Monthly Archives: January 2021

For years, CarltonF.W. Larson, a treason scholar and law professor at the University of California, Davis, has swatted away loose treason accusations by both Donald Trump and his critics. Though the term is popularly used to describe all kinds of political betrayals, the Constitution defines treason as one of two distinct, specific acts: levying War against the United States or adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Colluding with Russia, a foreign adversary but not an enemy, is not treason, nor is bribing Ukraine to investigate a political rival. Ordering the military to abandon Kurdish allies in Syria, effectively strengthening ISIS, is not treason, eitherthough that is getting warmer. During Trumps Presidency, Larson told me, his colleagues teased him by asking, Is it treason yet? He always said no. But the insurrection of January 6th changed his answer, at least with regard to Trumps followers who attacked the Capitol in an attempt to stop Congresss certification of the election. Its very clear that would have been seen as levying war, he said.

Both of Trumps impeachments, in 2019 and 2021, were for high crimes and misdemeanors, but the Constitution also names treason as an offense for which a President can be impeached. Individuals, including a former President, may also be criminally punished for treason, perhaps the highest offense in our legal system, carrying the possibility of the death penalty. Fearing abuse of treason charges, the Framers gave treason a narrow definition and made it extremely difficult to prove.

The Treason Clause dictates that a conviction can rest only on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. Partly as a result, there have been around forty treason prosecutions. No American has been executed for treason against the U.S., although Hipolito Salazar (a Mexican who officials thought was American) was federally executed for treason during the Mexican-American War, and some states have executed people for treason, including the abolitionist John Brown.

Larson wrote in his book On Treason: A Citizens Guide to the Law, from 2020, that the Framers had a very specific image in mindmen gathering with guns, forming an army, and marching on the seat of government. Few events in American history, if any, have matched that description as clearly as the insurrection of January 6th, which, court documents suggest, was planned by milita members who may have intended to capture elected officials. The American most associated with treason was one who did not levy war but rather gave aid and comfort to the enemy: Benedict Arnold. He at first fought heroically in the Revolutionary War but then attempted to aid the British; he fled to the enemy when his betrayal was discovered, and so was never punished. Treason prosecutions for levying war were brought against some individuals who took part in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, in which armed men burned down a tax collectors house, and the Fries Rebellion of 1799, in which armed men stormed a prison and forced the release of tax resisters. Both resulted in conviction followed by pardon. The Jefferson Administration prosecuted the former Vice-President Aaron Burr, in 1807, for allegedly conspiring with a group of armed men to overthrow the U.S. government in New Orleans, but he was acquitted. In connection with that planned rebellion, the Supreme Court held that a mere conspiracy to levy war does not count as actually levying war. Another treason case resulted from the Christiana Riot, in which dozens of men fought the return of slaves to their owners as required by the Fugitive Slave Act. Supreme Court Justice Robert Grier, presiding at trial (as Justices did in those days), held that levying war had to involve an intent to overthrow the government or hinder the execution of law.

Southern secessionists who waged war against the United States were treasonous under any reading of the Treason Clauses levying war standard. Jefferson Davis, the former U.S. senator turned President of the Confederacy, was indicted for treason in 1866. Before trial, however, Chief Justice Salmon Chase made clear his view that the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been ratified a few months earlier, precluded any other treason penalties for Confederates. Section 3 of the amendment bars from holding public office anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection against or gave aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States. Because of the Chief Justices interpretation, President Andrew Johnson gave up on the prosecution of Davis and granted amnesty to all former Confederates if they swore an oath to defend the Constitution and the Union.

In the past century, federal treason prosecutions generally have been aid and comfort cases. After the Second World War, a Japanese-American woman named Iva Toguri DAquino, better known as Tokyo Rose, was convicted of treason for broadcasting anti-American propaganda on Radio Tokyo; she was pardoned in 1977, after witnesses recanted. The poet Ezra Pound was famously prosecuted for Fascist propaganda broadcasts on Italian radio; the case was dropped in 1958, when he was found incompetent to stand trial. During the Cold War, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and executed for conspiracy to commit espionage, not treason; the Soviet Union was not technically an enemy. After a half century of no federal treason cases, the indictment of the Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn, in 2006, was the first to concern giving aid and comfort to an enemy that was not a nation. Had Gadahn ever been tried, the defense might have argued that a terrorist group such as Al Qaeda isnt an enemy as envisioned in the Treason Clause, though a federal district court assumed, in 2013, that it was. Gadahn was killed in Pakistan in 2015, by a C.I.A. drone strike.

Since the Capitol insurrection, there has been little talk of treason charges. Carlton Larson suggested that this was because everybody now tends to think of treason as mostly aiding foreign enemies. In his book On Treason, he even states that levying war is arguably archaic, of interest only to historians, and that, in the twenty-first century, armed rebellions to overthrow the government are simply not going to happen. But, to the Framers, such an insurrection was a paradigmatic case of treason. The founding-era Chief Justice John Marshall held in the treason trial of Aaron Burr that levying war entails the employment of actual force by a warlike assemblage, carrying the appearance of force, and in a situation to practice hostility. If some of those who attacked the Capitol assembled in order to incapacitate Congressperhaps even by kidnapping or killing lawmakersthen their actions could be construed as an attempt to overthrow the government, and federal prosecutors could plausibly consider treason charges. As Larson put it, At some point, you have to say, if thats not levying war against the United States, then what on earth is?

Last Tuesday, Mitch McConnell, who is now the Senate Minority Leader, said that the attackers tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like, offering a narrower purpose than government overthrow. Investigators examining the emerging evidence on the scope of the plot might disagree. Federal law also makes it a separate felony for anyone who owes allegiance to the U.S. and knows of the commission of any treason to conceal it or not tell authorities. That vastly widens the net of those who could potentially be charged, including friends, acquaintances, and co-workers of the attackers. (Since the attack, many such individuals have, in fact, come forward to give information to law enforcement.)

The Treason Clauses strict evidentiary rule of two witnesses to the act makes it exceedingly difficult to convict anyone of treason, even with so much conduct captured on video. But a treason case against Trump himself might conceivably be built, if prosecutors could establish that he knew in advance that his supporters planned to violently assault the Capitol, rather than peacefully protest; that he intended his speech urging them to fight harder to spur them to attack Congress imminently; and that he purposely didnt do anything to stop the insurrection while it was unfoldingor, worse, intentionally contributed to a security failure that led to the breach. Then Trump would have engaged in treason along with supporters who attempted, in his name, to overthrow the U.S. government. At a minimum, it appears that Trump, along with top government officials, was aware that his followers were planning acts of violence. Trump did, however, say, in the midst of his incendiary speech, I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

Short of treason, a related federal law prohibiting rebellion or insurrection states that a person who incites any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, has committed a serious felony and is disqualified from holding federal office. This description is similar to the current article of impeachment against Trump: for inciting violence against the Government of the United States. If two-thirds of senators vote to convict Trump, a majority of the Senate could then vote to bar him from future federal office. But a Senate conviction requires the votes of at least seventeen Republicans and, so far, looks unlikely. A federal criminal conviction for inciting rebellion or insurrection may offer an alternative route to disqualifying Trump from holding office.

For the time being, the government has indicted more than a hundred and fifty people for crimes related to the insurrection, including unlawful entry, disorderly conduct, theft, destruction of property, firearms offenses, assault on police, conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, obstruction of justice, and even curfew violation. Ongoing investigations will likely produce more indictments. In addition to potential homicide and terrorism charges, prosecutors have pledged to pursue the charge of seditious conspiracy. That crime overlaps with but covers more than treason; federal law defines it as any conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States.

While federal prosecutors could charge some of the leaders of the riot with treason, seditious conspiracy would be far easier to prove. It is clear that the rioters goal was, at a minimum, to delay Congresss legally mandated counting of electoral votes. Prosecutors would need to prove that two or more people had agreed to undertake the seditious conduct, but, with respect to the rioters who were explicit about their aims and cordinated their actions, the evidence may well be sufficient, particularly given the violent result. More evidence might even enable charges against individuals who conspired to attack the Capitol but didnt take part in the events. Some of those individuals might be elected officials. Representative Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat of New Jersey, has alleged that unnamed members of Congress had groups coming through the Capitol that I saw on January 5th, a reconnaissance for the next day. Soon afterward, the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Capitol Police opened investigations into what roles members might have played in the siege.

If evidence were to emerge that members of Congress intentionally aided or incited the attack, they may face criminal consequences. Its more likely, however, that Republicans who amplified Trumps election-fraud lies will be sanctioned by their colleagues. Seven Democratic senators have filed an ethics complaint against the Republican Senators Ted Cruz, of Texas, and Josh Hawley, of Missouri, who led the effort to overturn the election in Congress. Representative Cori Bush, a Democrat of Missouri, has introduced a House resolution to investigate and potentially expel members of Congress who challenged states electoral votes. Bush said, in a tweet, that they incited this domestic terror attack through their attempts to overturn the election. Mitch McConnell may agree. He has pointedly acknowledged that the mob was provoked by the President and other powerful people, implying that fellow-lawmakers might bear responsibility. But, whatever moral condemnation or political remedy is appropriate, criminal charges cannot be brought against congresspeople such as Hawley and Cruz solely for using a legal process to challenge electoral votes in Congress. It is unlikely that any Republican politician thought theyd succeed in overturning the election, and it may be hard to distinguish their moves in Congress, at least legally, from a few Democrats challenges to states electoral votes in 2001, 2005, and 2017.

Even if Congress doesnt censure or expel any of its members, the Senate declines to convict Trump, and federal prosecutors decline to bring charges against any of them, Trump and lawmakers who tried to overturn the election could still be held accountable through Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the same provision that was intended to prevent former Confederates from holding office. If Trump and the officials tried to run for office again, a lawsuit could claim that they engaged in insurrection or rebellion within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, if the evidence bears it out, some could be disqualified from holding office. But, apart from any of these remotely possible legal remedies, Republicans who helped foment the attack are facing political repercussions: in the weeks since the riot, Hawley has had a fund-raiser and a book contract cancelled, and Missouris two biggest newspapers have called for his resignation. But, alas, in our divided country, Republican officials who denounced the insurrection or voted to impeach Trump may also face the ire of many Republican voters.

Here is the original post:

Did Donald Trump and His Supporters Commit Treason? - The New Yorker

Former US president Donald Trump was nurtured as a Russian asset for decades, starting in 1980, a new book claims, with Moscow actively encouraging the businessman to enter politics many years before he won the presidency and supporting him through numerous failed business ventures as it built a deep relationship with the mogul.

He was an asset, former KGB spy Yuri Shvets, who worked for the KGB in Washington DC for years in the 1980s, told journalist Craig Unger in the new book American Kompromat.

Ungers book is based on interviews with numerous sources, including Soviet defectors and ex-CIA agents. In it he makes the assertion that Trumps relationship to Russia as president one in which he appeared repeatedly averse to criticize Moscow and often took actions seen as desirable to leader Vladimir Putin was directly tied to his cultivation by Russia over long years.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up

The book says Russian officials repeatedly helped Trump get through dire financial straits over the years, providing him with laundered money to support his businesses.

Trump was the perfect target in a lot of ways: His vanity, narcissism made him a natural target to recruit. He was cultivated over a 40-year period, right up through his election, Shvets told the Guardian.

Shvets said Trump first came to the attention of Soviet officials in 1977 when he married his first wife Ivana Zelnickova, a Czech model.

Former President Ronald Reagan shaking hands with President Donald Trump and Ivana Trump during the State Visit of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia at the state dinner in the Blue Room, 1985 (White House/ Ronald Reagan Presidential Library)

When Trump opened the Grand Hyatt New York hotel in 1980, he bought hundreds of televisions from a Russian immigrant who was a KGB spotter and who highlighted him as a potential asset, being an up-and-coming businessman.

And when Trump visited Moscow in 1987, he was unknowingly in contact with KGB agents who launched a charm offensive on the real estate developer, Shvets said.

They had collected a lot of information on his personality so they knew who he was personally. The feeling was that he was extremely vulnerable intellectually, and psychologically, and he was prone to flattery, Shvets said.

They played the game as if they were immensely impressed by his personality and believed this is the guy who should be the president of the United States one day: It is people like him who could change the world.

In this March 1988, file photo, Donald Trump stands next to one of his three Sikorsky helicopters at New York Port Authoritys West 30 Street Heliport (AP Photo/Wilbur Funches, File)

Shortly after his return, Trump first mulled running for president, and put out major ads touting the same talking points he would wield in 2016, criticizing US support of NATO and suggesting America should stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves.

In Russia, the KGB celebrated, Shvets said.

It was unprecedented. I am pretty well familiar with KGB active measures starting in the early 70s and 80s, and then afterwards with Russia active measures, and I havent heard anything like that or anything similar until Trump became the president of this country because it was just silly. It was hard to believe that somebody would publish it under his name and that it will impress real serious people in the West but it did and, finally, this guy became the president.

Shvets, stressed, however, that it was not this grand, ingenious plan that were going to develop this guy and 40 years later hell be president. At the time it started, which was around 1980, the Russians were trying to recruit like crazy and going after dozens and dozens of people.

Donald Trump, right, waits with his brother Robert for the start of a Casino Control Commission meeting in Atlantic City, N.J., March 29, 1990 (AP Photo)

US authorities have long said Russia meddled in the 2016 election to get Trump elected. His campaigns ties to Russia were investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The probe concludedthat Russia interfered in the election through hacking and a covert social media campaign and that the Trump campaign embraced the help and expected to benefit from it. But Mueller did not charge any Trump associates with conspiring with Russians.

But Trumps attitude toward Russia throughout his presidency often raised eyebrows. He appeared loath to criticize Moscow on multiple occasions and repeatedly and openly cozied up to Putin.

The president sometimes described Russia as a misunderstood potential friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily president who actually may share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion.

Trump was roundly criticized by both Democrats and Republicans in 2018 after he refused to challenge Putin over interference in American elections, accepting his word over the pronouncements of US intelligence officials.

US President Donald Trump (L) and Russias President Vladimir Putin shake hands before attending a joint press conference after a meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018. (AFP Photo/Yuri Kadobnov)

In 2018 a senior Justice Department lawyer reportedly said a former British spy told him Russian intelligence believed it had Trump over a barrel.

Yet despite Trumps rhetoric, his administration also plowed ahead with some of the most significant actions against Russia by any recent administration: Dozens of Russian diplomats were expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control treaties the Russians sought to preserve were abandoned and weapons were sold to Russian foe Ukraine.

AP contributed to this report.

I'm proud to work at The Times of Israel

Ill tell you the truth: Life here in Israel isnt always easy. But it's full of beauty and meaning.

I'm proud to work at The Times of Israel alongside colleagues who pour their hearts into their work day in, day out, to capture the complexity of this extraordinary place.

I believe our reporting sets an important tone of honesty and decency that's essential to understand what's really happening in Israel. It takes a lot of time, commitment and hard work from our team to get this right.

Your support, through membership in The Times of Israel Community, enables us to continue our work. Would you join our Community today?

Thank you,

Sarah Tuttle Singer, New Media Editor

Youre serious. We appreciate that!

Were really pleased that youve read X Times of Israel articles in the past month.

Thats why we come to work every day - to provide discerning readers like you with must-read coverage of Israel and the Jewish world.

So now we have a request. Unlike other news outlets, we havent put up a paywall. But as the journalism we do is costly, we invite readers for whom The Times of Israel has become important to help support our work by joining The Times of Israel Community.

For as little as $6 a month you can help support our quality journalism while enjoying The Times of Israel AD-FREE, as well as accessing exclusive content available only to Times of Israel Community members.

See the article here:

KGB groomed Trump as an asset for 40 years, former Russian spy says - The Times of Israel

With security heightened in Washington and capitals around the country, the possibility of political violence weighs on many peoples minds. Underpinning the question of possible violence is an even broader question: Will Donald TrumpDonald Trump'QAnon Shaman' willing to testify in impeachment trial, lawyer says Boebert clashes with Parkland survivor on Twitter: 'Give your keyboard a rest, child' Overnight Defense: FEMA asks Pentagon to help with vaccinations |US says Taliban has 'not met their commitments' |Army investigating Fort Hood chaplain MORE voters accept Joe Biden as the president?

These are important questions, as false claims about voter fraud began months ago from the political right and increased after election day. A few memorable examples include false claims that voting machines had switched votes to Biden, that large numbers of Trump ballots were destroyed, and that Republic election officials were unfairly restricted from observing polling stations. Despite these claims, no evidence was found for systemic election fraud and all legal challenges have been rejected by the courts.

Thus, these claims are false and constitute misinformation. In a recent study, we investigated the extent to which voters believe these false claims about election fraud - and whether they support political violence. We conducted a survey on Nov. 10, three days after the election was called in favor of Biden. We surveyed 617 Trump voters and 1,036 Biden voters, ensuring that participants were in proportion to the national distribution on age, gender, ethnicity, and region.

We asked questions to determine the extent that voters believe in the false claims of voter fraud and the election outcome as well as the possible consequences of these beliefs. What would lead Trump voters to accept Biden as the president? And -- most concerning given the recent events at the national Capitol building what would they do if Biden is inaugurated and Trump does not concede?

We found that false beliefs about election fraud and a Trump victory were widespread among Trump voters. More than 77 percent of Trump voters believe that fraud is common in U.S. elections despite no evidence to support this claim and more than 65 percent believe that Trump won the 2020 election. Only 22 percent of Trump voters believed Bidens win to be legitimate at the time of the survey.

However, another 21 percent said they would view Biden as the legitimate president if Trump lost his court challenges and/or conceded the election. Another 6 percent would be convinced by Trump losing his legal challenges but not by him conceding, and another 11 percent would be convinced by Trump conceding but not by him losing his legal challenges. But 40 percent of Trump voters said they would continue to view Biden as illegitimate regardless.

As for political unrest, very few voters on either side expressed high levels of political spite or support of violence. The majority of Trump voters, 88 percent, said they would not protest Bidens inauguration. Hopefully, this means that mass violence among Trump supporters is unlikely. However, it only takes a few individuals with a willingness to engage in violence to have a large negative impact.

We also took a look at what characteristics correlate with holding false beliefs about the election and voter fraud among voters. What is it that makes someone more likely to believe in false claims? We found that Trump voters with more knowledge of basic facts about American politics and more engagement with election news were more likely to hold false beliefs. However, it is important to note that knowledge and engagement with election news is quite different from cognitive reflection, which is a measure of the ability and disposition to think analytically. People with higher analytical thinking skills were associated with a reduced belief that Trump won among Trump and Biden voters.

Our survey is a mixture of good and bad news. The bad news is that 40 percent of Trump voters say they will continue to view Biden as illegitimate. With numbers that high, it is difficult to see how the political divisiveness in our country will improve any time soon. However, the good news is that the majority of voters support a peaceful transition of power and do not support violence.

David Rand is the Erwin Schell professor and a professor for management science and cognitive science for the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology. Gordon Pennycook is a professor for behavioral science with Hill School of Business at University of Regina.

Excerpt from:

The truth about Donald Trump voters and violence in politics | TheHill - The Hill

It was mostly unforeseen, the sudden sense of exultation and exhalation mingleda surging heart matched by a good, deep breaththat the Inauguration produced in so many. Even Bernie Sanders felt it, telling Seth Meyers that he wept with pleasure, in his now famous full-granddad getup, at the installation of the new President. Everyone suddenly burst out singing, the British Great War poet Siegfried Sassoon wrote about another memorable day of transition, Armistice Day, in 1918, and people burst out singing on this occasion, too, from Lady Gaga and J. Lo during the ceremony, masks cautiously off and spirits high, to Bruce Springsteen being so entirely, gravelly Bruce at night. That feeling of release made some a little reluctant to go back into evaluating the immediate past; having awoken from a bad dream, youre disinclined to want to spend too much time remembering all its elements. The sense of a new beginning is, of course, being exploited by the Trumpite rightlets move on, shall we, and just pretend that that violent insurrection thing didnt happenbut, even among those purer of heart and purpose, there is a properly sensed virtue in forgetting.

But it still seems worth making an inventory of our own anticipations and predictionsto open an inquiry into what those on the liberal side of the argument got right and what they got wrong about the fate of democracy over the course of the past four years. Like a lot of others, I got loud about what liberalism was and ought to be. I even wrote a book, intended as a kind of letter to my daughter, about what seemed to me its enduring values; not those of neo-liberalism, as its sometimes called, meaning the ideology of fanatic free-marketers, or of classic liberalism, which also often means the ideology of fanatic free-marketers, but a defense of the liberal humanist traditionwhich, to be sure, scoffers think is another name for the ideology of fanatic free-marketers, but isnt. That tradition descends as much from Montaigne as from Montesquieu, rooted in a view of human fallibility as much as in any faith in bicameral legislatures and checks and balances. Since the mid-nineteenth century, it has been a movement that, uniquely, sees a desire for egalitarian reform and a push for personal liberty as two faces of the same force; a movement for an ever-broadening sphere of personal freedom to love whom we like and to say what we think, and for an ever-larger insistence on erasing the differences between people and giving the same rights to all sexes and colors and kinds.

The first lesson, and vindication, for those of that liberal turn of mind is the continuing demonstration of the superiority, both moral and pragmatic, of pluralism to purism. That truth has been demonstrated twice by that improbable liberal hero Joe Biden, first in the Democratic primaries and then in the general election. There was an extended moment, in 2018 and 2019, when a dominant belief on the left was that the only way to counter the extreme narrowness of Trumpism was with an equally pointed alternative. Bernie Sanders, whose values and programsMedicare for All, breaking up the banks, a Green New Dealhave long appeared admirable to many, still seemed to rest his campaign on a belief that one could win the Democratic nomination without a majority, as long as the minority was sufficiently motivated and committed, and as long as the rest of the field remained fragmented.

But the inflamed flamed out. Biden, despite his uninspiring social-media presence and his generally antediluvian vibe, shifted, like his party, to the left, yet managed to pull together a broad coalition to win the nomination, and then did it again against Donald Trump. The pluralism of that coalition stretched from its base, among African-American women, to those suburban white women who turned on Trump, to disaffected McCain Republicans, in Arizona, to Latinoswho, warningly, in some areas voted less Democratic than in the past, but still voted Democratic. (And not to forget those neocon Never Trumpers who seem to have played a small but significant role in turning key votes in key places.) It was a classic liberal coalition: many different kinds with a single shared goal. Sanders, by the way, is, in a manner, still insufficiently celebrated as a hero of that coalition: with Biden, he co-led unity task forces, to keep his followers in the fold; never flinched in his support; and refused to play the diva-ish part that many in his train might have wanted, even whenas when Biden occasionally scorned the socialists he had beatenhe must have had to bite his arm to stay silent. This solidarity, to use the old-fashioned lefty phrase, was rooted both in his obvious affection for Biden and in his ability to grasp a set of priorities: winning the nomination for his own causes would have been terrific; defeating Trump for the countrys cause was essential.

The second, complementary idea vindicated by Bidens election is that whats often deprecated as centrism is simply a radicalism of the real. Biden arrives as a conciliator and a healer, a family man of faith unafraid to speak of faith. But, after four years of chaos and the catastrophe of the pandemic, he also has presented the most progressive platform of any President in American history since F.D.R. He can be both at once, because he lives, like most people, a life replenished by a plurality of identities. His victory was made possible by monthsyears, reallyof unglamorous work by activists in registering voters and overcoming disincentives and building a base capable of action. Anyone who was on the phone with those who were on the phone with people in Georgia and Michigan and the other key states knows how hard they worked, not at the macro level of ideological certainty but at the micro level of pragmatic persuasion. It was, as liberal triumphs always are, achieved by thinking of the world in terms of many individual parts, not a single ideological whole.

The election was a vindication of the view that the strength of liberal democracy lies only in the strength of liberal institutions, those intermediate repositories of social trust without which mere elections mean nothing. One saw their strength most movingly, perhaps, with the resistance of those Georgia Republican electoral officials to Trumps outrageous interference. Their integrity was not manifest in a set of melodramatic gestures of the kind that J.F.K. wrote about in his once famous (and partly ghostwritten) book Profiles in Courage. It manifested itself in a set of commitments to established, democratic, bureaucratic procedures: stick to these rules, because these rules are fair, even if your side is losingthats as much the sound of freedom as any clarion call.

What did liberals miss and get wrong? Above all, perhaps, the single most important thing: that no matter how hard you try to properly gauge the power of the irrational in human affairs, you can never estimate it adequately. What stirred the insurrectionist mob to storm the Capitol was primarily Trumps lies, but also, in some cases, theories and beliefs that were not only difficult to credit but difficult even to narrate. The QAnon theory of the world isnt just alarmingly incoherent but completely implausible, and yet it motivates some to be willing to kill and be killed. It is always hard for the liberal imagination to imagine fanaticism adequately, and that is one of its failures. Liberalism persists in the insistence that extreme irrationalities of nationalism and ethnic tribalism can be placated by this economic policy or that new bill. They cant. Such grievances are an independent and self-regenerating force in human affairs as powerful as any other that can be combatted but never entirely cured.

Yet, perhaps most important, what liberals got very right very early was to see how wrong Trump was. Many saw in 2016 what culminated in January of 2021: that Trump was an implacable enemy of democracy itself; that if Trump came to power America would never fully recover. And, indeed, the damage done may be even more grievous than we can yet understand, much less accept. The moral accountancy of the Trump years has hardly begun, and a failure of the new Administration to do its work could lead to the revival of Trumpism, if not of Trump himself, in a form more ferocious than the form just passed. But, for the moment, we breathe, and sing, and hope.

See the article here:

What Liberalism Can Learn from What It Took to Defeat Donald Trump - The New Yorker

The Daytona Beach News-Journal

Biden signs orders undoing 'damage Trump has done'

President Joe Biden is taking his first steps to reverse Trump administration health care policies. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Biden said he was signing two executive orders to "undo the damage Trump has done" to health care. (Jan. 28)

AP

The left is doing everything in its power to erase former President Trump and his 75 million or more supporters. This is very reminiscent of Mary Shelly's epic tale of Frankenstein, only in this case the creation is not going to just fade away.

Donald J. Trump is the natural result of the lefts highly politically correct, anti-white, anti-male, and anti-America rhetoric. It turns out that if you demonize the people you disagree with, paint them as racists and oppressors, and tell them that their successes are a result of some unearned privilege, they will create a counterrevolution.

More: Is there a way to reconcile accountability and civility with social media and free speech?

More: Healing the nation's political divide might mean turning back to home

President Trump is the consequence of divisive behavior and rhetoric, and the identity politics that progressives brought into the political landscape. An unconstitutional impeachment procedure will not keep Trump from running again and no amount of cancel culture censoring, propaganda and bullying by the press, big tech companies or the corrupt swamp is going to stop this revolution, which the left created.

Many who voted for Joe Biden and are living on the edge, month to month, will be the least able to survive his socialist policies without sacrificing quality of life. Those who have been fawning over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, thinking she is cool, those who are drinking the global warming and Green New Deal Kool-Aid, those who think they are going to raise their boats by lowering others through wealth redistribution and those who have hated the orange-haired mean man will suffer the most by embracing the same failed policies of the Obama regime.

Charles Michael Sitero,Ormond Beach

Here is the original post:

How the left helped create Donald Trump and his divisive style of governing - Daytona Beach News-Journal

In a recent opinion piece by Franciscan Sr. Fran Ferder and Fr. John Heagle, they write that many Catholics voted for former President Donald Trump because of his "pro-life" stance. But those Catholics were conned by narcissistic sociopath with patterns of exploiting, lying, blaming, manipulating, entitlement, impulsive behavior and avoiding responsibility. Letters to the editor are edited for length and clarity. You can join the conversation by following the guidelines below.

This validates my four-year nightmare and my feeling of abandonment by the Catholic Church. I have come so close to leaving the church I have devoted my life to. I hope that we can turn the page.

Pope Francis has been a refreshing apostle for Christ. I am sharing this in hopes that people I know will read and take time to reflect.

MARTHA SUE MARTINHouston, Texas

***

The article "How Catholics got conned by Donald Trump" is filled with serial falsehoods, half-truths, and subjective opinions unworthy of a Catholic publication.

We knew former President Donald Trump was a playboy, wealthy building contractor and TV producer. However, we were not electing a pastor but a successful businessman we hoped would fix the worst economy in 70 years and America's standing in the world due to Barack Obama getting us into wars, his collusion with Russia, his terrible trade deals, decimation of the military and the disastrous deal with Iran.

To everyone's surprise Trump also became a champion for religious Americans. How did he "con" us by rebuilding the military, ending endless wars, creating jobs for all minorities, protecting our borders, bringing peace to the Middle East, increasing religious freedom, and supporting the sanctity of life? That is simply a vicious cheap shot.

MARIO GOVEIAPerrysburg, Ohio

***

I thoughtthis article was well-presented with mostlyeverything that is publicly known about Donald Trump and why he was morally unfit to be elected.

But I have a problem with the title. Electing Trump was no "con job." The obvious facts and facets of who Trump was and his policies were available to every voter before he was elected. His supporters chose to ignore the obvious twice. There is no con with willing support and complicity.

SATHIYA BLYVentura, California

***

This is a well-written article. Our lack of true Catholic leadership caused many Catholics to worship Donald Trump like a golden calf.

God created the Catholic Church on earth to change society. God never created a government or endorsed a man-made government to change the world. Never did Christ tell his followers to go to Rome and write manmade laws to change the world.

Yet, many Catholic leaders think protest marches in Washington, D.C., are being Catholic. These same leaders think choosing the right government leaders full fills their role as a leader. We need to evangelize our neighbors and get as many people as possible to listen to the teachings of Christ.

Over 150 years ago, there was a great need for hospitals as our country grew. Catholic nuns created hundreds of hospitals thru out our country and then created excellent nursing schools that exist today. Catholics did not march on Washington, D.C., and demand the government build hospitals. Time for new Catholic leadership in the U.S.

GERALD GROSEKLead, South Dakota

***

Sr. Fran Ferder and Fr. John Heagle ask "How do we explain the fact that nearly 57% of white Catholics voted for Trump in this last election?" They offer four answers.

Allow me to add a fifth: racism. Many of the white people who voted for a white supremacist are, to one degree or another, racists, and that includes the "many Catholic bishops" who voted for Donald Trump too.

The necessary changes that need to take place in the U.S. church will never take place at all unless we boldly expose and explore the role that racism has played in white Catholic support for Trump.

JEFFREY JONESHamburg, New York

***

In the article, "How Catholics got conned by Donald Trump," the author lists the psychology of Donald Trump, not Catholics.

The main protagonists are the prelates who align themselves with radicalized right wing so-called conservatives starting with Ronald Reagan because it fit their agenda of maintaining the status quo of the church's power structure through subversion of Vatican II by giving them access to the White House and a stream of anti-abortion money used as they wished.

Trump Catholics start with abortion as their reason for supporting the GOP yet end with racist statements with which we've all become familiar. Trump didn't believe in being politically correct so he took his gloves off. Hateful, hurtful, dishonest statements not previously allowed in public discourse were now shouted from the rooftops. Prelates said and did nothing effectively condoning this behavior.

The issue isn't Trump, it's the nature of some humans. It's a part of the U.S. Catholic Church, measured by the percentage of Catholics who voted for Trump, that has been there since the time of segregated churches and neighborhoods. It's not a matter of Trump conning Catholics. It's because that's who some Catholics are.

MICHAEL J. MCDERMOTTTyler, Texas

***

Thank you for the carefully written, well-documented article byFran Ferder, a Franciscan sister and a clinical psychologist and Fr. John Heagle.

Too bad most of our American bishops will not read the article and practically none of the lay people who have been taken in by the inept shepherding of our bishops will read the article.

So often as children we were taught about the importance of conscience formation. I found it astounding that clergy in leadership appear to have such poorly formed consciences. They seem to lack the ability that most 10-year-olds have to discern right from wrong, the truth based on evidence as different from a lie or exaggeration and inaccuracies.

They who have preached ad nauseam about "bad habits" seemed not to recognize the ongoing thousands of falsehoods uttered by the person occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Those bad habits created an alternate universe/reality for so many of that individual's followers.

My heart is sick for the gospel so poorly preached and lived by the American Catholic church's leaders today. May we all pitch in and pick up the pieces and live the gospel today.

(Sr.) CAROL ZIEGLER, SNDSouth Euclid, Ohio

Send your thoughts and ideas, reactions and responses toletters@ncronline.org. The editor will collect them, curate them and publish a sampling in Letters to the Editor online or in our print edition.

We cannot publish everything. We will do our best to represent the full range of letters received. Here are the rules:

We can't guarantee publication of all letters, but you can be assured that your submission will receive careful consideration.

Published letters may be edited for length and style.

Excerpt from:

Your thoughts on Catholics being conned by Donald Trump - National Catholic Reporter

Emily Schoenbaum said she chose a political theme for her 1009 Montegut St. float house because the Marigny neighborhood is Krewe du Vieux and krewedelusion territory. And even though those two parades arent hitting the streets this year, on account of the coronavirus, she wanted to preserve the spirit of irreverent satire and wackiness that they represent.

Schoenbaum conceived her float house, titled "Trump's Da-mise," back in December, after it was clear the president had been voted out, but before some of his supporters laid siege to the Capitol. The tone of her parody is good natured though it is a bit, uh, biting.

The coronavirus put the kibosh on this years Carnival parades. But fear not, the virus was no match for the Crescent City creative spirit. Fr

The bachelor party-style, inflatable, vinyl girl doll affixed to Schoenbaums roof holds a fishing pole from which dangles a plywood cellphone displaying the Twitter logo that has caught the attention of a plywood version of the 45th president, who has lost his balance and is tumbling toward the gaping jaws of the enormous plywood alligator below.

Munchy, munchy, Schoenbaum said, laughing. With pride of prescience, Schoenbaum pointed out that the joke was born even before Mr. Trump lost his Twitter privileges.

Schoenbaums intention to lampoon Trumps Twitter dependency is clear, but what do the three plywood possums climbing along the porch rails have to do with anything?

Its because I have a family of them living under my house, Schoenbaum said.

'Trump's Da-mise' float house at 1009 Montegut St., combines a former president, possums, Twitter, the Bernie meme and an inflated bachelor party doll in a Louisiana swampscape.

Some onlookers might view the presence of the possums as a visual non sequitur, but others would probably agree that an inflated female angler, a ferocious reptile, a tumbling president and a family of marsupials all somehow fit the surreal 2020 gestalt perfectly. Likewise the plywood Bernie Sanders meme that is a recent addition to the scene.

As all social media devotees well know, a photo of the seemingly withdrawn, mitten-wearing senator from Vermont became an internet sensation soon after Joe Bidens chilly inauguration. And Schoenbaum saw to it that he appeared at her Montegut Street float house too. The Sanders meme seemed to represent anyone whos ever felt theyd been left out in the cold. But most of the time, Schoenbaums Bernie cutout is kept inside behind a window because shes afraid hell be swiped.

Schoenbaum moved to New Orleans from West Virginia in the 1980s in order to attend Tulane University, where she majored in sociology and womens studies. These days shes a house restorer and developer who is not averse to dumpster diving for antique lumber and other materials for use in her restoration projects.

Emily Shoenbaum's float house at 1009 Montegut St., combines a former president, possums, Twitter, the Bernie meme, and an inflated bachelor party doll.

I like to maintain both the integrity and original materials of our unique New Orleans homes, she said.

Schoenbaum said that during a usual Carnival season shed probably take in a couple of Uptown parades, as well as the neighborhood marches, and would spend Mardi Gras under the I-10 overpass on Claiborne Avenue with the Nine Times Social Aid and Pleasure Club.

When she heard about the home decorating craze spreading through the city, she said, Hey, I have an artistic friend who could pull off a house float. Three artistic friends, as it turns out. Linden Keal, Kay Kay Fantasia, and Maya Pen all contributed to the project.

The house has been a crowd pleaser. I really think its boosting peoples spirits, she said. Its distracting in the hum drum.

On Mardi Gras, she said, she plans to toss mini possum toys to passersby from her porch.

Satirical 'Trump's Da-mise' float house at 1009 Montegut St., combines a former president, possums, Twitter, the Bernie meme and an inflated bachelor party doll in a Louisiana swampscape.

The Covington Krewe of House Floats has been created for those who want to decorate their homes or businesses as a Mardi Gras float in order t

Battling the coronavirus blues by jazzing up homes to look like Mardi Gras floats started with one New Orleans woman's idea, but it captured t

South Louisiana gets creative in finding ways to celebrate despite pandemic

See the original post here:

What do Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and 3 possums have in common? They share a float house - NOLA.com

AdolfHitler used the "Big Lie" strategy to help kill democracy in his country. He had one Big Lieafter another. Hitler used a Big Lieto explain away Germany's defeatin World War I and it set the stage for his meteoric rise in power. He blamed the Jews for Germany's loss, which was patently untrue. He promulgated that lie over and over. And it led to the biggest, and deadliest, lie in history that Jews had to be exterminated.

Donald Trump used multiple Big Liesduring his presidency. It was his propaganda technique. He took a page right out of Hitler's playbook and it almost destroyed American democracy. The sad truth is that many Trump surrogates who remain within our government continue to stoke the remaining embers of the Big Lies.The goal of Trump's lies was to establish him as a dictator devoid of laws, rulesor norms. He wanted absolute power. He wanted to amass greed with impunity. He wanted to be as corrupt and criminal as he wished.

Trump wanted to overturn our democratic way of life. He had no interest in public service. He had no desire to serve and protect the public. In fact, he wanted the public to serve him by acknowledging and accepting his absolute power.

Trump's biggest lie was that the national election was rigged and stolen from him; a lie he telegraphed in 2016. This was totally false, and he knew it. Trump lost fair and square. It was the most open and transparent election in history. There were recounts and more than60 adjudicated lawsuits. No legitimate claims of voter fraud wereever presented by Trump or his allies. But it was this Big Liethat Trump hoped to ride tooverthrow our democracy in order toremain in power. His incitement of the insurrection at the Capitol was a directoutgrowth of this Big Lie.

Another Big Liewas that the coronavirus pandemic was a hoax or wasoverblown or exaggerated or was totally contained. Trumpminimized and denied its severity from the beginning. His federal response was weak and passive. Despite the deaths of nearly 400,000 Americans, Trump continued the Big Lieand did almost nothing. For months he didn't even mention the pandemic or the thousands of deaths. Trump did not want the pandemic to ruin his re-election chances. All he cared about was maintaining power. He was cruel and callous aboutthe mounting numbers of cases and deaths. His Big Liesuccessfully muzzled our nation's experts on infectious disease and epidemiology.

A third Big Liewas that the free press is the "enemy of the people" because itproduces "fake news." This lie was long-lasting yet completely false. Trump wanted nooversight and noaccountability, and viewed the press as a threat to the continuation of his power. Let us be clear: The free press is protected by the Constitution and is a defining feature of our representative democracy. Trump's Big Liehere was completely self-serving, disingenuousand false.

So Trump's three Big Lies individually and in combination defined his presidency. His idea of governing was to use propaganda to solidify his grip on power. But more than that, his "Big Lies" reflected his anti-democratic and anti-American beliefs. Trump does not love democracy and does not love our country.

There were many Big Liesspread by Trump during his tenure. His claims that Robert Mueller's investigation was a hoax was a Big Lie.His "perfect" call with the Ukrainian president was a Big Lie.His claim that he wouldsave protections for pre-existing conditions in health care coverage was a Big Lie.In fact, it has been shown that Trump lied more than30,000 times in four years.

It is undeniable that Trump's plan was to ride his Big Liesinto a dictatorship. He is an authoritarian at heart. He is a fascist in his thinking and in his impulses.

Trump's plan was to activate an anti-democratic movement in the country. The way he connected with millions of supporters was through his Big Lies.That was his hook to capture the attention and irrational passion of his supporters. He was the pied piper of Big Lies.

The Republican Party has been complicit with Donald Trump for four years and counting. They have supported his anti-democratic and anti-American Big Lies.Until and unless the party extricates itself from Trump, millions of Americans will continue to believe in their cult leader and his Big Lies.

Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawleyand many others must change course and condemn Donald Trump. They must correct the Big Lies and to this point there is no sign they will do so.If they don't, they will takethe Republican Party down a rabbit hole of darkness, doom and failure.

Here is what should be verbalized by every single Republican: "I condemn Donald Trump.The election was not stolen.He completely botched the response to the pandemic. The free press is crucial to our democracy. The Republican Party needs new leadership tomaintainour democracy." Members of Congress who cannot make this statement openly and loudly should be expelled. Yes, thisshould be a litmus test for our democracy.Democracy cannot truly prevail until Trump and his Big Liesare renounced and defeated. His anti-democratic rhetoric, behavior and intentions cannot continue to circulate like a metastasizing cancer. Trump's propaganda agenda is still alive. His Big Liesmust be repudiated before any healing and unity are even possible.

This is urgent and necessary. Our democratic experiment hangs in the balance.

Excerpt from:

Donald Trump's Big Lies: How millions of Americans were radicalized - Salon

After a tumultuous one-term presidency, a violent insurrection by supporters, and a retirement to Florida, the Trump name has attracted some negative connotations. And his real-estate holdings are feeling the heat: According to Curbed's analysis of a report from real-estate data firm UrbanDigs, Trump-branded Manhattan properties have lost more than 20% of their value since Trump first took office.

UrbanDigs which looked at the seven luxury buildings in Manhattan that still bear the Trump moniker, and three that used to found that even properties that formerly had Trump in their names lost 17% of their value since 2016. By comparison, the overall price per square foot decline in Manhattan over the same period was just 9%.

In 2016, the average price per square foot in seven NYC properties run by his real-estate behemoth, the Trump Organization, was $2,065, according to the report. In 2017, following Trump's election and inauguration, that figure sunk to $1,903; by 2020, it was at $1,619. That's a drop of 21% from its 2016 price.

The average price per square foot for Manhattan properties was $1,995 in 2016, dipping to $1,815 in 2020 a mere 9% decrease, Curbed notes.

Trump Tower, at 721-725 Fifth Ave., is a gilded condos-and-commercial building that includes Trump's own offices and ornate triplex penthouse. His other residential buildings in New York City include Trump International Hotel & Tower on Columbus Circle, Trump Parc and Trump Parc East on Central Park South, the Trump Park Avenue at 502 Park Ave. and Trump Palace at 200 East 69th St. on the Upper East Side, and Trump World Tower at 327 East 47th St. near the United Nations.

The UrbanDigs report also looked at three buildings that used to bear Trump's name along the Upper West Side's Riverside Boulevard, which faces the Hudson River.

A broker with Brown Harris Stevens and a former Trump Tower resident, Mark Cohen, was marketing three adjacent 41st-floor units in Trump Tower during the 2020 election.

The owner decided to temporarily take those units, which had a combined price tag of $9.49 million, off the market. The owner still wanted to sell the apartments, Cohen said, but wanted to wait out all of the news and attention surrounding Trump.

"My seller is not a desperate seller," Cohen said. "So we didn't want to encourage people who might come in with lowball offers."

That was before the insurrection.

UrbanDigs looked at the most recent data available for its report, which is the 2020 value of Trump's properties. That is a period during which Trump ultimately lost the election and then repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of President Biden's victory.

As Insider reported after the election, the prices in Trump buildings did falter, but residents and realtors were optimistic about the building's future.

However, the Trump name has been dragged through the mud even more in 2021, after a violent insurrection on the Capitol by Trump supporters left five dead and seemed to throw the peaceful transfer of power into question. Trump became the first president to be impeached twice.

Groups began to cut ties with the Trump Organization, including the Girl Scouts and the city of New York. Apartment owners at the Upper East Side's Trump Palace reportedly met to discuss removing Trump's name from the building, Bloomberg reported.

Cohen said that, in the weeks before the insurrection, he had fielded some phone inquiries from prospective buyers about the Trump apartments he was representing but it felt like they were searching for deals.

"From a practical and business standpoint, I think it was just a smart decision to say, 'Let's wait while all the noise kind of surrounding the building and the brand slows down a bit,'" Cohen said. "And then we can think about what our options are probably in a couple months time or maybe longer."

Cohen said that many of the Trump-branded properties happen to be "really nice buildings." He still thinks that, once more time has passed since the insurrection, Trump Tower pricing will rise.

But even if buyers can score a luxury pad for a discounted price, the current situation makes Trump buildings too taboo.

"If I were choosing to market a new project, the Trump name is probably pretty radioactive right now," Cohen said.

An earlier version of this story said that Trump-branded properties in Manhattan had lost about half, or 51%, of their value between 2016 and 2020. UrbanDigs released that figure in their report but later corrected it, citing a data analysis error. The price per square foot in Trump-branded properties actually dropped 21% in that time period.

Excerpt from:

Donald Trump's Manhattan buildings have lost 21% of their value - Business Insider - Business Insider