The Dictatorship
Political violence is supposed to repel us. But Trump allies are acclimating to it.
This is an adapted excerpt from the Jan. 6 episode of “The Rachel Maddow Show.”
In 2018, in Coral Gables, Florida, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi attended an event for Donna Shalala, a Democratic congressional candidate. In response, the local Republican Party in Miami-Dade County called for a protest of that event.
During that protest, members of the Proud Boys heckled and shouted expletives at Pelosi as she walked inside. That included Enrique Tarrio, the national head of the Proud Boys. At the time, Tarrio lived in South Florida. He now lives in federal prison after being convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 22 years for trying to overthrow the U.S. government. On Monday, Tarrio’s lawyer wrote to Donald Trump formally asking the president-elect to pardon his client.
Another attendee of that 2018 protest was Miami-Dade County Commissioner Kevin Cabrera, who can be seen on video pounding the door of Shalala’s campaign office. Trump just named Cabrera as his pick to be the next U.S. ambassador to Panama.
We’re supposed to have a sharp line that keeps violent intimidation on one side and politics on the other — never the twain shall meet.
Cabrera defended his conduct, saying he was just exercising his right to protest, but it’s worth remembering that, at the time, Republicans were actually embarrassed by the display. The head of the Miami-Dade Republican Party later apologized for being there. Other Republicans, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, condemned the event.
Just more than six years later, Rubio is about to be nominated to be Trump’s secretary of state, and the guy who pounded on a door to try to scare Pelosi is set to report to him as a U.S. ambassador.
The reason that is repellent, the reason that is repulsive, is because we’re supposed to have a sharp line that keeps violent intimidation on one side and politics on the other — never the twain shall meet.
On Monday, the certification of the 2024 presidential election took place in Washington. It happened, ministerially and ceremonially, like it’s supposed to. That contrasts with what occurred four years ago on Jan. 6 and makes clear the profound difference between the parties.
Had Democrats won the presidential election, many openly expected and prepared for the possibility of Republicans launching a violent revolt. But if Republicans had won, it was expected Democrats would peacefully accept and participate in the transfer of power. When there’s an expectation of violence if one side loses in an electoral contest, then the political parties in that country are no longer competing in democratic terms.
That’s part of what we’re contending with at this moment: How do we ever get back to competition in democratic terms? How do we get the Republicans to no longer see physical force and armed conflict as the way they’re going to get their way?
Well, one big step backward from that as a goal will be Trump’s promised pardons of the people who committed violence in his name that day. The argument now appears to not be about whether Trump will issue pardons to people who took part in the attack on the Capitol, but just how many of them will get the pardon.
That’s led publications as diverse as the HuffPost and The Wall Street Journal editorial page to try to front page the details of the actual crimes for which some of these people were convicted.
“Andrew Taake pepper-sprayed police officers defending the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 and hit one with a metal whip. He is serving 74 months at a federal prison in Beaumont, Texas,” HuffPost reported.
“Christopher Alberts carried a loaded 9 mm pistol onto Capitol grounds that day and hit police officers with a wooden pallet,” the report continued. “He is serving an 84-month sentence at the federal prison in Milan, Michigan.”
Another example from HuffPost: “Steven Cappuccio held his cell phone in his mouth so he could beat an officer using both of his hands, including with the officer’s own baton. He is doing 85 months at the federal prison in Forrest City, Arkansas.”
As the outlet noted, all three of those men will be back on the streets if Trump follows through on his pledge to pardon the Jan. 6 insurrectionists.
According to their analysis, “Of those serving a year or more in prison, a full 57% are there following a conviction in cases involving an assault on a police officer. In all, 83% serving a year-or-more were convicted of committing an act of violence.”
This means that, with few exceptions, the only people Trump could release from prison with his pardon power are those who attacked a police officer, possessed weapons or explosives, or were convicted of some other violent felony.
Then there’s the deeply conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page, which published a piece with the headline, “Trump’s Pardon Promise for Jan. 6 Rioters: Does it include the ex-meth trafficker who brought a metal baton and swung it at police?”
After describing some of the actions of these rioters in brutal detail, the editorial board goes on to write, “Pardoning such crimes would contradict Mr. Trump’s support for law and order, and it would send an awful message about his view of the acceptability of political violence done on his behalf.”
Now, I take issue with the Journal’s characterization that Trump has always supported law and order; he’s repeatedly praised violence in his name. But that last line is correct — it would send an awful message.
This Jan. 6, we saw the profound difference between the Democratic Party, offering democratic competition, win or lose, and the Republican Party’s threat of violence.
We saw the profound difference between the Democratic Party, offering democratic competition, win or lose, and the Republican Party’s threat of violence.
Yes, there’s an unnerving, unsettling, fight to remember what actually happened — to be real about how disgusting it all was — while the Trump movement and the Republicans try to say the attack was a bunch of heroes who have been wrongly persecuted for doing nothing wrong.
But there is an instrumental and practical question at hand, too. Which is, what happens to the future of political violence — in the very short term — if the people who committed violence on the president-elect’s behalf are sprung from prison and celebrated as vindicated heroes when Trump takes office again?
The idea that there is permeability between violence and politics, that what is supposed to be civic hallowed ground, is fouled by the rioting and looting we saw take place, in Trump’s name, on Jan. 6, 2021.
That is supposed to repel us and disgust us — indelibly. We are never supposed to acclimate to that. But the Trump side has. And so now, four years later, with just two weeks until Trump is back in power, we must be prepared for what could happen next.
Allison Detzel contributed.
The Dictatorship
Karen Bass advances to general election in Los Angeles mayoral contest
Incumbent mayor Karen Bass will proceed to the Nov. 3 general election in the Los Angeles mayoral race, the Associated Press projected early Wednesday morning.
Bass emerged as the leader of the crowded field of more than a dozen candidates after a feisty battle the past few months that led to former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and Los Angeles City Councilwoman Nithya Raman polling neck-and-neck less than a week before primary day.
As of early Wednesday morning, the Associated Press had yet to project a second candidate who would advance to the general election in the all-party primary in which the top two vote-getters move on.
Bass, the 72-year-old incumbent, has a long record in politics: Before being elected LA mayor in 2022, she represented Los Angeles in the California State Assembly, eventually becoming speaker, and served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. She entered the mayor’s race facing extensive criticism from Angelenos for both her handling of last year’s deadly LA wildfires — she was in Ghana when the blazes broke out — and her failure to achieve her goal of ending homelessness by the end of her first term.
Bass has campaigned on her experience, which includes standing up to the Trump administration when the president deployed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the city last year, and a pledge to deliver on her promise to end homelessness.
Pratt, 42, was a surprise candidate when he announced his intention to run for mayor in January. The registered Republican and former reality TV villainbest known from the MTV show “The Hills,” has no political experience, but became a vocal critic of Bass and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom after his family home burned down in the Pacific Palisades fire last year. Since launching his populist campaign centered on critiquing the city’s Democratic leadership and cracking down on homelessness and crime, Pratt has earned the backing of MAGA leadersand even President Donald Trump himself, though Pratt rejects any affiliation with the MAGA movement.
After a strong televised debate performance last month, Pratt’s fundraising surged. All in all, he has raised $3.7 million since January, compared to the $3.2 million Bass has raised over the past two years, according to the latest campaign finance filings.
Raman, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who has represented LA’s 4th council district since 2020, launched her surprise mayoral campaign in February — less than two weeks after she endorsed Bass’ campaign for re-election.
Raman, 44, earned comparisons early on to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani due to her DSA roots and her pledge to bring generational change to the city if elected. But as the race progressed, she walked back some of her more left-wing policy stances — such as defunding the police and opposing anti-camping zones for homeless people — and polling suggested Raman and Pratt would be fighting for second place on primary day.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.
The Dictatorship
Republican infighting in Iowa points to GOP peril after Feenstra loses governor’s race
Republicans have not lost a gubernatorial race in Iowa since George W. Bush was president.
So the anxiety within the GOP as voters went to the polls Tuesday was, on its face, hard to explain. But the projected defeat of Rep. Randy FeenstraTrump’s endorsed candidate, in the GOP primary for governor was an early sign of just how unpredictable voters may be in Iowa this year.
In the two decades since a Democrat last won the governorship, in 2006, Iowa has gone from presidential battleground to reliably red-state terrain, carried three times by Donald Trump. In most election cycles, that record would all but guarantee a comfortable race for Republicans this fall — even in a year when momentum is building on the left.
Not this year.
What happened in Iowa on Tuesday was a clear test case of just how far the president’s blessing and the sway of partisan identity can carry a candidate over the finish line. Trump’s endorsement has essentially been the gold standard in Republican politics, often making the difference between a candidate being a contender or becoming a has-been. Sometimes, though, Trump simply sides with the candidate who seemed to be the most likely to be the primary winner.
What happened in Iowa on Tuesday was a clear test case of just how far the president’s blessing and the sway of partisan identity can carry a candidate over the finish line.
His nod to Feenstra days before Iowa’s gubernatorial primary, however, carried the marks of a late-breaking rescue mission — especially given that other rivals were well positioned as Iowans headed to vote. Democrats have had to deal with none of those worries on their end: State Auditor Rob Sand has run effectively unopposed for months, free to focus on the general election and that alone.
“Rob Sand is, he’s a very dangerous candidate, he’s running against both parties,” said Bob Vander Plaats, a conservative evangelical leader in the state. While he backed GOP candidate Adam Steen, Vander Plaats had concerns about Feenstra. “I really believe Randy gives us our biggest, biggest risk of having Rob Sand be governor,” he said ahead of Tuesday’s primary.
Even with Trump’s endorsement, Feenstra fell short in the GOP primary. The Republican congressman conceded the race Tuesday night to opponent Zach Lahn, making for one of the few times this year that Trump’s endorsed candidate has been rejected by Republican voters.
Feenstra entered the race as the front-runner. Back in 2020, he helped both national and Iowa Republicans when he defeated deeply controversial Rep. Steve King in a Republican primary — a victory that catapulted him to Washington. With a low-key approach and national connections forged in Congress, he appeared primed to help his party hold the state and continue its gubernatorial-race dominance; federal filings show that earlier in his campaign he moved more than $1 million from his congressional campaign to boost his statewide ambitions.
But the primary bruised him. While Sand glided toward November, Feenstra spent the spring fending off a crowded field.
“I feel pretty comfortable saying that we can beat anybody that they put against us,” Sand told reporters Tuesday. “I think most Iowans recognize that the state’s going in the wrong direction.”
In a five-way Republican race, Feenstra’s most formidable challenge came from Lahn, who tried to claim the “outsider” lane. Lahn lent his campaign more than $2 million and drew support from the late Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point Action organization and an arm of the Make America Healthy Again movement — the kind of backing that can scramble expectations in Republican circles.
Trump noticeably sat out the race until late last week, when he posted an endorsement on social media touting Feenstra. Despite all that, even after Trump endorsed the congressman, Lahn said last weekend he did not believe Feenstra could beat Sand this fall.
“Rob Sand has run a campaign that he’s been out with the people for a very long time, the complete opposite of what Randy Feenstra’s done,” Lahn said in an interview. “This is what’s at stake. If Randy Feenstra’s the nominee on June 3, it affects every other race for Republicans in the state. That’s how important this is. It affects the U.S. Senate race, the House races, some of which will be in razor-thin margins.”
Ahead of polls closing Tuesday night, Feenstra campaign spokesman Billy Fuerst claimed in a message that “Randy Feenstra earned President Trump’s complete and total endorsement to be the next Governor of Iowa because President Trump knows that Randy is the only proven conservative who can defeat Extreme Liberal Rob Sand and keep Iowa red.”
Electability is often a concern in competitive primaries. But the aftermath in Iowa may prove especially difficult for Republicans. While the Iowa governor’s race is important to the state, it also could have an outsize influence on congressional control as well. A strong performance by Sand could prove pivotal in also helping Democrats as they try to win the state’s open U.S. Senate this fall, as well as to potentially flip as many as three congressional districts.
Given the narrow control Republicans have in the House, those seats could become incredibly important. And while winning the Senate race is more of a long shot, it is one of just a few that Democrats realistically have a chance of winning in the fall as they try to overcome a difficult picture to take back the Senate.
All of this means that after a few cycles where its national importance has faded, Iowa could become a tipping point for either Republicans maintaining sway for the final two years of Trump’s time in power or seeing it slip away.
Either outcome may depend on just how much Sand stresses Republicans in Iowa as he runs on a message that picks at partisan politics generally and that tries to bring back some relatability back to a Democratic Party whose reputation as caring about ideology over economic woes has become alienating in pockets of the Midwest and in key battleground states.
“[Sand’s] got the wind at his back right now, because he’s not being attacked relentlessly like he will be after the primary,” said David Kochel, an Iowa Republican strategist. “I think once this race defines and once you kind of can show that he is part of a national Democratic brand, I think it gets a lot tougher for him to win a state like Iowa.”
Hunter Woodall covers politics for MS NOW. He’s reported on politics and presidential campaigns for The Associated Press and CBS News and reported on Congress for The Minnesota Star Tribune.
Alex Tabet is a reporter for MS NOW.
The Dictatorship
Scott Pelley fired from CBS News after tense ‘60 Minutes’ meeting
Veteran “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley has been fired from CBS News a day after he excoriated the show’s new executive producer and editor-in-chief Bari Weiss in a staff meeting.
The venerated show’s newly named executive producer, Nick Bilton, announced the network “parted ways” with Pelley in a Tuesday note to staff obtained by MS NOW.
“I know how much Scott meant to many of you, and I don’t say this lightly,” Bilton wrote. “I made repeated attempts to have direct conversations with him over the weekend, and this afternoon I tried to find common ground. That was not the path Scott chose.”
Pelley’s firing deepens a seismic shift for the network, which has seen an exodus of journalists since David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance, appointed Weiss as editor-in-chief last year. Last week, correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi’s contract expired after she criticized Weiss for pulling her segment on torture in Salvadoran prisons from the air. (Weiss maintained that the story was not ready. A revised version aired a month later.)
Pelley has worked for the show since 2004 and has won more than 50 Emmy Awards, according to his bio on the network’s website, which also notes he won half of all major awards earned by “60 Minutes” during his tenure.
In a staff meeting Monday, Pelley told Bilton — a journalist and filmmaker who has no prior experience in broadcast television — he had “slender” qualifications for the job, and that Weiss was “murdering” “60 Minutes,” according to The New York Times, which obtained a recording of the meeting.
“She does not love this place,” Pelley reportedly said of Weiss, according to the Times. “She was brought in to kill it, and she’s been doing exactly that.”
The news of Pelley’s firing was first reported by journalist Oliver Darcy, author of the newsletter Status.
In the termination letter Bilton sent Pelley, which was also obtained by MS NOW, the new executive producer said the veteran correspondent “hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt.”
“Yesterday’s performative display of hostility — enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation — demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress,” Bilton wrote.
In a phone interview with the Times after news of his firing broke, Pelley said he devoted decades of his life to the network.
“I have been in combat in Afghanistan. I have been in combat in Iraq. I have been in the war zone in Ukraine multiple times, risking my life and the happiness of my family because of my devotion to the broadcast,” he told the newspaper.
Weiss herself praised Pelley’s career even as she condemned his conduct in recent days.
“Despite our attempts to engage with Scott Pelley and to find a way back, unfortunately we weren’t able to do so, and so
we had to part ways,” Weiss said Wednesday morning at the top of the CBS News editorial call, according to remarks obtained by MS NOW.
“That unfortunate outcome does not discount from the amazing contributions and work that Scott Pelley
has done for CBS and for ‘60 Minutes’ over the course of his career,” Weiss added, listing several major things Pelley covered in the show’s most recent season.
“Those are unforgettable stories,” she said.
Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words




