Wednesday, January 15, 2025

Special counsel's Jan. 6 report releasd - slams Trump's 'unprecedented' crimes

no image description available
Special counsel Jack Smith

By Oliver Willis Daily Kos StaffSpecial counsel Jack Smith released his report on the election interference case against Donald Trump on Monday night. The report summarized the case against Trump for his role in attempting to subvert and steal the 2020 election, which he lost to President Joe Biden.

Smith pulled the plug on the two federal cases against Trump following his 2024 election victory. Trump had been charged with multiple counts of defrauding the country, as well as obstructing official proceedings. He was also charged with multiple federal offenses for hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

In the report, Smith writes that Trump was “engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power” and “attempted to use the power and authority of the United States Government in furtherance of his scheme.”

The report notes that Trump attempted to get state officials to ignore election results showing millions of people had voted for Biden and instead pressured them to certify him as the winner, tried to get states to send fake electors for certification by the Electoral College, and pressured officials at the Department of Justice to call the election “corrupt.”

Trump followed up these actions by directing “an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then leverage rioters' violence to further delay it,” the report details, in reference to the Jan. 6 attack.

FILE - Insurrectionists loyal to President Donald Trump try to break through a police barrier, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)
Insurrectionists loyal to President Donald Trump try to break through a police barrier, Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol in Washington.

Smith concludes that “the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial,” and that only Trump’s election win prevented that outcome.

The report finally surfaced after Trump’s lawyers attempted to hold up the document’s release and after pro-Trump U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon initially blocked the public from seeing the outcome of Smith’s investigation.

On social media, Trump raged about the release of the report.

“Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his ‘boss,’ Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another ‘Report’ based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were,” Trump wrote.

In his post, Trump also lied and claimed that he defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in a “landslide.” Trump’s margin of victory in the popular vote was 1.5%. By contrast, in the 2020 election he tried to steal, he lost to Biden by 4.5%.

Trump will never face a penalty for the allegations in the report, but he was convicted of multiple charges in New York for attempting to cover up his affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels. When he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, he will be the first convicted felon to assume the presidency. 

Trump is seeing red over Smith's report as he faces life as the first convicted felon to assume the presidency (you know, over that Stormy Daniels thing).

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

Bannon Condemns Musk as ‘Racist,’ ‘Truly Evil’

 Steve Bannon Condemns Elon Musk as ‘Racist’ and ‘Truly Evil’  

Sweet guy Steve Bannon. (photo: Luke MacGregor/Bloomberg)

Evil calls evil "evil" - vows to take "President" Musk Down

Chris Michael / Guardian UK

 In an escalation of discontent among the highest-profile far-right followers of Donald Trump, his former adviser Steve Bannon has called Trump’s newest favorite, Elon Musk, “racist” and a “truly evil guy”, pledging to “take this guy down” and kick him out of the Maga movement.

 In an interview with the Corriere della Sera newspaper in Italy, excerpts of which were published this weekend by Breitbart, Bannon criticised Musk’s embrace of some forms of immigration and vowed to ensure that Musk does not have top-level access to the White House.

“He is a truly evil guy, a very bad guy. I made it my personal thing to take this guy down,” Bannon said. “Before, because he put money in, I was prepared to tolerate it – I’m not prepared to tolerate it any more.”

He added: “I will have Elon Musk run out of here by inauguration day”, which falls on 20 January. “He will not have full access to the White House. He will be like any other person.”

Musk became one of Trump’s biggest cheerleaders, and certainly his richest, during the Republican’s ultimately successful campaign to regain the US presidency, spending reportedly about $270m and being rewarded with a place at Trump’s side ever since.

After his victory Trump tapped Musk to help lead an advisory group theoretically dedicated to cutting US government spending by up to $2tn, a quarter of its entire budget.

But Musk’s embrace of H-1B visas, which allow companies – such as Musk’s own SpaceX and Tesla – to hire skilled professionals and engineers from outside the US, has been taken badly by other Maga acolytes who are opposed to nearly all forms of immigration. Musk, who was born in South Africa, has himself held an H1-B visa.

“This thing of the H-1B visas, it’s about the entire immigration system is gamed by the tech overlords. They use it to their advantage. The people are furious,” said Bannon, whom Trump fired from his White House position during his first administration but who later reinvented himself through his War Room podcast as one of the chief evangelists of the Maga movement.

Bannon further widened his aim to attack Musk’s fellow tech giants Peter Thiel and David Sacks for having South African heritage.

“He [Musk] should go back to South Africa,” Bannon said. “Why do we have South Africans, the most racist people on earth, white South Africans, we have them making any comments at all on what goes on in the United States?”

Arguing that Musk’s “sole objective is to become a trillionaire” and calling him a proponent of “techno-feudalism on a global scale”, Bannon said, “I don’t support that and we’ll fight it,” adding: “He won’t fight. He’s got the maturity of a little boy.

“He will do anything to make sure that any one of his companies is protected or has a better deal or he makes more money.

“His aggregation of wealth, and then – through wealth – power: that’s what he’s focused on.”

He's mine, all mine: Jealous showdown of scumbags at the DT Corral.

Monday, January 13, 2025

How the Climate Crisis Fuels Devastating Wildfires: ‘We Have Tweaked Nature and Pissed It Off’

 How the Climate Crisis Fuels Devastating Wildfires: ‘We Have Tweaked Nature and Pissed It Off’  

Firefighters tackle a wildfire. (photo: Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images)
 
"When you look at how we live, and what drives the life we live, we are a fire-based society." 

Victoria Namkung / Guardian UK  


When writing about the hot, dry Santa Ana winds and how they affect the behavior and imaginations of southern Californians, Joan Didion once said: “The winds show us how close to the edge we are.”

I’ve lived here my entire life. I evacuated my family’s hillside home as a teenager. I’ve experienced the surrealism of watching ash rain down from the sky more times than I can count. But there is something different, supercharged, about the hurricane-force winds that fueled this week’s catastrophic wildfires in Los Angeles.

We’re not just close to the edge. It feels like we’ve already gone overboard.

Over 10 million people live in LA county – more than the populations of most US states – and 150,000 of them remain under evacuation (another 166,800 residents are under evacuation warnings). At least 11 have died, more than 10,000 structures have been damaged or destroyed and hazardous smoke is compromising our already compromised air quality. The Los Angeles wildfires are on track to be the costliest in US history with some analysts projecting economic losses of $50 to $150bn.

Writer John Vaillant, an American and Canadian dual citizen who resides in Vancouver, is intimately familiar with colossal fires like the ones devouring Los Angeles. He’s the bestselling author of Fire Weather, a gripping account of Canada’s 2016 Fort McMurray fire and the relationship between fire and humans in a heating world that was a finalist for the Pulitzer prize and the National Book Award.

Throughout his work, Vaillant is clear about why these “21st-century fires” are so different from the ones I grew up with: it’s the climate crisis.

I spoke to Vaillant about these new fires we’re seeing, not just in Los Angeles, but in Paradise, California, and Maui, the role of the fossil-fuel industry and his advice for Angelenos right now.

We don’t know who or what exactly started the Los Angeles wildfires but what role has the fossil fuel industry played?

It’s certainly not the cause of the fires, but it is an enhancer, an enabler and an energizer of the fires. I coined a term in Fire Weather, which is “21st-century fires”. It burns fundamentally differently than it used to, and it’s responding to climate change and the atmosphere’s growing ability to hold heat at low elevations and heat everything around us. Climate science ain’t rocket science. When you make things hotter and drier, they burn more easily. We have basically tweaked nature, pissed it off and we have altered the climate of this planet in a way that makes it more hostile to our ambitions and safety.

How do you connect Canada’s 2016 Fort McMurray fire, which you documented extensively in your book, to other massive fires like we saw more recently in Paradise, Maui and now Los Angeles?

The intensity of the fire that burned through Fort McMurry in 2016, in the sub-Arctic of Canada when there was still ice on the lakes, burned basically the same way as the ones in LA. You had the drought, you had the fuel, you had the wind and that’s all you need. That can be recreated anywhere in the world. Any city can burn now. LA is effectively surrounded by fires and the wind will decide the fate of LA. That is a weird situation to be in, but it’s also a very honest one. I don’t care what business you’re in, nature owns 51% of it, at least. We act as if we own it. We share it. That’s what LA is discovering.

In your book, you propose that we replace the nomenclature homo sapiens with homo flagrans, which loosely translates to ‘burning man,’ to characterize our species. Why?

Homo sapiens, which is a generous name for us, means wise man, rational man. We have speech and we can organize and do incredible things and that’s awesome. Flagrans means fiery, it means outrageous. We are fiery, we are passionate, we do outrageous things, good and bad. So flagrans is not necessarily negative, it’s not homo horribilis, but it’s recognizing our allegiance to and entanglement with and dependence on combustion. We are a fire species. Fire is our enabler and it’s our superpower.

When you look at how we live, and what drives the life we live, we are a fire-based society. I’m watching cars just whispering along right now. There’s no smoke, there’s no fire, but there are raging violent explosions going on under the hood of these gasoline-powered cars. If you were to mount an engine on your kitchen table and run it, you’d go deaf from the noise and then you’d be dead from the emissions if you didn’t have the windows open, so that’s what we have under the hood of our car. You multiply that by every furnace, every water heater and when you look at the things in your house, everything is mediated some way through fire’s energy or fire’s heat.

We need to tip our hats to the engineers because that you and I can sit in a car together and have a conversation with that incredibly powerful engine banging away under the hood, but so expertly muffled and insulated and siphoned off that we don’t hear it, smell it or notice it. The engineering has enabled us to forget the real cost, which is the heat and emissions. They’re invisible to our eye, but the atmosphere knows and fire absolutely senses it and is capitalizing on it.

More people are waking up to that cost it seems.

Fire has no heart and soul; all it wants to do is grow and expand. There are analogies there if you look at how Amazon behaves or Elon Musk behaves or Walmart. The emphasis is on growth and it’s exciting to grow a company and have an idea that sells. 

But the act of creation can also be an engine of destruction. The dynamic with the shareholder engineers the conditions for institutional sociopathy. The CEO’s job is to create profits for the shareholders to keep them invested. You have to do that at all costs. Profit trumps everything else and that is sociopathic and it’s not reality-based because it doesn’t take into account the limits of nature and the limits of nature determine whether we live or die or prosper or fail and that’s the reckoning.

What role does the modern house play in intensifying fires like the ones in Los Angeles?

I’m walking around on a laminate floor made from petroleum distillates, so if that started burning it would start offgassing and it would make terribly toxic black smoke. I’m leaning on a sofa, this colossal sectional that’s completely synthetic. Synthetic is almost a euphemism for petroleum protects. I’m sitting on a couple barrels of gas here, but it’s disguised as pillows and cushions and it’s really comfortable. The TV is all plastic. The kitchen cupboard doors are particle board, held together with glue, which is flammable chemicals. A particle board door is going to burn very differently than a pine covered door from your great-grandmother’s house.

What would you say to political leaders and billionaires who put the blame for these fires on Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass or Governor Gavin Newsom?

Unfortunately, we have the most powerful people in the world trying to distract and obfuscate and frankly lie about this. The idea of leaders lying about science is so fundamentally wrong and damaging and civilization-corroding. What do you do when the future president of the United States attacks the most populous state in the union? Using every opportunity to foment division and partisanship is absolutely toxic – as toxic as supercharging the atmosphere with fossil fuels that make the entire world more combustible.

You have a whole bunch of people who are traumatized now. When you go back and see the place you live, or where you were raised, or where you raised your kids, and you see that smoking ruin and somewhere in there is your kid’s bed, that is a blade to the heart and that’s what any national leader, industrial leader should be focusing on.

What can people do to better prepare for fires in the future?

We need people to speak courageously about why we are in this situation and our role in it, but we don’t have the same control as a CEO does. We don’t have the same control as a city councilor who got installed by the petroleum industry to advocate for petroleum. There’s a program in Canada called FireSmart where firefighters come to your community and go over your yard and cul-de-sac and suggest cutting things down and pulling things back. They recommend removing things that are fuses for fuel.

We’ve moved back into the forest because it’s gorgeous to live there. The Palisades is the poster child for beautiful mountain forest living, but it’s flammable as hell, especially in a drought. We have to get humble and renegotiate our relationship to fire and also to water and petroleum. How do we keep you safe and conscious where you live?

What’s one piece of advice people in the Los Angeles area can use right now?

Don’t look at the fire, look at the wind. If the wind is blowing over you, it means the embers are, too. The fire could be 2 miles away, but if the wind is toward you, the embers are, too, and act accordingly.


Saturday, January 11, 2025

Over 17,000 doctors warn Senate: RFK Jr. is 'actively dangerous'

no image description available
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

By Oliver Willis Daily Kos Staff A coalition of over 17,000 doctors sent a joint letter to the Senate, asking members to vote against Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to be secretary of health and human services under Donald Trump.

The Committee to Protect Health Care said in its letter that Kennedy is “not only unqualified to lead this essential agency—he is actively dangerous.” The group describes Trump’s decision to nominate him as “an affront to the principles of public health, the tireless dedication of medical professionals, and the trust that millions of Americans place in the health care system.”

Chief among the group’s concerns about Kennedy are his years promoting conspiracy theories about vaccines and his activism against vaccination. The letter describes Kennedy’s support for these unscientific notions as “direct threat to the safety of our patients and the public at large.”

A cartoon by Pedro Molina.

Vaccination has historically been an extremely effective way to safeguard public health. Vaccination for HPV (human papillomavirus) prevents most cases of cervical cancer, while polio has nearly been eradicated after the deployment of a vaccine.

Despite these and many other successes, the group of doctors noted that in a 2022 speech, Kennedy compared vaccination policies to the actions of Nazi Germany. They also highlighted the work of Kennedy’s nonprofit, Children's Health Defense, in fighting against vaccination.

In its letter, the group also pointed out Kennedy’s 2019 trip to Samoa, during which he advocated against vaccines. The trip was followed by a major outbreak of measles there that killed more than 80 people (mostly babies and young children).

Public opinion polling has shown distrust for Kennedy because of his anti-science advocacy. In a Dec. 6-9 poll from Axios/Ipsos, only 30% of Americans said they trust Kennedy on health-related topics, ranking him 2 percentage points lower than Trump in the same survey.

Medical experts have said that if the Department of Health and Human Services follows Kennedy and deemphasizes support for vaccination and medical research, it could lead to a resurgence of key diseases and infections. Cases of measles and whooping cough, along with meningitis and polio, could explode under such policies.

Related story: RFK Jr. faces fresh scrutiny over alleged ties to deadly measles outbreak

When Trump was last in office, he misinformed and misled the public about the rampant COVID-19 pandemic. He argued that warm weather would lead to the virus dissipating and complained about masking to prevent the spread. Ultimately, more than 396,000 Americans died from COVID-19 while he was in power.

A successful nomination of Kennedy and the implementation of his anti-science ideas could make things much worse.

Trump's Covid crap policies killed thousands of Americans and Kennedy might very well out-kill him.

Wednesday, January 8, 2025

No, John Roberts, You Are Not a Civil Rights Hero

 No, John Roberts, You Are Not a Civil Rights Hero   

Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts. (photo: Getty Images)

The comparison the chief justice makes in his year-end report induces a shudder.
 
Dahlia Lithwick / Slate 

At the top of Page One of Chief Justice John Roberts’ “Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary” is a photograph of a courthouse—the J. Waties Waring Judicial Center in Charleston, South Carolina. The picture is part of Roberts’ effort to claim the stories of heroic judges who battled Jim Crow in the civil rights era as allegories for judges facing legitimate critiques today. Modern jurists whose extreme decisions draw public rebuke, the chief justice implied, face the same misbegotten or even “illegitimate” backlash as the brave men and women who used their judicial authority to dismantle American apartheid.

On this week’s episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick was joined by 14th Amendment scholar and storied civil rights litigator Sherrilyn Ifill to discuss why some members of the federal judiciary are so fond of using this civil rights–champion cloaking mechanism to rebuff criticism of their rulings. An excerpt of their conversation, below, has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Dahlia Lithwick: I wanted to talk about this cynical use of the history of the Civil Rights Movement to co-opt the notion that the current justices are very much like the brave judges who stood alone in the civil rights era and suffered the consequences. 

We already saw this back in November when Judge Edith Jones used a Federalist Society panel to attack law professor Steve Vladeck, while placing criticism of current Ken Paxton fave Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk on a weird level playing field with civil rights–era Judge William Wayne Justice. And now we have the chief justice of the United States embracing the same notion.

Sherrilyn Ifill: It angers me, obviously, but I also often get a chuckle out of it. Because so much of what we are seeing in our profession and among conservative judges and litigators is this traumatic response to the heroism of the Civil Rights Movement and the work of civil rights lawyers and the work of the judges deciding civil rights cases. There’s a traumatic response that has resulted in this effort to cloak themselves with the heroism of that period—to suggest there is something equal about what they are doing and the courageous efforts of those who worked through huge challenges trying to make this country a true democracy during the Civil Rights Movement. It makes me chuckle because the trauma is so evident, but it also makes me angry because it is fundamentally ahistorical and untrue.

In his year-end report, Chief Justice Roberts cites to Judge Julius Waties Waring and then he cites to Chief Justice Earl Warren, both of whom received threats of violence against them for their civil rights decisions. I found myself deeply offended, particularly by the Waties Waring comparison. Julius Waties Waring was the scion of an old Charleston family who became a federal judge. As civil rights cases came before him, he set upon a path of trying to learn about the history of race in this country. He and his wife would read together every night. They would question each other. He was being exposed to a world he had never known. He lived in the most attractive house on the main street of Charleston and was a fixture of Charleston society.

As he started to read and learn, he was also doing what judges are supposed to do in litigation, which is learn from litigation, as more and more cases come before them. He issued decisions in a number of cases that were among the most important of the civil rights cases, including his dissent in the Briggs v. Elliott case, which was the South Carolina Brown v. Board case. The court ruled against the plaintiffs, and against Thurgood Marshall in that case, but Judge Waties Waring’s dissent became the template for what became the majority decision in Brown v. Board of Education. As a result of his civil rights decisions, Waties Waring was subject to violent attack—a bomb was thrown at his house one evening as he was home with his wife. But he was also ostracized by the society that he had been a part of.

I emphasize this because it wasn’t just that there were violent threats by racists; it was also that the society of people, of which he was a part—upper class Charleston society, his colleagues within the judiciary and so forth—ostracized him and his wife. They were socially dead. And as a result, he and his wife moved from Charleston, South Carolina, to New York, where he lived out the rest of his life. He never returned until he was buried.

I spoke at the dedication of the courthouse to Waties Waring when the name was changed. It had been named after Ernest Hollings, the senator from South Carolina, and with Sen. Hollings’ consent, it was renamed to honor Waties Waring. A picture of that courthouse is included in the chief justice’s year-end report. This comes after Judge Edith Jones compared Kacsmaryk to Judge William Wayne Justice on that Federalist Society panel in November. Professor Vladeck had written about the one judge district in Texas where conservative lawyers are filing their cases so they can appear before Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, and Judge Jones said, with triumph in her voice, “What about Judge Justice?” Civil rights litigants would try to appear before Judge Justice during the 1960s and 1970s; he was appointed by President Johnson and he’s considered a champion by civil rights litigators.

It’s no comparison to Matthew Kacsmaryk. First of all, the cases that were filed before Judge Justice were filed in a district that was associated with the very claims that were being made. It wasn’t just civil rights attorneys from all over the country with claims that were not connected to Texas filing their cases in Texas. That’s what’s happening with Kacsmaryk.

The larger point about those civil rights–era judges, who we now think of as champions, is that they were in the small minority. Most of the other judges were abusing the system. When Thurgood Marshall first appeared before Judge Waties Waring, he said it was the first time he had ever been able to truly try his case, that he had been able to put on all his evidence, that the judge actually listened to him and didn’t run over him. Thurgood Marshall said he was astonished that Judge Waties Waring allowed him to litigate his case. 

So it wasn’t that somehow civil rights litigators were manipulating the system to appear before these judges to guarantee a win; it was that so many of the other Southern judges would not give a fair hearing to civil rights claimants. Think of the judges who turned their back on Constance Baker Motley, or who wouldn’t say her name—those were the other judges in those districts.

So for Chief Justice Roberts to make the comparison between criticism of our current judiciary and what was faced by those civil rights–era judges in his year-end report—it’s unfair, it’s a distortion of that history, and it’s once again an attempt to cloak oneself in the history of the Civil Rights Movement. 

Of course, the worst example of this is Justice Samuel Alito saying that basically Dobbs overturning Roe is like Brown overturning Plessy. You can’t just snatch from this history the snippets that you want to make your point and suggest that they are equivalent, because they are not, and there are important differences that actually speak to our system.

Our system is not always fair. It was not fair. And we have to be able to speak to that. Constance Baker Motley described Judge William Harold Cox as the most racist judge who ever sat on the federal bench. She wrote that recollection of litigating before him in her memoir, by which time she was a federal judge. Was she not supposed to speak? This idea that critiquing the judicial system or judicial opinions is itself corrosive of the rule of law is a kind of through-the-looking-glass, bizarro-world conception of how lawyers are supposed to engage with the justice system.


Tuesday, January 7, 2025

I Do Not Obey in Advance

 

"I refuse to normalize him." (photo: TBM)
 
"...and so I grieve his ascension and resist his ugliness"
 
John Pavlovitz / Substack


I did all I could over the past year to avoid our nation winding up here in this sad and sickening place, and since we almost inexplicably now have, I refuse to kiss the ring or bend the knee or sell my soul, no matter how many already have or will end up doing so.

I refuse to normalize him.

I did not vote for him, he does not represent me, and I do not believe he is at all deserving of being here—and so I grieve his ascension and resist his ugliness.

I object to him in totality: to the ways he humiliates women and vilifies immigrants and threatens critics and devalues people of color and disregards the law.

I declare my fierce repulsion at his tremendous cruelty, his lack of compassion, his contempt for dissension, his absence of simple decency.

As we face an unprecedented assault on the free press and the access to news and liberty to speak freely, I want it documented that I did not look the other way when women accused him of assault, when he engineered an insurrection, when the reality of his Russian alliances came to light, when he weaponized our highest court—though large portions of the American media and its people chose to look the other way.


Sunday, January 5, 2025

PARADISE LOST: Musk demands positivity days after threatening ‘war’ on MAGA devotees

 

REALITY CHECK: Elon Musk asked for "more positive, beautiful content" on X just days after saying he will "go to war" with the anti-immigration faction of MAGA

 By Oliver Willis

Daily Kos Staff

at 12:15:05p MST

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

By Oliver Willis Daily Kos Staff Billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk appears to be trying to calm tension in the MAGA world just days after calling for a “war.”

The controversy kicked off after conservative activist and conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer criticized Donald Trump’s decision to name Sriram Krishnan AI adviser in his upcoming administration. 

Loomer drew attention to a post of Krishnan’s calling for an increase in H1-B visas, which allows immigrant workers to come to the United States for work. The tech industry has been a big advocate of such visas, while many within the MAGA coalition have spent years opposing immigration programs.

Musk, who spent at least $250 million to help elect Trump—and apparently didn’t notice the years and years Trump supporters spent cheering for immigration restrictions—struck back. He characterized those with an opposing point of view as having an “upside-down and backwards” understanding of the issue.

The multibillionaire continued to escalate his rhetoric. Responding to a post that called the anti-immigrant faction “retarded,” Musk replied, “That pretty much sums it up. This was eye-opening.”

But he didn’t stop there.

Musk—who is worth more than $429 billion and spends untold hours every day on social media—jumped into the replies of another person disagreeing with him.

“Take a big step back and FUCK YOURSELF in the face. I will go to war on this issue the likes of which you cannot possibly comprehend,” he wrote.

He also wrote that “those contemptible fools must be removed from the Republican Party, root and stem.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Democrat of Texas, had fun ribbing the division within the MAGA world.

“I won’t have enough tea to sip nor popcorn to eat over the next 4 years! I’ve done countless interviews explaining that we need immigrants and that they contribute to our economy! Businesses blow us up about needing workers. And what do ya know?! MAGA got played,” she wrote. 

After days of controversy, Trump finally weighed in on the issue, siding with financial backer Musk. 

“I have many H-1B visas on my properties,” Trump said. “I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program.”

Like many of Trump’s claims, this is a lie. Trump has long opposed H-1B visas. During his first term, he tried to push policies and regulations that would limit the number of visas awarded.

Musk later deleted the tweet agreeing with the “retarded” comment and issued a request for more positivity on X. 

“Please post a bit more positive, beautiful or informative content on this platform,” he wrote.

He followed up the edict with a series of posts unrelated to the visa controversy, including praise for tech-related ideas that he has endorsed.

The firestorm has exposed early cracks in Trump coalition’s, with Trump himself betraying his anti-immigrant base in favor of the more recent MAGA convert Musk. 

But the anti-immigrant sentiment has been so central to the MAGA identity over the past decade that it’s unlikely that Musk’s request for “beautiful” posts will come to fruition.

Elon gets a taste of MAGA and reality sets in.
 

Special counsel's Jan. 6 report releasd - slams Trump's 'unprecedented' crimes

Special counsel Jack Smith Says Trump “engaged in unprecedented criminal effort to overturn ...