One of President Donald Trump’s first actions as president was simple and sweeping: pardoning 1,500 people convicted of offenses related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. That single executive action undid years of work and investigation by the FBI, US prosecutors, and one person in particular: Tim Heaphy.Heaphy was the lead investigative counsel for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and he’s arguably done more than anyone to piece together what happened that day. His work helped inform related cases that were brought against rioters, Trump administration officials, and even Trump himself.In the first episode of More To The Story, Heaphy talks to host Al Letson about how Trump swept aside those consequences; the overlap between the January 6 attack and the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia; and what Trump’s pardons mean for the country going forward.
What will happen to Australia — and New Zealand — once the superpower that has been followed into endless battles, the United States, finally unravels?
With President Donald Trump now into his second week in the White House, horrific fires have continued to rage across Los Angeles and the details of Elon Musk’s allegedly dodgy Twitter takeover began to emerge, the world sits anxiously by.
The consequences of a second Trump term will reverberate globally, not only among Western nations. But given the deeply entrenched Americanisation of much of the Western world, this is about how it will navigate the after-shocks once the United States finally unravels — for unravel it surely will.
Leading with chaos Now that the world’s biggest superpower and war machine has a deranged criminal at the helm — for a second time — none of us know the lengths to which Trump (and his puppet masters) will go as his fingers brush dangerously close to the nuclear codes. Will he be more emboldened?
The signs are certainly there.
President Donald Trump 2.0 . . . will his cruelty towards migrants and refugees escalate, matched only by his fuelling of racial division? Image: ABC News screenshot IA
So far, Trump — who had already led the insurrection of a democratically elected government — has threatened to exit the nuclear arms pact with Russia, talked up a trade war with China and declared “all hell will break out” in the Middle East if Hamas hadn’t returned the Israeli hostages.
Will his cruelty towards migrants and refugees escalate, matched only by his fuelling of racial division?
This, too, appears to be already happening.
Trump’s rants leading up to his inauguration last week had been a steady stream of crazed declarations, each one more unhinged than the last.
Denial of catastrophic climate consequences
And will Trump be in even further denial over the catastrophic consequences of climate change than during his last term? Even as Los Angeles grapples with a still climbing death toll of 25 lives lost, 12,000 homes, businesses and other structures destroyed and 16,425 hectares (about the size of Washington DC) wiped out so far in the latest climactic disaster?
The fires are, of course, symptomatic of the many years of criminal negligence on global warming. But since Trump instead accused California officials of “prioritising environmental policies over public safety” while his buddy and head of government “efficiency”, Musk blamed black firefighters for the fires, it would appear so.
Will the madman, for surely he is one, also gift even greater protections to oligarchs like Musk?
“…pave the way for my Administration to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal agencies”.
So, this too is already happening.
All of these actions will combine to create a scenario of destruction that will see the implosion of the US as we know it, though the details are yet to emerge.
The flawed AUKUS pact sinking quickly . . . Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese with outgoing President Joe Biden, will Australia have the mettle to be bigger than Trump. Image: Independent Australia
What happens Down Under?
US allies — like Australia — have already been thoroughly indoctrinated by American pop culture in order to complement the many army bases they house and the defence agreements they have signed.
Though Trump hasn’t shown any interest in making it a 52nd state, Australia has been tucked up in bed with the United States since the Cold War. Our foreign policy has hinged on this alliance, which also significantly affects Australia’s trade and economy, not to mention our entire cultural identity, mired as it is in US-style fast food dependence and reality TV. Would you like Vegemite McShaker Fries with that?
So what will happen to Australia once the superpower we have followed into endless battles finally breaks down?
‘Trump has promised chaos and chaos is what he’ll deliver.’
His rise to power will embolden the rabid Far-Right in the US but will this be mirrored here? And will Australia follow the US example and this year elect our very own (admittedly scaled down) version of Trump, personified by none other than the Trump-loving Peter Dutton?
If any of his wild announcements are to be believed, between building walls and evicting even US nationals he doesn’t like, while simultaneously making Canadians US citizens, Trump will be extremely busy.
There will be little time even to consider Australia, let alone come to our rescue should we ever need the might of the US war machine — no matter whether it is an Albanese or sycophantic Dutton leadership.
It is a given, however, that we would be required to honour all defence agreements should our ally demand it.
It would be great if, as psychologists urge us to do when children act up, our leaders could simply ignore and refuse to engage with him, but it remains to be seen whether Australia will have the mettle to be bigger than Trump.
Republished from the Independent Australia with permission.
As Donald Trump prepares to enter the White House for a second term, the reasons people voted him into office are becoming more clear.
For Micki Witthoeft, it’s cause for celebration. Her daughter, Ashli Babitt, was shot and killed by a police officer after storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Today, Witthoeft is confident Trump will stand by his word and pardon everyone involved.
“He said his administration’s going to be one on ‘promises made and promises kept,’ ” she said. “I felt like he was talking right to me.”
But it’s not the same sentiment for all voters. This week on Reveal, we look at the many contradictions behind Trump’s victory, with stories from hosts Hanna Rosin and Lauren Ober of the new podcast from The Atlantic, We Live Here Now; Mother Jones reporter Tim Murphy; and Reveal producer Najib Aminy. We delve into January 6ers seeking pardons, “messy middle” voters who split their ballots, and members of the Uncommitted movement who wouldn’t vote for Kamala Harris despite being opposed to Trump.
The Secret Service recently announced the next electoral count after the November election is scheduled for January 6, 2025, and this time the event will be classified under the same security level as the inauguration itself. The move follows a request by Washington, D.C.'s mayor and a recommendation by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. This comes as former President Donald Trump dodged a question during last week's debate with Kamala Harris about his January 6 actions and refused to acknowledge his 2020 loss. For more, we speak with the director of the new documentary Homegrown, in which he embeds with three Trump supporters in the run-up to the 2020 election and, later, the January 6 insurrection, including members of the far-right Proud Boys. Director Michael Premo warns radicalized Trump supporters continue to threaten violence and upheaval during the current election cycle. “If this was a foreign country, the State Department would issue travel advisories for this fall. So I’m very concerned with the height of violent rhetoric that only seems to have gotten worse.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
The man behind the 2000 coup in Fiji, George Speight, and the head of the mutineers, former soldier Shane Stevens, have been granted presidential pardons.
In a statement yesterday, the Fiji Correction Service said the pair were among seven prisoners who has been granted pardons by the President, Ratu Wiliame Katonivere, after recommendations by the Mercy Commission.
“These pardons were formally granted on 18 September 2024. As a result, the named individuals have been officially discharged from custody today, Thursday, 19 September 2024,” the statement said.
“The Fiji Correction Service and the government remain committed to the principles of justice, rehabilitation, and the rule of law, and the Mercy Commission plays a vital role in ensuring that petitions for clemency are considered carefully, with due regard to the circumstances of each case.”
Speight was serving a life sentence for the charge of treason while Stevens was serving a life sentence for the charge of mutiny.
Also released are Sekina Vosavakatini, Nioni Tagici, James Sanjesh Goundar, Adi Livini Radininausori and John Miller.
Speight sought pardon In June 2023, Speight had applied for a presidential pardon under a mercy clause, raising the possibility of his release from prison after serving more than 20 years of a lifetime sentence.
Speight’s 2000 coup was the only civilian to raise an armed group to overthrow the government.
In 2002, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka — who started the coup culture in Fiji with two coups in 1987 — had stated a pardon for Speight would be a catastrophe and could pave the way for more coups.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Jean-Marie Tjibaou, a revered Kanak visionary, was inspirational to indigenous Pacific political activists across Oceania, just like Tongan anthropologist and writer Epeli Hao’ofa was to cultural advocates.
Tragically, he was assassinated in 1989 by an opponent within the independence movement during the so-called “les événements” in New Caledonia, the last time the “French” Pacific territory was engulfed in a political upheaval such as experienced this week.
His memory and legacy as poet, cultural icon and peaceful political agitator live on with the impressive Tjibaou Cultural Centre on the outskirts of the capital Nouméa as a benchmark for how far New Caledonia had progressed in the last 35 years.
However, the wave of pro-independence protests that descended into urban rioting this week invoked more than Tjibaou’s memory. Many of the martyrs — such as schoolteacher turned security minister Eloï Machoro, murdered by French snipers during the upheaval of the 1980s — have been remembered and honoured for their exploits over the last few days with countless memes being shared on social media.
Among many memorable quotes by Tjibaou, this one comes to mind:
“White people consider that the Kanaks are part of the fauna, of the local fauna, of the primitive fauna. It’s a bit like rats, ants or mosquitoes,” he once said.
“Non-recognition and absence of cultural dialogue can only lead to suicide or revolt.”
And that is exactly what has come to pass this week in spite of all the warnings in recent years and months. A revolt.
Among the warnings were one by me in December 2021 after a failed third and “final” independence referendum. I wrote at the time about the French betrayal:
“After three decades of frustratingly slow progress but with a measure of quiet optimism over the decolonisation process unfolding under the Nouméa Accord, Kanaky New Caledonia is again poised on the edge of a precipice.”
As Paris once again reacts with a heavy-handed security crackdown, it appears to have not learned from history. It will never stifle the desire for independence by colonised peoples.
New Caledonia was annexed as a colony in 1853 and was a penal colony for convicts and political prisoners — mainly from Algeria — for much of the 19th century before gaining a degree of autonomy in 1946.
“Kanaky Palestine – same combat” solidarity placard. Image: APR screenshot
Here are my five takeaways from this week’s violence and frustration:
1. Global failure of neocolonialism – Palestine, Kanaky and West Papua
Just as we have witnessed a massive outpouring of protest on global streets for justice, self-determination and freedom for the people of Palestine as they struggle for independence after 76 years of Israeli settler colonialism, and also Melanesian West Papuans fighting for 61 years against Indonesian settler colonialism, Kanak independence aspirations are back on the world stage.
Neocolonialism has failed. French President Emmanuel Macron’s attempt to reverse the progress towards decolonisation over the past three decades has backfired in his face.
2. French deafness and loss of social capital
The predictions were already long there. Failure to listen to the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) leadership and to be prepared to be patient and negotiate towards a consensus has meant much of the crosscultural goodwill that been developed in the wake of the Nouméa Accord of 1998 has disappeared in a puff of smoke from the protest fires of the capital.
The immediate problem lies in the way the French government has railroaded the indigenous Kanak people who make up 42 percent pf the 270,000 population into a constitutional bill that “unfreezes” the electoral roll pegging voters to those living in New Caledonia at the time of the 1998 Nouméa Accord. Under the draft bill all those living in the territory for the past 10 years could vote.
Kanak leaders and activists who have been killed . . . Jean-Marie Tjibaou is bottom left, and Eloï Machoro is bottom right. Image: FLNKS/APR
This would add some 25,000 extra French voters in local elections, which would further marginalise Kanaks at a time when they hold the territorial presidency and a majority in the Congress in spite of their demographic disadvantage.
Under the Nouméa Accord, there was provision for three referendums on independence in 2018, 2020 and 2021. The first two recorded narrow (and reducing) votes against independence, but the third was effectively boycotted by Kanaks because they had suffered so severely in the 2021 delta covid pandemic and needed a year to mourn culturally.
The FLNKS and the groups called for a further referendum but the Macron administration and a court refused.
3. Devastating economic and social loss New Caledonia was already struggling economically with the nickel mining industry in crisis – the territory is the world’s third-largest producer. And now four days of rioting and protesting have left a trail of devastation in their wake.
At least five people have died in the rioting — three Kanaks, and two French police, apparently as a result of a barracks accident. A state of emergency was declared for at least 12 days.
But as economists and officials consider the dire consequences of the unrest, it will take many years to recover. According to Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) president David Guyenne, between 80 and 90 percent of the grocery distribution network in Nouméa had been “wiped out”. The chamber estimated damage at about 200 million euros (NZ$350 million).
Twin flags of Kanaky and Palestine flying from a Parisian rooftop. Image: APR
4. A new generation of youth leadership As we have seen with Generation Z in the forefront of stunning pro-Palestinian protests across more than 50 universities in the United States (and in many other countries as well, notably France, Ireland, Germany, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom), and a youthful generation of journalists in Gaza bearing witness to Israeli atrocities, youth has played a critical role in the Kanaky insurrection.
Australian peace studies professor Dr Nicole George notes that “the highly visible wealth disparities” in the territory “fuel resentment and the profound racial inequalities that deprive Kanak youths of opportunity and contribute to their alienation”.
A feature is the “unpredictability” of the current crisis compared with the 1980s “les événements”.
“In the 1980s, violent campaigns were coordinated by Kanak leaders . . . They were organised. They were controlled.
“In contrast, today it is the youth taking the lead and using violence because they feel they have no other choice. There is no coordination. They are acting through frustration and because they feel they have ‘no other means’ to be recognised.”
According to another academic, Dr Évelyne Barthou, a senior lecturer in sociology at the University of Pau, who researched Kanak youth in a field study last year: “Many young people see opportunities slipping away from them to people from mainland France.
“This is just one example of the neocolonial logic to which New Caledonia remains prone today.”
Pan-Pacific independence solidarity . . . “Kanak People Maohi – same combat”. Image: APR screenshot
5. Policy rethink needed by Australia, New Zealand
Ironically, as the turbulence struck across New Caledonia this week, especially the white enclave of Nouméa, a whistlestop four-country New Zealand tour of Melanesia headed by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, who also has the foreign affairs portfolio, was underway.
The first casualty of this tour was the scheduled visit to New Caledonia and photo ops demonstrating the limited diversity of the political entourage showed how out of depth New Zealand’s Pacific diplomacy had become with the current rightwing coalition government at the helm.
Heading home, Peters thanked the people and governments of Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and Tuvalu for “working with New Zealand towards a more secure, more prosperous and more resilient tomorrow”.
The delegation is now heading home
Many thanks to the people and governments of Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu & Tuvalu for their kind hospitality – and for working with New Zealand towards a more secure, more prosperous & more resilient tomorrow.
His tweet came as New Caledonian officials and politicians were coming to terms with at least five deaths and the sheer scale of devastation in the capital which will rock New Caledonia for years to come.
News media in both Australia and New Zealand hardly covered themselves in glory either, with the commercial media either treating the crisis through the prism of threats to tourists and a superficial brush over the issues. Only the public media did a creditable job, New Zealand’s RNZ Pacific and Australia’s ABC Pacific and SBS.
In the case of New Zealand’s largest daily newspaper, The New Zealand Herald, it barely noticed the crisis. On Wednesday, morning there was not a word in the paper.
Thursday was not much better, with an “afterthought” report provided by a partnership with RNZ. As I reported it:
“Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, finally catches up with the Pacific’s biggest news story after three days of crisis — the independence insurrection in #KanakyNewCaledonia.
“But unlike global news services such as Al Jazeera, which have featured it as headline news, the Herald tucked it at the bottom of page 2. Even then it wasn’t its own story, it was relying on a partnership report from RNZ.”
Also, New Zealand media reports largely focused too heavily on the “frustrations and fears” of more than 200 tourists and residents said to be in the territory this week, and provided very slim coverage of the core issues of the upheaval.
With all the warning signs in the Pacific over recent years — a series of riots in New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga and Vanuatu — Australia and New Zealand need to wake up to the yawning gap in social indicators between the affluent and the impoverished, and the worsening climate crisis.
These are the real issues of the Pacific, not some fantasy about AUKUS and a perceived China threat in an unconvincing arena called “Indo-Pacific”.
Dr David Robie covered “Les Événements” in New Caledonia in the 1980s and penned the book Blood on their Banner about the turmoil. He also covered the 2018 independence referendum.
Loyalist French rally in New Caledonia . . . “Unfreezing is democracy”. Image: A PR screenshot
Like two heavyweight boxers, the United States and Iran circle the ring — flexing their muscles without stepping close enough to actually trade blows. It is clear that neither wants to fight, but they also have no interest in settling their stark differences.
That is how experts say Washington and Tehran have dealt with each other for more than four decades, only changing their stance when it is mutually beneficial.
Tensions have soared between the two foes, who have no formal diplomatic ties, amid the fallout from Israel’s devastating war in the Gaza Strip. But despite calls for de-escalation, observers say there is little room for détente.
“I’ve rarely seen a situation in which the tensions have been so high and the exit ramps are nearly nonexistent and there were no real channels of communication between the two sides,” said Ali Vaez, director of the Iran project at the International Crisis Group.
“And that makes the current situation even more dangerous, because there’s plenty of space for miscommunication and misunderstanding,” Vaez added.
Current tensions in the Middle East have had deadly consequences even as each side tries to avoid getting drawn into a direct military confrontation.
The United States has hit Iran-backed militants in response to attacks against U.S. forces and interests in the region, including the deaths of three U.S. soldiers in Jordan last month, while underscoring that its aim is de-escalation.
Iran, which like the United States has said that it does not want war, has continued to back militant groups that make up its so-called “axis of resistance” against Israel and the West, while calling for diplomacy to resolve the crisis.
Tehran and Washington have carefully avoided direct conflict, but are in no position to work out their differences even if they wanted to, experts say.
Washington and Tehran have not had formal diplomatic ties since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, leaving them to negotiate through back-channels or third states when needed.
But political and ideological pressures at home — amplified ahead of a parliamentary vote in Iran in March and a presidential election in the United States in November — has meant that neither side is looking to back away any time soon from the stark red lines the two have drawn.
Avenues For Diplomacy
“There are ways that communication can be had between the two countries, and they do so,” said Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the U.S.-based Middle East Institute. “But they tend to do it on select files, or moments of crisis.”
Vatanka said those lines of communication include Iran’s envoy to the United Nations who resides in New York and the Swiss Embassy in Tehran which handles American interests in the Islamic republic. There are also third-party mediators, including Qatar, Oman, and Iraq, he said.
The U.S.-Iran prisoner swap worked out in September, which followed years of secret negotiations involving Gulf states and Switzerland, is the most recent example.
Under that deal, four Americans held hostage in Iran were released in exchange for Washington unfreezing $6 billion in Iranian oil revenue held up in South Korea.
As part of the agreement, according to Vaez, “Iran committed to rein in groups that were targeting U.S. interests in Iraq and Syria” and Washington received a commitment that Tehran would not supply ballistic missiles to Russia for use in Moscow’s war against Ukraine.
Shortly after Iran-backed Hamas, which is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union, carried out its deadly assault on Israel on October 7, the unfrozen Iranian funds came under intense scrutiny. Republicans in the United States who are gearing up for the presidential election in November have been particularly vocal in criticizing the deal worked out by the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden.
In response, Washington worked out an agreement with Qatar, where the unfrozen Iranian funds were moved and to be released only for humanitarian purposes, to prevent Tehran from accessing them at all. But the deal has remained a hot-button issue.
The Gaza war and the ensuing resumption of attacks on U.S. forces and interests by Iran-backed groups have attracted even more political discord.
After Israel’s large-scale offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip that has killed more than 27,000 Palestinians, Iran-backed militant groups have carried out attacks in solidarity with Hamas. The Iran-backed Huthi rebels in Yemen have targeted maritime shipping and U.S. naval forces in the Red Sea. Meanwhile, Iran-backed militias in Iraq killed three U.S. soldiers in Jordan in a drone attack.
That, in turn, has led to U.S. and U.K. attacks on Huthi targets in Yemen, and by the United States against Iran-backed militias and Iranian-linked sites in Syria and Iraq.
U.S. forces launch strikes against Huthi targets in Yemen earlier this month.
Iran, for its part, has said that the axis of resistance, which it denies directing, would continue to carry out strikes until a permanent cease-fire is worked out to stop what it calls a genocide in Gaza. And in what was widely seen as a show of its capability to strike back in the event Iran itself is attacked, it has launched ballistic missile strikes against “enemy” targets in Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria, the latter of which showcased that Israel was within striking distance.
The recent spike in violence came after the United States had experienced “the longest period of quiet in the Middle East” from March until the Hamas assault on October 7, Vaez said.
That relative peace came about not because of displays of power, but because Iran and the United States were negotiating, Vaez said.
“It wasn’t because the U.S. had flexed its military muscle and deterred Iran, it was because it was engaged in diplomatic understandings with Iran that came to fruition and culminated in a detainee deal,” Vaez said.
Tehran and the United States, currently trading threats of ever-stronger responses, “are seeking to pressure each other into greater flexibility,” said Trita Parsi, co-founder of the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
“Both would like to get back to the truce they enjoyed prior to the October 7 attacks” by Hamas against Israel, Parsi said in written comments. “But whether the political will is available for real de-escalation remains unclear.”
“President Biden has been unmovable in his opposition to a cease-fire in Gaza thus far,” Parsi said, referring to mounting calls for a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas. “And without such a cease-fire, real de-escalation remains very unlikely.”
Military Message
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on February 6, halfway through his latest trip to the Middle East to reduce regional tensions, that a proposal for a temporary cease-fire put together with the help of Qatar and Egypt and presented to Hamas and Israel, was “possible and, indeed, essential.”
While details of the proposal have not been made public, Blinken said that the goal is to use any pause in fighting to address humanitarian and reconstruction needs in Gaza and “to continue to pave a diplomatic path forward to a just and lasting peace and security for the region.”
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken waves as he boards his plane at an airport near Tel Aviv on February 8, during his trip to the Middle East
Asked by RFE/RL whether Washington is employing any diplomatic means, either directly or indirectly, to decrease tensions with Iran, a U.S. State Department spokesperson pointed to recent strikes carried out against Iranian-backed groups in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.
“Our military response to the killing of three U.S. service members by Iran-aligned militia groups and our continued action to degrade the Huthis’ ability to threaten international shipping sends the clearest message of all: the United States will defend our personnel and our interests,” a U.S. State Department spokesman said in written comments on February 7.
“When we are attacked, we will respond strongly, and we will respond at a time and place of our choosing,” the spokesman said.
Prior to the deadly attack on the U.S. base in Jordan, there had been reports of Washington using third states to send a nonmilitary notice to Iran.
Shortly after the Hamas assault on Israel in October, the U.S. Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said that a congressional delegation to China had asked Beijing to exert its influence with Tehran to prevent the Israel-Hamas conflict from spreading.
In early January, the Lebanese news publication Al-Ahed News quoted Iran’s ambassador to Syria as saying that a delegation from an unidentified Gulf state had carried a message from the United States seeking to reduce the risk of an expanded regional conflict.
The U.S. State Department spokesperson said that beyond the recent U.S. strikes, “our message to Iran, in public and in private, has been a singular one: cease your support for terrorist groups and militant proxies and partners.”
Washington welcomes “any efforts by other countries to play a constructive role in trying to prevent these Iran-enabled attacks from taking place,” the spokesperson added, but referred to White House national-security spokesman John Kirby’s February 6 comment that “I know of no private messaging to Iran since the death of our soldiers in Jordan over a week ago.”
Lack Of Vision
The limits of diplomacy between the United States and Iran, according to Vatanka, “is not a lack of the ability to communicate, the problem is a lack of vision” to repair relations.
For political reasons and for a long time, Vantanka added, neither side has been interested in mending the bad blood that has existed between the two countries going back to 1979.
“Right now, the White House cannot afford to talk to Iran at a time when so many of Biden’s critics are saying he’s too soft on the Iranian regime,” Vatanka said. “On the other hand, you’ve got an Iranian supreme leader who is 84 years old. He’s really keen on two things: not to have a war with the Americans, because he doesn’t think that’s going to go well for Iran or his regime. But at the same time, he doesn’t want to see the Americans return to Tehran anytime soon. Certainly not when he’s alive.”
This, Vatanka explained, is because Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini “does not think the Americans want anything other than the fundamental objective of bringing about the end of the Islamic republic.”
The other major voice in Iranian foreign policy — the leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps — also see anti-Americanism as a worthwhile instrument to further their ideological and political aims at home and abroad, according to Vatanka.
“They think anti-Americanism is the ticket to mobilize the Islamic world around their flag and around their leadership,” Vatanka said.
More moderate voices when it comes to Iran’s foreign policy, Vatanka said, are labeled as traitors and weak and “are today essentially marginalized.”
When the Civil War ended in 1865, the 76-year-old Constitution needed an upgrading and those leading the country did indeed dramatically transform it with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, known collectively as the Reconstruction Era amendments. The 13th (1865) abolished slavery, while the 15th (1870) gave voting rights to newly freed Black men. However, it was the 14th Amendment…
Nearly 24 years ago, five right-wing members of the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore. Despite the conservatives’ hypocritical deference to the states on gun control, tobacco “rights,” disability rights and violence against women, the court overruled Florida’s interpretation of its election statutes to install Bush as president. Now, the high court is poised to…
Supreme Court justices have expressed skepticism over Colorado’s recent decision to bar former President Donald Trump from the ballot, with some claiming that the precedent could allow for an unmanageable situation in the future. The Colorado state Supreme Court deemed Trump, currently the frontrunner for the Republican Party nomination for president, an insurrectionist in December…
John Anthony Castro, a 2024 Republican presidential candidate, has petitioned the U.S. District Court of Alaska to declare Donald Trump ineligible to appear on the state’s election ballot. Castro has filed similar lawsuits in more than two dozen states, with nine legal challenges remaining active after three states have dismissed the lawsuits. “On January 6, 2021, after witnessing a large group of…
Colorado’s state Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of a recently decided case involving former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president again under a constitutional provision that forbids former lawmakers and government officials who engaged in insurrection from seeking public office of any kind. The state’s highest court issued its order approving the writ of certiorari…
A Colorado state judge has denied a motion by lawyers representing former President Donald Trump that aimed to dismiss a lawsuit from voters in the state seeking to disqualify Trump from being included on the 2024 presidential ballot. Those voters, who are being represented by the nonprofit watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), assert that Trump is ineligible to run…
The federal lawsuit filed earlier this month by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on behalf of six Colorado voters provides a template that can and will be used in other states to keep Donald Trump off the ballot in the primary and general presidential elections. Indeed a similar lawsuit filed September 12 in Minnesota by the progressive group Free Speech for People shows…
Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic and former presidential candidate, discusses “serial law violator” Donald Trump’s criminal indictments, particularly the second federal case brought by special prosecutor Jack Smith that accuses Trump of conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and of inciting the January 6 attack on Capitol Hill.
A government watchdog has released a report outlining why former President Donald Trump should be barred from running for president — or any other governmental office — ever again. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) makes the case for denying Trump the ability to serve once more based not on the two indictments against him (and a possible third or fourth that could come…
A pair of advocacy organizations that have long argued former President Donald Trump’s incitement of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol legally disqualifies him from holding office again plan to make that case with a week of rallies and banner drops beginning on Sunday. Free Speech for People and Mi Familia Vota are among various groups and legal scholars that cite Section 3 of the…
Photograph Source: Alexander Davronov – CC BY-SA 4.0
When news broke of Wagner Commander Yevgeny Prigozhin’s race toward Moscow this past weekend I noted in a social media post this required a serious logistical effort to supply. I have since scaled back my assessment of its logistical complexities. Rather than 24,000 Wagner forces on the march toward Moscow, it quickly became known it was only 4-6,000, and estimated vehicles at 55 on the bottom end, to 200 on the top side. Not insignificant, but not huge either. And we don’t know yet if it was Prigozhin’s intention of going all the way to Moscow, or if it was a bluff. In short, logistics may not have been that consequential for this rash dash to Moscow, or perhaps they were all along intending to halt before arriving there. There may, or may not, have been significant planning involved, but the logistical complexity of Prigozhin’s race to Moscow may not have required the advanced planning many pundits assert.
No sooner, however, had the tires on Prigozhin’s trucks stopped rolling, than pundits from what Vladimir Putin calls the “collective West” (as he terms what is chiefly the UK and its former historical settler colonies) were spinning yarns about how the run on Moscow reprised events of 1917. In fact, so was Putin for that matter. Having seemingly read an article or book on the subject, the foreign policy commentariat began churning out articles suggesting a veritable Kornilov Affair that was a prelude to the collapse of Russia’s Kerensky government still at war with Germany. Of course, it remains too early to tell if there are any “rhymes” let alone repetitions, to paraphrase the late Samuel Clemens to 1917, in this matter.
Regarding WWI, we all know it was catastrophic for Czarist and Kerensky’s Russia. Then 1.8 million Russian soldiers died and some half-million direct civilian deaths and another 700,000 from war related disease. Its economy shrank by over half. So, it was utter economic collapse then and some 2-3 million dead for Russia in 1917. This has little relation to Russia now, but that is hardly to say all is well there presently. But what are the differences between then and now?
Today, instead of over half of Russia’s GDP gone, Russia’s economy shrank 2.1% in 2022 and is set to grow by 0.7% this year. We might quibble at the margins of these numbers, but for most this is an unnoticeable change, vs the catastrophic collapse of Russia’s economy in WWI. Moreover, Russia presently is not even on a full war-economy footing (although their critics from Russian chauvinists say they should be). Russia is spending a paltry 3% of their GDP on the war. In short, Putin has undertaken his war in Ukraine on the cheap in hopes of “keeping the calm” at home. But it appears Putin went too far on this score of war without domestic inconvenience and the military and nationalists are unhappy with the results.
On deaths, the numbers are serious. Some tens of thousands (others argue more, but without conclusive evidence) Russian soldiers are dead. These are poor working-class sops from the provinces few care about. Disregard for their plight, if not fate, showed Putin at his worst when he told the mother of one of these fallen young men that she should be happy her son died for a reason. “Some people, are they even living or not living? It’s unclear. And how they die, from vodka or something else, it’s also unclear…But your son lived, you understand?” It’s rotten, but also increasingly normal in war today and Ukraine now also shows a similar profile for who is fighting and dying in this war.
This is all by way of saying we should not overstate comparisons with WWI, which while the present war is terrible, its impact still pales to that of the first World War. That said, the war clearly has gone on too long for the taste of Russia’s nationalists and they are restive with the lack of its progress. Thus, Putin will have to exit or escalate, both of which pose their dangers for the Kremlin, and possibly the world if Putin takes the likely path of escalation.
This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Jeffrey Sommers.
Donald Trump is set to surrender today at the federal courthouse in Miami to face charges for retaining and mishandling classified documents, including top-secret information about U.S. nuclear weapons programs. Trump’s supporters, including many prominent members of the Republican Party, have threatened violence and suggested revolt in response to what they see as a politically motivated…
For most Americans, Jan. 6 was once an ordinary, ho-hum day. That changed in 2021 when millions of television viewers watched thousands of Trump supporters assault the U.S. Capitol in their violent attempt to stop Joe Biden’s presidential victory. Legislators fled for their lives as the mob shattered windows and vandalized congressional offices. While those images and subsequent congressional…
I’d wondered how Republicans would mark the anniversary of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Then untarnishable Florida Man Matt Gaetz and his freedom contras reenacted it by other means this week. This insurrection is from within. It’s just starting.
Kevin McCarthy, the wobbliest amoeba to be elected Speaker and stand third in line for the presidency, got his prize by sacrificing it. There is no Speakership anymore except in name.
Any single member of the House can now call for the speaker’s ouster whenever they choose. Previously, only party leaders could. Insurrectionists got their pick of crucial committee assignments. They’ll dictate what bills get to the floor, rig any bill with whatever suicidal amendment they choose, kill any spending bill they don’t like. These 20 insurrectionists with neither congressional seniority nor accomplishments to their names will sabotage committees, Congress and country from weaponized backbenches, with their party’s blessing. Is anybody surprised?
McCarthy surrendered gavel for grovel.
Lost in the din is the very unusual bipartisan success of the two years of the 117th Congress that just ended. Democrats and Republicans combined to give us laws that protect gay marriage. They gave us the largest infrastructure bill and largest government investment in research and development in decades. They gave us tighter background checks on younger people buying guns. And they gave us a law that changed the way electoral votes are counted so people like Donald Trump couldn’t attempt the kind of coup he did two years ago by fabricating constitutional clauses the way he does his tax returns.
Every one of these laws drew a dozen or more Republican senators and quite a few Republican House members, too. It was one of the most productive congresses in not-so recent years. Now the barbarians are back in charge. It only takes a few, if the rest of them allow it. That’s the thing: we keep hearing that the 20 insurrectionists are a tiny minority. But they’re the core of Republican ideology, such as it is. They couldn’t get away with their stunts if they didn’t represent a constituency reflecting the anarchy. It’s Trumpism on steroids. It can only end one way. The Republicans had yet to swear-in their new House majority before they turned the whole thing into Jonestown. You remember Jonestown, don’t you, the town the paranoid California preacher and power-mad Jim Jones established in the jungles of Guyana with about 900 of his more gullible church flock, first taking their savings then taking their lives in a mass murder-suicide in 1979. That’s where the expression drinking the kool aid comes from, because he had everyone drink cyanide mixed in with kool aid as he drilled their souls with conspiracies all around. Jones was a QAnon stem cell.
It’s Trumpism on steroids. It can only end one way.
You know Republicans have gone Jonestown when the likes of Marjorie Taylor Green and action-figure Trump end up sounding like their most reasonable voices. Here those two were this week, begging the monsters they created to calm down at least long enough to elect that other Californian while Gaetz’s horde played what Green herself called “Russian Roulette” with their newly gained power. Republicans know suicide.
Lost in the din, too, is the scum pond that “Freedom Caucus” crawled out of a few years ago. One of its founding members was none other than Ron DeSantis, the Guantanamo graduate who’d have been standing right along Gaetz and other insurrectionists this week had he not become Florida’s doubleplus caudillo-in-chief. Every time DeSantis speaks the word “freedom”–as he did 12 times in his inaugural address Tuesday–another liberty loses its wings.
Like the speakership, the word freedom has lost its meaning, though in fairness to DeSantis he’s only applying the Grand Old Party’s stately definition of the word, coined by Ronald Reagan, that unassailable freedom-loving deity, when he called the rapists, terrorists and mass murderers of Central America “freedom fighters.”
“Freedom lives here,” DeSantis told us Tuesday, the way it does in the Republican House: The 20 nut cases holding it hostage are the party’s purest, and purist, expression.
If their fight was about ideas, policies, even principles, even I’d cheer it on. But it’s none of those things. Right wing Republicans have no ideas. No idea, period. Not that moderates have been doing much better. The GOP hasn’t had a single new idea in 30 years, other than lowering taxes and defeating every social and ecological initiative possible while rolling back the hard-won civil rights and liberties of the Warren Court. It’s reactionary ideology: opposition for its own sake, a black and white, all or nothing approach that sees treachery in compromise and an enemy behind every moderate, when compromise and moderation are the essence of American democracy at its best. It was Mitch McConnell, remember, who explicitly put that in words when, as Senate majority leader, he said his only aim in 2010 was to make Obama a one-term president. Accomplishments be damned. The extremists’ nihilism today is not materially different. They’re not about achieving the country. They’re about destruction, their mentality comparable, again, only to the psyche of the suicide bomber, this one wearing a bright red maga hat.
What we saw this week is a preview of much worse to come, with or without McCarthy as figurehead speaker. There’s nothing to cheer here, not for anyone who cares about this country. Not as long as Maga’s white-collar insurrectionists are calling the shots.
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
Two years after supporters of former President Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” stormed the U.S. Capitol, demonstrators gathered in Colorado on Friday to remind the American people—especially election officials—that “Trump is disqualified” from running for public office under Section 3 of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution.
Since January 6, 2021, some elected officials and advocacy groups have drawn attention to that section of the amendment, which bars from office anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion,” to call for excluding Trump and some congressional Republicans from government.
“Trump’s actions were a violation of his oath of office and therefore make him constitutionally ineligible for any future run for office.”
“Insurrectionists do not belong in office,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said Friday. “And they do not belong on the ballot going forward. Elected officials who directly aided and abetted the deadly assault on our nation’s democracy on January 6 must be held accountable.”
The groups Free Speech for People (FSFP) and Mi Familia Vota Education Fund have launched TrumpIsDisqualified.org, a campaign pressuring secretaries of state and other U.S. election officials to exclude supporters of the insurrection—particularly the twice-impeached former president—from any future ballots.
As part of the “Jan. 6th Justice: Our Freedoms, Our Votes” day of action on Friday, Mi Familia Vota held a rally in Denver demanding that Democratic Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold use her power to keep Trump—who formally launched his current presidential campaign in November—off the ballot in 2024.
\u201c@FSFP & MFV are urging Secretaries of State and chief election officials across the country to follow the mandate of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and bar Trump from any future ballot. If we all come together, we\u2019ll grow our movement to protect our democracy \u270a\ud83c\udfff\u270a\ud83c\udffe\u270a\ud83c\udffd\u270a\ud83c\udffc\u201d
“Donald Trump violated his oath of office when he led the charge to overturn the results of the 2020 election,” declared Héctor Sánchez Barba, executive director and CEO of Mi Familia Vota, a national group that works to build Latino political power through civic participation.
“His actions only confirmed what the Latino community has long known: He is dangerous,” Sanchez said of Trump. “The disqualification clause in the 14th Amendment is clear: Anyone who violates their oath of office is ineligible to run for higher office in the future.”
“Secretaries of state have the power to bar Trump,” he stressed. “There is ample evidence as to why he is not fit to hold office again, now all we are asking is for a secretary of state to act.”
\u201cWe believe that Trump is constitutionally ineligible for any future run for office bc of his role in inciting, encouraging, & supporting the #Jan6 insurrection. If we all come together, we can grow our movement to protect our democracy. Sign our petition: https://t.co/61JKzYmle7\u201d
Ahead of the “divided and disoriented” GOP’s disastrous takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives this week, the Democratic-led select committee that investigated the Capitol insurrection last month unanimously referred Trump to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on four criminal charges.
“The bipartisan House January 6th committee showed that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election, culminating with his incitement of violent insurrection,” FSFP campaign director Alexandra Flores-Quilty said Friday.
“The insurrectionist disqualification clause is clear: Trump’s actions were a violation of his oath of office and therefore make him constitutionally ineligible for any future run for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” she added. “Secretaries of state now have a duty to uphold the Constitution and protect our democracy by ensuring Trump is barred from the ballot.”
Even before the House select committee referrals, Trump faced DOJ investigations into his handling of classified documents and his role in the 2021 attack on the Capitol. After Trump announced his 2024 campaign, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith, a longtime federal prosecutor, as a special counsel for those probes.
FSFP legal director Ron Fein, president John Bonifaz, and chairman and senior legal adviser Ben Clements, jointly argued Friday in a piece for Jurist that “Garland has done something quietly sneaky” with his appointment of Smith.
\u201cTrump must be held accountable for his insurrection crimes (& later theft of government documents). \n\n\ud835\uddd5\ud835\ude02\ud835\ude01 AG Garland’s absolution of Trump\u2019s earlier crimes\u2014and unwillingness to even state openly that he was doing so, let alone explain why\u2014is a serious blow to the rule of law.\u201d
— Ron Fein … also ronfein@masto.ai (@Ron Fein … also ronfein@masto.ai)
1673023170
“By announcing a special counsel appointment predicated on Trump’s candidacy,” the trio wrote, “then excluding from the special counsel’s scope the ‘shelf-ready’ ‘obstruction of justice crimes already identified by Special Counsel [Robert] Mueller and campaign finance crimes already identified by Manhattan prosecutors (in the Trump administration, no less), Garland is telling us between the lines that that he is giving up on all of Trump’s pre-2020 crimes.”
“Of course, Trump must be held accountable, in a timely fashion, for the crimes within the special counsel’s scope,” they added. “But Garland’s absolution of Trump’s earlier crimes—and unwillingness to even state openly, let alone provide a rationale, that he was doing so—is a serious blow to the once cherished principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law.”
As for other political leaders who contributed to the Capitol attack, although the select committee last month referred Republican Congressmen Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to the House Committee on Ethics for defying subpoenas, they are unlikely to face any consequences in a chamber narrowly controlled by the GOP, no matter who ultimately becomes speaker.
The House adjourned Friday afternoon after 13 failed speaker votes throughout the week—the most since before the U.S. Civil War—with plans to return at 10:00 pm ET. McCarthy just needs to flip two of the six Republicans who remain opposed to him—Biggs along with Reps. Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Eli Crane (Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.), and Matt Rosendale (Mont.)—to secure enough support to be elected to the leadership post.
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
The bipartisan Congressional committee investigating the January 6th insurrection recommended that former president Donald Trump face criminal charges for sparking the attempted coup. We look back at the case of Guy Reffitt, the first person to be prosecuted for his role in the violent insurrection.
On Jan. 6, 2021, teenager Jackson Reffitt watched the Capitol riot play out on TV from his family home in Texas. His father, Guy, had a much closer view: He was in Washington, armed with a semiautomatic handgun, storming the building.
When Guy Reffitt returned home, Jackson secretly taped him and turned the recordings over to the FBI. His father bragged about what he did, saying: “I had every constitutional right to carry a weapon and take over the Congress.”
Guy Reffitt was the first person to stand trial for his role in the riot, and the case has divided his family.
This week, Reveal features the story of the Reffitt family by partnering with the podcast Will Be Wild from Pineapple Street Studios, Wondery and Amazon Music. Hosted by Andrea Bernstein and Ilya Marritz, Will Be Wild’s eight-part series investigates the forces that led to the Jan. 6 insurrection and what comes next.
As former President Donald Trump weighs announcing a potential 2024 presidential run this fall — which would be his third run for president in as many election cycles — a constitutional law professor is calling on Democrats to act now to prevent him from doing so.
Alan B. Morrison, associate dean at George Washington University Law School, penned an op-ed that was published in The Hill on Saturday evening. In it, Morrison calls for Democrats to sue Trump in federal court, citing the insurrectionist clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to block any future run for office — including for president.
Section 3 of that amendment bars any person who has held federal office and “previously taken an oath…to support the Constitution of the United States” from entering any political office again if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the country.
Morrison called for Democrats to hold Trump accountable to that amendment’s language. Citing explosive testimonies from witnesses during the January 6 committee’s public hearings (in particular, from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson), Morrison said there is little doubt that Trump “fomented the insurrection” that resulted in the attack on the U.S. Capitol building.
“There are no longer any innocent explanations for what he did that day,” Morrison wrote, noting that the committee has demonstrated that Trump knew he had no legal or factual basis for election fraud claims, and that former Vice President Mike Pence was not going to help him usurp the certification of the Electoral College.
Trump was also aware that some of his loyalists who had gathered in front of the White House were armed, but still urged them to go to the Capitol. Trump’s inaction as the attack was unfolding is yet another reason Democrats need to bar him from running again, the constitutional expert went on.
“It was clearly in his power to call off the insurrection — but instead of trying to stop the violence, he chose to do nothing,” said Morrison.
If the 14th Amendment insurrectionist clause applies to anyone, he added, it “must surely apply to Donald Trump.”
Democrats should bring forward a lawsuit, on behalf of current President Joe Biden or any potential candidates that may run in 2024, “seeking a ruling that Donald Trump participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection,” which would bar him from being a candidate for president.
Although it’s unclear whether such a lawsuit would be successful, Democrats have “nothing to lose” in trying, Morrison concluded.
Morrison’s calls for Democrats to stop Trump from being able to run for office come as news reports suggest that the former president will make an announcement sometime this fall about running again in the next presidential election cycle.
Rolling Stone hasreported that Trump is considering launching another presidential campaign because he believes that a successful run would dissuade the Department of Justice from investigating or indicting him on a slew of possible criminal charges relating to his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential race.
One source indicated to the magazine that Trump “said something like, ‘[prosecutors] couldn’t get away with this while I was president.’” Discussions about running again seemed to be centered around his desire to avoid criminal prosecution. “He went on for a couple minutes about how ‘some very corrupt’ people want to ‘put me in jail,’” the source added.
