Would you like to say that to me again in the parking lot? — Leontiskos

Yes. I want to show you my bumper sticker collection.

Those supposed peaceful visitors are not why they got access to the building. — Paine

According to Hochschild police voluntarily let in a number of people on the east side. Are you contradicting him? I was not there, so I don't know for sure. Maybe you were there and you know that the police did no such thing.

Yes. I want to show you my bumper sticker collection. — frank

As a member of TPF I am already familiar with it. :wink:

Does the man say when this happened in the context of the attacks on police lines?

- No, the article does not give a geographical timetable of events in that manner.

Would you accept that such context is pivotal to understanding this report?

- If you're only concerned with the attack on the police line, then yes.

Did you find nothing at all disconcerting about Gold's testimony?

The cashout of what Gold (and Hochschild) had to say seems to be this: the common conception is that a large number of people were tried, or convicted, or accepted a plea bargain, and therefore a large number of people were involved in criminal activity on January 6, which in turn strengthens the quasi-coup narrative. But it turns out that many of the trials, convictions, and plea bargains were shenanigans, so the common conception begins to break down. And this obviously impacts how one views the pardons.

Do you not find it at all strange that Gold was charged with a 20-year felony for witness tampering and evidence shredding? Or does her past involvement with the anti-vaccine crowd invalidate any questions that might be raised here?

The validity of the prosecutions or the deficiencies of the trial processes for particular defendants has no bearing on the "quasi-coup narrative." Violent or not, the participants were repeating the language of their leader. And he has blessed them all with pardons. A coup is what a regime does. A crowd protesting a stolen election is another thing. They all did not spontaneously have this idea.

There were a lot of trials. I doubt this report establishes a principle that can be applied to them all, especially those that involve assault.

The validity of the prosecutions or the deficiencies of the trial processes for particular defendants has no bearing on the "quasi-coup narrative." — Paine

Sure it does. If 1600 are charged with crimes then the insurrection narrative is plausible. If 95% of those charges are bogus then the insurrection narrative is laughable. It makes an enormous difference.

The liberals never seem to ask themselves why the shenanigans are taking place. "Purely accidental," they tell themselves.

Gold's account may be true or not. That in no way informs us as to how others were treated or whether their charges were bogus.

The charges were not based upon participating in an insurrection. Here is a breakdown of the charges. The following point was emphasized:

There are zero cases where a defendant was charged only with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so. Every defendant also faces other criminal charges—felonies, misdemeanors, or both—for illegal conduct related to the Capitol Breach. — Department of Justice

To the degree that you are correct about Gold's case being different from more vile transgressions is the extent of the injustice perpetrated by Trump's blanket pardon.

The "insurrection narrative" pertains to what Trump and his team attempted, not his believers. The criminal charge is based upon fraud:

The Grand Jury indictment reads in part:

1. The Defendant, DONALD J . TRUMP, was the forty-fifth President of the United
States and a candidate for re-election in 2020. The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election.
2. Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.
3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.
4. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In so doing, the Defendant perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:

a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;

b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified ("the certification proceeding"), in violation of 18U.S.C. § 1512(k); and

c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.

Each of these conspiracies—which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud—targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election ("the federal government function"). — DOJ

Another Musk benefit:

DOGE employee cuts fall heavily on agency that regulates Musk’s Tesla

A small government team regulating the sort of autonomous cars that Elon Musk says represent the future of Tesla, his car company, is getting cut nearly in half by the Musk-led U.S. Doge Service, according to people briefed on the reductions.

The loss of personnel from the specialized unit is part of a 10 percent overall workforce reduction at the federal agency tasked with ensuring safety on America’s roads. In all, the agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, will lose between 70 and 80 people, split roughly evenly between firings of probationary employees and buyouts, according to three people, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution. — WPost

Some of the consequences of the USAID shutdown

Here’s the wreckage as of Feb. 14, as compiled by the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition.


At least 11,500 Americans and 54,575 foreigners have lost their jobs. Nearly $1 billion in payments for work already done has been frozen. Nearly $500 million in food is sitting in ports, ships and warehouses. In Syria, a country struggling to recover from chaos, food and other support for nearly 900,000 people has been suspended. In West Africa, 3.4 million people in 11 countries have lost drug treatment for deadly tropical diseases. At least 328,000 HIV-positive people in 25 countries aren’t getting lifesaving drugs. — WaPo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/21/usaid-trump-freeze-marocco-foreign-aid/


(I recall, but can’t re-find, a remark by a Republican, dismissing concern, along the lines of ‘some kid crying because he didn’t get his milk bottle’.)

Caritas Internationalis, which coordinates Catholic relief services, was even blunter. Alistair Dutton, the group’s secretary general, said in a Feb. 10 statement from Rome: “Stopping USAID abruptly will kill millions of people and condemn hundreds of millions more to lives of dehumanizing poverty. This is an inhumane affront to people’s God-given human dignity, that will cause immense suffering.”

(I recall, but can’t re-find, a remark by a Republican, dismissing concern, along the lines of ‘some kid crying because he didn’t get his milk bottle’.) — Wayfarer

The poor baby, it doesn't get fed and it starts crying. Best to just walk away and ignore it.

It's so clear and blatant.

And all in the whim of basically what? An executive order? Or even without that?

Americans should understand that this is severe breach of the separation of powers and a Republic simply doesn't function like this. An autocracy works like this. The US has now gone overboard to be quite similar as Latin American countries, which try to change their huge problems with a President taking on dictatorial powers. And the end result is usually ugly.

If you think that things might change when Midterms come, will they? Even if a huge Democrat win. Trump is already sidelining the Congress, why would he then consider more.

DOGE simply tries to do quickly as much as possible before it is shut down.

I have been anxious for my friends' and family's future, but I see that for many, the future is now.


Yes, some congress critters are already talking about codifying whatever Musk does in the next budget.
Midterms are surely a long way off. There will at least be a return of the Legislative Branch with a Democratic win.

I think that pressure will build up on the GOP as the blowback hits more and more people and local economies. I don't know if that will happen quickly enough to salvage institutions.

@Wayfarer

How Musk's actions fit into plans for an autocratic takeover of the US government.

You probably know this already, but one of the goals of USAID used to be "capacity building". It's the 'give a man a fishing pole' over giving him a fish'. It takes years -- decades -- to build capacity in developing countries. It's not like landing a plane load of food -- which is a good thing too, but for different purposes.

It could be a child-survival and maternal health project, for instance -- training local women in how to manage common diarrheal diseases in infants; setting up birth control programs; training in basic public health -- hand washing, using sunlight to improve water safety, etc. Setting up a district record keeping system for vaccinations might be done. It might be food security programs -- introducing easy to grow high-nutrient plants like passion fruit.

Introducing composting toilets can reduce disease transmission (resulting from helter-skelter outdoor defecation) and produces a safe and useful fertilizer. The toilets can be locally constructed, but the basic materials still need to be purchased which might be more than a poor family or community can manage.

Some efforts will fail: a program to distribute small concrete domes to cover toilet pits failed, because the local people didn't think the concrete shells were thick enough, and squatting on a thin cover over a shit hole was just not acceptable. The covers were thick enough, but they were not confidence inspiring.

A Norwegian project set up a fish processing plant at Lake Turkana in Kenya. It was unsuccessful because the usually competent Norwegian development program (Redd Barna) hadn't investigated the situation deeply enough. The beneficiaries were animal herders who didn't like fishing, didn't like fish processing, and didn't eat fish. Major flop!

It takes time for new practices to be taught, to be accepted, to become community-wide knowledge, and to last over the long run. Kill the program and gains may evaporate.

Thanks. Depressing reading. I really understand the hostility towards 'woke culture' - the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) is about the only free-to-air TV I watch. Their news bulletins are excruciatingly 'woke', invariably airing social justice and identity politics in the main broadcast every evening. I also understand the hostility towards 'cultural Marxism' in the Universities. But the 'cure' these kinds of people is offering are far, far worse than what they see as the disease. And besides, Donald J. Trump has no allegiance to any ideology whatever - he's only interest is self-interest, but all these reactionaries have hitched their wagon to his star, and besides, most of it is sheer lust for power, masquerading as some kind of righteous quest to correct social ills. They're all stinking hypocrites as far as I'm concerned.

Kill the program and gains may evaporate. — BC

I know, from what little I've read, the ripple effects of Musk 'feeding USAID through the woodchipper' are going to affect entire countries. As I said already, it's the opposite of philanthropy - it's large-scale misanthropy, again masquerading as ideological correctness ('stamping out waste and fraud'.)

waste and fraud — Wayfarer

Throw in abuse and you have the Trump program. Waste, because what is being tossed into the wood chipper are real assets providing real benefits to Americans and others. Fired talent is wasted. Employees and the public are abused. Undoubtedly something fraudulent is going on in Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (sic).

Of course there is waste, some fraud (DT knows all about that), and abuse in government. Spending trillions of dollars a year can't be done without at least some W, F, & A occurring. I can't keep track of the precise amount of spare change in my pocket over a month, and I try very hard to do so.

The fraud that exists is not in the payroll, and it isn't in entitlement spending. If it's anywhere, it's in military procurement where cost+++ seems to be the rule. Since the military feeds from such a deep trough, it can afford the jacked up retail prices it pays.

Outside of W, F, & A there is misdirected spending, ineffective spending, duplicate spending, and unnecessary spending (all subject to various definitions). That's harder to find than crude fraud. I've worked in several programs which received federal and state funds on a contract basis and sometimes we may not have delivered what we claimed to be delivering. We said we were reducing the incidence of AIDS. Were we? If the incidence of AIDS was reduced was that because of our efforts or some other factor--like intense news coverage? We all the condoms handed out used? Were needles always clean? Did the target population sign up for prophylactic medication? Did every AIDS patient take their meds all the time.

Our work was a small example, but the work we did was duplicated in thousands of locations across the US and in other countries. (Among at-risk groups where prevention projects are lacking, case loads go up.)

Slasher budget cuts ends up pulling the plug on excellent programs as often as only passable programs, whether it's in forestry, health care, education, agriculture, biomedical research, and so on.

You get this. (One of my sisters says I'm always stating the obvious. Probably true, but not everybody understands what's going on.)

I really understand the hostility towards 'woke culture' — Wayfarer

Ditto.

English stole "detto" from Italian in the 17th century (those damned cultural appropriators, rotten cultural imperialists, filthy cultural thieves) where it meant "said previously". By the 19th century it had become part of our family, a comfortable piece of furniture in the house. "Ditto" derives ultimately from Latin dicere, to say. Latin, of course, was the language of those arch-imperialists, rampant cultural appropriators, and world class cultural thieves of Rome.

Nice to know ;-)

A potentially significant judgement - from NY Times (I’m all out of gift links):

A federal judge in Washington said on Monday that the way the Trump administration set up and has been running Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency may violate the Constitution.

The skepticism expressed by the judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, did not come as part of a binding ruling, but it suggested that there could be problems looming for Mr. Musk’s organization, which is also known as the U.S. DOGE Service.

“Based on the limited record I have before me, I have some concerns about the constitutionality of U.S.D.S.’s structure and operations,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly said at a hearing in Federal District Court in Washington. She expressed particular concern that it violated the appointments clause of the Constitution, which requires leaders of federal agencies to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Musk was neither nominated nor confirmed.

….

At the hearing, Judge Kollar-Kotelly repeatedly asked a lawyer for the government, Bradley Humphreys, to identify the service’s administrator. He was unable to answer her.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly also asked Mr. Humphreys what position Mr. Musk holds. Mr. Humphreys responded that Mr. Musk was not the DOGE Service’s administrator, or even an employee of the organization, echoing what a White House official had declared in a separate case challenging the powers of the group.

When the judge pressed him on what Mr. Musk’s job actually was, Mr. Humphreys said, “I don’t have any information beyond he’s a close adviser to the president.”

That exchange seemed to irk Judge Kollar-Kotelly, who signaled her skepticism about the organization’s structure and powers.

“It does seem to me if you have people that are not authorized to carry out some of these functions that they’re carrying out that does raise an issue,” she said. “I would hope that by now we would know who is the administrator, who is the acting administrator and what authority do they have?” — Judge Questions Constitutionality of Musk’s Cost-Cutting Operation, NY Times

It’s a very transparent tactic - nobody is responsible for these massive disruptions and layoffs to the Federal workforce.

Conflict of interest?

Musk/DOGE recommended firing federal workers at

▸ FDA, which oversees Neuralink
▸ FAA, which oversees SpaceX
▸ USAID, which probed Starlink
▸ CFPB, which oversees Tesla's financing arm and a potential payment platform on twitter/X

Of course. Nothing surprising.

Meanwhile

Elon Musk has had it with judges blocking the Trump administration’s moves.
The billionaire face of DOGE called for the impeachment of judges in a meltdown on X Tuesday night, following a flurry of court orders blocking the government’s bids to freeze funding for foreign aid and federal grants, as well as stem refugee admissions.

“The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges,” Musk wrote in one post. “No one is above the law, including judges.”

“If ANY judge ANYWHERE can block EVERY Presidential order EVERYWHERE, we do NOT have democracy, we have TYRANNY of the JUDICIARY,” he added in another. — TheDailyBeast

Zero comprehension of the separation of powers.

Zero comprehension of the separation of powers. — Wayfarer

And they will not get it. Starting from Trump.

So good luck having that Civil war of yours, because likely you have to fight to get back your Republic. If Americans still want to live in a Republic, that is.

(I’m Australian but my eldest son and family are in the US, he’s now dual citizen.)

You'll hear how it goes personally then. Let's just remember that this is the time when Trump has the backing in Congress.

I remember one former Australian prime minister saying that the way to get Trump's respect is simply hold your position. And when looking at the "deals" he makes, he isn't a good negotiator. I think he hasn't gone after Australia yet.

I think that Panama and Denmark just try to avoid the conversation getting back to them as there will be enough calamity in other issue that Trump dips his head into.

With Musk it's quite the same. But it's welcoming to see that from all of the people that have said that "don't give importance to Musk's emails" to their government employees it's Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard. Having then public tantrums in your own social media isn't the most adult thing for Musk to do.

:D Poor thing got aborted. (title is easy to misread)

Grok briefly censored criticism of Musk and Trump. It was blamed on a new hire who hadn't 'fully absorbed' the startup's culture.
^{— Effie Webb · Business Insider · Feb 24, 2025}

I suppose, with their track records (here's Trump's) it shouldn't come as a surprise.

More of Elon's dubious attempt to create a 400 million contract for Tesla. Suddenly a +400 000 USD contract under Biden administration became a 400 000 000 USD contract. Or attempt on one.

(NPR) It appeared as if the State Department was taking steps to award Elon Musk's Tesla a $400 million government contract to buy armored electric vehicles to securely transport diplomats. The move to set in motion a lucrative contract to a company controlled by a high-profile ally of President Trump seemed so bold it surprised even longtime observers of the norm-busting president.

When asked about it, the State Department issued a statement saying the purchase is now on hold with no plans of fulfilling the contract, pointing out that talks with Tesla began during the Biden administration.

But NPR has obtained a State Department document detailing that Biden's State Department planned to spend just $483,000 in the 2025 fiscal year on buying electric vehicles and $3 million for supporting equipment, like charging stations. It represented less than 1% of the hundreds of millions of dollars likely destined for Tesla vehicles after the Trump administration quietly revised a State Department procurement document.

The vast discrepancy in the numbers raises the question: Was it an error or a deliberate action?

A former Biden White House official familiar with the State Department's plans told NPR the steps taken to advance $400 million worth of government business to Tesla appear to be intentional.

"I don't think this is a clerical error. It was likely someone who is new in [the] State [Department] who decided, 'OK, we're gonna do this with Tesla,'" said the former official, who was not authorized to speak about the matter.

The person said the State Department and Tesla had agreed during the Biden administration to conduct research about armoring electric vehicles, but no money had been set aside to purchase armored Teslas for the State Department. A total budget of $483,000 had been approved to buy light-duty EVs as possible State Department vehicles. That plan was moving forward as recently as November 2024.