Tag Archives: McEnany

… A Man Unacquainted With Honor, Courage, And Character ….

2 Replies

Writers are often advised to begin their work with a powerful sentence that will be remembered. Some of those come readily to mind. Charles Dickens gave us an entire paragraph:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way….

Herman Melville was more succinct. The first line of the novel’s story is:

Call me Ismael.

Whether the first paragraph of the Prologue in Liz Cheney’s Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning is of equal standing, I leave to the judgment of others:

This is the story of the moment when American democracy began to unravel. It is the story of the men and women who fought to save it, and of the enablers and collaborators whose actions ensured the threat would grow and metastasize. It is the story of the most dangerous man ever to inhabit the Oval Office, and of the many steps he took to subvert our Constitution.

The title to this post is found near the end of Cheney’s book. The full paragraph:

One leader ceding power to the next, gracious in defeat, pledging unity for the good of the nation – that is what is required by fidelity to the Constitution and love of country. We depend upon the goodwill of our leaders and their dedication to duty to ensure the survival of our republic. Only a man unacquainted with honor, courage, and character would see weakness in this.

That man is Donald Trump.

To be clear, I abhor most of Liz Cheney’s views on politics and public policy. But her book is, I believe, required reading for everyone interested in understanding more deeply the events leading up to, through, and after the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The writing is fluid, clear and pulls no punches. It is an easy read in the sense of flow. And deeply disturbing. Much of it will not be a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the nation’s politics since 2015 or so, but there is much new information and important detail. It is, I believe, entirely true. If you can stand the truth, you must read it.

I am not going to digest all the details here. Instead, I have chosen to highlight some of the lies told by some of the key players in the story Cheney tells with clarity and effect. The lies are organized by the people who told them. The list also includes some, though far from all, of the traitorous conduct of Trump and his enablers in Congress and elsewhere. It is important in the most fundamental sense that we record and understand the full extent of the mendacity, dishonesty, treachery and outright treason of Trump and his promoters.

Donald Trump –

(1) on November 9 Trump fired Mark Esper, his Secretary of Defense and appointed Chris Miller, described by Cheney as “quite possibly the least-qualified nominee to become secretary of defense since the position was created in 1947;”

(2) The next day Trump appointed Kash Patel, with zero military experience, as Miller’s chief of staff, and Douglas MacGregor, a pro-Putin propagandist, as Miller’s senior advisor;

(3) Nov. 17, 2020, Trump fired Chris Krebs director of Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency for having the temerity to assert that the election was secure; a Trump lawyer publicly said Krebs should be killed; no action was taken against him;

(4) Trump tried to co-op the Justice Department by replacing Jeff Rosen with compliant Jeffrey Clark as Acting Attorney General & only backed down when faced with threats of mass resignations;

(5) Trump supporters directed death threats at Liz Cheney and others who pursued the truth about Trump’s involvement in the January 6 attacks;

(6) Evidence that Trump’s plan to reject the election outcome was advance-planned and fully premeditated was overwhelming;

(7) flatly declared that the election fraud he claimed to exist, but knew did not, was sufficient grounds to suspend the law and the Constitution;

(8) Trump organizations paid for legal representation for Cassidy Hutchinson, among others. Her lawyer disobeyed her instructions and suggested she could simply “not remember” certain key pieces of information when testifying.

Kevin McCarthy – a California Republican, was elected to the House in 2007 and became the 55th Speaker in January 2023, a short-lived experience as he was ousted by his party in October 2023.

(1) McCarthy, like Trump himself, was fully aware that typical voting patterns would make it appear Trump was in the lead at the end of Election Day and that later counting of legitimate absentee and mail-in ballots could change the early result. Nevertheless, on November 5 McCarthy appeared on Fox News to declare that Trump won the election. When questioned about this the next day, McCarthy lied and denied he had said the election was stolen;

(2) McCarthy lied about whether he would sign a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Trump’s false election theft claims and stating the signers had specific proof of that theft;

(3) When Congress overrode Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, in 2020, McCarthy announced he would never vote to override a veto by a president of his own party;

(4) When pressed by House Republicans to explain his position on whether it was proper to object to the counting of Electoral College votes on January 6, McCarthy refused to answer;

(5) Even after Trump’s call to Georgia’s Secretary of State Raffensperger to demand that he “find” sufficient votes to change the election outcome, McCarthy announced he would be objecting to the election results;

(6) McCarthy falsely assured members of Congress that security measures were in place to provide for their safety on January 6;

(7) McCarthy joined Eric Trump in threatening first-term members of Congress they would be primaried if they did not actively object to the certification of Biden’s victory;

(8) McCarthy lied to Cheney about his position when the certification process resumed; he said he would oppose further objections, but that was not true;

(9) McCarthy joined Whip Scalise and 137 House Republicans in voting to object to electoral votes in Pennsylvania and Arizona; seven Republican senators did the same: Cruz, Hawley, Hyde-Smith, Kennedy, Lummis, Marshall, Scott, and Tuberville;

(10) On January 11, McCarthy proposed options to impeaching Trump for his actions on January 6;

(11) McCarthy’s continued support for Trump, combined with Trump’s own rhetoric, instilled fear of physical attack against the person and families of any Republican voting to impeach Trump;

(12) McCarthy initially purported to support the legislation establishing the January 6 National Commission, but his support was withdrawn;

(13) On January 25, as the articles of the second Trump impeachment were being sent to the Senate, McCarthy said on Fox News that the impeachment was “a farce,” and reversed prior statements about the January 6 events;

(14) McCarthy traded support for Trump to get access to fundraising sources Trump controlled;

(15) McCarthy lied in claiming that the social media platform Parler, used by the Proud Boys to coordinate their January 6 attack, had been shut down merely because it was conservative;

(16) McCarthy negotiated with Democrats to establish an evenly divided commission to investigate January 6; got everything he asked for, then withdrew his support for the legislation;

(17) Having declined the opportunity to appoint Republicans to the January 6 Select Committee, McCarthy then disingenuously claimed the Committee was deficient because purely partisan.

Mark Meadows –

(1) to cover for Trump, and himself, refused to testify about messages related to Trump’s actions on January 6 that were not covered by any privilege;

(2) worked with Congressman Scott Perry to try to replace leadership at DOJ with people that would do Trump’s bidding without question;

(3) Lied when claiming that Trump had ordered National Guard troops to be on alert for January 6 trouble;

(4) Lied about Trump’s intention to go to the Capitol with the mob on January 6.

Rep. Jim Jordan –

(1) during the Republican leadership call on November 6, Jordan was not interested in discussing procedures and laws about challenging votes. He said: “The only thing that matters is winning;”

(2) During the attack on the Capitol, Jordan was in communication with Trump & plotting how to prevent counting of the electoral votes;

(3) refused to comply with a subpoena for testimony from the January 6 Select Committee, placing his loyalty to Trump ahead of his oath of office;

(4) praised the Department of Justice for investigating the January 6 attack, arguing that the House Select Committee was thus unnecessary, then claimed DOJ was being “weaponized” against Trump;

(5) almost certainly lied to the Congress about his conversations with Trump during which Trump said to instructed the then-Acting Deputy Attorney General to “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert – sued VP Pence seeking a ruling Pence could refuse to count some electoral votes on January 6. When the suit was dismissed, Gohmert said that the only option left was violence in the streets.

Rep. Mike Johnston –destined to replace McCarthy as Speaker,

(1) circulated a “friend of the court” brief to support Trump’s false election claims while lying to Republican representatives about the contents of the brief that “made numerous false factual and constitutional claims;”

(2) when the Supreme Court rejected Texas’ lawsuit challenging the 2020 results in four states won by Biden, Johnston declared that the “rule of law” was dead;

(3) on January 5, declared that, despite being fully aware of multiple court decisions to the contrary, four states had violated the Constitution & Republicans would be voting to reject their designated electors;

(4) joined other Republican members in claiming power found nowhere in the Constitution to overturn the election but only in the five key states Biden won;

Katrina Pearson – senior advisor to the Trump campaign, at a December 2020 rally in Washington urged the crowd to “fight like patriots,” arguing that the entire government had been “weaponized against us.” Multiple speakers, including Trump-pardoned former general Michael Flynn, suggested there was some action the people could take that would change the election result.

Former General Michael Flynn –

(1) on December 17, 2021, in an interview on Newsmax, said Trump had authority to seize voting machines and could use the military to force a redo of the election in the swing states he lost;

(2) pleaded the 5th Amendment rather than answer questions from the January 6 Committee about his communications with Trump;

(3) Pleaded the 5th Amendment when asked whether he believed in the peaceful transition of power in the United States.

Senator Ted Cruz on January 2, 2021, led a group of Republican Senators announcing they would object to electors from “disputed states,” citing zero evidence to support “unprecedented allegations” of fraud and other unspecified irregularities. Cruz had coordinated the plan with Mark Meadows in the Trump White House.

Jenna Ellis — one of Trump’s lawyers

(1) announced on a January 4 call that seven states had “dueling slates of electors,” a legally impossible state of affairs since the authentic elector slates had already been certified by their respective governors;

(2) claimed, without evidence, that those seven states had violated their own election laws.

Freedom Caucus Members – even after being told in detail of the injuries suffered by Capitol Police on January 6, the Freedom Caucus Republicans persisted in pressing objections to certification of the election;

Rep. Andrew Clyde — lied to first-term Republican congressmen on January 8, claiming Republican leadership had decided Trump had not incited the January 6 violence.

Senator Mitch McConnell – helped sabotage the legislation to create an independent commission to investigate January 6.

Leader of Wyoming Republican Party – was a member of the Oath Keepers who participated in the January 6 attack.

21 Republican House Members – voted against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to police who defended the Capitol on January 6.

Rep. Jim Banks (Republican – Indiana) – falsely claimed to be the Ranking Member of the Selected January 6 Committee to which he had never been appointed.

Steve Bannon — knew about Trump’s plan, even before the election, to lie that the election was stolen; Trump’s plan was premeditated.

Ronna McDaniel – Republican National Committee Chair

(1) agreed to pay many of Trump’s legal bills to fight the charges related to January 6;

(2) actively helped Trump assemble and activate fake slates of electors in states Biden won.

John Eastman – attorney for Trump

(1) crafted and promoted a plan for overturning the 2020 election even while admitting that the Supreme Court would reject the legal principle on which the plan was based;

(2) Pleaded the 5th Amendment 100 times when interviewed by the January 6 Committee;

(3) Sued the January 6 Committee to prevent its examination of Eastman’s emails related to the January 6 scheme to overturn the election; the court found his legal theories specious and the plan unlawful; Eastman did not appeal.

Jeffrey Clark – slated to be installed as head of DOJ to do Trump’s bidding in overturning the election, pleaded the 5th Amendment in testimony before the January 6 Committee.

Ronnie Jackson – Trump’s physician in the White House, later elected to Congress from Texas, refused to testify to explain why the Oath Keepers were talking about him by name during the January 6 attack.

Jared Kushner –

(1) admitted he participated in pushing lies about the outcome of the 2020 election;

(2) dismissed White House lawyers’ threats to resign as merely “whining,” not to be taken seriously,

Kayleigh McEnany – Trump’s White House Press Secretary, twisted herself in knots and likely lied when asserting memory failures about information other White House staff admitted to and that she almost certainly knew at the time.

Ginni Thomas – wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and aggressive promoter of lies about the election, rejected the findings of the 60 courts that considered Trump’s claims of election fraud; she simply refused to believe the truth.

Senator Tom Cotton – actively supported Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

Rep. Scott Perry – actively worked to support Trump’s effort to replace DOJ leadership with Jeffrey Clark who would do Trump’s bidding regarding the false claim of election fraud.

There is much more to the full narrative. Cheney’s book should be read by everyone who believes in the U.S. Constitution and that Trump must be held accountable for his many crimes.

Trump is Grooming the Country

Leave a reply

Rumors are rampant – who are the federal troops in Portland, Louisville, Columbus and possibly elsewhere? Who pays them? Why do they not have identification other than “Police” on their “uniforms?” Why are some of them showing multiple bizarre arm tattoos?

These questions are rampant on Twitter among the Resistance. There are no real answers, just blustering comments from the head of Homeland Security, in perfect synchrony with the Trump playbook regarding “dominate the streets.” For reasons that defy my understanding, the White House press corps tends to behave like wayward children when they are in front of Trump and/or Kayleigh McEnany. They are not doing their job when they don’t ask the hard questions about these matters and demand responses.

Meanwhile, now that the polls consistently show Trump losing bigly to Joe Biden, Trump regularly tweets that the election is rigged. He has surrounded the White House with barricades and fences. He is sending more “troops” to Portland for the ostensible purpose of protecting federal property and ‘doing what the city won’t do to restore order.’ https://wapo.st/2WZHFaP However, per WAPO reporting, “The 100 law enforcement officers being sent there are being pulled from the ranks of deputy marshals who rarely have training in riot response or crowd control, according to law enforcement officials.” A good formula for failure.

The questions that keep arising for me are straightforward: what is the government’s end game? Is this a “capture and hold” strategy to secure the courthouse and wait out the protesters on the theory they will eventually tire and just go away? Or, does the government plan to escalate continuously by, for example, bringing tanks, armored troop carriers and machine guns into play to apply direct and overwhelming force against the protestors to compel a final solution, possibly killing protesters?

Perhaps I am naïve to think that this Keystone Kops array of advisors that Trump has assembled, but rarely listens to, is thinking strategically about the situation that was created in Portland when the first federal troops, or whatever they are, were sent there. Since their arrival, the violence, especially at night, has escalated dramatically as they have proved to be an irresistible target of hostility for the inaction of the city’s political leadership about the issues that led to the initial protests two months ago. While the actual combat zone appears to be only a few blocks near the federal courthouse, the images on TV and social media of the nightly conflict are stunning.

To be clear, I do not believe the violence against the courthouse, or against the troops defending it, is either smart or justified. But I think I understand the anger and frustration of the people in the street, including now “Momtifa,” veterans and others. Anyone looking at this with at least some objectivity must surely be asking the same questions I am asking: what is the end game? Police and troops are being injured, some severely. That is wrong and counterproductive. Protestors, some peaceful and some not, are also being injured. Video of the combat is everywhere. Some people see it as crazed law violators attacking federal property for no reason and others see the jack-booted thuggery of oppressive and unwelcome federal force attempting to compel the protesters to give up. All of those things are probably  true simultaneously in varying degrees and at different times.

One must wonder nonetheless whether this standoff can continue in stalemate indefinitely. It seems unlikely that the protesters are going to just pack up and leave. Will the government accept a long-term stasis or decide at some point to provoke a finish-fight in which it clearly will have the upper hand in physical power?

Trump, secure in his reinforced White House redoubt, is ultimately directing the use of force against American citizens in Portland, and in other cities as well. Trump’s approach seems to be a replay of Nixon’s Southern Strategy and his Vietnam “strategy” combined. But how does he bring it to closure? Does Trump really want to make his final run for re-election, including the debates with Joe Biden, while federal troops are locked in a death-spiral with Americans in the streets of multiple cities?

We need to consider the possibility that he does. He has been asked multiple times whether he will accept an electoral defeat in November and has refused to say “yes.” Instead, he tweets that the election is rigged against him, that mail-voting leads to massive fraud (for which all evidence is to the contrary) and thus, by implication, that he may not follow history and, however reluctantly, participate in the peaceful transition of power that has been one of the hallmarks of American democracy since the founding. Given Trump’s quixotic and uninformed comprehension of American history, it is entirely possible that the entire scenario in Portland and others is intended to lay the foundation with his political base for him to reject the election.

I am reluctant to say this, but I am more and more inclined to believe that is where we’re headed. If so, many, many serious questions will arise. The most important in my view is whether the U.S. military, under the presumed control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will permit a sitting president to reject an electoral outcome simply because he doesn’t like the result. Some have questioned where the U.S. military’s loyalties lie and have expressed concern that the troops may not obey their commanders if they are ordered to remove the president.

Related, of course, is whether, if vote is close, the courts will entertain what will almost certainly be pretextual and poorly evidenced claims of voter fraud. This will occur in the face of numerous cases of voter suppression in Republican-dominated states, combined with highly questionable decisions regarding the use of voting machines that are subject to tampering. The administration seems intent on rendering the U.S. Postal Service unable to handle the expected huge volume of mail-in vote driven by pandemic infection concerns, possibly to bring about the very situation it claims to abhor. The Republicans have also refused to approve legislation that would direct campaigns to report foreign interference on their behalf.

As we enter the election home-stretch, with political conflict, the debates and more going on against the backdrop of turmoil in Portland and elsewhere, these questions will become even more fraught. Absent the president laying out for the nation a strategy to end the conflicts, I am driven to the conclusion that Trump is preparing to contest the election and in that he will be supported by the Republican Party, the members of which have shown repeatedly that their loyalties run to Trump and retaining political power rather than to the Constitution and the general welfare of the country.

In support of that awful thought, I note that the Republican Party could not have thought it would remain in power forever with a deranged, untrustworthy, incompetent leader like Trump. It knew that the majority of Americans who voted in the 2016 election favored Clinton, despite the well-documented assistance for Trump from Russia. Did they really believe that Trump’s behavior in office was going to grow his political base from a minority position to a majority of voting Americans? Not likely. They must have been counting on voter suppression tactics that a Trump-stacked Supreme Court would endorse. And they probably figured they really didn’t need a broad voter majority if the base remained loyal in the  handful of so-called battleground/swing states.

But they could not have anticipated the grotesque murder of George Floyd and the reaction across the United States and around the world. The Republican Party is now like the proverbial cornered rat that, once it realizes its peril, strikes back with every tool at its disposal. From the rat’s point of view, it’s a life-or-death situation so it has nothing to lose by striking out at its enemy. That, I am afraid, is where the Republican Party is now. Knowing that it may not only lose the presidency but also control of both houses of Congress, some of its members face the possibility of being brought to justice for the crimes and non-criminal offenses against the country under Trump’s hand.

So, do we reasonably expect that the Republicans who have excelled at hard-ball politics for so long will just say “oh, well, that’s the way it goes?” The fate of the nation’s democracy depends on the answer. If it is even somewhat possible that the Party will back Trump’s refusal to honor the election, the safest course – the only course – is for the Democratic vote to be so overwhelming that there is no basis for claims that the election could have gone the other way. In short, a massive Blue Wave so powerful that there can be no doubt about the outcome. Anything less invites a disastrous power struggle and possibly the end of our Constitutional basis for self-government.