The Progressive American

News: Roger Stone and Alex Jones under investigation over Capitol Riot

The FBI and Justice Department are investigating controversial provocateurs Alex Jones and Roger Stone, the Washington Post reported on Friday. Though not necessarily indicative of an indictment, the move by investigators suggests that federal officials look into possible avenues to take on extremism and its more violent elements. 

Federal officers’ effort is likely to examine the way Jones and Stone affected the mindset of those who stormed the capitol. Indeed, officials speaking with the Post explained the investigation would primarily examine the role of Jones’ and Stones’ rhetoric in inspiring the January 6th attack. However, that does not guarantee that the two politicos are free from potential legal backlash. 

Ali Alexander, one of the Jan. 6 event’s organizers, is also under investigation, and Talking Points Memo reports that he, much like Stone, was quick to take credit for organizing the event before it went sour. All three of the men peddled election fraud conspiracies, making them persons of interest for the FBI. 

Still, Jones has been careful to distance himself from the violence, albeit with some moments of contradictory behavior, possibly protecting him from any criminal liability. During the riot, Jones was recorded urging protesters not to engage in violence despite his previously hostile rhetoric, saying, “Let’s not fight the police and give the system what they want…” The shift in rhetoric is considerable. The day before the riot, however, Jones had been calling for resistance to the supposed election theft, saying, ” I don’t know how all this is all going to end, but if they want to fight, they better believe they’ve got one!” Whatever Jones’ legal culpability may be, federal officials are almost certainly going to be watching him. 

Stone is likely to be of particular interest due to his involvement with numerous far-Right groups, specifically the Oath Keepers. The Oath Keepers, which is listed as an antigovernment extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, have had many of its members arrested and charged for their insurrection involvement. ABC News has previously released video evidence showing Stone marching alongside Oath Keepers on Jan. 6. The New York Times reported that 6 of the Oath Keepers who guarded Stone were directly involved with the capitol’s storming. Even with these connections, the possibility of Stone facing chargers is entirely hypothetical. Unless some form of legal nexus is established between Stone and the Oath Keepers’ criminal behavior, Stone’s fate remains entirely up in the air. 

Still, with the FBI and Justice Department’s newfound interest in them, it is almost guaranteed that government will begin to act against these violent groups. That is, of course, assuming the Biden administration is willing to go all the way.

Governor DeSantis’ near-maskless rally in Palm Beach is part of a larger trend

An in-person event held on Friday by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is now under investigation for violating local health mandates. The event, which was held in a Palm Beach hotel, comprised over one hundred people, most of whom were unmasked. With Gov. DeSantis’ controversial attitude to COVID-19 guidelines, the Palm Beach mini-rally is part of a larger pattern of behavior by the Florida governor and is sure to provoke further outrage directed at DeSantis. 

DeSantis has a long and stubborn history with opposing local COVID-19 rules, opposing them where he can. In the case of lockdowns, DeSantis has consistently maintained his position that mask-mandates and lockdowns are ineffective, despite local attempts to institute their own. In a press conference on January 4th, DeSantis explained his view saying, “We will categorically not allow any local government to lock people down. We will not let any local government kick anybody out of their job,” rejecting attempts by local communities to gain more control over their regulations. 

DeSantis’ opposition does exist in a vacuum. While his opposition to more regulations and mandates is ongoing, so too are the rises of COVID-19. In Palm Beach County, the local health department tallied 649 new cases of COVID-19, the highest recorded since February 5th. Across the state, COVID cases have begun to rise above the average, as an estimated 7,342 new cases have been confirmed. Yesterday, the state surpassed 30,000 COVID-related deaths, bringing a new sense of urgency to the fray. 

Still, DeSantis has remained unmoved, noting that deaths are declining across the country and suggesting that the rise in deaths in Florida is due to the season. In fact, DeSantis has openly mocked those who suggest that mask-wearing has brought cases down in the state, showing his opposition to state and local restrictions is unlikely to end soon.

Whatever happens, the conflict between Governor DeSantis and the local municipalities of Florida seems likely to continue on into the pandemic. Whether or not that will mean more cases and deaths remains to be seen. 

The Biden administration’s path is far from clear

With former President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment now over, many Americans are left with a simple but important question: What next? With the now active Biden administration, all eyes are on the new president, both from the Left and the Right. 

Indeed, Progressives expect much from the current occupant of the White House, especially after his historic victory over a deeply unpopular president. Indeed, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who is one of the Progressive Caucus’s co-chair, has noted that time is of the essence, saying, “We have a very short period of time to have people believe that government is the great equalizer of opportunity.” 

With control over the House and Senate, President Biden has an immense opportunity before him. With roughly 54 percent of Americans approving of his administration, Biden has the support to begin a dynamic administration if he plays his cards right.

Though some have warned against Biden as a moderate during the 2020 campaign, his first few days in office have shown some willingness to push back on his predecessor’s policies. In particular, he shocked many with nearly 40 executive orders within his first few days in office. Though most of them were reversals on the previous administration’s policies, something he was quick to emphasize.

Even now, Biden administrators are examining the legalese left by the previous president’s allies, looking for any left-over decisions that could sink the administration’s plan. Biden himself signed an executive order mandating a review of many of Trump’s deterrence policies on immigration earlier this month, suggesting a cautious but critical immigration approach. 

However, Biden also faces backlash from the Right, particularly related to his aforementioned shift in immigration policy. A letter signed by 26 House Republicans was sent to the White House last Wednesday, urging President Biden not to revoke and loosen restrictions placed upon the U.S Refugee Admissions Program, more commonly known as USRAP. 

Right-Wing media has also begun its assault on the Biden administration’s immigration policy approach, particularly on Fox News. Though, it is likely that other Right-Wing outlets will join in the cacophony of dissent.

Biden faces immense pressure to get things done with an ever-changing polity, a fracturing opposition, and a growing Progressive wing. And he’s only been in office for a few weeks.

Podcast News

Hi everyone! It’s Conor here. Here at The Progressive Discourse, we seek to provide you with as much content as possible, at the greatest convenience possible. Recently, we had some difficulty with our previous podcast due to some RSS issues as we moved over to Substack as our main website. Don’t worry. You don’t have to do a thing! From now on, the podcast will be uploaded on Saturday at 10 AM CST for your convenience, which you can listen to in the morning with your coffee.

All interviews will be bonus episodes unless further specified in future updates. If you would like to access our bonus episodes, please consider getting a subscription, either monthly or yearly works. We would really appreciate your support.

Thanks,

Conor

Though Democrats had a majority of the votes, they could not get the necessary votes for a conviction

The Senate acquitted former President Donald J. Trump Saturday after several days of arguments. Though largely falling along partisan lines, the vote was the most bi-partisan impeachment vote in American history, with 57 senators in favor of conviction and 43 against it. By contrast, the Clinton impeachment in 1999 was an even split of 50 in favor and 50 against. Thus, Democrats have a powerful, albeit limited, argument against Trump’s position after his presidency.

Though Trump is sure to benefit from his second acquittal, Republicans might not be sure. Seven Republicans voted against Trump on the charges brought by the House. Though only one of those voters, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, is facing an upcoming election, it does suggest that a portion of the GOP is not comfortable with its fealty to Trump, and that could lead to a larger split within the party.

Even those who voted with the President rebuked his behavior. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that Trump was “morally and practically responsible” for the events of January 6th. This was despite the Minority Leader’s vote against conviction, which was motivated by the idea that Trump was not subject to conviction after his term’s completion.

Still, the lack of conviction should not be construed to mean that the impeachment proceedings had no effect. The proceedings were the first impeachment since 1868 to have a majority of the Senate voting to convict a President. It was the shortest impeachment and perhaps the most unusual due to the charges against a former President. Indeed, the proceedings were, by their own merits, historic. 

Democrats had their own concerns with the proceedings, although not with the charges themselves. For one, Senate Democrats were caught off guard by the House managers’ request to have witnesses testify before the Senate. Though a majority of the Senators would call for witnesses, the managers backed down and accepted a statement by Rep. Jaime Beutler (R-Wash) to be entered into the record instead, perhaps undermining their momentum. 

The Republican party is unlikely to split with Trump. Despite Sen. McConnell’s statements about Trump being “practically responsible” for the insurrection on January 6th, most Republicans oppose Trump’s impeachment and conviction. Among Republicans, 71 percent said that a Republican vote for impeachment was “disloyal” compared to 29 percent who said it was “principled.” With consistent support for former President Trump, it is no wonder why so many Republicans voted to acquit him. Even when Rep. Herrera Beutler pleaded with former Vice-President Pence to testify about what he experienced, he would not do it. At its core, the vote can be explained by Republicans’ loyalty to Donald J. Trump.

Whatever the future may hold, one thing is assured: Trump is not out of the Republicans’ hair just yet.

Opinion: Rep. Greene’s prejudices make her unfit for public office.

Last night, I wrote an article about the dangerous pattern of conspiracism among Republicans and how it has culminated in the storm that is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Much of my commentary was dedicated to shock at the strange nature of her statements, the violence therein, and the effects her presence would have on Congress’s business. Indeed, a portion of my Saturday podcast was dedicated to her. 

But I did not detail the unrelenting prejudice that was painfully evident in her conduct and how it is part of a broader problem with the Republican party. That is something that needs to be discussed openly and directly.

Greene is a first-year congresswoman representing Georgia’s 14th district, which she was elected to represent in the 2020 election. Her Democratic opponent, Kevin Van Ausdal, withdrew from the race due to the district’s intensely red nature. Ausdal, who had tried to play the part of a reasonable candidate with a moderate streak, was met with death threats. 

Before Greene was a member of the House of Representatives, she was a rampant conspiracy theorist. She posted that Jewish Space Lasers were responsible for the California fires. It was this peculiar claim that was the reason for my previous article’s strange title.

Greene also said that Obama was secretly a Muslim and that George Soros was a “Nazi.” George Soros is Jewish and survived the Nazi regime in his youth because of the fake identification papers he had received.

Though Greene would deny this is bigoted, it is par for the course with her. In a video that Greene herself posted, she argued that Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib had to reswear their oaths on a Bible, as she proclaimed that their oaths were illegitimate if they swore on a Koran. 

It has been repeated before, but the fact of the matter is that such a requirement does not exist in American law; it never has—quite the opposite, as Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits such a requirement. The Constitution explicitly states that: 

“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

One must question why someone such as Greene —an elected representative who swore to uphold the Constitution— is not aware of the unconstitutionality of what she is proposing. Why the theocratic requirement? What about swearing on a bible makes an oath or promise more sacred? If Ilhan Omar swore on the Bible—a book she doesn’t hold to be sacred—wouldn’t that be an act of deception? Wouldn’t it cheapen the oath of office? The official in question would be swearing on something with which they hold no attachment, after all.

At the core of Greene’s problem is her objection to the presence of people who don’t fit with her ethos, people who are not like her. To Greene, the greatest problem lies not in the Constitution but in her inability to see people who are different from her tribe as American. 

That’s precisely why she should not be in the House in the first place, and if the people of Georgia don’t rectify their mistake by recalling her, the House should do it for them via a vote of expulsion.