Connect with us

News

Speaker Nominee Mike Johnson Is a ‘Virulent Christian Nationalist’ and Anti-LGBTQ ‘MAGA Extremist’: Critics

Published

on

House Republicans on Tuesday voted to make U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson, a little-known, low-profile, 51-year old far-right U.S. Congressman from Louisiana their latest nominee to become Speaker. Wednesday morning, he won Donald Trump’s support, making his ascension to become the third most-powerful elected official in the U.S. government extremely likely.

“The latest Republican Speaker nominee is MAGA extremist Mike Johnson,” warns U.S. Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL). She calls him an “architect of Trump’s plot to overturn the election,” who “Authored a bill criminalizing abortion nationwide,” and “Supports slashing Social Security and Medicare.”

“This is who they want to run the House?” asks Frankel, who serves as the chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus.

But for Trump’s far-right MAGA crowd, the answer appears to be “yes.” Johnson checks all the boxes. An evangelical Christian, he indeed not only opposes same-sex marriage and abortion, he has actively worked in both his private and public life to end those civil rights. Early in his career, Johnson worked to make divorce more difficult. Last year he voted against legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriages. And he opposes U.S. support for Ukraine to defend itself against Vladimir Putin’s illegal war, earning him an “F” from Republicans for Ukraine.

READ MORE: ‘I Failed to Do My Due Diligence’: Tearful Jenna Ellis Admits Guilt as ‘a Christian’

Last year on May 14, Johnson defended his vote against aid to Ukraine by saying, ‘We should not be sending another $40 billion abroad when our own border is in chaos, American mothers are struggling to find baby formula, gas prices are at record highs, and American families are struggling to make ends meet, without sufficient oversight over where the money will go.”

Days later he voted against the Democrats’ bill to address the nationwide shortage of baby formula.

And just one month later, after voting against helping desperate families get access to baby formula, Johnson praised the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the right to abortion, calling it a “joyous day.”

“Many of us have been working for this day our entire adult lives,” he added.

Legal experts who work in the areas of constitutional and First Amendment law are voicing great concern.

“Mike Johnson is a virulent Christian Nationalist who pushed all kinds of hateful anti-LGBTQ bigotry while at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian Nationalist legal outfit that wants to drag this country back to the 5th century,” warns Andrew L. Seidel, a constitutional attorney who serves Vice President of Strategic Communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He is the author of “The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American.”

Recently, Congressman Johnson “opposed the continuing resolution that wound up costing [Speaker Kevin] McCarthy his job, though he voted to retain McCarthy as speaker,” his home state newspaper, The Times-Picayune reports. The Louisiana paper describes Johnson as “among the most right-wing candidates for speaker who sought the nomination,” “an evangelical Christian conservative who is close to the Louisiana Family Forum, the influential religious conservative group in Baton Rouge,” and adds that prior “to politics, Johnson represented churches, pastors and congregants whose vision of religious freedom conflicted with government regulations.”

Johnson’s close ties to the far Christian right also has many legal experts and activists extremely concerned.

Before coming to Congress, as Seidel noted, Johnson served as Senior Legal Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom. The ADF is designated as an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The SPLC says, “the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; and claims that a ‘homosexual agenda’ will destroy Christianity and society. ADF also works to develop ‘religious liberty’ legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBTQ people on the basis of religion. Since the election of President Trump, ADF has become one of the most influential groups informing the administration’s attack on LGBTQ rights.”

READ MORE: Trump Goes All in on Xenophobic Christian Nationalism in New Hampshire

The ADF is not the only anti-LGBTQ hate group Johnson has ties to.

Earlier this year Johnson stood next to one of the most extreme anti-LGBTQ Christian right activists, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council – also an SPLC-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group.

And last year Johnson received an award from Ralph Reed’s far Christian right Faith and Freedom Coalition.

But most importantly to Trump and his MAGA base, on January 6, 2021, Johnson voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election that Trump lost. He also signed onto an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the results of the election in four critical states.

“Johnson was deeply involved in efforts to keep Trump in power starting immediately after 2020 election,” writes Robert Costa, CBS News’ Chief Election and Campaign Correspondent. Costa is the co-author, with Bob Woodward, of “Peril,” which focuses on the period from the second Trump campaign to the early days of the Biden White House.

“I know because I spent months reporting on that period and he was part of letters and behind-scenes efforts with key outside groups.” Costa adds, “I’ve talked with key sources from that time about how Johnson — then all but unknown — worked with allied Trump groups and conservative leaders in a coordinated way to make sure that whole orbit was working together to help Trump.”

Not only did Rep. Johnson work behind the scenes and vote against certifying the election, he hand-delivered a reason – one legal experts tore down – that Republicans could use to oppose certification of the election on January 6.

“In the days leading up to January 6, 2021, many House Republicans were groping for a way to back Trump without supporting his bogus claims of election fraud,” Washington Monthly reported last year, adding that “a low-profile Louisiana Republican, Representative Mike Johnson, provided them with a solution: insist that the expansion of vote by mail in key states had not been approved by their legislatures and was therefore unconstitutional. Legal experts, including the House GOP leadership’s own lawyer, determined that Johnson’s argument was spurious. Yet about three-quarters of the 139 House Republicans who voted against certifying the election relied on his claim.”

READ MORE: Texas Judge Fighting for ‘Right’ to Not Marry Gay Couples Cites ‘The Scriptures’

Former U.S. Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA) on Wednesday issued a warning on Johnson, pointing to this video from Tuesday night, and calling Johnson’s “support to overturn the 2020 election … both disqualifying and wrong.”

But even earlier than the 2020 attempts to overturn the election, Congressman Johnson was a strong Trump ally, not just in word but in deed. A constitutional attorney, Johnson served on both teams defending Trump against both his first and second impeachment, leading to his rise among House GOP leadership. Johnson now serves the Vice Chair of the Republican conference.

“So imagine that Mike Johnson becomes House Speaker,” Historian Michael Beschloss asks, “Trump loses the 2024 Presidential election and he claims he won, there’s an insurrection and then there are demands to certify Trump’s ‘victory’ anyway. What would Mike Johnson do?”

See the social media videos and posts above or at this link.

 

 

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

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.

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

19 hours ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

1 day ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

2 days ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.