Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

[admin]

WATCH LIVE: House debates second Trump impeachment
PBS NewsHour
1/13/21



Lawmakers in the U.S. House are gathering Jan. 13 to to debate an impeachment resolution based on a single charge against President Donald Trump— “incitement of insurrection.” The debate comes one week after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol directly following a rally held by Trump, where he urged the crowd to march as lawmakers were undertaking the counting of Electoral College votes. The impeachment debate also comes one week before Joe Biden is set to be inaugurated, Jan. 20.

House Calendar No. 2
117TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. RES. 41
[Report No. 117–2]
Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 24) impeaching Donald
John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 12, 2021
Mr. MCGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
RESOLUTION
Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 24)
impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United
States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it
2 shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
3 to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 24) im
4 peaching Donald John Trump, President of the United
5 States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. The previous
6 question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution
7 and on any amendment thereto to adoption without inter
1 vening motion or demand for division of the question ex
2 cept two hours of debate equally divided and controlled
3 by the chair and ranking minority member of the Com
4 mittee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
5 SEC. 2. Until completion of proceedings enabled by
6 the first section of this resolution—
7 (a) the Chair may decline to entertain any inter
8 vening motion, resolution, question, or notice; and
9 (b) the Chair may decline to entertain the question
10 of consideration.
11 SEC. 3. Upon adoption of House Resolution 24—
12 (a) House Resolution 40 is hereby adopted; and
13 (b) no other resolution incidental to impeachment re
14 lating to House Resolution 24 shall be privileged during
15 the remainder of the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress.
16 SEC. 4. Section 5 of House Resolution 8, agreed to
17 January 4, 2021, is amended by striking ‘‘January 28’’
18 each place that it appears and inserting ‘‘February 11’’.


WATCH: Nancy Pelosi signs article of impeachment against Trump after House vote
1/13/21
PBS NewsHour

[admin]

Lawmaker confronts Jim Jordan for not saying election was fair
by CNN
Jan 12, 2021



During a House rules committee debate about a measure to call on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) refused to say that President-elect Joe Biden won the 2020 US presidential election fairly.

[admin]

20,000 National Guard troops will defend the Capitol amid threats of violence inauguration week
by CNBC Television
Jan 13, 2021



There are 20,000 National Guard troops in Washington to prepare for any possible threats before next week's inauguration. This comes after an angry mob stormed the Capitol last week. NBC's Washington reporter Shomari Stone reports.

[admin]

Deutsche Bank, Signature Cutting Ties With Trump After Riots
by Sophie Alexander, Sonali Basak, and Steven Arons
Bloomberg News
January 11, 2021, 6:15 PM PST Updated on January 12, 2021, 12:37 AM PST

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Deutsche Bank AG and Signature Bank, two of Donald Trump’s favored lenders, are pulling away from the billionaire president in the wake of last week’s deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The German lender has decided not to conduct any further business with Trump and his company, said two people with knowledge of the matter, asking not to be identified because the deliberations were confidential. Trump owes the Frankfurt-based lender more than $300 million.

Signature Bank, the New York lender that’s long catered to his family, is closing two personal accounts in which Trump held about $5.3 million, a spokesperson for the firm said on Monday. It’s also calling for the president to step aside before his term officially ends on Jan. 20.

“We believe the appropriate action would be the resignation of the president of the United States, which is in the best interests of our nation and the American people,” the bank said in a separate statement on Monday.

The lenders are following social media outlets and other companies in suspending ties with the president after he encouraged attendees at a rally last week to march on the Capitol, where they stormed the building and interrupted the certification of the electoral college vote. At least five people died in the mayhem and its immediate aftermath.

“Yesterday was a dark day for America and our democracy,” Deutsche Bank Americas head Christiana Riley posted on LinkedIn a day after the riot. “We are proud of our Constitution and stand by those who seek to uphold it to ensure that the will of the people is upheld and a peaceful transition of power takes place.”

Signature bank has served Trump and others in his orbit, including Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner and Michael Cohen. In 2011, the bank appointed Ivanka to its board, but she stepped down a couple of years later. The New York Times reported the cutting of ties earlier on Monday.

“We have never before commented on any political matter and hope to never do so again,” Signature said in its statement. The bank will not do business in the future with any members of Congress who voted to disregard the electoral college, the spokesperson said.

Deutsche Bank said last month that Trump’s longtime banker resigned. Rosemary Vrablic, who worked in the private banking division, helped manage Trump’s relationship with the bank as the German lender lent hundreds of millions of dollars of loans to Trump’s company over a number of years. That relationship subjected the lender to pressure from lawmakers and prosecutors for information during Trump’s presidency.

The Trump Organization currently still has three loans worth about $300 million outstanding with the bank. They come due in 2023 and 2024.

Deutsche Bank has faced scrutiny over its ties to Trump throughout his presidency. It was so concerned about its exposure after his election, it considered restructuring the loans but ultimately decided not to do new business with him during his presidency, Bloomberg has reported.

(Updates with Deutsche Bank executive’s comment in sixth paragraph, details about lender’s relationship with Trump in final two paragraphs.)

******************************

Deutsche Bank will no longer do business with Trump
Jan 13, 2021
CNN



Deutsche Bank will no longer do business with President Donald Trump, a move that will cut off his business from a major source of loans that once helped fund his golf courses and hotels.

Germany's biggest bank has decided to refrain from future business with the president and his company, a person familiar with the bank's thinking told CNN Business. The news, first reported by the New York Times, follows last week's deadly riot at the US Capitol.

A spokesperson for Deutsche Bank (DB) declined to comment to CNN Business, citing a prohibition on discussing potential client relationships.

The move is the latest example of corporate backlash against the president after his supporters vandalized the Capitol in a brazen assault that left five people dead.

According to the New York Times, Deutsche has lent Donald Trump and his organization more than 2-1/2 billion dollars over the years.

[admin]

‘Inside job’: House Dems ask if Capitol rioters had hidden help: On a 3.5-hour caucus call, lawmakers criticized Capitol Police tactics and vowed to investigate what went wrong.
by Kyle Cheney, Sarah Ferris and Laura Barron-Lopez
Politico
01/08/2021 08:37 PM EST

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

A member of a pro-Trump mob bashes an entrance of the Capitol Building in an attempt to gain access on Jan. 6. | Jon Cherry/Getty Images

A growing number of House Democrats say they’re concerned that tactical decisions by some Capitol Police officers worsened Wednesday’s riots and have raised the possibility that the pro-Trump mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol might have had outside help.

Lawmakers have uniformly praised most Capitol Police officers for their heroic response to the riots. Many officers suffered injuries defending members, aides and journalists from the onslaught and one, Brian Sicknick, died late Thursday. But videos have also surfaced showing a small number of officers pulling down barricades for the rioters and, in another instance, stopping for a photo with one of them.

Some of those incidents were raised on a 3.5-hour caucus call by House Democrats on Friday, demanding an investigation not only into the decisions by the Capitol Police leadership but by some rank-and-file officers caught on camera. But the lawmakers also raised general concerns that the rioters had some sort of outside help not necessarily attributable to the Capitol’s police corps.

Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) told his colleagues he thought the riots were “an inside job,” according to two lawmakers on the call.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) mentioned that looters had found their way to his unmarked, third floor office and stole his iPad. He questioned how they could locate that office but not his clearly marked ceremonial office in Statuary Hall. Later, another Democrat on the call, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) specifically raised the question of possible collusion among some Capitol Police officers, according to several people listening.

In an interview airing Sunday, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said she believes some Capitol Police officers aided the rioters and may have helped steer them once inside the building, calling it “one of the most troubling things” about the assault.

“I am very sad to say that I believe that there were people within the Capitol police and within the Capitol building that were part of helping these insurrectionists to really have a very well-coordinated plan for when they were going to come, how they were going to come,” Jayapal said on Gray TV’s “Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren.”

Pressed further on whether some Capitol Police officers were not just looking the other way but actually involved, Jayapal said, “It appears that way, both from what happened, how coordinated it was, how easy it was.”

In that vein, House Financial Services Chair Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) told a radio station that Democrats didn’t know yet if the failures by Capitol Police were the result of “poor planning or whether it was because there was certain kinds of infiltration.”

A Capitol Police spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some of the most acute concerns have been raised by members of color, many of whom have already faced an increase in personal threats during the Trump era and had raised early warnings that the Trump supporters’ planned Jan. 6 demonstration could turn violent. Those members also expressed outrage at the disparity in treatment of pro-Trump rioters, many of whom were allowed to walk free from the Capitol even after ransacking congressional leaders’ offices, and at the crackdown on demonstrators protesting racial inequality over the summer.

“If the ‘protesters’ were Black they would have been shot with rubber bullets, tear gassed, and killed,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday.

“Police do not take white, right-wing protesters as seriously and they don't treat them as a threat in the way they treat African Americans, Latinos and other groups,” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said in an interview. “And I think we saw the consequence of that this week.”

Since Wednesday’s attack, many Democrats have publicly and privately raised alarms about the ease with which rioters were able to not only enter the building but also quickly find their targets in a complex that is difficult for even members of Congress to navigate.

“Somebody must get to the bottom of how they, with such efficiency and such alacrity, moved themselves in mobs into [Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s] office. Into the whip’s third-floor office,” said Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), one of the dozen or so Democrats who was locked inside the House chamber as rioters attempted to break in.

“We all joke about the fact that it's so hard to find some of these offices, and we work in the building,” Dean said in an interview.

One of the pro-Trump rioters told The New York Times that a Capitol Police officer directed them to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer’s office.

Democrats have vowed to investigate all aspects of the assault on the Capitol — Clyburn said on the call that it would take a 9/11 Commission-style investigation — including about the actions of Capitol Police captured on video.

“I saw those videos,” Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told reporters Friday. “You had people fighting their hearts out and getting hit over the head with a lead pipe … and you had people taking selfies with these terrorists. So there are all of these different levels and we will be examining all of the footage.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) chair of the House committee that oversees Capitol security matters, similarly noted that at least some officers may have “taken selfies with these seditionists or even let them in.”

“We need to thoroughly investigate that,” she said.

Democrats are already enraged at the leadership of the Capitol Police for their handling of the security situation. Lofgren said Thursday that the USCP’s chief, Steven Sund, misled her about the resources it had available to protect lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence, who was in the Capitol for the ceremony to count Electoral College votes. Sund resigned from his post Thursday.

Lofgren said she had pressed Sund about the National Guard’s readiness for possible protests and he assured her they were activated should they be needed.

“What they told me about the National Guard was just not true. The Guard was not even activated,” she said.

Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md.) said an independent oversight board needed to be put in place for the Capitol Police force.

“The Capitol Police are probably the only law enforcement agency I can think of that does not have non-uniform civilian oversight,” Brown, who was sheltering in his office during the breach, said in an interview Friday. “That's a problem.”

Heather Caygle and Caitlin Emma contributed.

[admin]

Trump Is Now the Only President To Be Impeached Twice: A Closer Look
by Seth Meyers
Jan 13, 2021



Seth takes a closer look at the House voting to impeach President Trump for inciting the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, making him the first and only president in history to be impeached twice.

[admin]

Donald Trump Is Still a Danger to Our National Security
by John Bellinger
Lawfare
Sunday, January 10, 2021, 1:04 PM

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

In December 2015, I wrote a post for Lawfare entitled “Donald Trump Is a Danger to Our National Security,” in which I argued that Trump not only lacked “the qualifications to be president, he is actually endangering our national security right now by his hate-filled and divisive rhetoric.” I concluded “Donald Trump not only would be a dangerous president, he is making us less safe as a candidate.” At the time, I may have been the first national security official to write publicly that Trump was and would be a threat to the United States. Tragically, more than five years later, Trump is still a danger to our national security.

Eight months after my Lawfare post, in August 2016, I joined with 49 other former Republican administration national security officials to issue a statement arguing that “Trump would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.” We said: “Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.” We concluded that if Trump were elected, “he would be the most reckless President in American history.” My former colleague Bob Blackwill persuaded me to add the statement that Trump’s erratic behavior, impetuousness and lack of self-control were “dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.” At the time, I resisted this statement, which I thought was melodramatic. I could not imagine that any president would brag about the size of his “nuclear button.”

In fact, Trump’s presidency was even worse than many of us had feared, both from a domestic and national security perspective. To the delight of his authoritarian soul mate Vladimir Putin, Trump devoted four years to destroying the social fabric of the United States, fomenting division along political, religious, and geographic lines, and undermining trust in governmental institutions and the press. It should have been abundantly clear from early in his presidency that he would incite his supporters to riot and mayhem. At a discussion sponsored by the Atlantic magazine and the French Embassy in May 2017 on the rise of populism, I publicly expressed grave concern that Trump would encourage his supporters to come to Washington and engage in violent acts against the government if he were required to leave office. I am sure that the other participants thought I was suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome at the time. In a subsequent exchange with Steve Clemons, who had moderated the discussion, in which I apologized if I sounded alarmist, Clemons responded, “What you sketched out is not fearmongering but rather what I fear will really happen. I think there is a thuggishness brewing in America that Trump is calling forward. These are very bad times, and I do fear that violence could be part of the equation.”

Concerned that our democracy could not withstand four more years of a Trump presidency, in August 2020, an even larger group of former national security officials who had served in Republican administrations paid for full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal and numerous regional newspapers arguing that Trump should not be reelected and that we would vote for Joe Biden. Listing 10 reasons how Trump had failed as president, we said that he had “demonstrated that he lacks the character and competence to lead this nation and has engaged in corrupt behavior that renders him unfit to serve as President.” Ken Wainstein (who organized the statement with me) and I were heartened that so many former senior officials joined the statement condemning Trump’s actions and were willing to place country over party. I was especially pleased that two of my own former bosses—former Senator and Secretary of the Navy John Warner and former FBI and CIA Director Bill Webster—both of whom I admire greatly, joined the statement, as did Chuck Hagel, Mike Hayden, John Negroponte, Rich Armitage and many others. All of us were dismayed, however, that the vast majority of elected Republican members of Congress remained silent in the face of Trump’s assault on the federal government and our democracy.

With 10 more days left in his presidency, Donald Trump remains a clear and very present danger to our national security. It’s regrettable that the vice president and the Cabinet will apparently refuse to act under the 25th Amendment to remove him from office, although I acknowledge that the issue is legally complicated. It would certainly be appropriate for the House of Representatives to impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, although this step would unfortunately saddle the incoming Senate with a trial of a departed president. The Senate’s time would be better spent confirming President-elect Biden’s national security team. Although it would be a much lesser punishment than Trump deserves, the House should also pass a strong resolution of censure, which the Senate should be asked to endorse before Trump leaves office. All Republicans in the House and the Senate should be required to vote for or against a censure of the president for his role in inciting a violent assault on our government. In the meantime, senior White House and senior agency officials have a responsibility to ensure that Trump takes no further executive actions to endanger our national security.

[admin]

Removal of panic buttons from Ayanna Pressley’s office being reviewed by House committee
by Jazmine Ulloa and Jess Bidgood
Globe Staff
Updated January 14, 2021

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

WASHINGTON — The removal of panic buttons from Representative Ayanna Pressley’s Capitol Hill office before an armed insurrection overran the complex is under review by the House Administration Committee, as Congressional Democrats push to determine whether the mob had inside help.

“The American people do deserve to know if these assailants were at all enabled by the very people who are responsible for stopping them and how we can ensure that attack like this will never happen again,” Pressley said in an interview.

“Congress needs to immediately launch comprehensive, transparent investigations into what happened, and how our law enforcement agencies failed to protect the Capitol and members of Congress,” she said.

In the days since last week’s deadly attack, House Democrats have called for investigations into security breaches and raised increasingly pointed questions about whether Capitol police officers and and Republican members of Congress played any role in advising or encouraging the mob.

“I think we’ve got a lot of work to do to find out how things went so wrong, and one part of that is going to have to be, how organized was this and who participated in it?” asked Representative Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania. “There’s going to have to be a massive reckoning.”

Since the attacks, an atmosphere of distrust and unease has settled over the Capitol. Metal detectors were installed outside the House chambers before Wednesday’s impeachment vote — a measure intended to protect lawmakers not from the public, but from each other — while the National Guard, Secret Service, and Capitol Police have established an enormous security perimeter that stretches for blocks around the People’s House.

Inside, lawmakers have been grappling with the question of how the rioters — armed with racist symbols like the Confederate flag as well as zip-ties and weapons — were able to access the Capitol and to find their way through the byzantine building so easily once they were inside.

One group of Democrats wrote to the acting House Sergeant at Arms to say they saw groups of people who appeared to be associated with the rally touring the Capitol the day before.

“We haven’t seen tour groups in the Capitol for months,” Scanlon said. “That’s why it was noticeable.”

New Jersey Representative Mikie Sherrill, a former Navy helicopter pilot, said on Facebook Live that those tours appeared to be for the purpose of “reconnaissance.” Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina said rioters somehow found his unmarked office, indicating “that something untoward may have been going on.”

And Pressley’s office raised a new series of questions about the run-up to the attack with its revelation that panic buttons, which they had tested and used previously, had been torn out before the attack.

When Pressley learned the buttons were gone, she “found it immediately disturbing,” she said in an interview. “Not wanting to rush to any sort of judgment or conclusion.... my chief [of staff] began the necessary running it through the proper channels to better understand why that was the case, and again, now the matter is being investigated by the relevant agencies.”

Representative Jamaal Bowman, a new member of Congress from New York, said his office also lacked panic buttons during the attack. They weren’t installed until Wednesday.

Multiple requests for comment from Capitol Police and the House Sergeant of Arms since Wednesday have gone unanswered. The FBI directed all questions about the security breaches to Capitol Police.

An aide with the House Administration Committee could provide no further information on the removed panic buttons in Pressley’s office except to say that it was under review.

“The breach today at the U.S. Capitol raises grave security concerns,” Representative Zoe Lofgren, the committee’s chairwoman, said in a statement on the day of the attack. “I intend to have the Committee on House Administration work with the bipartisan House and Senate leadership to address these concerns and review the response in coming days.”

Capitol Hill has remained on edge since the attack and some members have reported an increase in threats. An e-mail sent from the House Administration Committee to members on Monday, and obtained by the Globe, listed the various options they could use to pay for any security-related expenses and upgrades to their offices.

Lawmakers are also pushing for probes into the incident by the Government Accountability Office and the inspector general of the Capitol Police. In a letter to the GAO, Representative Jason Crow of Colorado and more than 100 members requested a wide-ranging investigation, including inappropriate conduct by law enforcement; the impact of elected officials’ rhetoric on inciting the mob; and efforts by government and congressional leaders to limit police preparation, coordination, and response.

“In the aftermath of one of the darkest days in our nation’s history, we are forced to reconcile with difficult truths about failures of leadership and preparation,” the letter states. “The failures of security are far more easily corrected than the failure to lead and the abuse of the public trust.”

A spokesman with the GAO said it would need to go through a formal review process to determine what exactly the probe will cover.

Several members of the Massachusetts delegation told the Globe that they had received multiple assurances from Capitol police that they would have the crowds of Trump protesters under control ahead of the electoral vote count certifying Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election. But Representative Seth Moulton, a Marine veteran, has emerged as one the harshest critics of officers’ unprepared response, saying, “My platoon of 18-year-olds showed more professionalism every day than the Capitol police do.”

Among those who faced the most harrowing experiences were members of Congress who have been the direct targets of vitriol from President Trump and his supporters, including Pressley, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Representative Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican, faced calls for her to resign after she tweeted out Pelosi’s location as security agents rushed her away to a secure location.

On Instagram Live late Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez told viewers she had feared her colleagues would give away her location and that she had “a close encounter where I thought I was going to die.” But she said she didn’t know yet whether she could disclose the full details of the traumatizing event.

“I did not know if I was going to make it to the end of that day alive,” she said. “Not just in a general sense, but also in a very, very specific sense.”

Pressley spent part of the siege on the floor of her darkened office, gas mask in hand, with her husband and her chief of staff. They had barricaded her door with office furniture and water jugs, and as the time ticked by, they began to realize they could face threats from more than just the rioters.

When they arrived in a space that had been designated as a safe room, Pressley noticed some of the members in there weren’t wearing masks.

“I turned to my husband, and I said, I want to leave,” Pressley said. “I learned later that my chief was told ...when we exited that room, ‘You’re on your own. If there’s an evacuation, you know, we’re not, we’re not coming for you.’”

A person familiar with the situation said a member of her staff stayed in touch with security officials, but decided to limit her communication as the day progressed—just in case they were part of the danger, too.

Globe Columnist Yvonne Abraham contributed to this report.

[admin]

'Can't Stop Me': GOP Lawmakers Refuse to Pass Capitol Metal Detectors After Pro-Trump Riot
by Aila Slisco
Newsweek
1/13/21 AT 12:22 AM EST

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

A host of Republican members of the U.S. House or Representatives on Tuesday evening angrily refused to go through metal detectors that had been installed outside the chamber as a security measure.

Security measures were upgraded to include metal detectors on Tuesday due to the breach of the building last week, which was instigated by an angry mob of extremists supporting President Donald Trump's false claims that the presidential election was "stolen." Multiple GOP members reacted to the new measures with outrage and demanded that they be exempted from the rules, which applied to all who entered the House chamber.

GOP Representatives Louie Gohmert (Texas), Steve Stivers (Ohio), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Van Taylor (Texas), Debbie Lesko (Ariz.) and Larry Bucshon (Ind.) were among those who refused to comply with the screening or vocally protested its implementation, according to NBC News.

Gohmert said "You can't stop me; I'm on my way to a vote" as he walked by Capitol Police, according to HuffPost. At least 10 other Republicans walked around the detectors.

Boebert, an enthusiastic gun rights advocate known for her past support of the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory, had previously boasted that she planned to regularly carry her handgun around the Capitol after being sworn in as a new member on January 3. Although members of Congress and aides are legally allowed to carry weapons on Capitol grounds, House rules prohibit them being taken inside the chamber.


Capitol Police are pictured installing a metal detector outside the U.S. House of Representatives chamber at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. on January 12, 2021.
CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY

Boebert has recently been under fire for tweeting that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was no longer in the House chamber while the Capitol insurrection was happening. On Tuesday, she tweeted that Pelosi was pulling "another political stunt" by allowing the metal detectors, which were placed directly outside the chamber and not outside the grounds. Boebert was eventually allowed inside the chamber after a short confrontation with police during the screening process.

"I am legally permitted to carry my firearm in Washington, D.C. and within the Capitol complex," Boebert tweeted. "Metal detectors outside of the House would not have stopped the violence we saw last week — it's just another political stunt by Speaker Pelosi."

Rep. Lauren Boebert
@RepBoebert
I am legally permitted to carry my firearm in Washington, D.C. and within the Capitol complex.
Metal detectors outside of the House would not have stopped the violence we saw last week -- it's just another political stunt by Speaker Pelosi
6:47 PM Jan 12, 2021

Lesko also blamed Pelosi for members "being wanded like criminals" in a dramatic tweet that complained "we now live in Pelosi's communist America!" Other Republicans who took particular issue with the security measure included Rep. Steve Womack (Ark.) and Rep. Markwayne Mullin (Okla.), who loudly protested "I was physically restrained" at Capitol Police following the screening, according to CNN. Rep. Rodney Davis (Ill.) told the outlet that the detectors represented "political correctness run amok."

Congresswoman Debbie Lesko
@RepDLesko
For members of Congress to enter the floor of the U.S. House, we now have to go through intense security measures, on top of the security we already go through. These new provisions include searches and being wanded like criminals. We now live in Pelosi's communist America!
5:38 PM Jan 12, 2021

"The metal detector policy for the House floor is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and endangers members," Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who took a "social media sabbatical" after most platforms banned Trump over fears he could incite further violence, said in a statement. "I did not comply tonight. I will not comply in the future."

Newsweek reached out to the House Office of the Sergeant at Arms for comment.

[admin]

Constitutional Lawyer: Trump Is a Clear & Present Danger, a Senate Impeachment Trial Is Needed Now
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow
January 14, 2021

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

GUESTS
John Bonifaz, constitutional attorney and president of Free Speech for People.
LINKS
John Bonifaz on Twitter
"Trump's Solicitation of Election Fraud Is His Highest Crime"
"The Constitution Demands It: The Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump"

The House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol in a bid to overturn Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory, and Trump will end his term in office with the distinction of being the first U.S. president to be impeached twice. Ten Republicans joined Democrats in the 232-197 vote to impeach, and Trump now faces a trial in the Senate. Constitutional attorney John Bonifaz says the House “did its duty” and that the Senate must move quickly to take up impeachment proceedings. “Those who did not vote to convict last time are responsible, in part, for allowing this president to stay in office, someone who has clearly abused his power time and time again, leading to this violent attack on the U.S. Capitol,” says Bonifaz, co-founder and president of Free Speech for People.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: The House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol in a bid to overturn Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory, making Trump the first U.S. president to be impeached twice. Wednesday’s vote was 232 to 197, with 10 Republicans joining Democrats. It’s the most bipartisan impeachment in history.

It was one week ago today, the morning after the insurrection, that Congressmember Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a former refugee, the first Somali American to serve in Congress and also the first to wear a hijab in U.S. Congress, first unveiled a resolution to impeach Trump. During Wednesday’s proceedings, she called Trump a “tyrant.”

REP. ILHAN OMAR: Let us not mince words about what happened last week. It was a violent attempt to interrupt our democratic process. It was a targeted blow at the most essential process that makes us a democracy. It was a direct and specifically incited by the president of the United States. For years, we have been asked to turn a blind eye to the criminality, corruption and blatant disregard to the rule of law by the tyrant president we have in the White House. We, as a nation, can no longer look away.

AMY GOODMAN: In 2019, President Trump was also impeached by the House for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. This is Democratic Congresswoman Diana DeGette of Colorado, who [is serving] as an impeachment manager […] this year, speaking on Wednesday..

REP. DIANA DEGETTE: Just over a year ago, I stood right there, where you’re standing today, as we took the solemn step of impeaching the president of the United States for pressuring a foreign leader to take unlawful actions to help him in his reelection. And now, just one week ago, almost to the hour, I laid right there, on the floor of the gallery above us. I heard gunshots in the speaker’s lobby. I heard the mob pounding on the door. And what they were trying to do, they were all an angry mob, incited by the president, trying to stop certification of a legitimate election. It’s clear the president learned nothing in the last year. Yesterday, the president said again he did nothing wrong. This man is dangerous. He has defied the Constitution. He has incited sedition. And he must be removed.

AMY GOODMAN: President Trump now faces an impeachment trial in the Senate, which Republican leader Mitch McConnell has adjourned until January 19th, making it unlikely the trial will take place before Joe Biden is inaugurated.

For more, we’re joined by John Bonifaz, co-founder and president of Free Speech for People, co-author of The Constitution Demands It: The Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump.

John, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you talk about the significance of this second impeachment of Donald Trump and what it means and what will happen in the Senate?

JOHN BONIFAZ: Thank you, Amy, for having me.

This is a significant, historic vote. The House of Representatives did its duty to pass this article of impeachment against Donald Trump for inciting insurrection, a violent, seditious attack on the U.S. Capitol to overthrow constitutional government. And as Speaker Pelosi said, he is a clear and present danger to the nation. He must be removed immediately. So, we do not accept the idea that Senator McConnell has put forward, that somehow the Senate cannot act immediately to hold this impeachment trial and convict and remove him. There is a procedure for enacting emergency rules to reconvene the U.S. Senate, and Senator McConnell ought to do that.

The fact of the matter is that members of the Republican-led Senate are responsible. Those who did not vote to convict last time are responsible, in part, for allowing this president to stay in office, someone who has clearly abused his power time and time again, leading to this violent attack on the U.S. Capitol just last week.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, John Bonifaz, I mean, it seems that McConnell is not likely to reconvene the Senate. Could you talk about what the significance and the effects, consequences, would be of impeaching a president, carrying out a trial in the Senate for a former president? What would be the consequences of that?

JOHN BONIFAZ: Well, the consequences are that there is a basis for disqualifying a member of the public who has held public office before and has been convicted from ever running for office and holding office again. And that disqualification has to happen here. Not only should he be convicted for having engaged in this insurrection, inciting this insurrection, but he should be barred from ever holding future federal office. And that can happen even if he has already left office. And that’s significant because, of course, the president has said that he intends to consider running for office again, has suggested that he might run in 2024. And there’s no basis for him to be able to hold office again if he’s convicted. And, in fact, the 14th Amendment, Section 3, makes clear that anyone who is engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States may not hold public office in the future.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, could you elaborate on that, John, the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment? In a recent piece in The Washington Post, American historian Eric Foner advocated invoking that section, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, as a more expeditious way of getting rid of Trump and also a more appropriate one. He wrote — and I’ll just quote ver briefly — that “Invoking a constitutional provision meant to limit the political power of Confederate leaders would mark an appropriate end to the career of a president who so closely identified himself with the memory of the Confederacy and with a culture of White resentment.” John Bonifaz?

JOHN BONIFAZ: I agree. I agree with Eric Foner and, in fact, you know, with respect to invoking this provision of the 14th Amendment. And, in fact, that provision is cited in the article of impeachment that the House of Representatives passed yesterday.

But it doesn’t mean that we only do that. We have to proceed with this impeachment trial. This president must be held accountable for the charges that have now been issued by the U.S. House of Representatives for inciting insurrection. And impeachment means anything. It means that this president be held accountable for his crimes, his high crimes that he has committed. So, I think we ought to make sure that the Senate does its job, that it holds this impeachment trial immediately, that it convicts and removes this president from public office, while at the same time invoking that provision of the 14th Amendment.

And frankly, it ought to be invoked not only against the president, but against those members of Congress who participated in seeking to overthrow a free and fair election last November. Even after this violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, you had 140 members of the U.S. House, you had seven members of the U.S. Senate, voting, after that attack, to overthrow this free and fair election. They participated in helping to incite this insurrection. They participated in spreading the big lie that somehow this was a fraudulent election. It was not. And the idea that they get to stay in office after having participated in that action is antithetical to our democracy and to that provision of the 14th Amendment.

AMY GOODMAN: John Bonifaz, if President Trump were found guilty in the Senate, and there are serious questions of — with the crises that are being faced, from the economy and COVID, of course, to continue to deal with Donald Trump, it’s not automatic that he wouldn’t be able to run again. Is that right? It would have to be a sanction decided by the Senate, if they found him guilty.

JOHN BONIFAZ: That’s correct. And this has happened in prior impeachments of judges, where, following the conviction vote, there is another vote that is taken, and it only requires a simple majority of the Senate to disqualify the person from ever holding federal office again. And that’s what would have to happen here. First the Senate would have to hold this impeachment trial, convict the president — or, if he’s no longer president, the ex-president — and then pass, by simple majority vote, the disqualification. All of that can take place very quickly, and it should.

And honestly, again, Senator Schumer has called on Senator McConnell to invoke emergency rules to reconvene this Senate now, not to have it stay adjourned until January 19th. And the reason is that we know, as Congressman Jamin Raskin has said, that on right-wing militia sites there are statements being made, discussions of another attack on Washington leading up to the inauguration. And this president has incited all that. And he ought to be held accountable, and he ought not to be in public office any longer.

AMY GOODMAN: John Bonifaz, we want to thank you for being with us, president of Free Speech for People, co-author of The Constitution Demands It: The Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump.

Next up, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, Princeton University professor, on “The Bitter Fruits of Trump’s White-Power Presidency.” Stay with us.

********************

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor: Impeachment Is Late Attempt to Curb Violence & Racism at Heart of Trump Era

We look at the fight for accountability after a white supremacist mob attacked the U.S. Capitol and as President Trump is impeached for a historic second time for his incitement of violence. Supporters who took part in the January 6 attack — including current police officers — have been arrested across the U.S. for their involvement in the insurrection. Ahead of Joe Biden’s inauguration, the FBI is warning police chiefs around the country to be on high alert for right-wing domestic terror attacks. The Pentagon said it’s increasing the number of National Guard soldiers deployed to the nation’s capital to 20,000 — twice the combined number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan — in stark contrast to the response to last week’s riot. “The impeachment yesterday is a culmination of sorts of the kind of violence and racism that has been at the heart of the Trump administration that finally boiled over,” says Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, assistant professor of African American studies at Princeton University and contributing writer at The New Yorker magazine. “We have a government that has completely spun out of control at the hands of Donald Trump.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh, as we continue to look at President Trump’s second impeachment. It’s historic. The House voted 232 to 197 to charge Trump with inciting last week’s deadly insurrection at the Capitol, making him the first president to be impeached twice. During Wednesday’s debate, newly sworn-in Congressmember Cori Bush of Missouri called Trump a white supremacist president.

REP. CORI BUSH: Madam Speaker, St. Louis and I rise in support of the article of impeachment against Donald J. Trump. If we fail to remove a white supremacist president who incited a white supremacist insurrection, it’s communities like Missouri’s 1st District that suffer the most. The 117th Congress must understand that we have a mandate to legislate in defense of Black lives. The first step in that process is to root out white supremacy, starting with impeaching the white-supremacist-in-chief. Thank you, and I yield back.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS: [booing]

SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: And from your wishes to reserve, the gentleman from Ohio…

AMY GOODMAN: After Cori Bush’s remarks, some House Republicans booed. Congressmember Bush has said her first resolution in Congress will be to, quote, “call for the expulsion of the Republican members of Congress who incited this domestic terror attack on the Capitol.”

As Trump was impeached Wednesday, more of his supporters who took part in last week’s attack were arrested, including current police officers from around the country. In Queens, New York, the FBI arrested Eduard Florea, a leader of the far-right Proud Boys group, for allegedly plotting another attack on the U.S. Capitol. The FBI also confirmed the arrest of Douglas Allen Sweet in Virginia, who was photographed with the mob in the Capitol wearing a shirt that read “Camp Auschwitz” in reference to the Nazi death camp. In Virginia, two police officers from the town of Rocky Mount were arrested, after they boasted online about joining the insurrection last week. One is an Army veteran and trained sniper. And a Houston police officer was placed on administrative leave and will likely face felony charges, after he was filmed joining riots at the Capitol.

This comes as the FBI is warning police chiefs across the country to be on high alert for right-wing domestic terror attacks before, and during, Joe Biden’s inauguration next week. The Pentagon said it’s increasing the number of Guard soldiers deployed to the nation’s capital to 20,000 — twice the combined number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This massive mobilization stands in stark contrast to last week’s riot. NPR reports despite open planning of the violent attack on social media, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security filed no security report ahead of January 6, even though they produced similar intelligence bulletins ahead of demonstrations after the police killing of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter marches and the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America.

For more, we’re joined by the renowned scholar Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, assistant professor of African American studies at Princeton University, contributing writer at The New Yorker magazine. Her latest piece there is headlined “The Bitter Fruits of Trump’s White-Power Presidency.”

Professor Taylor, welcome back to Democracy Now! Why don’t you respond to the impeachment yesterday and what you saw this insurrection — what underlies it?

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: I think the impeachment yesterday is a culmination of sorts of the kind of violence and racism that has been at the heart of the Trump administration that finally boiled over. And, you know, this is an effort to, I think, reassert some kind of authority and control in a situation that seems to have spiraled out of control politically at an incredibly dangerous time. I mean, if we think about all of the things that are happening in the United States right now, with the exponential spread of COVID, with the disintegration of the U.S. economy, with millions of people — it is not hyperbole to say millions of people stand on the precipice of eviction and foreclosure at the end of January. And we have a government that has completely spun out of control at the hands of Donald Trump. And I think that the impeachment procedures are an effort to regain control, which is why you’ve seen some — not many, not a significant number, but some Republicans who have finally grasped the depths of depravity of this Trump administration and really the danger that it represents.

And I think that this has gotten to this point because it has been allowed. The Trump administration has been allowed to court white supremacists and white extremists from before Donald Trump won the presidency, and certainly well into his presidency, that all of his comments, his racist comments, his comments encouraging violence against his political opponents, both in politics and both in the population at large, have been downplayed, have been ignored, or, in some cases, have been egged on. And all of that has brought us to this point, has brought us to this point today.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Keeanga, could you elaborate on that point, what you said about the House Republicans who broke with the party and voted to support in favor of impeachment? Do you see that as indicative of where the party might go after Trump? I mean, many have said, in fact, that 10 is nothing, that everybody should have voted to impeach him, given what happened. Where do you see the party going once Trump is out?

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: I think, given that Donald Trump not only received 74 million votes, but he significantly increased his voter turnout even at the most hysterical part of his presidency, the most unhinged part of his presidency — towards the end, he still continued to grow his voter base. And so I think the idea that this is either the end of the Republican Party or the Republican Party has learned from its mistakes is sadly mistaken.

I think that the Republican Party, for most of them, feel as if they have benefited from the rancor of Donald Trump. And I think what will really make the difference in terms of whether they continue to embrace this kind of unvarnished white extremism in the heart of their party or whether they try to put the cloak back over it — which I think is an important thing to say, that even for those people, those Republicans who have come out and finally said that this is a bridge too far, I mean, this is pretty dramatic for the bridge too far to be this. If we think about all of the things that Donald Trump has said and done in his very short, one-term presidency, for it to get to this point — insurrection, riot in the Capitol building, that resulted in the deaths of two police officers — one officer was killed in the Capitol, another committed suicide days after the riots in the Capitol. If that’s what it takes for you to break with Donald Trump, it speaks to the rot at the core of the Republican Party. And I think that because they have been so successful embracing this politics of racism, of extremism, of xenophobia, of Islamophobia, of political violence, of the idea that only Republicans are entitled to win elections, that there will have to be some demonstration that those politics are no longer popular among a certain strain in the population for them to abandon that strategy.

So it remains to be seen what Donald Trump’s influence will be, whether the corporate titans jumping off the Titanic will be enough to get the attention of the Republican Party. But that so many of them continue to cling to this demagogue even after the deaths of police officers, even after the mayhem at the Capitol, is both astounding and speaks to the utter corruption of the Republican Party writ large.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about the comments of people like Congressmember Pramila Jayapal, who, along with many others, like Norma Torres, Ayanna Pressley, have talked about the horror — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — these women of color fleeing this mob, not to mention some of the African American Capitol police, who felt completely unprotected themselves from their leadership as they were being chased by the mob. But you had Pramila Jayapal bringing these two issues together. She is the third congressmember to test positive for COVID-19, that we know of — the New Jersey Congressmember [Watson Coleman] also tested positive, 75 years old, African American, cancer survivor — because of sequestering with Republican congressmembers who refused to wear masks. Jayapal said, “Only hours after President Trump incited a deadly assault on our Capitol, our country, and our democracy, many Republicans still refused to take the bare minimum COVID-19 precaution and simply wear a damn mask in a crowded room during a pandemic — creating a superspreader event on top of a domestic terrorist attack.” Now Pramila Jayapal’s husband has tested positive, as has Ayanna Pressley’s husband. Can you talk about the coming together of these two issues, now Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats demanding that these Republicans wear masks or be fined, and having those fines deducted from Republicans’ paychecks if they don’t wear them in the House, but both this attack last week and the disproportionate effect COVID has on people of color?

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: I mean, it is just utterly disgusting, and it shows something about the selfishness, the hypocrisy of the Republican Party to put these people at risk for the sake of their political brand. And, you know, I think that there’s something much more pernicious to this, when we think about the ways that these people are responsible, have a political obligation to make determinations about how the country responds to this virus, to be responsible for creating the provisions to mitigate the worst aspects of this virus, and are now in political control of how the vaccine is disseminated in response to the virus.

And so, I think that when you look at the absolutely astounding, appalling response of the most powerful nation on Earth to the coronavirus, you get some insight into why the political response has been so completely bungled. With the Republican Party in charge of the Senate and the presidency, they have had absolutely no interest in pursuing an aggressive strategy to try to contain this virus. I think that, early on, the Republican Party took the stance that was imposed on meat workers in the meatpacking industry, that they would force people to work, that they would create a situation where there were no public provisions so that people could safely shelter in place at home, which has been the only real known way to curb the virus. But we know that the only way that is possible is if you make sure that people’s rent is paid, that if you make sure people are able to afford groceries, that if you make sure people are able to provide for their families, that is the only way that you can stay at home. And so, the Republicans led the effort to take that off of the table to force people to go to work, which has resulted in the disastrous death toll that we have in this country, all on the hedge that Americans would become immune to thousands of people dying, and that would be the way that they would get away with it.

And so, their personal politicization of wearing the mask, of taking preventative measures, also underlies a political approach to not containing this virus, as it has had a disproportionate impact on Indigenous people, on Black people, on Latinx people, who are forced to work in the public sector. And these people simply don’t care — this party, disproportionately millionaire, disproportionately white male — do not care about the impact, right down to putting their colleagues, the people that they work with, at risk. It speaks to something deranged within the individuals that compose that party. It is disgusting.

AMY GOODMAN: And a correction on the congresswoman’s name from New Jersey: It’s Congressmember Bonnie Watson Coleman. And we’re going to link to her op-ed piece in The Washington Post, “I’m 75. I had cancer. I got covid-19 because my GOP colleagues dismiss facts.” Nermeen?

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Keeanga, as you’ve just outlined this, really, litany of abusive policies that the Trump administration has carried out right to this moment, despite that, as you’ve written about extensively, he received over 70 million votes. And as you’ve also said, there was an increase in the people who voted for him among demographics that one would not — demographic groups that one would not expect to support him. So there are these 70 million people who are Trump supporters, and we’re going into the Biden-Harris administration next week. What’s going to happen to all these people? How should the Biden-Harrison administration engage with them, if at all, and in what ways?

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: So, I think there are two things here. One is, you know, I think Trump increased his overall voting turnout, to the shock of many people, but I don’t think that the 74 million people that voted for Trump are all white supremacists, white extremists, who are chomping at the bit to overrun the Capitol and kill people in the Democratic Party. Clearly, there is a stratum of that among those people, but I think that there’s a more complicated set of issues going on here. I think that Trump increased his voter totals among Latinx people, among Black voters, including Black women. There was much more talked about his increase among Black male voters, but, you know, he also increased his turnout, or his total voting totals, among Black women. So I think that there is a much more complicated story to tell about, really, the collapse in the credibility of both parties, in that people feel like the world is falling apart around them and that there has been an anemic response from the political parties involved.

And in some ways, you know, there are lots of things, I think, that motivate Trump voters, one of them being registering one’s disappointment, disapproval with government itself. I mean, Trump has become this absurd symbol of anti-government. Even as the president, the most powerful elected position not just in this country, but in the world, he still registers as a kind of anti-government figure. I think that people feel that his boorishness, his behavior, is also a rebuke of the kind of buttoned-up political theater that most other elected officials engage in.

And so, what I think that really speaks to is the lack of political options and alternatives for people in this country. And that’s why when people talk about “Is this the end of the Republican Party? Is the Republican Party going to dissolve over this?” — I mean, people were saying the same thing in 2015, when Donald Trump became the candidate for the Republican Party, which seemed ridiculous, and the Republicans were somewhat of a laughingstock as result of that, until they actually won the presidency. And so, when there are two parties, you know, it limits your ability to really register opposition, and it leaves people to vote for one or the other.

That being said, I think that there is an opportunity for the Biden and Harrison administration to actually be able to demonstrate government that can be effective. They have to seize this opportunity that has been dropped in their lap because of the activism and work of Black activists and other voting rights activists in Georgia that helped flip the Senate seats in that state. That means, officially, once Joe Biden is inaugurated, that there are no more excuses, that the Democratic Party has control of the Senate, and that should very quickly open up a period of intense legislation. The $2,000 checks, we want to see them. Relief for renters in this country, stopping evictions, we want to see that. Healthcare, a real plan around the distribution of this vaccine, I think all of those things and more — canceling student loan debt — all of these things are now plausible. The Democrats do not have the Republicans as an excuse for why they can’t get things done.

And so, I think it means that the Biden and Harris administration are going to have to abandon this plan of bipartisanship, of trying to appeal to the discredited and disgraced Republican Party in the name of some false unity, and instead they must plow ahead with a plan that can actually fix the not just deep problems, but problems that seem and appear to be completely out of control in this country. They have to use this authority to do so. And, you know, we know that from Joe Biden’s —

AMY GOODMAN: We have 10 seconds.

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: — Joe Biden’s history that that will be a hard thing for him to do. And so, it means that the social movements that were most activated through the summer around Black Lives Matter have to reemerge to force the Biden-Harris administration to follow through on the promises that were made.

AMY GOODMAN: Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, we want to thank you so much for being with us, assistant professor of African American studies at Princeton University, contributing writer at The New Yorker magazine. We’ll link to her most recent piece, “The Bitter Fruits of Trump’s White-Power Presidency.”