Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 12, 2024

Jewish leaders urge NYC mask ban after explosion of antisemitic mobs with hidden faces

It’s time to unmask hate.

An explosion of blatant antisemitism by anti-Israel protesters in New York — nearly all of whom cover their faces to avoid being publicly identified — is leading some Jewish leaders to call for the return of an anti-mask law that was previously used to fight the hoods of the Ku Klux Klan.

In one shocking incident Monday, protesters took over a New York City subway train, all wearing Covid masks, keffiyehs, balaclavas or sunglasses to obscure their faces, and demanded that “Zionists” raise their hands — then warned, “this is your chance to get out.”

Anti-Jewish hate crimes were up 150 percent in May, according to the NYPD.Paul Martinka

Earlier in the day at Union Square, two protesters — faces also covered — unfurled a banner that read “Long Live October 7.”01

“A mask law will make a difference,” Scott Richman, regional director for the Anti-Defamation League, told The Post on Wednesday.

The group first championed similar laws around the country in the 1950s, and should back them again, Richman said.

“It effectively tanked the Ku Klux Klan. Nobody wanted their face to be seen,” he said.

New York’s law was on the books for nearly 200 years until it was repealed in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Demonstrators from the pro-Palestine encampment on Columbia’s Campus barricade themselves inside Hamilton Hall.Getty Images
Protestors gather at the gates of Columbia University, in support of student protesters who barricaded themselves in Hamilton Hall.REUTERS
Pro-Palestinian protestors chant near an entrance to Columbia University, Tuesday, April 30, 2024 in New York.AP

The call for action comes as protests against Israel this week curdled into overt displays of hate that evoked uncomfortable echoes of Germany in the 1930s to many Jewish New Yorkers.

A mob ghoulishly gathered outside an exhibit memorializing the victims of the Oct. 7 Nova Music Festival and chanted “Long live the Intifada” on Monday, a display that sent survivors of the attack, who happened to be inside, into panic.

Video from the Union Square protest that same day showed one anti-Israel agitator telling Jews that he wished “Hitler was still here” so the Nazi leader would have “wiped all you out.”

And New Yorkers awoke Wednesday to find that vandals tossed red paint at the homes of the Brooklyn Museum’s director and Jewish board members.

Jewish leaders called a recent wave of antisemitism a “crisis.”NY Post
Protests outside a memorial for the Oct. 7 attacks were criticized by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.FreedomNewsTV

“We are experiencing and seeing the Nazi playbook come to life in 2024,” Mark Treyger, head of the Jewish Community Relations Council, told The Post.

“This is a crisis, an emergency. We need a comprehensive plan to stop the rising tide of antisemitism to protect Jewish New Yorkers and all New Yorkers.”

Anti-Jewish hate crimes had been on the rise even before this week, jumping 150% in May from the same month last year, according NYPD crime stats.

Cops so far this year recorded 173 anti-Jewish hate crimes, compared to 101 for the entirety of 2023, data shows.

But Brooklyn Republican Councilwoman Inna Vernikov, a Ukrainian-born Jew, said the NYPD needs to step up during this “scary time.”

“We hit a crisis point for antisemitism a long time ago,” she said.

“What’s next? We’re going to see Jews killed in the streets?”

The swirling antisemitism has renewed interest in the state’s anti-mask law. Restoring the law would strip violent protesters’ ability to operate anonymously — and unpunished just as it did for the Klan, a recent Manhattan Institute brief argued.

Assemblyman Michael Reilly (R-Staten Island), already introduced legislation last month to reinstate the mask ban.

He said the bill didn’t get any traction but will revisit it next year, and was pleased to hear Jewish leaders rallying behind the mask ban.

Reilly said antisemites are no different than the KKK.

“They’re a large mob wearing masks to scare and incite people. Doesn’t that sound like the Klu Klux Klan?” he said.

He added: “The ban on masks should have never been repealed.”

Matthew Schweber, a lawyer with the Columbia University Jewish Alumni Association, said two groups in particular — Students for Justice in Palestine and Within Our Lifetime – encourage anti-Israel protesters to wear masks to protect their themselves from accountability for unlawful behavior.

Schweber, whose practice has included free speech cases, added: “These protests are not protected under the First Amendment, because they are engaged in targeted harassment and incitement of violence.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James and the New York Civil Liberties Union both supported the mask ban’s repeal as health officials told people to mask up to protect against Covid.

People touched by the Oct. 7 attacks were sent into a panic by recent protests.Robert Miller

They argued the law could be weaponized against black people.

The state’s ban wasn’t originally enacted to fight the Klan, according to an NYCLU brief. Instead, it was passed in response to rent protests in the 1800s.

New York’s anti-mask law banned gatherings of people covering their faces — and carried a penalty of 15 days in jail.

Richman, of the ADL, said that any new mask ban should have “appropriate exceptions for medical or religious purposes.”

https://nypost.com/2024/06/12/us-news/jewish-leaders-call-for-new-mask-ban-to-fight-antisemsitic-hate/

Update on Cochrane Review of Masks

 During the pandemic, my colleagues and I performed a systematic review of community masking. We found simply no good evidence to support masking or mask mandates.

Afterwards Cochrane published a similar (tbh even deeper) analysis and concluded that there was simply no good evidence that community masking slows the spread of respiratory viruses.

The standards used for our analysis are the same whether the intervention is a pill or a policy intervention: what do the best randomized studies show?

Notably the science community did run 3 additional masking RCTs during the pandemic. GuineaBissau is negative/ low utility. Denmark is negative. And Bangladesh was presented as successful, but reanalysis shows it was not a properly conducted randomized trial and thus… biased.

Accepting the fact that community (key word) masking probably does nothing is difficult for many. They don't understand how poor compliance can thwart bio plausibility. They don't understand how prolonged exposure time can thwart a marginal change in particle exposure. Masking is tied to political party and identity.

The Editor in Chief of Cochrane was unhappy with the popular interpretations of the analysis and issued a rare statement saying they would rethink the wording to make it clear that masks *might* work bc the confidence interval was broad.

I was curious at this announcement, so my research team looked at all Cochrane reviews on topics with negative overall conclusions and wide confidence intervals. We found that they were always interpreted as negative except for this one case. As such, the EIC was acting inappropriately.

Now after a lengthy discussion among the staff, Cochrane has concluded that no changes will be made. The EIC lost.

What's the take away? There never was any evidence to support community masking and certainly not mask mandate and certainly not in 2 year olds. Leaders in the US failed to run even a single community RCT. Instead belief was faith based. Although many smart people still love masking, history will view that the mask policies of covid were unscientific and dishonest. They should not be repeated.


https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/update-on-cochrane-review-of-masks

'Congress Digs Into Scandals Surrounding Biden Iran Envoy Rob Malley'

Few individuals have been more integral to the Obama-Biden project to “realign” the U.S. with Iran and strengthen the Middle East theocracy – at the expense of Israel, America’s Sunni Arab allies and partners, and U.S. national interest – than Rob Malley.

Frozen out of foreign policy decision-making during Donald Trump’s presidency, the lead negotiator behind President Obama’s signature Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Malley was brought back into the fold when Joe Biden came into the Oval Office. Biden tabbed Malley as Iran special envoy to resurrect that nuclear deal. Last summer, however, the longtime progressive foreign policy hand suddenly had his security clearance revoked and was placed on unpaid leave while under investigation by the State Department and FBI for potentially mishandling classified information. The case was already a hot-button partisan problem for the White House before Oct. 7, when Iran-backed terrorists attacked Israel.

For a year, the Biden administration has responded with secrecy and silence regarding Malley’s sidelining, even as a Tehran-tied outlet published details and leaked documents suggesting a breach of U.S. communications, and separate evidence emerged of Malley’s intertwinement with an Iranian influence network.

Congressional critics want answers, however, and are stepping up their efforts to get them. Republican lawmakers have served notice to the administration that they are determined to get a fuller picture of what has transpired – including lodging subpoenas if necessary.

A May 6 letter from Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Republican James Risch, and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul to Secretary of State Antony Blinken reveal their belief that Malley may have transferred classified documents to his personal email account and downloaded them on his personal cell phone – and that this information was hacked or otherwise obtained by unfriendly sources.

“Did Mr. Malley send or attempt to send these documents to anyone who lacked the proper clearance?” they ask in the letter. “Were any of these individuals affiliated with the Iranian government or the Iran Experts Initiative?”

Malley is viewed by some as hostile to Israel and cozy with Iran and its proxies like Hamas. His ties have caused heartburn even among allies: Malley’s meetings with Hamas leaders cost him an advisory role with the Obama presidential campaign in 2008. Only in his second term would Obama bring Malley in from the cold to ultimately help him pursue his desired JCPOA. As special envoy for the Biden administration, Malley was tasked with trying to reprise the nuclear deal scuttled by Trump. Those efforts came to a halt when his device was allegedly compromised.

Malley, a veteran diplomat with impeccable credentials but a radical lineage, met with Hamas leaders under the auspices of the International Crisis Group, where he hung his hat following tenures in the Clinton and Obama administrations – first as the head of its Middle East and North Africa Program, and later during the Trump years as its president and CEO.

Malley’s mandate at the prominent nonprofit, funded by among others, George Soros and myriad foreign governments including Hamas sponsor and harborer Qatar, was, in his own words, to “come up with ideas about how to prevent or resolve deadly conflict.”

Reporting last fall from Iran International and Semafor, based on a trove of correspondence and emails from a former Iranian diplomatic official, revealed that from 2014 onward, as Tehran negotiated with Washington regarding a nuclear deal, it leveraged individuals closely affiliated with the Crisis Group and Malley to lobby the U.S. and other governments on its behalf.

That year, Iran’s foreign policy apparatus secretly launched the Iran Experts Initiative to communicate with and coordinate the work of influential academics and think-tankers in Europe and the U.S., both to promote a more positive perspective of the regime to the West, and in service of a JCPOA that would flow tens of billions of dollars into the regime’s coffers, legitimize its nuclear program, and pledge U.S. protection for it.

Three members of the Iran Experts Initiative would find themselves in Malley’s near-orbit; two of them currently work at the Crisis Group.

Ranking member Risch and Chairman McCaul, among others, have previously sought answers from Secretary Blinken regarding the Iran Experts Initiative, Malley, and Ariane Tabatabai – a Malley protégé and stalwart supporter of the Iran nuclear deal identified as one of three “core” members of the Tehran-driven influence effort in a 2014 email exchange between Iranian officials. She currently works in a sensitive position at the Pentagon.

Although the Crisis Group has sought to tamp down claims about the nature of the Iran Experts Initiative’s work and its nexus to the think tank, Iranian leaders, including then-foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, suggested the NGO served as a force multiplier, in essence laundering the regime’s desired positions through its work – a characterization the group rejects.

In 2016, following the inking of the Iran nuclear deal, the Crisis Group entered what Semafor’s Jay Solomon has characterized as a “formal research-cooperation agreement” with the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Holocaust-denying and Oct. 7-lauding IPIS think tank through a memorandum of understanding.

Republican leaders have called on the Justice Department to investigate the Crisis Group for potential Foreign Agents Registration Act violations in connection with its Iran work, calling it “a chief mouthpiece of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the United States” – which the Crisis Group strenuously denies.

Whether Malley may have shared his documents with those linked to the Iranian regime, the congressmen seem to believe it obtained them somehow.

“Can you confirm that a malign cyber actor gained access to Mr. Malley’s personal email and/or phone?” they ask, adding “Is the alleged cyber actor affiliated with the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], Iranian military, or intelligence services?”

The congressmen also want to know whether the compromise of Malley’s device led to contagion, leaving “other senior officials at the State Department, National Security Council, or other agencies” at risk. And they are also curious whether the State Department or another federal entity has conducted a damage assessment and want to know what that damage might entail.

“What has been the impact on the administration’s Iran policy?” the congressmen asked in their letter.

“Did Mr. Malley’s alleged infractions,” they asked, “affect the conduct of Iran policy, to include nuclear discussions in Vienna or the public perception of those negotiations, as well as proximity talks in Oman that led to the release of Americans in exchange for looser nuclear and regional terrorism assurances?”

Finally, investigators want to know if the Biden administration is protecting Rob Malley through what ranking member Risch and Chairman McCaul characterize as the State Department’s “evasiveness and lack of transparency.”

The congressmen want to know, for example, how and when authorities became aware classified information was compromised, and what actions they took in response; whether any senior administration officials at the State Department, White House, or Department of Justice have intervened in the case, playing “any role in advocating for or against any criminal charges”; when officials became aware of the information divulged in the congressmen’s letter – suggesting their belief said officials may have knowingly withheld material information from Congress; and whether the administration has sought to or is planning on reinstating Malley’s security clearance and bringing him back into the fold.

Malley is a longtime friend of Secretary of State Blinken, dating back to their time as high school classmates overseas – a factor unspoken in oversight requests but almost assuredly known to the lawmakers exploring whether the suspended envoy is getting preferential treatment.

Congressional Republicans have also been heavily critical of the Biden administration’s policy of appeasement towards Iran, one whose influence can be seen broadly across the president’s Middle East policies, but which has not been front and center in the 2024 election campaign – presenting another reason the administration might wish to keep a lid on it.

Congressional Republicans are unmoved by platitudes from the administration about the need for confidentiality regarding an ongoing investigation. Given the stakes, particularly after the horrors of Oct. 7, they say stonewalling is simply unacceptable.

The American people deserve a full accounting of what has transpired, their probes suggest. Time will tell if the public gets that accounting before November.

Ben Weingarten is editor at large at RealClearInvestigations and a senior contributor to The Federalist.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/06/11/congress_digs_into_scandals_surrounding_biden_iran_envoy_rob_malley.html

Michigan 2020 election cases delayed as Biden-Trump rematch looms

 

  • Michigan criminal cases stemming from attempts to overturn the 2020 contest remain in legal limbo
  • Judge in ‘fake electors’ case this week chided the state’s lead investigator but plans additional hearings before a ruling
  • One defendant in alleged tabulator tampering case headed toward trial, but two others remanded to lower courts

 Nearly four years after a failed attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, Michigan courts are still dealing with the aftermath.

While President Donald Trump battles his own legal charges, attorneys and judges continue to argue over a series of high-profile criminal cases in  Michigan: A Republican “fake elector” scheme, an alleged tabulator tampering plot and accusations of illicit election data transmission

Among those charged are a former state House lawmaker, the Michigan Republican Party’s former co-chair, a 2022 nominee for attorney general and a lawyer who has garnered national attention for 2020 litigation.

Now, as Election Day 2024 inches closer, some observers are concerned the cases won’t conclude before the Nov. 5 contest that will again pit Democratic President Joe Biden against Trump in a rematch they fear could inspire new attempts to undermine the democratic process.

Others are expressing frustration about a long and winding judicial process that may, ultimately, never leave the preliminary examination phase.

That was made evident this week in Lansing when 54-A District Court Judge Kristen Simmons, presiding over a preliminary hearing for the accused fake electors, appeared to chide lead state investigator Howard Shock for struggling to recall certain elements of the years-long probe. 

Simmons, nominated to the bench in 2019 by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, is doing little to speed up the case herself. 

After splitting defendants into separate groups for preliminary exams, including two hearings that have stretched weeks and a third that has not yet been scheduled, the judge signaled Wednesday she won’t decide whether to bind suspects over for trial until each exam is complete. 

While delays can be frustrating to plaintiffs and defendants alike, long wait times are more a feature of the legal system than a bug, said Steven Liedel, a Michigan attorney specializing in election and campaign finance law who previously served as legal counsel to then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

Contributing factors for the delays can be wide ranging, Liedel said, including the possibility of overlapping state and federal cases like the fake electors, which was probed by Special Counsel Jack Smith until Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel re-opened her investigation early last year. 

There was also the COVID-19 pandemic, which Liedel said “greatly impacted the operation of courts.”

“The judiciary is an independent branch of government,” he told Bridge Michigan on Wednesday, adding that courts are “not concerned with timeframes relating to elections and that sort of thing.”

Republican alternate electors in Lansing

The biggest of Michigan’s 2020 election-related cases, in terms of scope and scale, is the one pertaining to 15 Republicans accused of participating in the so-called fake elector scheme. 

first set of defendants — including former Michigan Republican Party Co-Chair Meshawn Maddock and Kathy Berden, a former Republican National Committee member — concluded preliminary exams in April

A second set wrapped preliminary exams on Wednesday, but a third round is expected because another three defendants were unable to make earlier court dates, either because of health or scheduling issues. 

State investigators allege defendants signed a document in the wake of Michigan’s 2020 presidential election claiming the state’s Electoral College votes went to Trump even though Biden won by 154,188 votes. 

Defense attorneys for the electors claim many of them did not know what an attorney for the Trump campaign had asked them to sign, or only signed the document as a backup in case the election was ultimately overturned.

Wednesday testimony from former Michigan GOP Communications Director Tony Zammit seemed to underscore that point. 

Zammit recalled observing the defendants line up to sign a sheet in the basement of the Michigan GOP headquarters in late 2020. But, he said, there was only a signature sheet, not the first page of the document that would later be sent to the National Archives purporting Trump won the state. 

That could be a key distinction, because prosecutors must prove defendants knowingly committed forgery by sending a slate of false electors.

Asked when she will decide whether to move the case to trial, Simmons said Wednesday she plans to issue one overarching decision for all defendants once remaining preliminary exams are done. “But I don’t know yet,” she said. 

All 15 defendants were charged in July 2023 with eight felonies apiece, some of which carry sentences of up to 14 years in prison. Six felonies were related to forgery, the others pertaining to uttering and publishing.

Trouble for prosecutors

Simmons on Monday said Shock’s lack of preparation for his latest round of testimony  — including failing to remember when the probe began — was a “glaring” issue as she considers whether to send the case to trial. 

It wasn’t the first gaffe by Shock. In previous testimony, he identified former Michigan GOP Chair Laura Cox as an “unindicted co-conspirator,” a claim Nessel’s office later walked back. 

Shock also called Trump an unindicted co-conspirator, which the attorney general’s office has said is accurate. 

Zammit and defense attorneys have suggested that if anyone knowingly prepared a false document, it was attorneys for the Trump campaign. The former president has been personally charged in a similar case out of Georgia, and some of his top associates face charges in Wisconsin. 

In an interview with Bridge last week, Nessel said her office has still not “not ruled anything out” in the Michigan case, including potential charges against Trump or high-profile allies. 

"You have a lot of other actors that are being held accountable at various different levels in federal court and other states,” said Nessel, a Democrat. “But we thought it was really important to start with these individuals here in Michigan and let the facts develop.”

Voting machine tampering in Oakland County

At least one of Michigan’s 2020 election cases may make it to trial this year: An alleged plot to illegally seize voting machines and examine them in a failed attempt to prove they were rigged against Trump

A trial for attorney Stefanie Lambert is scheduled to begin October 2 before Oakland County Court Judge Jeffery Matis.

She was one of three people charged in August 2023, alongside fellow attorney Matthew Deperno and former state Rep. Daire Rendon, in Special Prosecutor D.J. Hilson's probe of the alleged tabulator tampering scheme.

The three face various charges, including willfully damaging a voting machine and conspiring to commit unauthorized access of a computer, which are punishable by up to four or five years in prison. 

DePerno and Rendon aren’t heading to trial anytime soon, however. 

Their cases have been remanded to Royal Oak’s 44th District Court for probable cause conferences with Judge Derek Meinecke. Those hearings are currently scheduled to begin July 12. 

Hilson, the special prosecutor, agreed to remand the cases for preliminary hearings that will determine whether DePerno and Rendon head to trial. In a December 2023 filing, Hilson said preliminary exams would help “avoid a later claim that there was an error in not having one held.”

He cited dismissal of criminal charges in the Flint water crisis, where the Michigan Supreme Court ultimately agreed that defendants who were indicted by a one-man grand jury should have been granted preliminary exams.

More trouble for Stefanie Lambert

Lambert was arrested on a contempt of court order in March after she missed a hearing in the Oakland County tampering case while in Washington D.C. to defend businessman Patrick Byrne in a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems. 

Dominion is seeking to disqualify Lambert from the suit because she allegedly provided confidential court records about their election machines to Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf, who then published them on social media. She has claimed she had a duty to turn over “evidence” to law enforcement. 

Lambert is additionally a player in another Michigan criminal case pertaining to election interference in Hillsdale County’s Adams Township.

Nessel’s office in May announced felony charges against Lambert and former Adams Township Clerk Stephanie Scott after the latter blocked routine maintenance on local voting equipment. Election officials say her actions were a misguided attempt to preserve 2020 voting data. 

Nessel claims the two broke several laws when Scott refused to turn over voting equipment in 2021. Lambert then allegedly used that equipment to illicitly transmit 2020 general election data from the township’s electronic poll book under Scott’s instruction.

Lambert’s charges are computer-related. Scott’s include unauthorized computer access, misconduct in office and concealing or withholding a voting machine — as well as a misdemeanor charge for disobeying instructions from elections officials.

If found guilty, Scott could face up to 20 years in prison, and Lambert up to 15 years. They are due back in Hillsdale County’s 2B District Court on June 12 for a preliminary examination before Judge Megan Stiverson.

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/michigan-2020-election-cases-delayed-biden-trump-rematch-looms

RNC's Bill McGinley: Progressive Billionaires Invested & Bought The Federal Bureaucracy

 RNC Deputy Counsel Bill McGinley talked to Steve Bannon on his show 'War Room' on how the Biden campaign is outsourcing "dirty work" to the DNC and dark money groups.



BILL MCGINLEY, RNC DEPUTY COUNSEL: What we need to do is we need to turn back the clock a little bit. And as I said, there's been some great reporting on this, including books. One, The Blueprint, the other one, The Argument by Matt Bai.

And in 2008 out in Denver at the National Convention, there was a transcript that was released. The Blueprint does, quote, from the transcript. And Rob Stein, who was the founder of Democracy Alliance, really kind of laid out the rationale for why a lot of these progressive billionaires would be willing to invest so much money into this sort of, into this sort of infrastructure.

And Rob Stein, according to the transcript, said, quote, In order to bring about progressive change, you need progressive control of government. In order to get progressive control of government and sustain it, you need an infrastructure. You need organizations to support them, political organization and movement organizations.

The reason it is so important to control government is because the government is the source of enormous power. One president in this country, when he or she takes office, appoints, he says, two million, and then he corrects himself, appoints 5,000 people to run a bureaucracy, non-military, non-postal service of two million people, who hire 10 million outside outsource contractors, a workforce of 12 million people that spends $3 trillion a year. So he, they're looking at this saying, I can spend a billion dollars, two billion dollars, and I can control $3 trillion of budget every year.

STEVE BANNON, "WAR ROOM" HOST: Three trillion dollars is all the discretionary. That's after the transfer of payments. It gets to seven.

But right there, hang on a second, we're going to get all the links out there. This is so powerful. They nail it.

What we talk about all the time, this is, on our counter, is taking apart the administrative state. What they're saying, it's not 5,000. I think it's really 3,000.

Political appointees. Political appointees immediately. Another 1,000 have to be Senate confirmed.

We always get hung up on. In other words, you're a political appointee. You started day one.

Yeah. Hour one. Hour one.

I mean, you were with us the whole time, but I'm saying, boom, as soon as the hand comes off the Bible, that's the 3,000. But he's the first guy to nail it. It's not just the, take the military, that's about two and a half million.

You've got about two million guys in the administrative state. But there's 18 million contractors overall. But about eight million of the contractors are IT guys, et cetera.

Right. They're 10 million, they do it just to get them off the balance sheet. Right.

It's a 12 million that controls $3 trillion. That's the administrative state. McCabe, that's wetting himself, is part of the deep state.

That's the kind of Pretorian Guard rogue element of this. But that's what Project 2025, everything is set to deconstruct the administrative state. And you have the great article today, I'll get up later.

And I think on Yahoo News about the five Supreme Court cases that are coming now for decisions between the now and the end of June, all deal with the administrative state. Because at the judiciary, we finally got Gorsuch and other people in there, but you've got to do it this way too. But these people understand raw power.

That's right. To get progressive change, to turn the United States into a progressive government, a progressive country, you've got to take control of the government.

MCGINLEY: But power comes from return on investment.

They're willing to invest the money to build that infrastructure that gets them into power to control the government. That quote is actually in the book, The Blueprint. And so I look at, so I encourage you to look at it.

From Matt Bai, the argument, after 2004, when President Bush is reelected, they're very surprised by it. As you said, Kerry's advisors start calling him Mr. President until all the final reserves come in. They really go, they become despondent and asked, what happened? And so what Matt Bai describes is kind of the, in his book, is kind of the process that they go through.

It's kind of a grieving process. So it's a good failure or bad failure. And he calls it basically the stages of grief after an electoral defeat, right? First stage is denial.

It's not our fault. We're right. Everyone else is wrong.

The second stage is acknowledgement. Okay. Something here has got to change.

The third stage is the frantic search for the thing, right? We have to find the thing that will save us. And so basically anybody who loses an election kind of goes through those three stages. And I thought that Matt Bai did a very good job of distilling those down.

BANNON: The reason we didn't go through those stages is we didn't lose in 2020. It was stolen, okay? That's a sine qua non of everything we do.

MCGINLEY: So they ask, what can we do to correct this, right? In order to become more competitive.

And so Matt Bai describes kind of the process that they're going through and the ideas that they're hashing around. One of them is called, how are we going to invest donor money? One of them is called the marketplace of ideas. He describes it as kind of a lean, minimalist organization that would hold meetings where political entrepreneurs could pitch donors on their ideas.

The other one's kind of the more traditional philanthropist model, which is donors pool their resources, create central fund to donate to progressive groups. But ultimately, he says they settled on a hybrid approach, which is really how Democracy Alliance comes about. And so in the beginning, they start looking at the holes in their capabilities.

They look at the Republican model at the time, and they say, where are we deficient? So they start funding groups, such as Catalyst, which becomes their data hub. They start funding Media Matters to really kind of scrutinize conservative media and Republican politicians. America Votes, remember that name from yesterday, which is really sort of the central hub of where they try to coordinate their get out the vote efforts.

So there's not redundancy, it's more efficient. And then Center for American Progress, which is supposed to be the policy idea engine. And so they keep going through this, and they begin to do it.

Eventually, what happens is, is they get surprised again in 16 when Trump wins. Then they go through another conversion where what do we do now? Because they were surprised. And they come up with something called a resistance.

BANNON: But they do get eight years of Obama. They get eight years of Obama, right? They get eight years of Obama. And by the way, for all the facade down front about the most progressive, the central thing they get is the greatest concentration of wealth in American history came during that time because the financial crisis of 2008, Obama is the first to admit, I think, Susskind's book, Confidence Men, shows it.

You had Geithner, you had Bernanke, you had all the Wall Street guys basically leveraged up the Federal Reserve, went from $880 billion, $4.5 trillion. All that money, liquidity went into the system to prop up assets and stocks. You never got a bailout.

They did. So they're eight years of Obama. Now they get a progressive guy in the foreground.

That's when they really took control of the country because that was the greatest concentration of wealth to the 1% in the history of the nation. So it was a big win for them already. Then Trump upends, this audience upends.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/06/11/rncs_bill_mcginley_progressive_billionaires_invested_bought_the_federal_bureaucracy.html