Connect with us

News

‘No Labels Is a Lethal Scam’ Warns Top Constitutional Law Attorney

Published

on

One of the nation’s top constitutional law attorneys, the well-known University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, Laurence Tribe, blasted the dark money group No Labels on Monday, calling it a “lethal scam.”

No Labels, which insists it is not a political party while attempting to get a potential candidate on the 2024 presidential ballot, reportedly is now “openly floating” a plot to throw the November election into the U.S. House of Representatives, which would mostly likely hand the White House back to Donald Trump.

“Yet as it works to gain ballot access, it has to ask voters in some states to identify themselves as members of the No Label party,” The Wall Street Journal reported in November, noting that since it technically is not a political party it does not legally have to identify its donors.

Last week, Esquire‘s Charles P. Pierce took a look at No Labels, concluding it “claims to be born from the horrible divisiveness of our current politics. In reality, it is a fully begotten child of Citizens United. Mother Jones ran through the roster of the people funding No Labels and found that it is thickly infested with bet-hedging plutocrats.”

The New Republic earlier this month observed, “far from coming together to defeat a fascist threat, as one might expect, the Democratic Party is splintering into factionalism. This begins with the centrists behind the No Labels movement. Just before Christmas, they did something absolutely gobsmacking, which got very little attention because of the timing. In a December 21 briefing for reporters, No Labels officials floated the possibility of forming a ‘coalition government’ with one of the major parties in the event that no candidate for president receives 270 electoral votes.”

RELATED: ‘Biggest Threat to Our Survival’: Experts Blast No Labels and Third Party Candidates as Manchin Tests the Waters

“Put that way, it sounds relatively benign,” TNR editor Michael Tomasky explained. “It is, however, anything but. No Labels chief strategist Ryan Clancy explicitly mentioned, according to NBC News’s account, the possibility that the election could be tossed to the House of Representatives, where deals could be cut to determine a winner. This has happened before, in 1824 (also in 1800, but 1824 is the relevant case). Those who know their history will recall that this exercise in horse-trading, in which Henry Clay threw his support to John Quincy Adams and became his secretary of state, has gone down in political lore by the name the ‘corrupt bargain.’ And No Labels is bragging about emulating it!”

Highly-popular Boston College professor of history Heather Cox Richardson on Saturday served up more insight into the House of Representatives gambit.

“I am exceedingly concerned about the Twelfth Amendment,” she wrote. “John Eastman suggested using it in 2020, and it could be central to stealing the 2024 election by throwing the vote to the House, where each state has a single vote. South Dakota would have as much power as California.”

There’s been talk that both U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN) have been considering presidential runs on a No Labels ticket. Congressman Phillips has been running in the Democratic primary but has not gained much traction.

Phillips is polling at just over 3% among Democrats, a little more than half of where Marianne Williamson is, according to FiveThirtyEight.

READ MORE: ‘Jailing and Killing Americans’: Expert Issues Warning on Trump’s Latest Claim

Meanwhile, noting the Minnesota Democratic congressman’s “long-shot” primary bid against President Biden, The New York Times reported, “if it appeared the general election would be a rematch between Mr. Biden and Donald J. Trump,” Phillips said “he would consider running on the ticket of No Labels.”

“It would have to be a Joe Biden-Donald Trump rematch that shows Joe Biden is almost certain to lose,” Phillips told The Times. “That is the only condition in which I would even entertain a conversation with any alternative.”

Pointing to Manchin and Phillips, political commentator Lindy Li alleged, “No Labels is a pro-Trump PAC designed to fracture Democrats.”

“It’s funded by GOP billionaires like Clarence Thomas’s sugar daddy, Harlan Crow,” she added, warning: “Stay the hell away from this scam to get Trump back in power.”

Professor Tribe responded to Li’s remarks, writing: “No Labels is a lethal scam. It could end democracy if it tosses the 2024 presidential election into the House, where each state has exactly one vote.”

READ MORE: E. Jean Carroll Trial Postponed Over Illness After Trump’s Courthouse Arrival

The Atlantic’s Norman Ornstein, an Emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), responded to Richardson’s warning with one of his own: “Because of the red tint of so many small rural states, Republicans usually have more state delegations than Democrats, even if they lose the majority. This is a path to a Trump presidency engineered by the vile No Labels.”

Tribe weighed in on Ornstein’s warning by adding, “Even if ‘No Labels’ fails to carry any state, it might shift a close state into Trump’s column or win a single district in Maine or Nebraska, the two states that don’t use a winner-takes-all system, and thus toss the whole election into the House, where Trump would have the edge.”

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
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

Historian Warns Trump’s Military May Be Committing War Crimes

Published

on

Historian and professor of strategic studies Phillips P. O’Brien is warning that President Donald Trump’s military may be committing war crimes, and doing so seems to be “official” U.S. policy.

“The USA seems to have deliberately and with foresight, committed a war crime as an act of policy,” O’Brien writes at his Substack newsletter. “If this is right, and all evidence seems to say it is, committing acts of terror is now an acceptable method of war in the judgement of the US government and, by extension, the American people.”

O’Brien points to the U.S. military’s strike on “two reservoirs and a water treatment facility in southern Iran,” cutting off water to 20,000 civilians in what OBrien says is 115-degree heat, similar to America’s Death Valley.

He explains that it likely was a deliberate attack because there are no military installations in the area, “and the destruction was precise.”

It is “hard to see this as a mistake,” he writes. “The target was too specialized, too localized and the effect seems calibrated.”

Asking, “Is It A War Crime?” O’Brien answers, “Without a doubt.”

The U.S. “has attacked, seemingly deliberately, a facility vital to the maintenance of human life that has no discernible military utility. So yes, it is a war crime.”

Making the act even more “perverse,” writes O’Brien, is that “this war crime was deliberately committed because Donald Trump is getting frustrated that the Iranian government is not doing what he wants them to do and that the Iranian military attacked a legitimate military target, a US Apache helicopter that was enforcing a blockade (an act of war remember) against Iran.”

O’Brien calls it “typical, Trump,/organized crime style behavior.”

Trump “attacks a small civilian facility as a threat and warning to Iran that he might go on and commit even greater war crimes if they do not do what he wants.”

Later, “while speaking to Fox News reporters, Trump went ahead and said he might start mass attacks on Iran’s bridges and electricity power generation.”

“He also tweeted out that if Iran did not do what he wants it to do, that it would have to “pay the price” of their defiance,” says O’Brien.

He concludes that a “historic war crime” was committed “because the President of the USA can think of nothing better to do.”

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Steve Schmidt: Shame Has Disappeared From Trump’s America — and That’s the Real Danger

Published

on

Political strategist Steve Schmidt warns that in Donald Trump’s America, shame — “one of freedom’s guardians” — has vanished. Humiliation now reads as a “badge of honor.” Conscience has curdled into “inconvenience.” Schmidt argues the result is institutional erosion and real danger to society.

“There was a time in America when public disgrace meant something,” says Schmidt at The Warning. “A man caught lying to the public would resign. A politician caught in corruption would retreat from public life. A leader who dishonored his office would feel the sting of judgment from neighbors, colleagues, family members and strangers.”

Under Trump, the America where people “understood that character mattered” and that “a good name took a lifetime to build and a moment to lose” is gone, because what is essential, shame, has “disappeared.”

Schmidt says the disappearance of shame may be “the most consequential political development of the last quarter century.”

Shame, he explains, was a “warning light.” It was “society’s way of enforcing standards when laws couldn’t,” and it “reminded people where the boundaries were.”

Schmidt points directly to Trump’s actions.

“Donald Trump was found liable for sexual abuse. He attempted to overturn an election. He incited a mob against the United States Congress. He has told thousands upon thousands of documented lies,” he writes. “None of it brought shame. None of it produced reflection. None of it inspired remorse.”

Scandals have now become fundraising appeals, disgrace has become “grievance.”

“The lesson was clear: the shameless man held power over the ashamed man because he no longer recognized limits.”

Schmidt points the finger at technology, and specifically, social media.

Public life has become “performance.”

“Attention became more valuable than respect,” Schmidt observes. “Fame became more valuable than honor. The ability to provoke became more valuable than the ability to inspire.”

He explains that in Trump’s America, someone can simultaneously be “condemned” by millions and “celebrated” by millions more.

“The result is a culture where shamelessness is often mistaken for strength,” he says, and warns about not just corruption, but “indifference” to it.

“The danger is the normalization of conduct that once would have shocked the conscience,” he explains.

Schmidt says that this may not be permanent. Societies and cultures can rebuild and recover — but that has to begin with honesty.

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Johnson Scrambles to Defend Trump’s ‘I Love the Inflation’ Remark — Critics Don’t Buy It

Published

on

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was quick to defend President Donald Trump’s widely reported remarks following Wednesday’s sharp spike in inflation, which is now at a three-year high.

“I knew somebody was going to ask me that,” Johnson told CNN’s Manu Raju. “It was totally out of context, you know what he was talking about.”

When pressed whether Trump’s remarks were what voters want to hear right now, Johnson insisted that the president “is laser-focused on the domestic economic situation.”

“He is working to bring down prices, he is going to get the Strait of Hormuz reopened,” Johnson insisted. “We have passed legislation, he has used executive orders to get the cost of living down. Everybody got their highest tax refunds they’ve had in their whole lives, they’re getting great paychecks, there’s all sorts of great economic indicators, but there’s still challenges — gas prices among them.”

“So, what he was saying is, it’s going to be great having that number and compare it to what comes next when we get these situations resolved — that’ll be a fun thing to consider and compare — that was the context,” said the Speaker.

Speaking about the inflation report, as CNBC reported, Trump had told reporters: “No, I love it, the numbers were great.”

“You know what I really love? I love the inflation. You know why?”

“Because as soon as this war is over, you know I can say it now … you know we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil.”

“Nobody knows it. You know who doesn’t know about it? Iran, until right now,” Trump said.

CNBC noted that Trump, “speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, also predicted that inflation is ‘going to come down like a rock’ after the United States’ war against Iran is over.”

Critics blasted Speaker Johnson.

“Trump meant what he said and if people are taking things outta context maybe trump should speak English,” said one social media user.

Another called Johnson a “Trump apologist.”

A third remarked, “Aaaand, right on cue, here’s Mike Johnson, denying Trump said and meant what we all heard him say.”

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.