Wednesday Reads

Good Afternoon!!

Today is the second full day of Trump 2.0, and the whirlwind of activity is already exhausting. Trump is trying to reverse everything Joe Biden accomplished over the past 4 years. He has issued hundreds of pardons to the January 6 rioters and other criminals. He is beginning to enact the policies laid out in “Project 2025.” And he has begun his campaign of revenge and retribution against anyone he perceives as criticizing him or opposing his wishes. I can’t possibly touch on everything that has happened, so I’ll just share commentary on two stories that I think are important: Trump’s pardons of the January 6 criminals and Elon Musk’s public performance of the Nazi salute.

First, in one fell swoop, Trump has destroyed the hard work of hundreds of prosecutors, judges, investigators, and members of the public who worked tirelessly to track down the criminals who attacked and trashed the Capitol and threatened the lives of legislators, law enforcement officers, and Trump’s own Vice President on January 6, 2021. We were assured by VP J.D. Vance, and multiple Republican politicians that Trump would only free non-violent offenders from that day, but it was all a lie. He released them all back into society where they can do whatever they want–no paroles, no supervision of any kind. In my opinion, Trump sees these criminals as his defenders. They can now organize and act as his private army

Kelly Rissman at The Independent: ‘F*** it, release em all:’: Inside Trump’s decision to issue blanket Jan 6 pardons.

In one of the first acts of his second administration, President Donald Trump pardoned nearly all of the January 6 criminals and new details reveal the spur-of-the-moment decision to release 1,500 people charged.

“Trump just said: ‘F*** it: Release ‘em all,’” an adviser familiar with the discussions told the Axios.

On the campaign trail, Trump flirted with pardoning who he describes as the “J6 hostages,” and on Monday decided to issue pardons to most of the people charged in connection to the riot and effort to overturn the 2020 election. That ended their prison sentence and allowed those convicted to walk out of prison.

In one of the first acts of his second administration, President Donald Trump pardoned nearly all of the January 6 criminals and new details reveal the spur-of-the-moment decision to release 1,500 people charged.

“Trump just said: ‘F*** it: Release ‘em all,’” an adviser familiar with the discussions told the Axios.

On the campaign trail, Trump flirted with pardoning who he describes as the “J6 hostages,” and on Monday decided to issue pardons to most of the people charged in connection to the riot and effort to overturn the 2020 election. That ended their prison sentence and allowed those convicted to walk out of prison.

Trump had fluctuated on whether to grant clemency to either some or all rioters convicted of January 6-related crimes. Ultimately, the decision was made in the spur of the moment, White House advisers told Axios.

Trump’s pardons were made in defiance of JD Vance’s advice that convicts who committed violence during the Capitol attack shouldn’t be granted clemency. He told Fox News last week: “If you committed violence that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.”

The president’s move also came as a surprise to some Republicans, who have said they don’t agree with his move.

“Well, I think I agree with the vice president,” Sen. Mitch McConnell told Semafor. “No one should excuse violence. And particularly violence against police officers.”

But Trump not only excuses violence that he perceives as supportive of him; he also celebrates it. Again and again, he has said that the January 5 attack was a “day of love.”

Rachel Leingang at The Guardian: Trump rewrites the violence of January 6 and ‘legitimates future ones.’

Donald Trump spent the four years after the January 6 insurrection attempting to rewrite the violence and chaos he inspired as his supporters stormed the US Capitol.

On the first day of his second term as president, he took the rewriting to its final step by issuing pardons and reducing sentences for those involved in the insurrection, including the leaders of far-right militias and those who battled with police that day.

If the criminal charges were meant to deter future acts of political violence, the pardons of more than 1,500 people do the opposite, experts said.

“This is going beyond rewriting what January 6 was,” said Robert Pape, the director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago who has studied January 6 defendants. “This is about legitimating future January 6ths.”

A procession of Proud Boys marched in Washington on Monday, carrying a banner that congratulated Trump on his victory, a visible representation of the welcome the far right is receiving from the new administration, and their former national chairperson, Enrique Tarrio, received a full pardon. Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the rightwing Oath Keepers militia group, had his sentence commuted.

“This will have powerful future consequences for normalizing political violence, because many of those he has granted clemency to are an ongoing threat for political violence in the future,” Pape said.

Even those who didn’t themselves participate in violence on January 6 may have played a part in violence. Pape’s research shows that nearly 500 people convicted of low-level non-violent misdemeanors were “knowing and willing participants in the violent aspects of the Capitol siege, and that without the participation of this vast group, the siege would likely have never happened or been quickly ended by the police”….

Trump also directed the justice department to drop the charges in ongoing cases, ending the years of work by the department to find and prosecute the Capitol rioters. Trump named Ed Martin, a conservative lawyer who was involved in the Stop the Steal movement and supported January 6 causes the interim US attorney for Washington DC, putting him in charge of the January 6 prosecutions, NBC News reported.

This also undercuts Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi, who said she planned to evaluate these releases case by case. A bit more from The Guardian:

Perhaps the most visible face of the rioters, Jacob Chansley, known as the “QAnon shaman”, wrote on Twitter/X that he had just received the news from his lawyer that he was pardoned. “NOW I AM GONNA BUY SOME MOTHA FU*KIN GUNS!!! I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!

Jacob Chansley, the QAnon Shaman

Several of those who have publicly discussed their cases have books scheduled to be released about their involvement on January 6 or intend to do speaking engagements about it. Others have started organizations to support those who were involved in the January 6 attack.

Those involved and their supporters were also looking for ways to seek retribution for what they believed was a system rigged against them for their political views.

They could bring civil lawsuits against the government seeking redress or reparations for the charges or time spent in prison, using the language in Trump’s pardon as proof they were overcharged. The pardons call the charges a “grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years”.

Dean Obeidallah writes at The Dean’s Report: Trump’s pardon of the J6 Terrorists is about encouraging future MAGA violence.

I hope your blood is boiling after Donald Trump’s pardon of approximately 1,500 terrorists who attacked our Capitol on Jan. 6. And yes, Trump’s own hand-picked FBI Director testified before Congress that Jan. 6 was an “act of domestic terrorism.” So those people Trump has now pardoned—which includes those in the video below you can see brutally attacking police officers—are terrorists. This is akin to Bin Laden pardoning those involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack.

Overall, the pardons covered more than 600 rioters who had been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement officers at the Capitol. Approximately, 175 of these Trump allies used deadly or dangerous weapons in the attack–including toxic sprays, baseball bats, two-by-fours, crutches, hockey sticks and broken wooden table legs.

Those Trump pardoned include people like Julian Khater, who pled guilty to “assaulting law enforcement officers with pepper spray,” including Officer Brian Sicknick, who died the following day. And Ronald Colton McAbee, a former sheriff’s deputy who was sentenced to nearly six years in prison for assaulting police officers. As DOJ detailed, McAbee held down a police officer who had been “knocked to the ground, kicked, and stripped of his baton by other rioters” enabling the crowd to viciously beat him. As a result, “the officer sustained physical injuries, including a head laceration, concussion, elbow injury, bruising, and bodily abrasions.”

Daniel Joseph “DJ” Rodriguez who used a stun gun on Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone and was sentenced to 12.5 years for his bevy of crimes. And David Dempsey who prosecutors called “one of the most violent” Jan. 6 attackers—who assaulted and injured numerous police officers by spraying then with pepper spray and hitting them with various items including a metal crutch, chairs and a long wooden pole. He pled guilty and was sentenced to two decades in prison.

Then there are the leaders of the militant groups the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys who had been convicted of “Seditious Conspiracy”—which is almost as serious as Treason. As DOJ noted, the Oath Keepers leaders “plotted to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power” and then came to Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6 “with paramilitary gear and supplies including firearms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, and radio equipment.” Yet Trump freed them from prison despite their sentences of nearly 20 years.

These are violent and dangerous people—including many with military experience and tactical planning skills–who Trump pardoned and released from jail. Why? Trump—like any other aspiring dictators—wants to make a public showing that if you commit crimes and violence on his behalf, he will have your back.

However, there is also an even more sinister reason for Trump’s pardons of the most violent attackers. Trump wants to incentivize others in MAGA to do the same in the future—with the implicit promise being “I will pardon you like I did the Jan. 6 terrorists.”

That is not just my view. That what authoritarian expert Ruth Ben-Ghiat explained to me last year when I interviewed her about Trump’s praise of the Jan. 6 attackers and vow to pardon them. She first shared that Trump—like other fascist leaders—is trying “to change the perception of violence. To get people to see that violence is not negative.” Trump is thereby conditioning his supporters to believe that. “Violence is sometimes morally necessary and even righteous, and even patriotic.”

As to Trump’s promise of pardons, Ben-Ghiat explained, “All authoritarians use pardons because why do you want people sitting in jail–the worst people in the world–who are for you the best people and could serve your goals?”

We’ll find out if it worked for Trump when and if people publicly protest his decisions and actions. 

The Washington Post: Clemency for Oath Keepers, Proud Boys fuels extremism threat, experts say.

President Donald Trump defended his decision to free all of roughly 1,600 Jan. 6 riot defendants on Tuesday as the leaders of two extremist groups who played outsize roles in the Capitol attack walked out of federal prisons after serving a fraction of their sentences for seditious conspiracy. Trump called the conspirators’ sentences “ridiculous and excessive,” saying he pardoned “people that were treated unbelievably poorly.”

But counterterrorism experts say the pardons could further embolden fringe groups and hamper the Justice Department’s fight against political violence.

Former Proud Boys Chairman Enrique Tarrio

Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was headed home to Miami from a Louisiana prison and expected to address the media Tuesday at the airport, his lawyer said, freed from the longest sentence in the riot — 22 years — for mobilizing his right-wing group as an “army” to keep Trump in power as Congress met to confirm the 2020 election.

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, who was sentenced to 18 years, was released shortly after midnight in Cumberland, Maryland, his lawyer said, and emerged later Tuesday outside the D.C. jail to await release of those held on Jan. 6 charges. Rhodes was found guilty of urging Trump to use paramilitary groups to hold the White House and bringing armed followers to Washington ready for “civil war.”

Extremism researchers raised concerns over the message their freedom sends to armed militia-style groups or others with violent anti-government views. If those convicted of plotting such violence against the government walked free with support from the nation’s commander in chief,would others be energized to take up more action?

“Those groups of course are going to see the return of battle-hardened leaders, who in addition to having a kind of real-life legitimacy due to having actually fought the government, will also have a strong sense of victimhood and martyrdom, which will further radicalize and fuel recruitment platforms,” said Jacob Ware, a Council on Foreign Relations research fellow. “This move is going to make combating terrorism far more difficult, not just over the next four years as groups feel like they have an ally in the White House, but beyond that as well.”

Ware called the pardons “a pretty catastrophic moment for domestic counterterrorism.”

The Proud Boys and especially the Oath Keepers “have been relatively dormant for several years now,” hit very hard and deterred by the seditious conspiracy cases, he said.

“In the past when individuals were acquitted of this crime, recognized as among the most serious in a democracy, it incontrovertibly breathed new life into far-right violent extremism in the United States,” said Bruce Hoffman, a veteran counterterrorism and homeland security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1988 a jury in Fort Smith, Arkansas, acquitted 14 white supremacists of seditious conspiracy, revitalizing an anti-government militia movement that spurred the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City five years later, Hoffman said.

I guess we’ll find out soon enough if these predictions are accurate.

I’m sure you’ve seen the Nazi salute that Elon Musk performed during a speech at Trump’s inaugural “parade.” Personally, I don’t think there’s any doubt that the salute was genuine and intended to shock, but some observers are trying to minimize it.

Some commentary:

Martin Pengelly at The Guardian: Elon Musk appears to make back-to-back fascist salutes at inauguration rally.

Elon Musk waded into controversy on Monday when he gave back-to-back fascist-style salutes during celebrations of the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump.

“I just want to say thank you for making it happen,” the owner of SpaceX, X and Tesla, the richest person on earth and a major Trump donor and adviser, told Trump supporters at the Capital One Arena in Washington.

Musk then slapped his right hand into his chest, fingers splayed, before shooting out his right arm on an upwards diagonal, fingers together and palm facing down.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which campaigns against antisemitism, defines the Nazi salute as “raising an outstretched right arm with the palm down”.

As the crowd roared, Musk turned and saluted again, his arm and hand slightly lower.

“My heart goes out to you,” Musk said, striking himself on the chest again. “It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured. Thanks to you. We’re gonna have safe cities, finally safe cities. Secure borders, sensible spending. Basic stuff. And we’re gonna take ‘Doge’ to Mars.” [….]

Social media users expressed shock at Musk’s gesture. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a history professor at New York University, said: “Historian of fascism here. It was a Nazi salute and a very belligerent one too.”

Musk did not immediately comment, though he did repost footage of his remarks that included the second salute and endorsed memes seeking to turn footage of his salutes into jokes.

One X user wrote: “Can we please retire the calling people a Nazi thing?”

Musk wrote: “Yeah exactly” and added a “yawning” emoji.

Nonetheless, Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, described Musk delivering “a Roman salute, a fascist salute most commonly associated with Nazi Germany”.

The ADL, meanwhile, says that in Germany between 1933 and 1945, the Nazi salute “was often accompanied by chanting or shouting ‘Heil Hitler’ or ‘Sieg Heil.’ Since world war two, neo-Nazis and other white supremacists have continued to use the salute, making it the most common white supremacist hand sign in the world.”

Kate Connolly at The Guardian: ‘The gesture speaks for itself’: Germans respond to Musk’s apparent Nazi salute.

There were angry reactions across Europe to Elon Musk’s apparent use of a salute banned for its Nazi links in Germany, where some condemned it as malicious provocation or an outreach of solidarity to far-right groups.

Michel Friedman, a prominent German-French publicist and former deputy chair of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, described Musk’s actions – at an event after Donald Trump’s swearing in as US president – as a disgrace and said Musk had shown that a “dangerous point for the entire free world” had been reached.

Friedman, who descends from a family of Polish Jews, hardly any of whom survived the Holocaust, told the daily Tagesspiegel he had been shocked when watching the inauguration live on television, adding that as far as he was concerned Musk had unambiguously performed the Nazi “Heil Hitler” salute, despite attempts to downplay it.

“I thought to myself, the breaking of taboos is reaching a point that is dangerous for the entire free world. The brutalisation, the dehumanisation, Auschwitz, all of that is Hitler. A mass murderer, a warmonger, a person for whom people were nothing more than numbers – fair game, not worth mentioning,” Friedman said.

Charlotte Knobloch, the president of the Jewish community in Munich and Upper Bavaria, described the gesture as “highly disconcerting”. But she said it was not as significant as Musk’s recent attempts to meddle in German politics, where he has endorsed the far-right Alternative für Deutschland ahead of next month’s federal election.

“Far more worrying are Elon Musk’s political positions, his offensive interference in the German parliamentary election campaign and his support for a party whose anti-democratic aims should be under no illusions,” she said in a statement.

The Washington Post: Musk’s straight-arm gesture embraced by right-wing extremists regardless of what he meant.

Right-wing extremists are celebrating Elon Musk’s straight-arm gesture during a speech Monday, although his intention wasn’t totally clear and some hate watchdogs are saying not to read too much into it….

Many social media users noticed that the gesture looked like a Nazi salute. Musk has only fanned the flames of suspicion by not explicitly denying those claims in a dozen posts since, though he did make light of the criticism and lashed out at people making that interpretation.

“The ‘everyone is Hitler’ attack is sooo tired,” Musk posted on X several hours after he left the stage.

Critics and fans alike of the Tesla CEO and world’s richest man were quick to react to the gesture.

“The White Flame will rise again,” a chapter of the white nationalist group White Lives Matter posted on Telegram.

“Maybe woke really is dead,” white nationalist Keith Woods posted on X.

“Did Elon Musk just Heil Hitler …” right-wing commentator Evan Kilgore posted on X. “We are so back.” 

Some expert commentary:

Kurt Braddock, a professor of communication at American University who studies extremism, radicalization and terrorism, said the gesture was a fascist salute and “people shouldn’t doubt what they saw.”

“I know what I saw, I know what the response to it was among elements of the extreme right including neo-Nazis, Braddock said. “And none of it is a laughing matter.”

1934: German dictator Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) giving the Nazi salute from his car whilst at the Nazi Party Congress. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Efraim Zuroff, the retired head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Jerusalem office and formerly the organization’s top Nazi hunter, said he also saw it as Nazi salute, and that it happened at U.S. presidential inauguration celebration made it especially shocking to see.

“It’s totally improper, and it raises all sorts of questions regarding his motivations, or his ignorance,” he said in a telephone interview from Israel. “This is America, the leader of the free world, the people who sacrificed 200,000 soldiers who died to defend Europe. He has to explain himself.”

In Europe where the fascist salute is associated with the hate, death and destruction of World War II, Musk’s arm gesture elicited outrage.

An Italian communist youth organization on Tuesday hung an effigy of Musk upside down in Milan’s Piazzale Loreto, where Mussolini’s body was hung upside down after he was executed during the final days of World War II. The organization, Cambiare Rotta (Change Course), noted in a Facebook post that a photo of the effigy had been removed by the social media company.

“We are correctly a little afraid, because that image is scary,’’ author Filippo Ceccarelli told Italian La7 private television.

Known as the Roman salute in Italy, the straight-arm greeting officially adopted in 1925 by the dictator Benito Mussolini’s fascist regime is banned in Italy though it is rarely prosecuted.

This post is getting too long, but I just want to share one more article by Andrew Perez, Asawin Suebsaeng at Rolling Stone: In Trump’s America, the Oligarchy Is Done Pretending to Care About You.

Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term on Monday before the world’s richest people. Elon MuskJeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg were among those seated closest to Trump as he demonized the most vulnerable members of our society, rewrote the history of his criminal prosecutions, and pledged to roll back Joe Biden’s efforts to address climate change. 

They smiled. They laughed. They thumbs-upped. They loved it. 

By the end of Inauguration Day, Trump had signed an executive order attempting to abolish “birthright citizenship,” cut off all asylum claims at the southern border, signed an order prohibiting federal recognition of transgender Americans, once again ended America’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and issued pardons to 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants, including the seditionist leader of the Proud Boys. 

Not so long ago, some of the ultra-wealthy and big corporations would feign disgust with Trump. They paid lip service to social justice movements and pledged to make paltry efforts to reduce their climate impact. That’s all over now. America’s oligarchs are done pretending — there is too much money to be made and power to be amassed together. They’ll get to keep their Trump tax cuts, and can expect to receive more. The government investigations of their businesses and regulatory scrutiny will end. All they have to do is act like — or freely admit — they support Trump and his policies. Pay up, show respect, get paid, and whatever else you want. 

In the days leading up to Trump’s second inauguration, pockets of deep-blue Washington were transformed into a mecca of MAGA glitz and boozy, Trumpified access-peddling. In downtown D.C., Trump’s Sunday and Monday afternoon pageantries were quickly followed with rows of richly dressed MAGA fans and ticket-holders standing out in the cold, waiting to get into the evening’s selections of this exclusive party, sponsored by that corporate colossus, all to toast the dawn of yet another four years of reality-TV-style authoritarian decay.

Just a few short years ago, corporate America was so mad about the Jan. 6 insurrection, when Trump whipped up his supporters and they attacked the U.S. Capitol to try to block Joe Biden from becoming president. Meta, Facebook’s parent company, said it was “appalled by the violence at the Capitol,” and Zuckerberg, its CEO, declared on Jan. 7, 2021 that the company would block Trump from posting after its platform was used “to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government.” 

Zuckerberg’s concerns about the health of our democracy appear to have subsided. On Jan. 7 this year, he announced Facebook would end its fact-checking program. He also went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to talk about how the “corporate world is pretty culturally neutered” and society has become “emasculated.” Meta, like many big corporations, made a large donation ($1 million) to Trump’s inaugural committee….

Due to cold weather, Trump’s coronation was moved inside, into the Capitol building his supporters ransacked four years ago. Holding the ceremony in the small Capitol rotunda gave it an exclusive, cozy feel and kept out the riff-raff: No commoners could watch Trump’s swearing-in live in-person — not even Republican governors, who were relegated to an overflow room. Only the elite of the elite and the best Trump supporters. Musk. Zuckerberg. Bezos. Google CEO Sundar Pichai sat with them. Apple CEO Tim Cook was there. Former Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush were seated in front of UFC’s Dana White. Rogan, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, and Turning Point USA chief Charlie Kirk were there, too….

Musk — who leads Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter) — came out as a MAGA fanatic this summer and leaned in, spending $153 million to boost Trump’s presidential campaign via his Super PAC. He amplified Trump’s campaign against migrants and undocumented immigrants, running ads decrying the “HISTORIC BORDER INVASION” and “illegal immigrants getting handouts.” [….]

Bezos, Amazon’s founder and chairman, has his own space business, Blue Origin, and Amazon provides cloud services to the government. The world’s second-richest man started cozying up to Trump not long before the election, when he killed The Washington Post’s planned endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris. Bezos, who’s owned the paper since 2013, wrote in a Post op-ed that “no quid pro quo of any kind” was to blame for his decision. After Trump won, Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund. The company, which is spending $40 million to license a documentary and a limited series about First Lady Melania Trump, recently deleted its public commitments to protecting the rights of Black and LGBTQ+ people from its website. The Post’s editorial board separately endorsed most of Trump’s Cabinet and Cabinet-level nominees….

Zuckerberg, the third-richest man in the world, was seen as a Trump enemy — specifically because he funded election infrastructure during the 2020 contest, after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Trump literally threatened to jail him for life. Following Trump’s win, Zuckerberg flew to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club to suck up to the incoming commander in chief. Shortly before Trump’s inauguration, Meta announced it is ending its diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and changed its policies to allow users to attack LGBTQ+ people as “mentally ill,” women as “crazy,” and Mexican immigrants as “trash.”

If corporate America used to toss liberals some cultural wins here and there, instead of improving anyone’s material conditions, the ultra-wealthy are done bothering with that charade now. 

There is no reason for America’s oligarchs to hide anymore, no penalty to pay. What matters, financially-speaking, is getting close to Trump. 

We are turning into post Soviet Russia. I wonder if it is going to be possible to fight this? We can only hope.

 

 

 

 


Sunday Reads: The Final Day Before Chaos Returns

Good Afternoon!!

Inauguration of John F. Kennedy

Today is the final day before the Trump 2.0 begins. I have no idea what is going to happen, but I’m sure it will be ugly and deeply embarrassing to our country.

Our so-called “president” will be a convicted felon, a rapist, a grifter, a fraudster, a common criminal.

So far, I don’t see any sign that Democrats will put up a serious challenge to what is coming. I hope I’m wrong. 

Tomorrow Trump will be sworn in, and the inauguration is going to be very odd. At the last minute, he decided to hold the ceremony indoors in the Capital rotunda and cancel the parade, supposedly because the weather will be “dangerously cold.” I’m sorry, but 20 degrees is not “dangerous” weather. The more likely reason for the change is that Trump feared a small turnout. 

Raw Story: Trump dramatically scales back inauguration plans as hotel occupancies stall: reports.

Donald Trump drastically scaled back plans for his inauguration as hotel occupancies stalled just days ahead of his return to the White House.

The president-elect was infamously touchy about the crowd size at his first inauguration in 2017, and hotel occupancy rates in Washington, D.C., are hovering just above 70 percent with three days until he takes the oath of office again and bitterly cold temperatures forecast for Monday, so Trump announced that he would instead move the ceremony indoors to the U.S. Capitol….

“It is my obligation to protect the People of our Country but, before we even begin, we have to think of the Inauguration itself,” Trump added. “The weather forecast for Washington, D.C., with the windchill factor, could take temperatures into severe record lows. There is an Arctic blast sweeping the Country. I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way. It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th (In any event, if you decide to come, dress warmly!). Therefore, I have ordered the Inauguration Address, in addition to prayers and other speeches, to be delivered in the United States Capitol Rotunda, as was used by Ronald Reagan in 1985, also because of very cold weather.” [….]

“The various Dignitaries and Guests will be brought into the Capitol,” Trump posted. “This will be a very beautiful experience for all, and especially for the large TV audience! We will open Capital One Arena on Monday for LIVE viewing of this Historic event, and to host the Presidential Parade. I will join the crowd at Capital One [Arena], after my Swearing In. All other events will remain the same, including the Victory Rally at Capital One Arena, on Sunday at 3 P.M. (Doors open at 1 P.M.—Please arrive early!), and all three Inaugural Balls on Monday evening. Everyone will be safe, everyone will be happy, and we will, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Also from Raw Story, on January 13: Even protesters are skipping: D.C. hotel bookings way down for Trump inauguration.

Hotel bookings are way down ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration next week, and applications for protest permits are also off pace compared to the last time he took office.

The president-elect’s first inauguration sparked furious protests that led to violence and arrests in January 2017. This year the National Park Service has fielded far fewer requests for permits and law enforcement officials don’t anticipate trouble managing any crowds that do converge to oppose the incoming president, reported the Washington Post….

Hotel occupancy rates for next Sunday hovered at about 70 percent as of last week, according to Smith Travel Research. That’s compared to 95 percent the night before Trump’s first inauguration eight years ago and 97.2 percent for Barack Obama’s first inauguration in 2009. That rate plunged to 78 percent for his second inauguration in 2013.

Trump’s inaugural committee has raised a record $170 million to go toward a parade, swearing-in ceremony, a “victory rally” at Capital One Arena on Sunday and a national prayer service Tuesday at Washington National Cathedral. Information about other events are “forthcoming,” according to the inauguration website.

John F. Kennedy inauguration

Now all that is scaled back. I suppose it will mean that Trump gets to keep all that money. The MAGATs who elected him spent big bucks to come to DC and see their cult leader’s big moment. Now they’ve lost all that money and all they have are their tickets to the inauguration as souvenirs, but Trump couldn’t care less about them. They’ve served their purpose and now they can be discarded.

Jeff Tiedrich at “everyone is entitled to my own opinion”: elderly Florida resident too frail to be outdoors in the cold.

at noon on January 20, 1961, as John F. Kennedy prepared to take the oath of office, the temperature hovered around 22°F. the wind-chill made it seem more like 7°F. did JFK whine that it was too chilly, and insist on going inside? no, he did not. he stood there in the cold, and ask not what your country’d the shit out of his inauguration. he fucking nailed it.

Jimmy Carter shrugged off the 28°F temps at his inauguration. same deal with Bill Clinton — the Big Dog wasn’t about to let 28°F temps spoil his day.

Little Donny Convict, however, is a dotard of a different stripe. the frail old fuck took one look at tomorrow’s forecast of 23°F temps and pulled the plug on the whole enchilada.

In a statement posted to his Truth Social social media platform, Trump said that he does not “want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way” amid the freezing temperatures.

“It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of law enforcement, first responders, police K9s and even horses” as well as “hundreds of thousands” of supporters.

ohhhh, it’s too cold. oh, boo fucking hoo. cry me a river with this ‘dangerous conditions’ nonsense. maybe Florida Man should have holed up in his golf motel instead of running for president. he doesn’t seem up to the rigors of the job.

how fucking hilarious is it that this self-styled “tough guy” who sells AI-generated pics of himself tarted up as Superman falls to pieces and hide out the second the thermometer drops?

you want to talk about cold? yesterday, Kansas City Chiefs and Houston Texans played a football game. it was 25°F in Kansas City — but Arrowhead Stadium was packed to the rafters. no one complained about how dangerous the conditions were.

but sure, tell me again how Donny the Great Humanitarian cares about the safety of the cultists. it’s such a great story. but where was this concern a year ago, when he made the faithful wait for hours outside in -17°F temps in Iowa?

Jimmy Carter and Rosalynn Carter walk in the Inaugural parade.

But Trump will still surround himself with autocrats from around the world. 

Matt Laslo Nicolae Viorel Butler at Raw Story: Inside the parade of right-wing world leaders flocking to D.C. for Trump’s inauguration.

In a historic first, President-elect Donald Trump is bucking centuries of American tradition by welcoming an array of foreign leaders to his second inauguration.

The parade is about as far-right as they come, including many who — whether in policy or bombast — have been compared to Trump himself….

Below is a partial list of the Trump-like leaders coming to kiss the ring….

Trumplike European leaders

Nigel Farage — Brexit salesman. He is known for his anti-EU and anti-immigrant stances and accused of inciting xenophobia throughout his Brexit campaign.

Giorgia Meloni — Italy’s first female prime minister. Leader of the Brothers of Italy, a far-right party with post-fascist roots. Advocate for strict immigration controls and preservation of Italy’s ‘Christian’ identity. She’s alarmed critics for declaring herself a defender of “God, homeland and family,” echoing nationalist slogans from the past (think Mussolini).

Rewriting Nazi atrocities

Tino Chrupalla  Co-leader of Alternative for Germany Party (AfD). Known for nationalist and Eurosceptic stances. Advocate for ending Russian sanctions and Trump fanboy. In a televised debate, Chrupalla once drew outrage for questioning Germany’s responsibility for World War II atrocities.

Mateusz Morawiecki — Former Polish prime minister. Member of the right-wing Law and Justice Party (PiS). A staunch conservative who regularly deploys anti-LGBTQ and anti-EU rhetoric. Once claimed Poland shouldn’t be blamed for Nazi atrocities during World War II.

Persecuting ethnic minorities now en vogue

Tom Van Grieken — Leader of Belgium’s far-right Vlaams Belang Party, which advocates for Flemish independence and stringent immigration policies. Has labeled refugees “fortune seekers” and likened multiculturalism to “the destruction of Europe.”

André Ventura — Leader of Portugal’s right-wing populist Chega Party. Anti-migrant and anti-Roma, a minority community of asylum seekers fleeing persecution back in India. Controversially called Roma communities a “state-sponsored gang” and proposed DNA testing for welfare applicants to prove their identity.

Xenophobia in the House (Senate too)!

Éric Zemmour — French far-right commentator, author and politician. Anti-immigrant, Eurosceptic. He claims France’s decline is due to immigration and liberal policies in his book, The French Suicide. Sparked outrage for accusing Muslim asylum seekers of being focused on the “colonization” of France.

Santiago Abascal — Leader of Spain’s far-right Vox Party. A vocal critic of multiculturalism and immigration. Calls for building Trump-like walls along Spain’s borders to deter migrants. Calls Islam a “threat to European civilization.” Once claimed feminists were part of “gender totalitarianism” at a political rally.

Mixing religion and politics

Javier Milei — Newly elected president of Argentina. A Trump-like populist. Called Pope Francis a “communist” and “representative of the evil left.”

Election denier’s request to attend inauguration denied

Jair Bolsonaro — Former President of Brazil. Bombastic right-wing populist. Facing charges for allegedly trying to overturn Brazil’s 2022 election. He had his passport confiscated, and on Thursday, the Brazilian Supreme Court denied his request to travel to Washington for Trump’s second inaugural.

No Orban? No Putin?

What does Trump have planned for day 1? Reportedly, there will be ICE raids on undocumented immigrants in blue cities. According to the Wall Street Journal, Chicago will be first.

Nick Miroff and Maria Sacchetti at The Washington Post: Trump officials haven’t decided on post-inauguration Chicago raids, Homan says.

President-elect Donald Trump’s handpicked “border czar” Tom Homan said in an interview Saturday that the incoming administration is reconsidering whether to launch immigration raids in Chicago next week after preliminary details leaked out in news reports.

Homan, the former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told The Washington Post that the new administration “hasn’t made a decision yet.”

1/20/1981 President Reagan being sworn in on Inaugural Day at the United States Capitol

“We’re looking at this leak and will make a decision based on this leak,” Homan said. “It’s unfortunate because anyone leaking law enforcement operations puts officers at greater risk.”

ICE has been planning a large operation in the Chicago area for next week that would start after Inauguration Day and would bring in additional officers to ramp up arrests, according to two current federal officials and a former official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal law enforcement planning.

Homan said he did not know why Chicago “became a focus of attention” and said the incoming administration’s enforcement goals are much broader than one city.

“ICE will start arresting public safety threats and national security threats on day one,” he said. “We’ll be arresting people across the country, uninhibited by any prior administration guidelines. Why Chicago was mentioned specifically, I don’t know.”

“This is nationwide thing,” he added. “We’re not sweeping neighborhoods. We have a targeted enforcement plan.”

The seesawing reports of possible raids in Chicago can stir up fears that advance the administration’s broader enforcement goals, even if operations are postponed or shifted to other cities. Homan and other Trump aides say they want immigrants living in the United States illegally to once more fear arrest and choose to leave the country on their own, or “self-deport.”

According to the conservative Boston Herald, Trump administration set to conduct ICE raids in Boston after Chicago, New York.

Sources told the Herald on Saturday that the U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement will conduct its first raid under the Trump administration in Chicago on Tuesday. New York and Miami will follow soon after, according to multiple news reports.

Boston and other Massachusetts sanctuary cities are expected to be a top-five target for the Trump administration to conduct mass arrests of illegal immigrants, sources said, depending on how the rollout progresses.

Trump has promised tackling illegal immigration will be a top priority when he regains office on Monday, pledging to oversee the largest deportation effort in U.S. history.

“There’s going to be a big raid all across the country,” incoming border czar Tom Homan said on Fox News Friday night. “Chicago is just one of many places.”

“ICE is finally going to go out and do their job,” he added. “We’re going to take the handcuffs off ICE and let them go arrest criminal aliens. That’s what’s going to happen.”

Politico reports that some National Guard troops are anxious about what they will be asked to do: National Guard troops worry Trump will deploy them for mass deportations.

National Guard members fear landing in the center of a political tussle between red state governors and blue state attorneys general over Donald Trump’s expected crackdown on undocumented immigrants.

The large-scale deportation effort could begin as soon as Monday with Republican governors vowing to deploy the Guard if Trump asks and officials in Democratic states readying quick legal pushback. Some of the 435,000 troops worry they’ll get pulled into a legally murky mission rooting out people in communities where they have day jobs such as sheriffs, cops or firefighters.

Bill Clinton taking the oath of office.

“Our North Star is how lawful is it?” said Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, in an interview about the incoming president deploying the Guard. “If they are operating lawfully, there’s nothing for us to do, and the president is allowed to do that. If he’s acting unlawfully, as he did many times under Trump 1.0, we sued him over 120 times.”

Trump has said he would bring in the military to help with mass deportations, but he has not specified whether he means state-based National Guard members or active duty troops.

“I don’t want to be seen as a Gestapo,” said one former senior military official who is in close contact with current Guard members and was granted anonymity to speak about a legally precarious situation. “It’s important that everybody understands who they are and what they’re doing.”

But the confusion within the Guard hasn’t stopped Republican governors from pledging quick support to Trump’s immigration plans. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said earlier this month he would use the National Guard to assist with deportations if asked by the incoming U.S. administration….

But certain legal guardrails exist. Red states can activate the National Guard to help with immigration enforcement — possibly to assist federal agents — but blue states with control of their own Guard could simply refuse to go along.

Trump has a range of options. He could leave the National Guard under state control but give troops federal funding to tackle the deportation mission, although that would allow individual governors to retain authority over their troops. Trump also could call the Guard up to active-duty status, which would give him greater ability to control troops in blue states and order them across state lines.

Read more at the Politico link.

Trump will also have to deal with the TikTok situation right away. 

The New York Times: TikTok Goes Dark in the U.S.

“Sorry, TikTok isn’t available right now,” the message read.

Hours before a federal law banning TikTok from the United States took effect on Sunday, the Chinese-owned social media app went dark, and U.S. users could no longer access videos on the platform. Instead, the app greeted them with a message that said “a law banning TikTok has been enacted.”

“We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution,” the message said. “Please stay tuned!”

In addition, TikTok’s sister app, Lemon8, stopped working and showed U.S. users a message saying that it “isn’t available right now.” Both TikTok and Lemon8 are owned by ByteDance, a Chinese internet giant. CapCut, a popular video-editing app from ByteDance, was also unavailable.

Apple said it had removed TikTok and other ByteDance apps, including Lemon8, from its app store, and users said that Google’s U.S. app store had also removed TikTok. Searching for the apps on Apple’s app store on Sunday yielded a new message: “TikTok and other ByteDance apps are not available in the country or region you’re in.”

TikTok became unavailable after the Supreme Court decision on Friday upholding the law, which calls for ByteDance to sell the app by Sunday or otherwise face a ban. The law was passed overwhelmingly by Congress last year and signed by President Biden. TikTok, which has faced national security concerns for its Chinese ties, had believed it could win its legal challenge to the law, but failed.

The blackout capped a chaotic stretch for TikTok, which had made last-minute pleas to both the Biden administration and President-elect Donald J. Trump for a way out of the law. Until Saturday night, no one — including the U.S. government — was entirely sure what would happen to it when the law took effect. The United States has never blocked an app used by tens of millions of Americans essentially overnight.

Amanda Marcotte at Salon: Why Trump’s new love of TikTok is dangerous.

Not too long ago, Donald Trump was a big fan of banning TikTok, the Chinese-owned social media app that went offline in the U.S. early Sunday under a controversial ban. On Friday, the Supreme Court upheld the law, passed by bipartisan majorities last April, largely due to concerns that the Chinese government used the platform to spy on Americans. President Joe Biden signed that law, but only four years after Trump, while still president, tried and failed to ban the app through executive order. TikTok allows “the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage,” Trump said in the 2020 order. 

Barak Obama being sworn in.

There’s good reason to believe Trump’s personal reasons weren’t so noble. For one thing, he’s racist against Chinese people and apparently believes COVID-19 was somehow their fault, instead of seeing them as the first victims of a mutated virus. However, while U.S. intelligence services are frustratingly tight-lipped about the specific evidence, both common sense and the testimony of more trustworthy politicians who have seen the intel — including Biden — suggest that the accusation of foreign spying is almost certainly true. Nor is this a “free speech” issue. The right to speak out, even online, has not changed. The government’s authority here is to determine what foreign companies are allowed to operate within our borders, a nearly ironclad power.

Trump, meanwhile, has changed his tune about TikTok, but not because he disbelieves the intelligence reports or because he is a free trade absolutist. (Hardly that, as his love of tariffs demonstrates.) No, it’s because he’s learned in the past four years that TikTok is a shockingly efficient disseminator of disinformation, which is Trump’s main stock-in-trade. “I’m now a big star on TikTok,” he bragged in September, vowing to protect the site from being banned. He’s also buddied up with the chief executive of the American division of TikTok, Shou Chew, inviting him to join the murder’s row of tech billionaires attending the inauguration. 

“It’s been a great platform for him and his campaign to get his America first message out,” Mike Waltz, an incoming national security advisor to Trump, said Thursday. “We will put measures in place to keep TikTok from going dark.” Chew then took to TikTok to publicly credit Trump with working to save the platform. 

On Sunday, Tik Tok rewarded Trump for his support with blatant propaganda. The app went dark, as expected, but when users tried to open it, they got this message: “We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office.”

TikTok is good for Trump, and for one simple reason: It is a maelstrom of disinformation so gargantuan that even Elon Musk-controlled Twitter fails to compete. It’s a train wreck of B.S., from people claiming sunscreen and vaccines don’t work to bizarre videos claiming demons infect everything to old-fashioned authoritarian lies. The company claims to stand for “free speech,” but the Chinese government censors information that doesn’t serve its political goals. The algorithm is hidden from public view, but it’s easy to see it favors divisive, emotionally manipulative and misleading information. It ratchets up culture war tensions and stokes arguments while undermining people’s mental ability to focus on developing solutions. Hundreds of millions of people willingly plug into an app that feeds them the demoralizing propaganda authoritarians have been trying to shove down our throats forever. It’s a fascist’s dream.

Read the rest at Salon.

A few more stories to check out:

Anne Applebaum at The Atlantic: Trump Triggers a Crisis in Denmark—And Europe.

Reuters: Exclusive: German ambassador warns of Trump plan to redefine constitutional order, document shows.

Politico: Trump launches crypto meme coin, ballooning net worth ahead of inauguration.

The New York Times: As Polio Survivors Watch Kennedy Confirmation, All Eyes Are on McConnell.

David A. Graham at The Atlantic: The Tragedy of the Classified Documents Case.

Raw Story: ‘Staggering’: Fiscal hawk Mike Johnson backs mass deportations ‘no matter what the cost.’

That’s it for me today. Take care everyone; enjoy the final hours before the horror begins. 

 


Wednesday Reads: The Sad Spectacle of the Hegseth Confirmation Hearing

Good Morning!!

Pete Hegseth

As usual lately, I hardly know how to begin discussing what’s happening in politics news. It’s all insane.

The Senate is now holding confirmation hearings for Trump’s cabinet picks, most of whom are utterly unsuited for their prospective positions.

Yesterday we heard from Pete Hegseth, nominee for defense secretary. Hegseth is an active alcoholic, a notorious abuser of women, and has zero qualifications for the job. And he was only questioned for four hours! He avoided answering most questions, and the ones he did try to answer, he got wrong. Yesterday, his most prominent adversary, Jody Ernst of Iowa, gave up the ghost and agreed to vote for him because of Trump’s threats to primary her. That means Hegseth will most likely be confirmed.

Right now, the hearing for Pam Bondi, who is nominated for Attorney General is under way. NBC News is running live updates. Other upcoming hearings:

What to expect in the Senate

  — Several of President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks are facing questions today from senators during confirmation hearings, including former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, his pick to lead the Justice Department.

  — Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Trump’s choice for secretary of state, will appear in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rubio, a three-term senator with foreign policy experience, is likely to get a friendly reception from his Senate colleagues.

  — The other hearings today are for former National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe (for CIA director); Russell Vought (for Office of Management and Budget director); former Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., (for transportation secretary); and oil executive Chris Wright (for energy secretary).

  — Today’s proceedings follow yesterday’s tense confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth, Trump’s embattled defense secretary pick.

Josh Marshall notes that it’s important to understand that Democrats have absolutely no control over the results of the confirmation hearings: Thinking About the Confirmations.

There are a few things that are critical to understanding the Trump Cabinet nominations and how Senate Democrats should approach them. The first and most important is that in the case of every nomination the question is entirely up to Republicans. Republicans have a three-seat majority. They have the vote of the Vice President in a tie. What happens or doesn’t happen is entirely a matter decided within the Republican caucus. It is totally out of Democrats’ control. What follows from that is that everything Democrats do, inside the hearing room or outside, is simply and solely a matter of raising the stakes of decisions Republicans make and raising those stakes for the next election. The aim isn’t for any Democratic senator to try to claw their way through the steel wall of Republican loyalty to Donald Trump. It’s to do everything they can to illustrate that Donald Trump staffs his administration with unqualified and/or dangerous toadies and that Senate Republicans are fine with this because they put loyalty to Trump over loyalty to country.

Despite press criticisms of the Democrats, they simply cannot prevent these horrible people from being confirmed. All they can do is put their concerns on the record.

On the Hegseth hearing, I hope you’ll watch this excellent rant by Tim Miller of The Bulwark, who rips Hegseth and the Republicans to shreds.

More commentary on Hegseth:

The New York Times: Joni Ernst Says She Will Vote to Confirm Pete Hegseth

Her decision dramatically increases the likelihood that Mr. Hegseth will have enough votes to be confirmed by the Senate. Because Democrats are expected to oppose him en masse, Mr. Hegseth can afford to lose no more than three Republican votes. After Ms. Ernst’s announcement, only a handful of G.O.P. senators’ votes may be in play; Senators Susan Collins of Maine, John Curtis of Utah, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Todd Young of Indiana have not yet said how they will vote.

Ms. Ernst was seen as a potentially pivotal swing vote for Mr. Hegseth, whose candidacy has been complicated by allegations of sexual assault, public drunkenness and corporate mismanagement. Ms. Ernst, a survivor of sexual assault and the Senate’s first female combat veteran, has actively campaigned for expanding opportunities for female service members and was a leading G.O.P. voice agitating for changes to how the military handles sexual assault cases….

When Mr. Trump announced Mr. Hegseth as his choice, Ms. Ernst initially appeared hostile to the selection, telling reporters that he would “have his work cut out for him.” After a private meeting with Mr. Hegseth, she said on Fox News that she was not yet a “yes” on his confirmation.

Her confession prompted an immediate backlash from outside groups affiliated with Mr. Trump, who targeted her with ads and social media posts, while prominent Iowa Republicans threatened to mount primary challenges against her in 2026.

Within days, Ms. Ernst met with Mr. Hegseth again, and announced that she had been heartened by his promises to audit the Pentagon and appoint a senior official to deter sexual assaults in the military and ensure that female service members would be considered for combat roles if they could meet the requirements.

Benjamin Wittes at Lawfare: The Cult of Unqualified Authenticity. On Pete Hegseth and the first hearing for a Trump nominee for a major cabinet position.

No, you didn’t miss an inauguration. But the Senate Armed Services Committee held the first hearing for a Trump nominee for a major cabinet position. And that hearing made clear that the Trump era has begun anew.

Fox News host Pete Hegseth appeared before the committee to answer questions about his nomination to run the Department of Defense. And with his appearance, a not-so-subtle change took place in the terms of reference of America’s national security discussion.

The words “Russia” and “Ukraine” barely came up today. The words “China” and “Taiwan” made only marginally more conspicuous an appearance. The defense of Europe? One would hardly know such a place as Europe even existed.

By contrast, the words “lethality,” “woke,” and “DEI” came up repeatedly. The nominee sparred with members of the committee over the difference between “equality” and “equity.” And he made clear that he aspires to lead the strongest most effective fighting force in the world—with all the macho bluster such a thing might imply—but gave only the most limited sense of where and when he thinks such a military might actually have a role to play.

Hegseth basically admitted that he’s unqualified.

Hegseth is not a stupid man. He is well-spoken, articulate, knowledgeable about a certain range of issues. And I don’t mean at all to disparage his background as a soldier and officer. There is no doubt he is qualified for some sort of defense policy position. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) at one point suggested that he would support Hegseth as a spokesperson for the Pentagon, stating, “I don’t dispute your communication skills.”

But Hegseth also conceded up front that his background is far from a conventional one for a secretary of defense. He has never held a policy role, for example. He has never run anything larger than a company of 200 soldiers. He has never been elected to anything.

So the first question his nomination raises is whether the normal criteria our system has traditionally used to evaluate what an institution like the Pentagon needs in its management has been not just off, but wildly so.

That was the position Hegseth took in his opening statement and that some of the Republican senators took up. “It is true that I don’t have a similar biography to Defense Secretaries of the last 30 years,” the nominee said. “But, as President Trump also told me, we’ve repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon with supposedly ‘the right credentials’ . . . and where has it gotten us? He believes, and I humbly agree, that it’s time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm.”

This is actually a radical position—and very Trumpy. The closest analogy to it I can drum up is that it’s like an extreme version of saying that because the leadership of a giant worldwide corporation like Toyota or Samsung or Amazon has under-performed, the board should appoint someone to run the whole organization who had once managed a small corner of a single factory.

If, that is, that person also had an alleged history of showing up drunk to work, sexually assaulting women and mistreating female colleagues, and didn’t believe women should be allowed to work on the factory floor at all.

Read the rest at Lawfare.

Jennifer Rubin at The Contrarian: The Greatest DEI Disaster Ever.

Watching Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth demonstrate his appalling lack of credentials, knowledge, and character for the job for which he was nominated I am compelled to ask: Is the Trump administration running a DEI program for incompetent, unqualified, and/or ethically compromised Whites?

Considering Hegseth, election denier Attorney General Pam Bondi, WWE exec Linda McMahon for secretary of education, and vaccine denier, brain-worm victim Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for Health and Human Services, one must conclude Republicans are not sending us their best. (Or, the more alarming alternative…they are sending their best.)

If it were not so deadly serious and discouraging, the Hegseth hearing would have been a form of high comedy. Consider this exchange with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhxQkgra6tk

Or this, with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.):

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s entire line of questioning was devastating:

Moreover, “Senate Democrats on Monday said that an F.B.I. background check on Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick to lead the Pentagon, omitted key details on major allegations against him, in part because it did not include interviews with critical witnesses,” the New York Times reported. “One missed opportunity came when the bureau did not interview one of Mr. Hegseth’s ex-wives before its findings were presented to senators last week, according to people familiar with the bureau’s investigation.” Missed? Or intentionally skipped? It’s unfathomable that such a critical witness would have simply been overlooked.

It is no coincidence that these Democratic women on the committee, including Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and of course Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) showed themselves infinitely more qualified to head the Pentagon. And yet, a man with a history of drinking, a list of financial and sexual scandals (which he denies or claims were merely “anonymous smears”), who possesses absolutely no strategic or diplomatic expertise is president-elect Donald Trump’s choice. While MAGA Republicans (including Hegseth) have genuflected at the altar of “meritocracy”—casting aspersions on women and non-Whites in positions of authority in the military, the Los Angeles fire department, and the Supreme Court—they suspend all critical evaluation of TV hosts, tech bros, and billionaires. The latter they presume qualified.

Philip Bump at The Washington Post: Pete Hegseth seems open to ordering soldiers to shoot protesters.

Soon after the 2020 election, as President Donald Trump was gearing up his efforts to retain power despite his loss, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper was dismissed from his position.

The timing was generally understood to be a reflection of Trump’s disinterest in upending his Cabinet before the election took place. But his frustrations with Esper were already well-established, centering on Esper’s response to racial justice protests that unfolded earlier in the year.

Esper had publicly rejected the idea of dispatching active-duty troops to tamp down on violence and vandalism that occasionally spun out from the protests. He would later reveal that Trump had asked whether law enforcement or the National Guard confronting protesters could “shoot them in the legs or something.” [….]

When Trump returns to the White House next week, he will obviously not be joined by Esper. Instead, should the Senate choose to confirm, he will be joined by former Fox News host Pete Hegseth. Which means that he may be bringing with him a defense secretary who has declined to rule out ordering members of the military to shoot American protesters.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) introduced the subject during her time questioning the potential secretary.

“In June of 2020, then-President Trump directed former secretary of defense Mark Esper to shoot protesters in the legs in downtown D.C., an order Secretary Esper refused to comply with,” Hirono said. “Would you carry out such an order from President Trump?”

“Senator, I was in the Washington, D.C., National Guard unit that was in Lafayette Square during those events,” Hegseth replied, “carrying a riot shield on behalf of my country.”

Here, Hegseth is referring to a period in mid-2020 when protesters were occupying Lafayette Square just north of the White House. At one point, the president’s security detail was sufficiently worried about the protesters that he was removed to a high-security bunker within the executive mansion. Hegseth was a member of the National Guard in 2020, though he resigned after he was identified as a potential “insider threat” and barred from serving during Joe Biden’s inauguration.

As Hegseth was describing his experience, Hirono pressed the point: “Would you carry out an order to shoot protesters in the legs as directed to Secretary Esper?”

“I saw 50 Secret Service agents get injured by rioters trying to jump over the fence,” Hegseth continued, “set a church on fire and destroy a statue. Chaos.”

“That sounds to me that you will comply with such an order,” Hirono concluded. “You will shoot protesters in the leg.”

Hegseth didn’t reject her conclusion.

Matthew Chapman at Raw Story: ‘Flabbergasted’: Senator stunned by Pete Hegseth’s answer about key alliance.

Pete Hegseth’s inability to answer basic geopolitical questions left Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) “flabbergasted,” she told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday evening.

This came after a tense confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill before the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Hegseth, the embattled nominee for President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of Defense, was asked by Duckworth to name how many countries are in the Alliance of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN. He proceeded to name three countries that aren’t in the alliance.

“All right,” said Blitzer. “So we just heard that exchange. You had that little exchange you had with Hegseth. Were you surprised he wasn’t able to answer your question?”

“I’m flabbergasted that he was not able to answer a very simple question, and that especially since he actually mentioned the importance of the Indo-Pacific in his opening statement,” said Duckworth, herself a disabled veteran and the only senator of southeast Asian descent.

“But, you know, he also couldn’t tell me what are some of the ways that a secretary of Defense would lead international negotiations with our allies, either,” she added. “So, I mean, some very basic things that anybody who wants to be Secretary of Defense should be able to answer. And for him to not even know a single nation out of the 10 in ASEAN speaks very loudly to his lack of qualifications for the job.”

Tammy Duckworth interrogates Hegseth.

Garrett Graff at Doomsday Scenario: The FBI background check on Pete Hegseth is a whitewash—and that’s on purpose!

As defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth faces questioning today in for his confirmation hearing — the first of the high-profile Trump nominees to do so — he already promised senators this morning, “I sit before you an open book.” That appears to be decidedly untrue. In fact, to the contrary, there’s controversy about how the FBI background check prepared for the US Senate failed to interview Hegseth’s ex-wives or the woman who filed a police report alleging he sexually assaulted here in 2017.

On the surface, that’s insane.

This is a nominee to one of the most important roles in the entire US government who not only faces credible sexual assault allegations, but who apparently also mismanaged, misled, and left ignominiously the only (very low-stakes and small) organization he’s ever actually led. His drinking is such a problem that it worried his colleague at a morning TV show, a far less sensitive and responsible position than he’s currently being considered for, and he’s already had to promise he’d stop consuming alcohol to lead the Pentagon to reassure senators.

His already-thin credentials around the military raise worrying questions too: He’s defended war criminals and been reported for extremism by his peers in the National Guard because he has a tattoo usually associated with white nationalists. This is a man that the National Guard apparently didn’t trust to be one of thousands defending the US Capitol after January 6th who may, in a matter of days or weeks, be in charge of the entire military. This is someone whose own ties to Christian white nationalists places him outside the mainstream of even that already-extreme movement. And that’s before you even get to his apparently long-standing beliefs about how women and minorities don’t have a place in today’s military.

You’d think this is precisely the type of person the FBI should do the most thorough background check on ever imagined. And you’d be right.

The fact that the so-called “FBI background check” for the man slated to head the Pentagon, the $800 billion defense budget, and the nation’s three-million-personnel military failed to talk to the very people you’d expect an investigator to be most interested in speaking with is not a mistake.

But it’s actually not the FBI’s fault.

In fact, that willful ignorance by design — and it bodes ill for how the incoming Trump administration is looking at the biggest threats to its nominees.

Read more about FBI background checks at the link. Garrett Graff is an expert on the FBI.

One more very honest opinion on Pete Hegseth from Rick Wilson: The America Psycho and the Pentagon.

Imagine a country perched on the edge of a political cliff, trembling in the shadow of an authoritarian leader. Elected officials, business elites, and even everyday citizens know they’re dealing with a dangerous man who does not respect democratic norms, the rule of law, or basic human decency.

He wants others like him by his side—deficient, broken people—the cruel, sadistic, ugly, and jealous. He wants this broken soul reflected in the distorted, dirty glass of the mirrors held aloft by his minions. He wants men whose character is a slurry of greed, lust, avarice, and weaknesses.

Christian Bale in American Psycho

Donald Trump is that authoritarian, and Pete Hegseth is the modern-day American Psycho Trump wants in charge of the Defense Department.

Hegseth sat there Tuesday like an oleaginous and smarmy Patrick Bateman cosplayer. His 1980s American Psycho affect reeked of insincerity, abundant hair product, and the smug satisfaction that Republicans work for Trump, not for their constituents or, God forbid, the nation.

In the end, Tuesday’s hearings weren’t about Pete Hegseth, at least to the Republican Majority in the Senate.

No, these hearings into the deficient character, low intellect, and abusive nature of Pete Hegseth were overshadowed by the rancid stench of fear, the raw terror at defying Trump — even if it means protecting the nation from incompetence and intemperance — means a drunk, serial adulterer, a fraud and a failure at managing tiny organizations will be placed at the helm of the largest operation in the world. It will mean a man who paid off a victim of sexual assault to silence her is treated as if he’s a serious and qualified candidate to run the Department of Defense.

It means a man who thinks “working out with the troops” is a substitute for knowledge, experience, and judgment. It means they’re blindly placing the lives of 3 million men and women in uniform and out who serve the Department of Defense — and a considerable amount of our national treasure and reputation — in the hands of an obsessively groomed talk show host.

It means placing a man who will run out any general officer who fails to kowtow to Trump, and who believes the talismanic utterance of “woke” is the root solution to the meaningful problems we face around the globe. His few “substantive” answers were a gossamer scrim of “I read the headlines in Defense Daily this morning, but I skipped the hard words” superficiality.

I wish I could tell you they don’t know what they’re doing.

They most certainly do.

They see the warning signs, the flashing red lights of Hegseth’s coming failures and the enormous costs it will impose on our nation.

And yet, their response is chilling in its predictability: they freeze, they cower, and most damningly, they comply with Trump. In their fear, they pave the very road to disaster. A few think they’re playing the monster when it’s just the monster waiting to devour them last.

It’s going to be really awful, folks.

That’s my report on the Hegseth hearing. I guess I’ll see what’s happening with Pam Bondi. Take care everyone.

 


Lazy Caturday Reads: Climate Change and the LA Wildfires

Good Afternoon!!

We are getting some snow here in Greater Boston. It doesn’t look like it will amount to much, but it’s pretty to look at. I miss having big snowstorms. It seems as if climate change has destroyed us New Englanders’ identity as tough people who handle deep snow and frigid cold with aplomb.

In the winter of 2014-2015, Boston got an unbelievable snow total of 110 inches, with 64.8 inches coming in February. On January 26-27, a blizzard dropped more than 34 inches of snow. Now we’ve gone through several mild winters with very little snow. Personally, I miss the old days of giant snowstorms. And I know I’m not alone. 

This is a transcript of a program at WBUR in February, 2024: What we lose if snow disappears.

Snowpack is getting less reliable in American winters. And in many places, that’s not just an environmental problem, but an emotional one, too.

Guests

Justin Mankin, climate scientist. Director of the Climate Modeling and Impacts Group at Dartmouth College.

Tony Wood, reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Author of “Snow: A history of the world’s most fascinating flake.

Also Featured

Benjamin Moser, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer.

Ben Popp, executive director of the American Birkebeiner Ski Foundation….

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI: This is On Point. I’m Meghna Chakrabarti, and sure snow can be a pain in the butt, I know. But for folks who grew up with long winters, snow also carries memory with it of ethereal beauty, hard slogs, and hard times overcome of crystalline joy. I grew up in a place with a pretty temperate, very rainy winter.

So when I moved to New England and experienced my first big blanket of snow, I was left with only one feeling: pure magic. Now though, for listeners who shared those stories with us that you just heard, they were from upstate New York, Utah, Colorado, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Washington State, Maine, Iowa, Ohio, the Dakotas and more.

For all of them, winter is very different. Because the magic feels like it’s fading away….

(LISTENER MONTAGE)

I’m standing in my front yard and there is a tiny bit of ice that used to be snow that’s melted in the shade, and we’ve had almost no snow.

It’s February 2nd and I live in Western New York and there is no snow today. The ground is bare. I can see grass. This is completely different from what I experienced when I was growing up.

I have a four-year-old golden, who’s only ever played in a few inches of snow. Has no idea what it’s like to run and fly and bound through endless puffy snow.

This year’s snow amount is quite depressing.

I think our snow drought is contributing to our overall drought that we’ve been experiencing in eastern Iowa over the last five years or so.

This year for the very first time, when I go outside, sometimes I occasionally find flies or mosquitoes or bees, and so to me, seeing insects that are typically not around during the winter months. It tells me there’s clear change happening.

I miss the snow. I miss watching it fall. I miss how it muffles the noise and just makes things so peaceful and quiet.

I really miss having snow for Christmas and for the kids to play sled and built snow forts.

When my kids were growing up, they were outside all the time. Now our young grandchildren can’t really go outside so much and all the time. Because it’s a mud pit instead of a snow mound. So it’s hard.

The roads in town are as oddly bare as the trails here and one local businesses’ electronics door front sign captures our community’s collective sentiment. It keeps flashing “Pray for snow.”

CHAKRABARTI: It is true. Snowfall is becoming less reliable and snowpacks are shrinking. Winter snowpack in many parts of the continental U.S. have shrunk by 10% to 20% per decade over the last 40 years. That’s according to a study published last month in Nature. There is some annual variation, but overall winter and its signature precipitation are changing.

Snow has a way of creating a shared identity, a sense of wonder, a sense of fun for people who live in those cold places. It binds communities together. So what do we lose when that snow melts away? 

Climate change is not only changing the way we live; it is change how we see ourselves. Read the discussion at the WBUR link. If you live in a place that used to get lots of snow, I think you’ll find it interesting.

The Guardian: 2024 was hottest year on record for world’s land and oceans, US scientists confirm.

It was the hottest year ever recorded for the world’s lands and oceans in 2024, US government scientists have confirmed, providing yet another measure of how the climate crisis is pushing humanity into temperatures we have previously never experienced.

Last year was the hottest in global temperature records stretching back to 1850, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa announced, with the worldwide average 1.46C (2.6F) warmer than the era prior to humans burning huge volumes of planet-heating fossil fuels.

This new record, 0.1C (0.18F) hotter than the previous high mark set in 2023, means that all of the 10 hottest years since 1850 have occurred in the past decade. The data supports separate figures released by European Union scientists this week that also show a record 2024, albeit those figures showed 2024 was 1.6C (2.8F) hotter than pre-industrial times, the first measure beyond the internationally-agreed threshold of keeping long-term temperatures below a 1.5C (2.7F) rise.

Nasa, which also released its temperature data on Friday, concurs that 2024 was a record year, being 1.47C (2.6F) hotter than the pre-industrial era. “All the groups agree, regardless of how they put the data together, there’s no question,” said Gavin Schmidt, a senior climate scientist at Nasa. “The long-term trends are very clear.”

Schmidt said the levels of global heating are pushing humanity beyond its historical experience of the Earth’s climate. “To put that in perspective, temperatures during the warm periods on Earth three million years ago – when sea levels were dozens of feet higher than today – were only around 3C warmer than pre-industrial levels,” he said. “We are halfway to Pliocene-level warmth in just 150 years.”

Last year saw a record hot year for the United States, Europe and Africa, as well as another record year for the Arctic, which is warming up at three times the rate of the global average.

The year was marked by severe events worsened by the climate crisis, with temperatures so hot in Mexico that howler monkeys fell from trees, a double-whammy of hurricanes that flattened swathes of the US south-east, devastating floods in Spain and record low water levels in the Amazon river. Southern Africa got just half of its normal rain levels.

Now in 2025 we are seeing an unbelievable climate disaster in Los Angeles. I heard this morning that the burned area in LA is now larger than the city of Boston.

CBS News: Maps show how California’s Palisades Fire in Los Angeles area compares in size to major U.S. cities.

California’s Palisades Fire, the largest of the deadly wildfires that ignited this week in the Los Angeles area, has devastated communities and upended thousands of lives, forcing people to flee homes that were lost to the blaze. The inferno has scorched dozens of square miles, and maps from CBS News show how its size compares to those of major U.S. cities.

Here’s a look at how the Palisades Fire compares to the size of 13 cities across the U.S.

The maps show comparisons to Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Minneapolis, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, and San Francisco.

Check out the comparisons to cities you are familiar with.

Analysis by meteorologist and climate journalist Eric Holthaus at The Guardian: The Los Angeles wildfires are climate disasters compounded.

An exceptional mix of environmental conditions has created an ongoing firestorm without known historical precedent across southern California this week.

The ingredients for these infernos in the Los Angeles area, near-hurricane strength winds and drought, foretell an emerging era of compound events – simultaneous types of historic weather conditions, happening at unusual times of the year, resulting in situations that overwhelm our ability to respond.

On Wednesday, Joe Biden pledged the assistance of the Department of Defense to reinforce state and local firefighting capabilities, a rare step that highlighted the extent to which the fast-moving fires have taxed response efforts.

As of Wednesday evening, the Palisades and Eaton fires have each burned more than 10,000 acres and remain completely uncontained. About one in three homes and businesses across the vast southern California megacity were deliberately without power in a coordinated effort by the region’s major utilities to contain the risk of new fire starts due to downed power lines.

The Palisades fire now ranks as the most destructive in Los Angeles history with hundredsof homes and other structures destroyed and damage so extensive that it exhausted municipal water supplies. In Pacific Palisades, wealthy homeowners fled by foot after abandoning their cars in gridlocked neighborhoods. In Pasadena, quickly advancing fire prompted evacuations as far into the urban grid as the famous Rose Parade route.

Early estimates of the wildfires’ combined economic impact are in the tens of billions of dollars and could place the fires as the most damaging in US history – exceeding the 2018 Camp fire in Paradise, California.

Fire crews have been facing a second night of fierce winds in rugged terrain amid drought and atmospheric conditions that are exceedingly rare for southern California at any time of the year, let alone January, in what is typically the middle of the rainy season – weeks later (or earlier) in the calendar year than other historical major wildfires have occurred.

Analysis:

The next few days will be a harrowing test. Lingering bursts of strong, dry winds into early next week will maintain the potential for additional fires of similar magnitude to form. In a worst-case scenario, the uncontained Palisades and Eaton fires will continue to spread further into the urban Los Angeles metro, while new fires simultaneously and rapidly grow out of control – overtaking additional neighborhoods and limiting evacuation routes more quickly than firefighters can react. In conditions like these, containing a wind-driven blaze is nearly impossible.

These fires are a watershed moment, not just for residents of LA, but emblematic of a new era of complex, compound climate disaster. Conditions for a January firestorm in Los Angeles have never existed in all of known history, until they now do.

The short answer is that the greenhouse gases humans continue to emit are fueling the climate crisis and making big fires more common in California.

As the atmosphere warms, hotter air evaporates water and can intensify drought more quickly.

Melting Arctic ice creates changes in the jet stream’s behavior that make wind-driven large wildfires in California more likely. Recent studies have found that Santa Ana wind events could get less frequent but perhaps more intense in the winter months due to the climate crisis.

The more complicated answer is that these fires are an especially acute example of something climate scientists have been warning about for decades: compound climate disasters that, when they occur simultaneously, produce much more damage than they would individually. As the climate crisis escalates, the interdependent atmospheric, oceanic and ecological systems that constrain human civilization will lead to compounding and regime-shifting changes that are difficult to predict in advance. That idea formed a guiding theme of the Biden administration’s 2023 national climate assessment.

Read the rest at The Guardian.

Tzeporah Berman at The Guardian: Los Angeles is on fire and big oil are the arsonists.

Apocalyptic flames and smoke are raging through southern California in the worst fire in Los Angeles county’s history. At least seven people have died. Thousands of structures have been destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled their homes. The private forecaster AccuWeather estimates initial damage and economic loss at more than $50bn and has the potential to be the costliest wildfire disaster in American history. The impacts of the disruption and loss faced by community members is incalculable.

While some media outlets are discussing the link between the Los Angeles fires and the climate crisis, the president-elect Donald Trump and rightwing media are using this devastating event to foster misinformation including denying the role of climate crisis.

These powerful interests are ignoring what is fanning wildfire flames – fossil fuel-driven climate change – and trying to deflect attention elsewhere. This is not surprising. Denying science and promoting false narratives squarely falls within the playbook of the fossil fuel industry and its proponents. Take for example, Trump calling the climate crisis a hoax and once again threatening to withdraw the US from the Paris agreement.

Oil, gas and coal companies have been lying to us for decades. A 2015 investigation by Inside Climate News revealed that ExxonMobil’s own scientists knew as early as the 1970s that burning fossil fuels would cause global warming and increase the likelihood of extreme weather events. Instead of pivoting toward cleaner energy solutions, Exxon and other major players funded misinformation campaigns to sow doubt about climate science, delaying action and worsening the crisis.

California is part of a growing number of states and local governments challenging these lies through litigation. The legal suits against six oil companies and the American Petroleum Institute accuse them of deceiving the public regarding the connection between fossil fuels and climate crisis and profiting from that deception. The aim of the litigation is to redirect those profits into funds to address the damage of climate crisis on California. The litigation is still underway.

The science is clear. Wildfires are getting worse due to climate crisis as a result of increased temperatures and drier conditions in southern California. While more work needs to be done to determine the specific role fossil fuels played in the Los Angeles fires, we do know that emissions from the world’s 88 largest fossil fuel companies are responsible for 37% of the cumulative area burned by forest fires in the western US and south-western Canada between 1986 and 2021.

Ethically, the responsibility is undeniable. By continuing to expand production, fossil fuel companies are prioritizing shortterm profits over longterm planetary survival. As academic Naomi Oreskes points out in her book Merchants of Doubt, this is not mere negligence – it is a calculated decision to disregard human and environmental well-being.

David Gelles and Austen Gaffney at The New York Times: ‘We’re in a New Era’: How Climate Change Is Supercharging Disasters.

As Los Angeles burned for days on end, horrifying the nation, scientists made an announcement on Friday that could help explain the deadly conflagration: 2024 was the hottest year in recorded history.

With temperatures rising around the globe and the oceans unusually warm, scientists are warning that the world has entered a dangerous new era of chaotic floods, storms and fires made worse by human-caused climate change.

The firestorms ravaging the country’s second-largest city are just the latest spasm of extreme weather that is growing more furious as well as more unpredictable. Wildfires are highly unusual in Southern California in January, which is supposed to be the rainy season. The same is true for cyclones in Appalachia, where Hurricanes Helene and Milton shocked the country when they tore through mountain communities in October.

Wildfires are burning hotter and moving faster. Storms are getting bigger and carrying more moisture. And soaring temperatures worldwide are leading to heat waves and drought, which can be devastating on their own and leave communities vulnerable to dangers like mudslides when heavy rains return.

Around the globe, extreme weather and searing heat killed thousands of people last year and displaced millions, with pilgrims dying as temperatures soared in Saudi Arabia. In Europe, extreme heat contributed to at least 47,000 deaths in 2023. In the United States, heat-related deaths have doubled in recent decades.

“We’re in a new era now,” said former Vice President Al Gore, who has warned of the threats of global warming for decades. “These climate related extreme events are increasing, both in frequency and intensity, quite rapidly.”

The fires currently raging in greater Los Angeles are already among the most destructive in U.S. history. By Friday, the blazes had consumed more than 36,000 acres and destroyed thousands of buildings. As of Saturday, at least 11 people were dead, and losses could top $100 billion, according to AccuWeather.

Read more analysis at the NYT link.

CNN Live Updates: Deadly Los Angeles wildfires: New evacuation orders as biggest blaze stretches east.

More stories to check out:

Shane Goldmacher and Lisa Lerer at The New York Times: As L.A. Fires Rage, Trump and Newsom’s Hostilities Resurface.

Peter Baker at The New York Times: As a Felon, Trump Upends How Americans View the Presidency.

AP: Trump is planning 100 executive orders starting Day 1 on border, deportations and other priorities.

Kyle Cheney at Politico: Rudy Giuliani held in contempt for second time this week.

Adria R. Walter at The Guardian: DoJ releases its Tulsa race massacre report over 100 years after initial review.

NBC News: Key senators receive Pete Hegseth’s FBI background check days out from confirmation hearing.

Ivan Nechepurenko at The New York Times: Kremlin Confirms Readiness for Putin to Meet Trump.

That’s all I have for you today. Take care, everyone!

 


Wednesday Reads: Yesterday’s Insane Trump Press Conference

Good Afternoon!!

Trump holds forth at his Mar-a-Lago press conference.

Trump isn’t in office yet, but he is already dominating the news. It’s difficult to believe, but I think he is actually getting crazier. Trump 2.0 is going to be chaos to the nth degree. I have no doubt that it will make his first term look sane by comparison. He is aging noticeably–he’s approaching 80–and his dementia is getting worse. As we all know, this time there won’t be sane handlers trying to hold back his worst inclinations; he will be surrounded by MAGA loyalists who will do whatever he wants. It’s going to be awful, and getting through what’s coming is going to be tough. Again, he’s not even waiting until he’s sworn in to begin causing trouble. Yesterday he held a “press conference” during which he came off as truly psychotic. In case you missed it (I couldn’t bear to watch), here are some media write-ups. David E. Sanger at The New York Times: Dripping Faucets and Seizing Greenland: Trump Is Back and Chaos Ensues.

There was talk of the rising number of beached whales in Massachusetts, the victim, the president-elect said, of those windmills that have been erected off the coast. They “are driving the whales crazy, obviously.”

There was a vow to rename the Gulf of Mexico, by presidential decree, to the “Gulf of America.” And then there was Donald J. Trump’s refusal to rule out using military force to seize the 51-mile Panama Canal on national security grounds, along with the 836,000 square miles of Greenland, the world’s largest island.

Mr. Trump’s family and supporters like to say “We are so back!” and they are, without doubt. Yet as the man who will be president again spun out threats and angry denouncements of the Biden administration and personal grievances for more than an hour on Tuesday in the living room of his Mar-a-Lago club, something else was back: the chaotic stream-of-consciousness presidency.

Mr. Trump has returned to our daily national cognizance, even though one could argue he never really left. Tuesday’s news conference was a reminder of what that was like, and what the next four years may have in store.

He waxed on about a favorite complaint during his first term: Shower heads and sink faucets that don’t deliver water, a symbol of a regulatory state gone mad. “It goes drip, drip, drip,” he said. “People just take longer showers, or run their dishwasher again,” and “they end up using more water.”

Then he moved on to the prospect of a military clash with Denmark. After refusing to rule out the prospect of coercing a NATO ally with the use of force if it remained reluctant to turn over property the president-elect coveted, Mr. Trump suggested that Denmark had a dubious claim on Greenland anyway.

Don Jr. and his buddies in Greenland yesterday

“People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to it, but if they do, they should give it up, because we need it for national security,” he said.

As for Panama, he insisted the United States had to defend against an urgent national security threat from China, though the situation around the canal was little changed from the last time Mr. Trump sat in the Oval Office.

“It might be that you’ll have to do something,” he said with signature vagueness, when asked about his suggestion that the only solution to this problem may be military force.

There was a lot of déjà vu in Tuesday’s news conference, recalling scenes from his first presidency. The conspiracy theories, the made-up facts, the burning grievances — all despite the fact that he has pulled off one of the most remarkable political comebacks in history. The vague references to “people” whom he never names. The flat declaration that American national security was threatened now, without defining how the strategic environment has changed in a way that could prompt him to violate the sovereignty of independent nations.

But there were also several differences in this version of Mr. Trump that are easy to overlook in a man who can move, in an instant, from the failures of American plumbing to the need to revive the territory-grabbing spirit of President William McKinley.

More on the “press conference,” by Hunter Walker at Talking Points Memo: Off The Rails And Off To The Races.
President Trump has created a massive gulf in America. No, I am not talking about the half baked promise “to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America” that Trump announced in his news conference on Tuesday. The gulf that our country actually is going to have is the one between our current reality and the one we will be experiencing when Trump takes office on Jan. 20. This news conference, which was the first since Trump’s re-election was certified by Congress, was a wild one — even by Trumpian standards. In a little over an hour behind a podium at his Mar-a-Lago beach club, the president-elect, along with promising to rename an ocean basin, threatened potential military force against Panama and Denmark. He also suggested he might use “economic force” to make Canada the 51st State. “They should be a state,” Trump said of one of America’s closest neighbors and allies. And, if Hamas doesn’t release the remaining hostages taken in the October 7th attack before Trump’s inauguration, Trump vowed that would also result in a massive show of force. “If they’re not back by the time I get into office, all hell will break out in the Middle East,” Trump said. “It will not be good for Hamas and it will not be good frankly for anyone. All hell will break out.” Trump’s feverish foreign policy visions were mixed up with his other weird obsessions and blatant lies. He ranted about President Joe Biden’s efforts to promote electric power and suggested heat generated this way will make you “itch.” As he vowed to make “major pardons” for some of his supporters who attacked the Capitol during the January 6 insurrection, Trump reiterated some of his preferred, debunked conspiracy theories about that day including that, the FBI is concealing the identity of the unknown pipe bomber and that, somehow, the Middle Eastern terrorist group Hezbollah might have played a role in the violence. “We have to find out about Hezbollah. We have to find out about who exactly was in that whole thing because people that did some bad things were not prosecuted,” Trump said…. The whole thing was objectively bizarre and it’s difficult to track how much of Trump’s comments were bluster or how many of these wild ideas are even remotely feasible. Can you even effectively rename an ocean? Does he really intend to try to essentially annex Canada? Would he really consider using military force to take over Greenland or the Panama Canal? Would the military stand for that? Would Congress?
Minho Kim at The New York Times: Why Does Trump Want Greenland?

President-elect Donald J. Trump’s attention returned Tuesday to an idea that has fascinated him for years: acquiring Greenland for the United States. In a news conference on Tuesday, he refused to rule out using military or economic force to take the territory from Denmark, a U.S. ally.

“We need Greenland for national security purposes,” he said, arguing that Denmark should give it up to “protect the free world.” He threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark if it did not.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Trump wrote on social media that the potential American acquisition of the Arctic territory “is a deal that must happen” and uploaded photos of his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who was visiting Greenland….

Greenland

After the news conference, Denmark sharply rebuked the proposal, saying that the world’s largest island is not for sale, and the prime minister of Greenland, Mute B. Egede, rejected Mr. Trump’s designs on the territory. “Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland,” Mr. Egede said. “Our future and fight for independence is our business.” [….] Greenland’s vast ice sheets and glaciers are quickly retreating as the Earth warms through accelerating climate change. That melting of ice could allow drilling for oil and mining for minerals such as copper, lithium, nickel and cobalt. Those mineral resources are essential to rapidly growing industries that make wind turbines, transmission lines, batteries and electric vehicles. Because of higher temperatures, an estimated 11,000 square miles of Greenland’s ice sheets and glaciers have already melted in the past three decades, an area roughly the size of Massachusetts…. The melting ice in the Arctic is also opening up a new strategic asset in geopolitics: shorter and more efficient shipping routes. Navigating through the Arctic Sea from Western Europe to East Asia, for example, is about 40 percent shorter compared to sailing through the Suez Canal. Ship traffic in the Arctic has already surged 37 percent over the past decade, according to a recent Arctic Council report.
Maegan Vazquez at The Washington Post: Trump says he will rename the Gulf of Mexico. Can he do that?
Donald Trump on Tuesday said the United States would change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, and the president-elect seemed to tie the prospective renaming to his long-standing grievances with Mexico’s handling of immigration, drug trafficking and trade. “We’re going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America,” Trump said at a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. “ … What a beautiful name, and it’s appropriate.”

The president-elect subsequently decried the Mexican government for allowing migrants to “pour” into the United States, saying Mexico “can stop them and we’re going to put very serious tariffs on Mexico and Canada because Canada, they come through Canada, too.”

Trump provided no additional details about how he planned to implement the name change, but the comments sparked immediate questions about whether a president has the authority to rename an international body of water and prompted at least one Republican member of Congress to draft legislation.

That member of Congress was Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Here’s what we know about what Trump can and cannot do to rename the gulf….

The Gulf of Mexico is a 218,000-square-mile oceanic basin connected to the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean through the Florida Straits and the Yucatán Channel. It spans from the eastern coast of Mexico and the southeastern coast of the United States to the western end of Cuba….

The Gulf of Mexico

The body of water has been known by many names, but European explorers and mapmakers have used the name “Gulf of Mexico” for at least 400 years….

There are existing mechanisms to rename places recognized by the federal government. However, if the federal name change becomes official, that does not mean that other nations will recognize it.

The U.S. Board on Geographic Names is a federal interagency organization that is responsible for maintaining uniform geographic name usage throughout the federal government. The board operates under the interior secretary. The board’s Foreign Names Committee is responsible for standardizing foreign place names. The committee is composed of representatives from federal agencies, including several appointees specializing in geography and cartography. Members are appointed every two years.

While the BGN does not create names for geographical features, it approves or rejects names proposed by others based on its established policies. A recent example of the board’s work includes approval of replacement names for all features that included the word “squaw,” which is used as a derogatory slur toward NativeAmerican women. The name changes were made after an order by Interior Secretary Deb Haaland in 2021. Haaland is the first Native person to serve as a Cabinet secretary.

Trump probably doesn’t know that Mexico and Canada, along with the U.S., are each parts of “America.”–that is, the continent of North America. Of course changing the name is ridiculous and idiotic, but so is Trump.

During the “press conference,” Trump also said that the changes Mark Zuckerberg is making to his social media platforms are in response to his (Trump’s) threats to imprison the the billionaire social media owner.

NBC News: Meta is ending its fact-checking program in favor of a ‘community notes’ system similar to X’s.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a series of major changes to the company’s moderation policies and practices Tuesday, citing a shifting political and social landscape and a desire to embrace free speech.

Zuckerberg said Meta will end its fact-checking program with trusted partners and replace it with a community-driven system similar to X’s Community Notes.

The company is also changing its content moderation policies around political topics and undoing changes that reduced the amount of political content in user feeds, Zuckerberg said.

The changes will affect Facebook and Instagram, two of the largest social media platforms in the world, each boasting billions of users, as well as Threads.

“We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms,” Zuckerberg said in a video. “More specifically, here’s what we’re going to do. First, we’re going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X, starting in the U.S.”

Zuckerberg pointed to the election as a major influence on the company’s decision and criticized “governments and legacy media” for, he alleged, pushing “to censor more and more.”

“The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards, once again, prioritizing speech,” he said. “So we’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms.”
So what is this going to look like? Cath Virginia at The Verge: Here are some of the horrible things that you can now say on Facebook.
Meta overhauled its approach to US moderation on Tuesday, ditching fact-checking, announcing a plan to move its trust and safety teams, and perhaps most impactfully, updating its Hateful Conduct policy. As reported by Wired, a lot of text has been updated, added, or removed, but here are some of the changes that jumped out at us.

These two sections outlining speech (written or visual) are new additions:

We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like “weird.”

We do allow content arguing for gender-based limitations of military, law enforcement, and teaching jobs. We also allow the same content based on sexual orientation, when the content is based on religious beliefs.

Another section that specifically banned making dehumanizing references to transgender or non-binary people as “it” or referring to women “as household objects or property or objects in general” has been removed entirely.

The opening statement about what the policies are “designed to allow room for” that previously listed only health or positive support groups has changed too (new additions marked in bold):

People sometimes use sex- or gender-exclusive language when discussing access to spaces often limited by sex or gender, such as access to bathrooms, specific schools, specific military, law enforcement, or teaching roles, and health or support groups. Other times, they call for exclusion or use insulting language in the context of discussing political or religious topics, such as when discussing transgender rights, immigration, or homosexuality. Finally, sometimes people curse at a gender in the context of a romantic break-up. Our policies are designed to allow room for these types of speech.

The section that specifically banned targeting people or groups “with claims that they have or spread the novel coronavirus” has also been removed.
Read the rest at The Verge. One more from Claire Duffy at CNN: Calling women ‘household objects’ now permitted on Facebook after Meta updated its guidelines.

Meta on Tuesday announced sweeping changes to how it moderates content that will roll out in the coming months, including doing away with professional fact checking. But the company also quietly updated its hateful conduct policy, adding new types of content users can post on the platform, effective immediately.

Users are now allowed to, for example, refer to “women as household objects or property” or “transgender or non-binary people as ‘it,’” according to a section of the policy prohibiting such speech that was crossed out. A new section of the policy notes Meta will allow “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality.”

Previously, such comments would have been subject to removal under the policy. The changes to Meta’s hateful conduct policy were first reported by Wired.

Meta had hinted in its announcement about its content moderation policy changes Tuesday morning that it would get rid of restrictions on certain topics, such as immigration and gender identity, and allow more political discussions. But the updated policy shows just how quickly Meta is moving to enact CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s vision for “free expression.” Meta on Tuesday also announced it would do away with its network of independent fact checkers in the United States and will instead rely on user-generated “community notes” to add context to posts. It also said it would adjust its automated systems that scan for policy violations, which it says have resulted in “too much content being censored that shouldn’t have been.” The systems will now be focused only on extreme violations such as child sexual exploitation and terrorism.
Basically, it’s open season on women and LBGTQ+ people. Please take care of yourselves today and every day for the next 4 years.