For the first time in a long time, I have a book I really want to read. A dangerous book, apparently. I fine the intro challenging to my Massachusetts/Plymouth Rock upbringing. So far, so good.
In the hopes of encouraging others to read, I'm going to tweet about it as honestly as I can. 1619 refers to an event in the Jamestown settlement which predates the arrival of the pilgrims in Plymouth.
I still have difficulty believing that there was a European colony before Plymouth -Jamestown in 1618. 1619 is the date that the first ship bringing African slaves arrived. Plymouth Colony was settled in 1620. 2019 was the 400th anniversary of the first African slaves in the US
I learned this last night. I was vaguely aware of the premise of the book (a telling of US history which includes enslaved people), but only because I was aware of the controversy about the book. I am saddened by that ignorance, but I am sure I am not alone in it.
I don't want to give away too much, but the author's (Nikole Hanna-Jones) account of her youthful embarrassment of her WWII vet father's open American patriotism is extremely moving.
And the point that the Founding Fathers knowingly adopted slave rhetoric against Britain is a gut punch. G. Washington: "we must assert our Rights or [become] Slaves, as the Blacks we rule over with such arbitrary sway."
The opening essay is a very, very powerful argument on how slavery drove the American revolution. It is hard to express how different this is from "what I knew". And it makes perfect sense.
Further pushing back on my Northern, abolitionist bias: "the White sons of Virginia initiates the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.". Most of Virginia's wealth was in slaves.
23 pages in and I have already learned much I needed to know. STRONG RECOMMEND #1619Project
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
President Biden nominated Ret Gen Austin for SECDEF on 12/9/2021, just in time for all hell to break loose. Gen. Austin is doing some things. A THREAD.
On Feb 3, 2021 Gen Austin ordered a one day stand down "to hold an in-depth conversation on the values underpinning national service, the oath of office, ...unit cohesion, [and] to gain a better understanding of the scope of the problem of extremist activity within the ranks."
On April 9, 2021, he issued a memo directing immediate action on extremism, and establishing the Countering Extremist Activity Working Group (CEAWG) based on what had been learned from and since the stand-downs. defense.gov/News/Releases/…
It's critical to recognize that the J6C can investigate whatever and whomever related to the Big Lie, without regard to known/suspected criminality. The DOJ is far more restricted in what it can investigate.
The J6C, however, can refer suspected criminal acts to the DOJ and provide evidentiary backup. The DOJ does not have to worry about the evidence being tainted by lack of reasonable suspicion/warrant/probable cause because J6C isn't subject to those restrictions when it subpoenas
And I specify the Big Lie, not just January 6, because we know that J6C is looking at events in GA that occured well before J6. And I'm sure they are beyond GA as well.
One of the things I learned in law school is that you can't trust ANYONE to read original documents (cases, statutes, regulations) etc., and give a reasonable account of what they say. You have to read stuff. And so ... let's read the House's referral of Mark Meadows for contempt
The Number One Question I'd like some insight into is what (if anything) the Jan6 Committee is willing to reveal about the connections between political operatives and violent mobsters
The report is here if you want to check it out for yourself. docs.house.gov/meetings/IJ/IJ…
So far NOTHING that has leaked out of the committee (or those with knowledge) directly addresses the connection between violent extremists and rioters and Trumpists and Trump aligned political animals. That story is coming soon to a TV near you.
This will be a thread to put into context why this commitment to future public hearings IS SO VERY IMPORTANT @MuellerSheWrote First a bit of background, though.
I went to the University of Maryland law school in part because it had one of the best clinical (ie hands-on actual representation) programs in the nation. I knew I wanted some experience to go with the book learnin' because I suk at being lectured to and I was an educator myself
(A moment to say thanks to two of my professors Mark Feldman and Stan Herr, who died way, way, way too young and of whom I am reminded when I now think back to my experience in law school. They did so much for me and I miss them).
First off, the Defendants are two Iranian Nationals. Which is somewhat disappointing, since we all want to get to the goldurn Enemies Domestic we all know are out there, but there's at least a hint her about them.
There's a few more hints about Enemies Domestic here, too. First, the Iranians fed their disinfo to the Usual Suspects:
DOJ Translator Thread: Should we freak out or not about what the Attorney General says about investigations? Or not!?
First off, the DOJ/FBI doesn't investigate people. If you ask it "are you investigating Trump" the answer is basically always "no." But if you ask it "are you investigating possible crimes" the answer will always be "yes" - because that's what they do.
In private (ie when talking to people and attorneys), the DOJ uses three words: Witness, Subject and Target. Investigators will be looking at the conduct of all three (and probably others, too), but they are not investigating those people - they are investigating possible crime