You can subscribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.
You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.
You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself, HERE.
Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is available on a 32GB flash drive, available for a contribution of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dave’s 40+ years’ work, complete through Fall of 2020 (through FTR #1156).
Please consider supporting THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES.
Note: This website is licensed for Fair Use under Creative Commons. No money whatsoever is, has been, or will be made from this website by Mr. Emory.
FTR #1174 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment.
Introduction: The title refers to the U.S. and its citizens harvesting the crops risen from deadly seeds sown for decades. The Capitol Riot was one of those.
It is to the U.S. as the Beerhall Putsch of 1923 was to Germany–a harbinger of things to come.
The program begins with discussion of Richard Hofstadter, whose theories have been bruited about in the wake of the Capitol Riot. An icon of the mainstream media and the so-called progressive sector, Hofstadter’s work was underwritten by the CIA.
In the context of Hofstadter’s work being underwritten by CIA, one of the factors allowing the seeds of evil to grow has been the government financing of much of U.S. political life.
Intellectual curiosity has been dampened by financial gain.
The armed confrontation in the Capitol reminded us of a confrontation that took place in Parkland Hospital on 11/22/1963.
A contingent of Secret Service agents and Kennedy aide Kenneth O’Donnell confronted and threatened Parkland physicians who were going to autopsy President Kennedy’s body in accordance with law.
(Author Joseph McBride presents convincing evidence that O’Donnell faced probable indictment for corruption. He helped arrange the Kennedy motorcade route through Dealey Plaza, setting JFK up for assassination. O’Donnell succumbed to alcoholism, dying in 1977.)
McBride—drawing on scholarship by numerous authors and researchers—concludes that the Federal agents were intent on preventing an autopsy in Dallas, so that JFK’s body could be surgically altered to obscure the fact that Kennedy was killed in a crossfire.
The “official version” of the murder—an institutionalized historical fiction–maintains that Oswald—the lone assassin—slew Kennedy by firing from the rear.
Analysis of the Capitol Riot highlights a “Before” and an “After.”
Even relatively staid political and national security insiders, as well as media outlets openly expressed fear after a series of post-election shuffling by Trump at the Pentagon.
” . . . . there is speculation that more defense officials may be on their way out and that this is just the beginning — even with only 70 days until the Biden administration takes over. . . . The flurry of departures apparently sent shockwaves through the Department of Defense. A defense official told CNN that the situation was ‘unsettling,’ adding that ‘these are dictator moves.’ The Associated Press wrote that ‘unease was palpable inside’ the Pentagon Tuesday. . . . ‘I’ve been shot at a lot. I’ve been nearly killed a bunch of times. I’m not an alarmist. I try to stay cool under pressure. Mark me down as alarmed,’ retired four-star Gen. Barry McCaffrey said on MSNBC Wednesday. . . .”
Unnamed officials in NATO countries have opined that the events of 1/6/2021 were a coup attempt by Trump’s forces.
In addition, there is an ongoing investigation of an active duty PSYOP officer who operated under the Special Forces command structure for leading a contingent of 100 strong to the “rally” on 1/6/2021.
As veteran listeners/readers will no doubt realize, these events are to be seen against the background of numerous programs and posts highlighting Specialized Knowledge and Abilities and Serpent’s Walk.
Notable among the crocodiles shedding tears over the Capitol Riot was former President George W. Bush. Condemning the riot in one breath, he intoned that he would be attending the inauguration and that “ . . . . witnessing the peaceful transfer of power is a hallmark of our democracy that never gets old,’ he added. . . .”
The program concludes with discussion of some of the Nazi connections to the 9/11 attacks, as well as to the business relationship between Dubya and the Bin Laden family.
1a. The program begins with discussion of Richard Hofstadter, whose theories have been bruited about in the wake of the Capitol Riot. An icon of the mainstream media and the so-called progressive sector, Hofstadter’s work was underwritten by the CIA.
. . . . But in a strange coincidence, Hofstadter first delivered a version of the title essay in a talk as the Herbert Sender Lecture at Oxford University in November 1963. . . .
. . . . It may be coincidental, but Hofstadter’s biographer David S. Brown notes instances in the fifties and sixties when some of the historian’s work was funded, albeit indirectly, by the CIA. Copies of his influential 1954 essay “The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt,” on the dangers of rightwing extremism and its “widespread latest hostility toward American institutions,” and his book The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States (with Walter P. Metzger, 1955) were distributed by a CIA front organization, the Fund for the Republic. Hofstadter worked for the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, “a society of liberal cold warriors opposed to international communism” whose parent organization, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, was heavily funded by the CIA. In the sixties, Hofstadter also wrote for Daedalus and Encounter, two publications partially backed by the CIA.
1b. In the context of Hofstadter’s work being underwritten by CIA, one of the factors allowing the seeds of evil to grow has been the government financing of much of U.S. political life.
Intellectual curiosity has been dampened by financial gain.
. . . . One of the many prescient observations in President Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech warning about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex” was that “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. . . The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.” . . . .
2. Before highlighting the Capitol Riot, we present a different, earlier confrontation between federal officials and American civilians.
. . . . [Parkland physician Dr. Charles] Crenshaw recalled, “A man in a suit, leading the [federal] group, holding a submachine gun, left little doubt in my mind who was in charge. That he wasn’t smiling best describes the look on his face . . . . Kellerman took an erect stance and brought his firearm into a ready position. The other men in suits followed course by draping their coattails behind the butts of their holstered pistols.” When Dr. Rose insisted on holding the body in Dallas for autopsy, explaining, “You can’t lose the chain of evidence,” one of the men in suits screamed, “Goddamit, get your ass out of the way before you get hurt,” and another snapped, “We’re taking the body now.” . . . .
3. Analysis of the Capitol Riot highlights a “Before” and an “After.”
4. Notable among the crocodiles shedding tears over the Capitol Riot was former President George W. Bush. Condemning the riot in one breath, he intoned that he would be attending the inauguration and that “ . . . . witnessing the peaceful transfer of power is a hallmark of our democracy that never gets old,’ he added. . . .”
We call attention to a number of things:
- What happened in Washington D.C. on 1/6/2021 was not fundamentally different from the “Brooks Brothers Riot” in Florida that aided the theft of the 2000 election. Organized by Trump flak catcher Roger Stone, that incident and the efforts of current Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett saw to it that Shrub would inherit his father’s Presidential mantle.
- In the wake of the Capitol Riot, the “Opining Heads” raised the subject of the Turner Diaries and its foreshadowing of fascist violence. In 1998, the author of that tome,–William Luther Pierce–explicitly foreshadowed the 9/11 attacks which defined and cemented Dubya’s administration. “ . . . . In one chilling commentary Pierce, (after noting that Bin Laden and the rest of the lost generation of angry Moslem youth had it with their parents’ compromises and were hell bent on revenge against infidel America) issued this stark, prophetic warning in a 1998 radio address titled, ‘Stay Out of Tall Buildings.’ ‘New Yorkers who work in tall office buildings anything close to the size of the World Trade Center might consider wearing hard hats . . .’ Pierce warned.’ . . . The running theme in Pierce’s commentaries is—to paraphrase his hero Hitler—that Osama Bin Laden’s warning to America is ‘I Am Coming.’ And so is bio-terrorism.’ . . .”
- In (among other programs) FTR #186–the last program recorded in 1999–Mr. Emory noted that George W. Bush’s first business venture–Arbusto Energy–was capitalized by the family of Osama Bin Laden.
- Also in FTR #456, we also noted that Francois Genoud was a key financial adviser to the Bin Laden family. One of the most important figures in the Nazi diaspora, Genoud was the heir to the collected works and political last will and testament of: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann. “ . . . . According to [financial expert Ernest] Backes’ information, the trail leads to Switzerland, to the accounts of an organization that was founded by the late lawyer Francois Genoud and evidently still survives. Says Backes, ‘One of the grounds for accusation is that this Swiss attorney had the closest connections with the Bin Laden family, that he was an advisor to the family, one of its investment bankers. It’s known for certain, that he supported terrorism and was the estate executor for Hitler and part of the terror milieu.’ . . .”
- The Bank Al-Taqwa had an account for Al Qaeda’s operations with an unlimited line of credit. Also in FTR#456, we noted that Al Taqwa chief (and former Nazi intelligence agent) Youssef Nada helped the Grand Mufti escape from Europe in the aftermath of World War II. “ . . . . Another valued World War II Nazi collaborator was Youssef Nada, current board chairman of al-Taqwa (Nada Management), the Lugano, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Bahamas-based financial services outfit accused by the US Treasury Department of money laundering for and financing of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. As a young man, he had joined the armed branch of the secret apparatus’ (al-jihaz al-sirri) of the Muslim Brotherhood and then was recruited by German military intelligence. When Grand Mufti el-Husseini had to flee Germany in 1945 as the Nazi defeat loomed, Nada reportedly was instrumental in arranging the escape via Switzerland back to Egypt and eventually Palestine, where el-Husseini resurfaced in 1946.) . . . .”
- The San Francisco Chronicle reported that: “ . . . . Authorities believe Genoud founded Al Taqwa Bank and allocated its resources to support international terrorists such as Vladimir Ilich Ramirez, alias Carlos the Jackal, and Bin Laden. . . . .”
- One of the most important elements in the investigative trail leading to and from the 9/11 attacks is SICO–the Swiss-based holding company that manages the Bin Laden family interests. Here, too, we see the influence of Genoud: “ . . . . This company, established by the bin Ladens in 1980, is the flagship for the group’s activities in Europe. It is headed by Yeslam bin Laden, and the board of directors is made up almost exclusively of members of the family clan, except for a Swiss citizen, Baudoin Dunand. This well-known lawyer from French-speaking Switzerland, who is on the boards of several dozen companies, came to public notice in 1983 when he agreed to represent the Swiss banker Francois Genoud, a controversial figure who had been a disciple of Hitler . . . .”
Uncle Sam and The Swastika
Here’s an article the ongoing prosecution of the leading Jan 6 insurrectionists that raises a grimly fascinating question about the scope of what was planned for that day. In particular, questions about the scope of the heavily armed “Quick Reaction Force” (QRF) that the Oath Keepers had ready to go that day. Ready with the expectation that then-President Trump might call them into action:
Prosecutors filed new court documents related to the prosecution of Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell. Recall how Caldwell was working with fellow Oath Keeper Jessica Watkins in coordinating the QRF. The court documents contains a remarkable quote for Oath Keeper founder Stewart Rhodes. The quote was taken from a communication between Rhodes and other Oath Keepers in the run-up to the riot at the Capitol, warning them not to carrying weapons at the Capitol and assuring them of the availability of weapons from the QRF if needed.
Here’s the part that raises questions about the scale or the QRF threat: We already know about the one observed instance of what appeared to be a QRF of around 10 men conspicuously hanging around across the river from the Capitol. But Rhodes told his fellow Oath Keepers that, “We will have several well equipped QRFs [Quick Reaction Forces] outside DC. And there are many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case scenarios.” So there were “several other equipped QRFs outside DC” along with “many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case scenarios,” there that day, which sounds like A LOT more than just the one group of 10 guys that we already know about. Perhaps more importantly, Rhodes’s comments make it sound like the Oath Keepers’ plans for having QRFs with heavy weapons laying in wait for the signal wasn’t just an Oath Keeper plan and there may have been numerous QRFs from multiple militias all working in coordination with each other:
““We will have several well equipped QRFs [Quick Reaction Forces] outside DC. And there are many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case scenarios,” he also allegedly texted.”
How many different QRFs were in the DC area that day? And what was the extent of the Oath Keepers’ coordination with other groups in planning these QRFs? We’ll presumably never know the full extent of it.
An notice the role Rhodes played in verbally instigating his Oath Keepers at 1:38 pm, 20 minutes after Trump concluded his inciting speech: Rhodes had previously told his followers that they were waiting for Trump’s personal order before they called in the QRF, suggesting a level of coordination between the Oath Keepers and the Trump Team. And that coordination was already apparent with the reports of the Oath Keepers carrying out personal security roles for figures like Roger Stone and Oath Keeper Jessica Watkins being allowed into the VIP area of the Stop the Steal rally where the Trump Team was located. So when we see Rhodes send out a communication to his followers expressing disappointment that Trump wasn’t about to “do anything” after giving his incitful speech at the rally and calling for the ‘patriots to take things into their own hands’, we have to again ask if this was all coordinated and intended to provide Trump with a degree of plausible deniability. They were planning a coup, after all. Thoughts of what to do if it went awry had to be incorporated into the planning:
Keep in mind that all the reports we’ve heard about Trump’s response to the storming of the Capitol was glee. He was excited it was happening. Also note that it took time for the protestors to walk to the Capitol, so it’s almost as if Rhodes waited for the crowd to reach the Capitol before sending this communication that was effectively an order to storm it.
And whether or not Trump formally gave the order to his followers to storm the Capitol, he pretty clearly intimated to his supporters during the rally that that is exactly what they should do. So when Rhodes sends a communication to his followers expressing frustration that Trump wasn’t giving the orders, we have to ask: was this arranged? Was this the prearranged alibi that was worked out where Trump wouldn’t actually give the orders? After all, it’s difficult to imagine Trump actually directly and openly giving these orders. Why would he? Why not give order like that behind the scenes?
Also note that it would appear that we can conclude that Stewart Rhodes himself did give orders to storm the Capitol, at 1:38 pm, 20 minutes after Trump’s speech. So based on available information at this point, we can say that the leader of the group that was surreptitiously coordinating with the Trump team was the guy who directly gave orders to storm the Capitol. It’s not exactly exculpatory evidence for Trump.
We’re learning details about one of the figures arrested in connection to the January 6 Capitol insurrection: Timothy Hale-Cusanelli. It turns out Hale-Cusanelli worked as a security contractor at Naval Weapons Station Earle and held a secret-level security clearance. Oh, and he’s an open neo-Nazi who would crack jokes about Hitler on a daily basis. He was so open with his beliefs, that when 44 of his colleagues were interviewed about him following his arrest, 34 of them told investigators he would openly express neo-Nazi belief. And when investigators searched his home, they found copies of “Mein Kampf” and “The Turner Diaries”. Surprise!
It’s the kind of a story that’s disturbing enough on its own, with echos to the story of neo-Nazi Coast Guard officer Christopher Hasson, who was found plotting biological terror campaigns with fellow Nazis. But given the growing number of former and current members of the armed forces who have already been found to have played a role in those events, the case of Hale-Cusanelli raises the question of just how many open neo-Nazis are serving in the US armed forces and what role did this larger contingent of highly trained extremists play in the planning and execution of the insurrection:
“The reservist, Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, who worked as a security contractor at Naval Weapons Station Earle and held a secret-level security clearance, was arrested and charged Jan. 15 for allegedly breaching the Capitol. At the time, prosecutors described him as an “avowed white supremacist” and Nazi sympathizer, a determination based in part on evidence provided by a confidential source to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and a YouTube channel in which Hale-Cusanelli expressed those views.”
How many other neo-Nazi with secret-level clearances are working a military weapons stations? It’s a question investigators had better be asking. Don’t forget about the discovery of missing C‑4 from a Marine base in California. It would only take a relative handful of embedded extremists to give access to nightmarishly powerful weapons to the broader far right underground.
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this story is how open Hale-Cusanelli felt he could be with his Nazi beliefs while on the. 34 out of 44 colleagues confirmed he held extremist views. In other words, he was barely hiding them if he was hiding them at all:
And note the ironic defense of Hale-Cusanelli by his attorney in light of the discovery of “Mein Kampf” and “The Turner Diaries” at his home: “There is no evidence Mr. Hale-Cusanelli is a member of any white supremacist organizations.” And while that may or may not be true, it’s also kind of at the heart of the danger figures like Hale-Cusanelli represent: He doesn’t need to be a member of a white supremacist organizations because he is the member of a leaderless resistance movement. The lack of organization is a feature, not a bug:
Of course, it’s entirely possible Hale-Cusanelli really is the member of a white nationalist organization. In the age of encrypted internet communications he could be the secret member of a dozen different secret groups. Recall how insurrectionist Riley Williams — the person who stole Nancy Pelosi’s laptop out of her office — was later discovered to be a probable member of either Atomwaffen or The Base. She was a known extremist, but her extra-extreme affiliations weren’t previously recognized. What are the odds that Hale-Cusanelli hasn’t also been secretly swearing allegiance to accelerationist neo-Nazi groups? How many other secret accelerationists were in that crowd? More generally, just how much did the Jan 6 Insurrection end up accelerating the growth of “accelerationism”, in particular in the US military? It’s the kind of question that will hopefully be answered with more investigations that lead to prosecutions and expulsions. But, of course, it could also be answered with military-grade weapons being used in a domestic terror attack. Either way, we’ll get our answer.
Here’s one of those stories that reminds of the saying, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.” It’s also the kind of story that raises the question of just how widely will the broader GOP be dragged into the growing number of serious investigations into Trump-related corruption and wrongdoing? In particular, just how extensively will the broader GOP be dragged into covering-up Trump’s numerous crimes:
The Wall Street Journal recently reportedly on a newly discovered recorded phone call between then-President Trump and Francis Watson, Brad Raffensperger’s top elections investigator. Trump was, of course, trying to pressure Watson into overturning Georgia’s election results.
First, recall the now-notorious recorded phone call between Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger and Trump where Trump is basically telling Raffensperger to find enough votes to allow him to win the state. Also recall the phone earlier call Trump made directly to Georgia’s Republican governor Brian Kemp pressuring him to overturn the election results. And now we have the Watson call. So Trump made at least three phone calls to Georgia state officials that were clearly coercive and illegal in nature. At least three phone calls.
But here’s the potentially scandalous new detail that’s emerged: The recording of the phone call between Watson and Trump was only discovered after a public records request and found in the trash bin of Watson’s computer. In other words, Watson tried to delete the recording, but thankfully didn’t actually empty her computer’s trash bin, leaving it available for recovery after the public records.
At least that’s what it looks like: a classic cover-up. Watson, or someone in her office, tried to delete the highly incriminating phone call but made a mistake and now the incriminating evidence is public. Oops.
And that makes this story not just the latest example of the blatant corruption of the Trump administration, but also a test case. A test to see what, if any, consequences that might be for the broader Republican Party’s efforts to engage in cover-ups on Trump’s behalf. Because if Trump made these kinds of phone calls to at least three of different Georgia state officials, how many other recordings of this nature of phone calls to other states’ officials are sitting in PC trash bins somewhere?:
“The Washington Post mentioned that detail when it reported on the tape last week (which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal). State officials initially told the Washington Post and CNN that they didn’t believe that a tape of the call existed. It was reportedly found when they were responding to a public records request.”
Georgia state officials initially claimed they didn’t believe a recording of the call existed. So were they merely mistaken? Because if not, that’s a cover-up. But at this point we don’t know who knew about the existence of the file and who placed it in the trash. Hmm...that seems like something worthy of investigation:
The list of potential culprits of who deleted the recording doesn’t seem like it would be a huge list. Watson or other people working in her office are the obvious suspects. At least in terms of actually deleting the recording.
But that obviously isn’t the full list of possible relevant suspects in the cover-up. After all, this whole situation arose when the Trump administration basically tried to extort Georgia’s state officials into flipping the state in his direction. And, in fairness, Brad Raffensperger’s office has overall demonstrated for more integrity on this matter than we could expect from a lot of other Republican Secretaries of State.
And that’s why the questions over this possible cover-up include the question of what kind of pressure the Trump administration was subsequently applying to the state officials Trump called and harangued to ensure they deleted any recordings of those haranguing phone calls. Along with the question of what kind of illicit pressure might be applied to state officials today, with Trump out of office, to ensure any evidence is destroyed. After all, the guy who acts like an out of control mobster while in office probably isn’t going to break those mobster habits when out of office. Especially while facing multiple investigations. If there’s one thing that could free the broader GOP establishment from Trump’s grip, it’s these numerous state-level criminal investigations. Extorting the broader GOP into silence is probably a critical aspect of Trump’s general defense strategy going forward. Arguably the critical step.
While the shadow of Donald Trump continues to loom large over the future of the Republican Party, it’s sometimes easy to forget that the shadow of Steve Bannon is still out there, lurking over the shadow of Donald Trump’s shoulder, whispering in its shadowy ears, endlessly plotting a darker future. So here’s a reminder that Steve Bannon remains a dark cloud over the future:
Last month, Bannon told a group of Boston Republicans that not only will former President Donald Trump return to the White House in 2024, but Trump might actually first get run for the House of Representatives in 2022. Why run for a House seat when he’s planning on a White House rerun two-years later? Because, according to Bannon, if the Republicans retake control of the House of Representatives in 2022, Donald Trump would replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.
Should that happen, the plan is for the Republican-controlled House to immediately impeach Joe Biden. What will Biden be impeached for? For stealing the 2020 election from Trump. Now, as with both of Trump’s impeachments, it would be highly unlikely that the Senate would convict Biden should such a scenario transpire unless the GOP somehow sweep the 2022 Senate races too. But let’s not kid ourselves, the probability of the Republicans retaking control of the House ion 2022 is actually reasonably high. It’s just a built in feature of American democracy: despite scattered state-level reforms that improved regulation over gerrymandering, the Republicans are still going to have the power to gerrymander 128 more House seats than the Democrats during the 2020 redistricting process.
And don’t forget the GOP picked up House seats in 2020. Given the long-standing US political tradition of incumbent presidents’ parties losing seats during mid-terms, it’s not all implausible that the GOP retakes control of the House in 2022, and arguably probable that it happens. So Steve Bannon’s scheme isn’t nearly as hairbrained as many would prefer. In terms of giving Trump a new avenue to inflict daily chaos on the US political establishment, this is a very reasonable bet.
But there’s another dynamic in all of this: from a historical perspective, one of the primary reasons we should expect the GOP to retake control of the House in 2022 is simply because the ‘out of power’ voters tend to be much more animated during mid-terms. Plus, Republican voters tend to be far more reliable mid-term voters than their Democratic counterparts. So if 2022 goes as expected (without a Trump run), the GOP control of the House after the 2022 elections would be a pretty good bet. But that dynamic completely changes if Trump decides to run. All of a sudden, the threat of Trump returning to politics would become very real for millions of people who voted against Trump in 2020 but would otherwise be unlikely to vote at all 2022. In other words, it’s hard to imagine a more effective figure for animating the Democratic vote in 2022 than the threat of Speaker of the House Trump.
So 2022 represents a fascinating puzzle for Bannon and Trump: winning a House seat and becoming Speaker is arguably the fastest and likeliest path of success for Trump returning to politics in a big way. But it’s a very real gamble that really could backfire on the entire GOP during a year the party would otherwise be positioned to do rather well. We don’t know if Trump is actually considering this scheme, but if he is considering it that sets up the question of whose ambitions will take priority here? Trump’s ambitions to reenter politics? Or the House GOP’s ambitions to hold onto their seats and retake control. The answer is obvious. Trump’s ambitions will trump all others. And that’s why this is a story to keep an eye on: if Trump wants to do this, he’ll do it. And Steve Bannon, the Trump-whisperer, really wants Trump to want to do this:
““We totally get rid of Nancy Pelosi, and the first act of President Trump as speaker will be to impeach Joe Biden for his illegitimate activities of stealing the presidency,” Bannon said, leading to applause and hollers from the Boston Republicans.”
The idea is out there. And based on the response from those Boston Republicans, it sounds like they were open to the idea:
There is a certain logic to it: Trump is the brand of the GOP at this point. And he really is extremely popular with the Republican base. Why not stick with the brand? Trump did come obscenely close to being reelected, after all. We can see the seeds of a Trump congressional run already taking root.
But, again, while no figure would animate the Republican base to come out in 2022 like Trump, there’s no avoiding the reality that he really would be a dream for getting out the Democratic vote. And then there’s the fact that it’s not actually clear which House seat Trump would run for, in part because the obvious seat — Florida’s 21st district, where Mar-a-Lago resides — is held by Democrat Lois Frankel, who won handily over far right Trump super-fan Laura Loomer in the 2020 election. So if Trump does decide to run for a House seat in the hopes of revenge-impeaching Joe Biden, he’ll probably need to find a more Trump-friendly congressional district to move to first:
“It’s also unclear whether Trump would be able to win a House seat. Although the state of Florida went for Trump in 2016 and again in 2020, the former president would likely run in his current district, represented by Democratic Congresswoman Lois Frankel. During the 2020 election, Frankel was challenged by a pro-Trump Republican candidate but easily won reelection by a double-digit margin. Frankel secured the support of 59 percent of voters in her district compared to the 39.1 percent who backed her opponent.”
Might Trump run for the House and lose? It’s hard to imagine he would run if he thought he might lose. It would just be too embarrassing.
At the same time, becoming Speaker of the House and revenge-impeaching Biden must be in incredibly tempting option. Plus, keep in mind that, at Trump’s age and with his overall state of health, it’s very unclear if he’ll even be alive for the 2o24 elections. The 2022 election, on the other hand, is just around the corner. 4 years is a LONG ways away for someone in Trump’s position. This ‘House Speakership’ avenue back to national relevancy has to be awfully tempting for someone with Trump’s psychology.
Will Trump play it safe and skip the opportunity? Run in his home District 21 district and Frankel and risk losing? Or maybe move to another district and run from there? We’ll see. But Bannon has no doubt made his 2022 pitch directly to Trump so Trump must be thinking about it. So for anyone who owns a garish eyesore on the market that happens to be located in a Trump-friendly Florida congressional district, there might be a notable uptick in demand in coming months.
As we’ve watched the parallel rise of the “accelerationist” strains of neo-Nazism at the same time far right thought has capture the Republican Party in general, one of the dark questions raised by these trends is the extent to which there’s any meaningful distinction between the “accelerationists” and the more traditional far right activism. After all, it’s not like the end goals differ all that much between the “accelerationsts” and their slower moving far right brethren. The differences has long been a matter of tactics and timing, with of the “accelerationists” preferring the path of unrelenting ‘leaderless resistance’ domestic terror attacks intended to destabilize society, while the more traditional neo-Nazis stick to the slow boil approach.
But given the way these two strategies can synergize with each other, there’s really no need to distinguish between the two movement. Aren’t these two sides of the same coin? It’s a question ominous raised by the growing evidence that a good number of those January 6 Capitol insurrectionists were, in fact, operating under an accelerationist mindset. After all, “accelerationism” could merely be one wing of a much broader movement, a domestic terror wing built in a manner to excupate the larger movement from the public blowback over the consequences of the domestic terror attacks. That’s why we have to ask: just how many of the more ‘prominent public intellectuals’ on the far right are secret accelerationists?
Well, based on the following SPLC piece, there’s at least one accelerationist in those circles: Kevin DeAnna. And when someone as central to the contemporary far right circles operating in Washington DC as DeAnna gets outed as an accelerationist, the question starts turning into who isn’t a closet accelerationist in those circles. After all, as we’ve seen, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe was reportedly quite chummy with DeAnna. DeAnna went on to play a major role in the rise of the Alt Right at the same time DeAnna was navigating supposedly respectable conservative circles like the International Leadership Institute that ostensibly generates the next generation of conservative leaders. Then there’s the July 2016 far right dinner party DeAnna attended at Peter Thiel’s house, where attendees reportedly concluded that Thiel was fully on board with the ‘Dark Enlightenment’. And when DHS employee Ian M. Smith was forced to resign in 2018 after he was outed as a white nationalist, we learn that Smith was hanging out in the same social circle as DeAnna. DeAnna really has been operating at the heart of the far right’s operations in DC.
And as we’ll see in the second SPLC excerpt below, DeAnna was actively soliciting resumes from his far right friends on behalf of VDARE for work in the Trump White House after Trump’s victory in 2016. The guy lives in that grey area where overt white nationalism merges with ‘respectable’ Republican politics and real power in DC. And he’s an accelerationist. It raises quite a few urgent questions, especially in the wake of Trump’s ‘stolen election’ loss.
So how many of DeAnna’s fellow travelers are accelerationists too? We have no idea. But with Trump out of power and his based getting increasingly radicalized towards political violence, odds are there’s a lot more fellow accelerationist travelers than there used to be:
“DeAnna’s work under the pseudonym “Gregory Hood” drew upon foundational white nationalist and neo-Nazi texts that have inspired numerous acts of domestic terrorism. As both “Kirkpatrick” and “Hood,” DeAnna frequently refers to a “System” – often with a capital “S,” mirroring “Turner Diaries” author William Pierce’s own orthography. DeAnna, like Pierce, presents “the System” as both a governmental and nongovernmental coalition of minority groups set out to destroy whites.”
Yes, DeAnna’s writings mirror the Turner Diaries. Imagine that. But it’s not just the Turner Diaries where DeAnna finds his inspiration. DeAnna’s ex-girlfriend Katie McHugh confirmed that, yes, DeAnna owned a copy of James Mason’s “SIEGE” — the handbook for accelerationists — before its recent rise in popularity. He even referenced it in some of his pseudonymous writings:
So the guy has effectively been acting as an accelerationist evangelist within far right circles...at the same time he’s snuggled up to the GOP establishment in DC. Which, again, raises the question of how many other closet accelerationists are operating in the shockingly ‘mainstream’ far right circles within the contemporary Republican Party. Along with the question of how many of those closet accelerationists managed to get jobs in the Trump administration:
“McHugh replied to DeAnna’s email seeking resumes for the administration by recommending that he also apply. DeAnna wrote back: “Doing my best. Please put a good word in for [Steve] Bannon for me if you can. Doing resume as we speak and drinking Trump champagne.” Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist at that time, served as the executive chairman of Breitbart News while McHugh wrote for them.”
The exchange between McHugh and DeAnna, where McHugh encourages DeAnna to apply for a White House job himself, really captures the spirit of that moment for the far right. It was like an open invitation to the White House. They just needed to be a little surreptitious about it, which might explain why, in some cases, the 2016 White House recruitment campaign DeAnna was running seemed like it was being done an behalf of Ann Coulter, but was later revealed to be done on behalf of VDARE:
Finally, just to highlight how high up the support goes for figures like DeAnna and groups like VDARE, here’s a quick reminder that the most prominent right-wing mainstream political dark money group, DonorsTrust, gave VDARE $1.5 million in 2019 so it could by a castle near DC in West Virgina. Yes, mainstream big money Republican donors effectively bought VDARE a real castle last year:
So at least one of DonorTrusts super-wealthy donors is a big fan of VDARE’s white nationalists content. You have to wonder how many of DeAnna’s numerous VDARE articles were read and enjoyed by this anonymous donor. But more importantly, we have to wonder if this anonymous VDARE donor happens to share DeAnna’s accelerationist mind-set. Just how popular is James Mason’s SIEGE these days? That remains unclear. But as the story of DeAnna’s accelerationist evangelizing makes clear, accelerationism is probably a lot more popular than many people want to admit...at least admit outside of their secret elite white nationalist dinner party circles.
Here’s a set of articles about the ongoing investigation into the January 6 Capitol insurrection that relates to the questions of the extent to which ‘accelerationist’ thought has overtaken the far right and the broader questions about the risks of a sustained Trump-inspired domestic terror movement for the US going forward. Perhaps a Trump-inspired domestic terror movement designed, in part, to help Trump avoid the legal repercussions over the insurrection:
Michael Sherwin, the former acting US attorney who initially led the investigation into the insurrection, just gave an interview on “60 Minutes” last night about the direction of the investigation. Sherwin confirmed that sedition charges are being examined and that, in Sherwin’s mind, there are facts that support sedition charges against at least some of the rioters.
And that raises the obvious question of potential sedition charges against the chief rioter: the-President Donald Trump. Does Sherwin see possible sedition charges against Trump too? Yes, according to Sherwin, Trump may be culpable. It’s not a guarantee, but the door to sedition charges against Trump appears to be open. And as we’ll see in the third article below, Harvard constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe concurred on Sunday that, yes, Trump should face sedition charges over his actions leading up to the insurrection. And he should probably face extortion charges over his phone calls to Georgia state officials trying to coerce them into overturning the election results.
So while we have yet to see what, if any, charges Trump will face over his multi-faceted efforts to overturn the election results, it’s sounding like a real possibility he could face serious charges. The kind of charges that could result in major jail time. And the closer we get to Trump facing serious criminal charges, the closer we likely get to Trump and others in his movement going down the ‘accelerationist’ path of domestic terror and retributive violence. That’s part of why these stories about the growing legal peril for Trump and his followers are so significant. Because if they start arriving at the conclusion that they have nothing to lose because they are already in legal peril, they might act like people with nothing to lose:
“The Justice Department has already filed cases against 400 suspects involved in the assault, but none have yet been accused of sedition, the crime of opposing the authority of the U.S. government through force.”
No one has been charged with sedition yet. But the available fact do support sedition charges according to the guy who was initially leading this investigation which means we should probably expect at least some sedition charges. Will that include sedition charges against Trump? According to Scherwin, yes, evidence would support a sedition charge. In particular, the volume of evidence provided by the arrested rioters themselves who make it very clear to investigators that they felt they were acting on Trump’s orders when they raided the Capitol. On the other hand, there’s the militia members who claim they raided the Capitol in response to Trump being ‘all talk’, which could act as a defense of Trump against sedition charges. Although it’s not obvious why being accused of being ‘all talk’ is necessarily a defense against charges that your words were deliberatively incitful. So it sounds like sedition charges are a possibility against Trump, but not a slam dunk and dependent in part on the insurrectionists’ claim of how Trump’s words and actions, or lack thereof, influenced their own words and actions.
It’s an interesting situation from a MAGA-land game theory standpoint: the best defense for the insurrectionists — that they were just following Trump’s lead — is the most damning indictment of Trump. While the militia members who claim Trump was all talk and no action, on the other hand, are providing the best legal defense of Trump but the most damning indictment of Trump’s leadership qualities. They’re basically calling him a paper commander in chief. It’s the kind of dynamic that raises the question of of what Trump is personally hoping to hear from the his followers under questioning: that he as leading them in into the insurrection with his fiery rhetoric, or disappointing them into the insurrection with his general weakness:
““What I could tell you is this: Based upon what we see in the public record and what we see in public statements in court, we have plenty of people-we have soccer moms from Ohio that were arrested saying, ‘Well, I did this because my president said I had to take back our house.’ That moves the needle towards that direction,” Sherwin said. “Maybe the president is culpable for those actions.””
Was Trump an effective leader? If so, it’s hard to avoid a guilty ruling. But if he was just this blowhard that was losing his grip on the hearts of minds of his most dedicated followers, well, then maybe he isn’t directly culpable for the riot. That’s one of the key question facing prosecutors:
Recall how, as we’ve seen, the Trump team was working extremely closely with groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, with members of the Oath Keepers being allowed into the VIP area of the Jan 6 “Stop the Steal” rally, ostensibly to provide VIP security. Also recall how the “Quick Reaction Forces” (QRFs) — which were positioned to rapidly deploy large stores of heavy arms to the insurrectionists — were reportedly waiting for orders from Trump himself. But then, at 1:38 pm, about 20 minutes after Trump concluded his speech at the rally, Oath Keeper leader Stewart Rhodes wrote, “All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. They’ve had enough.”. And while the QRFs don’t appear to have ever been called in, the full-scale storming of the Capitol clearly happened. So Oath Keeper leader Stewart Rhodes made a statement that ostensibly would clear Trump of some rhetorical culpability, but this is literally the guy leading the organization that was clearly working closely with the Trump team on that very day and providing the private ‘muscle’ to the movement. It’s not like anything Rhodes says should be seen as absolving Trump of culpability over the events of that day. They’re effectively co-conspirators.
So as we can see, the evidence both indicting and defending Trump against sedition charges is a bit messy. At best, the argument that Trump literally left the militias so disappointed that they decided to unilaterally carry out the insurrection (still on his behalf) is a pretty bad sedition defense. But a bad defense might be good enough in a court a law. Although as Constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe points out in the following article, there are different possible sedition-related charges. There’s the charge of actually leading the sedition conspiracy, which could be punishable with up to 20 years in prison. But there’s also the lesson charge that applies to “anyone who gives aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion,” which could be punishable with up to 10 years and prison and would permanently disqualify the person from holding any state or federal office. Yep, impeachment isn’t the only way to keep Trump out of office. Charging him with doing what he blatantly did in public — giving aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion — will do the trick. Oh, and then there’s all the extortion in Georgia:
“If Trump is convicted of “conspiracy to commit sedition — which is a fancy way of talking about trying to prevent the government from functioning,” — Trump could get 20 years in prison, Tribe said. A conviction on another charge, which applies to “anyone who gives aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion,” would be punishable by up to 10 years and permanent disqualification from ever holding any state or federal office.”
Did then-President Trump give aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion? For people with eyes and ears, yes. And that aid and comfort may be enough to permanently disqualify Trump from holding office. Are prosecutors looking into this option?
And then there are the charges with even more blatant evidence: election fraud and extortion in Georgia. As Tribe puts it, “And we saw it happen in real-time and we heard it with our own ears. So, it’s really hard to wiggle out of that.” Again, Trump’s guilt isn’t really in question for people with functioning eyes and ears:
Will Trump find a way to wiggle out of another legal pinch? You can’t just declare bankruptcy and walk away from something like this. And if there is no walking away, what are Trump’s other options? The guy isn’t going to allow himself to go to jail. So if he really is facing real possible jail time, what is he going to do? Oh right, foment another insurrection. Although, logistically speaking, another insurrection of that nature isn’t exactly easy to organize. A ‘leaderless resistance’ domestic terror campaign, on the other hand, is exactly the kind strategy that could be deployed in that kind of situation. A domestic terror campaign designed to not only protect the Trump family but extend a protective threat virtually all of the perpetrators of the insurrection and send the message that the price of legally punishment over the insurrection will be too high and not worth the blood and turmoil. Is that something we should expect to emerge from this situational bile? An unofficially-Trump-led domestic terror movement intended to thwart the prosecution of the insurrectionists? Hopefully not, but as the above articles make clear, it’s not like Trump has a lot other great legal defenses available.
Plus, while the idea of Trump fomenting a domestic terror campaign as an indirect legal defense against sedition charges might seem ironic, you can’t argue with the underlying logic there for someone with few other options. It’s awful predatory logic, but it does make sense as a last ditch move by someone with nothing to lose. And thanks to Trump’s ‘leadership’, a whole lot of the most violence-prone people who followed him may have nothing to lose too, legally speaking. It’s ironically one of Trump’s greatest accomplishments, albeit more of an accomplishment on behalf of ‘accelerationist’ groups like Atomwaffen.
Here’s an article that’s notable not so much for its content but for the fact that it’s likely the first in what will be a new genre of horrible Trump-focused articles: It’s the first post-Presidency interview of Donald Trump where he basically calls for a revolution after grousing about how the election was rigged and stolen from him. Or, in the Trumpian way he put it, “What happened to us with the presidential election could never have happened to the Democrats. You would have had a revolution if the tables were turned, you would have literally had a revolution. And guys like Mitch McConnell, they don’t fight.” Yes, Trump is now basically shaming his conservative audience for not succeeding in keeping Trump in office during the Jan 6 insurrection. The Democrats would have successfully fomented a coup. Only weak Republicans allowed this to happen. That’s Trump’s current message to MAGA-land.
It’s arguably surprising that it’s taken Trump this long to give an interview where he makes these kinds of statements. Trump has been oddly quiet over the past couple of months and it wasn’t clear if that silence was due to legal fears or the guy just wanted to take a break from being a loudmouthed fascist 24/7. But he’s now arrived at this seemingly inevitable rhetorical place, essentially telling the audience of Fox News’ Lisa Boothe’s “The Truth” podcast that they didn’t riot for him hard enough. And the 2024 race to the White House has clearly already begun:
“We had a great election and we won and they took it away. It was a rigged election. Cause as you know, we won the first one, but we did much better in the second one. So people always say, Oh, what do you mean you did better? I say, we did much better, almost 75 million votes. And that’s the votes that we know about. And it was a really a terrible thing. I mean, it was really an unfair thing to the people that support us.”
Cries of a rigged election certainly aren’t unprecedented for Trump. But it hasn’t been entirely clear what to expect from Trump after the Jan 6 insurrection, especially since he still has a legal exposure to those events, including possible sedition charges. But we now appear to have gotten our answer. Damn the legal threats, Trump is going to keep shouting at the world about how the election was rigged and stolen from him. And raises another question about this recent Trump interview and the likelihood of more interviews of this nature going forward: Do interviews like this that continue to push the ‘stolen election’ claims while dismissing or mischaracterizing the nature of events of Jan 6 while encouraging a repeat constitute an ongoing form of sedition? How about if there’s a sustained rhetorical campaign by Trump claiming the election was stolen followed by a sustained that pro-Trump domestic terror campaign? Will it be sedition at that point? Or is Trump more or less free to spend the rest of his life giving interviews like this where he laments the lack of courage among conservatives unwilling to fight for his victory? As Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe pointed out over the weekend, in addition to direct charges of sedition, there are also possible charges directed at “anyone who gives aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion.” So did Trump’s interview rise to the level of giving “aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion”? No enough? How about if he delivers the same underlying message in every interview he gives in the next four years? Because that’s probably what’s going to happen, so hopefully some prosecutors are taking a closer look at sedition-related laws. Because while it’s not clear yet if Trump is actively trying to find ways around sedition laws, or if he’s just ‘being Trump’ as usual, it’s pretty clear that Trump is still actively pining for some sedition. Or as Trump would put it, pining for “the Revolution” he’s hoping his supporters will still bring him.
Here’s a pair of updates on the ongoing investigation into the role the Proud Boys played in organization and executing the January 6 Capitol insurrection:
First, the legal defense of Proud Boys leader Joseph Biggs, who was indicted back on March 10 over his role in the insurrection, raised eyebrows after Biggs’s lawyer asserted to the court that Biggs had been a willing FBI informant after FBI agents approached him in July of 2020 wanting to know what he was “seeing on the ground” in relation to Antifa. Biggs apparently answered an agent’s follow-up questions in a series of phone calls over the new few weeks. In addition. Biggs’s attorney claims Biggs received “cautionary” phone calls from FBI agents and routinely spoke with local and federal law enforcement officials in Portland, Oregon, about rallies he was planning there in 2019 and 2020.
Keep in mind that we’ve been getting reports about the Portland police coordinating with far right groups for years now. For example, recall how, back in 2017, the Multnomah County Republican party chairman James Buchal announced he was interested in using groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys as security for party events. Which ended up actually happening. And as this story played out we learned about the extensive contacts and coordination between the Portland police and a number of far right groups and that was just one of the examples in recent years of stories of the Portland police coordinating with these groups. So Joe Biggs’s assertions that he routinely spoke with local and federal law enforcement officials in Portland, Oregon, is just the latest detail in a larger well-established story.
And as we’ll see in the second article excerpt below, about the Capitol insurrection charges against Biggs and three other Proud Boys members, it appears that, while evidence against Biggs’s role in the direct break in of the Capitol building remains unclear, there is evidence that Biggs was playing a leadership role in the Proud Boys’ plans for possible violence in the lead up to the events of that day. In other words, to the extent that the Proud Boys actively had a plan on breaking into the Capitol and potentially seizing lawmakers, Biggs is likely a top designer of that plan. And that’s the guy law enforcement was creating this exceedingly cozy relationship with in recent years. So cozy that the FBI was asking Biggs to act as their eyes and ears against Antifa months before the insurrection:
“Biggs, 37, of Ormond Beach, Florida, wouldn’t be the first Proud Boys informant. The group’s chairman and top leader, Enrique Tarrio, previously worked undercover and cooperated with investigators after he was accused of fraud in 2012, court documents show.”
The Proud Boys are clearly proud to act as FBI informants. At least when it comes to informing on Antifa. And then he waged an insurrection. It’s the kind of story arc that makes the FBI’s encouragement of Hal Turner seem tame in comparison. It’s a reminder that a willingness to cooperate with law enforcement isn’t necessarily an indication some sort of respect for justice or democracy:
And recall that, in 2019, when Portland opened an internal investigation after more than 11,500 text messages between Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson and police Lt. Jeff Niiya, we had already received confirmation back in 2017 from the Portland police that Sgt Niiya had been in extensive contact with Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers. So when that internal Portland police investigation was opened in 2019, it was already kind of old news:
Ok, and now here’s an article from a couple of weeks ago about the nature of the charges against four of Proud Boys who were charged on March 10 over their roles in the insurrection. And as the article describes, while the exact nature of the the planning that went into the Proud Boys’ actions during the insurrection remain somewhat unclear based on the evidence laid out in the different trials already underway, it is extremely clear that the Proud Boys were planning for violence of some sort. With Biggs, but no exclusively Biggs, leading the planning:
“All four defendants are charged with conspiring to impede Congress’ certification of the Electoral College vote. Other charges in the indictment include obstruction of an official proceeding, obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder and disorderly conduct.”
Note the charges: conspiring to impede Congress’ certification of the Electoral College vote. Not just a charge about rioting or property damage. A conspiracy to stop the Electoral College vote certification. And it’s not low-level Proud Boy members getting these charges. It’s leaders like Biggs. This was a high-level Proud Boys operation. They even communicated about “regrouping with a second force” as some rioters began to leave the Capitol. That’s a planned invasion:
And note the seeming awareness of the severity of what they were engaged in: when Proud Boy leader (and prolific FBI informant) Enrique Tarrio was arrested, the group freaked out about their communications being compromised and one of them issued an order to “Stop everything immediately”. It raises the question of whether or not what we saw transpire was actually a much scaled-back version of what they were actually planning:
But despite all that evidence, it’s not clear prosecutors are going to be able to prove that the Proud Boys actually planned on breaking into the Capitol building. They had plans, it’s just not clear if that was in their plans:
So the outcome of the trial remains very much uncertain, in part because the defense can legitimately claim their clients were indeed FBI informants. Arguably extensive and enthusiastic FBI informants who have been working with the agency for years, in addition to their work with who knows how many local law enforcement agencies.
It points towards one of the more interesting, and ironic, aspects of the ongoing trials over the perpetrators of the Jan 6 Capitol insurrection: their best defense against charges that amount to war against democracy will be their extensive history of enthusiastically helping the government crack down on anti-fascists and civil rights activists. Because of course that’s how it turned out.
Here’s a story that’s kind of interesting on its own, but it’s really as a kind of barometer of the strength of the Trumpian grip on the hearts and mind of the GOP voting base. It’s also a barometer of the the strength of the gag reflex that’s developed in the GOP in recent years in response to the name ‘Bush’:
George P. Bush, son of Jeb and current Texas Land Commissioner, is reportedly seriously considering running for attorney general of Texas. This would pit him against sitting Attorney General Ken Paxton. And Paxton isn’t just any Republican. He’s a wildly corrupt Trump super-fan-style politician and it’s that open corruption that appears to be the basis for George P’s planned bid.
But this is Trump’s GOP. Open corruption is potentially political asset these days. Especially if it’s open corruption in service of Trump’s glory, and that’s been a theme for Paxton. For example, recall how, back in June of 2016, Paxton tried to use a cease and desist order to muzzle a former state regulator who says he was ordered in 2010 to drop a fraud investigation into Trump University for political reasons. Flash forward to December of 2020, where we find Paxton literally petitioning the US Supreme Court to overturn the presidential election results for the states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan. We also discovered that Paxton was working directly with far right disinformation outlet Project Veritas in order to whip up voter fraud allegations well over a year before the 2020 election. He’s even refused to turn over communications about his participation in the January 6 “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the Capitol insurrection. And going forward under a Democratic White House, Paxton’s open support of “nullification” legal theories will probably be pretty popular with a lot of conservative voters.
And then there’s the more traditional forms of corruption, like the charges for securities fraud, bribery, and abuse of office.
So Paxton is openly and grossly corruption. As shocking as it is to say, but George P. Bush just might be a serious step up from the rot currently festering in the attorney general’s office. And yet it’s not at all clear that Paxton’s rot isn’t actually quite popular. Sure, the securities fraud probably isn’t popular. But the rest? Are we sure the GOP electorate wouldn’t see those corrupt acts as a plus?
It’s also worth noting that George P. stood out from the rest of his fellow Bush family members in heartily endorsing Trump. So this race wouldn’t descend into a pro-Trump candidate vs anti-Trump candidate kind of referendum. At least not on the surface, although we should expect it to include a competition over who loves Trump more. But if the race is going to be about Ken Paxton’s corruption as George P. intends, well, that is at least kind of a referendum on Trump. Paxton’s corruption is Trumpism. Gross open corruption sold to the masses as bold populism while dismissing the charges as attacks from the ‘Deep State’. That’s why the story of this race is potentially a lot bigger than just the story of whether or not someone named ‘Bush’ can still win Republican elections. It’s a real test of whether or not the Trumpism model of turning gross open corruption into political gold can translate to other grossly openly corrupt politicians:
“Bush, the grandson of former President George H.W. Bush and nephew for President George W. Bush, went on to say a Paxton challenge would not be centered on “conservative credentials” but how the incumbent has run his office. “I think character matters and integrity matters,” Bush said.”
“I think character matters and integrity matters.” LOL. It’s almost quaint. And that’s why this could be such an interesting race. Paxton is both the poster child for why character and integrity should matter in politics. But he’s also the poster child for the political success of Trumpist-style wild open corruption. The guy literally got reelected in 2018 while facing securities fraud charges. It’s that open corruption that makes him such a tempting political target for figures like George P., and yet there’s no denying he’s still in office despite those charges. It remains very unclear if any of it matters or if it’s even an asset. After all, every legal charge against a Republican these days doubles as a new excuse to claim the ‘Deep State’ is attacking them:
It’s going to be a race of the past vs the future: the ‘character matters’ political aesthetics of yesteryear the Bush family long played to vs the ‘nothing matters, burn it all down’ contemporary politics of Trump. Old awful or new awful. It’s going to be awful either way, but the particular flavor of awful remains in question.