Oct 26, 2024

It's A Real Thing

Trump's talking about punishing his critics and opponents.

It's not plain old everyday political blather, and it's not an empty threat.

He fucking means it - and we'd better fucking take it seriously.


Jailed reporters, silenced networks: What Trump says he'd do to the media if elected

5-Minute Listen:

Former President Donald Trump often basks in the glow of press attention. Just as often, he trashes the press and threatens journalists.

On the campaign trail and in interviews, Trump has suggested that if he regains the White House, he will exact vengeance on news outlets that anger him.

More specifically, Trump has pledged to toss reporters in jail and strip major television networks of their broadcast licenses as retribution for coverage he didn't like.

"It speaks directly to the First Amendment — and the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy," Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, tells NPR.

Trump has made more than 100 threats to prosecute or punish perceived enemies
To be clear, the government does not license national networks like those targeted by Trump, but the FCC does license local TV and radio stations to use the public airwaves.

"While the FCC has authority to provide licenses for television and radio, it is pretty fundamental that we do not take them away because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes any kind of content or coverage," Rosenworcel says.

Trump's declarations arrive at a time of increasing concern about his more autocratic impulses. And press advocates say he is intentionally fueling a climate hostile to independent reporting.

One in three journalists says they've faced violence — or the threat of it

"President Trump was a champion for free speech. Everyone was safer under President Trump, including journalists," a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee wrote to NPR in response to questions about these concerns.

Even so, a new survey of hundreds of journalists who received safety training from the International Women's Media Foundation finds 36% say they have faced or been threatened with physical violence on the job — and they have felt especially threatened at Trump campaign rallies.

"Journalists reported feeling at high risk while covering Trump rallies and 'Stop the Steal' protests, especially when some Trump supporters and protestors openly carry weapons," the report states.

While campaigning for Republican congressional candidates in 2022, Trump repeatedly pledged to jail reporters who don't identify confidential sources on stories he considered to have national security implications.

He joked that the prospect of prison rape would loosen reporters' lips about their sources.

"When this person realizes that he is going to be the bride of another prisoner shortly, he will say, 'I'd very much like to tell you exactly who that was,'" Trump told an appreciative crowd at a Texas rally. And Trump said he wouldn't limit it to the reporters: "The publisher too — or the top editors." He made the same claim two weeks later at an Ohio rally.

Threats to investigate TV networks — and take them off the air

Last year, Trump called for NBC News to be investigated for treason over its coverage of criminal charges he faces. After his lone debate with Vice President Harris this summer, it was ABC's turn to face Trump's wrath. Trump expressed anger over moderators' decision to fact-check him. He popped up on Fox & Friends the next day with a warning.

"I think ABC took a big hit last night," Trump said. "I mean, to be honest, they're a news organization. They have to be licensed to do it. They oughta take away their license for the way they do that."

This month, Trump has been back at it, slamming CBS repeatedly over its handling of the vice presidential debate and of the network's interview with Harris on 60 Minutes. He pointed to two versions of an answer Harris had given — one that aired on 60 Minutes and the other on the show Face the Nation — to argue CBS was deceiving viewers to aid the Democrat.

"Think of this," Trump told attendees at a rally in Aurora, Colo., this month. "CBS gets a license. And a license is based on honesty. I think they have to take their license away. I do."

And on Sunday, Trump repeated his complaint to Fox News' Howard Kurtz. "It's the biggest scandal I have ever seen for a broadcaster," Trump said. "60 Minutes, I think it should be taken off the air, frankly."

CBS and 60 Minutes rejected the claim that the network had deceitfully manipulated Harris' interview because it had shown a shorter excerpt of her answer to the same question on 60 Minutes. "The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment," it said in a statement Sunday evening.

Again, news organizations do not need licenses to operate — unless they are local TV or radio stations. The parent companies of CBS, ABC and NBC own more than 80 local stations among them. All three declined comment for this story.

A vow to bring an independent agency under the president's control

The Federal Communications Commission was set up 90 years ago as an independent agency. While Rosenworcel was appointed chairwoman by President Biden, she is not subject to his directive or that of any president. The FCC receives funding and oversight from Congress.

Last year, however, Trump posted a video on social media promising to bring the agency under full White House control.

"I will bring the independent regulatory agencies such as the FCC and the FTC back under presidential authority as the Constitution demands," Trump said, though such an effort would assuredly face a legal challenge. "These agencies do not get to become a fourth branch of government issuing rules and edicts all by themselves — and that's what they've been doing."

Several former television network executives, asking for anonymity to avoid getting pulled into the campaign, said that they feared the consequences of Trump's stance on pursuing reporters' secret sources more than the threats to pull the broadcast licenses.

In recent decades, digital fingerprints have made it easier for investigators to track down contacts between government employees and journalists.

Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, prosecutors pursuing charges against leakers have sought such records from reporters. (Previously, presidential candidates have not raised the question on the campaign trail — except now for Trump.)

After taking office, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland shifted policy, effectively barring the Justice Department's practice of subpoenaing journalists' records, except in rare cases.


At The New York Times, leaders are girding for what could happen under a president more hostile to the media.

"[Publisher A.G. Sulzberger] devoted a team of people and a significant effort to looking at the ways in which the rule of law — protections for the press — could be worn away by either authoritarian leaders or by populist leaders who rally their supporters against independent media," Times Executive Editor Joseph Kahn recently told NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We shouldn't pretend that they're only vulnerable in a place like Hungary or Turkey. ... They are also vulnerable here."

As president, Trump aided allies such as Rupert Murdoch, the founder of Fox News. (Trump recently said on Fox & Friends that he would ask Murdoch to stop Fox News from airing the Harris campaigns' negative ads about him.)

Trump also tried to punish media outlets that were critical of him. His administration sought to block the takeover of CNN's parent company. It also tried to deny a cloud computing contract for Amazon, which was founded by Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos.

"It's the frequency of these attacks on the First Amendment that strike me most," Rosenworcel, the FCC's chairwoman, says.

As a federal employee, Rosenworcel says, she almost invariably refrains from public comment on political matters during election season. But she says she could not let this pass unacknowledged.

Similarly, Rosenworcel criticized the threats of prosecution made by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration against local television stations that run ads advocating greater abortion rights in the state. The Florida Department of Health attorney who sent the letters to the Florida TV stations has resigned, saying he was ordered by DeSantis aides to send the letters .

"We can't let this be normal," Rosenworcel says of threats to press independence. "If you want to maintain a democracy, you have to speak up for it."

PSA - Tariffs

Dear MAGA,

Tariffs are paid by the end user - the consumer - you - not by the company that made the product and shipped it over here to you. You pay for it because the people who import the stuff aren't stupid enough to just eat the extra cost.

If you support Trump and his tariff policy, you're volunteering for a tax increase by way of higher prices on everything buy that isn't produced here in USAmerica Inc.

What did you get your kids for Christmas? Where was it made? Vote for Trump, and congratulations - your cost next year will be 20 to 60 to god-knows-what % higher.

And we're not the only country that can impose tariffs.

Last time, Trump's tariffs hit American farmers so hard, we had to bail them out to the tune of $16 billion.


Tariffs aren't universally a bad thing. As long as they're targeted properly (ie: intelligently - which, I think we all know isn't how Trump would do it), they can level the playing field when we're dealing with some asshole country that's dumping steel (for example), intending to drive prices down to the point where the domestic product isn't profitable enough to keep a US company in business.

But you don't simply announce you're raising all the existing tariffs, and putting new tariffs on everything at 50 or 100 or 2000% - which Trump has threatened by the way.

And also too - this whole tariff bandwagon thing smacks of Republican fuckery. I can see them using it as an attempt to kill income tax altogether - which sounds pretty damned appealing - but what it does is shift the entire tax burden to people who actually work for their money.

What's the point in boosting your take-home pay by 30%, if it means the price of everything you buy goes up 35 or 40%?






What tariffs do and why economists don't like them

Trump keeps expanding his tariff plans, but most trade analysts across the political spectrum warn they’d inflate consumer prices.


“The most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff,” former President Donald Trump told the Economic Club of Chicago last week. “It’s my favorite word.”

The Republican candidate for president has spent the past few weeks floating ever higher proposals for raising surcharges on foreign goods entering the United States. He has called for a 20% blanket tariff on all imports, tariffs of at least 60% on products from China, 100% tariffs on nations that shift away from trading with the dollar, and a 2,000% tariff on vehicles built in Mexico.

Economists across the political spectrum oppose these ideas, saying the most likely outcome would be higher prices for consumers. Here’s a look at how tariffs work and why they’re so critical in an election in which living costs are front and center.

What tariffs do and who pays them

Tariffs, also known as duties or levies, are deterrents. They penalize domestic firms that import foreign-made goods to encourage companies to source more of those items within the country. When a tariff is placed on a product — be it a watermelon, a washing machine or a high-tech component — any U.S.-based company that imports it must pay a percentage of that item’s price to the government, with federal officials setting the rate.

Trump has said the revenue from these payments would be huge. He proposes using it to fund everything from tax cuts to subsidized child care. In a rambling response to a question about the latter issue last month, he said “those numbers” from tariff revenue “are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care” costs.

But any business facing a tariff has two options: either stop importing the targeted product and buy it domestically instead, or raise its sale price. When firms can’t find the goods they need within U.S. borders at prices they can afford, or at all, they tend to pass some or all of the cost of the tariff to consumers.

For that reason, Vice President Kamala Harris has called Trump’s tariff proposals “a sales tax on the American people” that she says would raise costs for households by $4,000 each year. Adam Hersh, a senior economist at EPI Action, the advocacy arm of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, puts that estimate lower but still in the four-figure range at $2,500 to 3,000 per year.

“Donald Trump will not just impose a $4,000 a year middle class tax hike — his plan will permanently jack up inflation, crush American manufacturing jobs, and hurt manufacturing workers more than any other sector,” Joseph Costello, a Harris campaign spokesperson, said in a statement. “Over and over, independent economists are warning of the economic dangers of Trump’s plan, and Americans should take note.”

The Trump campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Whatever the ultimate cost, many economists agree that higher, more widespread tariffs would drive up prices for consumers.

“She’s right that his tariffs are like a sales tax, in the sense that consumers everywhere are going to end up paying,” Alan Deardorff, an economist at the University of Michigan who specializes in international trade, said of Harris’ claim. But he cautioned that only fully imported products would likely increase by the same rate as the tariff itself; the costs of goods assembled in the U.S. from a mix of imported and domestic parts, such as cars and airplanes, would likely rise by less.

While tariffs are broadly disliked by economists, they now draw more bipartisan support than they have in decades. There’s agreement in both parties that endlessly lowering barriers to global trade has had detrimental economic and social consequences.

Some farmers and factory owners complained during the Trump administration that its tariffs were hurting their bottom lines, leading the White House to funnel tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to agricultural producers. But the Biden-Harris administration largely hasn’t reversed course. It extended about $300 billion in its predecessor’s duties on Chinese goods, and even added additional tariffs on $18 million worth of Chinese goods in strategic industries, including electric vehicles, semiconductors, steel and aluminum.

The impact on prices and jobs

Trump and his allies who endorse his trade policies argue that tariffs protect and bolster domestic markets, spurring homegrown producers to expand. They also see them as an economic weapon. Trump recently threatened the Illinois-based tractor maker John Deere with a 200% tariff if it moves production to Mexico.

Some economists had long theorized that if the U.S. imposed tariffs on a product, foreign producers would lower their prices to avoid being pushed out of the large, lucrative American market. Tariffs had been falling around the world for decades before the Trump administration rolled out its 2018 levies, which created a natural experiment to test that thesis.

In the years since, Deardorff said, “you can’t find anything in the data indicating that the foreign prices went down.”

Even if tariffs do force some overseas producers to lower prices, U.S. consumers wouldn’t necessarily reap the benefits, said Monica Morlacco, an economics professor at the University of Southern California. At best, the price would simply decrease by less than the amount of the tariff.

“Consumer prices will always go up by any reasonable analysis of tariffs,” she said.

In fact, some of Trump’s earlier tariffs led domestic producers to hike their prices. In 2018, Trump slapped tariffs ranging from 20% to 50% on many residential washing machines from South Korea, leading Seoul-based LG to raise its prices in response. But so did the brand’s American competitors, as the newly pricier foreign models juiced demand for U.S.-made products.

Reviewing the price data, University of Chicago researchers later found “no clear distinction between domestic and foreign brands in these results, all within a range of 5 and 17 percent” — and dryers, which weren’t subject to tariffs but are often purchased alongside washers, saw price hikes as well.

A paper the following year from the New York Federal Reserve found Trump’s tariffs and other protectionist trade policies cost U.S. consumers $1.4 billion each month. “Tariffs were almost completely passed through into U.S. domestic prices, so that the entire incidence of the tariffs fell on domestic consumers,” the authors wrote.

Prices aside, “people believe that the tariffs will protect domestic jobs, and they like this idea that we can help our American workers,” said Robert Lawrence, a professor of international trade and investment and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “I think they’re mistaken.”

That’s partly because of how tariffs reverberate through global trade, he said: “We’re going to be buying less from foreigners because their goods are more expensive. We’re going to therefore have this adverse effect on our inputs, and therefore we’re also going to be able to sell less abroad.”

Voters, however, have mixed opinions on tariffs. An NBC News poll this month found little more than a third of voters were in favor of universal tariffs, with most others opposed or indifferent, but a Reuters/Ipsos poll in mid-September found a narrow majority backing Trump’s tariff plans.

When people think of tariffs, they think of bringing jobs back or opening factories, said Maurice Obstfeld, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute.

“Those are laudable social goals,” he said. “But what the public understands less about tariffs is that they raise prices to consumers and also to businesses that use protected inputs. They’re not really effective at bringing jobs back on a large scale.”

The nonpartisan Tax Foundation, which typically advocates for lower taxes and other pro-business policies, has estimated that Trump’s latest tariff plans would reduce the U.S. gross domestic product by 0.8% and cost 684,000 jobs. When jobs are created, they often cost more than what the job pays, economists say. In the University of Chicago washing machine study, researchers estimated each job created cost consumers about $815,000 annually.

Still, Obstfeld acknowledged tariffs’ political appeal in many regions that have struggled with the loss of manufacturing jobs. It’s easy for economists to say that noncompetitive industries should go out of business, but “we’re talking about real people with real jobs,” he said.

“This is one of the reasons why protection can be popular,” Obstfeld said. “Because otherwise, a lot of people are hung out to dry.”

Oct 25, 2024

Homemade Music


On Water And A Duck's Back



Trump shrugs off lifetime of scandals

For the third straight election, tens of millions of Americans will vote for a candidate who boasts an encyclopedia of scandals — personal, political and criminal — unprecedented in any corner of public life.

Why it matters:
Donald Trump has defied political gravity. He has survived the unsurvivable, normalized the abnormal and bulldozed through every red line drawn by his predecessors. And yet he just might win — again.

Driving the news:
Days before the election, Trump's former chief of staff, retired four-star Gen. John Kelly, went on the record to warn that the former president is a "fascist" who would rule like a dictator.

"He commented more than once that, 'You know, Hitler did some good things, too,' " Kelly alleged to The New York Times, choosing to speak out after Trump floated using the U.S. military against political enemies.

Kelly, who left the White House in December 2018, also told The Atlantic that Trump wanted the kind of military generals Hitler had — generals who he said were "totally loyal to him."
Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement that Kelly "has totally beclowned himself with these debunked stories he has fabricated."

What they're saying:
Kelly's comments have landed like virtually every Trump scandal of the past eight years — drawing outrage from Democrats and liberal pundits, shrugs and spin from Republicans.

"It's kind of par for the course. Unfortunately, with a guy like that, it's kind of baked into the vote at this point," New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, a moderate Republican who has endorsed Trump, told CNN in response to the Hitler allegations.

Fox News' Brian Kilmeade argued: "I can absolutely see him go, 'It'd be great to have German generals that actually do what we ask them to do,' maybe not fully being cognizant of the third rail of German generals who were Nazis."

The big picture:
Pull any one of these 10 Trump scandals out of a hat and apply it to any other politician — or even just a typical American. More likely than not, it would end their career.
  1. Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts in New York for paying illegal hush money to a porn star, making him the first former president to be charged, convicted and potentially sentenced to prison.
  2. He refused to concede the 2020 election, and spread baseless claims of voter fraud that inspired a violent mob to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He's been indicted twice on charges of trying to overturn the election.
  3. He was indicted on federal charges of illegally retaining classified documents that included nuclear secrets, leading to an FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. (The case was dismissed but could be reinstated upon appeal.)
  4. He was impeached twice — once for his actions on Jan. 6 and once for withholding military aid to pressure Ukraine's government to investigate his political opponents.
  5. He has publicly praised dictators and sided with Vladimir Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies that assessed that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election.
  6. He was found liable of sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll, and has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 25 other women. He was caught on tape in 2005 bragging about grabbing women by their genitals.
  7. He and his company were ordered to pay $350 million in a New York civil fraud trial for artificially inflating his net worth to secure favorable loan terms.
  8. He placed full-page ads in The New York Times in 1989 calling for the death penalty for five Black and Latino teenagers who were wrongfully convicted of raping a jogger in Central Park. He has refused to apologize.
  9. He promoted the racist conspiracy theory that Barack Obama, the nation's first Black president, wasn't born in the United States.
  10. He made more than 30,000 false or misleading claims during his four years in office, according to Washington Post fact-checkers.
  11. Zoom in: He hasn't seemed to slow down in the four years since. In recent weeks, Trump has lied about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Ohio, called Jan. 6 "a day of love," and attended a 9/11 memorial with a 9/11 truther.
Between the lines:
At this point in his career, it's hard to envision a scandal that could shake Trump's grip on the Republican Party.

In the eyes of Trump's most loyal supporters, the media has lost all credibility by engaging in yearslong "witch hunts" attempting to take him down.

For the rest of his voters, it boils down to a more practical calculation: Trump's policies, especially in contrast to a Kamala Harris presidency, are worth the price of his character.
The bottom line: Trump "has survived more scandals than any major party presidential candidate, much less president, in the life of the republic. Not only survived but thrived," writes The New York Times' Peter Baker.

"He has turned them on their head, making allegations against him into an argument for him by casting himself as a serial victim rather than a serial violator."

Today's Dana



Overheard

Abraham Lincoln:
“The last best hope of earth”
    
 Ronald Reagan:
“The shining city upon a hill”
    
Donald Trump:
"Garbage can of the world"

Today's Belle

On Press Poodles, and how delicately they handle Trump's shitty fascist tendencies.



"I can't think of 14 reasons why he'd say that." 😁

(Ur-Fascism - or Eternal Fascism - is Eco's generic form, as opposed to a particular type of fascism, ie: the Nazis, Mussolini, etc)
  1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
  2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
  3. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
  4. Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
  5. Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
  6. Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
  7. The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
  8. The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
  9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
  10. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
  11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
  12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
  13. Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
  14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”

Oct 24, 2024

Mary Trump

More than 25 woman have braved the withering assault of Trump's media power to come forward and tell us what a fuckin' jerk he is.

25.

How many others are keeping their counsel because the risk is just too great?

Think about why upwards of 60% to 90% of Sexual Assault cases go unreported.


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.”

Today's Belle

Trump is telegraphing his disdain for how the transfer of power is supposed to work - even if he wins. He had an extremely chaotic transition in 2016, and now it seems he intends to ignore it altogether.

We have to figure his plan is simply to shit-can everything the US government is, and has been since 1789 - to tear it all down and remake the whole thing from the very beginning of his reign.