Mediaboss Marketing

Donald Trump intervening in who he believes needs to be running in the Ohio GOP Senate primary is the latest example of the former president trying to influence elections across the country in order to see a return of a MAGA-majority government.

On Thursday, Cleveland businessman Bernie Moreno announced he is dropping out of the crowded Republican primary race after speaking to the former president and coming to the agreement that there are "too many Trump" candidates already vying for the seat.

Trump thanked Moreno for his "time and effort" during the campaign which he spent more than $3.75 million of his own money on.

"His decision will help ensure the MAGA Ticket wins BIG, as it is all over the Country. Thank you, Bernie, for your support and keep fighting," Trump said.

The move from Trump was a slight change in tactics in his overall plan to remain the de facto leader of the GOP ahead of the midterms and the 2024 election.

For months, Trump has made it his mission to see those who voted to impeach him for inciting the January 6 insurrection, as well those who don't support the view that the 2020 Election was rigged, defeated in the upcoming elections.

The former president has endorsed dozens of candidates running across all forms of government who seem willing to continue to push his voter fraud claims, the end goal being for the GOP to retake both the House and the Senate with his chosen lawmakers, pushing his MAGA politics from the inside.

Trump has been so keen to try parachuting his staunch allies into congressional seats that several of his picks are even challenging incumbent members of his own party who have dared to stand against him.

As noted by The Atlantic, there are three GOP incumbents who Trump would like to see lose their seats: Representative Liz Cheney, Senator Lisa Murkowski and Governor Brian Kemp.

Cheney, a Wyoming congresswoman, is one of only two Republicans who is part of the January 6 House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack.

She is arguably the most vocal Trump critic within the GOP and is currently facing a censure vote by the RNC having previously been ousted from her role as the party's conference chair over her repeated criticism of Trump.

In September, Trump endorsed attorney Harriet Hageman in her attempt to unseat Cheney. According to The Atlantic, Trump has been engaging in minor developments of Hageman's campaign, including going through copies of local news coverage and op-eds with a Sharpie pen and mailing the candidate notes of encouragement.

Another Republican who Trump has set his sights on is Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, the only Republican senator who voted to convict Trump in his impeachment trial over the January 6 attack who is standing for re-election in 2022.

In November, Trump endorsed rank outsider Kelly Tshibaka, a former commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration who has promoted claims of election fraud, for the Alaska seat.

Trump made no secret of his plan to back anyone who is challenging those he considered an enemy of the MAGA movement, soon after announcing his backing of Tshibaka.

"Saving America starts by saving the GOP from RINOs, sellouts, and known losers! In the Senate, the 'Disaster from Alaska,' Lisa Murkowski (challenge accepted), must go. There is 'almost' nobody worse," the former president said.

Trump is also using his influence in areas of Alaskan politics. In December, he warned the state's incumbent GOP Governor Mike Dunleavy that he will endorse him, but only on the condition that he doesn't back Murkowski.

"If Mike endorses her, which is his prerogative, my endorsement of him is null and void, and of no further force or effect!" Trump said.

Another GOP politician facing the scorn of Trump is Georgia Governor Brian Kemp.

Kemp, who only narrowly defeated Democrat Stacey Abrams in 2018 after getting unbridled support from Trump, has since earned the former president's ire after he upheld the state's 2020 Election results, which ruled President Joe Biden the winner.

In response, Trump spent months urging David Perdue, a former Georgia senator who lost his seat in January 2020, to challenge the governor.

In a video confirming his backing of Perdue, Trump stated how the Democrats "walked all over" Kemp during the last election campaign.

"He was afraid of Stacey 'The Hoax' Abrams. Brian Kemp let us down. We can't let it happen again," Trump said. He also reiterates that Perdue is the only person running for Georgia governor that has his endorsement.

The significance of the midterms now has an added subplot with regard to how much power and influence Trump still has.

In previous years, Trump tended to mainly pick primary candidates who were already the favorite to win.

However, as noted by Five Thirty Eight, Trump's desire to endorse people who oppose him or the MAGA movement has meant he has backed more than 20 candidates who are up against incumbents, who rarely lose renomination.

Republican strategist Karl Rove said that Trump's 2022 endorsements based on "how vocally" they are willing to back his dismissed voter fraud cries rather than on their "viability" may ultimately backfire.

"In his business career, Mr. Trump put his name on everything from steaks to menswear to vodka, with mixed results," Rove wrote in a December editorial for the Wall Street Journal.

"Now he risks more than diluting his personal brand. Mr. Trump could help some Democrats hang on in an otherwise devastating election cycle in 2022 by forcing their opponents to harangue voters about an unpopular topic. If the GOP can't learn to shake the Trump obsession with alleged election fraud, the former president could even hand Democrats the White Houseagain."

Go here to see the original:
Donald Trump is Pulling the Strings in Races Up and Down the Country - Newsweek

Ex-White House national security advisor John Bolton suggested that former President Donald Trump would have "given Ukraine away" had he won the 2020 presidential election and was serving a second term during the current standoff with Russia.

Bolton told Newsweek that a second Trump term would likely have seen the former president double down on the conspiracy theories that poisoned his administration's ties with Kyiv and led to his first of two impeachments.

"I think he would have given Ukraine away, basically," Bolton told Newsweek. "Until they turn over that Democratic National Committee server and find out what Hunter Biden was doing in Ukraine, Ukraine was going to fend for itself."

"And you can see that with some of the Trumpsters these days, Tucker Carlson and people like that," Bolton added.

Fox News host Carlson has been at the forefront of right-wing skepticism on Ukraine. Carlson had dismissed Kyiv as "strategically irrelevant" to the U.S. and criticized the White House for alleged warmongering with Russia.

"I think in a second Trump term, the Russians would already be in Kyiv," Bolton said.

Newsweek has asked Trump's office for comment.

The former president has repeatedly made false claims relating to U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which investigated a 2016 hack of a Democratic National Committee server that multiple private firms and U.S intelligence agencies blamed on Russia.

Trump and some of his Republican allies, however, claimed falsely and with no evidence that California-based CrowdStike was owned by an unnamed wealthy Ukrainian oligarch and that the company planted evidence on the DNC server to frame Russia.

The former president falsely claimed that CrowdStrike was holding the suspect server in Ukraine. In reality, the DNC said it decommissioned 140 servers related to the 2016 incident, 11 of which were later rebuilt, NBC News reported.

The milieu of Ukraine conspiracy theories adopted by Trump and his allies also included President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, who for a time served on the board of private Ukrainian oil and gas company Burisma.

Trump's focus on such theoriesdriven in part by former attorney Rudy Giuliani who ran the administration's shadow Ukraine agenda searching for dirt on Democratic opponentsled to his first impeachment for abuse of power.

He was found by the U.S. House to have pushed President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to interfere in the 2020 election by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid and a White House invitation, both of which would be forthcoming if Ukraine agreed to investigate Hunter Biden and CrowdStrike. The Senate acquitted Trump.

In an infamous July 2019 call with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart "to do us a favor" and "find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike...I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it."

The president added: "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."

Bolton told Newsweek that the Biden administration is not showing the required resolve on Ukraine. "I don't think Putin believes the threat of post-facto sanctions after he invades," the former national security advisor said.

"I don't think he's made a decision to use military force yet. I think he's still calculating the cost-benefit logic here.

"There's a lot of reporting now on sending or making ready American troops and NATO countries in the regionin Romania, in the Baltics and Poland. All which I think is fine. I agree with it.

"But they're not going to Ukraine, and I don't think they deter. I think they reassure the NATO allies, which is an important thing to do. But I don't think it has any effect on Putin's calculus on Ukraine."

Bolton has recently argued for NATO troops to be deployed to Ukrainea red line that Russia has repeatedly stressed could provoke war. Moscow is demanding guarantees that Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO, a proposal dismissed by Kyiv, the U.S., and the alliance.

More than 100,000 Russian troops remain deployed on Ukraine's northern, eastern and southern borders. The U.S. has repeatedly warned that a major invasion could be "imminent," while officials in Washington, D.C., Kyiv, and Brussels expect continued Russian hybrid warfare and agitation in the separatist-held Donbas region.

The U.S. has increased military aid to Ukraine and sent troops and hardware to Eastern Europe. Biden has ruled out deploying more American troops on Ukrainian soil. A force of Florida National Guard troops is currently in Ukraine on a training mission.

"The common question is assessing the firmness of American resolve," Bolton said.

"And I think withdrawal from Afghanistan blew a big hole in that in our credibility and our perception of our resolve, and therefore the effectiveness of our efforts to createin the case of Ukraine, for exampledeterrence by threatening sanctions in the future."

Read the rest here:
If Donald Trump Had Won 'Russians Would Already Be in Kyiv,' John Bolton Says - Newsweek

An obscure portion of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that public officials cannot serve in any future federal, state, or military office if they engaged in "insurrection or rebellion." Would that apply to people who participated in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress?

Some legal experts say the clause could be used against former officeholders up to and including former President Donald Trump who supported the events of that day.

In a notable test case, plaintiffs in North Carolina are seeking to apply the clause to GOP Rep. Madison Cawthorn, who spoke at the rally on Jan. 6 just before Trump supporters stormed the Capitol. The trespassers temporarily delayed Congress official counting of the electoral votes for the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost to Joe Biden. Observers argue this qualifies as an insurrection.

Heres some background on the Disqualification Clause and its potential impact this year and beyond.

What does the amendment say?

While the 14th Amendment is best known for enabling African Americans to become citizens of the United States, Section 3 says that no person "shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military" who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

The language was included "to prevent current and former U.S. military officers, federal officers and state officials who served the Confederacy from serving again in public office unless their disability was removed by at least a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress," wrote Gerard N. Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University.

The provision was most frequently applied in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, but in 1872, Congress granted amnesty to most officials covered by the section, and in 1898, another statute lifted the remaining prohibitions. The provision was rarely invoked in the 20th century.

Is the provision still relevant today?

Despite the long lapse in usage of Section 3, it could still carry weight, experts said.

"I think a court could find a person aided and participated in an attempt to overturn the result of a valid election," said Mark Graber, a University of Maryland law professor. "This is in theory no more difficult than proving persons aided and supported any illegal activity. And I think attempting to overturn an election by violence (qualifies as) an insurrection."

Despite this, the provision may have somewhat limited reach.

For starters, it only applies to former officials who swore an oath, meaning that any rank-and-file participant who stormed the Capitol and who didnt have any previous government or military service wouldnt be barred from serving in office.

"I suspect the number of likely candidates who could reasonably be affected by Section 3 is fairly small, though Donald Trump is potentially among them," said Keith Whittington, a Princeton University political scientist.

A potentially larger universe of candidates could be affected if a court construes "a judicial officer" to include lawyers, who are often referred to as "officers of the court" and who all take an oath to defend their state and the federal constitutions when sworn-in, said James Robenalt, lawyer at the firm Thompson Hine.

Another possible limiting factor is that the prospect of a court battle may not be enough to "deter the most ardent Trump supporters who wish to run for office," said Michael J. Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina. In fact, Trump allies may find that defending against such charges could be useful to demonstrate their loyalty to the partys base.

What are the main challenges to leveraging the provision against Jan. 6 participants?

The biggest obstacle to using the Disqualification Clause against a potential candidate is the lack of a mechanism to implement it.

"It is unclear what is required to keep someone out of office," said Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University. "Some say that Congress would have to pass legislation declaring the insurrection to be covered under the amendment. Others say that a court could find the facts. Still others say that the last word would go to the House in voting whether or not to seat a winning candidate."

The most direct precedent comes from the post-Civil War period, when Congress passed an implementing law. But Republican resistance to labeling the events of Jan. 6 an insurrection could be a major obstacle to passing a new law; at the very least, a new law would be hard-pressed to meet the 60-vote threshold in the Senate to move to a final vote.

Leaving the decision to the courts could be an easier route, but that would take time. "It might take too long to resolve, after the inevitable appeals, to become decisive in the 2022 midterms," Kalt said.

Meanwhile, leaving it to Congress to expel someone would require a two-thirds vote, which is a heavy lift in these polarized times.

"If people were engaged in insurrection or rebellion, I think it much cleaner and better to charge them with federal crimes especially the seditious conspiracy statute that Id argue applies directly to Jan. 6," Robenalt said.

Would the events of Jan. 6 qualify as an insurrection?

Whether Jan. 6 qualifies as an insurrection is an open question.

Magliocca, a specialist in the matter, has written that the question of what constitutes an insurrection is "a point on which I have thus far been unable to find any particularly helpful authority. During the 1860s and 1870s, everyone understood that the insurrection in question was the Confederacy, and no thought was given to what other insurrections might look like."

The strongest argument for calling Jan. 6 an insurrection, Magliocca wrote, is that it "was not just a violent attack upon Congress, as bad as that would be. The mob was seeking to halt or overturn a core constitutional function at the seat of government, which can reasonably be described as an attempt to replace law with force."

Still, to prove in court that Jan. 6 amounted to an insurrection "would be a tough row to hoe," said Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor.

Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., at the Capitol on May 14, 2021. (AP)

What impact could the case against Cawthorn have?

The suit that seeks to disqualify Cawthorn is a potentially significant test case for the viability of legal challenges under Section 3.

Several voters in Cawthorns district and the nonprofit group Free Speech for People cite a North Carolina law that says they may raise a "reasonable suspicion" that a candidate is legally unqualified. They will need to convince the states election board that their concerns are reasonable. If so, "the burden of proof will shift to Cawthorn who must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is eligible" to serve if elected, Magliocca and Bruce Ackerman, a Yale Law School professor, have written.

Since this is new legal territory, experts say it could be an uphill battle to prevent Cawthorn from serving. (The case is being held up temporarily as lawsuits over redistricting in the state take precedence.)

But the case could have other consequences that are problematic for Republicans, namely the discovery process and depositions. While the discovery process "might not keep him out of office, it could implicate others, and move the Jan. 6 investigation forward," said Christopher A. Cooper, a political scientist at Western Carolina University.

Its important to note, however, that the Cawthorn case is something of a legal unicorn. Thats because North Carolina, rare among states, already has a law on the books that enables plaintiffs to challenge candidacies using the Disqualification Clause.

What could the impact be for Trump?

Since Trump is a former federal official, legal experts say he is at risk for disqualification under the provision. However, it remains to be seen how closely the Houses Jan. 6 committee ties him to the events of the day. Ultimately, Trump could present "the most challenging example" for a successful disqualification, Magliocca wrote.

Trump could argue in court that hes immune from disqualification either under federal law or the laws of a particular state in which hes seeking ballot access. "The former president could argue, for instance, that what occurred at the Capitol was not an insurrection, that his role in that event does not mean that he was engaged in insurrection, or that the presidency is a unique office that is simply not covered by Section 3," Magliocca wrote.

See the original post here:
Unpacking the theory that the 14th Amendment could keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office in 2024 - PolitiFact

Earlier this month, WW asked the leading independent and Republican candidates for Oregon about the outcome of the last presidential election. Their answers differed significantly on a matter that could shape the future of the Republican Party, not to mention the country: Former President Donald Trumps insistence without factual evidence that he won the 2020 presidential election.

Related: We Asked Republicans: Did Donald Trump Win in 2020?

Dr. Bud Pierce, the Republican nominee for governor in 2016, who is running again, was out of town, so WW is posting his answers to the question after he returned.

WW asked: Did Joe Biden legitimately win the 2020 presidential election?

Dr. Bud Pierce said: YES.

We had a presidential election in 2020. Joe Biden was declared the winner. He won the election.

WW asked: Are you seeking Trumps endorsement? Will you invite him to campaign with you in Oregon if he endorses you?

Pierce: YES.

If President Trump endorses my campaign, he is endorsing me and my ideas, so if President Trump can help share my ideas with Oregonians, I am all for it.

Related: Read the answers from other Republican and independent candidates for governor.

Read the original here:
Another Leading Oregon Republican Answers the Question: Did Donald Trump Win in 2020? - Willamette Week

To anyone who was watching the events of January 6 unfold live on television, one thing was quite clear: Donald Trump was excited and proud about the violence he incited.

As the timeline of his actions that day shows, he was so wound up tweeting invective at Congress and his vice president, Mike Pence, that he barely slept the night before. Once the riot was underway, Trump spent hours resisting the pressure to call off his dogs, instead tweeting more invective and ass-covering calls to "stay peaceful" that the crowd knew not to take seriously. He was also reportedly gleefully entranced by the footage of the insurrection. After three hours of rioting, he finally told the crowd to "go home" but only after it was clear that the riot wasn't going to overturn the election.

The blood was still being mopped off the floors when the great GOP gaslighting began. Republicans fell in line behind this narrative that the riot was not incited by Trump, but that it was an entirely self-directed action of a few thousand kooks and that it was only a wild coincidence it started after Trump's incendiary speech. Trump has always clearly chafed at the expectation that he go along with this narrative, wanted to instead publicly gloat about this demonstration of the power he has over people. Now, a year after the riot, Trump appears to be done with pretending to disapprove of the riot. He's circling back to his initial instinct, which was to celebrate it as the glorious MAGA revolution he always wanted it to be.

RELATED:Donald Trump's having an awful week and it's only Wednesday

This was most obvious in Trump's promise over the weekend to consider pardoning the January 6 rioters if he regains the White House in 2024. Politico soon reported that this was hardly some new urge of Trump's. He spent the two weeks between the riot and Joe Biden's inauguration asking advisors if he could issue a blanket pardon for everyone involved. He was waved off the idea, because it conflicted with the GOP's strategy of denying Trump's role. Trump, forever the coward,went along with the demands, even though it meant not getting to take the credit for the mayhem he unleashed. But, by making this promise of pardons to a cheering crowd of thousands of supporters he is sending a strong signal that he's done pretending to feel anything but beaming pride over inciting an insurrection.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

Which isn't to say that Trump is no longer torn between wanting to celebrate the insurrection openly and worried about the legal jeopardy that might flow from that stance.

Over the weekend, he released an unhinged statement in which he outright said that he had wanted to "overturn" the election. But when members of the January 6 committee pointed out that was tantamount to a confession, Trump tried to walk it back with another statementabout how he meant to say he just wanted to send "back the votes for recertification or approval."

RELATED:Donald Trump's lackeys failed him and saved democracy

The pardon promise also could create legal problems for Trump. As January 6 committee member Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told MSNBC Wednesday night, the rally speech is "very important evidence as to his intent" that Trump desired and condoned the violence. No doubt Trump's lawyers are advising him of the same danger. And yet, he can't or won't stop trying to publicly recast the insurrectionists as heroes. In a Newsmax interview this week, Trump falsely insisted "nobody died on Jan. 6" except Ashli Babbitt, who he described as "one young, fine woman." Making a martyr of Babbitt, who was shot because she was trying to lead a charge to run down fleeing members of Congress, is central to the pro-insurrection narrative.

Trump may feel hemmed in by legal concerns, but his political instincts clearly tell him that recasting the Capitol insurrection as a glorious revolution is the right move. Certainly, the cheers he got for promising pardons underscores that the base is with him. But many other Republican leaders aren't so sure, and really want to stick with the B.S. story that the riot was just a random thing that happened and Trump had nothing to do with it. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been surprisingly outspoken about this,telling reporters that the riot was "an effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power" and insisting that people who participated should be punished.Even Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex. who is always trying to be on the vanguard of right-wing nuttery has been queasy about celebrating the riot itself, preferring to hide behind conspiracy theories blaming the violence on the FBI instead.

But Trump's instinct to simply come out in favor of the storming of the Capitol sadly makes a lot of sense, politically, if not legally. The current GOP position, which amounts to disapproving of the rioters while supporting their larger anti-democratic aims, is incoherent. The vast majority of Republicans, both voters and leaders, have decided to embrace the Big Lie, largely because it creates the pretext to pass a bunch of laws and seize electoral offices in such a way that the next coup, in 2024, is successful. Trying to be for the Big Lie, but against the violence that flows from it, is too delicate a needle to thread. It's easier and simpler to stand for the whole kaboodle the Big Lie, the insurrection, the ongoing coup. And Trump understands better than anyone that "easy" and "simple" are huge advantages in political messaging.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

Plus, as Heather "Digby" Parton has been arguing at Salon, Trump is clearly worried that the walls are closing inand that it will be impossible to successfully hide the evidencethat he was both attempting to overturn the election and that he deliberately called on a violent mob in order to make that happen. This is a fairly standard Trump strategy when he realizes he can't cover up a crime. Instead, he simply owns it, says it was a good thing, and dares anyone to do anything about it. So far, that's worked beautifully for him, and the continued inability of Attorney General Merrick Garland to arrest Trump for one of his many public crimes suggests it will continue to work for Trump.

The only question is how long it will take for the rest of the GOP to fall in line?

They also have a pattern when it comes to Trump's crimes, from his admitted sexual assault to his efforts to steal the election: First, there is resistance and disapproval, but soon they give in and either excuse or, in most cases, outright defend Trump's behavior. There's growing political pressure within the Republican ranks to go along with the "January 6 was good, actually" narrative. A proposal to formally kick Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois out of the party has 50 Republican House co-sponsors already. It's not because these two support free and fair elections, as they are fully on board with the voter suppression efforts going on at the state level. It's just that they sit on the January 6 committee and are appalled with the violence of the riot that has put them at odds with their party. Kicking them out amounts to a symbolic vote of confidence for the the insurrection itself.

For most Republicans, it would probably be easier to "move on" from the insurrection, which is to say talk about anything else while quietly supporting legislative efforts to make the next coup stick. But Trump isn't going to let them. As long as the January 6 committee and media keeps pushing out evidence of how deeply involved Trump was and how extensive the coup efforts were, Trump is going to keep circling back to the idea that every action he took, no matter how violent or criminal, was justified and noble. As long as he does that, Republicans are going to be forced to choose between pandering to the Trump base and trying to distance themselves from the violence that turns off moderate voters. But we always know how this story ends. Republicans always cave to Trump. And so it will be when it comes to the story of whether the riot was bad or good. It's just a matter of time.

Read more:
Donald Trump is done pretending. He is now openly celebrating the Capitol riot - Salon