Tuesday, February 08, 2022

The Tragic Story of Mike Lindell’s Quack COVID ‘Cure’

Roger Sollenberger, William Bredderman
Sun, February 6, 2022

Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast

LONG READ

It’s an all-too-familiar story at this point: A person pushing an unproven COVID-19 cure—and pushing back against the vaccines—pays the ultimate price for their skepticism.

But this time, there’s a new wrinkle. It’s not just one person dabbling in COVID quackery with tragic results; it’s actually a mysterious dark money organization, with ties to influential MAGA figures like Steve Bannon and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.

This story, which unfolded nearly 18 months ago, would have likely gone untold if it weren’t for one person: Kenneth Happel.

Happel claims to have partnered with the group, Propter Strategies, in its secretive work. But eventually, he became another victim of it.

MyPillow CEO Claims His Phone Records Were Subpoenaed by Jan. 6 Committee

To this day, Propter Strategies is a black hole, despite its high-profile connections and multimillion-dollar budget. Aside from Happel’s account, there is no evidence of Propter’s activities anywhere in the public record. And that might be with good reason: Those activities included hawking the snake-oil COVID treatment oleandrin at the highest levels of the government, as the pandemic’s lethal second wave peaked across the country.

Happel, as it turns out, currently lies in a Las Vegas hospital bed fending off his second COVID infection. Less than two weeks ago, the disease took his wife’s life.

But in a phone interview from his hospital bed, Happel, 72, remained unrepentant and defiant about the numerous baseless theories that quite likely landed him back in the hospital, and killed the wife he loved dearly.

Happel still places hope in the pseudoscience that he, Propter Strategies, and Lindell had pushed so hard—a proprietary compound derived from oleander extract, which the pillow tycoon and at least one Propter official had invested in.

None of Propter’s board members replied to The Daily Beast’s multiple requests for comment for this article. Happel himself was hard to find.

That’s because, aside from incorporation and tax documents, Propter is essentially invisible.

The group registered as a nonprofit with the state of Texas in June 2020, when the virus had spread across the country and Lindell’s ad hoc mask-making enterprise had collapsed under the weight of his own ideology. And though the pillow mogul does not appear on Propter’s board, the group’s officials are well connected in their own right, from the Trump White House to the Supreme Court.

Mike Lindell Blames a Vast GOP Conspiracy for His Supreme Court Failure

And so, Propter soon found itself flush with $5 million, according to public tax filings. But that was a dead end, too. The funds had been delivered anonymously via Donors Trust, earmarked for ventures with code names out of a straight-to-video thriller, like the “Internal Security Project” and the “Delta Project.”

Two sources close to Propter officials told The Daily Beast that they believed the organization had ties to Bannon. The erstwhile Trump whisperer hosts his War Room podcast on the same platform as Propter co-founder Frank Gaffney, another anti-China zealot. And they both teamed up at Bannon’s anti-China forum with another Propter official—senior fellow and former president at the hyperconservative Claremont Institute Brian Kennedy.

Bannon, of course, was also an oleandrin enthusiast.

There’s apparently only one other piece of information about Propter on the internet: a copyright mark at the bottom of a zero-budget website.

Registration data on that site—“needsp.us”—shows its owner is Happel. In the hospital bed interview, Happel confirmed that the Propter Strategies cited on his page was in fact the same group linked to those leading MAGA figures.

Trump Pushes Fake COVID Cure From Fringe Doctors, Banned by Facebook

Happel told The Daily Beast that he’d included the copyright notice because of a video hosted on the site. While the video is no longer accessible, Happel claimed he had put it together in conjunction with Propter Strategies, which owned the copyright.

The clip, as Happel described it, touted the entirely unsubstantiated benefits of oleandrin in treating COVID, and slammed its detractors in mainstream media and medicine.

Happel—a former Tea Party activist with an entrepreneurial history that intersects with biotechnology—recounted working on oleandrin in 2020 with Propter board member Andrew Whitney. A serial entrepreneur and former Bain Capital investor, Whitney was actually pulling oleandrin double-duty—he was on the board at the nonprofit Propter, as well as at Texas-based Phoenix Biotechnologies, whose research centered on the product.

Happel also acknowledged the connection to Lindell, who, it turns out, also holds a financial stake in Phoenix Biotechnologies.

And so, smack in the middle of that deadly second-wave summer, Whitney and Lindell paired up for a MAGA media parade, stumping for oleandrin as a neglected medical miracle on fringe conservative platforms from Newsmax to Diamond and Silk’s show on YouTube.

Then, according to multiple outlets, the two businessmen struck gold. They landed an Oval Office meeting with Trump, thanks to Lindell’s relationship with the since-vanquished commander-in-chief. Also in attendance at that meeting was then-Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, who went so far as to use oleandrin to treat his own COVID-19 that fall. (Carson claimed it cured him, despite its lack of official approvals or clinical evidence of efficacy against coronavirus infections in humans.)

Trump, under pressure from a resurgent second wave, was a fat target. His first politicized sham medical obsession, hydroxychloroquine, had lost its luster. Open to anything but masks, Trump warmed to Whitney’s Oval Office pitch, and subsequently expressed interest in the treatment, one of several quack products he advocated but curiously did not use himself when he fell ill with the disease.

Ivermectin Fans Are Back With Even Weirder Drugs for Your COVID

While Whitney and Lindell pushed oleandrin—and specifically, Phoenix Biotechnology’s products—on the president, another Propter official was boosting the treatment on a parallel track.

In multiple video and written screeds in August 2020, the official, noted Islamophobic activist Frank Gaffney, excoriated supposed “Deep State” actors for engaging in “perfidious bureaucratic sandbagging” of oleandrin.

In one article, Gaffney—a former adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a Bannon ally, and an influential confidant of Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas—also name-dropped Phoenix, when discussing the commercial treatment Serrativir. In another piece he quoted Whitney, who had complained to him of “cure-canceling.”

At some point, things went sideways. Phoenix has since wiped Whitney from its website, and he could not be reached for comment. In a phone call, a Phoenix representative distanced the firm from Whitney, but declined to comment further.

In a phone interview, Lindell said, “I don’t know Andrew Whitney.” After The Daily Beast reminded him of a lengthy Axios report about their White House trip, as well as a number of joint media appearances, Lindell said, “I know Andrew Whitney.”

Lindell then spoke at length about Whitney, Phoenix, and its oleander “therapeutic that worked.” Propter, however, did not seem to ring any bells, though Lindell admitted he was vaguely aware of Gaffney’s evangelism.

The pillow king confirmed he still has a financial stake in Phoenix, and is still on the board. As for Whitney, “He got—ka-boom—gone.” Lindell did not elaborate.

Propter, too, went “ka-boom.” The company’s officials dissolved it shortly after The Daily Beast revealed its existence last November.

Happel, from his hospital bed, stood by the work.

“One of the saddest things,” he said, was how discussions about products like oleandrin had become a “political football” during the pandemic.

Fake Utah Doc Peddled ‘Ingestible Silver’ as a Bogus COVID Cure: Feds

“I sincerely believe that [Phoenix and Whitney] thought they had made a discovery and wanted to do a test to find out if it was true—nothing more, nothing less,” Happel said. “The test never happened, and so we have no idea about the truth.”

“I understand less as I get older and older. We have forgotten how to listen,” he added.

Happel did not answer whether he or his wife had tried oleandrin.

Happel did claim that hydroxychloroquine “may have saved” his life during his first serious COVID infection last year.

But this second bout was worse, he said, and “the comorbidity isn’t helping”—a reference to a “severe lung condition” that had landed him and his wife in the hospital “a number of times.”

His wife, Happel said, had a “very, very damaged immune system,” but, like him, had not taken the vaccine.

Lindell said he did not recall Happel, and the two may never have directly collaborated, though Lindell also erroneously and repeatedly pegged the summer of 2020 as “three years ago.”

Informed of Happel’s dire state, and the recent COVID death of his wife, Lindell—a born-again Christian—did not appear affected.

“Yeah, well, you say that and I know a thousand people that’ve died with the vaccine,” Lindell claimed.

Mike Lindell Throws a Fit and Pulls His Ads From Right-Wing Christian Salem Radio Network

According to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, an effectively open-source database that does not verify all data, as of Jan. 31, after 539 million doses had been administered doses in the United States, there had been 11,879 reports of subsequent death. That figure almost certainly vastly overstates the number of deaths tied in any way to the vaccine, as VAERS counts deaths that occurred soon after taking shots, without examining any sort of causal relationship or taking into account other comorbidities.

Meanwhile, there have recently been about 2,500 deaths a day in the United States from coronavirus—with the vast majority of those deaths occurring among the unvaccinated.

But still, people like Happel and Lindell have chosen to put their faith into unproven treatments like oleandrin.

“I take it every day,” Lindell said of oleandrin. In fact, he said, he bought a stockpile of the stuff for his friends, family, and employees—anyone who needs it.

“I put money in to save this country,” he said.

Conservative National Review Calls GOP 'Morally Repellent' For Latest Jan. 6 Response

The conservative National Review magazine on Saturday savaged its usual ally the Republican National Committee as “morally repellent” and “politically self-destructive” for how it recently addressed last year’s violent attack on the Capitol by Donald Trump supporters.

The magazine slashed the RNC for censuring Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) on Friday for daring to serve on the House select committee probing the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Particularly startling, in censuring the lawmakers, the RNC described the attack on the Capitol as “legitimate political discourse.” Some 140 police officers were injured when the mob stormed the Capitol that day and more than 740 people have been arrested in conjunction with the riot.

“The action of the mob on January 6 was an indefensible disgrace,” the Review flatly declared in its editorial. “It is deserving of both political accountability and criminal prosecution. Aspects of it are also fit subjects for a properly conducted congressional inquiry. It is wrong to minimize or excuse what happened that day.”

The RNC’s massive misstep in labeling the Capitol action “legitimate political discourse” is “political malpractice of the highest order coming from people whose entire job is politics,” the Review noted.

It will be “used against hundreds of elected Republicans who were not consulted” in the drafting of the wording and “do not endorse its sentiment,” the magazine added.

“The RNC bought the entire party a bounty of bad headlines and easy attack ads,” the Review concluded. “It did so for no good purpose, and its action will only encourage those who see riots as legitimate political discourse. A mistake, and worse, a shame.”

Check out the full editorial.

The Republican Party doesn't get to have Jan. 6 both ways
Joel Mathis, Contributing Writer
Mon, February 7, 2022

January 6. Illustrated | Getty Images, iStock


Republicans want to have Jan. 6 both ways.
On the one hand, they would have Americans believe the insurrection was just an expression of "legitimate political discourse," the language the Republican National Committee used on Friday to censure Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) for participating in the investigation of that day's events. The RNC was echoing the stance held by former President Donald Trump, who had suggested he might someday pardon the rioters, if only he somehow returns to the Oval Office. "If I run and if I win, we will treat those people from Jan. 6 fairly," he said at a rally last month.


On the other hand, there are a few GOPers who seem eager to cast blame for the insurrection … on Democrats. Axios reports that the Republican "shadow committee" looking at Jan. 6 wants to pin blame for the day on "negligence at the highest levels" for failing to properly secure the Capitol. (Again, this is echoing Trump. "If Nancy Pelosi does her job on security, there is no 'Jan. 6,'" he said last week.) And Politico reports that some of the Trumpiest Republicans — folks like Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) — are eager for the party to aim the Jan. 6 committee at Democrats and "deep state" accomplices in the Justice Department, assuming the GOP wins a House majority in this year's midterm elections.

Taken as a whole, the GOP outlook seems to be this: Jan. 6 is no big deal and also Democrats must be punished for allowing it to happen.

This is what actually happened that day, and this is who did it:

It's probably unreasonable to expect a coherent take on the insurrection from a party that takes its cues from perhaps the most incoherent president of modern times. And as I've previously pointed out, the GOP approach to Jan. 6 — aside from simply absolving all the bad actors of responsibility — mostly amounts to an ugly bit of victim-blaming. Everybody is responsible for the violence of the insurrection except the man who incited it, and the people who were incited.

Perhaps throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks is intended to mask the Trumpist GOP's embrace of political violence. But nobody's fooled. We ought to have some more legitimate discourse about that.


STFU
GOP frustration mounts as Trump focuses on Jan. 6

Tue, February 8, 2022


Republicans are growing increasingly frustrated by former President Trump's renewed focus on the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill, worried that it could throw a wrench into their midterm plans as they seek to retake Congress.

Barely over a month ago, Trump was talking up his administration's success with the coronavirus vaccines. But in recent weeks he tacked back to focusing on the 2020 election and the insurrection, claiming former Vice President Mike Pence could have "overturned" the election and floating pardons for the rioters.


That red-meat rhetoric is expected to play well with Trump's hardcore base, but Republicans say it's not effective for winning over the swing voters the party needs this November at a time when President Biden's low approval ratings are blowing wind in the GOP's sails.

"It doesn't make sense to me in the current political climate. While almost every Republican on the ballot wants to be talking about the present and the future, inflation, the economy, schools and parents, he seems focused on talking about the past," said GOP strategist David Kochel. "It just really gets in the way of what's working right now for Republicans."

Republicans for more than a year have grimaced over Trump's rhetoric surrounding the Capitol riot, which unsuccessfully sought to overturn President Biden's 2020 victory. But Trump has doubled down in recent weeks on his bombast.

Trump recently said that Pence could have unilaterally "overturned" the Electoral College results when Congress met to certify them last year, suggested imprisoned rioters are being treated "so unfairly" and called for protests against prosecutors investigating his efforts to overturn the election.

Recent reports added fuel to the fire, saying Trump was involved in proposals to seize election machines and submit fake electors to Congress.

Some Republicans have pushed back, mainly by defending Pence, but Trump in turn has swatted back hard, including calling longtime ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) a "Republican in name only."

Even those supportive of Trump have expressed frustration with the former president's bluster.

"I always think that President Trump should be talking about the unprecedented accomplishments from a policy perspective that he and his administration had over the four years he was in office," said one former Trump administration official. "I don't believe that it's helpful to spend time relitigating the 2020 election."

Trump earned rare plaudits from GOP critics, the media and even some Democrats about a month ago when he focused on touting the coronavirus vaccines. He drew national headlines from a contentious interview with conservative provocateur Candace Owens, in which he maintained that "the vaccines work" and the people who "get very sick and go to the hospital" are unvaccinated.

That message, Republicans say, could be potent given that the shots were developed during Trump's tenure.

"I think it's a good thing when he does talk about it," said the former administration official. "He also talks about it in a way that I think resonates with the American people, that this was a modern health care miracle."

However, that rhetoric largely fell away as he ramped up talk of last year's riot. Observers chalk the pivot up to a president who has historically struggled to stay on message. They also say he's sensitive to the escalated activity from the special House panel investigating the insurrection and criticism from his base, which includes high-profile anti-vaccine voices.

"The president has always been one to speak what's on his mind at the time or what's going on in any given news cycle. He's never been one to necessarily develop the script, stick to the script, stay on the script," said one former Trump campaign official.

Now, that erratic rhetoric comes as Republicans are buoyant about the prospect of flipping both chambers of Congress this year and resistant to anything that could knock candidates off message on issues like inflation, mask and vaccine mandates, and foreign policy.

"Anytime that President Trump lingers out there, he has a voice that when he says something, everybody's going to be forced to respond to it because the media is going to run to GOP politicians and get their reactions," said one Trump ally. "They've got to figure out how to pivot and maneuver through that."

But Trump is still the leader of the party, and while Republicans remain the heavy favorites to win at least the House this year, having the biggest voice in the GOP shine a spotlight away from the Biden administration's struggles has fueled worries about how many seats Republicans will win.

"Trump is a problem for the midterms," one GOP strategist said, adding that "he could be the difference between 40 and 20" seats gained in the House.

Beyond 2022, operatives say focusing on the insurrection could also harm Trump if he runs for president again in 2024.

Trump won more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016, but growing deficits with Biden in the suburbs ultimately sunk his bid.

Biden improved on Hillary Clinton's 2016 performance in suburban counties by about 5 percent - an expansion that was attributed in part to voters there rebuffing Trump's character and crucial to winning states like Arizona, Georgia and Michigan.

Expanding beyond his die-hard base will therefore be essential should he run again, yet speaking about the insurrection may not be the way to win over suburban defectors, Republicans warn.

"He needs to expand again," said the former administration official, noting Trump already expanded his vote total from 2016 to 2020. "Is Jan. 6 or the 2020 election the message to do that? I don't think that it is."

Hugh Hewitt: I Don’t Talk About Jan. 6 Because My Listeners Would ‘Turn Me Off’

Zachary Petrizzo
Mon, February 7, 2022



Longtime conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Monday said the quiet part out loud, admitting he isn’t too eager to talk about the Jan. 6 Capitol riots on-air because he fears losing his own listeners.

The admission came Monday morning during Hewitt’s Salem Radio Network program while interviewing former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a one-time Trump pal who in recent months has turned into something of a MAGA critic.

“I never talk about January 6th because I like my audience,” the radio host declared. “I don’t want them to turn me off. And they’re bored. They do not like it,” he said, adding that because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected several Republican appointees to the congressional committee investigating the day’s events, “It is illegitimate.”

“Do you think the blue bubble knows how absolutely uninterested America is in the January 6th select committee, which is actually a rump parliament gone wild?” Hewitt dismissively added.



The comments came in response to Christie—an outspoken critic of Trump’s election lies and his handling of the Jan. 6 events—declaring “enough already” regarding the congressional probe of the Capitol riots. “We all watched January 6th. We all know what happened,” the ex-governor asserted. “And I think that, but for legacy media, what they want to do is continue to push that and push it and push it, because they know that that’s harmful to Republicans.”

Just the day prior, however, Christie took aim at Donald Trump on national television over the ex-president’s role in encouraging and then failing to speak out against the violent MAGA mob as it unfolded.

“Let’s call this what it is: January 6 was a riot that was incited by Donald Trump in an effort to intimidate Mike Pence and the Congress into doing exactly what he said in his own words last week: overturn the election,” he told ABC’s Martha Raddatz on This Week.

Christie added that the former president’s recent statements attacking Pence, his former veep, for publicly noting that “Trump is wrong… I had no right to overturn the election,” were in effect telling “the truth by accident… he wanted the election to be overturned.”

Asked by Hewitt on Monday if he received a similarly angry Trump phone call following his Sunday morning cable hit, Christie responded that he hadn’t.



ROFLMAO

Donald Trump Blames Nancy Pelosi        For Jan. 6 Attack On Capitol

Donald Trump put out a statement Monday blaming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that was carried out by his own supporters.

“There would have been no January 6, as we know it, if Nancy Pelosi heeded my recommendation to bring 10,000 Soldiers, or the National Guard, into the Capitol,” the former president said. “End the Unselect Committee January 6th Witch Hunt right now. Pelosi and the Dems are responsible!”

“This has been fact-checked literally to death as completely made up,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told HuffPost. “It never happened.”

As a refresher, thousands of Trump supporters marched to the Capitol, at the encouragement of Trump, to try to stop Congress and Vice President Mike Pence from certifying the 2020 election for Joe Biden. They had just come from a rally with Trump, and they were acting on the big lie of Trump that the presidential election was rife with fraud and stolen for Biden.

Trump resisted pleas from his inner circle to help stop the riot once it started. He was reportedly enjoying the footage and did not want to tweet a message urging his supporters to stop and remain peaceful. He was also less concerned about the attack than he was about getting the election results overturned in a call with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

Trump ended the day with a tweet that repeated his big lie about the election and sympathized with “great patriots.”

“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!” he tweeted that day.

Meanwhile, Capitol Police evacuated Pelosi on the day of the riot because her life was at risk. Federal officials arrested a man who broke into her office, rifled through papers and took pictures of himself with his feet on a desk.

Republicans have long tried to blame Pelosi for the pro-Trump Capitol riot, centered on inaccurate claims that she was personally responsible for the failure in security on Jan. 6.

But Pelosi is not in charge of the Capitol Police and does not control security for the building. And any responsibility she has for the Capitol is shared by the Senate majority leader. At the time of the attack, that was Republican Mitch McConnell, and Republicans have made no attempt to blame him at all. Pelosi also has no authority to call up the National Guard.

Pelosi pushed for the creation of a bipartisan commission to study the Jan. 6 attack, including the security failures of that day. Republican leaders, however, blocked it, and they have continued to oppose the separate one that Pelosi established instead.

On Friday, the Republican National Committee voted to declare the Capitol attack, and the events leading up to it, “legitimate political discourse.”

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

Related...

What is 'legitimate political discourse,' and does it include the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol?


Jennifer Mercieca, Professor of Communication, Texas A&M University 
Timothy J. Shaffer, Associate professor, Kansas State University
Tue, February 8, 2022,

When persuasion stops and violence begins, that's the line between 'legitimate political discourse' and something very different, scholars explain. AP Photo/John Minchillo

When the governing body of the Republican Party called the events of Jan. 6, 2021, “legitimate public discourse,” it renewed a sometimes-furious debate about what are, and aren’t, acceptable forms of discussion and debate in a democratic society.

This question has emerged frequently in recent years, with complaints about inappropriate methods of protest, efforts to take particular viewpoints off social media, and accusations that various people are disseminating misleading information. But the issue took on new urgency on Feb. 4, 2022, when the Republican National Committee censured U.S. Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois.

They are the only Republicans serving on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. The governing body of the Republican Party said this meant they were “participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”

As researchers who study the relationship between communication and democracy, we believe our insights can help citizens draw the line between “legitimate political discourse” and illegitimate political violence.

There are legal standards defining protected speech, but something that meets the legal definitions may not necessarily help build and maintain democracy. Scholarly definitions of the types of speech that are beneficial for democracy help make the issues clearer.

Persuasion, not coercion

Put most simply, speech that is designed to teach people about other viewpoints and persuade them to change their minds – rather than pressuring them to take different actions – is good for democracy.

The key, as pointed out by communication scholar Daniel O'Keefe, is that the audience has “some measure of freedom” about receiving the message and choosing how to act upon it.

Persuasion, even in its most vigorous and aggressive form, is an invitation. When a person seeks to persuade someone else to agree with their viewpoint or values, or to recall or ignore history in a particular way, the recipient may choose to go along, or not.

Coercion, on the other hand, is a kind of force – a command, not an invitation. Coercion denies others the freedom to choose for themselves whether to agree or disagree. Coercion and violence are anti-democratic because they deny others their ability to consent. Violence and coercion are the very opposite of legitimate political discourse.

Politics is not war, and legitimate political discourse is not violence.


What about protest?

Protests can take many forms. In their most democratic form, political scientist Mary Scudder notes that protests “can improve the deliberativeness of a political system by putting important problems on the agenda or introducing new arguments into the public sphere.” Protest helps people to be aware of the views held by others, even if different groups disagree vehemently.

In the name of democracy, scholars of communication, free speech and deliberation have said protesters deserve to be heard and given as much latitude as possible to communicate with the public. In part, that is because protesters may represent underprivileged or mistreated people whose messages may be hard for powerful interests to hear.

But impassioned protest can sometimes seem like an attempt at coercion, especially for people who feel targeted by the protesters’ messages.
Persuasion and coercion on Jan. 6

The Republican National Committee would like Americans to focus on the peaceful protesters who gathered on Jan. 6, 2021, to hear President Donald Trump’s speech at the Ellipse – and ignore the violence at the Capitol.

If we look at the Ellipse, we see a vibrant, and legitimate, political protest with signs, chants and speeches. If we look at the Capitol, by contrast, we see illegitimate political violence, including people using bear spray, erecting a hangman’s noose and assaulting others.

The link between them was Trump’s speech. He used a particular combination of rhetorical strategies, calling for a plague to be removed so that the nation could be pure again; threatening force; and claiming that his group was good, strong, pure and sure of victory. He also made claims of victimhood, of having had something stolen from him and his supporters. This specific combination of rhetorical strategies has traditionally been used to motivate a nation for war.


Donald Trump stands in front of a crowd with his back to the White House

That type of communication from a president can be legitimate political discourse when used to motivate a nation to war against another nation, though there have certainly been circumstances in American history in which that power has been abused. But when the president uses that rhetoric against the democratic process in his own government in order to retain power, it is not legitimate political discourse. Rather, as scholars of authoritarianism have explained, using war rhetoric against your own nation amounts to an “autogolpe,” or “self-coup.”

When Trump urged the Ellipse crowd to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell,” his words transformed an occasion of legitimate political discourse into an anti-democratic violent insurrection.

The result was real physical violence, characterized by Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, a 42-year-old veteran of the war in Iraq, as a “medieval battle.” Several people died and many were injured.

American democracy was damaged as well. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican U.S. senator from Alaska, called the Republican National Committee’s characterization “false” and “wrong,” saying on Feb. 5, 2022, that the events at the Capitol were “an effort to overturn a lawful election.”

Democracy isn’t a game. To respond with appropriate seriousness, Americans can’t frame moments such as Jan. 6 simply as a “competition between left versus right, Democrat versus Republican; a battle of individuals and political factions,” writes communications scholar Dannagal Young. Those violent, coercive events are challenges to the real heart of democracy: peaceful persuasion and the rule of law.

Looking at the entirety of what occurred on Jan. 6, 2021, it’s clear that there was both legitimate protest and illegitimate political violence. When political violence replaces political discourse, and when political leaders refuse to play by the democratic rules of the game, democracies weaken, and may even die.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Jennifer Mercieca, Texas A&M University and Timothy J. Shaffer, Kansas State University.

Read more:

Civil war in the US is unlikely because grievance doesn’t necessarily translate directly into violence

Biden urges America to see the truth of Jan. 6 – and understand its place in history

Timothy J. Shaffer receives funding from the Sunflower Foundation and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation for research on civil discourse and democracy.

Jennifer Mercieca does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.


Opinion: Donald Trump, rattled by investigations, turns to 'stuff of dictators'




Steven J. Burton
Mon, February 7, 2022

The defeated former president, Donald J. Trump, is facing four investigations for wrongdoing. Two, by the Manhattan district attorney in New York and the Fulton County district attorney in Georgia, aim to determine whether Trump and his associates committed serious crimes. Another, by the attorney general of New York, seeks to determine whether Trump or his business, the Trump Organization, committed civil wrongs in its handling of finances before he became president. A fourth, by a congressional House Select Committee, will tell the story of the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and how to avoid anything like it happening again.

Four such investigations, each with potentially serious consequences, up to and including convictions for felonies, would weigh heavily on anyone. Trump appears to be rattled. This is evident from three points he made in a disturbing speech at a “Save America” rally in Texas.

First, Trump conceded that he lost the 2020 election after more than a year insisting that he had won. “Mike Pence” he said, “did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power; he could have overturned the election!” Here, Trump supposes that the election outcome needed “changing” and needed “overturning.” Why? Because he lost. He admits he attempted to overthrow the election.


Second, he defended the Jan. 6 insurrectionists and rioters: “If I run and I win, we will treat those people from Jan. 6 fairly. We will treat them fairly, and if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons because they are being treated so unfairly.” Dangling pardons before them could impair ongoing prosecutions as the criminal defendants bet on pardons and clam up.

More: Donald Trump's empire is in serious trouble. This time, he might not get away with it.

More: GOP censures Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, calls Jan. 6 riot 'legitimate political discourse'

Third, the problem with dangling pardons is greater for the future Trump envisions. After calling, without reason, the Manhattan and Atlanta prosecutors “radical, vicious racist prosecutors” who are “mentally sick,” he replayed his plan for Jan. 6, 2021, but on a greater scale:

“If these radical, vicious, racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protests we have ever had in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta, and elsewhere, because our country and our elections are corrupt,”

Of course, his view of the prosecutors he described is that they could not possibly be fair to him. So, he is threatening mass demonstrations to intimidate the criminal justice processes in those cities, to his advantage. Will the crowds be big? Will they be unruly? Will we see a violent effort to trash the prosecutor’s offices? And more?

This sort of rhetoric is not worthy of America. Laurence Tribe, this nation’s foremost constitutional lawyer, said that, in this speech, Trump admitted to his guilt for seditious conspiracy and other felonies. Jamie Raskin, also a highly respected constitutional lawyer, called it a “smoking gun.” And John Dean, President Richard Nixon’s White House counsel, tweeted, “this is the stuff of dictators.”

Steven J Burton taught law at the University of Iowa for 42 years before retiring in 2019.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Opinion: Trump, facing investigations, turns to 'stuff of dictators'


Trump White House staffers frequently put important documents into 'burn bags' and sent them to the Pentagon for incineration, report says

Joshua Zitser
Sun, February 6, 2022
Trump signs a document
President Donald Trump signs a document on February 18, 2020, in Beverly Hills, California.Evan Vucci/AP Photo
  • Trump-era White House staffers frequently put documents in "burn bags," per The Washington Post.

  • Regular "burn runs" would see these bags taken to the Pentagon for incineration, The Post said.

  • It was up to the staffers to decide which documents to preserve and which to destroy, the media outlet reported.

It has been widely reported that former President Donald Trump had a penchant for tearing apart presidential documents, but new details have emerged about how his aides disposed of potentially important papers.

According to The Washington Post, staffers frequently put documents into "burn bags" to be incinerated at the Pentagon.

Burn bags resemble paper grocery bags and are widely available throughout the White House complex. Organizations dealing with top-secret information, like the CIA and NSA, often use them because destruction via burn bags is considered superior to shredding.

A typical burn bag used by the United States Department of Defense.
A typical burn bag used by the United States Department of Defense.Sturmovik, Wikimedia Commons

There are two types of "burn bags," one for classified and the other for unclassified material, but both are ultimately destroyed, per The Post.

The media outlet reported that, in Trump's White House, there were regular "burn runs" in which the classified bags were transported to the Pentagon for incineration.

A senior Trump White House official told The Post that he and other staffers regularly put documents into "burn bags" to be incinerated, and, he said, it was up to them which would be destroyed.

Meanwhile, records personnel would attempt to manage the volume of torn documents being consigned to burn bags. They would tip the contents onto a table to puzzle out which documents needed to be taped back together and preserved, a former official told The Washington Post.

Problems with record preservation in the Trump administration are well-documented. Insider reported that the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack received Trump-era White House documents that had been torn up and taped back together by staff assigned to jigsaw them back together.

Historians raised concerns during his tenure that his presidential records would be poorly preserved or destroyed entirely – potentially violating the Presidential Records Act.

"The biggest takeaway I have from that behavior is it reflects a conviction that he was above the law," said presidential historian Lindsay Chervinsky, told The Washington Post. "He did not see himself bound by those things."

Trump Busted for Hoarding Kim Jong-un ‘Love Letters’ at Mar-a-Lago

Ryan Bort
Mon, February 7, 2022,

SKOREA-US-NKOREA-DIPLOMACY - Credit: AFP via Getty Images

Donald Trump seems to have had a love-hate relationship with official White House records. Some he habitually tore up into confetti. Others he cherished so deeply that he took them to Mar-a-Lago instead of turning them over to the National Archives.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that the Archives was forced to seize “multiple boxes” of White House records Trump stole off to Palm Beach with instead of turning them over to the Archives, a apparent violation of the Presidential Records Act. The records, which the Archives reportedly retrieved from Mar-a-Lago last month, included letters from North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un — correspondence Trump has referred to as “love letters” — as well as the letter President Obama left for his successor.

The Archives confirmed in a statement later on Monday that “transport from the Trump Mar-a-Lago property in Florida to the National Archives of 15 boxes that contained Presidential records, following discussions with President Trump’s representatives in 2021,” according to Axios.

Axios also notes that Trump’s representatives have said they are “continuing to search for additional Presidential records that belong to the National Archives.”

The news of the breach in protocol comes barely a week after the Post reported that some of the records the Archives handed over to the Jan. 6 committee had been ripped up and taped back together. Tearing up White House documents had been a habit of the former president. Politico reported in 2018 that he’d sometimes rip them into pieces as small as confetti, forcing staffers to put them back together like a “jigsaw puzzle,” rejoining them with pieces of Scotch tape.

“Destroying [White House documents] could be a crime under several statutes that make it a crime to destroy government property if that was the intent of the defendant,” Stephen Gillers, a constitutional law professor at New York University, told the Post. “A president does not own the records generated by his own administration. The definition of presidential records is broad. Trump’s own notes to himself could qualify and destroying them could be the criminal destruction of government property.”

The Post reported on Saturday that Trump’s penchant for ripping documents to shreds was a bigger problem than had been previously reported, that he had been told to stop multiple times, and that the habit extended into the later stages of his presidency. He left torn-up paper on his desk in the Oval Office, in trash bins, and even on the floor of Air Force One, according to former staffers. “It is absolutely a violation of the [Presidential Records Act],” Courtney Chartier, president of the Society of American Archivists, told the Post. “There is no ignorance of these laws. There are White House manuals about the maintenance of these records.”

Trump’s letters from Kim Jong-un were apparently too valuable to shred, or even to relinquish to the Archives. The former president has spoken fondly of his relationship with the murderous dictator, and has often mentioned the letters. “I was really tough and so was he, and we went back and forth,” Trump told a rally crowd in 2018. “And then we fell in love, OK? No, really, he wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. We fell in love.”

Trump’s admiration of the world’s most ruthless authoritarians has persisted since he left office. “The ones I did best with were the tyrants,” Trump said at an event in December, citing Kim Jong-un. “For whatever reason, I got along great with them.”