Mediaboss Marketing

In July, when Trump was asked if hed accept the results of the election, he replied, Ill have to see, then added, I think mail-in voting is going to rig the election. A few months later, from the podium in the East Room, Trump declared, There won't be a transfer; frankly, there'll be a continuation. Still, Liddell kept the train on the tracks.

By law, the sitting White House chief of staff, Meadows, and the transition chairman, Kaufman, were required to sign a Memorandum of Understanding. Fat chance, thought Kaufman. But he sent a draft to the West Wing anyway. I figured that's never going to happen, he said. This is totally against Trumps interests. He'd kill people if he found out it happened.

And yet, on September 30, Kaufmans fax machine suddenly clanked to life and back came the memorandum---signed by Meadows. Trumps chief of staff almost certainly never told his boss. I have it here as one of my prized possessions, Kaufman, who saved the memo, told me. I never in a million years thought Meadows would sign it.

November 3, 2020, Election Day, seemed remarkable for its lack of drama. Despite the pandemicand predictions of outside meddling, chaos at the polls, and confusion over mail-in ballotsvoting had been a model of fairness and efficiency. Though the final results werent immediately clear, Biden would win decisively: 306 to 232 in the Electoral College, and by a margin of seven million in the popular vote. But Trump, defying his closest advisers, declared himself the winner, and the victim of a grand conspiracy. The real drama was yet to come.

Traditionally, the day after a presidential election, the GSA anoints the apparent winner. The act, known as ascertainment, not only formally acknowledges the victor; it also makes available to the incoming administration office space, funding, access to federal agencies, intelligence briefings, and other vital governing infrastructure. But in a startling break with precedent, the GSA administrator, Emily Murphy, a Trump appointee, refused to ascertain Bidens victory.

This was no idle act. Ascertainment is not a ceremonial process, explained Mary Gibert. It has potential life and death implications. The Biden team was furious. Between the election and inauguration, they had just 78 days to ramp up their administration. Theyd recruited 500 volunteers to visit every federal agency and report back on who was doing what. Now they were sitting on their hands.

Bidens contingent had prepared for almost any eventuality. We had 600 lawyers working long, long hours, producing thousands of pages of memos for all sorts of stuff, said Bob Bauer, the campaign senior legal adviser. This was a genuine national security issue: The fact that the president-elect of the United States would be denied access to the tools and the resources for an effective transition was literally, directly, every day, harmful to the countryand in the middle of a public health crisis. Bauer and his team were prepared to sue Murphy and the GSA. But after a spirited debate, the campaign decided to stand down.

A few days later, Liddell called his confidants Marchick and Bolten. "Remember that dinner we had where we talked about the nightmare scenario? Liddell asked. That's what we have." The nightmare scenario was Trump losing the election, but not by enough to convince him that hed lost. Marchick explained: Clearly, Liddell was in meetings in the White House where Trump said, We're going to fight this and we're going to overturn it. Marchick feared Liddell was near the end of his rope. He thought about quitting many times---and wed say, Hey, you can't quit.

Kaufman, Klain, and company were, in effect, designing an airplane in mid-flight. Barred by Trump from access to the agencies, they set up a shadow agency process, compiling lists of former officialsand tapped their expertise. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to call the Senate back in sessionso they interviewed, vetted, and hired officials who didnt require confirmation. This was the Biden transition's innovation, explained Marchick. They lined up thousands to go into the government in these non-confirmed positions so they could staff the government on Day One. They did 8,000 interviews in order to place 1,100.

Finally, on November 23, GSA administrator Murphy declared Biden the winner. But the foot-dragging had been costly. Every day Bidens team couldnt access information about Trumps vaccination program meant delays in getting shots into peoples arms. Every day Bidens team was denied intelligence briefings meant less time to prepare for potential foreign crises. On January 20 at noon, all CIA covert operations ordered by Trump would immediately belong to Biden. During previous transitions, the major party nominees would receive the Presidents Daily Brief (PDB) after their party conventions. Biden and the vice president-elect, Kamala Harris, didnt get their first intelligence briefing until November 30.

Remember that dinner we had where we talked about the nightmare scenario? Thats what we have.

Meanwhile, Trump, to many observers, appeared intent on staging a coup. Hed replaced the secretary of defense and reportedly installed apparatchiks in high places at the CIA. Some worried that he might start a war with Iran as a pretext to stay in power. In response, Liz Cheney, the Wyoming congresswoman, corralled every living former defense secretary, including her father, Dick Cheney, into signing a letter exhorting the military to follow the Constitution. And General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was preparing emergency contingencies. He suspected Trump might stage a domestic crisis to seize powera favorite ploy of autocrats who want to stay in office by exploiting voters fears. In the event of an illegal presidential order, Milley and other top Pentagon officials reportedly made a secret pact to resign, one after another.

To avoid the appearance of a power grab, Bidens camp didnt speak directly with Milley. Instead, they communicated through an intermediary, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. I asked Ted Kaufman if the speaker kept the president-elect informed of Milleys contingency planning. Oh, sure, he said. Absolutely.

Outwardly, the Biden team projected equanimity. As Klain explained, Our whole thing was basically a legal strategy to shut this down in the courtsand a political strategy based on the idea that we won, so we were going to act like we won. We played this out a step at a time: to first get the vote confirmed by the media, to build a sense of inevitability around that, to finally get the GSA to certify us. An adviser to the Biden transition put it this way: We don't need to send up fighter jets to force Air Force One down. Let's just let Trump throw his fit, pursue his legal theories. It'll all fail and he'll run short of fuel and come down for a landing.

As far as Chris Liddell knew, January 6, 2021, promised to be a quiet day. Bidens victory was to be certified by Vice President Mike Pence in a routine count of electoral votes at the U.S. Capitol. Liddell, who was doing his best to stay inconspicuous, could hardly wait. I woke up in the morning in a good mood, thinking: Finally, we're going to get some resolution, he said. The vote's going to happen. Liddell looked at the presidents schedule and noticed a rally on the Washington Ellipse at noon. But he thought little of it. His focus was on the 14 days between then and the inauguration.

Biden legal adviser Bob Bauer was on edge. The truth was that democracy hung by a thread. Bauers team had spent months preparing for this dayand for all the things that could go wrong. Legal scholars agreed that Pences role in the certification procedure was purely ceremonial. But that didnt mean that the vice president couldnt plunge the country into a constitutional crisis.

One option was for Pence to delay the certification. That was the goal of Trumps lawyer John Eastman, Giuliani, and their co-conspirators. A delayed certification could give states an opportunity to try to replace slates of Biden electors with new ones pledged to Trump. Another option was to declare some Biden slates invalid, thereby denying him the required minimum: 270 votes. This would throw the whole process into the House or Representatives. Under the law, in the Houses election of a president, each state delegation would have one vote. And since Republicans in the 2021 House were the majority party in 26 states, Trump would have almost certainly prevailed.

If Pence tried to do Trumps extra-legal bidding, Bauer and his team were poised to file for an injunction. The issue would probably wind up in the Supreme Court, now stacked with three Trump-appointed justices. Yet Bauer believed Biden had the upper hand. If Pence had gone completely rogue, I think we had a very good chance of stopping it, he told me. I thought Trump and his legal team, such as it was, would be crazy to imagine that the court would somehow save him in these circumstances.

Originally posted here:
Exclusive: Inside the Sh*tshow That Was the Trump-Biden Transition - Vanity Fair

Officials at the state and federal level have launched a full-court press against what the financial industry calls environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing. They are especially squawking about investments that take into account the climate crisis, despite the fact that extreme weather events are wreaking havoc across the country.

Since the summer of 2021, five Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed bills banning their state governments from doing business with financial institutions that they allege have divested from fossil fuel companies as a result of ESG investment policies. Another six statehouses are considering similar bills. At last half of the bills are based on a template provided by the fossil fuel industry-funded American Legislative Exchange Council.

In May, former Vice President Mike Pence, writing in The Wall Street Journal, urged congressional Republicans to follow the states example by end[ing] the use of ESG principles nationwide. A month later, GOP lawmakers in Washington told E&E News that they will sponsor legislation that would do just that if they take over one or both chambers of Congress next year.

In August, The New York Times revealed that nearly two dozen Republican state treasurers, working with a relatively unknown nonprofit organization called the State Financial Officers Foundation, are collaborating to blunt climate action at the federal and state level, including withdrawing hundreds of millions of dollars in state investments from financial institutions they deem too preoccupied with environmental issues.

Not to be outdone, 19 Republican state attorneys general also joined the fray in August, falsely claiming that woke asset managers are politicizing their investments by adopting ESG criteria instead of focusing solely on financial returns, as required by law, at the expense of their state pension funds. (No surprise, the fossil fuel industry is a major sponsor of the Republican Attorneys General Association.)

A closer look at the facts shows that big banks and investment firms are still financing the fossil fuel industry to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Indeed, a peer-reviewed study published in September linked nearly half of all global carbon emissions from the biggest energy companies to just 10 financial institutions, led by Vanguard and BlackRock, the worlds largest asset manager. One of the anti-ESG Republicans main targets, BlackRock has nearly $260 billion invested in fossil fuel companies around the world, including $91 billion in Texas, the first state to enact an anti-fossil fuel industry divestment law.

However, it is the case that it is more difficult for companies to obtain financing for oil and gas projects than renewable projects due to the mounting impacts of climate change. Lenders have been calculating those risks and factoring them into the cost of credit, leading to what a Goldman Sachs analyst called an unprecedented shift in capital allocation. Last year, she said, marked the first time in history that renewable power [became] the largest area of energy investment.

The larger question is: Are asset managers shirking their fiduciary duty to maximize returns by adopting ESG criteria, which generally favor renewables over fossil fuels? The short answer is no. Studies show that ESG investments actually result in comparableor even betterreturns than investments that only take into account financial factors.

For a deeper dive into this manufactured controversy, I contacted Laura Peterson, a corporate analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists Climate Accountability Campaign. A former policy analyst for the Project on Government Oversight, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Peterson recently returned from an international conference on fossil fuel supply and climate policy at the University of Oxford in England, where she gave a talk on the backlash against efforts in the United States to require corporations to publicly disclose the projected impact climate change will have on their operations and assets. Below is an abridged version of our exchange.

EN: First, it would be helpful if you could explain how ESG investments differ from other sustainability investment strategies. Who coined the term, and how is ESG different than socially responsible investing or impact investing?

LP: A 2005 United Nations report, Who Cares Wins: Connecting Financial Markets to a Changing World, introduced the term and the acronym. The report found that incorporating ESG criteria into investments would not only benefit a company, but also potentially generate returns for investors.

ESG is often used interchangeably with the terms socially responsible investing (SRI) and impact investing, but there are important differences. ESG funds take into account a companys environmental, social and governance practices, such as its climate policies or its executive compensation, but their primary goal is always to maximize financial returns. Socially responsible investing involves choosing or disqualifying investments based on specific ethical criteria. A good example would be screening out tobacco company stock. The goal of impact investing, meanwhile, is to help a business or organization support a specific social benefit, such as expanding womens education or developing renewable energy resources.

Even proponents of ESG investing would agree that it is not being implemented perfectly. ESG disclosures vary from company to company. Ratings agencies that assess company data use proprietary methods, making it hard for investors to know how investment firms reach their conclusions. And there is growing concern that some asset managers are slapping ESG labels on funds that dont deserve them.

Thats why the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed rules earlier this year that would tighten standards governing how investment firms and advisers market ESG funds, as well as require funds branded as ESG, SRI or other, similar terms to invest at least 80 percent of their assets in areas suggested by those terms. The proposed rules are intended to guard against greenwashing, when asset managers misrepresent financial products as ESG investments when the companies they are investing in dont fit the criteria. The proposed rules resulted from a 2021 SEC risk alert that found inconsistent approaches to managing ESG-labeled funds as well as inaccurate ESG-related disclosures and marketing materials. Greenwashing can have serious consequences. The SEC recently fined BNY Mellon Investment Adviser $1.5 million for failing to review its investments under its ESG-marketed fund to ensure that they were, in fact, aligned with ESG criteria.

EN: How much money have asset managers put in ESG investments and how much are these investments expected to grow?

LP: Investor demand for ESG products has increased dramatically, and asset managers are listening. According to US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment, by January 2020, assets using sustainable investing strategies represented a third of all US assets under professional management. And that percentage will undoubtedly increase. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates global ESG assets are set to jump from $35 trillion today to $50 trillion in 2025.

The finance industry is particularly bullish on the E in ESG. More than 450 financial firms worldwide representing $130 trillion in assets have pledged to meet the 2015 Paris climate agreement goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Goldman Sachs Carbonomics research estimates that $56 trillion of investments in clean tech infrastructure by 2050$2 trillion annuallywill be needed to reach that goal.

EN: In my introduction, I cited some of the political attacks on ESG investment policies, which rest on the false allegation that financial firms are boycotting fossil fuels. Ironically, pulling state money out of financial institutions that have adopted ESG policies could cost state taxpayers serious money.

LP: Thats right. A recent study by the Wharton School of Business and the US Federal Reserve found that Texas cities will pay an additional $303 million to $532 million in interest on $32 billion in borrowing during the first eight months after the Texas anti-fossil fuel industry divestment law was enacted.

EN: Not all state officials are on board the anti-ESG bandwagon. Last month, Democratic treasury officials from 13 states and New York City blasted politicians who have been promoting anti-ESG legislation. What can you tell us about this campaign?

The treasury officials founded a nonprofit organization called For the Long Term to encourage state financial officers to consider the long-term impacts of their investment decisions. States that focus solely on the short term will fail to compete over the longer time horizon that is necessary for them and their pension funds to succeed, the groups website states. In the case of state and public pension funds, these losses will be borne by the taxpayers and that means all of us.

Last month, they published an open letter criticizing the attacks on ESG investing, stressing that climate change poses predictable economic risks to businesses as well as the general public. They turned the anti-ESG crowds argument on its head, pointing out that trying to punish asset managers that take climate change into account is in fact a political and ideological stance, not one based on pragmatic financial oversight. And it stands to hurt the taxpayers and pensioners whose interests anti-ESG officials are supposed to represent.

Its important that these public financial officers spoke out, because the anti-ESG backlash has had a chilling effect on the modest progress financial institutions have made on addressing climate change.

Consider what has happened at BlackRock. In 2021, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declared in a letter to the heads of the companies in which BlackRock invests that it is time to confront the global threat of climate change more forcefully and asked them to disclose publicly how their business model is compatible with a net zero economy. Many ESG advocates rightly pointed out at the time that BlackRocks commitments were not specific or ambitious enough, but the letter sent an important signal given the firms influence in the investment community.

A year later, however, it was a different story. Likely in response to the concerted attack on ESG principles, BlackRock backpedaled during this years shareholder proxy season, claiming that climate-related shareholder resolutions were more prescriptive and may not promote long-term shareholder value. And when Texas moved to withdraw state pension funds from financial institutions the state perceives to be unfriendly to oil and gas, BlackRock posted a letter touting its investments in fossil fuel companies.

For the Long Term took notice. Last month, one of the organizations founders, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, sent a strongly worded letter to Larry Fink to register his growing concern that BlackRock is backtracking on its climate commitments and warning that the city will reassess its relationship with BlackRock if its investment decisions do not match its stated commitment to net zero emissions.

Given that New York City has the countrys fourth largest public pension plan with some $250 billion in assets under management, BlackRock and other major investment firms have to understand that there will be consequences for not addressing the risks and harms of fossil fuel-driven climate change.

In fact, the 14 members of For the Long Term are merely doing their jobs. They have a duty to manage their state and city investments prudently. Given the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate crisis is happening right now and that there is a rapidly closing window to avert catastrophic damages, it is simply irresponsible not to take this reality into account when making investment decisions.

EN: The US Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed a rule that would mandate and standardize climate disclosures by publicly traded companies, which the State Financial Officers Foundation and Republican attorneys general predictably oppose. What is the status of that rule, and what impact would it have?

LP: The SEC proposed a draft rule in March that would compel publicly traded companies to assess and report on how climate change will affect their bottom lines and, by extension, investors and the general public.

Among its provisions, the rule would require companies to disclose the amount of global warming emissions their businesses produce, estimate how commodity price changes might affect their profits, and detail their plans for implementing carbon emissions reduction targets. To date, the commission has received more than 15,000 comments showing broad support. Ninety percent of the 10,000 form letters it has received back the rule, and an analysis of more than 4,000 individual comments found strong investor community support.

The fossil fuel industry, its trade associations, and the think tanks and advocacy groups it funds oppose various provisions of the proposed rule, claiming that they fall outside the commissions mandate and impose what they consider burdensome reporting requirements, especially when it comes to Scope 3 global warming emissionsemissions that result from the use of a companys products, such as gasolineas opposed to direct emissions from a companys operations, called Scope 1, or emissions from the electricity it uses, called Scope 2.

Echoing the fossil fuel industry, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and 20 other Republican state attorneys general filed a comment with the SEC in August opposing the rule, charging that it exceeds the agencys authority, violates the First Amendment, and is arbitrary and capricious. The SEC has not announced when it will issue a final rule, but Morrisey and his fellow attorneys general have pledged to file suit against the SEC to kill it.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) supports the rule, and we have called for the SEC to strengthen it in several ways, including by requiring companies to publicly disclose their direct and indirect political activity and how they are addressing climate justice. UCS has joined with investors and other advocates to urge the SEC to finalize and enforce a strong rule as soon as possible. As the climate crisis worsens, there is no time to waste.

Read the original:
Ask a Scientist: What's Up With the Attack on ESG Investing? - The Equation

Mike Pences forthcoming autobiography takes its title, So Help Me God, from the oath he has sworn to abide by numerous times during his long career in public office. But as the Jan. 6 Committee winds up its investigation, with its next hearing possibly its last, the question of whether Pence will appear under oath to talk to that panel about the events surrounding the insurrection remains an open one. Negotiations about the possibility were still ongoing in mid-September, according to a Politico report; speaking at an event the last weekend in September, Rep. Liz Cheney said she still hopes Pence appears before the panel, of which she is the vice-chair. On Sunday, Rep. Pete Aguilar, also on the committee, said those continue to be evolving discussions and that he thinks its important that the panel hear from the Vice President.

But when Pence was asked about the possibility of testifying at a New Hampshire Institute of Politics Politics & Eggs breakfast on Aug. 17, he took a cautious stance. I would have to reflect on the unique role I was serving in as vice president, he said. It would be unprecedented in history for a vice president to be summoned to testify on Capitol Hill.

Former Vice President Mike Pence speaks to attendees at "Politics &aEggs" at the New Hampshire Institute Politics at St. Anselm College on Aug. 17, 2022 in Manchester, N.H.

Scott EisenGetty Images

But the Senate Historical Office, Senate Library, and presidential historians and biographers clarify that it would not be unprecedented for him to appear. Throughout history, the legislative branch and the American public have been enlightened about both minor and significant issues by holders of the highest officesincluding that of the vice presidency. As the late legal ethics scholar Ronald Rotunda wrote, History shows that assuming the role of a witness is not demeaning or unprecedented for a President or former PresidentWhen a President or ex-President had knowledge relating to colorable charges of executive misconduct; he has made his testimony available.

Read more: Jan. 6 Committees Plans in Flux as it Games Out Next Hearings, Final Report

The first Veep to testify in a congressional hearing was Schuyler Colfax, a sitting vice president, who like Pence got his national political start as an Indiana member of the House of Representative. In January of 1872, Colfax, who became Ulysses Grants first vice president, became embroiled in one of the biggest political corruption scandals of the 19th century.

A blockbuster story in the New York Sun said government officials had taken cash and stock payments from a sham construction company, Credit Mobilier, in exchange for crafting policies advantageous to the building of the Union Pacific Railroad. Grants campaign for re-election was marred by sensational newspaper stories that implicated Grants outgoing vice president, Colfax, as well as several members of Congress.

Smiler Colfax, who had also served as Speaker of the House, denied the allegations in an 1873 hearing. His defense was shaky and new revelationssuch as a ledger book that contained his name and transactions made with Credit Mobilierbrought weak explanations. Colfax would testify four times before a House Select Committee to try to clear his name.

James A. Garfield, then a fellow member of the House who had been under suspicion and had also given testimony, years before he would become president, described the experience in a letter to Colfax. I have known no public proceeding so brutal and unjust as some of this Investigation, he wrote. Calm and justice may eventually prevail.

Hon. Schulyer Colfax, between 1855 and 1865.

Heritage Images via Getty Images

Colfax, who had presidential ambitions, found his reputation severely damaged by his actions and he never held public office again. He embarked on a successful career as a lecturer and died en route to a speaking engagement after he walked nearly a mile in frigid Minnesota winter temperatures to get to a train depot.

Read more: Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger on Where the Jan. 6 Committee Goes Next

Henry A. Wallace, Franklin Roosevelts second vice president, also testified before Congress, appearing for the Senate Committee on Banking and Commerce in December of 1942, regarding his role as chairman of the entity responsible for the procurement and production of exported materials for the war effort. The testimony was described in the New York Times as related to a festering disagreement with Secretary of Commerce Jesse Jones over a bill to increase the lending authority of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, run by Jones. The session ended with no action taken on the bill and by 1943 the rivalry had become a liability for the administration and Roosevelt dissolved the agency.

Wallace testified at least one more time after he left office. He appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March of 1948 to oppose President Trumans call for universal military training for all draft-eligible males. His downplaying of the threat of Communism did not resonate and in the presidential election of that same year, he received less than 3% of the vote.

Colfax and Wallace may be the only sitting or former VPs to have testified before Congressthe Senate Historical Office told TIME their research on this topic has not been exhaustivebut they are certainly not the only members of the executive branch. In fact, several Presidents have been in that hot seat. None other than Abraham Lincoln was the first president to give testimony before a congressional committee.

Despite being engaged in the conduct of the Civil War, Lincoln had personal reasons to clear his calendar for a visit to the Capitol. Lincoln met with members of the House Judiciary Committee to testify about the leak to the New York Herald of his annual presidential message. First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln was suspected to be the source of the leak and the president was anxious to clear her name, so he agreed to meet privately with members of the Judiciary Committee. The New York Tribune reported, President Lincoln today voluntarily appeared before the House Judiciary Committee and gave testimony in the matter of premature publication in the Herald of a portion of his last annual message.

Lincolns testimony and an article in the New York Tribune, which identified the culprit as the White House gardener, Watt, ended the investigation.

The next president to face a committee was Woodrow Wilson, who accepted an invitation from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to testify about a peace treaty with Germany and the proposed League of Nations. In replying by letter to committee Chairman Henry Cabot Lodge, the president urged transparency and concurred with the committees desire that his testimony be made public. He offered, In order that the committee may have a full and trustworthy record of what is said, I shall have a stenographer present. The letter concluded, It will be most agreeable to me to have an opportunity to tell the committee anything that may be serviceable to them in their consideration of the treaty.

Wilsons close aide and White House physician, Cary Grayson, attended the session and described what he witnessed in a letter to his wife. The president showed that he was nervousBut he certainly handled himself magnificently.

Grayson continued, They went after him with numerous already prepared questionsbut he simply had too much brains for themSeveral Republicans would go off into the corner of the roomthe East roomput their heads together and then come back and propound a question and the President would answer them as if he already had the answer written out for them.

Even so, the Senate twice rejected the Treaty of Versailles, and the United States never joined the League of Nations.

On Oct. 17, 1974, President Gerald Ford voluntarily appeared before the House subcommittee on Criminal Justice to testify about his controversial pardon of Richard Nixon. Some historians cite it as the first formal, publicly broadcast, on-the-record appearance by a president in front of a congressional panel.

In his opening statement Ford said, My appearance at this hearing of your distinguished Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary has been looked upon as an unusual historic eventone that has no firm precedent in the whole history of Presidential relations with the Congress. Yet, I am here not to make history, but to report on history.

Ford assured Congress and the millions who were watching on television that there was no deal for a pardon and that his reason for the pardon was because I wanted to do all I could to shift our attentions from the pursuit of a fallen President to the pursuit of the urgent needs of a rising nation.

In a 1983 article for the Presidential Studies Quarterly, Stephen W. Stathis, who was an analyst with the Congressional Research Service, concluded that the former executive officeholders who provided congressional testimony shared a dedication to duty. The common threadis that they grasped, at least momentarily, a significant role never contemplated by the Founding Fathers, but one which they were willing to fashion in continued service to their country.

Liz Cheney, the Wyoming Republican who is vice chair of the Jan. 6 Committee, seems to agree. Cheney said in an ABC News interview on Aug. 21, I believe in executive privilege But I also think that when the country has been through something, as grave as this was, everyone who has information has an obligation to step forward.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

View original post here:
Where Mike Pence Fits Into the History Behind the Jan. 6 Committee - TIME

When the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack reached out to Arizonas Kelli Ward in February, no one was especially surprised. After all, the right-wing chair of the Arizona Republican Party was a pro-Trump fake elector after the 2020 election.

Whats more, Ward has been accused of helping assemble the larger slate of fake electors in her home state, while filing lawsuits in the hopes of nullifying Arizonas election results. She also joined a lawsuit that hoped to force then-Vice President Mike Pence to help Donald Trump keep the presidency, despite the will of the voters.

Just a few months ago, we also learned of December 2020 email from a Republican lawyer who helped organize the bogus electors in Arizona. The lawyer wrote to the Trump campaign that Ward recommended trying to keep the scheme under wraps until Congress counts the vote Jan. 6th (so we can try to surprise the Dems and media with it) I tend to agree with her.

In other words, Ward has an important perspective. Evidently, shes not eager to share that perspective. Politico reported:

Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering questions from the Jan. 6 select committee, a lawyer for the panel revealed in federal court Tuesday. Dr. Ward was deposed by the select committee, and she declined to answer on every substantive question and asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment, select committee attorney Eric Columbus said during a court hearing before Arizona-based U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa.

Its worth emphasizing that while we learned of this yesterday, its unclear precisely when Ward sat down with investigators and refused to answer questions.

Its also worth noting that the Arizona GOP chair has quite a bit of company. Lets circle back to our earlier coverage and review the list of high-profile figures from Trumps orbit whove invoked the Fifth recently:

The mob takes the Fifth Amendment, Donald Trump said in 2016, deriding those who assert their right against self-incrimination. If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

The relevance of the quote continues to linger.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

See the original post here:
Arizonas Ward latest Republican to take the Fifth in Jan. 6 probe - MSNBC

The truth has power. That is why an army of politicians, lawyers, political schemers, media personalities and admirers of former President Donald Trump have tried so hard to keep Americans from learning the truth about his effort to overturn the 2022 election.

Fortunately, he failed. And he and the corrupt members of his inner circle have failed to keep the truth hidden.

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on our country and the criminal conspiracy that led up to it is an important exercise in truth-telling.

We have learned a lot thanks to the work of committee members and staff, principled members of Trumps own administration, and journalists whose work has shed light on things Trump and his cronies desperately tried to keep hidden.

Trump wanted to stay in power after losing the 2020 election. He wanted it so badly that he called his enraged supporters to Washington, D.C., to interfere with a key step in the peaceful transfer of power.

He sent them to the Capitol knowing that many were armed. And for hours, while members of the Capitol Police were being brutalized and members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pences security detail were calling loved ones, not sure they would live through the attack Trump did nothing.

Well, to be more accurate, he did nothing to stop the rampage. He did plenty of harmful things.

He did watch the violence on television. He did pour gasoline on the fire by denouncing Pence while the attack was under way. He did take calls from fearful members of Congress only to dismiss their pleas for help. He did reject direct appeals from his own daughter to call off the attack. He did tell his chief of staff that he didnt think the mob chanting Hang Mike Pence was doing anything wrong. He thought Pence deserved it for choosing the Constitution over Trumps desire to keep his grip on power.

Only when it was becoming clear that the attack would fail to stop Congress from affirming Joe Bidens victory did Trump grudgingly tell his troops to withdraw.

But even that was a tactical retreat. His attack on our democracy hasnt stopped. Or even slowed down.

Trump continues to lie about the election being stolen from him. His enablers in right-wing media and far-right social media networks spread the lie even further. MAGA activists harass election officials. State legislators use that lie to justify laws that make it harder for people Trump sees as his enemies to vote.

Even worse, they are trying to get more Trump loyalists and Big Lie believers into positions where they will have the power to succeed at what Trump and his team tried to do this time around: overturn the election results in key states.

Trumpists and election deniers are running for office as local election officials, state legislators and secretaries of state, where they will have power to interfere with how elections are run and how votes are counted.

And potentially even worse than that, they are also enlisting the far-right Supreme Court majority that Trump cemented with three justices who were preapproved by the far right-wing legal movement. They have agreed to consider a fringe legal theory pushed by the hard right.

If the courts new activist far-right majority embraces this legal theory, it would let state legislators violate state constitutions and ignore and override the will of the voters. And it would be impossible for courts to step in as a check on anti-democratic abuses of power. This is a battle plan for authoritarian rule.

Ben Jealous

It may be hard for many people to believe just how extreme Trumps movement and his political supporters have become, and just how much of a threat to democracy they pose as we approach this years congressional elections. The Jan. 6 committee has done democracy a big favor by dragging important truths into the light of day. We cant turn away from them. To preserve our country and our freedoms, we must recognize that they are threatened. And we must act to protect them.

Benjamin Jealous is an American civil rights leader who served as the youngest president and chief executive officer of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), from 2008 to 2013. He is the current president of People for the American Way and its associated foundation.

Read the rest here:
Protect the truth-tellers to save democracy - The Miami Times