50 Comments

I have scanned thru the Mathews Memo regarding the Army's reaction to the pleas for help from Capitol Building authorities. It sure reads to me that many of the delaying Army authorities who had the ability to launch a swift defense of our capitol were purposely delaying the response. My paranoia of situations like this leads me to believe there were several in the position to act who were very pro-Trump and wanted the attack to succeed.

This makes me very concerned of their loyalties to our Constitution and the Oaths they took to become members of our nation's protecting force!

I believe there needs to be a Congressional and DOJ investigation of those actions!

Expand full comment

Regarding 1/6, it seem that all we need to know about who directed the attack and who refused to send help is that Trump was not evacuated from the WH and/or DC to a remote, secure location.

Expand full comment

Charlie. My man. I love ya. I almost always agree with you when you criticize the Democrats for bad messaging. But I have to push back on the issue of allowing non-citizens to vote in New York. A little tough love for my conservative friends, to paraphrase a certain someone. 😏

The thing I hate most about this issue is that you may well be right about the messaging. Maybe it is too close to "DEMS WANT ILLEGALS TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT!!!" to avoid having it warped by bad-faith partisans. But that would be a real shame.

Because we aren't talking about illegals. We're talking about legal residents - people with green cards, work permits, student visas, etc. These are people who typically reside here legally for a period of several years (say, for much of the term of a typical elected official), pay taxes, and when they leave may very well be replaced by someone similar to them with similar interests. And I know from listening to your Friday podcast that you're aware of this.

Also, (again, I know you're aware of this) we're talking about them voting in *local* elections. The ones most relevant to people's daily lives. Not federal, not even state elections. You claimed these positions are "indistinguishable". Yet I'm fairly confident most Americans fully understand the difference between state and local government. (Local government is the one they don't care about anymore, even though they know it exists.)

I know how easy it is to be cynical about the average American's capacity for nuance. But we're just plain giving up on it entirely if even folks like you don't want to give an issue the fair hearing it deserves.

A lot of people hear the term "non-citizens" and assume that it's a euphemism for "illegal immigrants" (which makes for a great argument against euphemistic language, but I digress). I even catch myself doing it. In fact, when I first heard about this issue in DC a couple of years ago, I was incredulous at first - until I realized they were talking about legal non-citizen residents and local elections. Then it suddenly seemed far more reasonable.

I think a lot of people would react the same way if those points were emphasized up front. The political ad practically writes itself - "Shouldn't immigrants who love America, follow the rules, and pay their taxes get to vote for dog catcher?"

But when your initial reaction to this is "WTF Democrats?!?" - even if you're reacting purely to the political messaging and timing rather than the substance of the policy - it will be natural for many to assume the worst possible interpretation. Why would reasonable ol' Charlie be getting so upset otherwise?

So please consider revisiting this with a more measured tone. We all know there are people who will distort this issue for political gain - don't inadvertently give them an assist.

Expand full comment

Love that Liz Cheney is becoming the public face of the January 6th committee. Hope the confidence she is demonstrating is rooted in solid evidence.

Expand full comment

Okay, I can't stand Stacey Abrams who, like Trump, spreads the lie of a stolen election, without any credible evidence. But how in the world can former Senator Perdue say with a straight face that Abrams controls Georgia's election system?

Expand full comment

I don't have much tolerance for any pearl clutchers gasping at the idea that noncitizens have a say in how the schools they send their children to are run. I'm more than happy to hear what my law abiding neighbors have to say about local issues because I actually believe in local control (I would draw the line at offices that impact foreign policy because noncitizens can be presumed to have loyalty to another country). Evidently, Charlie does not. He offers no problems with this, perhaps because there are none, other than that it is "woke" and a political loser. As if the only thing I care about is winning elections. I suppose we should stand for liberalism UNLESS it's more politically expedient to stand with the bigots /s. Say hi to the anti-antis for me.

Like everyone on Bulwark+, I'm a politically homeless mishmash of left and right views, so being a political loser is not new to me, though at least I'm not a political loser of Charlie's calibre. But it's never a loss as long as you actually get the policy. After all, Tucker Carlson will always find something else to complain about,.

Expand full comment

Two quick comments about today's Shots. First, it would be nice if Democrats recognized that Hispanic is not a race but an ethnicity and that a majority of Hispanics likely identify as being White. (Bonus if they recognized how religious most Black and Hispanics are, compared to their Woke White brethren). Second, NYC allowing noncitizens to vote is not only politically tone deaf but also amusing since the current NYC Board of Elections is a certified sh!tshow. If you cannot run good elections for your current voting population, complicating it by adding a whole new class of voters--who can only vote in some elections--is a recipe for disaster.

Expand full comment
founding

No historian, legal scholar, or scholar of any type here. But as to executive privilege, I don't think it's mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Isn't it pretty much a made-up thing, an idea and practice promulgated from the Eisenhower era and not codified into actual law? And while it may be a now long-practiced rule and "norm", and an often practical and useful one, since DFn'T and his cadre of Rule & Norm Busters were all about slaughtering a whole herd of more or less sacred cows, perhaps it's time for some serious exsanguination on this particular one. And what better place to apply the blade than in the shop of the Head Butcher himself? All this EP BS is as appalling as nearly everything else you covered in Morning Shots today.

Btw...Can't say as I care for some of Liz Cheney's politics. But props to her for parkin' her backside in that seat on the Jan. 06 Committee, sitting up ramrod straight and speaking the truth without so much as a blink. All day, every day. She certainly has earned my respect and gratitude for that.

Had DFn'T had balls as big as hers while his sorry ass was seated in the Oval Office with his slimy little mitts directly on the levers of power, things would have turned out much differently. Lucky for us he is, in actuality, that thing he said he was so fond of grabbing. Problem is, too many of the a-holes surrounding him are not. And we need more people like Cheney to kick 'em all right in the nuts. And to keep on kickin' until they can't even crawl, much less walk upright.

Go girl!

Expand full comment

I think despite the dooming about the January 6 Committee we are going to get a ton of information about it. I think it will confirm a lot of what many of us suspect or already know: the Trump administration was trying to hold onto power by any means short of outright violence. And they probably didn't try outright violence because the Joint Chiefs told them "NO" very pointedly.

The question is - will anyone care until it affects them? In another time, the general voting population might be extremely concerned. But we have a lot of people who worship the ground Trump walks on and I'm not super-confident.

Expand full comment

It is quite funny, we are not closer to the we have information that shows Trump did what we all know he did and this is really going to bring him down this time. You all need to live in reality. The real truth is we are closer to now being open and clear that Trump will be able and brazen enough to say "I did it and what about it?". Just like he said to Pence that he didn't care enough to do something and fight back. Now, his supporters will love him even more and the anti-anti's can go hide and act like they never heard any of this because of socialists, inflation, and caravans of migrants soon to wash over the country like a very serious virus might do.

Expand full comment

this being a real possibility was on my mind as well... they may have this well in hand, I think of it as having an airtight enough case against Trump that they will be able to pass federal voting rights protections and anti-coup measure (Schiff's bill that the House just passed - work for that to advance, why don't you?)

Expand full comment

BLM is like any other fundraising organization, and many of my friends, whom might be deemed the “wokeist of the woke” are unhappy with the organization. Shawn King is another example of someone who grifted off the cause. Very funny comedian, Mateen Stewart encourages those who truly wish to help black people to donate to black colleges rather than to BLM. The org isn’t wrong about Chicago’s history of brutality, though. That’s the problem with the lack of criminal justice reform in this country. There’s a real problem and grifters abound when they can make a dollar off those of us who legitimately want to help.

I donate to the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (when I’m not broke AF), and you should too sometime. https://www.tmcf.org/

Also—- I know a lot of you have heard me say this before, ending our disastrous War on Drugs would do so much to help. We have more drugs around then ever before, and police can still use drugs as a way to end someone’s life. Breonna Taylor payed the price for the Drug War, as did thousands before her. I’m a fan of Justin Amash because he gets it, as do many reasonable Libertarians.

Expand full comment

The BLM statement is obviously insane, and backing a convicted felon who framed imaginary MAGA hat wearers with paid Nigerian actors in an effort to stoke racial animosity, while attacking Chicago police and saying nothing about what's actually killing black people in Chicago, kind of discredits their organization. But FFS NYC, what are you doing allowing non-citizens to vote? For years, Republican voters have been in a tizzy over non-citizens voting, encouraged and enabled by Democrats as a way to gain and maintain political power, and we've always told them they're out of their minds insane, this is not happening, and anyone telling you it is is a liar. This is going to run at 8pm on Fox every night for the foreseeable future, and Tucker won't be wrong.

Expand full comment

In regard to your tweet about Dems not being in touch with the country's views on citizenship and your response that NYC says "hold my beer" - I found this article by Democracy Docket interesting - https://www.democracydocket.com/news/understanding-voting-rights-for-non-citizens

Selected Quotes from the article:

The New York City Council is set to approve a bill, Intro 1867, that allows legal permanent residents and those with work authorizations to vote in municipal elections and register as members of political parties. The work authorization category includes Dreamers, people enrolled in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or people with Temporary Protected Status. An individual must be a resident of New York City for at least 30 days before the election to qualify as a municipal voter. Notably, Intro 1867 does not expand voting rights to all non-citizens — it does not include undocumented immigrants or people with short-term visas (tourists, for example).

Intro 1867 authorizes qualified non-citizens to vote in municipal elections only. This means the new voters can take part in elections for New York City offices, including mayor, city council, comptroller, public advocate, borough president and local ballot measures. The non-citizen voters will not be eligible to vote in federal elections nor in statewide elections.

As of June 2021, 14 municipalities across the U.S. permit non-citizens to vote in local elections. 11 of these municipalities are in Maryland, two in Vermont and one in California. In 2016, voters in San Francisco approved Proposition N, which permits non-citizen parents of children in public schools to vote in school board elections. Most recently, two Vermont cities, including the capital Montpelier, changed their city charters to allow non-citizen residents to vote in local elections. While Gov. Phil Scott (R) vetoed the plan, the Democratic-controlled state Legislature overrode that veto.

Laws that expand voting rights to certain non-citizens are often inaccurately characterized by opponents, either in defining which non-citizens can vote or in what type of elections.

Proponents (say): “These are residents of our city who live here, work here, go to school here, raise families here, and pay taxes here. They deserve to have a say in the direction of our city,” writes the Our City, Our Vote campaign. The new municipal voters would be composed of parents who send their children to public schools and homeowners, renters and business owners who want a say in the neighborhood policies. It’s also worth noting non-citizens in New York City have been on the frontlines during the pandemic, keeping the city running and New Yorkers healthy. Additionally, legal residents are required to pay taxes, even if they are not citizens. In New York City, that amounts to billions of dollars per year of “taxation without representation.”

Tali Farhadian Weinstein, a candidate in the 2021 election for New York county district attorney, also emphasized the long wait periods and administrative backlogs that lock residents out of the political process while waiting for their citizenship. “My dad was 30 years old when he came to this country,” Farhadian Weinstein writes. “Although my parents quickly got authorization to work here, my dad turned 45 before he became a citizen and could cast his first vote.”

In contrast to Republican voter suppression laws across the country, New York City is looking to expand voting rights and include more people in the political process. It is still a very rare step for a municipality to proactively implement, but nonetheless raises important questions about the country’s ideals of citizenship, representation and who gets a say in the policy that impacts everyday life.

My opinion - I am not a far left progressive (after all I subscribe to Bulwark!) - but I like to sample multiple sides of an argument and I have to say I am sympathetic to the idea that people who pay taxes should have some level of voice in their community.

Expand full comment