Per Politico, Mark Meadows sent an email on Jan 5th about having National Guard on standby to protect "pro-Trump" people. Per previous reporting by the WAPO, some Pentagon leaders feared Trump would misuse the National Guard. Others feared the Guard would be baited into violence
Per the WAPO report, Top Brass even changed the chain of command for ordering deployment of the National Guard, which, reportedly, may have led to a delay on January 6th. washingtonpost.com/politics/inter…
Also per the WAPO, on 1/3, the Capitol Police Chief requested National Guard be stationed at the Capitol. He was rebuffed. Mayor Bowser was also worried about the Guard abandoning their posts on Jan 6 (being pro-Trump). Others, in military & in Congress, cited optics concerns
So what's going on here? Why did Meadows feel he had the Guard on standby to protect pro-Trumpers? Had he actually gotten assurances from the military? Or were military leaders, as they've intimated, hesitant about a preemptive guard presence?
The "keep general peace" excuse doesn't work in terms of Meadows' email. 1st of all, he specified Pro-Trump Protection. Also, Mayor Bowser was having different convos about the Guard: fearing they would turn on the gov't. Finally, the Cap Police requested the Guard & were denied
It's important to know what was going on w/ the military. Military involvement is what turns a soft-coup hard. If the military was at odds w/ each other, that's also a dangerous situation. If some military were at odds w/ the POTUS & others aligned w/ him, that's also dangerous
No matter what, if this Meadows email is real, that's a huge scandal. The President's CoS said the Guard was on standby to protect a specific group of "protesters" who were intent on overthrowing the results of an election, all while the CoS himself plotted to delay certification
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Per @NBCNews, the legal group "Reckoning Action" is working with "multiple women who have had past personal relationships with [Graham] Platner." The group is providing both pro bono legal counsel to these women, as well as assistance navigating the press.
Here's how to read between the lines. This is a "process piece." There are allegations out against Graham Platner. Ones you haven't heard about yet. At least some of these allegations have gone to the press, but have not been published yet. The women have legal representation.
There are therefore multiple allegations against Graham Platner. There are the allegations of domestic violence that came out in the NYT. There are also other allegations of violence against women. The allegations exist. Journalists know of them. Women are seeking legal advice.
I've always been on the "Let's try to get where Norway is" side of the economic spectrum. I just abandoned specific "movements" when I realized they didn't want real change and also disrespected Black people. Cause I'll always be a Civil Rights voter first. Me in 2016:
I'm not peeved about it but it shows a real lack of acumen on the "Democratic socialist" side of things that they just continue to act like there aren't a ton of people who are sympathetic or even enthusiastic about their economic policy but don't like all the "social agitation."
Like I don't think our "Let's get to Nordic Model!" politics is as popular as they think it is but it would be a hell of a lot more popular if they stopped acting like narcissistic cultists all the time. Then the racism. The antisemitism. No thank you!
My view of this man has changed significantly in the past few months. I was taught that when people feel harmed, you address that harm. You listen. You try to understand. Mamdani is very smart. He knows exactly what he is doing. This is gaslighting.
I don't like criticizing Mamdani. I know many ppl who like him & I respect those ppl a great deal. I think we see a different person. I don't want to fight with my friends. But I do have to say what I believe to be the truth: I think he is fomenting anti-semitism & he knows it.
The more generous interpretation of Mamdani's behavior over the past few months is that he genuinely does not care when a certain group of people--in this case, Jews--express fear & harm. That is undeniable, even if you don't believe he is intentionally fomenting antisemitism.
Literally none of the things we have done to debase ourselves post-2024 needed to happen. We could have just taken a rest and watched Trump blow up the GOP then presented ourselves as the alternative. We lost by 1.5 percentage points for Christ's sake.
Just endless "The Democratic party brand is nationally toxic how can we make that worse?"
The endless fighting about Biden didn't need to happen. "Trans people? Under the bus?" didn't need to happen. Sticking our fingers in our ears while people frothed at the mouth about Jews didn't need to happen. Graham Platner most certainly didn't need to happen.
Something I think a lot of white Democrats don't get about Southern Black voters is that they're not just "pragmatic;" they're hyper-vigilant. Anyone who lives in an environment where they could be harmed develops hyper-vigilance. It's one reason they don't fall for snake-oil.
I worked in the Nashville school district. Even Black children are hyper-vigilant around white people in the South (which is heart-breaking). They have to be. B/c in the schools, there are white people who are neutral, white people who are helpful, & white people who are harmful.
Graham Platner would do worse in the South than Bernie did. In 2016, Bernie wasn't judged as being a bad guy. People thought he was sincere, but kind of silly. Not a bad heart, but also no receipts to show of either 1) work achieved or 2) community ties built.
It's not a mistake when a man harms multiple women. When men harm women without seeking some kind of intervention, they want to harm women.
Look, a lot of us can imagine human darkness, right? Your worst moment. Maybe you wanted to hurt another person. Imagine taking that person's arm so hard it bruised them. What would you feel? I think most of us would feel something. Like, "Shit. I just hurt a person."
If you're a man, imagine doing that to a smaller person. Someone you know you can hurt. Imagine the look on their face--especially if you trusted them--when you did it. Is that just a mistake you would wave away? Or is that a mistake that would haunt you?