Donald Trump dined with white nationalist, Holocaust denier Nick …

This past week, Kanye West called me to have dinner at Mar-a-Lago, he wrote. Shortly thereafter, he unexpectedly showed up with three of his friends, whom I knew nothing about. We had dinner on Tuesday evening with many members present on the back patio. The dinner was quick and uneventful. They then left for the airport.

However eventful, the dinner reflects a remarkable moment in an extremely early 2024 campaign cycle: the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination breaking bread with a man who frequently posts racist content and Holocaust revisionism, brought there by a rapper who is launching his own presidential campaign under the shadow of his own antisemitic remarks.

If it was any other party, breaking bread with Nick Fuentes would be instantly disqualifying for Trump, said Democratic National Committee spokesperson Ammar Moussa. The most extreme views have found a home in todays MAGA Republican party.

In a statement, the White House said, Bigotry, hate, and antisemitism have absolutely no place in America - including at Mar-A-Lago. Holocaust denial is repugnant and dangerous, and it must be forcefully condemned.

It underscores how few guardrails currently exist within the former presidents political operation, with few aides there to screen guests or advise against and manage such gatherings.

Indeed, after POLITICO first reported the sighting of Fuentes at Trumps club, people in Trumps orbit denied the former president met with Fuentes at all. Only later was it revealed that he not only met with Fuentes but dined with him.

Karen Giorno, a former Trump strategist who is also now working for Wests 2024 campaign, confirmed to POLITICO that she was also at the dinner with Trump, West and Fuentes.

Fuentes, who was present at the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017, has made a series of offensive and racist statements on his shows including that Trump was wrong to disavow white supremacy. He has been removed from YouTube and other social media sites. Trumps dinner with Fuentes comes just one week after the former president announced he is seeking reelection, and soon after West publicly made a series of antisemitic comments that cost him millions in endorsement deals.

In a separate statement, Trump denied knowing who Fuentes was, stating that the dinner meeting was intended to be Kanye and me only, but he arrived with a guest whom I had never met and knew nothing about. Both that statement and the Truth Social post did not include a denunciation of Wests or Fuentes recent comments.

West discussed the dinner in a video titled Mar-a-lago debrief, which he posted to Twitter. In it, he said that Trump was impressed by Fuentes because unlike so many of the lawyers and so many people that he was left with on his 2020 campaign, hes actually a loyalist.

West went on to say he told Trump, Why when you had the chance, did you not free the January sixers? And I came to him as someone who loves Trump. And I said, Go and get Corey [Lewandowski] back, go and get these people that the media tried to cancel and told you to step away from. The video includes photos of former advisers including Giorno and Roger Stone, and also conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

Describing the event to Milo Yiannopoulos, a far-right provocateur who he hired to help with his campaign, West said that he also asked Trump to be his running mate in 2024, and said that Trump was screaming at him during the dinner, and that the former president called his ex-wife profanities.

When Trump started basically screaming at me at the table, telling me I was going to lose. I mean, has that ever worked for anyone in history? Im like, whoa, whoa, hold on, hold on Trump, youre talking to Ye, West said.

Chris Cadelago contributed to this report.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this report misspelled the first name of Corey Lewandowski.

Read more from the original source:

Donald Trump dined with white nationalist, Holocaust denier Nick ...

Trump talks with white nationalist Nick Fuentes at Mar-a-Lago dinner

Nick Fuentes (center) with Alex Jones at a "Stop the Steal" rally in Georgia on Nov. 19, 2020. Photo: Zach Roberts/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Former President Trump dined and conversed with white nationalist Nick Fuentes and rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, at his Mar-a-Lago resort on Tuesday night, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Why it matters: Trump's direct engagement with a man labeled a "white supremacist" by the Justice Department, one week after declaring his 2024 candidacy, is likely to draw renewed outrage over the former president's embrace of extremists.

What they're saying: "Kanye West very much wanted to visit Mar-a-Lago. Our dinner meeting was intended to be Kanye and me only, but he arrived with a guest whom I had never met and knew nothing about," Trump said in a statement.

Bigotry, hate, and antisemitism have absolutely no place in America - including at Mar-A-Lago," White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates said Saturday in a statement.

Behind the scenes: A source familiar with the dinner conversation told Axios that Trump "seemed very taken" with Fuentes, impressed that the 24-year-old was able to rattle off statistics and recall speeches dating back to his 2016 campaign.

Fuentes told Trump that he represented a side of Trump's base that was disappointed with his newly cautious approach, especially with what some far-right activists view as a lack of support for those charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

Trump at one point turned to Ye and said, "I really like this guy. He gets me," according to the source.

Trump asked if Fuentes was on social media such as Truth Social, the former president's alternative to Twitter.

Driving the news: Ye, whose Twitter account was recently restored after being restricted for anti-Semitic comments, posted a video on Thursday night titled "Mar-a-Lago debrief."

Between the lines: The Daily Beast reported Wednesday that Fuentes was not present at the Mar-a-Lago dinner with Ye, citing a source familiar with the matter.

Flashback: Truth Social, Trump's social media platform, sparked backlash by verifying Fuentes' account in February.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional reporting and a statement from Trump and the White House.

Read more:

Trump talks with white nationalist Nick Fuentes at Mar-a-Lago dinner

Donald Trump dined with white nationalist, Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes

Former President Donald Trump hosted white nationalist and antisemite Nick Fuentes at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach on Tuesday night, according to multiple people familiar with the event.

Fuentes, who frequently posts racist content in addition to Holocaust revisionism, was brought as a guest of rapper Kanye West, who now goes by Ye.

In a post to his social media site, Trump confirmed the gathering.

This past week, Kanye West called me to have dinner at Mar-a-Lago, he wrote. Shortly thereafter, he unexpectedly showed up with three of his friends, whom I knew nothing about. We had dinner on Tuesday evening with many members present on the back patio. The dinner was quick and uneventful. They then left for the airport.

However eventful, the dinner reflects a remarkable moment in an extremely early 2024 campaign cycle: the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination breaking bread with a man who frequently posts racist content and Holocaust revisionism, brought there by a rapper who is launching his own presidential campaign under the shadow of his own antisemitic remarks.

If it was any other party, breaking bread with Nick Fuentes would be instantly disqualifying for Trump," said Democratic National Committee spokesperson Ammar Moussa. "The most extreme views have found a home in todays MAGA Republican party.

In a statement, the White House said, "Bigotry, hate, and antisemitism have absolutely no place in America - including at Mar-A-Lago. Holocaust denial is repugnant and dangerous, and it must be forcefully condemned.

It underscores how few guardrails currently exist within the former presidents political operation, with few aides there to screen guests or advise against and manage such gatherings.

Indeed, after POLITICO first reported the sighting of Fuentes at Trumps club, people in Trumps orbit denied the former president met with Fuentes at all. Only later was it revealed that he not only met with Fuentes but dined with him.

Story continues

Karen Giorno, a former Trump strategist who is also now working for Wests 2024 campaign, confirmed to POLITICO that she was also at the dinner with Trump, West and Fuentes.

Fuentes, who was present at the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017, has made a series of offensive and racist statements on his shows including that Trump was wrong to disavow white supremacy. He has been removed from YouTube and other social media sites. Trumps dinner with Fuentes comes just one week after the former president announced he is seeking reelection, and soon after West publicly made a series of antisemitic comments that cost him millions in endorsement deals.

In a separate statement, Trump denied knowing who Fuentes was, stating that the dinner meeting was intended to be Kanye and me only, but he arrived with a guest whom I had never met and knew nothing about. Both that statement and the Truth Social post did not include a denunciation of West's or Fuentes' recent comments.

West discussed the dinner in a video titled Mar-a-lago debrief, which he posted to Twitter. In it, he said that Trump was impressed by Fuentes because unlike so many of the lawyers and so many people that he was left with on his 2020 campaign, he's actually a loyalist."

West went on to say he told Trump, Why when you had the chance, did you not free the January sixers? And I came to him as someone who loves Trump. And I said, Go and get Corey [Lewandowski] back, go and get these people that the media tried to cancel and told you to step away from. The video includes photos of former advisers including Giorno and Roger Stone, and also conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

Describing the event to Milo Yiannopoulos, a far-right provocateur who he hired to help with his campaign, West said that he also asked Trump to be his running mate in 2024, and said that Trump was screaming at him during the dinner, and that the former president called his ex-wife profanities.

"When Trump started basically screaming at me at the table, telling me I was going to lose. I mean, has that ever worked for anyone in history? Im like, whoa, whoa, hold on, hold on Trump, youre talking to Ye, West said.

Chris Cadelago contributed to this report.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this report misspelled the first name of Corey Lewandowski.

View original post here:

Donald Trump dined with white nationalist, Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes

Indianapolis officials say white nationalist group didn’t need permit to march but never notified city of plans – WFYI

City officials say the white nationalist group that marched through downtown Indianapolis Saturday would not have needed a permit to do so, but the group gave no notice of its plans.

A now-viral video posted to Twitter showed some 70 members of the Patriot Front, identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a designated hate group, marching through the streets with a banner that read Reclaim America.

A campaign volunteer for Democratic 5th congressional district candidate Jeannine Lee Lake posted the video. Lake said seeing the march was disheartening.

It makes me very sad to see. I thought we were past some of that stuff here in Indiana. And in America, she said.

Lake said plans are underway for a counter-demonstration sometime next weekend.

We need to collectively, as leaders send them a message publicly to say dont come here with that, she said. We dont know if they are from Indiana, we dont know if they are from Indianapolis, or if they came from outside, because these cowards put a sheet over their head and marched so they wouldnt be recognized.

Both Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett and the Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police released statements condemning the march.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, Patriot Front is responsible for the vast majority of white supremacist propaganda distributed in the United States. Patriot Front is a splinter group from Vanguard America, formed in the wake of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

In an online post, Patriot Front said its Indianapolis demonstration was in recognition of Labor Day. The march occurred around the same time as the Indy Laborfest, put on by the local union group AFL-CIO.

David Goldenberg is midwest regional director for the Anti-Defamation League. He said its common for Patriot Front to try and adopt the language of existing events to attract new members.

Earlier this year in Chicago, they attempted to co-opt a pro-life march, he said. But those are things where they try and co-opt them as potential recruitment tools and opportunities.

Goldenberg said free speech is protected in the U.S., but Patriot Front pushes messaging that is meant to incite.

Its clear that their speech and their actions are about inciting hate and in some cases inciting violence, he said. Thats not ok, and thats something we should all be speaking out against.

This isnt the first time hate groups have marched around the city of Indianapolis. In 2021, the Proud Boys marched around the city on Jan. 6, coinciding with the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Goldenberg said Indiana is a state with a history of white supremacist hate groups, but that history doesnt have to define the present or future.

Now the question is: what do we do about it? How do we forcefully say this is not OK, he said. How do we forcefully make clear that if they show up again they will be met with 10 times as many protestors and against those hateful views?

Contact WBAA/WFYI reporter Benjamin Thorp at bthorp@wfyi.org. Follow on Twitter:@sad_radio_lad.

See original here:

Indianapolis officials say white nationalist group didn't need permit to march but never notified city of plans - WFYI

OnPolitics: Will GOP Rep. Kevin McCarthy be the next House Speaker? – USA TODAY

Happy hump day, OnPolitics readers.

More on the two suspects accused of impersonating law enforcement agents: A federal magistrate Tuesday rejected prosecutors' request to detainArian Taherzadeh and Haider Ali, who were arrested last week for offering personal gifts, including rent-free apartments, to at least two members of the Secret Service.

The two allegedly posed as federal law enforcement agents to gain access to the agency, butU.S. Magistrate G.Michael Harvey questioned theirability to follow through on the lavish gifts.

Harvey also said there is no evidence thatTaherzadeh, 40, and Ali, 35, tried to infiltrate the Secret Service or posed a risk to national security.

"There has been no showing that national security information has been compromised," he ruled.

The suspects were scheduled for releaseWednesday morning forproper placement in home confinement with family members.Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua Rothstein said the government would possibly appeal Harvey's ruling.

Defense lawyers argued for release of alleged impersonators: Attorneys representingTaherzadeh and Ali said prosecutors had spun"the wildestconspiracy theories imaginable"bygrossly exaggeratingclaims against their clients.

It's Amy and Chelsey with today's top stories out of Washington.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is treading a thin line between the moderate and far right wings of his party in an attempt to climb the ladder to House speaker, a role currently occupied by political opponent and fellow representative fromCalifornia, Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

But maintaining a balance between the conservatives who attend white nationalist rallies, the traditionalists weary of RINOaccusations ("Republicans In Name Only") and the few House Republicans who have publicly denounced former President Donald Trump will prove tricky.

A GOP House majority could ensure McCarthy the role he's openly coveted for so long, but heavy opposition from one Republican faction toward another could hurt the party's chances during the November midterm elections.

"If he tries to silence the crazies, they will turn against him, possibly denying him a majority in the House vote on the speakership," said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. "If he doesn't try to silence the crazies, the party will suffer reputational damage, and non-crazy Republicans will start looking for another leader."

If Republicans triumph in November, experts say McCarthy has a good chance at the speaker role.

"McCarthy has strong support because he is a prolific fundraiser and has tremendous depth on policy," said Alice Stewart, who served as the chief spokeswoman for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabees 2016 presidential campaign. "The wildcard is the new incoming GOP member class, who could be campaigning on an anti-establishment, non-vote for McCarthy, platform. If that were to happen, anything's possible."

Want this news roundup in your inbox every night?Sign up for/the OnPolitics newsletterhere.

President Joe Biden called Russia's attack on Ukraine a "genocide" on Tuesday while talking with reporters before heading back to the White House from Iowa.

The statement comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin said peace talks had reached a "dead end" and Russian troops will not leave Ukraine until the Kremlin's goals are accomplished.

Its become clearer and clearer that Putin is trying to wipe out the idea of being Ukrainian, Biden said.

Death count rises: Over 10,000 civilians have been killed in city of Mariupol since the beginning of the invasion in February, Mariupol Mayor Vadym Boychenko said Monday.That number could reach more than 20,000 in Mariupol alone, according to Boychenko.

How do you prove genocide? Harold Hongju Koh, an international law professor at Yale Law School, told USA TODAY that in order to prove genocide, there has to be a high level of intent.

"The tricky part of it which is relevant to the President's statement yesterday is if I kill one person, that's homicide," he said. "If I kill that person with the intent to destroy every person of that persons ethnic group, then it could be a part of genocide, but you don't know."

Leading the league: San Francisco Giants' Alyssa Nakken becomes the first female coach on the field for a Major League Baseball game. Check out more coverage of this seasonfrom USA TODAY's Sports team.-- Amy and Chelsey

Excerpt from:

OnPolitics: Will GOP Rep. Kevin McCarthy be the next House Speaker? - USA TODAY

Ukraine war: the key role played by volunteer militias on both sides of the conflict – The Conversation

One of the features of modern warfare is the role played by non-state militias, and Ukraine is no exception. Reporting of the war has highlighted the role of the Wagner Group on the Russian side, for instance. This 6,000 strong mercenary force, which is usually based in Africa and recently saw action in the Sahel, is believed to be funded by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a businessman with close links to Vladimir Putin.

About 1,000 Wagner Group fighters have been drafted in as part of the invasion. It was reported at the end of March that members of the group had been tasked with finding and assassinating the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Alongside the Wagner Group, Moscow has also drafted in militia volunteers from both Chechnya and Syria to reinforce the Russian army ahead of assaults on key strategic areas in Ukraine. On the other side, Ukraine has relied heavily upon established militias such as the Azov Battalion, as well as newly formed civilian militias, to repel Russian armed forces.

Militias are armed non-state groups that are usually recruited from the civilian population to support state security forces, primarily during times of emergency. These para-militarised, quasi-institutional groups strengthen both the quantity and sometimes the quality of the states military capability.

Governments often contract militia groups to conduct operations against armed rebel organisations during counterinsurgency warfare. In Colombia, the Bogota government enlisted the support of right-wing paramilitary groups often trained by the US in its war against Farc and other left-wing insurgent groups. Militias have also been used by governments as a protector against internal threats, such as threats of coups from other state actors, including the military.

Depending on how close the militia is to the government, the state may provide weapons, resources, training and intelligence to the group. In other cases, a state will delegate power to a militia to conduct military operations on its behalf.

Militias have also often been used by states in inter-state warfare, so their use in the war in Ukraine is unsurprising. What is surprising is the role these militias are playing in the conflict. Militias deployed by Russia are tightly controlled, recruited, directed and resourced by Russias government and armed forces. On the Ukrainian side, the state-militia relationship is more ambiguous and fluid, with the Kyiv government not always securing direct control over pro-Ukrainian militias that can be deemed semi-independent or independent armed actors.

In early March, it emerged that Russia had contracted the Chechen Kadyrov militia to conduct specific operations in Ukraine, including a plot to kill President Zelensky. The deployment of the militia by Russia was also viewed as a form of psychological warfare in that it was designed to instil fear and terror into the minds of both the Ukrainian armed forces and the civilian population, given the brutality associated with the Kadyrov militia in past conflicts. Russian forces have also begun recruiting volunteers from pro-Assad militias involved in the Syrian civil war. It is believed these militias are already in Russia awaiting deployment to Ukraine.

As for the Wagner Group unlike other militias deployed by Russia it has been heavily involved in pursuing Russias foreign policy objectives in both Africa and the Middle East, and with proficiency and tactical efficiency. The group is highly professional and operates almost like a special forces organisation.

Pro-Ukrainian militias, meanwhile, tend to be more autonomous than their Russian counterparts, and have successfully used guerrilla-style tactics to repel vastly superior Russian tank and troop columns.

The Azov Battalion is the most prominent of Ukraines non-state militias. It has cooperated with the official Ukrainian armed forces and has been partly co-opted into the national guard, albeit it has retained its identity and semi-autonomous independence. The militia was formed in 2014 in response to pro-Russian separatist rebels operating in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. It is believed to be a far-right organisation that emerged from a far-right political movement, Svoboda, designed to promote white nationalist, anti-immigrant politics.

A vast array of other smaller, pro-Ukrainian militias are also engaged in combat against Russian ground forces, including the Dnipro Battalion, funded by Ukranian banking tycoon, Ihor Kolomoisky.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian government has armed large sections of the civilian population, in effect creating a mass-mobilised pro-government militia. These citizens have also engaged Russian units in hit-and-run attacks with small arms and Molotov cocktails. The civilian militia has helped in preparing urban defences in Ukrainian cities against possible Russian advances.

The fighting looks set to shift towards the eastern regions of Ukraine, after the failure of Russian forces to take Kyiv in the first part of the war. The Donbas has been a focus for fighting by pro-Russian separatists since 2014 and has the biggest concentration of Russian speakers.

If the conflict shifts eastwards towards the Donbas region, then so too will the militias already embroiled in the conflict. Human rights abuses have been committed by militias here in the past. Away from the urban centres of Kyiv and Kharkiv, oversight of these militias by regular armed forces on both sides may become more limited.

See the article here:

Ukraine war: the key role played by volunteer militias on both sides of the conflict - The Conversation

What is racial invisibility, and how do white people benefit from it? – The Guardian

Where are you from?

There are few other questions in Australia that help shed a light on the overlapping and contradictory sense of sovereignty and belonging between Indigenous people, white people, and non-Indigenous people of colour.

For many, it exists as a safe topic of small talk. Where are you from? Where do you work? Where did you go to school? Whats your favourite footy team?

For Indigenous people, it is the gateway question that all relationality stems from. Where are you from? Where are you connected to? Who are you connected to? Are we connected? What are our responsibilities to each other? It highlights the importance of connection and responsibility between people and place and all things within it.

There is another usage as well, though one that generally exists between white people and anyone who doesnt look sufficiently white or Indigenous (in the eyes of a given white person at least). It goes something like this:

White person: Where are you from?

Non-white, non-Indigenous person: Melbourne.

White person, confused: No, no. I mean, where do you really come from?

It is a question that very clearly asserts its purpose: People who look like you dont come from here. White people come from here. So, where do you really come from?

It isnt always said with malicious intent; sometimes white people are super excited to learn about other or exotic cultures. The underlying meaning is still the same, though you cant be from here. White people come from here.

There is something uniquely perverse about being Indigenous in these lands and watching white people offer (or withdraw) this conditional acceptance. It is right up there with being told to love it or leave by those who support the ongoing destruction of the country they claim to love.

And therein lies the uncomfortable truth. They do not love this country, its land, its waters and its people. They love an imagined white nationalist state called Australia.

An exploration of the question where are you from? serves as a powerful disruption to those who love to say, well, were all boat people anyway! or even those who dream of a day where we can all come together and be just Australians!

Its important here to point out that most white people in Australia dont like being called white. If youre white and youre reading this, Im sure youre starkly aware right now that I have been naming whiteness. You might like that Im doing it or you might not like it, but I bet youve noticed it.

It is still not a common occurrence in Australia for whiteness to be named.

It was common within western literature that the terms people and white people were readily interchangeable, but with white people falling out of fashion, that meant that white became only people.

But they still kept all the racialised adjectives, classifications and slurs for everyone else.

In white Australia, this means that white Australians stopped being white Australians and became just Australians.

To clarify, I dont mean just Australians as in Australians who are primarily concerned with justice. Quite the opposite in fact. Just Australians as in Australians who arent anything else; as in, Australian is all they are and all they have ever been. Always was and always will be.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of Australian history might astutely ask me through their computer screens: Surely, you cant be serious? If theres any people in Australia who get to be just Australian its Indigenous people?

Well, I am serious and, please, dont call me Shirley.

So, where does this sense of belonging come from for white people? And why do they feel they have the right to offer or withdraw conditional Australian-ness to others?

To answer this, it might be worth reminding people that among all of the races that white people have imagined into being over the past few centuries (anywhere between three and more than 60 different races have been articulated by white academics and pseudoscientists over the years), including their own, Indigenous is not one of them.

It is not a name derived from a place, like Australian or Chinese or even European or African, and it is not a racialised colour descriptor like white, black, yellow, red or brown, nor is it one of the many other labels used to separate humanity into races.

It is a classification, like migrant, immigrant, refugee, or settler-colonial.

Since abandoning the term white, many white people have taken to referring to themselves as immigrants, but that is not very accurate.

Think about what we expect of immigrants (and migrants and refugees too) upon arriving in a new country to endeavour to fit in, to assimilate, to learn the language and follow the laws of the land.

In that sense, white people are not immigrants to Australia. They are settler-colonials.

Settler-colonials have no such expectations for themselves, and do not tolerate any expectations placed on them from others. They are the ones who get to make expectations for themselves and for others.

They take their sovereignty with them wherever they go, whether its to establish a new colony or just to go on a holiday. They expect their language, their culture, their institutions to take pride of place over everything else that was going on before they got there.

They do not assimilate into the culture that was there before them; in fact, they find the very idea so laughable as to be offensive.

They do not respect the land, the law or the people.

Becoming just Australians allowed white Australia to ignore all of these uncomfortable truths and retreat into its own mythology of itself as laid-back, welcoming, easygoing, hardworking, fair dinkum and true blue.

This act of deracialising whiteness, while continuing the racialisation of everyone else, has created what is often described as the invisibility of whiteness. This invisibility leaves whiteness unnamed but ever present. It is the unspoken norm from which everyone else deviates.

It is why generations of people were taught that when a newspaper refers to a 23-year-old Sydney man that man is probably white, because if they werent, it would have said a 23-year-old Aboriginal man living in Sydney.

Racial invisibility has been great for white people. It let them keep the land, the law, the status quo and all the power, while not having to be reminded of the white supremacist means by which they attained them and which they employ every day to justify keeping them.

Thats why many white people think it is the ultimate goal, and the ultimate gift, to bestow on others the blessing of racial invisibility.

Many do not realise that the benefits of racial invisibility only benefit white people. For everyone else, it just makes it harder to identify and articulate the mechanisms by which white supremacy continues to deny belonging and opportunity to those of us it deems as other. It also seeks to rob us of our identities as well.

For Indigenous people, it seeks to rob us of our sovereignty.

Many immigrants similarly do not appreciate this competing sense of belonging, and think that in order to effectively assimilate, then they too need to deny Indigenous sovereignty and strive to attain that temporary and conditional settler status.

But none of these behaviours are mandatory whether Indigenous, immigrant, migrant, refugee or settler-colonial. Our actions and our values are not bound to any of these prescribed labels against our will.

We may grow up accepting them as our own just normal worldview, but as we grow, we have a choice to accept the status quo or to reject it.

To stand for justice or for just us, when us is the dominant culture, is a choice.

There is nothing stopping anyone from supporting Indigenous calls for sovereignty, or for aspiring to have a sense of belonging in this country that aligns more with the Indigenous sense of belonging than the colonial concepts of ownership and coercive control.

When Australia Day rolls around and you hear white people talking about how they wish we were all just Australians, ask yourself: is that what justice sounds like to you?

Originally posted here:

What is racial invisibility, and how do white people benefit from it? - The Guardian

What reformed extremists taught me about preventing another Capitol insurrection – The Boston Globe

Last January, the world watched the stunning spectacle of the US Capitol violently attacked by . . . Americans. Yet, there are many reasons to fear that a similar type of insurrection could be repeated. There is evidence that strategists who promoted the Capitol attack were doing so to buy time for carrying out a total overthrow of democracy by subverting the electoral process. My focus here, however, is not on the suits the strategists hiding behind closed doors but on the boots, the people so stirred by conspiracy theories and Trumps Big Lie about a stolen election that they committed violence.

In nations not at war, political violence usually comes from the fringes. But right now we are facing something new: 18 percent of Americans surveyed in a recent poll agreed that true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country. That 18 percent translates to roughly 46 million adults. Of course, only a fraction of those who claim to support violence would be willing to risk imprisonment to carry it out. But that fraction could grow, or not, depending on how the nations leaders respond to this challenge.

The individuals who answered the call to invade the Capitol are now, rightly, facing legal consequences. Some will face jail time; few will be incarcerated for long. Whats likely to happen to them, and to us, when they are released?

Some people manage to leave violent movements and reintegrate into mainstream society. For two years, Ive been part of a research team at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health investigating how and why. What were beginning to learn is that many of the former violent extremists we interviewed including jihadis, white-identity violent extremists, and others refer to underlying social and emotional difficulties as important factors in their radicalization. And those factors are at least as important as intellectual endorsement of theories of racial or religious supremacy.

While jihadis and white nationalists have very different ideologies, the psychological motivations driving them are often remarkably similar. Many of the former terrorists in our sample attributed their capacity to disengage from these violent movements more to emotional factors than to intellectual ones: support from their families, finding a new sense of purpose through work (including counseling others trying to disengage), developing trusting relationships with prison personnel or probation officers, and strengthening other types of prosocial relationships. They also referred to experiences that complicated their inhumane views of the enemy such as a Muslim persons explanation of what it felt like to be a member of a hated minority group as a child. Some have referred to their racist views as a kind of addiction.

For over 20 years, Ive been interviewing jihadis, white-identity violent extremists, and Serb nationalist war criminals, in an attempt to discover what motivates them and how to prevent further acts of violence. One commonality is that the claimed rationale for violent extremism such as the wish to protect ones people from perceived injustice often masks a deeper fear of being outclassed, outnumbered, or humiliated by some other. To be clear, these fears are often based on perception, not reality, and are no justification for heinous acts of hate. But by studying them we may be able to find effective ways to stop violence before it starts.

Diversity racial, ethnic, gender, and other sorts is most distasteful to those who are innately authoritarian, a latent trait shared by about a third of the population. When theres more diversity or multiculturalism than authoritarians can bear, theyre prone to becoming overtly racist and even violent. Importantly, many studies show that the feeling of sociocultural threat is a driver of conspiracy theories, authoritarian movements, and racist violence. The most important driver for the insurrectionist movement, according to polling by political scientist Robert Pape and his team, is the unfounded fear that African American people or Hispanic people in our country will eventually have more rights than whites.

Some organizations are finding ways to fight extremism by addressing these emotional factors. Moonshot, an organization that works to end online harms, uses Google ads to redirect individuals searching for information about hateful ideologies or violent extremist groups. Moonshot has found that these individuals are more receptive to messages such as anger and grief can be isolating which offer meditation apps or mental-health support than they are to counter-narratives that offer intellectual arguments against hate. In the period surrounding January 6, 2021, more than 270,000 Americans clicked on Moonshots ads offering counseling.

Another organization, Boston-based NGO Parents for Peace, responds to helpline calls from individuals worried about a family members radicalization. Since the presidential election, the organization has been flooded with requests for help. A lot of the work involves helping families find therapists, strengthening family ties, and providing emotional support.

We face a grave and continuing threat of political violence. Leaders who condone or endorse political violence, either implicitly or explicitly, should be held accountable and condemned by people across the ideological spectrum. We know from former extremists that certain strategies have been effective at reducing or even preventing violent behavior. Perhaps surprisingly, the most effective strategies dont involve persuasion or debate. Sometimes compassion, empathy, and connection can convert someone who is on the precipice of violence.

Jessica Stern is a research professor at Boston University and a senior fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Send comments to magazine@globe.com.

Visit link:

What reformed extremists taught me about preventing another Capitol insurrection - The Boston Globe

January 6: State of DC one year later – Southern Poverty Law Center

The battle for social justice and voting rights continues in the shadow of Jan. 6

by Dwayne Fatherree

When an armed mob of then-President Donald Trumps supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol to prevent the transfer of power to then-President-elect Joe Biden, Susan Corke had not yet assumed her new role as director of the Southern Poverty Law Centers Intelligence Project.

I started at the SPLC on Jan. 19, Corke said. I was sitting at home preparing for the job and watching the horror of that day unfold. I knew that this changed everything.

Like most Americans that day, she was also aware that the damage done was more than physical.

It created this existential crisis for our democracy that we would be dealing with, and fighting against, Corke said. And the danger to our democracy has never been more grave.

That sense of gravity has not diminished since the failed coup attempt, the violent insurrection that left five dead and more than 140 police officers injured. Time has also failed to bring an end to the efforts to subvert our democracy, with more than 400 state legislative proposals to restrict voting rights and, in some cases, allow partisan politicians to overturn election results.

Invariably these actions seek to restrict access to the polls for voters of color. Additionally, the once-a-decade reapportionment process has seen new voting district maps drawn across the South that underrepresent Black and Brown voters, ensuring that Congress, legislatures and local governmental bodies will be far less likely to match the demographic makeup of their constituencies.

Caren Short, a senior supervising attorney with the SPLCs Voting Rights Practice Group, said serving as a watchdog during the current push to dilute the political power of Black and Brown residents is a top priority as redistricting maps make their way through state legislatures and local governments.

As 2022 begins, were focusing on one of the foundations of democracy: redistricting, Short said. We are working to ensure that everyone has fair and transparent representation in their cities, counties, state and federal representatives.

Corke and Short are not alone.

Jan. 6 has had a lasting impact for so many of us fighting for democracy and racial justice, said Margaret Huang, president and CEO of the SPLC. It clarified the larger societal schism in our country. We witnessed that day, and for the last several months, that a significant number of Americans believe that the use of force was justified in overturning the 2020 elections.

As the nation marks the first year in a post-Jan. 6 world, the key question raised that day remains: Can the American experiment in democracy survive an assault from within?

Emotionally, it has sparked fear and anxiety for many Americans, Huang said. For others, it has provoked anger and resentment. We seem to be at a pivotal crossroads where the future identity of our nation is at stake, and that challenges everyone, regardless of ideology.

For Lecia Brooks, chief of staff at the SPLC, the sight of the Capitol being desecrated is still fresh in her mind.

One year later, I can vividly recall the feelings I had watching the takeover of the Capitol building on Jan. 6, Brooks said. It was a mix of shock, foreboding.

The contrast between the extreme military presence during the protests outside the White House in the wake of George Floyds death the previous summer and the comparatively deferential treatment given to the Jan. 6 insurrectionists was not lost on Brooks.

As throngs of angry, mostly white Trump supporters forced their way into the building, I became angry, she said. I kept thinking, this would not happen if these were Black folks. They would have been stopped long before breaching the door. Seeing mobs of people carrying Confederate flags and donning antisemitic messages mixed with Trump signs and the American flag was terrifying. I kept waiting for them to be stopped.

But they werent, not for hours. After swarming the Capitol Police, the rioters took to the halls of Congress, rifling through offices and desks as they sought members of Congress who had already been evacuated from the building. Finally, Trump issued a video expressing his love for the invaders. He told them to go home, with no mention of arrest or repercussions. And they did.

More disconcerting was the way in which some law enforcement officers charged with protecting and defending the Capitol were accommodating the rioters, Brooks said. Ive never seen anything like it. Im still haunted by what I witnessed on the livestream. Im even more angry that, a year later, the coordinated incursion on our democracy has been minimized. I know it can happen again. Next time, they may be successful. I truly believe our democracy is at great risk of being overthrown.

It is the specter of a next attempt to subvert democracy that keeps Eric K. Ward, executive director of the Western States Center and a senior fellow with the SPLC, moving forward. A former punk rocker from Los Angeles, Ward has seen violence at the hands of white nationalists as well as the police who were supposed to protect the public.

In the 1980s, it was volatile, Ward said. The counterculture in L.A. was super-volatile. There were neo-Nazis who just came to beat up on people. There were police who would be waiting for us outside to beat up on anyone.

Those intense moments served as a crucible, forming Wards desire to fight for justice. And, although not a direct correlation, he said he can see the same divide, the same divisions facing youth today.

In this moment, the question isnt going to be called on democracy, Ward said. The question has already been called. The white nationalist movement and its coalition is declaring that democracy has no place in the trajectory of America. We have to show that it does work, and it is true. There is no neutral position on that, either. You participate in democracy, or you are handing America over to the white nationalist movement at this point.

Corke points to the work of the SPLCs Intelligence Project as one way to stem the growth of the extremism that is infecting American politics. The group of investigators and analysts monitors hate and extremism the groups, the movements, the extremist and white supremacist leaders exposing them to the public and, in doing so, holding them accountable.

We also are looking to better understand hate and extremism as a danger to democracy and inform Congress, the administration, the media and the American people on the digital and financial landscapes of hate, Corke said. So, were providing a fuller picture of what is happening, and providing some actionable recommendations for what can be done.

One aspect of that effort is to focus on preventing hate before it becomes a hate crime. The SPLCs partnership with the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) at American University seeks to identify those who might be vulnerable to radicalization farther upstream and put effective resources in the hands of teachers, parents and other caregivers who can head off the radicalization process.

The research so far has found that parents or teachers who spent only seven minutes reading the SPLC/PERIL guide were more than 80% more likely to recognize the signs of radicalization. Additionally, more than 80% felt they were prepared to intervene effectively with their child or student.

The SPLC is seeking to address these conflicts and tensions with practical solutions, Huang said. First, we create educational resources that help people understand these threats to our democracy and the importance of standing up in its defense. Second, we are monitoring and disseminating information about the actors who threaten communities of color, the LGBTQ community and others by tracking hate and extremist groups. We are working with partners to create tools that help young people, their families and communities prevent radicalization. And, of course, we are suing state legislatures that are seeking to limit voting rights and to discourage civic engagement. The SPLC is deeply committed to protecting the institutions of our democracy and to strengthening the practices that enable everyone to participate and vote.

The fight for accountability in the wake of the attempted coup of Jan. 6 is ongoing. More than 700 people have been criminally charged, with about 50 of those cases already adjudicated.

The biggest legal splash thus far, however, is not a criminal case. In addition to handling those criminal prosecutions, Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racines office filed a civil suit last month naming the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, as well as more than 30 individuals, as defendants. The suit is seeking unspecified damages for the harm, destruction and death during and after the Jan. 6 attack.

Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine speaks about an announcement related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol during a press conference at House Triangle on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 14, 2021. (Credit: Sipa USA/Alamy Live News)

The lawsuit is in keeping with Racines initiative as president of the National Association of Attorneys General, where he has focused on the fight against hate and extremist groups.

In leading up to my presidency, I focused on what I thought was the single most important issue in the United States of America, Racine said. And that's the actions of domestic terrorists and those who would support them, all around hate. So the initiative certainly informed me a lot about what needed to be done in order to deter hateful groups from feeling as though they could act in any unlawful and violent way that they chose.

Racine said that criminal charges would be filed where appropriate, but he discovered over the years that the most efficient way to shut down an organization that espouses hate is to hit it in the pocketbook. Previously, the D.C. police chief testified before Congress that the physical damage from the attack would cost about $8.8 million not counting injuries, deaths or other trauma inflicted on that day. Beyond that, holding the groups identified as leading the most violent portions of the failed coup accountable is Racines first and largest concern.

Subsequent to the Jan. 6 event, three police officers died by suicide and dozens more are suffering significant mental health trauma, he said. (That includes) former Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone, who bravely fought off the insurrectionists even as they were yelling, Take his own gun and shoot him. They beat him with flagpoles. They stun-gunned him with a Taser or some other shock gun. He had a heart attack and a concussion. He is a father of three. And can I tell you in 2016 he voted for Donald Trump, as if that matters.

He was fighting for democracy that day, Racine said. Thats what this lawsuit is all about our freedom.

The solutions to these monumental challenges lie with each and every citizen, Ward said.

I think I would first make sure I belong to an organization in my community, Ward said. It doesnt have to be a political organization. But within that organization you have to bring this topic, the insurgency, up for conversation. Maybe this article is the article you use to have that discussion. And that organization you belong to has to do one thing. It doesnt have to do everything right, but it has to figure out one thing it can do.

On a more basic level, Ward said that one of the strongest defenses against extremist thought is community.

You don't have to have political conversations with your neighbors, but get to know them and get to know your block, Ward said, One of the ways that these types of authoritarian insurgencies make breakthroughs is they convince us that we are divided, right? They use ideology, because it's easy to show ideological divide in any situation. But what we forget is, beyond our ideology, its likely that most of our values are very much aligned and we dont know that.

The third key Ward offered is to persevere.

We have to prepare ourselves mentally for a hard time, but we cant get into the despair. Were going to see lots of highs and lows in this period, just like in the midst of the civil rights movement. We think about the civil rights movement as a period of moral clarity and high energy, but it was a very hard period in American history. This will be, too. So I guess the third thing Ill come back to is that despair is the only unforgivable sin.

Brooks summed up her approach to fighting the current social and political battles in two points.

Professionally, Im working with my colleagues at the SPLC to ensure that the insurrectionists are held accountable and that the record of what really happened is not lost to a disinformation and denial campaign being pushed out by the former president and his supporters, Brooks said.

Personally, I pray.

Photo at top: Barricades surround the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., one year following the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. (Credit: Pete Kiehart)

Excerpt from:

January 6: State of DC one year later - Southern Poverty Law Center

Extremists who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 turn their attention from national to local politics – Here And Now

One year since insurrectionists stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, investigators are still learning about who these people are.

Some were members of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, white nationalist organizations and right-wing militias, while others had no connection to extremist groups at all.

Digitally, they tend to live in an echo chamber of conspiracy theories, misinformation and lies not just about the 2020 election but also COVID-19, masks and vaccines.

NBC senior reporter Brandy Zadrozny, who has been covering misinformation and extremism for years, says the rioters initial high from Jan. 6 fizzled out for a few months once those who stormed the Capitol were identified and arrested en masse. Plus, former President Donald Trump was banned from social media and then left office. Intense media and public scrutiny plagued these extremists and sent them underground, she says.

But extremists picked up steam again after encouragement from far-right leaders like Steve Bannon, who instructed his podcast audience to take back the country village by village meaning at the local level, she says.

This go-local tactic has now been taken up by extremist groups across the board, she says. Since theres no national election, these groups have pivoted their attention to controversial issues vaccines, race, education and culture wars that engender empathy or relationships with more mainstream conservatism, Zadrozny says.

Shes seen this play out in communities across the country and points to a specific example in the Pacific Northwest, a place she says has been a hotbed of extremism. The far-right group Patriot Prayer based in Vancouver, Washington, spread a rumor saying a student was facing arrest for failing to wear a mask at school.

The lie was picked up by the Proud Boys, who went to three schools in protest. Those three schools had to go into lockdown for students and staff's safety, she says.

In October, a far-right group flooded a school board meeting in Douglas County, Colorado, to oppose mask mandates.

We've been seeing this all over the country, Zadrozny says. Proud Boys showing up at school libraries to protest so-called LGBTQ books, things like that just over and over again.

Extremists have gotten savvy about joining alternative online platforms and even creating their own in order to communicate, she says. A recent ProPublica investigation found that extremist content on Facebook grew significantly between the election and in the insurrection. And despite a crackdown by a lot of these big social media platforms to ban extremist content since Jan. 6, extremists continue to bolster alternative digital ecosystems such as Gab or Parler.

If banned from Youtube, which is often the case, Zadrozny says shes seen white nationalists sustain their movement by starting and monetizing their own streaming services.

These surrogate platforms push extremist groups deeper in the interweb thus making it harder to track their movements, she says.

In the year since Jan. 6, extremists have been able to adapt and survive. This hasnt surprised Zadrozny, but rather continuously shocks her, she says. Staying alarmed by their actions is important, she says, in order to not settle and believe extremist violence is our new normal.

I think it's important to always realize that this is violence, she says, and online violence begets real-world violence.

Julia Corcoranproduced this interview and edited it for broadcast withChris Bentley.Serena McMahonadapted this interview for the web.

See the rest here:

Extremists who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 turn their attention from national to local politics - Here And Now

The fascists among us – WBUR

As 2022 has begun its 365-day stay in the American house, its time to focus on the most important threat in the coming year: the fascist assault on democracy.

The historically literate no longer holster the f-word to describe the 21 million Americans who would reinstall Donald Trump via violence. Trumps sock puppets may prattle about a ragtag band of misfits that stormed the Capitol last Jan. 6. But misfits dont boast a cheering section that could populate Massachusetts three times over. And only those of stunted vocabulary use ragtag (untidy, disorganized, or incongruously varied in character) to describe the insurrections tidy, organized arm: Trumps behind-the-scenes machinations to steal the election procedurally.

Fascists justify bloodshed over ballots on grounds that their Dear Leader was robbed in 2020. That belief was adjudicated as lunatic in 60 court cases, sometimes by Trump judges, and by multiple, even Trump-friendly, election probes. But to the true believer, the lack of solid evidence simply confirms how well hidden the rigging was.

Take the retired, pro-Trump firefighter who told The Atlantics Barton Gellman that the insurrection was the work of Antifa, U.S. Special Forces, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell. His evidence for what would be historys most bizarre alliance came from a retired general, who said the mob looked like Special Forces, and that a square shape concealed under one rioters coat could only be Pelosis laptop.

If Rip Van Winkle awoke amid such fact-free superstition, hed swear he was watching the Salem witch trials.

Generals who didnt disgrace the uniform warn that 2024s presidential election could trigger another uprising, aided by traitors within the military. Few Americans bother with New Years resolutions these days. But thwarting wannabe Mussolinis, military and civilian, requires real patriots, as opposed to MAGA poseurs, to resolve the following in 2022.

Their utopia is a white-nationalist America, secured at gunpoint.

Resolved: to recognize that the enemy may sit next to you at the Rotary lunch. Gellman, who researched anti-democratic violence globally, says its practitioners tend to be men in their 20s and 30s, poorly educated and unemployed. But the Jan. 6 insurrectionists had a mean age of 42, when most people are paying the mortgage, not breaking and entering into federal buildings. They were white-collar and schooled.

So what put them in a traitorous funk? They are much more likely to come from a county in the United States back home in which the white population is in decline, Gellman says. Similar racial fear infects the 21 million violence-supporters, who agree overwhelmingly with the proposition that the rights of people of color are exceeding those of whites in todays society.

Whites own more wealth than Blacks, live in healthier neighborhoods, and are less likely to be killed by police for such heinous crimes as traffic stops or to be busted for drug abuse, despite using at similar rates to Blacks. So anxiety that woke stupidity (condemned by smart progressives) somehow jeopardizes white equality is akin to believing that a fat man in red came down chimneys last month. But its in keeping with fascisms historical racism.

Resolved: to support unforgiving law enforcement and defense measures when fascist belief crosses into criminal deeds. Seven hundred-plus face charges for Jan. 6. The military will discipline service members who like extremist social media posts. Those military men worried about anti-democratic revolt within the ranks call for intelligence-gathering to ferret out mutineers and propagandists of disinformation and for detailed planning for the next insurrection.

Prosecutors meanwhile should take a cue from Karl Racine, attorney general for the District of Columbia, who has reached into the past for an anti-fascist hammer. Racine exhumed the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act to sue the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for their roles in planning and executing Jan. 6. President Ulysses S. Grant signed and used the Act to exterminate the KKK.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland should heed Racines example. The facts and precedent justify charges of seditious conspiracy against the insurrectionists. If Garland needs a back brace, stiffening his spine to unleash legal hell on the conspirators, Joe Biden should give him one.

Resolved: If Republicans stall federal legislation enforcing voting rights, support federal and private lawsuits against GOP state laws that torpedo those rights. Many such state laws empower partisan legislators to hijack election oversight and discard even fair results. Superseding federal legislation may be doomed. So anti-fascists should cheer Garlands suit against Georgias voting restrictions.

Whatever public concern galvanizes you climate change, the pandemic, poverty it should take a back seat to stopping Trump-y fascists, whose hero was indifferent or hostile to solutions for those matters. Their utopia is a white-nationalist America, secured at gunpoint. Even Trump acolytes who havent divorced reality recognize a fascist bridge too far. Hence Donald Trump Jr.s frantic text to his dads chief of staff as people were dying at the insurrection: Hes got to condemn this shit ASAP.

Not for nothing did It Cant Happen Here, Sinclair Lewiss 1935 novelized, fascist dystopia, suggesting it damn well could happen here, become a bestseller during Trumps reign. That suggests the last resolution.

Resolved: come Nov. 8, to vote against any GOP quislings who refuse to condemn their partys demons or who mouthwhataboutism diversions.

So that it wont happen here.

Follow Cognoscenti onFacebookandTwitter.

Read the rest here:

The fascists among us - WBUR

We never needed a Jan. 6 Commission. We need a Nov. 3 Commission. This is why | Bruce Ledewitz – Pennsylvania Capital-Star

On May 28, Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked the formation of an independent commission to study the events of Jan. 6.

Thats OK. We never needed that commission. We already know all we need to know about the insurrection.

What America needs, instead, is a national commission to study the 2020 presidential election. We need to convince millions of Americans that the election was not stolen from Donald Trump.

We can see how useless a Jan. 6 commission would have been from the questions that a New York Times story claimed may now go unanswered. The main issues raised concerns about why security preparations for the expected demonstration were so lax, and why the response to the attack on the Capitol was so delayed.

But we already know the answers. The officials involved were loath to break publicly with former President Donald Trump, and brand his supporters potential terrorists, even after the attack began.

The article also asked, What was Mr. Trump doing during the attack?

We already know that too. He was cheering the attackers on. It will never be known whether Trump seriously believed a crowd could force then-Vice President Mike Pence and the Congress to reject the certified electors and hand him the election.

He might just have been expressing frustration with the way the election turned out. But a commission would not answer that.

Those constitutional amendments were aimed at the Pa. Supreme Court as much as they were at Wolf | Bruce Ledewitz

The questions we do need answered include, for example, the degree of coordination among extremist groups on Jan. 6, will come out during the upcoming trials of the perpetrators.

As for questions concerning the killing of protestor Ashli Babbitt by the Capitol police, Americans now realize how important it is to investigate all uses of lethal force by the police. But we hardly need a national commission for that.

Republicans charge that the real motivation behind the proposed commission was to promote Trump bashing prior to the 2022 midterm elections. There is an element of truth to that charge.

The deeper concern with the failure to constitute a Jan. 6 Commission was expressed by writers such as Charles Blow, who fear that American democracy is slipping away.

He is right to be concerned about that. But the reason American democracy is slipping away is not the insurrection Jan. 6. It is the backdrop and instigation of that attack. Millions of Americans, perhaps a quarter of all voters, believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

And they believe this because Trump and other Republican leaders have relentlessly claimed that in 2020 there was fraud and election rigging.

Pa. Rep. Mike Kelly came closer than you think to stealing the election for Trump | Bruce Ledewitz

We need an independent commission to confront that lie, to investigate fairly and transparently every claim of fraud, every assertion of illegality, no matter how outlandish or unlikely.

Then we need a simple Congressional resolution that states, Joe Biden was legitimately elected President; there was no steal. The vote would be yes or no.

Let anyone with a doubt see that whole process unfold in the light of national publicity.

You will not have a democracy for long if 50 million Americans believe that Trump was actually reelected.

Even now, Republican legislators in swing states are preparing the legal groundwork for rejecting the next popular vote for president and substituting Republican electors instead. Their legal authority for doing so is dubious but untested.

No one should want the current U.S. Supreme Court to decide that issue in 2024.

These efforts would be impossible without the widespread belief among Republicans that the 2020 election was fraudulent and that democracy has already died.

There are several reasons why Democrats are not pressing for an independent commission to examine the 2020 election.

First, Democrats do not want to do anything that might cast doubt on the legitimacy of Bidens election. It is Republican state legislators, as in Pennsylvania, who have been conducting investigations into claims of election fraud.

But this concern misses the point: none of these investigations have uncovered fraud or illegality. It is true that Republicans have proposed new election laws to combat alleged fraud, but their actions have been taken in bad faith after their own investigations have failed to find anything wrong. An independent, national commission would make that clear.

Second, Democrats assume that such a commission would be useless because you cannot convince these people. This is the Hillary Clinton basket of deplorables syndrome.

It is not necessary to convince everyone. To eliminate the myth of the stolen election it is only necessary to confront and undermine that lie in a serious and open way.

Democrats have a hard time understanding that many of the demonstrators on Jan. 6 were sincere in their belief that the Presidential election had been stolen. Democrats like to think the demonstrator were just a white nationalist mob.

Some number of Americans who have doubts about the 2020 election would be open to the conclusions of an independent investigation. No one knows how many. But certainly that number is higher than without a commission.

Finally, Democrats are afraid that some Republican complaints about the 2020 election might have merit. In 2020, there were judicial decisions that stretched, if not broke, standing election law. There were instances of inconsistent guidance from election officials. There were inconsistencies in ballot counting and in the treatment of mail-in votes.

None of this amounted to illegality and none of it changed the result of the presidential election. In fact, the 2020 election probably had less of this kind of thing than many previous national elections.

Nevertheless, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Courts three-day ballot extension decision demonstrates, Republicans have a point when they ask whether Democrats manipulated election law to gain a partisan advantage.

An independent commission also would have to look at those charges.

All this is necessary to address the very serious crisis of democracy that we are facing. Democrats have been strangely indifferent to widespread voter concerns about election integrity. The fact that these concerns have been provoked by lies does not make the concerns any less damaging.

Democrats cannot even see that an independent commission would destroy Trumps credibility. He would be offered a chance to testify under oath, which he would certainly decline. That refusal would haunt him going forward.

If you want to keep Trump from running for office ever again, an independent commission to investigate the 2020 election would do it.

Opinion contributor Bruce Ledewitz teaches constitutional law at Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh. His work appears biweekly on the Capital-Stars Commentary Page. Listen to his podcast, Bends Toward Justicehere.His forthcoming book, The Universe Is On Our Side: Restoring Faith in American Public Life, will be published in October.

Continue reading here:

We never needed a Jan. 6 Commission. We need a Nov. 3 Commission. This is why | Bruce Ledewitz - Pennsylvania Capital-Star