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
Time to stop doing what? I regret to inform you, but there will be COVID restrictions in responsible places as long as there are enough unvaccinated people who get sick enough to crush hospital systems. It's not gonna stop until there's some level of community-immunity.
I can't take it w/ the "when will it stop" questions anymore. Mass vaccination won't solve everything, but it will make this situation much more manageable. That's the first step in it "stopping." Until then, yeah, governments have to ensure their hospitals still work.
Sorry.
We've been yelling this since March 2020 and people still do not get it. At the bottom line, this is about ensuring hospitals can function. When hospitals don't function, everyone suffers. Transplants & cancer care delayed. Car crashes are infinitely more dangerous.
Public awareness of the GOP's ongoing anti-democratic actions is, I think, rather weak. Our electoral system is so convoluted that the danger is obscured. That's one reason why we need to start calling Trump's plan to overturn the 2020 election what it was: an attempted soft coup
I don't know that everyone is connecting the dots about the state electors. That's not the public's fault. Unless you're *deep* into this stuff, "replacing state electors" doesn't sound that nefarious, nor is the relevance of this action for the next election very clear.
If we call the plan that unfolded from November 2020 to January 2021 by its proper name--an attempted soft coup--this will provide the public with a more salient framework for understanding the GOP's current plan vis a vis 2024.
I deleted my tweets about student loan reform b/c it's an issue that matters a lot to me personally & politically & I felt I was being misunderstood, which was perhaps my own fault. I was maybe not very clear. I do, however, continue to stand by my thoughts.
Here is what I think, hopefully more concisely:
-I am pro-forgiveness
-Student debt affects me personally
-I don't think people should be shut out of the economy for a paper they signed when they were 18
-I also think that pro-forgiveness people should be more inclusive
I have always been passionately for some level of relief, both b/c it would materially impact my life & the lives of many others, & b/c I think it would be objectively good for the economy. I also think that folks like me need to listen to disadvantaged people who feel left out.
Will we ever be completely COVID-free? Probably not. But the way to get to a much more manageable situation and "normal life" is to get as much of the population vaccinated as possible & to also invest in vaccinating the world.
Just because a set of people insist on lighting the off ramp on fire does not mean the off ramp does not exist. Stop setting it on fire and it will work really great.
I listened to this full segment & what's ultimately most frustrating is that Bruenig is taking an isolationist stance & couching it in terms of moral reasoning. "The US shouldn't be the world's police therefore intervention is bad" is not a thoughtful analysis of human welfare
I should say that I agree w/ Bruenig that military action should be avoided at all costs. I also agree we have other tools at our disposal. And I agree we shouldn't be the world's police.
What's frustrating about Bruenig's analysis is the rather facile way she approaches the humanitarian question. She says the only justification for intervention would be 3rd Reich Level actions. When asked to clarify this point, she only says we shouldn't be the world's police.
Wallace Stevens' poem "Death of A Soldier" is notable for its use of entirely passive language. Both victims & perpetrators are erased within the scope of relentless war. Identity is lost. Death is almost an agentless event
This reminds me of how the media reports on Republicans
". . . When the wind stops and, over the heavens,
The clouds go, nevertheless,
In their direction."