Archive for the ‘Republican’ Category

Republicans, COVID, and the rise of ‘militant ignorance’ | TheHill – The Hill

Last month, CNN medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner called Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) the most ignorant man in the United States Senate, adding and that says a lot. What Johnson did was oppose vaccination, saying Vaccinated individuals can catch COVID. They can transmit COVID. So whats the point?

The point is we dont know exactly how or why this happens. So it is better to be cautious until we know more.

Many years ago, I worked in the office of Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), a former Harvard professor and probably the least ignorant member of the U.S. Senate. His aides were debating whether the Senate should support U.S. aid to the mujaheddin, resistance fighters who opposed the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan. One staffer said, Those people are ignorant religious radicals. How can we support them?

Sen. Moynihan became indignant. In my office, we do not criticize ignorance, he said. Most people who are ignorant cant help it. They had no opportunity to learn. The senator then paused for thought and added: Militant ignorance is different. Ignorance that is proud of itself, that holds knowledge in contempt that must be condemned.

What we are seeing right now in the debate over COVID is a lot of militant ignorance. The virus is changing in unpredictable ways and, as one expert put it to the New York Times, The guidance has to change when the science changes.

That kind of uncertainty causes people to lose faith in science and challenge expertise. Challenging expertise is an old political tradition in the U.S. Its called populism resentment of elites. In this case, resentment of educated elites, which is the driving force behind right-wing populism. (Left-wing populism is something else resentment of the rich, which also emerges from time to time. See Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersRepublicans, COVID, and the rise of 'militant ignorance' The Biden 2021 report card: The not so good, the bad and the ugly At least 20 states to increase minimum wage starting Saturday MORE (I-Vt.) for that.)

Back in 1975, according to the Gallup poll, 70 percent of Americans said they had a lot of confidence in science. Last year, that number had slipped to 64 percent. Why? Politics. The percentage of Democrats who expressed confidence in science went up 12 points. But the percentage of Republicans declined by an eye-popping 27 points. In 2021, only 45 percent of Republicans said they had a lot of confidence in science, down from 72 percent in 1975. Think of it: Most Republicans no longer have confidence in scientific knowledge. People start questioning the science, questioning whether or not we really know what were doing questioning, you know, Am I going to have to do this every six months? another medical expert said. The answer is very likely, yes.

That answer is not very popular politically. Which is why scientists like Dr. Anthony FauciAnthony FauciDefense Secretary Lloyd Austin tests positive for COVID-19 CDC to reconsider latest guidance amid backlash, rise in cases France requiring 10-day quarantine for unvaccinated US travelers MORE have become a target for conservatives. As the science changes, his advice changes. Ten-day quarantines used to be recommended. That recommendation has been shortened to five days.

Most voters see lack of certainty in leaders as a weakness. President BidenJoe BidenBiden tells Zelensky US, allies will 'respond decisively' if Russia invades Biden, Harris to speak on anniversary of Capitol insurrection Biden's court picks face fierce GOP opposition MORE, for example, is often criticized as a weak leader because he doesnt have the certainty of a Ronald Reagan or a Donald Trump.

Even Trump has run into trouble with his supporters because he has wavered on vaccinations. It used to be the case that Republicans opposed government vaccination mandates. Now they are turning against vaccination itself. One of President TrumpDonald TrumpCheney cites testimony that Ivanka asked Trump to 'please stop this violence' on Jan. 6 McCarthy says Democrats using Jan. 6 as 'partisan political weapon' Biden, Harris to speak on anniversary of Capitol insurrection MOREs strongest supporters, Rep. Marjorie Taylor GreeneMarjorie Taylor GreeneGOP efforts to downplay danger of Capitol riot increase The Memo: What now for anti-Trump Republicans? Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she's meeting with Trump 'soon' in Florida MORE (R-Ga.), tweeted that she spoke to former President Trump and I have President Trumps permission to tell you all that he is 100 percent AGAINST the mandates, but he still encourages everyone to get the vaccine and booster. That produced boos from some Trump supporters and criticism from far-right figures like Alex Jones who called Trumps words nothing but a raft of dirty lies.

One reason for the partisan divide over COVID is the growing diploma divide in American politics. Voters with college degrees are becoming more Democratic while non-college white voters are becoming more Republican. And Republicans are deeply resentful over what they see as condescension toward them.

A right-wing speaker told a church audience in Oklahoma that what he called the metropolitan elite want to crush you They call you the smelly Walmart people. They have contempt for you.

During a fight over mask mandates, a city commissioner in Enid, Okla., is reported to have told a local audience that America is in a moment when the people who ran things from the beginning mostly white, mostly Christian, mostly male are now having to share control. You dont just get to be the sole solitary voice in terms of what we do here, what we teach here, what we show on television here. You dont get to do it any more. Thats where the fight is.

Many Americans long for certainty in their leaders as a sign of strength. But education even science is not the realm of certainty. Religion is. Which is why religious differences churchgoers versus non-churchgoers have been increasing in the political spectrum alongside differences by education.

Bill Schneider is an emeritus professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and author of "Standoff: How America Became Ungovernable"(Simon & Schuster).

Here is the original post:
Republicans, COVID, and the rise of 'militant ignorance' | TheHill - The Hill

At The Republican, our readers are our partners (Viewpoint) – masslive.com

The staff at The Republican consider our readers as partners. Some have been subscribers for decades, with a strong knowledge of the history and inner-workings of the region -- we often hear of those long-term subscribers who delivered the paper as young adults -- and some pick up the paper from time-to-time at a grocery or convenience stores. No matter how The Republican is received, we are fortunate to have a loyal reader-base who are smart, engaged and willing to tell us whats on their mind.

While innovation has changed the way we produce and deliver The Republican, the nuts and bolts of what ties a newspaper together has been unchanged for hundreds of years. A newspaper consists of words, lists, illustrations and photographs on a page. And our staff strives each day to take those components and produce a relevant, topical, current and entertaining product to help readers navigate their busy lives.

Over the course of the year, The Republican opinion and commentary pages have published 561 letters to the editor (a full list of letter writers can be found below). Each letter is considered by a member of the editorial board, edited for clarity and fact checked.

More:
At The Republican, our readers are our partners (Viewpoint) - masslive.com

The 10 Republicans most likely to run for president | TheHill – The Hill

The 2024 presidential election may still be three years away, but Republicans have already begun to jockey for their places in the primary.

Former President TrumpDonald TrumpCheney cites testimony that Ivanka asked Trump to 'please stop this violence' on Jan. 6 McCarthy says Democrats using Jan. 6 as 'partisan political weapon' Biden, Harris to speak on anniversary of Capitol insurrection MOREs repeated hints that he could mount another bid for the White House remains perhaps the biggest obstacle for other would-be contenders.

While none have spoken definitively about their plans for 2024, many potential candidates have already started networking with GOP leaders and donors in key states while testing out campaign messages in public appearances.

Donald TrumpTrump has been teasing the possibility of a 2024 comeback almost from the moment he left the Oval Office, and his hints have gotten more brazen in recent months.

Hes avoided offering specifics about his thought process, though hes repeatedly said that his supporters will be very happy with his decision.

A campaign announcement likely isnt imminent. In an interview with Fox News published in early November, Trump said that he will probably wait until after the 2022 midterm elections to announce whether or not hell make another run for the White House.

If he does jump into the race, hed start off as the instant favorite to win the nomination at least for now.A Politico-Morning Consult pollreleased in mid-December found that 69 percent of Republican voters want Trump to mount a 2024 comeback bid.

Ron DeSantisRon DeSantisEleven interesting races to watch in 2022 Ocasio-Cortez criticizes GOP for 'projecting their sexual frustrations' at her A truly 'patriotic education' requires critical analysis of US history MOREFlorida Gov. Ron DeSantis has said that hes focused only on his 2022 reelection campaign, but that hasnt shut down speculation that a presidential run may be in the cards.

DeSantis became a conservative darling last year for his laissez-faire approach to the coronavirus pandemic and often indignant response to the advice of public health officials. Hes also crisscrossed the country for fundraisers and other events, leading many political observers to wonder whether hes looking beyond 2022.

Whats unclear is whether DeSantis would still run for president if Trump jumped into the race. Unlike many possible 2024 contenders, DeSantis hasnt said publicly that he wont run if Trump does.

Mike PenceMichael (Mike) Richard PenceWith two New Year's resolutions Donald Trump could secure a more favorable legacy This year, Mike Pence should resolve to become our next president What my 2021 inbox reveals about the 2024 GOP race MOREFormer Vice President Mike Pence would appear to be an obvious choice for Republicans in 2024, given the four years he spent as Trumps No. 2.

Hes visited New Hampshire and other early primary and caucus states, fueling speculation about his political ambitions. And notably, he hasnt ruled out a run.

I can honestly tell you in 2023, my family and I will do what we have always done. We'll reflect, we'll pray and determine where we might best serve, and we'll go where we're called, he told CNN during a stop in New Hampshire earlier this month.

Still, there are questions about just how viable Pence would be in a GOP primary. Trump and his supporters have expressed frustration with Pence for overseeing the certification of electoral votes on Jan. 6, and the former president said at an event in Florida this month that Pence had been mortally wounded within the GOP for his role in the election certification process.

Chris ChristieChris ChristieThe 10 Republicans most likely to run for president Chris Christie tries again 'The people' isn't a thing MOREFormer New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a onetime ally of Trump, has taken an increasingly confrontational approach to the former president over his false claims of fraud in the 2020 election.

Those jabs, as well as an increasingly aggressive public schedule, have sparked chatter that the former New Jersey governor may be eyeing another presidential run after his unsuccessful bid for the GOP nomination in 2016.

In public appearances, Christie has sought to outline a new direction for the post-Trump GOP, urging Republicans to focus on the future and move on from Trumps desire to relitigate the last presidential race.

But that strategy also risks isolating a Republican base that remains loyal to Trump and his vision for the GOP, and its not clear whether it will be a winning message in a 2024 primary.

Nikki HaleyNikki HaleyThe 10 Republicans most likely to run for president Will or should Kamala Harris become the Spiro Agnew of 2022? Haley has 'positive' meeting with Trump MOREFormer U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley is doing what most prospective presidential contenders would do as they weigh a run for the White House.

Shes formed a political action committee to boost Republican candidates ahead of the 2022 midterm elections and has made stops in early primary and caucus states, all the while trying to navigate the tricky political dynamics of the post-Trump GOP.

Since then, however, shes taken a more deferential approach to the former president. In April, Haley said that she would not run for president in 2024 if Trump does.

Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzEleven interesting races to watch in 2022 2021's top political celebrity moments The 10 Republicans most likely to run for president MORETexas Sen. Ted Cruz sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 only to lose out to Trump in a particularly bitter primary. He became one of Trumps most vocal boosters on Capitol Hill during the former presidents tenure in the White House, but that hasnt stopped him from eyeing another presidential bid of his own.

He told the conservative news outlet Newsmax earlier this year that hes certainly looking at another presidential run, and he hasnt yet committed to foregoing a White House bid if Trump decides to take another stab at the presidency.

Asked on CBSs Face the Nation last month if he would challenge Trump in 2024, Cruz said that the former president would be very, very formidable before noting that he came close to beating Trump in the 2016 primary.

I came in second, Cruz said. There's a long history of runner-ups becoming the next nominee.

Mike PompeoMike PompeoUS 'concerned' over Iran rocket launch What my 2021 inbox reveals about the 2024 GOP race The 10 Republicans most likely to run for president MORELike Haley, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has launched a PAC ostensibly to boost GOP candidates in the 2022 midterms while also making the rounds in early primary and caucus states.

Asked by Fox News host Sean HannitySean Patrick HannityJan. 6 panel chair says 'significant testimony' shows White House 'had been told to do something' 2021's top political celebrity moments The 10 Republicans most likely to run for president MORE earlier this year whether he would run if Trump decides to take a pass on another presidential campaign, Pompeo said that he is always up for a good fight.

Kristi NoemKristi Lynn NoemThe 10 Republicans most likely to run for president McConnell urges Thune to run for reelection amid retirement talk Thune, Johnson say decisions on reelection bids expected soon MORESouth Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem has repeatedly insisted that shes focused only on her 2022 reelection campaign and isnt planning a run for the White House in 2024. Shes also said that she wants to see Trump as the GOPs next presidential nominee, seemingly taking herself out of the running.

But that hasnt stopped speculation that she may have ambitions beyond the governors mansion. Noem is seen as a rising star among Republicans and has cultivated a national fundraising network that has observers wondering about her future ambitions.

Earlier this year, her campaign launched a federal PAC that can distribute funds into elections outside South Dakota and create a pot of money that could be used for a future federal campaign.

Tom CottonTom Bryant CottonThe 10 Republicans most likely to run for president GOP steps up flirtation with Manchin Kyrsten Sinema is less of a political enigma than she is a strategic policymaker MOREArkansas Sen. Tom Cotton has positioned himself as one of the Biden administrations most vocal opponents in the Senate, making frequent appearances on Fox News to criticize the president and his policies.

I expect I'll be back to New Hampshire again in the future,he told Insider.

Hogan has insisted that hes focused on completing his term as governor while trying to steer the country toward a more civil political debate. But he hasnt dodged conversations about a potential 2024 run entirely, acknowledging during an interview on CBSs This Morning earlier this year that he hasnt ruled it out.

Hogan is also one of the few prospective GOP contenders that wouldnt be deterred from running if Trump launches another campaign.

See more here:
The 10 Republicans most likely to run for president | TheHill - The Hill

Republican Party paying Donald Trump’s legal bills is more proof he owns the GOP – MSNBC

The Republican National Committee is paying for former President Donald Trumps personal legal bills, which is legal, politically savvy and deeply informative about the future of the Republican Party. The RNC is not spending this up to $1.6 million on competitive federal or state races. It is not spending this money to push policy proposals. It is spending this money to pay for lawyers that Trump had to hire to defend himself in criminal and civil fraud investigations that do not relate to his time as president.

Members of the RNC executive committee overwhelmingly voted to foot the legal bills of a self-proclaimed billionaire whose company is being investigated for possible fraud.

Why would the RNC do this? Because the former president who lost the last presidential election, was impeached twice and appears to have incited an attempted "self-coup" is the favored cause of the RNC. Members of the RNC executive committee, who The Washington Post reported overwhelmingly voted to foot the legal bills of a self-proclaimed billionaire whose company is being investigated for possible fraud, believe this is where their money is best spent. (Trump has not been accused of wrongdoing.)

In the movie All the Presidents Men, the man known as Deep Throat whispers to reporter Bob Woodward, Follow the money. Woodward and his fellow Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein then investigate the Watergate scandal and in so doing bring down the presidency of Richard Nixon. Over more than four decades, this phrase has become a useful shorthand to explain that if people really want to know what is going on in politics, and even uncover political corruption, they should look at money flowing to, and around, politicians.

But sometimes that money flows out in the open, right before our eyes, and it is easy to track and draw lines between politicians, those they owe and those who owe them. The RNC paying Trumps bill is an example.

The promised payments represent the continuation of the RNCs strategy to be the party of Trump, nothing more and nothing less. In 2020, the GOP opted not to introduce a new party platform. Instead, its focus was to re-elect Trump. That desire to put Trump back in the Oval Office explains this decision, as well. Trump, of course, is not a candidate, yet. But that does not matter for this unconventional relationship.

The RNCs decision to help Trumps bottom line didnt begin with payments to Trumps lawyers. Thanks, in part, to RNC patronage, Trump-owned properties raked in millions. Do you have a meeting, retreat or fundraising event? Are you a member of the RNC? You may, as a matter of pure coincidence, choose to hold that event at a Trump property.

The RNCs decision to spend its money for Trumps benefit is, naturally, driven by money. Trump is a fundraising boon for the RNC. He brings with him money the party will need not just in 2024, when it may attempt to put Trump back in the White House, but money it will need ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

The current Supreme Court is plenty hostile to campaign finance restrictions.

So what is the solution to all this? One option is to add restrictions to the federal election laws. Federal law prohibits candidates from spending campaign money on personal expenses, including legal expenses such as these. Should the law also prohibit political parties from paying for the personal expenses of candidates, or even noncandidates, as Trump is now? This brings up plenty of legal and administrative hurdles. Lets remember that the current Supreme Court is plenty hostile to campaign finance restrictions. Even if Congress could craft and pass the proper law, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would let it stand.

Perhaps the better solution is to do nothing. Maybe it is better to see, out in the open, who is paying for what. With the current arrangement, investigative reporters dont need to find a confidential source to whisper information and implore them to follow the money. We dont even need investigative reporters. As long as these funds are disclosed, the public can draw its own conclusions.

JessicaLevinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, is the host of the "Passing Judgment" podcast. She is also the director of the Public Service Institute at Loyola Law School, co-director of Loyola's Journalist Law School and former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.

Go here to see the original:
Republican Party paying Donald Trump's legal bills is more proof he owns the GOP - MSNBC

Peter Navarro: Trump Distributed Bogus Election Fraud Research to Every Congressional Republican – Rolling Stone

When the 2020 election didnt go Trumps way, Peter Navarro did something dangerous. He began to do his own research.

Navarro, an economist whom Donald Trump tapped to lead his trade war against China, didnt stay in his lane at the White House. Hed already inserted himself in the administrations botched pandemic response, pushing the unproven hypothesis that Covid-19 escaped from a Wuhan lab. And after the 2020 vote, Navarro began compiling a series of inflammatory dossiers on the outcome with names like The Immaculate Deception, The Art of the Steal, and Yes, Trump Won pushing the Big Lie that the election was stolen.

Navarros reports include debunked allegations of outright voter fraud across six battleground states, including the large-scale manufacturing of fake ballots, bribery, and dead voters as well as roundly discredited conspiracy theories alleging sordid connections between voting machine companies, a former Venezuelan dictator, the Clinton Foundation, and George Soros.

Unlike most amateur-hour election sleuths, however, Navarro had direct access to the aggrieved president. In an extended interview with Rolling Stone, Navarro revealed that he personally briefed Trump on his research in the Oval Office and that Trump directed, on the spot, that Navarros findings be distributed to the entire GOP conference on Capitol Hill.

That advocacy by Trump helped Navarro, along with close ally Steve Bannon, prepare for a Jan. 6 plot they hoped could overturn Joe Bidens victory. Together with Bannon, Navarro developed a plan to block the Electoral College vote count, called the Green Bay Sweepafter a daring football play run by the NFLs Packers in the Vince Lombardi era. (Bannon did not respond to a detailed list of questions about his involvement in this effort.)

The ploy called on sitting congressmen and senators, during the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, to object to the counting of votes from six battleground states, where Navarro had decried fraud and electoral irregularities. Across both chambers, each state challenge would prompt four hours of debate. The intention was to create a 24-hour Republican propaganda blitz that could punch through directly to the public and give Mike Pence, in his capacity as Senate president, cover to delay certification of the Electoral College vote, sending the contested tallies back to the states.

Navarro, Bannon, and their GOP allies on the Hill hoped the contested states would revoke their certifications, deprive either candidate of the required 270 Electoral College votes, and give Trump one last shot victory with the House of Representatives ultimately voting to decide the outcome of the 2020 election, using an arcane protocol that favored Trump.

What follows is an edited transcript of Rolling Stones conversation with Navarro. Misinformation Navarro pushed about election fraud has been omitted.

How did the Green Bay Sweep plan come together?By the time early January was rolling around. Two things are obvious. One is that [Trump campaign manager Bill] Stepien, [deputy manager Justin] Clark and [Trump son-in-law Jared] Kushner, were not prosecuting a challenge [to Bidens victory], and more importantly, they werent providing the logistical or financial support to this very small band of people led by Giuliani and Bernie Kerik to look at things. And the other thing thats happening is the courts were rejecting challenge after challenge, not based on the evidence. But rather on procedural technicalities.

So the whole concept of the Green Bay Sweep was twofold. One was to provide a public forum whereby grievances we had regarding possible fraud and election irregularities could be aired in 24-hours of televised hearings to the American public, and thereby bypass the mainstream medias biased coverage. And then the second part was to have a mechanism, following in the constitution, that would allow those likely illegal [Electoral College] votes to be sent back to the states for further review.

What was the endgame? You get Pence to delay certification of the Electoral College vote, send this to overtime and then what?One of two things could happen. They go back there [to the states], they look at it and they say, Nope. Its certified. [The votes] come back, and that would be it. Fair enough.

But the more likely scenario based on our assessment of the evidence was that states would withdraw any certification. And the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives. And even though the House is controlled by Democrats, the way votes would be counted in a presidential election decided by the House, Trump would almost certainly win.

To clarify for readers: The Constitution allows that if neither candidate receives 270 votes in the Electoral College, the election is decided by the House. But in that scenario, its a unique process: Each states congressional delegation gets to cast a single vote. So while Democrats controlled more House seats, Republicans controlled more state delegations, and Trump would have likely emerged the victor?That was the essence of the plan. Its a well thought-out plan based on sound, constitutional law and existing legislative precedent. And all it required was peace and calm on Capitol Hill for it to unfold. And then you have two things that went awry: Pences betrayal, and, of course, the violence that erupted on Capitol Hill, which provided Pence, McConnell, McCarthy, Pelosi, and Schumer an excuse to abort the Green Bay Sweep, effectively, and certify the election.

Were GOP leaders McConnell and McCarthy read in on this Green Bay Sweep plan?I dont know. I primarily almost exclusively just worked with Steve Bannon. He was the strategist involved. He was the guy who was coordinating the whipping of the votes, right? There were over 100 congressmen both the House of Representatives and senators that were lined up to execute that plan.

It started flawlessly when [Arizona Rep. Paul] Gosar and [Texas Sen.] Cruz promptly at 1 p.m. called on scrutiny of the Arizona vote. Arizona was one of six battlegrounds: They were Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. And it started flawlessly, but the violence overtook that event. The rest, as they, say is history.

Who were the leaders of this plan on the Hill? Cruz and Gosar?I wasnt really involved in that. Again, that was Steves job. My whole thing all the way through Jan. 6 I continued to work on my research, and that was that was a time-consuming process. My role in the whole thing was basically to provide Congress, via my reports, the analytical material they needed to actually make the challenges. And the president himself had distributed Volume One of the report to every member of the House and Senate a week or so earlier.

What were your communications with President Trump about this effort?The only conversation I had with him was about the reports themselves. There was a couple of times I walked over to the Oval both times after I finished a report and personally handed him one and briefed him on it. In the first case, in front of me, he asked Molly Michael, his assistant, to make sure everybody on the Hill promptly got a copy of it.

You mention in your book that Trump wanted you to talk to Pence, that this was a directive from Trump, that Pence should speak to you.When I was in the Oval briefing the president on the results, I expressed frustration with the fact that Mike wouldnt return my calls. And that it would be useful, as we were moving to Jan 6, if that problem could be fixed. He said, yeah, hed have Mike call me. Which Mike, in fact, did. The only problem was he hung up before he even spoke to me.

To be clear, prior to Jan. 6, I had great love and respect for Vice President Pence. The problem, as I describe it in the book, was he effectively got captured by his own staff. Marc Short and his general counsel, Greg Jacob, who I had had previous run-ins with during the pandemic. Short and Jacob were just bad people. Just bad people. Had no business being in the in the White House. They werent Trump people. They were just bad people. They hurt the president in a lot of different ways, not the least of which is how they handled this particular issue were talking about.

Bannon, obviously, has been subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 committee. Have you spoken to them or are they seeking information from you?I have gotten no communication whatsoever from them. Its my view that they simply do not want to hear anything I have to say, because it is so contrary to their narrative. Their narrative rests on the premise that President Trump wanted to instigate violence to overthrow the election. My premise which is fact is that President Trump wanted only peace and calm so that we could meticulously implement the Green Bay Packers Sweep play, and thereby remand the votes to the back to the states, and in all likelihood, then move the election into the House of Representatives, because of the substantial fraud that was visible.

Let me stop you there. Youve told me that President Trump wasnt really read in on this plan, and yet you say he backed it?You asked me whether I spoke to him about it. And I said, accurately, no, it wasnt me who briefed him on this. OK.

Are you saying that Bannon briefed him on it?Youll have to track that down. Im not going to speak for Steve or anybody else.

Let me simplify the question: Was President Trump read in on the Green Bay Packers Sweep plan?I dont know that for a fact.

But you just cited his backing of the plan as the reason why Trump was not for the violence that ensued. What do you know and what you are speculating about?You asked me whether he was read in on the Green Bay Packers Sweep plan, OK? He understood what was supposed to happen that day. All you need to do is listen to this speech from the Ellipse that morning. You know, If Mike does the right thing you just have to listen to what he said.

My clear understanding, but not from speaking to him directly, is that he [Trump] understood what the strategy was. The strategy was to challenge the votes with the 100 plus-group of congressmen that day, send them back to the states and let the chips fall where they may. But it wasnt me who sat down and said, Hey, boss, we can run the Green Bay Packers Sweep, we do X, Y and Z. That wasnt my role.

And youre not able to tell me who did that?I actually dont know, factually.

But again: How you know that this thing happened, but you dont know who did it?I know that there were over 100 congressmen ready to implement the plan. I know that. I know what the plan was, right? It all hinged on getting the plan done at the state level. I know that the president met with people like [John] Eastman, and that there was a legal opinion explaining exactly what Pence can do. I know that thats the reason why I wanted to talk to Mike to assure him that there was substantial evidence of fraud and that he should exercise his duty, as president of the Senate, to send these things back to the states for 10 days.

Knowing all that, I think its fair to say that the president clearly understood the strategy. I dont know if he called it the Green Bay Sweep. I doubt that. That was me and Steves description of it. You know: call a play; run the play. Based on what I know, the president understood what was going to happen that day. It required peace and calm. It was well within constitutional law, and we were basically exercising the constitutional right and democratic freedoms to challenge what we believed was a stolen election.

Everything that was done was done honorably and with good intentions. We were fighting what I believe was an attempt at a coup detat. We werent the ones trying to steal the election or engineer a coup. It was clearly the Democrats . These folks bragged about stealing the election. They didnt use the word steal they did say they had to do it in order to save the republic, which I think is as close to an admission of guilt as you can get.

Bannon has been charged with criminal contempt of Congress. There are people who would call what you were plotting very much akin to a coup. Are you concerned about your own legal liability in this case?You think people would call what I did akin to a coup?

I know you dont see it that way, but I assure you there are people in America who see the activity that was taking place and think it was trying to overturn the duly determined democratic outcome of a national presidential election.Yeah, I see. I see that point. But also remember a lot of the people who might hold that point of view were being fed the steady stream of MSNBC and CNN and New York Times and Washington Post lies that the election was fair and absent of any fraud or election irregularities, and that it was all sour grapes. But you know, I went through four years listening to that noise, rather than signal, from the corporate media. And if I had a dime for every time they reported something which I knew on its face to be untrue. I know you have enough money to comfortably retire.

There have been audits in Arizona. There have been court challenges everywhere. There have been studies of whether there were deceased voters in Georgia. None of it has revealed anything that would change the outcome of this election. So as you sit here now, do you feel like your analysis was square?Yeah, I do.

You havent learned any new information since this election took place that has left you chagrined or regretful of the analysis that you created?To the contrary. Lets say that theres two possible states of reality here. One is that history will show that it was a free and fair election, or as with Nixon v. Kennedy history will show that, yeah, it was stolen.

Living in two different realities thats an apt description of where we find ourselves in America. Do you think the American people will find agreement about the 2020 election or what happened on Jan 6?I want to get to the bottom of what happened on Jan 6, just as much as anybody. I want to get to the bottom of it in a nonpartisan way. Kevin McCarthy is an idiot. I mean, hes like a checkers player in the chess world. The fact that there are no legitimate Republicans on that committee, it turned it into a star chamber rather than a proper investigatory body.

Id love to know how that violence erupted. Im telling you I was one of the most crestfallen people on the planet at the end, when that happened, because I knew immediately: This wont end way the we wanted it to.

Read more from the original source:
Peter Navarro: Trump Distributed Bogus Election Fraud Research to Every Congressional Republican - Rolling Stone