Rejoice with me in the anniversary of the spectacle of the monster brought to judgement, his numberless crimes and perversions and those of his treasonous and dishonorable minions and collaborators in a loathsome regime of patriarchal sexual terror and white supremacist terror as theocratic fascism and tyranny, designed and perpetrated for the purposes of infiltration and subversion of democracy and capture of the state, are displayed before the stage of history and the world as defining limits of the human and branded into the soul of America.
Like the thief’s brand of Milady de Winter in Alexandre Dumas’ The Three Musketeers, may the actions of Our Clown of Terror, Traitor Trump, forever remind us who the enemies of Liberty truly are, regardless of the masks they wear and the web of lies in which they seek to trap us as the raw material of their power.
Saboteurs of our justice system and agents of the Fourth Reich have conspired to deny us a public viewing of the trial, a trial whose functions are not limited to the espionage of one Russian agent and then in the trial of 2023 ex President, though vote fraud, the dark money of Russian paymasters and crime syndicates, and propaganda’s Wilderness of Mirrors has now given him another stolen election, but the purposes of a public trial include the restoration of the legitimacy of the justice system, of America as both state and idea, and of democracy globally.
We must see the monster disempowered to harm us, exposed and cast out, if we are to find catharsis in this morality play, for Trump is a figure of the diseased heart of America as a Sin Eater for all of his followers and those who voted for him and his policies of division and theft of the soul. We must purge our destroyers from among us; most especially those who once believed his lies and enabled him as voters and co-conspirators including the whole of the Republican Party must now be granted the chance to disavow him and free themselves of their subjugation to theocratic fascism, or be judged with him by history.
This process of catharsis and the Restoration of America was in 2023 years along since the January 6 Insurrection marked the first high tide and collapse of fascism in America, prior to the ongoing second Trump regime, a stochastic system of political and ideological struggle in the heart of America, recursive iterations of rebirth and destruction, revolutionary and conserving forces. and we can measure the depth of the collapse of support for Trump during the trial by the few supporters who came to the trial in response to Trump’s dogwhistled orders to storm the court as a demonstration of power, as compared to the masses who perpetrated the storming of Congress in the Insurrection.
Trump is still proclaiming madness and issuing terroristic commands, but almost no one was listening anymore while his grievous and terrible crimes were set before the public like cakes of moral leprosy and decay. This we must do again, and ceaselessly, to steal his power by exposing his lies.
The tide of fascist tyranny and terror in America has turned before and may yet turn again, and now is the time to bring a Reckoning for its evils.
For we are many, we are watching, and we are the future.
As written by Heather Cox Richardson in her newsletter ; ““DONALD TRUMP UNDER ARREST, IN FEDERAL CUSTODY.”
It was quite a chyron from CNN, marking the first time in the history of the United States that a former president has been charged with federal crimes. And in this case, what crimes they are: the willful retention, sharing, and hiding of classified documents that compromise our national security. Trump’s own national security advisor John Bolton said, “This is material that in the hands of America’s adversaries would do incalculable damage to the United States. This is a very serious case and it’s not financial fraud, it’s not hush money to porn stars, this is the national security of the United States at stake. I think we’ve got to take the politics out of this business when national security is at stake.”
Cameras were barred in the courtroom as Trump pleaded not guilty to the 37 charges in Miami today. Presiding magistrate judge Jonathan Goodman ordered Trump not to communicate with witnesses about the case, including co-defendant Waltine Nauta, then released him on his own recognizance, that is, without needing to post bail. Special prosecutor Jack Smith was in the courtroom; ABC’s senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott reported that Trump did not look at Smith.
Then Trump went back to his residence in Bedminster, New Jersey, where he gave a speech that New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, who is close to the Trump camp, described as low energy, focusing on his insistence that he had a right to keep the classified documents (which experts agree is nonsense and amounts to a confession) and that the indictment was “the most evil and heinous abuse of power.” Right-wing Newsmax and the Fox News Channel (FNC) carried the speech; CNN and MSNBC did not.
FNC has been hemorrhaging viewers since it fired Tucker Carlson, a threat to its bottom line that might have been behind its chyron tonight attacking Biden by claiming “WANNABE DICTATOR SPEAKS AT THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER HAVING HIS POLITICAL RIVAL ARRESTED.”
In statements similar to the one from FNC, right-wing pundits spent the day flooding Twitter and other social media with furious insistence that Trump is being unfairly prosecuted, followed by attacks on former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and with allegations that there are tapes of President Biden accepting bribes—allegations that Biden openly laughed at this evening.
But that performative outrage among leaders did not translate into support on the ground in Miami. Law enforcement had been prepared for as many as 50,000 protesters, but only a few hundred to a thousand turned out (one wearing a shirt made of an American flag and carrying the head of a pig on a pole).
The lack of supporters on the ground was significant. Since the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, much of Trump’s power has rested on his ability to call out his base to silence opponents by threatening violence. That power was in full force on January 6, 2021, when his loyalists set out to stop the counting of the electoral votes that would make Democrat Joe Biden president, believing they were operating under the orders of then-president Trump.
Since then, though, more than 1,000 people who participated in the events of January 6 have been charged with crimes, and many have been sentenced to prison, while Trump, who many defendants say called them to arms, has skated. That discrepancy is likely dampening the enthusiasm of Trump’s supporters for protest.
Today Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo pointed out that the audacity of Nevada’s militia-related Bundy family simply grew as family members launched successive stands against the federal government without significant legal repercussions. Republican politicians cheered on their attacks on federal officials for political gain, while Democratic politicians didn’t push to go after them out of concern that a show of federal power would alienate Nevada voters.
Trump’s threats and determination to stir up his base seem to reflect a similar consideration: if he can just rally enough support, he might imagine, the federal government will back off.
Federal officials permitting politics to trump the rule of law in our past have brought us to this moment.
After the Civil War, officials charged Confederate president Jefferson Davis and 38 other leading secessionists with treason but decided not to prosecute when the cases finally came to trial in 1869. They wanted to avoid the anger a trial would provoke because they hoped to reconcile the North and South. They also worried they would not get convictions in the southern states where the trials were assigned.
In the end, between President Andrew Johnson’s pardons and Congress’s granting of amnesty to Confederates, no one was convicted for their participation in the attempt to destroy the country. This generosity did not create the good feeling men like General Ulysses S. Grant hoped it would. Instead, as Civil War scholar Elizabeth Varon established in her book on the surrender at Appomattox, it helped to create the myth that the southern cause had been so noble that even the conquering northern armies had been forced to recognize it. The ideology of the Confederacy never became odious, and it has lived on.
The same quest for reconciliation drove President Gerald R. Ford to grant a pardon to former president Richard M. Nixon for possible “offenses against the United States” in his quest to win the 1972 election by bugging the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Washington, D.C., Watergate Hotel.
Ford explained that the “tranquility” the nation had found after Nixon’s resignation “could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States.” The threat of a trial would “cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.”
In an echo of 100 years before, Ford’s generosity did not bring Nixon or his supporters back into the fold. Instead, they doubled down on the idea that Nixon had done nothing wrong and had been hounded from office by his “liberal” enemies. Nixon himself never admitted wrongdoing, telling the American people he was resigning because he no longer had enough support in Congress to advance the national interest. Although his support had collapsed because even members of his own party believed he was guilty of obstructing justice, violated constitutional rights of citizens, and abused his power, Nixon blamed the press, whose members had destroyed him with “leaks and accusations and innuendo.”
The willingness of government officials to ignore the rule of law in order to buy peace gave us enduring reverence for the principles of the Confederacy, along with countless dead Unionists, mostly Black people, killed as former Confederates reclaimed supremacy in the South. It also gave us the idea that presidents cannot be held accountable for crimes, a belief that likely made some of the presidents who followed Nixon less careful about following the law than they might have been if they had seen Nixon indicted.
Holding a former president accountable for an alleged profound attack on the United States is indeed unprecedented, as his supporters insist. But far from being a bad thing to stand firm on the rule of law at the upper levels of government, it seems to fall into the category of “high time.”
As written by Jerry LeClaire in his Indivisibles newsletter; “If you have not yet taken the time read the Indictment in the case of United States of America v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta (Trump’s valet), click that link and read. It should be every American’s civic duty to do so. The original document is eminently readable and thoroughly documented chronicle of former President Trump’s flagrant disregard for the law. So far, nearly all the Republicans who have gone on record about the latest Trump indictment (with the notable exception of Mitt Romney), have bizarrely claimed that it is a miscarriage of justice, politically motivated, and spells the death knell for the rule of law in our country. If any of these know-nothings have actually read the indictment or understand how the rule of law actually works, you certainly could not tell it from their inane commentary.
I’m sure there are many other examples, but that of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) interviewed on ABC News by George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, June 11, is breathtaking in the whataboutism and misinformation that are quickly becoming the Republican blare machine’s main talking points. It really is worth your time to listen—because this is the garbage that you will likely hear again and again—all by way of avoiding any actually serious discussion of the merits of the indictment itself—and the evidence that underpins it. Senator Graham, who possesses a Doctor of Jurisprudence from the University of South Carolina, must know that he is engaging in gross misinformation. Beyond the usual off-the-point whataboutism of emails and laptops, Graham suggests that the content of the Espionage Act under which Trump is indicted only applies to the most egregious examples of overt spying and bulk transfer of sensitive information to foreign adversaries (think Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange). This is a smokescreen that depends on the Republican faithful’s ignorance of the law. They all need to read the indictment.
Where’s Cathy McMorris Rodgers on the indictment? We can take a clue in her official statement issued August 9, 2022, the day after the FBI exercised the court-authorized search warrant of Mar-a-Lago and seized 102 documents with classified markings Trump had conspired to keep. Her statement starts off predictably by characterizing the search and seizure as an “FBI Raid of President Trump’s Residence”, evoking an portrait of battering rams and rough treatment. It goes on:
“Last night’s unprecedented raid and seizure of documents from President Trump’s private residence is alarming and raises a lot of questions. I am deeply concerned about the appearance that the Biden administration is weaponizing the FBI and Department of Justice to target a political opponent, which would be an egregious abuse of power. This sends a dangerous message to the American people that their Constitutional rights can be trampled because of their political beliefs.”
McMorris Rodgers’ statement sets up this bizarre double-speak Republican talking point: because he was once president any act that challenges Donald Trump’s actions must be politically motivated and cannot possibly be the actual legitimate workings of the rule of law. Since he was once president Trump must be above the law, while, at the same time. exercising a legitimate search warrant is “an egregious abuse of power”. If she reads the indictment, it should be evident to her that not indicting Trump based on the evidence therein would itself be an abandonment of the rule of law.
I await McMorris Rodgers’ slippery words in response to the federal indictment. Will she actually read it? Will she still spout the words “weaponization of the ______”, the phrase no doubt hatched and pushed out to the media by Republican Party operatives as focus-group-tested propaganda?
The best I have read from among those commenting on the indictment is Robert Hubbell’s legally-informed June 11th Substack post in which he puts the indictment and the upcoming trial into perspective:
The trial is designed to achieve two purposes: To punish Trump for his crimes and to dissuade future bad actors from repeating those crimes. In short, the trial is not—and can never be—a solution to the political problem of a potential Trump second term.
If Trump wins a second term, the trial will be irrelevant, even if Trump is convicted before the election. As a second-term president, Trump can manipulate the DOJ to fire special counsel Jack Smith and reverse the conviction somehow, as the DOJ did for Michael Flynn, or he can grant himself a self-pardon. (I do not believe a self-pardon would be constitutional, but if Trump grants himself one, it will be a “get out of jail free card” for the duration of the appeal through the Supreme Court.)
The only solution to the political problem of a Trump second term is to defeat Trump (or any other GOP contender) at the ballot box.
There is a corollary: If Trump regains the Presidency, we will have, thereby, abandoned the rule of law and along with it any pretense that the law applies equally to everyone.
Republicans will twist logic in knots trying to pretend that the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida that voted to indict Trump based on the evidence presented to them by the Department of Justice and Jack Smith was somehow “politically motivated”. Read the indictment. Don’t let them get away with it.
Keep to the high ground, Jerry”
As written by Gunthan Rao in CNN, in an article entitled History is Not On Trump’s Side; “Here we are with another scandal involving former President Donald Trump. What’s new, right? But there’s something that hits differently about this one.
In the past, Trump’s alleged misdeeds have usually been primarily about himself—about making himself richer, or more powerful, or to protect himself from the law. By allegedly violating the Espionage Act and hoarding classified documents, Trump (who has denied wrongdoing) has taken things to a far darker place. A quick look at the history of government record-keeping shows us that Trump is thumbing his nose at our system of government and at the rule of law itself.
Prosecutor Jack Smith’s indictment and press conference laid out in devastating detail just how serious the charges are against the former president. In the classified documents that Trump allegedly took from the White House to his residences are deep secrets about the United States’ military and even its nuclear program. The law required Trump to return these documents to the National Archives; Trump knew better, too, since the prosecution has him on tape admitting that he had retained sensitive military information that he had not declassified.
At a more philosophical level, Trump’s alleged actions speak to something else; they flout a basic theory of how our government works.
Hundreds of years ago, when a government official stepped down from an official post, it was customary for them to take with them the records of their time in office. It was in keeping with an elitist theory of power.
Powerful members of the gentry were routinely tabbed to be sheriffs, tax collectors, inspectors and other key roles. They were expected to use their status to do these jobs, as people deferred to their rank and power. Often, they worked out of their homes, so that the workings of government were indistinguishable from their daily life.
In short, their government work was very much their business, even if they were serving the public good. This approach to governing was still very much in vogue by the American Revolution and at the nation’s founding.
However, in the 19th century a new, more modern concept of government slowly took over. Perhaps best explained by the famed German sociologist Max Weber, this new vision was that government work now took place outside of the home and instead in government buildings and bureaus.
In this new modern understanding of the state, it was crucial that government offices be understood to be distinct from the individuals who might serve them. Officeholders were now expected to fulfill their duties by defined administrative rules, rather than by leveraging their status and personal power.
Over time, the professionalization of the government workforce would feature the rise of a civil service, the emergence of bureaucratic experts and the establishment of administrative law. In the 20th century, President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the Administrative Procedures Act became the foundation for an increasingly complex and regulated system of government organization.
The Presidential Records Act of 1978, passed in the wake of President Richard M. Nixon’s Watergate scandal, was another example of this evolving system. After resigning in disgrace and to avoid impeachment, Nixon wanted to keep records of his time in office to save what was left of his reputation. In 1974 Congress passed a law specifically to prevent Nixon from withholding records and followed it up a few years later with The Presidential Records Act, which explicitly designates presidential records as public records. Presidential records now belong to the American people, not to the President whose administration may have produced them.
This historical context lets us see Trump’s latest misdeed for what it is—a fundamental rejection of the rule of law. In this light, we might see Trump’s actions as part of the conservative effort to dismantle the federal government’s administrative power. But Trump goes even further because his is not a principled ideological manifesto but the simple idea that he, like kings, ministers, and those old self-interested officeholders from centuries ago, is above the law.
By insisting that official records from his administration are his “papers,” and that he can do as he pleases with them, Trump harkens back to a bygone time when government was the exclusive domain of the rich and powerful, and when the elite kept their papers as bespoke mementos of their public works.
Are we still a nation of laws? Or have we been so beaten down by the Trump era that we’re willing to backslide to a seemingly distant past? At stake in this, the latest trial of Donald J. Trump, then, is more than just legalese about government protocol about classification and record keeping. This is about the rule of law.”
As written by Barbara McQuade in MSN, in an article entitled New Indictment Proves Trump Is A Triple Threat to National Security; “The indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Florida last week includes one inescapable conclusion — former President Donald Trump is a triple threat to the national security of the U.S.
Trump’s 37 counts allege violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, false statements and conspiracy. The indictment describes audacious conduct, alleging he lied to the National Archives, the Justice Department and even his own lawyers and orchestrated the concealment of boxes of documents when the Justice Department came to visit. But the language that most stood out to me as a former national security prosecutor related to the descriptions of the documents themselves. Of course, special prosecutor Jack Smith cannot reveal in detail the sensitive information within these records, but even the general nature of the secrets Trump allegedly stored across Mar-a-Lago, including in a bathroom and a ballroom, is bone-chilling.
According to the indictment, the documents included information about:
The defense and weapons capabilities of both the U.S. and foreign countries.
U.S. nuclear programs.
Potential vulnerabilities of the U.S. and its allies to military attack.
Plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.
Trump has, of course, denied that he did anything wrong and minimized his gross abuse of power as the “boxes hoax.” One of his lawyers has compared Trump’s retention of national secrets to having an overdue library book. But clearly, this case is about far more than an administrative slip-up.
Instead, the indictment charges Trump with misconduct that recklessly placed our national security and foreign relations and the safety of the U.S. military and intelligence community in danger. Some of the documents Trump allegedly retained were marked “top secret,” designating information that, if disclosed, could cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security.
The indictment is a first step toward accountability for Trump’s alleged abuse of power. But, for a number of reasons, he will remain a threat until he is convicted — and perhaps even beyond that.
First, the indictment demonstrates the risk Trump poses to our country as a former president. As commander-in-chief, Trump was entrusted with knowledge of every aspect of our national security, from the placement of missiles to the nuclear codes. His reckless storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago demonstrates his inability to handle this knowledge responsibly. The resort, which the Justice Department says hosted “more than 150 social events that together drew tens of thousands of guests” during the relevant period, was a potential target for foreign intelligence operations. (In 2019, NBC News reported that a Chinese citizen was arrested at the club with “two passports, four cellphones, a laptop, an external hard drive and a thumb drive containing computer malware.”)
In fact, the indictment alleges that Trump has already shared national defense information with a writer, a publisher, two staffers and a representative of his political action committee — none of whom had the required security clearances. If Trump is convicted, a compelling case could be made for his imprisonment and a sentencing condition that limits his ability to communicate sensitive secrets to the outside world to limit further damage.
Second, Trump poses a threat to our national security as a defendant. In criminal cases involving classified information, a defendant sometimes will engage in a practice known as “graymail,” threatening to reveal sensitive national secrets if the government persists in the prosecution. For this reason, former government employees often get lenient plea deals to avoid the disclosure of government secrets at trial.
The Classified Information Procedures Act creates some mechanisms to safeguard such material, such as protective orders during discovery and at trial. But in light of Trump’s access — not to mention his win-at-all-costs mentality — CIPA’s protections feel too thin. Because Trump has already seen all of the documents noted in the indictment, there is a risk that he will share their contents with people unauthorized to see them or threaten to do so unless the charges are dropped or favorably resolved.”
According to the indictment, in December 2021, the contents of several of Trump’s boxes had spilled on the floor in a storage room. Among the documents on the floor was one marked “FVEY,” indicating that the information was releasable only to the Five Eyes alliance of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the U.S. Most of us would be reluctant to lend a novel to a friend who treated our possessions with such contempt, let alone our most private secrets.
If Trump were to become president again in January 2025, foreign allies might be unwilling to share their sensitive intelligence with us. And if we stop receiving valuable intelligence from allies, we will be in the dark about important information with which to make decisions about our military and security interests.
At his news briefing announcing the indictment, Smith emphasized that members of our intelligence community and armed forces “dedicate their lives to protecting our nation and its people.” Violations of the laws that protect national defense information “put our nation at risk.” Even a Trump trial and conviction may not prevent him from wreaking further havoc, but they can send a powerful message that he can be held criminally accountable and deter others who might follow his lawless example.”
What happens next? Here I find a hopeful voice in Robert Reich, writing in The Guardian in an article entitled There will be no civil war over Trump. Here’s why: Nations go to war over the ideologies, religions, racism, social classes or economic policies. Trump represents nothing other than his own grievance;
“The former president of the United States, now running for re-election, assails “the ‘thugs’ from the Department of Injustice”, calls Special Counsel Jack Smith a “deranged lunatic” and casts his prosecutions and his bid for the White House as part of a “final battle” for America.
In a Saturday speech to the Georgia Republican party, Trump characterized the entire American justice system as deployed to prevent him from winning the 2024 election.
“These people don’t stop and they’re bad and we have to get rid of them. These criminals cannot be rewarded. They must be defeated.
Once again, Trump is demanding that Americans choose sides. But in his deranged mind, this “final battle” is not just against his normal cast of ill-defined villains. It is between those who glorify him and those who detest him.
It will be a final battle over … himself.
“SEE YOU IN MIAMI ON TUESDAY!!!” he told his followers on Friday night in a Truth Social post, referring to his Tuesday arraignment.
It was chilling reminder of his 19 December 2020, tweet, “Be there, will be wild!” – which inspired extremist groups to disrupt the January 6 certification.
At the Georgia Republican party convention on Friday night, the Arizona Republican Kari Lake – who will go to Miami to “support” Trump – suggested violence.
“If you want to get to President Trump, you’re going to have to go through me and you’re going to have to go through 75 million Americans just like me,” Lake exclaimed to roaring cheers and a standing ovation. “Most of us are card-carrying members of the NRA,” the National Rifle Association gun lobby. “That’s not a threat, that’s a public service announcement.”
Most Republicans in Congress are once again siding with Trump rather than standing for the rule of law.
A few are openly fomenting violence. The Louisiana representative Clay Higgins suggested guerrilla warfare: “This is a perimeter probe from the oppressors. Hold. rPOTUS [a reference to the real president of the United States] has this. Buckle up. 1/50K know your bridges. Rock steady calm.”
Most other prominent Republicans – even those seeking the Republican presidential nomination – are criticizing Biden, Merrick Garland and the special counsel Jack Smith for “weaponizing” the justice department.
All this advances Trump’s goal of forcing Americans to choose sides over him.
Violence is possible, but there will be no civil war.
Nations don’t go to war over whether they like or hate specific leaders. They go to war over the ideologies, religions, racism, social classes or economic policies these leaders represent.
But Trump represents nothing other than his own grievance with a system that refused him a second term and is now beginning to hold him accountable for violating the law.
In addition, the guardrails that protected American democracy after the 2020 election – the courts, state election officials, the military, and the justice department – are stronger than before Trump tested them the first time.
Many of those who stormed the Capitol have been tried and convicted. Election-denying candidates were largely defeated in the 2022 midterms. The courts have adamantly backed federal prosecutors.
Third, Trump’s advocates are having difficulty defending the charges in the unsealed indictment – that Trump threatened America’s security by illegally holding (and in some cases sharing) documents concerning “United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack”, and then shared a “plan of attack” against Iran.
Republicans consider national security the highest and most sacred goal of the republic. A large number have served in the armed forces.
Trump’s own attorney general, Bill Barr, said on Fox News Sunday that he was “shocked by the degree of sensitivity of these documents and how many there were, frankly … If even half of it is true, then he’s toast. I mean, it’s a very detailed indictment, and it’s very, very damning. And this idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch-hunt, is ridiculous.”
None of this is cause for complacency. Trump is as loony and dangerous as ever. He has inspired violence before, and he could do it again.
But I believe that many who supported him in 2020 are catching on to his lunacy.
Trump wants Americans to engage in a “final battle” over his own narcissistic cravings. Instead, he will get a squalid and humiliating last act.”
Trump as the masterspy Milady DeWinter
Cardinal Richelieu & Milady DeWinter montage set to Hozier’s Take Me To Church
Maimie McCoy discusses the merciless Milady – The Musketeers – BBC One
The Three Musketeers, Alexandre Dumas
I was always impressed, as an intelligence historian, that Dumas was the spymaster of France while he wrote his brilliant and highly political novels of state secrets while never betraying any actual state secrets, not even once.
We all of us humans are bearers of secret histories and constructions of the stories we tell about ourselves, to ourselves and to others; and while the duties of remembrance, the witness of history, the sacred calling to pursue the truth, and the Four Primary Duties of a Citizen to Question Authority, Expose Authority, Mock Authority, and Challenge Authority are crucial to our identity, uniqueness, and liberty in a free society of equals, one of the few true rules we must never violate is our solidarity with and loyalty to each other, as comrades in Resistance to tyranny and revolutionary struggle against systems of oppression.
Seizure of power by telling our own stories and secret histories, and questioning and exposing those of authority and any who would enslave us and steal our souls, of elite hegemonies of wealth, power, and privilege, yes. But the stories and secrets of others who are our comrades in revolutionary struggle are not ours to tell, though we may amplify their voices and interrogate the imposed conditions of struggle with which we wrestle; so with all whom Frantz Fanon called The Wretched of the Earth; the powerless and the dispossessed, the marginalized and the oppressed, the silenced and the erased.
As Samuel Beckett demonstrates in the Malone trilogy, the final irreducible and unique thing which makes us human is our Voice, and it must never be silenced, falsified, or stolen.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10916717-the-three-musketeers
America dances with our addiction to power;
Liberty and Fascist Tyranny, Hope and Fear
The terror of freedom and the ecstasy of submission
Hozier – Take Me to Church, Art-project Inspiration. Choreography and directed by Helga Geller
Sergei Polunin, ‘Take Me to Church’ by Hozier, Directed by David LaChapelle
Jerry LeClaire on the meaning of the trial
Heather Cox Richardson on the trial
History Is Not On Donald Trump’s Side /CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/13/opinions/trump-arraigment-presidential-records-history-rao/index.html
Donald Trump indictment: a guide to everyone mentioned in the charges
New indictment proves Trump is a triple threat to national security /MSN
There will be no civil war over Trump. Here’s why, by Robert Reich


