President Donald Trump, who is literally on the verge of ignoring a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to not include a citizenship question on the Census, on Friday told reporters the “number one” reason he wants to add the question is for the drawing of congressional districts.
Experts say he just showed his hand – or, as some said, “gave up the game.”
If President Trump is trying to include a citizenship question for the drawing of congressional districts, he might be surprised to know that the U.S. Constitution makes clear the Census must count everyone living in the United States – not just citizens. And congressional districts are to be based on the number of people living in an area – not just the number of U.S. citizens.
“If you look at the history of our country, it’s almost always been asked,” Trump said Friday of the citizenship question on the decennial census.
That’s false. It has been asked on small, annual updates, but for many decades not on the constitutionally-mandated Census.
“We’re fighting very hard against the system,” Trump said, telegraphing to his base that considers him an outsider fighting for white conservatives.
“You need it for many reasons, number one for Congress, for districting,” Trump said, which is entirely false – unless his goal is to undercount minorities and non-citizen immigrants.
Watch (begins at the 14:10 mark):
WATCH: Pres. Trump comments about battle over census and more before departing for Bedminster, NJ. https://t.co/V2rtKCMNfP
— ABC News (@ABC) July 5, 2019
Here’s what experts are saying:
U.S. Supreme Court reporter for Reuters:
Trump on Friday said the “number one” reason for adding a citizenship question was for the drawing of electoral districts, which is what those challenging the move have said all along
— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley) July 5, 2019
Chief White House Correspondent for The New York Times and MSNBC analyst:
Trump says citizenship has to be asked on the census to determine congressional districts. Actually, districts are drawn up based on total population, not the number of citizens, a practice upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 2016.
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) July 5, 2019
Pleased @realDonaldTrump has made it even harder now to include the citizenship question on #Census2020. Drawing congressional districts based on “citizens,” rather than “persons,” is unconstitutional. Trump has now stated the real reason, and that reason is unconstitutional. https://t.co/oaWLH0yO1o
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) July 5, 2019
Senior political reporter for The Washington Post:
Trump gives away the game here.
Opponents’ argument is that GOP will use the new citizenship Q to draw districts using that data — a potential big boon to GOP. https://t.co/MrL0PfbIXo
— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) July 5, 2019
ThinkProgress and Popular Information founder:
This really gives up the game.
Redrawing Congressional maps based on citizenship only was exactly why Thomas Hofeller, a political operative and expert in diluting minority voting rights, wanted the Q added https://t.co/97847BzuKK https://t.co/MBMaEnOyX9
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) July 5, 2019
Senator Dianne Feinstein’s press secretary:
Giving away the entire game. He wants to draw congressional districts based on citizen population and guarantee the Republicans a House majority. https://t.co/Yld4eozy7O
— Ashley Schapitl (@AshleySchapitl) July 5, 2019
Senior campaigns and elections editor, chief polling analyst for Politico:
Drawing voting districts based on citizen (not resident) counts was, according to published reports, what the late GOP mapmaker Tom Hofeller wrote “would be advantageous” for whites and Republicans. https://t.co/qmHtL6BCED
— Steven Shepard (@POLITICO_Steve) July 5, 2019
UPDATE I: 1:15 PM ET –
MSNBC’s Pete Williams just said on-air, “I think the President’s giving it away,” meaning, he just showed his hand during his remarks today.
UPDATE II: 1:37 PM ET –
Former Obama WH lawyer:
Trump’s statement that they want the citizenship question for use in redistricting is awkward given that the Solicitor General told the Supreme Court the exact opposite a few weeks ago — the SG specifically said that was not their motive. pic.twitter.com/yv7UZquyeQ
— Daniel Jacobson (@Dan_F_Jacobson) July 5, 2019
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
What Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony Means for Criminal Prosecution of Donald Trump: Report
Former White House senior aide Cassidy Hutchinson revealed some new information to the House Select Committee investigating the attack on Congress and the attempt to overthrow the election.
One question being asked by the New York Times, however, is whether the information she gave was enough to aid in a potential criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
Among the things she told the committee was that as Trump went onstage Jan. 6 to speak to the rally crowd he knew that there were people in the audience with weapons, including guns. Instead of trying to deescalate the crowd, she said that he wanted the supporters brought closer and allowed in even if they had weapons that wouldn’t normally make it through metal detectors.
“Legal experts said the testimony provided more evidence to support a possible criminal prosecution, as it suggested that Mr. Trump was aware of the potential for violence but went on to urge his supporters to head to the Capitol,” wrote the Times analysis.
Trump then called on the crowd to “fight like hell” and told them that he would lead them to the Capitol in a powerful march.
“And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down,” he said, repeating the phrase. “Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.”
The Times pointed that the Justice Department said that it doesn’t have an explicit investigation focusing on Trump. There is, however, evidence that the DOJ is moving swiftly on the fake electors’ scandal. Meanwhile, Trump legal adviser John Eastman was raided by federal agents, including FBI agents, who took his phone to turn it over to the Justice Department Inspector General. That is an indication that there’s an internal investigation happening over the role some lawyers like Jeffrey Clark played in the attempt to overthrow the election.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has captured many of those who came after Congress on Jan. 6 and interviews with them reveal that they’re placing the blame squarely on Donald Trump. Some said that Trump called them to Washington and to the Capitol for Jan. 6.
“Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony could place Mr. Trump into a conspiratorial relationship with members of the mob, lawyers said, suggesting that he pushed them into action even though he was aware that they presented an immediate threat,” wrote the Times.
Hugo Lowell, reporter for The Guardian, explained that Hutchinson’s comments “marked a new degree of apparent consciousness of guilt among Trump’s closest advisers – in addition to that of at least half a dozen Republican congressmen and the Trump lawyer John Eastman – or fear that they might have committed a crime.
He went on to explain that “in raising Giuliani’s interest in a pardon, Hutchinson also testified that Trump’s former attorney may have also been central to a crime with respect to his seeming knowledge of what the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups were planning for January 6.”
The idea that the White House knew about the involvement of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys “raised the spectre that the former president’s then-attorney [Giuliani] was broadly aware of the intentions of two far-right groups.” Many of the groups’ members have since been arrested and charged with seditious conspiracy.
Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe urged the DOJ to be forthcoming about its intentions to dodge the implications of politicization.
A word to the wise: I definitely don’t favor leaks from DOJ, but the sooner it becomes publicly clear that the criminal investigation has reached Trump, the harder it’ll be for him, by officially announcing his candidacy, to claim that his indictment would be a political act. ⏳
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) June 29, 2022
Founder and executive director of Protect Democracy Ian Bassin noted that the idea of attempting to intimidate witnesses is a potential criminal offense for Trump. If the people relaying the message to Hutchinson and the other witness are investigated for being part of that it’s unclear if they will implicate the president.
Rep. Cheney now sharing evidence of witness intimidation. New potential criminal charges against Trump and others. This is serious Mafia stuff.
— Ian Bassin 🇺🇦 (@ianbassin) June 28, 2022
Sol Wisenberg, a former deputy to special counsel Ken Starr, told the Times that it’s clear Trump has criminal culpability.
Did Trump commit a crime? “This is the smoking gun,” Sol Wisenberg, a former deputy to Ken Starr, tells me about today’s hearing. “There isn’t any question this establishes a prima facie case for his criminal culpability on seditious conspiracy charges.”
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) June 28, 2022
Secret Service Agent Called Protestors Tear-Gassed During Trump Bible Photo Op ‘Rioters’ and ‘Anarchists’: Report
A U.S. Secret Service agent referred to the tear-gassed peaceful protestors gathered in Lafayette Park across from the White House in June of 2020 as “rioters,” “anarchist[s],” and, apparently, “Anti American Thugs” as he or she wrote fondly of then-President Donald Trump.
The revelation comes via veteran journalist Andrew Beaujon, a senior editor at Washingtonian, who obtained a redacted email in response to his Freedom of Information Act request. Beaujon posted a screenshot of the email Wednesday, apparently in an effort to show Secret Service agents are not non-partisan. Two allegedly are pushing back against Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony from Tuesday, before the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. Through a source the agents who were close to Trump are reportedly claiming he did not grab the steering wheel or lunge at one of his Secret Service drivers.
Hutchinson testified she was told by an agent Trump “grabbed at the steering wheel” and lunged at the agent’s “clavicle.”
Beaujon tweeted: “About that Secret Service pushback: Here’s a redacted message from someone in the Uniformed Division, White House Branch, in response to my FOIA for Secret Service emails during the 2020 protests by the White House.”
“I have been out their [sic] on the front lines face to face with the rioters/anarchist[s],” the email reads. “Yesterday President Trump proudly walked across Lafayette Park going to the recently damaged St. John’s Church. Together with high ranking administration officials the President was photographed with Bible in hand in front of the Church. After the photo he marched backed to the White House symbolizing Anti American Thugs.”
While the wording is strange it seems clear the agent is a supporter of Donald Trump and opposed U.S. citizens exercising their First Amendment rights, just as they were being gassed.
One year after the incident, during which Trump was highly-criticized, an Inspector General’s report raised additional questions, as Vox reported in June of 2021.
One senior White House official at the time said the Trump White House was “celebrating” the tear-gassing of the protestors.
Legal Experts Urge Committee to Subpoena Ginni Thomas After She Backs Away From Testifying
Legal experts are encouraging the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack to subpoena far right-wing activist and lobbyist Ginni Thomas, now that she is backing out from appearing barely weeks after saying she “looks forward” and “can’t wait” to testify.
In an 8-page letter, her attorney says he needs “a better justification for why Mrs. Thomas’s testimony is relevant,” The Washington Post reports.
The Committee has been interested in speaking with her since at least last summer but had declined to invite or subpoena Thomas, the spouse of a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice. After evidence of email correspondence between her and the infamous “coup memo” author John Eastman, the Committee said they would like to talk with her. She quickly told the right-wing Daily Caller she “can’t wait to clear up misconceptions. I look forward to talking to them.”
Virginia Thomas, who goes by “Ginni,” is a longtime and powerful name in Washington who actively, according to reports, pushed dozens of state and federal officials to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Her attorney says he sees no reason for her to speak with the Committee.
“Mrs. Thomas has expressed a willingness to try to come before the Committee as a means of clearing her name,” Thomas’ attorney Mark Paoletta wrote in a letter, HuffPost adds. “But, based on my understanding of the facts … I do not believe there is currently a sufficient basis to speak with Mrs. Thomas.”
Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, now a law professor and MSNBC/NBC News legal analyst, is calling for Thomas to be subpoenaed.
“Thomas said she’d testify during the uproar,” Vance said via Twitter. “Now, she’s hoping to duck under the radar with so much other news. She should be subpoenaed like any other witness & if she fails to appear, treated like Bannon and Navarro, as she has no privilege to avoid testimony.”
Attorney, MSNBC anchor, and legal analyst Katie Phang tweeted, “SUBPOENA her. Now.”
Seth Abramson, an attorney and author said: “Only by issuing a subpoena to Ginni Thomas *now* does Congress have a chance of being able to work through her inevitable legal challenges and refer her to DOJ for a Criminal Contempt indictment *before* a possible handover of Congress to the insurrectionists in early 2023.”
Miranda Yaver, PhD, a political science professor who teaches courses on law at Wheaton also tweeted, “Subpoena Ginni Thomas.”
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM3 days ago
Clarence Thomas Rants Against SPLC’s ‘Hate Group’ Designation of Anti-LGBTQ Christian Church
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM2 days ago
‘We Are the Christian Taliban’: White Nationalist Declares Far Right’s Goal Is Turning US Into ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’
- RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM2 days ago
‘Lied’: Gorsuch Blasted After Photos Expose His Claims in High School Coach Praying Case Are a ‘Flat Out, Knowing Lie’
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM2 days ago
‘Ghoulish’ Greg Abbott Slammed as a ‘Monster’ for ‘Inhumane’ Response to Deaths of 50 People Locked in Tractor-Trailer
- News3 days ago
Rachel Maddow’s Replacement to Anchor MSNBC Primetime Show Announced
- News3 days ago
GOP Congressional Nominee Suggests Rape Rarely Leads to Pregnancy: ‘Maybe Because There’s So Much Going on in the Body’
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM18 hours ago
Teachers Told to Remove Rainbows, Photos of Same-Sex Spouses as DeSantis’ ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Law Goes Into Effect
- News1 day ago
‘Seditious Conspiracy’: Experts Say Hutchinson Testimony Is ‘Smoking Gun’ and ‘Strongest Legal Evidence Against Trump’