#ActInTimeDEADLINETime left to limit global warming to 1.5°C 4YRS096DAYS21:20:15 LIFELINEWorld's energy from renewables14.811372307%Nature protection is part of fundamental law in Amazon countries | One lawyer's groundbreaking work in shaping climate law | California tribes rekindle ancient fire traditions to heal the land & themselves | EU expects to add record renewable capacity in 2025 | Lego opens solar-powered Vietnam factory to cut emissions & supply Asia | Africa is proof that investing in climate resilience works | New global fund for forests is a bold experiment in conservation finance | Clean power provided 40% of the world's electricity last year | Cape Cod pilot brings clean energy upgrades to low-income homes | Nations are considering to set the 1st global tax on emissions for shipping | Nature protection is part of fundamental law in Amazon countries | One lawyer's groundbreaking work in shaping climate law | California tribes rekindle ancient fire traditions to heal the land & themselves | EU expects to add record renewable capacity in 2025 | Lego opens solar-powered Vietnam factory to cut emissions & supply Asia | Africa is proof that investing in climate resilience works | New global fund for forests is a bold experiment in conservation finance | Clean power provided 40% of the world's electricity last year | Cape Cod pilot brings clean energy upgrades to low-income homes | Nations are considering to set the 1st global tax on emissions for shipping |
Showing posts with label fuckery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fuckery. Show all posts

Mar 12, 2025

When Is It Enough?


OK, we can try to kinda keep track of it all, but there's an element of 'so-fucking-what' at work here. The people who should be stepping up to hold him accountable are almost totally MIA.


And OK again. We can be - and should be - at least hopeful if not optimistic because a few more Democrats are showing some balls. Plus, we need to keep seeing him for the shitbird he is ...


.. but goddamn - even knowing he counts on us getting worn down, and tired, and throwing in the towel, it's a real chore to stay with this shit.


Donald Trump’s Empty Promises Are Catching Up to Him

The president vowed to bring down prices on “day one”—something everyone would like to see. What happened with that?

Right after Donald Trump was elected for the second time, he was the most popular he’d ever been. According to The Economist, “his net favorability was in positive territory for the first time ever.”

It was a strange moment: In January 2025, the guy who had been impeached twice, indicted four times, and convicted on 34 felony counts was as popular as he’d ever been and, unlike in 2016, he actually won the popular vote. Trump is famous for defying political gravity, but even for him, this was unprecedented. It was as if the American people had suffered from collective amnesia and forgotten January 6, the COVID pandemic, and the Black Lives Matter protests. Not only that, it was the first time in 20 years a Republican won the popular vote in the presidential elections. Once again, American voters were angry, once again American voters wanted change, once again American voters bafflingly considered Trump—who had been president once before—to be the outsider.

But there was another important data point, which may not be getting enough attention. A lot of voters were angry about a very specific thing: inflation. The idea that things were suddenly more expensive for no discernible reason was a hard pill for voters to swallow. A month before the election, Gallup reported that the economy “could be a significant factor to nine in 10 voters.” Voters were angry, but most weren’t angry about government spending—they were angry about the price of eggs. If you were to argue that Trump has a mandate, and he would argue that he does, it would be to make prices lower.

Trump promised many pie-in-the-sky things. For example, he said that if he won, the government or insurance companies would cover the cost of in vitro fertilization treatment—a proposal that would almost certainly never fly with his own party. After taking office, Trump is still promising some of these fantastical things. During his speech to a joint session of Congress earlier this month, he reiterated his call to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits—once again, costly ideas that would almost certainly never jell with the Republican Party he leads.

But Trump’s biggest, boldest campaign promise was downright impossible. It was a promise that Kamala Harris couldn’t make because there was no way to do it. Trump vowed to immediately reverse inflation and to immediately make things cheaper. In August he told a crowd in Montana: “Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods.” And in October, he told a group in Wisconsin: “Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again. We’ll do that.” Harris couldn’t promise that because, even with the most aggressive government intervention, there is no realistic way to do it.

But instead of bringing prices down on day one, or even month one, Trump is doing the exact opposite. He’s enacted a trade war and let Elon Musk take a chainsaw to the federal government, both of which have caused market uncertainty. Suddenly, the man who said he was going to make everything cheaper on day one can’t even rule out a recession on his watch, and has instead mused about a “period of transition.”

Trump has it in his head that the United States was somehow richer before income taxes, which is fueling his tariff obsession. A few days after being sworn in, he told reporters in the Oval Office: “We were at our richest from 1870 to 1913. That’s when we were a tariff country. And then they went to an income tax concept.” It makes sense that Trump, a real estate baron, would be nostalgic for the Gilded Age—after all, it was a time in American life marked by high concentration of wealth, vast income inequality, and widespread political corruption.

But the problem is that while Trump loves tariffs, no one else does. His back-and-forth on implementing them has spooked the markets, because the only thing the markets like less than tariffs is uncertainty.

Even after a week of poor market reactions to Trump’s will-he-won’t-he on tariff threats, he has continued to seesaw on the topic. On Sunday, during a friendly interview, Trump told Fox News that “the tariffs could go up as time goes by,” dismissed calls for more “predictability,” and refused to rule out a recession. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick further rationalized the volatility, telling NBC’s Meet the Press, “Will there be distortions? Of course. Foreign goods may get a little more expensive, but American goods are going to get cheaper.” Meanwhile, all markets want is stability, and this was probably not what they wanted to hear: US stocks saw a steep sell-off Monday morning.

It seems pretty clear that Trump is simply not laser-focused on the only promise anyone could legitimately view as his mandate: making things cheaper.

In November 2024, voters perceived the economy to be bad despite underlying fundamentals being good. They yet again voted for change. Trump promised cheaper groceries through tariffs, which ultimately make things more expensive. Since Trump took office seven weeks ago, the S&P has dropped 5%. And guess what? Groceries are not cheaper.

Trump has been able to defy political gravity many times. He’s come back from scandals that would have ended most political careers. But the question is, what happens when a president ends up doing the exact opposite of what he promised voters he’d do?

Thru The Back Door


Trump's fuckery is unlimited.
Every time we think it can't get worse,
he makes it worse.
There is no bottom.

But anyway -

Project 2025 is basically a plan to re-jigger the executive branch, in service of pushing hard for The Unitary Executive - which the wingnuts have been slavering over for decades.

Two things come to mind whenever I look at what President Musk and his frontman Trump have been doing the last 7 weeks.

First, it seems clear to me that the DOGE nonsense is at least partly about bringing the Line Item Veto back into play. This has been a major hobby horse for "conservatives" as far back as US Grant. Then Nixon's impoundment antics prompted legislation to outlaw that shit, and it popped up big in the Reagan years. They got Clinton to sign on for it in the mid-90s, but it got knocked down by SCOTUS in just a few years.

So it looks a lot like DOGE is an attempt to bring it in thru the back door.

Second, another bit they're trying to sneak in on us is the whole Schedule F thing - where they fire a huge number of career federal workers, and then hire (ie: appoint) people who are sufficiently loyal to Project 2025's ideology and objectives - where the ideological loyalty is disguised as loyalty to Trump.

All this shit is classic Republican fuckery on steroids.
  1. Fuck something up
  2. Wait for people to feel the pain, and start to push back
  3. Bring in the changes you wanted to make all along, "per the mandate of the people"
Granted, government needs to work better - nobody disputes that. But only a very few obscenely wealthy assholes want to remake the whole thing so it fits the standard Animal Instincts Business Model.

Mar 8, 2025

Cowards All


Another not-sorry-not-sorry.

Do these jerks think serving in Congress demands a level of risk that's less than the risk of serving in uniform?

You put your ass on the line. You face up to your fear. You figure out what's the right thing to do, and then you do it in spite of that fear.

What you don't do is cave to the pressure, and do what you're told because of your fear.

Where the fuck are the leaders? Where the fuck are the heroes?


Republicans Are “Scared Shitless” of Trump’s Fans

Republican lawmakers who step out of line quickly face the wrath of Donald Trump’s fans.


Fear might be the driving motivator behind Republican lawmakers’ continual bend to Donald Trump.

The GOP caucus is reportedly “scared shitless” of not just Trump’s ire—but the personal vindictiveness and constant threat of political violence from his MAGA base across the country.

The final straw that reportedly flipped Senator Thom Tillis’s vote on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were “credible death threats” against the North Carolina lawmaker, according to sources that spoke with Vanity Fair. Tillis was the final Republican holdout on confirming the former Fox News star to lead the Pentagon.

“According to the source, Tillis has said that if people want to understand Trump, they should read the 2006 book Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work,” Vanity Fair reported.

Trump’s violent rhetoric offers one obvious reason why Republicans are so wary of crossing him. The president has a bizarre relationship with the more reactive sectors of his base. During the first presidential debate of the 2020 cycle, Trump issued a direct missive to the Proud Boys, a militant white supremacist group, telling them to “stand back and stand by.” And the MAGA leader has also encouraged direct violence at his rallies, encouraging his supporters to “knock the crap out of” protesters who exercise their First Amendment rights against Trump’s agenda.

The president also made his reciprocal loyalty to his base obvious from the first day of his second administration: after claiming for years that he would free the men and women who rioted through Congress in 2021—and forced the legislature to delay the certification of the presidential election result—Trump overrode internal debate amongst his administration hours after his inauguration to pardon some 1,500 January 6 offenders.

“They’re scared shitless about death threats and Gestapo-like stuff,” a former member of Trump’s first administration told Vanity Fair.

Trump’s decision to legally and unilaterally forgive his most aggressive supporters was, actually, wildly unpopular with the American public. A November Scripps News/Ipsos survey found that few Americans—just 30 percent—actually supported a legal reprieve for the Capitol rioters, versus an overwhelming 64 percent of the country that was against it. Just one percent of respondents believed that the pardons should be Trump’s first priority—let alone something that he issued a sweeping executive order for on his first day in office.

Feb 23, 2025

About That Memo



Government agencies have no idea what to do about Musk’s email

An email sent to 2.3 million workers asking them to outline their work last week is leading to confusion and differing instructions across the government.

The State Department told employees not to answer it. Employees at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency were told: Definitely reply. And in some parts of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, staffers received instructions to draft a response but not send it yet.

After Elon Musk led a move to email all 2.3 million government workers over the weekend asking them to share five bullet points detailing what they accomplished last week, chaos and confusion reigned. Agencies issued conflicting guidance, as did different divisions within the same agency, in some cases.

Raising the stakes, Musk warned in a post on X that any employee who failed to respond would be treated as having resigned. But the email sent to workers made no mention of this possible consequence, which lawyers said would be illegal.

- more -

I don't work a government job, but I'm always looking to be of service to my country, so I consider myself "on the job" pretty much all the time.

So, of course, I felt the need to "comply", and I emailed this to hr@opm.gov:
 
Per your directive via email this evening (2-22-2025), here are the bullet points you requested, regarding my activities for the week ending 2-21-2025
  • Picked the fly shit out of my pepper shaker
  • Did some laundry
  • Finished knitting a turtleneck sock
  • Downloaded several clips of nude celebrities
  • Went to the grocery store, and stopped at the 7-11 for a Power Ball ticket
  • Made cheese dip - yummy, btw
  • Noodled around on my new guitar (I'm learning another Dylan tune)
  • Karened some random lady about picking up her dog's shit in the park
  • Sent several postcards to the White House asking President Musk to fire that loser Trump guy
Your pal,

Mike

Nov 23, 2024

The Reason Why

In 2016, it was micro-targeting on Facebook. People got hip to it, Facebook kinda crumbled, and 2020 was relatively clean.

Then along comes Elmo, and it gets really dirty again.


A scatter plot titled "Poster boy: Posts by Elon Musk on Twitter/X, by time."

The chart tracks the frequency of Musk's posts from 2014 to 2024, with the timeline on the horizontal axis and the time of day (00:00 to 23:59) on the vertical axis.

Each red dot represents one post.

The density of posts increases significantly around 2022, coinciding with Musk's acquisition of Twitter (marked on the chart as "Musk buys Twitter").

Before this, posts were scattered and sparse. After the acquisition, the chart shows a dramatic rise in activity, with dense clusters of red dots throughout the day and night.

The source is listed as Twitter/X and *The Economist*.

Nov 20, 2024

Today's Belle

What's to stop him?

If he does what he says he intends to do (admittedly, always a big if), and it stands to trigger the kinda of global shit storm they say it will, who's there to stop him this time?

And if it gets to be as bad as they say it's bound to get, how fast can the Republicans move to finish totally fucking up the elections process so 'we the people' can't do anything about it either?



The explainers from Impartial Points:


Nov 11, 2024

Today's Keith

If this isn't Peak Daddy State, then my suspicions are validated - there's no bottom they can't get under, and no top they won't tear down to get over.

ie: Voters don't believe Trump will do the shitty things he's said he'll do because they don't believe he has the core principles he needs to make good on his promises.

So, it's his untrustworthiness that makes him trustworthy.


And don't say things like "Make it make sense", and then shrug and go back to watching your shows.

Stop that shit.

It doesn't make sense because it's not supposed to make sense.





These Prison Stocks Soar Again On Trump's Hardline Border Move

Geo Group (GEO) and CoreCivic (CXW) surged again on Monday after a huge rally last week spurred by earnings and elections. CoreCivic stock and Geo stock extended gains after President-elect Donald Trump picked immigration hardliner Tom Homan as his top border official.

Border Pick Homan A Hardline Immigration Official

Homan previously was head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during Trump's first term. Trump said Sunday that Homan would lead the "deportation of illegal aliens" in his new administration starting Jan. 20, after vowing a mass deportation of undocumented migrants on the campaign trail.

"I've known Tom for a long time, and there is nobody better at policing and controlling our borders," Trump said on the Trump Media majority-owned social media platform TruthSocial.

Geo stock and CoreCivic also surged after Trump's first U.S. presidential election win. They broke out to highs last week after his second victory, scoring one of their best weekly gains since November 2016.

Investors seemed to bet — again – that a Trump-led White House would detain more undocumented migrants in the company's facilities.

Solid earnings last week also helped the prison operators.

Shares of Geo Group and CoreCivic surged 8% and 10%, respectively, in Monday's stock market action.

CoreCivic stock scored a 29% election and earnings breakaway gap last Wednesday. It jumped above a 16.54 buy point in the biggest volume since shares began to consolidate in June, MarketSurge shows. The prison stock soared nearly 88% last week before paring the weekly gain to 69%.

Last Wednesday, Geo shares broke out in sympathy. Geo stock extended gains from the 16.47 cup-with-handle entry amid its own earnings report on Thursday. It skyrocketed almost 76% last week.

Geo Group Earnings, CoreCivic Earnings

Last week, prison and detention operators GEO Group and CoreCivic diverged on outlook after reporting strong third-quarter earnings.

CoreCivic revealed last Wednesday that it earned 19 cents per share, more than double estimates for 9 cents. The company hiked its full-year 2024 guidance for adjusted funds from operations for 2024 to $1.59-$1.65 per share — from $1.48-$1.56 — after Q3 occupancy grew from 72% to 75%. Analysts expected adjusted funds from operations of $1.49 a share, according to FactSet.

Geo Group last Thursday posted its first earnings gain after eight quarters of declines, FactSet shows. But the company missed views. Geo said it is now targeting full-year 2024 adjusted EBITDA of $470 million-$480 million, down from $485 million-$505 million previously. Analysts expect $488.2 million.

Prison Stocks Soared After 2016 Trump Win

In 2016, private prison stocks galloped ahead after Trump's first presidential election win.

Geo Group, which owns, leases and manages correctional facilities, advanced 107% in the three months after the election. Rival CoreCivic rose 149% in the same three-month period.

Many investors credited Trump's win for the initial rally in the prison stocks. Trump vowed to crack down on crime and illegal immigration, and private prisons and detention centers were seemingly one answer to overcrowding.

This was a sharp reversal from former President Barack Obama's order to phase out private prisons. In February 2017, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions turned the green light back on for private prisons.

Much has changed since then. The two main prison stocks quickly saw gains from the first Trump victory evaporate.

Both Geo stock and CoreCivic languished for much of the past year before breaking out to highs this week amid the elections and earnings.

Oct 24, 2024

Skullduggery Is Afoot

The effort to overthrow democracy in 2020-2021 didn't fail - when the movers and shakers go unpunished, it wasn't a failure - it was a rehearsal.


This piece in Wired is a long one. But it's important to remember that the Trump problem is complex and gnarly.

Synopsis:
  • Constitutional Sheriffs believe they're the ultimate and absolute authority
  • They get to choose which laws they enforce and which ones they can ignore
  • They've been testing their theories by seizing voting gear and harassing election officials
  • Some have been organizing private militias, and posses (ie: vigilantes) to patrol voting stations
  • Under the guise of "election security" they're being organized to ensure Republican wins at any cost
  • Their claims to power are not legit - "Sheriff" is not in the US Constitution


'Take Back the States': The Far-Right Sheriffs Ready to Disrupt the Election

Constitutional Sheriffs are duly elected lawmen who believe they answer only to god. They've spent the last six months preparing to stop a "stolen" election—by any means necessary.


Dar Leaf and Richard Mack don’t seem like they would pose a threat to US democracy.

Leaf, a sheriff from Barry County, Michigan, always has at least two pens clipped neatly to his shirt pocket and speaks softly with a Midwestern accent. When we meet at an April event in Las Vegas, Nevada, Leaf is immaculately dressed in a sheriff’s uniform, replete with the polished gold star.

Mack also wears a gold star—even though he’s no longer a sheriff. But in the Ahern Hotel ballroom in Vegas, Mack played the part. In a ten-gallon hat, Mack was genial; shaking hands with guests, joking with vendors, and taking selfies with supporters.

This wasn’t an average get-together. Leaf and Mack were at a conference for the far-right Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, or CSPOA, a group described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-government organization with links to many other extremist groups.
Constitutional sheriffs are actual elected sheriffs who also believe they are the ultimate legal power in their county, and that no federal or state authority can usurp their authority. They also believe that a sheriff’s power stems directly from the constitution, and that they can disregard any laws they deem unconstitutional—a belief that is not grounded in reality.

Leaf is on the board of the group; Mack is the founder. And there are hundreds of members around the country.

In Las Vegas, Mack referred supporters and journalists to Leaf, who was, he said, “doing more than anyone to uncover election interference” in his role as sheriff.

A staunch Trump supporter, Leaf has spent the last four years investigating voter fraud in the 2020 federal election in Barry County—even though Donald Trump won decisively there. He has attempted to seize voting machines, pushed wild conspiracies, and ultimately became the focus of state investigations himself. In at least one case, Leaf appears to have inspired an election official to refuse to verify a vote—an ominous warning ahead of the 2024 US election.

The conspiracies have also taken a physical turn: According to emails shared exclusively with WIRED by the nonprofit group American Oversight, Leaf has run a militia training course advising “potential jurors, homeschoolers, ladies and gentlemen” to “get a standard AR-15 type military grade weapon” and “500 rounds of ammo.” The emails also show that, ahead of the most consequential election in a generation, Leaf is in regular contact with a wide variety of election conspiracists.

Leaf and a number of his colleagues in the Constitutional Sheriff movement say that they have “posses” to patrol polling stations, monitor for “illegal” immigrant voters, and help sheriffs respond to reports of fraud—or anything else—on election day.

Mack, meanwhile, has been the driving force behind the modern day Constitutional Sheriffs movement. In the last six months, Mack’s group has mobilized across the US, building relationships with powerful figures close to Trump, training armed militias, and laying out plans for when Democrats inevitably, in their view, try to steal the election. They’re laying the groundwork to challenge the outcome of next month’s vote—and recruiting sheriffs to help them assert control if Trump loses.

“In a swing state like Michigan or Wisconsin, where the difference in the state's outcome is 50,000 to 70,000 votes, if a sheriff becomes an obstacle, then that could undermine that state's credibility, says Will Pelfrey, a professor of criminal justice and homeland security at Virginia Commonwealth University. “In a swing state, that could undermine the entire national election.”

A WIRED investigation reviewed hundreds of documents and conducted dozens of interviews over the course of the last six months. We found that the Constitutional Sheriff movement believes it is the last line of defense to protect American elections. At conferences in Las Vegas and Florida, as well as online in group chats and Zoom meetings, their discussions often turn to how sheriffs can utilize their unique power in order to, they say, safeguard democracy.

For years, sheriffs like Leaf who believe they have unlimited power to interpret and enforce the laws of the land have operated on the fringes. But as the election approaches, they have been increasingly empowered by those close to Trump and are more committed than ever to ensuring a Republican victory up and down the ballot. At all costs.

Today, one in four sworn law enforcement officers in the US report to a sheriff. In addition to running county jails, sheriffs and their deputies make approximately 20 percent of all arrests in the nation, according to one estimate, translating to around 2 million arrests every year. In nearly one in three US counties, sheriff departments are the largest law enforcement agency, meaning sheriff’s offices are the primary law enforcement agency for 56 million people.

“Sheriffs are really beholden to nobody,” says Pelfrey. “Once elected, a sheriff has tremendous power, and there have been sheriffs who have been convicted and still hold office. It's a bizarre thing. It shouldn't exist, but sheriffs are not beholden to a governor or to a president, and the only way to enforce state or federal laws for a recalcitrant sheriff is the National Guard. And that's not a viable system.”

At the April event in Las Vegas, Mack worked the room incessantly. Together with Leaf, he built links with the leaders of the election denial movement, discussing and preparing for the recruitment of like-minded citizens to patrol polling stations and stop “illegal” immigrants from voting in the election. The event was a veritable who’s who of the right-wing election denial movement, including former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, pillow salesman Mike Lindell, and the de facto leader of the movement, disgraced former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

On stage, Flynn told the sheriffs they have “a huge role and responsibility in this country” and that only their local-level work will halt voter fraud. During his speech, Byrne said that constitutional sheriffs would need to play a vital role in fighting the influx of “15 million military-age men.” He also claimed that a “well-regulated militia is not a dirty phrase” and urged sheriffs in attendance to build “surge capacity” by partnering with local militias.

“The constitutional sheriffs, or any sheriff in this county, have mega power at the county level,” Lindell told WIRED in Las Vegas. He suggested that sheriffs could arrest voters for illegally voting in the wrong county, adding that they could “put a moratorium” on the voting machines if they suspect fraud is taking place. And he cited Leaf, who spoke at the event, as an example that all sheriffs should follow.

“Our job is basically to make sure that my guys are educated on the election laws, start looking for the violations, trying to get the election clerks to start paying attention if somebody drives in and they've got a whole van full of people that look like they're not from around our area, and they can say no and then make them take it through the courts,” Leaf told WIRED that week, referencing the conspiracy that “illegal immigrants” were being relocated over the border by Democrats to sway the election in favor of Kamala Harris.

To make sure his deputies follow his lead, Leaf said he is working with others to produce a guide on how to properly police elections—something he said he was going to share with all sheriffs across the country in time for the US elections.

“The role of the sheriff has always been to maintain the peace, and he's your chief law enforcement officer and chief conservator of the peace of your county,” Leaf said. “And when you get people cheating on elections, that's disturbing the peace. You violated somebody's peace.”

None of these claims of constitutional power and control are true.

“There is no constitutional basis for their claims to power, zero, it's just not in the constitution,” says representative Jamie Raskin, the congressman from Maryland who spent decades working as a constitutional law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law. “County sheriffs have no more sovereign-state political power than municipal police chiefs or mayors or county commissioners. The whole claim is completely fictional. It's a pure fabrication.”

Still, anyone paying attention is nervous: Leaf has publicly defended members of the Wolverine Watchmen militia who plotted to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020. “It’s just a charge, and they say a 'plot to kidnap' and you got to remember that,” he told a local news outlet. “Are they trying to kidnap? Because a lot of people are angry with the governor, and they want her arrested. So are they trying to arrest or was it a kidnap attempt? Because you can still in Michigan, if it’s a felony, you can make a felony arrest.” And he has run an eight-week militia training course, called Awaken Our Constitution’s Sleeping Militia Clauses, that he openly advertised on his Facebook page as recently as January.

The contents of the course, according to emails reviewed by WIRED, are based on a 2010 booklet from Brent Allen Winters, a sovereign-citizen believer, titled “Militia of the Several States,” which outlines a belief that armed militias are granted their power not from the constitution but from God, harking back to a time during the American Revolution when men in some areas were fined for not bringing their guns to church. The booklet even cites the Old Testament as justification for organizing an armed militia.

As Winters and Leaf see it, a member of a militia has two duties: “Armed defense of the land from enemies foreign and defense of the law of the land from enemies domestic.”

In one slide, titled “Do Your Duty,” which was shown to attendees of Leaf’s training course, Winters wrote: “Get started. Get a standard AR-15 type military grade weapon. Get 500 rounds of ammo.”

“There should be militias connected with every sheriff,” Leaf told The Guardian in July.

Experts like Devin Burghart, executive director of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights and someone who has closely chronicled the Constitutional Sheriffs movement for years, are also tracking how the organization is now interacting with other extremist, “paramilitary” groups.

”The Vegas CSPOA conference was about more than recruiting far-right sheriffs,” Burghart claims. “It was about plotting a road map for coordinated election interference and insurrection 2.0.”


In the weeks after the 2020 election, Trump and his advisers were scrambling to challenge the election results when a relatively unknown former Army Reserve lieutenant colonel named Ivan Raiklin started tweeting. Raiklin told Trump that he should play the “Pence card” and force then vice president Mike Pence to refuse to certify the results of the election.

While Raiklin cited a real provision of the US legal code, his plan had no basis in law. Trump retweeted and endorsed Raiklin’s plan, and while it ultimately went nowhere, the “Pence card” was a precursor to the Trump internal legal team’s coup memo that laid out a plan for Pence to overturn the election result on January 6, 2021.

Four years later, Raiklin is now a superstar in the world of election denial. Ahead of the 2024 election, he has a new scheme to guarantee Trump’s win. It involves the constitutional sheriffs.

Raiklin has compiled a “Deep State target list” of more than 350 names, reviewed by WIRED, that includes elected Democratic and Republican lawmakers, FBI officials, journalists, members of the House January 6 committee, US Capitol police officers, and witnesses from Trump’s two impeachment trials. His plan is to get constitutional sheriffs to round up those people in livestreamed swatting raids so they can be punished for treason. Raiklin, who is closely connected to Flynn’s organization, also wants sheriffs to “deputize” people into armed militias or “posses” to help facilitate the arrests.

“We have hundreds of thousands that want to participate in retribution,” Raiklin said in a June video interview with Cliven Bundy, a Nevada cattle rancher who became a far-right icon after a dispute in 2014 over grazing fees led to an armed standoff with federal authorities. “Some people call it accountability.”

Raiklin met with Mack at the Las Vegas conference and tried to recruit sheriffs to his cause. In June, Raiklin and Mack met again and had “a good discussion,” according to Mack, who would not expand on what exactly the pair discussed. Raiklin refused to speak to WIRED in Vegas and didn’t answer questions sent afterward.

While Trump has not endorsed the Constitutional Sheriffs movement directly, he has spent recent years courting sheriffs around the country. In September 2018, Trump stood in the White House surrounded by almost four dozen sheriffs. Front and center was Thomas Hodgson, then sheriff of Bristol County in Massachusetts.

Hodgson was there to present Trump with a plaque, and praised him for his “strength of purpose” and “commitment to [his] convictions.” The inscription read in part: “There’s a new sheriff in town.” A supporter of the Constitutional Sheriff movement, Hodgson was tapped by Trump in late 2019 to become an honorary chairman of Trump’s Massachusetts reelection effort.

Trump held around a dozen meetings with sheriffs at the White House during his four years in office, more than any other president—and that’s not counting the regular appearances of sheriffs at Trump rallies and campaign stops. Mark Lamb, a constitutional sheriff from Pinal County, Arizona, spoke at Trump rallies in his home state and in Illinois. Trump also emboldened sheriffs by removing Department of Justice oversight that the Obama administration had put in place and restarting a program to allow sheriffs departments to buy military-grade weapons at discounted prices.

“Trump’s tough-guy, xenophobic, and conspiracy-minded persona gave sheriffs a new model in the White House,” writes Jessica Pishko, author of The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy. “Under Trump, constitutional sheriffs had a friend and protector at the highest level of government.”

While Mack’s group is at the forefront of the Constitutional Sheriffs movement, there are many other sheriffs across the US who hold similar beliefs about the power of sheriffs. The movement has also found purchase with other prominent right-wing groups. In 2021, the Sheriff’s Fellowship was launched by the Claremont Institute, an influential far-right think tank involved in the drafting of Project 2025, whose stated goal is to see the US revert to a Christian-centric nation based on principles espoused by the founding fathers. The fellowship, which was funded by Trump’s former secretary of education Betsy DeVos, is a five-day training course in “American political thought and institutions” and has featured multiple self-identified constitutional sheriffs, including Leaf.

The closer constitutional sheriffs get to the mainstream GOP, the more cause for alarm.

“The danger of authoritarian attack on the democratic process is at its peak when you get an alliance between extremist vigilante groups like [the Constitutional Sheriffs] with elements of the actual political system, like a political party,” says Representative Raskin. “That's a dangerous combination if Donald Trump is going to be leading the Republican Party into election denialism and a determination to prevail over the rule of law, and you have violent paramilitary groups backing them up.”

Richard Mack’s law enforcement career began with rejection. “My father had just retired from the Bureau a few years earlier and I wanted to follow in his footsteps,” Mack wrote in his 2009 book titled The County Sheriff. “But, this dream never happened as I had some problems with one of the Bureau's entrance tests.” He instead decided to join the Provo (Utah) Police Department in 1979, where he says he immediately became a “by-the-numbers jerk” whose primary goal was writing as many tickets as possible.

In 1982, Mack went undercover on the narcotics beat. “I had to live in the bars, drink, smoke, and act like the biggest partying druggie there ever was (something totally foreign to my conservative Mormon upbringing),” Mack wrote.

The assignment opened Mack’s eyes to what he saw as the injustice of the drug war and how it was targeting US citizens rather than organized crime groups. Disillusioned with the police force, in 1988 Mack moved home to Safford, Arizona, and successfully ran for Graham County sheriff. This was where the Constitutional Sheriff movement began.

Constitutional sheriffs claim their power comes directly from the founding fathers, even though there is no mention of sheriffs in the constitution. Many sheriffs—including Leaf—cite a quote from a Thomas Jefferson letter as their justification for the importance of the position: “The office of Sheriff [is] the most important of all the Executive offices of the county.” The line was indeed written by Jefferson, but the letter focuses on Jefferson's complaints about lifetime appointments of local judges and how they abuse their office, Pishko writes in her book.

The roots of the modern day Constitutional Sheriffs movement originate in the far-right Posse Comitatus group, which was formed in the early 1970s by William Potter Gale, a minister of a militant antisemitic, white-nationalist quasi-religion known as Christian Identity. Gale lionized the idea of the county sheriff as a protector of the ordinary citizen who had the power to call up posses or militias to root out communism, fight the desegregation of schools, and remove—or even execute—federal officials.

Over the years, the ideas popularized by Gale would inspire a variety of far-right groups, individuals, and movements, including Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Incidents like the sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco in the early 1990s, the latter of which resulted in dozens of deaths, would be used as further evidence by figures like Mack who already believed the federal government was overstepping.

At the same time, Mack coordinated with the National Rifle Association (NRA) to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the Brady Bill, signed into law by then president Bill Clinton in 1993. The law mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers—carried out by sheriffs. For sheriffs like Mack, who almost uniformly view Second Amendment gun rights as sacred, this was too far.

In 1997, the Supreme Court sided with Mack and the NRA, finding that the provisions in the bill that forced sheriffs to perform the background checks were unconstitutional. Mack was no longer a sheriff, but he catapulted to fame on the far-right for standing up to the government. He became a regular on the militia and pro-gun speaking circuits and even did PR work for Gun Owners of America, a more hard-line version of the NRA.

Over the next decade, Mack continued to mix in far-right circles. In the early 2010s, he became a board member of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government militia led by former Army paratrooper Stewart Rhodes, who is currently serving an 18-year sentence for his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. (Mack said he left the Oath Keepers around a decade ago when it became too militant, but CSPOA continued to support the group on its podcasts and newsletters in the years since the attack on the Capitol, helping raise money for Rhodes’ legal fund.)

In 2011, Mack founded the CSPOA to “take America back, Sheriff by Sheriff, County by County, State by State.” In 2014, Mack, together with members of the CSPOA and the Oath Keepers, was part of the now infamous armed standoff between the federal government and the Bundy family in Nevada.

The popularity of the CSPOA has waxed and waned over the course of its 13-year-old history, but the Covid-19 pandemic and protests following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 brought sheriffs back to the fold.

Mack reportedly encouraged sheriffs to ignore restrictions by federal and state officials meant to curb the spread of Covid; he also helped facilitate the spread of anti-vaccine disinformation as a board member of the conspiracy group America’s Frontline Doctors, a role for which he was, at one time, paid $20,000 a month. Mack, who to this day still refers to himself as “Sheriff Mack,” has not been a sheriff for almost 30 years. He unsuccessfully ran for other sheriff positions, and even governor of Utah and US senator in Arizona.

In interviews, Mack comes across as reasonable, repeatedly pointing out that the CSPOA is a nonviolent movement. But in the private members-only webinars he broadcasts weekly to his subscribers, he portrays a much darker side. In an August webinar, he said that his group was “obsessed” with monitoring next month’s vote and the “probability” that the election will be stolen as a result of the millions of illegal aliens being shipped into the country. In another webinar earlier this summer, Mack pushed an even darker conspiracy, that Democrats will allow Trump to win to instigate a civil war:

“The only way I see Trump winning is if they decide they want Trump to be in, that those who cheated last time are actually going to make sure he gets in,” Mack said. “Why do they want Trump in? Because they want the civil war to begin, and the violence that will be happening across this country will be horrendous.”

In September, Leaf appeared in Orlando, Florida, to discuss what extremism experts say is a “far-right blueprint for the next insurrection.” He was speaking at a conference organized by the Florida Foundation for Freedom, a group run by the CSPOA. Leaf was there to show other sheriffs how to take action.

The conference’s speaker list included a variety of election conspiracists with links to Trump—including far-right figure Mark Finchem, who is currently running for a seat in Arizona’s statehouse—and Christian nationalists, including Bill Cook, the founder of America’s Black Robe Regiment. Also speaking at the conference was Mary Flynn O’Neill, a director at America’s Future, the nonprofit run by her brother, Michael Flynn.

The event was organized by Bill Mitchell, the head of CSPOA’s Florida chapter, to promote a blueprint he created for constitutional sheriffs in other states to connect with like-minded election officials. The details of the plan were outlined in a seven-page document published on the foundation’s website, on CSPOA-headed paper.

“Take back the states, one constitutional sheriff at a time,” Mitchell said during a summer presentation about the plan.

When WIRED spoke to Mitchell, he denied that his plan was focused on disrupting the election. But the document clearly calls for citizen-led, local posses aligned with the CSPOA to recruit like-minded sheriffs, county commissioners, and supervisors of elections. Should those officials refuse to take action as directed, the plan states, allied sheriffs or posse-led grand juries will relieve them of their duties.

“Instead of a January 6–style centralized mass insurrection, these Florida activists developed a blueprint for a county-by-county-style revolt,” says Burghart, who analyzed the plan on IREHR’s website.

It’s not just Florida. In Las Vegas, Bob Songer, the sheriff in Klickitat County in Washington state, shared a 32-page guide with other sheriffs on how to recruit a posse, revealing that his own has 150 members. Leaf outlined how, when his Michigan election fraud investigation was going nowhere, he created his own “election investigation posse” consisting of two cybersecurity experts and a “clerk” to gather evidence.

Mack has also espoused his view that every sheriff should have his own posse. In a recent members-only webinar, viewed by WIRED, Mack and Sam Bushman, CEO of the CSPOA, wondered about the possibility of veterans temporarily moving to Leaf’s county in Michigan and being deputized to help his investigations into election fraud.

Mack’s views on the power of posses is deep-seated: “People get all upset when they hear about militias, but what’s wrong with it?” Mack reportedly said in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing at the NRA's national membership meeting, in which Mack was honored as the organization's law enforcement Officer of the Year. “I wouldn’t hesitate for a minute to call out my posse against the federal government if it gets out of hand.”

“There's no federal constitutional prohibition against a posse,” says Will Pelfrey, a professor of criminal justice and homeland security at Virginia Commonwealth University. “It's kind of terrifying, because you're empowering a lot of fringe people to do something that they probably shouldn't be doing.”

Like lynching, maybe?

It’s not exactly clear how many constitutional sheriffs currently exist. Back in 2014, the group claimed it had 485 sheriffs signed up. In 2017, Mack told High Country News the group had 4,500 fee-paying members. By 2021, that number had risen to 10,000, Mack told VICE News, adding that his group had “trained 400 sheriffs.” Two years later, Mack told AZCIR that his groups had trained 1,000 sheriffs.

When WIRED asked Mack how many sheriffs were currently members of the CSPOA, he said 300 sheriffs could be described as “really solid.” He would not divulge how many paying members the group has.

While Mack and the CSPOA are the most prominent part of the Constitutional Sheriff movement, there are many other sheriffs who espouse the same beliefs. A 2022 survey conducted by the Marshall Project found that close to 50 percent of the sheriffs polled agreed with the constitutional sheriff mantra that “their own authority, within their counties, supersedes that of the state or federal government.”

Many sheriffs have also shied away from publicly aligning themselves with Mack, something the former sheriff readily admits. And yet Trumpworld, the election denial movement, and some of the most prominent far-right influencers are now seeking to team up with the sheriffs to influence the outcome of the US election.

In September, election denial group True the Vote told its followers that it was working with sheriffs to monitor drop boxes. While Mack told WIRED he hasn’t spoken to True the Vote about this specific plan, he has confirmed that the CSPOA is still actively working with True the Vote, though he declined to say in what capacity. Bushman also wouldn’t give details of their collaboration, but said: “It's more than just supporting what they're doing.”

In multiple conversations with Mack over the last six months, he repeatedly asserted that the CSPOA advocates only for nonviolent action in efforts to combat the alleged (and unproven) widespread voter fraud that is now the group’s driving force.

But Mack also maintains deep ties to Stewart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers and is publicly meeting with figures like Raiklin, who in August also posted an ominous threat on X referencing the recent assassination attempt against Trump: “In a duel, each side gets one shot. They missed 36 days ago. Now it's [our] turn.”

Earlier this month, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security warned that “election-related grievances” could motivate domestic extremists to engage in violence around the election.

In a recent phone conversation, Mack’s tone sounded more deflated than antagonistic; he admitted that he was “frustrated” that more sheriffs were not taking a more active role in policing elections, a practice that has led to voters feeling intimidated in the past.

“President Biden and his administration have just caused so much extra work for the sheriffs, it's really hard to get them to focus on elections,” says Mack. Every sheriff in this country should verify the security and integrity of the voting in their county. Every single one.”

Dar Leaf, for one, remains focused. As he prepares to police an election while continuing to investigate the last one, he is clear-eyed about where the threat is coming from: immigrants and Democrats. He claims that America has received “other countries’ garbage,” and as a result, he needs to act.

“Any police officer who thinks that machine is bad or something criminal is going on,” Leaf says, “we have a duty to seize it.”

Oct 15, 2024

Coach D Speaks

How do we hide our bigotry and make white supremacy seem OK?

Put a brown face on it.

Coach D explains:


Sep 25, 2024

The Next Step


Daddy State Awareness Guide, Rule 1 (this time with a slight variation):

Every accusation is a confession.

By excessively bitching about how "the election was rigged", they believe they've inoculated themselves, and now they can proceed to actively trying to rig the election.


In 2020, Trump complained the election was rigged. This time, he’s doing the rigging.

Everyone knows that you don’t change the rules in the middle of the game just because you don’t like the way the game is going — everyone, that is, except Donald Trump and his MAGA allies.

Four years ago, they complained bitterly that states were not following long established rules in the conduct of the presidential election. Today, Trump and his friends have changed their tune, with a well-developed strategy designed to make sure that the rules of the 2024 election will rebound to their advantage.

It has already produced results.

The Brennan Center for Justice reports that “between January 1 and December 31, 2023, at least 14 states enacted 17 restrictive voting laws, all of which will be in place for the 2024 election.” Backed by the former president, those changes will mean voters “now face additional hurdles to reach the ballot box.”

The report goes to on specify: “Most of the restrictions limit mail voting, such as requiring additional information on a mail ballot application, shortening the window to request a mail ballot, or banning drop boxes.” In addition, “at least six states enacted seven election interference laws….Many create criminal penalties for election workers for minor mistakes such as not allowing a poll watcher to stand close enough to voters.”

Such efforts did not end last year. They are continuing even as voters in several states have already started casting their ballots.

Last week, we saw new evidence of these efforts in Nebraska and Georgia. Those efforts are nakedly partisan and threaten to throw a wrench into the campaign as it enters the home stretch.

State legislators and election officials in those and other states must remember that their duty is to ensure the fairness and integrity of the electoral process, not follow the MAGA playbook. They should be guided by the wisdom of the “Purcell Principle,” which, as SCOTUSblog explains, holds that “courts should not change election rules during the period of time just prior to an election because doing so could confuse voters and create problems for officials administering the election.”

That principle derives from the 2006 Supreme Court case Purcell v. Gonzalez, which dealt with an Arizona law (Proposition 200) “requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when they register to vote and to present identification when they vote on election day.”

A lower court had barred Arizona from enforcing Proposition 200 a mere four weeks before the 2006 midterm elections. The Supreme Court was troubled by such a change in election procedures “just weeks before an election.”

“Court orders affecting elections,” the justices wrote, “can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.”

Strictly speaking, the Purcell Principle applies only to courts. But its concerns about voter confusion, and the possibility that late rules changes might have a deleterious effect on voting, should be the concern of legislators, election officials and even candidates for office, not just judges.

Trump and his allies care less about the possibility of voter confusion and keeping voters away from the polls than they do about changing the rules to gain electoral advantage.

Just look at what they tried to do in Nebraska. According to a state law adopted in 1991, the state does not “use the winner-take-all approach to awarding electoral votes. The winner of the popular vote gets two electoral votes, while one is assigned to the winner of each of the state’s three congressional districts.”

It is one of only two states, the other being Maine, that awards its electoral votes in this manner. Nebraska Public Media notes that bills recently “have been introduced in Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire to go to a split electoral system, but they’ve stalled in legislatures.”

Nebraska is a reliably Republican state. The last time it voted for a Democratic presidential candidate was 1964.

But twice — in 2008 and in 2020 — its Second Congressional District, which includes Omaha, cast its one electoral vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. The first time, it went to Barack Obama; the second time was to Joe Biden.

With the 2024 election being a toss-up, Team Trump launched a full-court press to get the state’s Republican-dominated unicameral legislature to change its election laws. As ABC News reports, he wants “to reapportion the three electors awarded to the winner of each of the state’s three congressional districts, instead awarding all five of them to the overall victor of the state.”

All five members of Nebraska’s congressional delegation have vocally supported Trump’s desire to change the rules. On Sept. 18, they wrote a letter to their state legislative colleagues saying that “the state should speak with a united voice in presidential elections….After all, we are Nebraskans first, not members of Nebraska’s three congressional districts.”

Trump himself has intervened, speaking to at least one Nebraska legislator about the need for the change.

Leaving no stone unturned, he dispatched the ever-loyal Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to go to Nebraska and lobby on his behalf. Between now and Election Day, Nebraska officials can expect more calls from Trump and visits from MAGA luminaries.

While it appears the move has been thwarted in Nebraska, thanks to Gov. Jim Pillen’s failure to call a special legislative session, the Trump strategy of changing the rules in middle of the game has been more successful in Georgia.

Last Friday, less than a month before early voting begins in that state, the Georgia State Election Board approved a rule change “requiring counties in the critical presidential battleground to hand-count the total number of ballots this year.”

The Washington Post explains that “the move was spearheaded by a pro-Trump majority that has enacted a series of changes to the state’s election rules in recent weeks and approved the hand-count requirement despite a string of public commenters who begged board members not to.”

The new rule “requires the hand count to take place the night of the November election or the next day.” Election officials from across the state said that doing so “would be physically impossible in all but the smallest counties,” and Chris Carr, the state’s Republican attorney general, said “that state law does not permit hand-counting ballots at the precinct level.”

But to no avail.

If Trump does not win Georgia, the new rule seems likely, as the New York Times put it, to “significantly delay the reporting of results in the battleground state” and inject the kind of chaos into the 2024 election that the Supreme Court has warned would accompany late changes in election rules and procedures.

If Trump loses, Americans need to buckle up and ready themselves for a post-election period every bit as difficult and damaging to democracy as what happened after the 2020 election.

Sep 16, 2024

Revisiting


These chuds have been selling themselves as "the smart guys" - the clear-eyed pragmatists who just wanna tell us the real truth about the way things oughta be and blah blah blah.

But now that they've been caught out, they're scrambling to find ways to shift the blame so they can cover their bad behavior.

So what do they do? They shit on themselves, admitting they're stoopid enough to get bamboozled by a Kremlin disinformation operation that Helen Keller coulda seen comin' a mile away.

And of course, they do that simply to "appease the libs", knowing full well the rubes will shake it off and continue as directed.

I've harped on this one before, but I think it's important not to lose sight of this thing. And yes, I know, there's a thousand things we need to remember, and it's crazy stupid hard to keep it all in our heads. But that's the point of their exercise - we hit overload and it all starts to compact and congeal into a big ugly sticky gooey smelly mess that nobody wants to deal with.

But we're reasonable people, and that's what these bad faith actors play on. We want to be fair, and we don't want to condemn everybody of a certain stripe just because of unpleasant experiences with other guys of that particular stripe.

So let's establish a benchmark, which shouldn't be too hard here. If "they're" always:
  • Yea MAGA
  • yay Trump
  • yay Putin
And always:
  • boo Ukraine
  • boo RINOs
  • boo equal rights
  • boo woke
... then they're probably not going to be acting in anything close to good faith, and they can be dismissed out of hand - with the caveat that maybe we could just put lots of salt on whatever they're trying to feed us.

Lots and lots and lots of salt.



US conservative influencers say they are ‘victims’ of Russian disinformation campaign

Tim Pool, Dave Rubin and Benny Johnson addressed allegations that a company they were associated with had been paid to publish videos with messages in favour of Russia


A number of high-profile, conservative influencers in the US have said they are “victims” of an alleged Russian disinformation campaign, after the Biden administration accused Moscow of carrying out a sustained campaign to influence the outcome of November’s presidential elections.

Tim Pool, Dave Rubin and Benny Johnson published statements on Wednesday evening addressing allegations that a US content creation company they were associated with had been provided with nearly $10m from Russian state media employees to publish videos with messages in favour of Moscow’s interests and agenda, including over the war in Ukraine.

The justice department indictment does not name the company, but describes it as a Tennessee-based content creation firm with six commentators and with a website identifying itself as “a network of heterodox commentators that focus on western political and cultural issues”.

That description exactly matches Tenet Media, an online company that hosts videos made by well-known conservative influencers Tim Pool, Benny Johnson and others.

The Guardian has contacted Tenet for comment. The company has not released a statement or commented on the allegations, or responded to other media organisations’ requests for comment, including the New York Times and CBS, according to their reporting.

Tenet Media’s shows in recent months have featured high-profile conservative guests, including Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law and RNC co-chair Lara Trump, former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and Republican US senate candidate Kari Lake.

“The company never disclosed to the influencers – or to their millions of followers – its ties to [Russian state media company] RT and the Russian government,” US attorney general Merrick Garland said. His department described Wednesday’s indictment as the most sweeping effort yet to push back against what it says are Russian attempts to spread disinformation ahead of the November presidential election.

The Tennessee-based company published English-language videos on multiple social media channels, including TikTok, Instagram, X, and YouTube, according to the indictment.

Pool, a popular podcaster with more than 2 million followers on X, said “should these allegations prove true, I as well as the other personalities and commentators were deceived and are victims.”

“Never at any point did anyone other than I have full editorial control of the show and the contents of the show are often apolitical.”

Johnson, who has 2.7 million followers on X, said he was “disturbed by the allegations in today’s indictment, which make clear that myself and other influencers were victims in this alleged scheme”.

Rubin said on X that he “knew absolutely nothing about any of this fraudulent activity” and that the allegations showed “that I and other commentators were the victims of this scheme.”

The justice department accuses two employees of RT, a Russian state media company, of covertly funding the Tennessee-based content company to publish videos in favour of Russia. The justice department says the company did not disclose that it was funded by RT and that neither it nor its founders registered as required by law as an agent of a foreign principal.

RT ceased operating in the US after major television distributors dropped it following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. RT responded with ridicule to requests for comment from the Reuters news agency: “Three things are certain in life: death, taxes and RT’s interference in the US elections.”

Garland said: “The justice department’s message is clear: We will have no tolerance for attempts by authoritarian regimes to exploit our democratic systems of government.”

The nearly 2,000 videos posted by the company have received more than 16m views on YouTube alone, prosecutors said. The company paid $8.7m to the production companies of three of the online stars it recruited, according to the indictment.

The commentators, who were not named in the indictment, did not know they were paid by RT, the Justice Department said.

In one instance, the indictment said, one of the RT employees asked the company to produce a video that would blame Ukraine and the United States for a mass shooting at a Moscow music venue, the justice department said, even though Islamic State had claimed responsibility. A company founder responded that one of the commentators is “happy to cover it”, according to the indictment.

As part of the indictment, the Biden administration seized Kremlin-run websites and charged two Russian state media employees in its most sweeping effort yet to push back against what it says are Russian attempts to spread disinformation ahead of the November presidential election.

The treasury department also sanctioned the RT’s editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, and nine other employees of the network over the campaign of disinformation around the elections. Simonyan is a “central figure in Russian government malign influence efforts” the department said.

Aug 23, 2024

Asshole MAGAts

They can't stop telling us they're assholes.





So let's put aside for the moment that Gus Walz has some neurodivergence issues - including ADHD and some kind of anxiety - that can make it hard for him to regulate his emotions, especially in public.

And all of that is beside the fucking point.

Here's the fucking point:
When did it become a bad thing for a kid to react in a big way when his dad stands up in front of god and everybody - on national TV - to tell the world that he loves his family?
How the fuck is that something to be mocked? Whether they know about Gus's challenges or not, how the fuck is that something to be mocked?

These ass-dwellers will jump on anything they see as an opportunity to get shitty with somebody.

And getting shitty with Gus Walz is further proof of who they are. Gus is "other". Mocking him - trying to humiliate him - tearing him down in order to drive him from the public square - and to "rid the body politic of contamination" - it's all consistent with the worst of fascist (ie: Nazi) doctrine.

It's disgusting and unpardonable.

We have to stomp on MAGA
until there's nothing left
but a greasy spot on the rug.