Court rules House can enforce McGahn subpoena, but law professors say Trump's stalling already did its job

Court rules House can enforce McGahn subpoena, but law professors say Trump's stalling already did its jobIt's been more than a year since the Trump administration blocked House Democrats' attempt to secure testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn, a pivotal figure in the Mueller investigation. At the time, it appeared to be what former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara called a "stalling tactic," and a way for the Trump administration to "run out the clock" to a point where McGahn's testimony didn't matter anymore.Indeed, President Trump's impeachment trial came and went without a word from McGahn. And even though U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that the House could enforce its subpoena against McGahn, dissenting judges in the case acknowledged that the House's chances of hearing from McGahn soon are "vanishingly slim."Barb McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan's law school, said in a tweet it was clear that Trump still "wins by losing" in this case. The House still has to formally sue McGahn, "causing further delay," McQuade continued. "Trump's bad faith stall game needs to be called out and the rules changed to defeat it," McQuade continued. Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe echoed McQuade's sentiment, tweeting that McGahn's case was sure to continue past Trump's term. And Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who led the impeachment hearings, called on Congress to make sure McGahn's subpoena stalling never happened again. > Another court victory: Trump's former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify before Congress.> > But it's been over a year since he was subpoenaed--exactly what Trump wanted.> > We must reform the law to expedite Congressional subpoenas so no president can run out the clock. https://t.co/aeAPewazMZ> > -- Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) August 7, 2020More stories from theweek.com Trump's latest fundraising attempt is reportedly a Facebook scam against his own supporters Biden campaign reportedly making 'ruthless cuts' to convention speaking list The case against American truck bloat


Posted in Uncategorized

Trump nominee for Ukraine says 'reasonable' to report interference

Trump nominee for Ukraine says 'reasonable' to report interferenceDonald Trump's nominee to be ambassador to Ukraine cautiously promised Wednesday to report any interference in the US election, an issue that triggered the president's impeachment. Keith Dayton, a respected retired army lieutenant general, was tapped to be the first US ambassador to Ukraine since Marie Yovanovitch, whom Trump abruptly removed in May 2019. Appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dayton was pressed by the top Democrat, Robert Menendez, on whether he would report any attempts to use Ukraine to sway the US election in November.


Posted in Uncategorized

‘The Swamp’ Exposes Just How Much Republican Matt Gaetz Kisses Trump’s Butt

‘The Swamp’ Exposes Just How Much Republican Matt Gaetz Kisses Trump’s ButtSpoiler alert: Contrary to his stated intentions, President Donald Trump has not “drained the swamp,” but has in fact amplified D.C. corruption and special-interest power—currently, more than 300 lobbyists have seats in his administration—unseen in modern times. The Swamp understands and exposes this fact, and yet Daniel DiMauro and Morgan Pehme’s HBO documentary (premiering August 4) nonetheless tackles the issue of politics and money via a decidedly wishy-washy look at three of Trump’s staunchest faux-“renegade” GOP congressional acolytes: Colorado’s Ken Buck, Kentucky’s Thomas Massie and Florida’s perpetually sycophantic Matt Gaetz.It’s Gaetz who’ll likely be best known to viewers, thanks to a series of headline-making (and social media-inflaming) stunts, including tweeting out a not-so-veiled threat to congressional witness (and former Trump attorney) Michael Cohen, and leading a group of rabble-rousing Republicans on a raid of a closed-door impeachment hearing deposition. A perpetual fixture on Fox News, where he parrots Trump talking points in the most extremist fashion imaginable, he’s a young, eager go-getter who’s hitched his post to the current commander-in-chief. That’s certainly the figure depicted by DiMauro and Pehme’s film, which captures him articulating his staunch support in personal phone calls to the president (and is told, in return, “You’re doing fantastic…you’re tough and smart and you have the look”), as well as stating outright “I love him so much.” Throughout the film, Gaetz is repeatedly seen fawning all over Trump, receiving marching orders from the president and delivering near-daily progress reports. When Trump calls him “handsome,” the congressman acts like he’s won the lottery. John Oliver Unloads on ‘Idiot’ Trump for Endorsing Dr. Demon SpermNetflix Targets the ‘World’s Most Wanted’ CriminalsGiven his fawning admiration for the president, it’s predictable that Gaetz spends a lot of time in The Swamp criticizing D.C. venality at the hands of wealthy special interest groups, whose checkbooks are coveted by politicians wanting to maintain their membership in the party, and their position in committees. Gaetz, Massie and Buck’s dismay over this flawed paradigm is voiced at regular intervals throughout the film (set in 2018-2019), as is a greater desire for bipartisanship, which Gaetz himself partakes in alongside California’s Ro Khanna with their Khanna-Gaetz amendment designed to take unilateral war powers (specifically with regards to Iran) away from the president and return them to Congress. In this effort, as in their many censures of super PAC influence, the three come across as principled outliers committed to upending the “new normal” of donor-driven governance ushered in by Newt Gingrich in 1994.Like an introductory scene of Gaetz dressing and putting on makeup in the office work closet he calls home—the better to maximize his daily productivity, he says—such commentary is the trio’s (and film’s) means of casting them as hard-working against-the-grain mavericks. At the same time, though, directors DiMauro and Pehme fully recognize that these supposed rebels—and Gaetz in particular—are bald-faced hypocrites who don’t walk their own talk. While it’s true that, in 2020, Gaetz became the first Republican to swear off any campaign donations from super PACs (a worthwhile stand, to be sure), he otherwise comes across as a guy who doesn’t care that his beloved president is far from the reformer he claimed he would be on the campaign trail. First during the Mueller hearings and again throughout the impeachment process, Gaetz readily takes to his Fox News pulpit to rail against the “witch hunt” and Democrats, as well as to vilify immigrants as “criminals, thugs, special-interest aliens…jihadists,” habitually using the president’s very own polarizing language. He’s akin to a Trump ventriloquist dummy.The discrepancy between Gaetz’s anti-“swamp” pronouncements and his adulation of a leader whose entire Oval Office tenure has been designed to enrich himself is hard to ignore, and The Swamp certainly takes pains to underline it, as it does the dissonance between Buck and Massie’s avowed disgust for special interests and yet dubious connections to the NRA and the coal industry. Massie himself likens his congressional pin to The Lord of the Rings’ ring (because its limitless power is corrupting), and equates himself to Star Wars’ rebel fighters and Congress to the Death Star, and the nerdiness of the latter point is only outweighed by the silliness of the analogy, especially since Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale recently associated the president’s re-election as a villainous Death Star juggernaut ready to wipe out its enemies.Despite routinely pricking Gaetz and company for behaving in ways that are diametrically opposed to their declared values, The Swamp still spends considerable energy lavishing fond attention on them. Slow-motion shots of Gaetz strutting down D.C. streets, sunglasses on and the sun shining from behind him, contribute to puffing up his media-friendly persona as rock star-ish upstart contrarian driven to shake up the status quo. Since the film knows this isn’t really the case—at its conclusion, Gaetz votes along party lines for a military bill even though his beloved war powers amendment was cut out of it—the effect is to make one feel as if the directors want to have it both ways, obligated to critique their subject but not too harshly because, after all, Gaetz has granted them intimate access to his life in the first place.Only in interviews with Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig does The Swamp make a truly passionate case for the need for wide-scale lobbying reform—which came, most recently, in the form of Democrats’ H.R. 1 bill, which found few receptive Republican friends in the Senate. From climate change to military funding to gun control (to name only a few pressing national concerns), “none of these issues can be addressed sensibly until we address the deep corruption inside of our government,” he says. Without that, we’re doomed to deal with a system that turns politicians into fundraisers, and because “politics of hate is the most productive technique for fundraising we have,” that in turn leads to the hyper-polarization we see today.When it’s providing an insider’s view of the ways elected representatives are compelled—often willingly—to sell themselves to the highest bidder in order to maintain their sliver of power, The Swamp is a revealing and timely survey of our broken government. Where it stumbles, however, is in its choice of tour guides through that greedy bog—a collection of pretenders whose corruption-friendly actions speak far louder than their crusading words. Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.


Posted in Uncategorized

Is Trump's top cop, attorney general William Barr, a danger to democracy?

Is Trump's top cop, attorney general William Barr,  a danger to democracy?The attorney general’s many critics saw his combative display on Capitol Hill as proof of his willingness to enable Trump’s darkest impulsesWilliam Barr was hungry. “Mr Chairman, could we take a five-minute break?” the attorney general asked Jerry Nadler of the House of Representatives’ judiciary committee. “No,” retorted Nadler, his hearing almost done. Barr responded sardonically: “You’re a real class act.”It was pure Barr: a proud, combative, unflappable and unapologetic partisan warrior in the loyal service of the White House.During the five-hour session on Capitol Hill in Washington this week, Barr made clear why he has been dubbed Donald Trump’s faithful protector and personal henchman. He defended using federal forces in US cities, denied giving Trump’s allies favorable treatment and demurred on issues such as foreign election interference or whether November’s poll can be postponed.For critics, it was proof positive that Barr’s unswerving loyalty to the president has torn down the wall that separates the White House and justice department and ensures law enforcement operates independent of politics. Some believe he now poses an existential threat to democracy itself.“Because of his position as the attorney general, he has control over a lot of what’s acceptable and what isn’t under the law up until the point where the federal judiciary can stop him. It makes him very dangerous, especially when you’re dealing with a president who has no regard for the constitution or the rule of law,” said Tara Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill.During his 18 months in office, Barr, 70, has backed Trump even as he defies norms, stokes division and is buffeted by the coronavirus pandemic, economic slump and tumbling poll numbers. Democrats have demanded his impeachment, accused him of politicizing the justice department and enabling an “imperial presidency” like no other.Democrat Joe Biden, Trump’s election opponent, tweeted on Thursday: “Bill Barr is the Attorney General of the United States – not the president’s private attorney.”Barr, a devout Catholic and keen bagpiper, previously served as attorney general under President George HW Bush from 1991 to 1993. This raised hopes that he would be an establishment Republican who could check Trump’s impulses, maintain the department’s independence and offer normality in an era that is anything but.Those hopes were badly misplaced.In reality he had always been an advocate of expansive presidential power and a hard line on fighting crime. He is therefore seen as a perfect fit for Trump, who has repeatedly tested the limits of executive authority and is now pushing a “law and order” theme for his election campaign against Biden.Weeks after his Senate confirmation Barr cleared Trump of obstruction of justice allegations even when Robert Mueller, the special counsel, did no such thing, and produced a summary of Mueller’s Russia investigation that set an unduly rosy narrative for the president.Barr has since made good on Trump’s rallying cry to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation in what Democrats see as a politically motivated attempt to damage Biden, the former vice-president, ahead of the election.He has also been sharply criticized for a decision to drop the prosecution of Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn and urging a more lenient sentence for Trump’s ally Roger Stone, a move that prompted the entire trial team’s departure. The Flynn dismissal will be reviewed by a federal appeals court but Trump commuted Stone’s sentence altogether.In addition, Barr claimed that Geoffrey Berman, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, New York, had agreed to “step down”, only for Berman to explicitly deny this. Such actions have prompted open letters signed by thousands of justice department alumni demanding Barr’s resignation.On Tuesday, Barr faced grandstanding Democrats and conspiracy theorist Republicans in his first appearance before the House judiciary committee. Nadler accused him of waging “persistent war” against the justice department’s independence “in an apparent effort to secure favors” for Trump. “Shame on you,” the chairman said.The attorney general defended the aggressive federal law enforcement response to civil unrest in Portland and other cities. “What unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called a protest,” he said. “It is, by any objective measure, an assault on the government of the United States.”Although some protesters in Portland have been violent, most have been peaceful and have included military veterans, off-duty lawyers, school pupils and rows of women known as the “Wall of Moms”. Law enforcement officers have responded with teargas, pepper balls and flash bangs.Setmayer said: “By sending federal law enforcement officers into places like Portland and other cities, all it’s doing is offering propaganda for the Trump campaign to use to push the law-and-order scare tactics of his campaign. They don’t have anything else to run on. So this is the crux now of the fear campaign that Donald Trump plans to use and Bill Barr is a willing accomplice.”> I think he has all of Trump’s bad intentions but with little of Trump’s incompetence> > Matthew MillerPaul Rosenzweig, a senior fellow at the R Street Institute and veteran of the George W Bush administration, added: “Weaponising the Department of Justice is bad but basically your troops are lawyers with pens. Weaponising the Department of Homeland Security’s law enforcement is worse because your troops are armed with guns.”The Capitol Hill hearing raised further concerns about the fast-approaching election. Asked whether it would be appropriate for the president to accept foreign help, Barr parried that it “depends what kind of assistance”. Only when pressed did he clarify: “No, it’s not appropriate.”While Barr testified that he has “no reason to think” the election will be rigged, he said there could be a “high risk” of voter fraud due to “the wholesale conversion of election to mail-in voting”. Asked whether a sitting US president can move the election date, he replied: “Actually, I haven’t looked into that question under the constitution.”Two days later, Trump tweeted that widespread mail balloting would be a “catastrophic disaster” and floated the idea of changing the election date, which he has no power to do. Election experts point out that all forms of voter fraud are extremely rare and note that Trump himself voted by mail in the last Florida Republican primary.Stuart Stevens, a Republican political consultant and author of the upcoming book It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump, tweeted on Thursday: “Trump can’t cancel an election? Ummm. Ponder this: Trump orders DHS to impound ballots in Dade County on Nov. 1 after ‘reports’ of ‘irregularities.’ Who stops them? Courts order return. But ballots now declared invalid. Chaos. Florida re-vote? What would Barr do? Republicans?”What Barr would do remains a critical question.Once regarded as a conservative stalwart, he has proved less bulwark than bully in the Trump administration, critics allege. Rosenzweig said: “I was one who thought that his appointment as attorney general would be good for the department because 30 years ago he was within the bounds and norms of establishment Republican behavior, perhaps a little more conservative than many but an institutionalist who would restore the department’s independence and stand up to Trump in asserting that.“I have been both shocked and surprised to see that this is not the case any more. I don’t know whether the person 30 years ago was hiding all of this or if he’s changed, but it is clear that the man who 30 years ago was the attorney general for George Bush is not the same person as the man today.”In that sense, Barr is far from alone. Matthew Miller, a former director of the justice department’s public affairs office, said: “Bill Barr has gone off the deep end like the entire Republican party. His journey is just the same journey the rest of the Republican party has gone on which is very conservative, but also he’s had his brain pickled by years of Fox News.”Miller added: “I think he has all of Trump’s bad intentions but with little of Trump’s incompetence. You combine Trump’s bad intentions with someone who is actually competent and mastering the levers of government and it’s fairly dangerous.”


Posted in Uncategorized

Trump news – live: Key impeachment witness says president’s ‘bullying’ ended his career as White House to ban TikTok

Trump news - live: Key impeachment witness says president’s ‘bullying’ ended his career as White House to ban TikTokUS president Donald Trump has said he will ban the popular video app Tiktok over security concerns.The app’s Chinese ownership has raised concerns about the censorship of videos, including those critical of the Chinese government, and the potential for sharing user data with Chinese officials.


Posted in Uncategorized

Federalist Society co-founder says Trump's tweet about delaying election is grounds for impeachment

Federalist Society co-founder says Trump's tweet about delaying election is grounds for impeachmentHe voted for President Trump in 2016 and opposed his impeachment earlier this year, but Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society, believes Trump took things too far by tweeting about delaying November's election.In an op-ed published Thursday afternoon by The New York Times, Calabresi, a professor at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law, wrote that he was "appalled" by Trump's tweet. "Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats' assertion that President Trump is a fascist," he added. "But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president's immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate."Through wars, the Great Depression, and general upheaval, the United States has never canceled or postponed a presidential election, Calabresi said, and Trump's fears over increased mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic is no reason to consider doing so this year. Each state, he wrote, will decide "whether to allow universal mail-in voting and Article II of the Constitution explicitly gives the states total power over the selection of presidential electors."Now is the time for every Republican in Congress to stand up to Trump and let him know he "cannot postpone the federal election," Calabresi said. "Doing so would be illegal, unconstitutional, and without precedent in American history. Anyone who says otherwise should never be elected to Congress again." Read the entire op-ed at The New York Times.More stories from theweek.com Could America split up? New Lincoln Project video imagines what it's like to wake up from a coma in 2020 'Massive undercount' feared as Census Bureau reportedly moves to end in-person count early


Posted in Uncategorized

‘He’s Terrified of Losing’—Trump Goes Into Hyperdrive to Delegitimize the Election

‘He’s Terrified of Losing’—Trump Goes Into Hyperdrive to Delegitimize the ElectionAs much of the political world went into an uproar over Donald Trump floating the idea of delaying the November election, inside the president’s orbit, his Thursday morning tweet suggesting just that was seen as something far narrower and more strategically focused.The president isn’t really trying to delay the vote. He is trying to preemptively delegitimize the likely results.Two administration officials and another individual close to the president say that what they saw Thursday morning was the most recent tantrum—“frustration,” as one of the officials put it—of a president in search of a scapegoat in case he’s denied a second term. None of these sources said they were aware of any serious effort to trample the clear constitutional guidelines and delay a presidential election.“He is terrified of losing this one,” said the person close to Trump. “I have heard him say more times than I can count how insane it would be to live in a country where the people could possibly prefer this guy, Joe Biden, over [the president] and think that this buffoon could be a better leader than Trump.”Asked at his press conference Thursday about the tweet, Trump said “it doesn’t need much explanation” before launching into a lengthy assertion of claims that there would be widespread fraud in the election due to the use of mail-in ballots, relying heavily on reports of delays and irregularities in New York City’s primaries. “I just feel, I don’t want to delay, I want to have the election. But I also don’t wanna have to wait for three months and then find out the ballots are all missing and the election doesn't mean anything,” said the president. “That’s whats gonna happen… smart people know it. Stupid people may not know it.” “Do I want to see a change? No,” said Trump, when pressed on whether he actually meant to change the election’s date or if he meant to sow doubt in the outcome. “I don’t want to see a crooked election.”Will Trump’s Voter-Fraud Rage Backfire?Even if Trump’s tweet about delaying an election—an act for which an army of legal scholars noted Trump lacks the authority—was just a bluff, it underscored a reality that isn’t much more reassuring: The president and his allies have been busy for months sowing doubt about the credibility of an outcome in which Trump isn’t the victor. And they’ve done so through increasingly baseless, self-serving means, including by directing tens of millions of dollars in advertising, multipronged legal action, and nonstop messaging, towards attacking the practice of voting by mail.On Thursday, following the president’s morning tweets, Trump’s lieutenants made clear that that was Team Trump’s primary concern: turning voting-by-mail, a well-established and fairly common practice in American elections, into a convenient bogeyman. “The president is just raising a question about the chaos Democrats have created with their insistence on all mail-in voting,” alleged Hogan Gidley, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary. “They are using coronavirus as their means to try to institute universal mail-in voting, which means sending every registered voter a ballot whether they asked for one or not.”Across town on Capitol Hill, the president hitting the send button on the Thursday tweet sparked a time-honored reaction: Republicans ducking and claiming they didn’t see it. For those who copped to looking, nearly all pointed out that Trump lacked the authority to follow through on his presumed threat. Others suggested he was merely joking. “I don’t know how else to interpret it,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told The Daily Beast. “All you guys in the press, your heads will explode and you’ll write about it.”But on the question of whether Trump’s words served to sow discord over the trustworthiness of the election, a familiar split developed, with lawmakers close to the president validating his stated concerns about mail-in ballots, and his critics expressing fear that Trump’s tweet was posted in earnest. Asked if she was concerned that Trump’s tweet would undermine public trust in the election, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) quickly said yes. “I think that we should all be working to shore up the faith in our electoral system,” Murkowski said.And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has formally warned against undermining trust in U.S. elections, told The Daily Beast he wished Trump hadn’t said what he did. “He can suggest whatever he wants,” Rubio added. “We're going to have an election, it's going to be legitimate, it's going to be credible.”Even a co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society expressed horror at Trump’s tweet. “Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist. But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate,” Steven Calabresi wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times. Fox News Analyst: Trump’s Election Tweet a ‘Flagrant Expression of His Current Weakness’Many Republicans were content to sidestep questions about the impact of Trump’s words on the public’s trust in elections. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) responded by saying that Trump was raising legitimate concerns about mail-in voting. But he also expressed confidence in the electoral process. “I feel like we’ll be ready to go in November, and we’ll have a free and fair election,” said Graham.While Trump’s main objective may have been to seed doubts about the outcome of the election, the fact that he expressed it shows the erosion of bulwarks against authoritarianism, according to lawyers and scholars. They warned that those safeguards depend in large part on Republican condemnation. The fact that they weren’t, said Jason Stanley, a Yale philosophy professor, poses an urgent threat to U.S. political stability, particularly as Trump “surges” federal agents into what he describes as Democratic-controlled cities against protesters he conflates with terrorists. “Republican leaders have to denounce this. Trump is testing the waters, like he always does,” said Stanley. “The worry is that after multiple presidential elections in which the minority party won and governed in a way untethered from its electoral support, American democracy is seriously challenged.” Legal scholars agree that the law provides no authority to the president to delay an election, but instead leaves that power in the hands of Congress. In 2014, a Congressional Research Service report assessed the prospect of delaying an election due to a “sufficiently calamitous” terrorist attack. It concluded that while the Executive Branch held “significant delegated authority regarding some aspects of election law, this authority does not currently extend to setting or changing the times of elections.”But the Trump years have provided routine lessons about the fragility of American institutions as bulwarks against authoritarianism. Jameel Jaffer, executive director of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, said that beyond the illegality of delaying the election, it was significant that Trump believed he possessed the power to delay it. “There’s a difference between saying, ‘He’s not allowed to do this’ and saying, ‘He won’t do it,’” Jaffer said. “That’s what’s most disturbing here, not the possibility they come up with a colorable argument, but that the president will act in spite of the absence of any colorable legal argument.” A Justice Department spokesperson did not reply to a query about any recent guidance its Office of Legal Counsel has offered on the issue. During Tuesday testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General William Barr said he had “never looked into” whether the president could override statutes establishing the date of the presidential election. Barr also demurred when asked if he committed the department to noninterference in a contested election outcome, saying merely, “I will follow the law.” Several prominent Trump allies—including some of his chummiest advisers and most hardened legal defenders—dismissed the notion that he could or would push the election back. In a brief phone conversation, celebrity attorney and Harvard Law figure Alan Dershowitz, a member of the defense team during Trump’s impeachment trial, said, “The answer is clear: only Congress can change the date of the election. A president doesn't have the authority… Of course, any citizen has the right to ask Congress to make a change, but I can’t imagine that they would do that.”But others close to the president kept the door propped conspicuously open. Testifying on Thursday morning, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, an attorney, said about presidential authority to delay an election, “In the end, the Department of Justice, others will make that determination.” Stanley, who authored the book How Fascism Works, said the presence of federal law enforcement in American cities rendered it “a dangerous time” for Trump to “raise doubts about the election in case he loses.” He noted that in Portland, agents from the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security “went and did what Trump wanted them to do” while using the language of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency to justify suppressing protesters.  Vigilante violence tied to the election is also possible in the event that Trump disputes the outcome. Armed accelerationist elements like the Boogaloo Bois, a meme-turned-militant movement, seek a civil war or a race war. In Louisville over the weekend, opposing armed militias assembled at a rally for Breonna Taylor but avoided violence. Historically, “it’s very familiar when you have a militarized force used to going after foreign enemies and then allowed to operate domestically to separate citizens from noncitizens, and now the worry is they’ll be sent against protesters and demonstrators, and all of this is worrisome ahead of the election,” Stanley said. “Unfortunately, this is on the Republican Party, and unfortunately, the Republican Party has not been acting like a party in a democracy for quite some time.” Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.


Posted in Uncategorized