisan data group, said that upticks in armed incidents tended to correspond to “different flash-point events and time periods, like the Roe v. Wade decision and Pride Month.”

In about a quarter of the cases, left-wing activists also were armed. Many times it was a response, they said, to right-wing intimidation. Other times it was not, such as when about 40 demonstrators, some with rifles, blocked city officials in Dallas from clearing a homeless encampment in July.

More than half of all armed protests occurred in 10 states with expansive open-carry laws: Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington. Three of them — Michigan, Oregon and Texas — allowed armed protesters to gather outside capitol buildings ahead of President Biden’s inauguration, and in Michigan, militia members carrying assault rifles were permitted inside the capitol during protests against Covid lockdowns.

Beyond the mass gatherings, there are everyday episodes of armed intimidation. Kimber Glidden had been director of the Boundary County Library in Northern Idaho for a couple of months when some parents began raising questions in February about books they believed were inappropriate for children.

It did not matter that the library did not have most of those books — largely dealing with gender, sexuality and race — or that those it did have were not in the children’s section. The issue became a cause célèbre for conservative activists, some of whom began showing up with guns to increasingly tense public meetings, Ms. Glidden said.

“How do you stand there and tell me you want to protect children when you’re in the children’s section of the library and you’re armed?” she asked.

In August, she resigned, decrying the “intimidation tactics and threatening behavior.”

A Growing Militancy

At a Second Amendment rally in June 2021 outside the statehouse in Harrisburg, Pa., where some people were armed, Republican speakers repeatedly connected the right to carry a gun to other social and cultural issues. Representative Scott Perry voiced a frequent conservative complaint about censorship, saying the First Amendment was “under assault.”

“And you know very well what protects the First,” he said. “Which is what we’re doing here today.”

Stephanie Borowicz, a state legislator, was more blunt, boasting to the crowd that “tyrannical governors” had been forced to ease coronavirus restrictions because “as long as we’re an armed population, the government fears us.”

Pennsylvania, like some other states with permissive open-carry laws, is home to right-wing militias that sometimes appear in public with firearms. They are often welcomed, or at least accepted, by Republican politicians.

When a dozen militia members, some wearing skull masks and body armor, joined a protest against Covid restrictions in Pittsburgh in April 2020, Jeff Neff, a Republican borough council president running for the state senate, posed for a photo with the group. In it, he is holding his campaign sign, surrounded by men with military-style rifles.

In an email, Mr. Neff said he had since left politics, and expressed regret over past news coverage of the photo, adding, “Please know that I do not condone any threats or action of violence by any person or groups.”

Across the country, there is evidence of increasing Republican involvement in militias. A membership list for the Oath Keepers, made public last year, includes 81 elected officials or candidates, according to a report by the Anti-Defamation League. Most of them appear to be Republicans.

Another nationwide militia, the American Patriots Three Percent, recently told prospective members that it worked to support “individuals seeking election to local G.O.P. boards,” according to an archived version of its website.

More than 25 members of the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters have been charged in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Those organizations, along with the Proud Boys and Boogaloo Boys, make up the bulk of organized groups in the armed-protest data, according to The Times’s analysis.

Shootings were rare, such as when a Proud Boy was shot in the foot while chasing antifa members during a protest over Covid lockdowns in Olympia last year. But Mr. Jones said the data, which also tracked unarmed demonstrations, showed that while armed protests accounted for less than 2 percent of the total, they were responsible for 10 percent of those where violence occurred, most often involving fights between rival groups.

“Armed groups or individuals might say they have no intention of intimidating anyone and are only participating in demonstrations to keep the peace,” said Mr. Jones, “but the evidence doesn’t back up the claim.”

Competing Rights

In a landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment conveyed a basic right to bear arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense at home. It went further in a decision this June that struck down New York restrictions on concealed-pistol permits, effectively finding a right to carry firearms in public.

But the court in Heller also made clear that gun rights were not unlimited, and that its ruling did not invalidate laws prohibiting “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places.” That caveat was reiterated in a concurring opinion in the New York case.


Even some hard-line gun rights advocates are uncomfortable with armed people at public protests. Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told The Washington Times in 2017 that “if you are carrying it to make a political point, we are not going to support that.”

“Firearms serve a purpose,” he said, “and the purpose is not a mouthpiece.”


But groups that embrace Second Amendment absolutism do not hesitate to criticize fellow advocates who stray from that orthodoxy.

After Dan Crenshaw, a Republican congressman from Texas and former Navy SEAL, lamented in 2020 that “guys dressing up in their Call of Duty outfits, marching through the streets,” were not advancing the cause of gun rights, he was knocked by the Firearms Policy Coalition for “being critical of people exercising their right to protest.” The coalition has fought state laws that it says force gun owners to choose between the rights to free speech and self-defense.

Regardless of whether there is a right to go armed in public for self-defense, early laws and court decisions made clear that the Constitution did not empower people, such as modern-day militia members, to gather with guns as a form of protest, said Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell University who has written about the tension between the rights to free speech and guns.

Mr. Dorf pointed to an 18th-century Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that a group of protesters with firearms had no right to rally in public against a government tax. Some states also adopted an old English law prohibiting “going armed to the terror of the people,” still on the books in some places, aimed at preventing the use of weapons to threaten or intimidate.

“Historically,” said Mr. Dorf, “there were such limits on armed gatherings, even assuming that there’s some right to be armed as individuals.”

More broadly, there is no evidence that the framers of the Constitution intended for Americans to take up arms during civic debate among themselves — or to intimidate those with differing opinions. That is what happened at the Memphis museum in September, when people with guns showed up to protest a scheduled dance party that capped a summer-long series on the history of the L.G.B.T.Q. community in the South.

While the party was billed as “family friendly,” conservatives on local talk radio claimed that children would be at risk (the museum said the planned activities were acceptable for all ages). As armed men wearing masks milled about outside, the panicked staff canceled all programs and evacuated the premises.

Mr. Thompson, the director, said he and his board were now grappling with the laws on carrying firearms, which were loosened last year by state legislators.

“It’s a different time,” he said, “and it’s something we have to learn to navigate.”

Tuesday, October 25, 2022

Today's Really Scary Thing

I'll be headed down to wherever they're having their little war, so I can volunteer to be the first one shot, hoping my senseless death during a futile attempt to stop dumbfuck-on-dumbfuck violence will eventually get picked up as some kind of rallying cry and everybody can go back to just shit-talkin' each other on social media.

And who the fuck do I think I'm kiddin'?


Jordan Klepper - Civil War, anyone?

Wednesday, August 10, 2022

Gimme My Shit Back, Asshole

The records that Trump took from the White House don't belong to him. They belong to us.

He had no right to take them, and he had a legal obligation to return them. All of them.


WaPo: (pay wall)

Mar-a-Lago search appears focused on whether Trump, aides withheld items

A lawyer for Donald Trump said agents seized about a dozen boxes on Monday, months after 15 boxes of items were returned


In the months before the FBI’s dramatic move to execute a search warrant at former president Donald Trump’s Florida home and open his safe to look for items, federal authorities grew increasingly concerned that Trump or his lawyers and aides had not, in fact, returned all the documents and other material that were government property, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Officials became suspicious that when Trump gave 15 boxes of items to the National Archives about seven months ago, either the former president or people close to him held on to key records — despite a Justice Department investigation into the handling of classified and other material that had been sent to the former president’s private club and residence in the waning days of his administration.

Over months of discussions about whether documents were still missing, some officials also came to suspect Trump’s representatives were not truthful at times, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

On Tuesday, a lawyer for Trump said the agents who brought the court-approved warrant to Mar-a-Lago a day earlier took about 12 more boxes after conducting their search.

People familiar with the investigation said that Justice Department and FBI officials traveled to Mar-a-Lago this spring, a meeting first reported by CNN. The officials spoke to Trump’s representatives, inspected the storage space where documents were held, and expressed concern that the former president or people close to him still had items that should be in government custody, these people said.

By that point, officials at the National Archives had been aggressively contacting people in Trump’s orbit to demand the return of documents they believed were covered by the Presidential Records Act, said two people familiar with those inquiries. Like the others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of the investigation.

Christina Bobb, a lawyer for Trump, said his lawyers engaged in discussions with the Justice Department this spring over materials held at Mar-a-Lago. At that time, the former president’s legal team searched through two to three dozen boxes in a storage area, hunting for documents that could be considered presidential records, and turned over several items that might meet the definition, she said.

In June, Bobb said, she and Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran met with Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence and export control section at the Justice Department, along with several investigators. Trump stopped by the meeting as it began, to greet the investigators, but was not interviewed. The lawyers showed the federal officials the boxes, and Bratt and the others spent some time looking through the material.

Bobb said the Justice Department officials commented that they did not believe the storage unit was properly secured, so Trump officials added a lock to the facility. When FBI agents searched the property Monday, Bobb added, they broke through the lock that had been added to the door.

The FBI removed about a dozen boxes that had been stored in the basement storage area, she said.

Bobb did not share the search warrant left by agents, but said that it indicated agents were investigating possible violations of laws dealing with the handling of classified material and the Presidential Records Act.

Trump aides also declined to share the search warrant with The Washington Post.

Cue the nutballs - and bring on the Keyboard Kommandos.


The Atlantic: (pay wall)

The Bad and Good News About Trump’s Violent Supporters

The FBI search at Mar-a-Lago prompts sincere talk of violence. But some threats remain mere threats.


In some corners of MAGA-land, a new civil war is getting under way. The FBI’s arrival at Mar-a-Lago yesterday evening to collect evidence in a criminal investigation related to former President Donald Trump is the trigger that some of his supporters needed to suggest that violence is imminent. Predictably, the unverified Twitter accounts of armchair revolutionaries circulated claims such as “I already bought my ammo” and dark talk of “kinetic civil war” and “Civil War 2.0.”

Not to be outdone, the National Rifle Association posted an image of Justice Clarence Thomas above an indignant quotation from a majority opinion he wrote: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second class right.’” Verified right-wing influencers got in on the martial rhetoric, too. “Tomorrow is war. Sleep well,” Steven Crowder promised.

The bad news is that much of this talk is sincere. It is intended to intimidate the people investigating Trump’s many abuses of power, and to galvanize and organize his true believers—some of whom already proved on January 6, 2021, that they will commit violence in his name. The latest such propaganda is shocking to read, mostly because the talk of violence comes so casually to Trump’s apologists. It is all out in the open now.

The good news is that some threats remain merely threats. A violent movement either grows or shrinks. Its ideology is not defeated; it simply stops motivating people to action.

David A. Graham: The Mar-a-Lago raid proves the U.S. isn’t a banana republic

Trump has a hold on a party that has been offered plenty of exit ramps from its relationship with him, but he is not Voldemort. He has been isolated and humiliated. Many of the individuals who used violence to support him on January 6 are now in jail. His audiences have dwindled. Even on the night of the FBI search, in the area of Florida that he now calls home, an impromptu roadside demonstration in support of him attracted “roughly two dozen” supporters, the Miami Herald reported. “Roughly two dozen” isn’t a revolution. It isn’t even a rally.

For many Americans who wish for a peaceful democracy and remain frustrated about Trump’s continuing influence in Republican primaries, hope springs eternal that someone or something—Robert Mueller, two impeachment drives, and now criminal investigators—will definitively erase his power. But expecting saviors to intervene is the wrong way to think about how the threat of violence from Trump’s supporters might dissipate. Rather, the danger will be over when violent MAGAism becomes a rallying cry for a limited pool of adherents whose online anger fizzles upon contact with the real world.

A win, at this stage, isn’t that Trump’s troops make an apology. It is that they remain an online threat, a cosplay movement, a pretend army that can’t deliver, whose greatest strength is in their heads rather than reality.

Trump, as a former president of the United States, may be a rather unique leader of a violent insurrection, but that doesn’t make the ongoing, multiyear strategy any less effective. The January 6 committee has adopted a counter-insurrection strategy by portraying Trump squarely as the leader of a violent movement, and not simply the leader of the GOP. But some of his more extreme followers are now turning on one another. Members of the Oath Keepers, for example, have spoken to FBI investigators about matters connected with the Capitol riot—a sign that at least some fear legal penalties more than they fear the consequences of breaking with Trump. If the former president’s legal jeopardy deepens, he will in all likelihood try to raise the level of agitation in the days ahead; he knows how to use language that incites followers to violence without giving them specific instruction.

But allow me at least a glimmer of optimism. “Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come,” the poet and author Carl Sandburg famously wrote. And the decline of MAGA looks something like that—just a smattering of people respond to the overheated rhetoric of Trump and his allies. If Trump’s supporters only end up cosplaying a civil war, that itself is a small victory.

Wednesday, July 20, 2022

The Other Malcom

Malcom Nance gets a little shouty sometimes most times, but I have to acknowledge that he's been right about an awful lot of stuff.

MSNBC - Tiffany Cross



Monday, May 23, 2022

Divide-N-Conquer

via Yahoo news

Former President Donald Trump shared a post on his social media platform that appeared to propose or predict a civil war in the U.S.

A Truth Social user suggested “civil war” in response to a March 19 tweet from El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, which was screengrabbed and posted to Truth Social by former Fox Nation host Lara Logan. Trump “retruthed” the comment about civil war.

“The most powerful country in the world is falling so fast, that it makes you rethink what are the real reasons,” Bukele’s tweet read. “Something so big and powerful can’t be destroyed so quickly, unless the enemy comes from within.”

Trump shared a post suggesting a U.S. "civil war."



Bukele, whose extensive Twitter use and hardline immigration policies have led some to designate him a “mini Trump,” has had a tense relationship with the Biden administration. Officials have expressed serious concerns about his commitment to democracy.

His tweet was in response to a Bloomberg News article about rising inflation in the U.S.


- more -

Beau Of The Fifth Column

The people most willing to accept and support the idea of civil war are the people who stand to lose the most because of it.

"...enemies within - enemies without..."


Question:
Has the US ever been this polarized?

Answer:
Off and on for as long as I can remember.

Thursday, October 14, 2021

Jan6 Stuff

The most ardent supporters - the ones who'll go anywhere and do whatever they think they've been told to do no matter what, without thinking it through, and with no regard for anything, including themselves or anyone else - those are the guys who personify Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil".

Chris Hayes, MSNBC

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

It's The Terrorism, Stupid

From CNN:

A former police captain who was part of a private citizens group investigating still unsubstantiated 2020 election fraud claims was charged Tuesday with running a man off the road and pointing a gun to his head two weeks before the election, the Harris County district attorney said in a statement.

Prosecutors say former Houston Police captain Mark Anthony Aguirre said he believed the man was transporting fraudulent ballots.

"I believe it's a political prosecution," Terry Yates, Aguirre's attorney, told CNN affiliate KTRK.

Prosecutors say Aguirre was paid over a quarter million dollars by a private group called "Liberty Center for God and Country" to investigate alleged ballot schemes in the Houston area.

Jared Woodfill, the center's president, told CNN the group and Republican activist Steve Hotze hired a private firm that included "Aguirre, a former FBI investigator and about 20 investigators that investigated reports of voter fraud," reports that were sent to Hotze. The Republican activist was also one of the plaintiffs who filed a petition prior to Election Day seeking to invalidate 127,000 ballots cast in drive-thru early voting. A federal judge rejected that request.

CNN has reached out to Hotze for comment.

According to the district attorney's news release, Aguirre, 63, told authorities he had conducted surveillance for four days on an unidentified man driving a truck that he suspected had 750,000 fraudulent ballots inside. The release said Aguirre believed the man was "the mastermind of a giant (voter) fraud."

Instead, prosecutors say the victim was an "innocent and ordinary" air-conditioner repairman.

"Aguirre ran his SUV into the back of the truck to get the technician to stop and get out," the news release said, describing the October 19 incident. "When the technician got out of the truck, Aguirre, pointed a handgun at the technician, forced him to the ground and put his knee on the man's back -- an image captured on the body-worn camera of a police officer."

Responding authorities found no ballots inside the vehicle, only air conditioner parts and tools, prosecutors said.

After an investigation, Houston police said they found the allegations of election fraud "unfounded" and referred the case to the district attorney's office.

And also too - follow the money.

Aguirre had been paid more than $260,000 by the "Liberty Center" group, prosecutors alleged, and received about $211,400 the day following the incident.

He was arrested Tuesday and is charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison, prosecutors said. He is currently at a Harris County jail facility with bond set at $30,000.

We can call this "dirty tricks" or "good ol' boys gone wild" or "vigilante numb-skullery" or whatever else, but it's Terrorism For Hire. and the DOJ needs to be approaching it as such. They took a huge bite out of the KKK by helping The SLPC sue some the Klan chapters into oblivion back in the 80s and 90s. And the Feds take the same kind of action against known terror groups outside the US by freezing their financial assets here, and getting other countries to do the same abroad.

We can't fuck around with this and let it go without real consequences.

It'll continue. It'll get worse. And it's going to get Americans killed.

"He crossed the line from dirty politics to commission of a violent crime and we are lucky no one was killed," Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said in a statement. "His alleged investigation was backward from the start -- first alleging a crime had occurred and then trying to prove it happened."

Yates, Aguirre's attorney, told CNN affiliate KTRK, "He was working and investigating voter fraud, there was an accident. ... A member of the car got out and rushed toward him and that's where the confrontation took place. It's very different than what you're citing in the affidavit."

The statement from prosecutors about Aguirre's arrest came one day after the Electoral College voted to affirm Joe Biden as the 46th President of the United States.

Despite the announcement of election results by media outlets and government officials, outgoing President Donald Trump has continued to claim that widespread voter fraud occurred during the 2020 election, and has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for a purported legal defense fund, despite official certifications that former Vice President Joe Biden won the presidential election.

I can see this as prelude to some pretty awful shit coming our way as Qult45 settles in after the inauguration and Trump continues to pimp his shadow government, We-Was-Robbed bullshit.




Monday, June 15, 2020

Overheard

My marriage lasted more than 5 times longer than the Confederacy.

I remember it with great fondness, it was perfectly in keeping with my heritage,




 and I've taken down all the monuments to it.

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

In Search Of Consensus


Charlie Pierce:

By all accounts, the most civil action taken in L’affaire Poule Rouge was the way Stephanie Wilkinson handled her refusal to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders at the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. She first consulted with her staff, several members of which were gay and were angry at the administration*’s policies in that regard, and everyone was outraged by what was going on at the border. Wilkinson then took a vote on whether or not to serve Sanders. When the staff voted not to do so, she politely informed Sanders and her party that they would not be eating at the Red Hen that night. She even comped them the cheese plates they’d already ordered.

She did not use an official government Twitter account to discuss the episode, as Sanders did later. She did not use the power of the Oval Office to try and destroy someone’s business, as the president* found time to do later. She asked the staff what they wanted to do. She took a vote. She abided by their wishes. If there’s a more civil way of saying “no” to someone, I don’t know what it would be.

But some Press Poodles insist that we can't call complete assholes complete assholes.

Right on cue, Fred Hiatt’s Washington Post editorial page, which has no compunction about publishing the words of torture-enthusiast Marc Thiessen, blurted out the most embarrassing single paragraph written about the events at the Red Hen. 

To wit:
We nonetheless would argue that Ms. Huckabee, and Ms. Nielsen and Mr. Miller, too, should be allowed to eat dinner in peace. Those who are insisting that we are in a special moment justifying incivility should think for a moment how many Americans might find their own special moment. How hard is it to imagine, for example, people who strongly believe that abortion is murder deciding that judges or other officials who protect abortion rights should not be able to live peaceably with their families?

For the benefit of those people also living in Fred Hiatt’s Land Without History: abortion providers have been stalked. Their children have been stalked. Their places of business have been vandalized. And, lest we forget, doctors who perform abortions have been fucking killed! They’ve been gunned down in their clinics, in their kitchens, and in their churches. They have not been allowed to live peaceably with their families, Fred, you addlepated Beltway thooleramawn. They haven’t been allowed to live at all. I’m no expert, but I’m fairly sure that a bullet in the head is far more uncivil than a complementary fucking cheese plate. What is wrong with these people?

- and -

This debate is stupid. It’s also dangerously beside the point. SarahHuck is the lying mouthpiece of a lying regime that is one step away from simply hauling people off in trucks. That she was politely told to take her business elsewhere is a small step towards assigning public responsibility to public officials that enable a perilous brand of politics. There are bigger steps to be taken, but everyone in official Washington is too damn timid to do what really needs to be done about this band of pirates.


Sorry, no, I won’t suffer lectures about civility from members of a party led by a swaggering, unrepentant bully who relentlessly attacks his detractors with schoolyard insults.

The GOP was revived in the furious swamps of Tea Party rallies starting in 2009 and sustained by a campaign of hatred and lies against President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.



Sunday, October 29, 2017

What Does It Take?


"Fact: Donald Trump is a feckless racist catastrophe who would gladly light the world on fire just to see his name printed in the last newspaper ever published."


You have to wonder what Jeff Flake and Bob Corker are thinking today. I'm sure neither were expecting their Sunday to be this quiet. These two stalwart bedrock pillar Senate Republicans dropped a couple of building-sized bricks on the White House last week, and all that came of the resulting DONK was yet another hashtagged rhetorical victory lap by Donald Trump.

According to normal political gravity, this was the sun rising in the West. Flake and Corker took Reagan's 11th Commandment -- "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican" – and fed it to the bears. Two major figures within the GOP brutally attacked a sitting Republican president on national television, using phrases like "debasing the nation" and "flagrant disregard for truth or decency," and in any other time in US history, it would have been a nine-days wonder.

It should be noted that Flake and Corker’s words assailing Trump do not bump them to the head of the line for beatification. Their profile in courage is shorter than the flyers you find on your windshield. Flake happily voted several times to strip millions of Americans of their health insurance not long ago, and Corker just voted to blow up a major consumer protection regulation.
Both have voted with Trump 90 percent of the time.

The smiling hyena will still eat your children.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Choose

You can shit on this guy if you feel the need:


Or you can feel all proud and heritage-y about this guy:


You know what it makes you when you do both, and by now you gotta know I'm gonna call your ass on it.

Monday, August 28, 2017

More Monuments Mess

LA Times Op-Ed, Lisa Richardson:

Blacks and whites will have different perspectives on their entwined history. War victory for my white great-great-great grandfather, Jeremiah H. Dial, who enlisted in the 31st Arkansas infantry regiment and was wounded in the battle of Stone River, Tenn., in December 1862, would have meant defeat for my great-great-great-grandmother Lavinia Fulton and their daughter, Mary Ellen. Instead, Lavinia died a free woman, living to play with her grandchildren and give thanks to God every Sunday in church in Birmingham, Ala. I thank God my great-great-great-grandfather lost. Every right-thinking person should be glad he lost.

Yet the monuments debate isn’t really about the past. It’s about a present-day assertion of white supremacy and whether our nation is going to stop making excuses and stare it down. Most of the statues, as has been widely discussed, were erected long after Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox. They were hoisted into view to assert white dominance at specific points in time when African Americans gained a measure of political influence — during Reconstruction and the civil rights era. With the bronzes came domestic terrorism, lynchings, bombings and cross burnings. The current uptick in neo-Nazi and white supremacist activity was entirely predictable. With clockwork precision it surged at the time of the nation’s first African American president.

So why do some people treat modern icons as if they were ancient relics, like marbles from the Parthenon?

Fear. History isn’t being erased, but it is being corrected. Relocating a Confederate statue to, say, a museum, is an acknowledgment that we see the naked emperor; we see through the contorted logic that it is possible to separate the Confederacy from the institution of slavery, that it’s a whites-only story and slavery is blacks-only, and that treason is the same as patriotism.

- and -

To all the bronze Confederate soldiers, in whom I see the image of my great-great-great-grandfather, I would extend this grace. Without resentment or rancor, I would move them into museums and there tell the story of their lives. I would end their utility as flashpoints for racism and division, and, once and for all, allow them to retire from their long service as sentries over a whitewashed history.

The only problem is in that last graf: "once and for all". It doesn't happen that way. 

This is the weirdness of politics, as practiced by very clever people who can be devious and cynically manipulative.  There's no such thing as once and for all.

Not as long as we have assholes like this guy:

Richard Wilson Preston
Charged with gun violation

- because there's no expectation for a shortage of assholes under current market conditions.

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

News To Me

The best thing I've come across in a long time.

From HuffPo (hey - even a blind hog roots up an acorn once in a while):

A native Virginian, a railroad magnate, a slaveholder, and an ardent secessionist, Mahone served in the Confederate army throughout the war. He was one of the Army of Northern Virginia’s most able commanders, distinguishing himself particularly in the summer of 1864 at the Battle of the Crater outside Petersburg. After the war, Robert E. Lee recalled that, when contemplating a successor, he thought that Mahone “had developed the highest qualities for organization and command.”

How did such a high-ranking Confederate commander wind up missing in action in a Charleston gift shop? Not, I think, by accident.

By now, Americans interested in the Confederate monument removal project have had it drilled into them that the monuments were erected decades after the end of the Civil War as testimonies to white supremacy in all its various manifestations: segregation, disenfranchisement, lynching, peonage, and second-class citizenship across the board. But the monuments were not merely commemorative.
They were designed to conceal a past that their designers wanted to suppress. That past was the period after Reconstruction and before Jim Crow, years in which African Americans in the former Confederacy exercised political power, ran for public office, published newspapers, marched as militias, ran businesses, organized voluntary associations, built schools and churches: a time, in other words, when they participated as full members of society.

Maj Gen William Mahone, CSA

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

45* Theater



The eternal semantic struggle: Is it "real"?



Thursday, June 08, 2017

Storm Comin'


WaPo:

When torch-wielding white nationalists gathered in front of a Confederate statue in downtown Charlottesville last month, Mayor Michael Signer worried that the event harked back to “the days of the KKK.”

That warning has now become prophecy.

On Monday, city officials said the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan had applied to hold a rally near the statue on July 8.

“This rump, out-of-state chapter of a totally discredited organization will succeed in their aim of inciting controversy only if folks take their putrid bait, and that begins with the media,” he wrote in an email to The Washington Post. “I encourage everyone to ignore this ridiculous sideshow and to focus instead on celebrating the values of diversity and tolerance that have made Charlottesville a world-class city.”

Charlottesville - a regular hotbed of social rest - is not given to protest and demonstration.

This could get to be a pretty big deal.

Monday, June 05, 2017

Yeesh

There can be nothing more representative than this picture of the totality of fucked-up-edness this "president" is causing - on purpose, btw.


Yes, he's an incompetent mushbrain when it comes to governance. And he has no clue about history or language or science or anything else that makes for a decent human being, let alone a good POTUS. 

But he knows exactly what to do to advance an agenda that benefits nobody but himself - and his little band of thieves (for as long as they prove useful to him).

So the point of the exercise is to cause as much confusion and uncertainty as possible in order to exploit whatever opportunity presents itself because of it, or to cover whatever heist is in progress at any given time, and to have some plausible-sounding way to leave everybody else holding the bag when it all blows up.

The "saving grace" here may lie in the way 45* feels compelled to operate. To wit: his fucked up worldview makes it impossible for him to think he can win unless he can make everybody else lose - and eventually, it'll come down to everybody having to decide between themselves and him. Which is when the supremely venal Repubs in congress will suddenly remember swearing an oath not to do exactly everything they've been doing.

Because that's how this kinda shit always ends.

Let's keep hoping this one ends before the shooting starts.