ResCon1

The Russia Nuclear Weapons Excuse for American Appeasement

The Russia Nuclear Weapons Excuse for American Appeasement

By John R Guardiano on June 24, 2023

It’s gained currency, especially on the Trumpian Right, as a result of the Wagner Group insurrection, but it remains a dangerous and specious idea.

The Wagner Group’s armed rebellion against the Russian military has inspired hope that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin might soon be ousted from power and, with that, Russian forces withdrawn from all of Ukraine.

Yet, this good news has been met with skepticism by some, especially right-wing apologists for Donald Trump, who warn that Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons; and that political instability in Russia might result in “loose nukes,” which could threaten the world with nuclear armageddon.

The Trumpians. For this reason, say the Trumpians, the United States should be wary of “regime change” in Russia. The implication is that we are better off with the devil we know (Putin) than the devils we don’t know (Wagner head Yevgeny Prigozhin and perhaps other warlords who might rule over different parts of a fractured and divided Russia).

As Rebekah Koffler, a former U.S. defense intelligence officer, told Fox News this morning:

There’s a real threat of an armed insurrection in Russia, which possesses six thousand nuclear weapons. A lot of them are pointing at the U.S. homeland. And any kind of instability [in Russia] is not good for anyone.

The Chimera of ‘Stability’. But should American foreign policy really be wedded to Russian status quo “stability” because of a fear that Russian nukes might end up lost, unaccounted for, and in the hands of a deranged warlord?

Of course, it goes without saying that the United States has a vital national interest in ensuring that Russian nuclear weapons are retained and controlled by a legitimate, responsible, and competent state actor. But there is real reason to doubt that the Putin government is any of those things.

The Russian dictator has regularly brandished his country’s arsenal of nuclear weapons, while intimating that he is prepared to use nukes in Ukraine. That is hardly responsible behavior.

As for competence, does the Russian invasion of Ukraine strike anyone as a case study in military competence? And Putin’s legitimacy rests on a mountain of fear, graft, and oppression that has few rivals in the 21st Century.

Appeasing Putin. In short, there is no reason for the United States to embrace or prop up Putin. He does not warrant American support or appeasement. An alternative Russian ruler or rulers could be worse; but if so, it would be a mater of degree not kind.

Moreover, a new, successor regime (or regimes) might be much better for the Russian people and the West.

At the very least, Putin’s ouster from power would weaken Russia and provide the impetus for a possible Russian withdrawal from all of Ukraine. The 1917 Russian Revolution, remember, precipitated the Russian withdrawal from World War I.

A stubborn and ill-advised commitment to status quo “stability,” however, precludes any possibility of positive change within Russia.

Farfetched Scenarios. Finally, suppose the farfetched scenario came true. A dangerous warlord took over part of Russia and assumed control of a “lost” nuke or nukes. Does this mean he can, willy-nilly, detonate his nukes and ignite “World War III”?

No, not at all. Nuclear weapons, after all, are not like a handgun or a rifle. One person cannot simply pick them up, lock-and-load, and fire away. That’s not at all how they work.

An entire series of military and technical experts within the chain of command would have to assent to their use and set in motion the process for their employment and detonation. That’s much easier said than done.

That is why, throughout the Cold War, nuclear weapons never paralyzed American presidents, Republicans and Democrats, into inaction and appeasement vis-à-vis Russia.

American policymakers understood that although nuclear weapons were a quite serious matter, they cannot and do not give our enemies a trump card or veto power over the United States.

Nuclear Weapons. Yet, this doesn’t stop Trump and his acolytes from acting as if nuclear weapons were just discovered yesterday and must, therefore, necessarily upend international relations as they have been been practiced since at least the mid 20th Century.

“First come the tanks and then come the nukes,” Trump declared five months ago. “I think we’re at the most dangerous time maybe in, in many, many years—maybe ever—because of the power of nuclear,” he added.

Never mind the fact that nuclear weapons have been around for some 75 years and yet somehow, we’ve managed to avoid a nuclear war while still winning the Cold War and liberating Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

And never mind the fact that modern-day missile defense technologies render the use of nuclear weapons more suspect and problematic than ever before. As Trump sees it, “the power of nuclear” renders all previous history irrelevant to modern-day challenges.

Trump, of course, is not serious. He is simply fear-mongering in a transparent attempt to win votes and political praise.

The truth is: nuclear weapons do not give U.S. policymakers any reason to appease Putin. And Russia would be better off, and the American national interest would be served, were the Russian dictator to be ousted from power.

True, Putin’s successor might be worse, but Russia would be weakened and its ability to control Crimea and parts of eastern and southern Ukraine likely would be dealt a deathblow.

The bottom line: the United States cannot control who rules Russia. However, by aiding Ukraine, we can help to ensure that whoever rules Russia has limited room for destructive maneuver. American action, not American appeasement, is what history demands.

Feature photo credit: Donald Trump, courtesy of Evan Vucci/AP in The New Yorker.

Why Are Some Conservatives Lukewarm about Juneteenth?

Why Are Some Conservatives Lukewarm about Juneteenth?

By John R Guardiano on June 19, 2023

Juneteenth properly understood is a worthy American holiday. However, it also reflects the Left’s attempt to make victimhood central to our nation’s historical narrative so as to effect a radical political transformation.

America’s newest holiday, Juneteenth, commemorates the end of slavery and the emancipation of African Americans. That is, obviously, a good thing and worthy of national commemoration. Yet, for reasons that are typically not well articulated, the holiday doesn’t sit well with many Americans, especially some political conservatives. Why?

Not, obviously, because these Americans are racists who support slavery or lament its demise. (Please. Let’s be serious.) Instead, the reason is inherent in the rationale put forth by many left-wing advocates for Juneteenth.

Racist Nation. To the Left, Juneteenth is another way to remind America of its sins and to heap opprobrium on the American founding. America, they insist, was founded upon slavery and genocide, and Juneteenth is another way to remind America of its allegedly racist founding and irredeemably racist past.

This, sadly, has become the dominant historical narrative in America today. It is what is taught in the schools, but it is far from universally accepted—and many of us on the Right beg to differ.

There’s also the fact that the Juneteenth is two weeks before July 4, Independence Day, and is officially called “Juneteenth National Independence Day.” For this reason, Charlie Kirk calls Juneteenth “a CRT-inspired federal holiday that competes with July 4th.”

CRT, of course, is Critical Race Theory, which is now being foisted upon young schoolchildren and it is pernicious.

CRT, as Andrew Sullivan observes, is designed

to cement the notion at the most formative age that America is at its core an oppressive racist system uniquely designed to exploit, harm, abuse, and even kill the non-white.

This can be conveyed in easy terms, by training kids to see themselves first and foremost as racial avatars, and by inculcating in them a sense of their destiny as members of the oppressed or oppressor classes in the zero-sum struggle for power that is American society in 2021.

“If Juneteenth is really about emancipation,” asks Kirk,

why not… September 22, 1862, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation? Or January 1, 1863, when the Proclamation took effect? Or December 18, 1865, with ratification of the 13th Amendment?

Because it’s not about emancipation, which is one of America’s great moral achievements. It’s about creating a summertime, race-based competitor two weeks before July 4th, which should be the most unifying civic holiday on the calendar.

Independence Days or Daze. National Review’s in-house historian, Dan McLaughin, says Juneteenth is a worthy American holiday. However, he acknowledges that the Left is trying to use the commemoration for illicit and nefarious purposes.

For this reason, he urges Congress to “change back the name of the holiday to take out the ‘National Independence Day’ part, which is agitprop.”

We already have an Independence Day, which was celebrated throughout the United States long before 1865. It is also not what the people who actually created the Juneteenth holiday and celebrated it for over a century called it. It is Juneteenth, and Juneteenth is all the name it needs.

That certainly would help, but the larger-scale problem will remain. To wit: the Left is intent on exploiting the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and racism writ large to condemn America as an illegitimate nation that must be “fundamentally transformed” and “reinvented” along Marxian and socialist lines.

Victimhood. That’s why victimhood is central to the Left’s narrative of American history. That’s why ethnic and racial history of official victim groups—blacks, women, Hispanics, Asian Americans, et al.—is the only real history that we publicly celebrate now.

Black History Month, for instance, is widely touted by federal agencies, corporations, and the media, but not Italian-American Heritage and Culture Month. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday is a widely celebrated holiday, but not Columbus Day. Why?

Because blacks are considered victims; Italian Americans are not. King is seen as an avatar against injustice; Columbus is seen as a perpetrator of injustice.

Group Hierarchy. Since the Left’s intent is to highlight America’s sins, real and imagined, blacks and other victims get pride of place in the American story; everyone else has to sit in the back of the bus—assuming, that is, they are lucky enough even to get a seat on the bus.

Juneteenth should be commemorated as an American triumph made possible by our nation’s founding principles and by the Judeo-Christian faith and goodness of the American people. But given that that is not how many Juneteenth advocates see it—to them, the holiday underscores our nation’s irredeemably racist nature—Americans can be forgiven for being lukewarm about the holiday.

Feature photo credit: Penn Today.

Why Donald Trump Jr. is Wrong about Dylan Mulvaney and Anheuser-Busch

Why Donald Trump Jr. is Wrong about Dylan Mulvaney and Anheuser-Busch

By John R Guardiano on April 16, 2023

The company’s embrace of the trans craze means that it must be taken out—fairly and through above-board market means.

Donald Trump Jr. says traditionalists and conservatives should give a pass to Anheuser-Busch for its recent transgender marketing push because, says Jr., the company supports Republican Party politicians and candidates.

Anheuser-Busch. “We looked into the political giving and lobbying history of Anheuser-Busch and guess what? They actually support Republicans,” he said on his podcast, Triggered.

[The company] totally sh** the bed with this Dylan Mulvaney thing. I’m not, though, for destroying an American, an iconic company for something like this.

Actually, if conservatives are serious about stopping the left’s cultural assault on childhood innocence and gender identity, then that is exactly what they must do: destroy Anheuser-Busch.

The company’s demise over its promotion of the trans craze would be a powerful deterrent to other companies that are thinking about foisting the left’s woke agenda on innocent and unsuspecting Americans. Otherwise traditionalists and conservatives will continue to lose ground, culturally.

Political Payoffs. Jr. makes a big deal over the fact that Anheuser-Busch gives about 6o percent of its political contributions to Republicans. “That’s literally almost unheard of in corporate America, where it’s really easy to go woke,” he argues.

Maybe, but 60 percent suggests that the company is essentially trying to have it both ways: by showering cash on both sides of the political aisle—something that is hardly unprecedented or unheard of in corporate America.

Roughly half (47 percent) of the $982.8 million in political campaign contributions made by the financial-services sector in the 2019-2020 period, for instance, went to Republicans; the other half (53 percent) went to Democrats, according to a report by a group called Americans for Financial Reform.

Jr.’s father did pretty much the same thing when he lived and worked in New York City. Trump Sr. gave big bucks to both Republicans and Democrats, including New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.

Woke Political Games. So let’s not be all that impressed by the fact that Anheuser-Busch plays the political game. Let’s be more worried about its embrace of the woke agenda—and, specifically, its promotion of transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney and Mulvaney’s assault on gender identity and childhood innocence.

National Review’s Caroline Downey reports that Anhesuer-Busch “has been woke longer than you think”—for decades, actually.

“A review of the company’s marketing efforts from over 30 years ago,” she writes, “suggests the partnership is just the latest episode in a long-running inclusivity-focused ad strategy” aimed at upending sexual norms.

Culture Drives Politics. The point is not which political candidates the company supports, but how it is polluting American culture and undermining youthful innocence. Culture drives politics. It always has.

Anheuser-Busch executives give money to politicians, just as Mafia bosses give money to the church. Sorry, but in both cases these payoffs do not negate or excuse illicit and sinful behavior—murder ordered by Mafia bosses and assaults on gender identity and youthful innocence sponsored by Anheuser-Busch executives, respectively.

For these reasons, contra Trump Jr., conservatives and traditionalists need to lay down a marker and set an example with Anheuser-Busch. The company needs to go belly-up in a big way from a dearth of sales and a loss of customers.

Let the woke chieftains of corporate America know there will be a heavy financial price to pay for foisting their political and cultural agenda upon America.

Then maybe they’ll think twice before using their vast financial resources and advertising dollars to effect a cultural revolution very few people want and certainly no one ever voted for.

Feature photo credit: Donald Trump Jr. and Dylan Mulvaney, courtesy of the New York Post.

DeSantis’s Ukraine Statement Shows He Follows Trump, Not Reagan

DeSantis’s Ukraine Statement Shows He Follows Trump, Not Reagan

By John R Guardiano on March 14, 2023

Because DeSantis has adopted Trump’s foreign policy of appeasement, Reagan conservatives no longer can support him. Instead, they must look to other 2024 GOP presidential candidates.

The war for the Republican Party can best be understood as pitting Reaganites against Trumpsters.

Reaganites believe in fiscal responsibility, debt reduction, free trade, peace through strength, a proactive and assertive U.S. foreign policy, and honest, judicious administration of government.

Trumpsters believe in fiscal irresponsibility, debt expansion, protectionism, appeasement and retreat, a go-it-alone, hidebound U.S. foreign policy, and a chaotic and suspect administration of government.

Those of us who had supported Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for the 2024 presidential nomination had hoped that he would pick up the Reagan mantle, take the fight to Trump, and reclaim the Republican Party, so that, once again, we can enjoy conservative political victories and not the steady and mounting stream of political losses brought about by the Trumpsters.

DeSantis’s Statement. Alas, as we now know, through the release of DeSantis’s statement about Russia and Ukraine to MAGA political boss Tucker Carlson, it is not to be. DeSantis has revealed himself as a political disciple not of Reagan but of Trump.

Indeed, like his mentor, Donald Trump, DeSantis calls Russia’s illegal and horrific war on Ukraine a “territorial dispute” that is not a vital interest of the United States. And he warns against becoming “further entangled” in this “territorial dispute,” because it “distracts from our country’s most pressing challenges.”

Of course, much the same could have been said, and was said, about Nazi Germany’s “territorial disputes” with Poland and Czechoslovakia.

But farsighted conservative leaders then (Winston Churchill, for instance) recognized that the attempted Nazi German subjugation of Europe was not a “territorial dispute”; it was an attempt to conquer and enslave other countries and other peoples.

The same is true today of Russia’s war on Ukraine: It is not a “territorial dispute.” It is a naked attempt by one country to conquer and subsume another. And, as every American president, Republican and Democrat, has recognized since at least the Second World War, the United States has a vital national interest in ensuring that Europe remains peaceful, stable, and free.

China. DeSantis points out that the United States must devote its efforts to “checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Community Party.”

This is true. But China is formally aligned with Russia and will draw either inspiration of perspiration from our success or failure in Ukraine.

After all “nothing succeeds like success. Countries respect the prerogatives of the strong or successful horse. Failure, by contrast, breeds more failure.

DeSantis doesn’t seem to understand this. Nor does he seem to realize that the United States needs allies to confront China. But how likely are the Europeans to help us confront China if we abandon them on Ukraine?

China has designs on Taiwan. Is that also a “territorial dispute” which DeSantis thinks we should avoid becoming “entangled” in? Certainly, the analysis that he applies to Ukraine applies as well to Taiwan, a fact that is not lost on the Communist leaders of China.

DeSantis says that “the Biden administration’s policies have driven Russia into a defacto alliance with China.”

But the historical record clearly shows that China and Russia have had a defacto alliance against America and the West for many years. DeSantis suggests that appeasing Russia in Ukraine will somehow make Russia nice again.

Really? Why would anyone think this, given Russia’s two decades of antagonism toward the United States?

Arming Ukraine. DeSantis says that we mustn’t provide Ukraine with F-16s and long-range missiles, because these would enable Ukraine to “engage in offensive operations beyond its borders.”

This, he warns, “would risk explicitly drawing the United States into the conflict” and possible result in a “hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. That risk is unacceptable,” he declares.

But aircraft and long-range missiles are needed to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Is DeSantis opposed to Ukraine winning and retaining its independence and sovereignty?

Moreover, how does Ukraine defeating Russia increase the likelihood of a hot war between Russia and the United States? If anything, the opposite is true, no?

A defeated and chastened Russia exhausted from its war in Ukraine is far less likely to confront the United States simply because it lacks the means and wherewithal to do so.

Escalation. Finally, DeSantis warns against “regime change” in Russia and an “escalation” of the war in Ukraine.

But the Ukrainians obviously are not fighting for “regime change” in Russia. They are fighting for their territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty. And an “escalation,” or further war, is likely if Ukraine loses, not if it wins.

If Ukraine loses, then an emboldened Russia will seek to cause further mischief for the United States in Asia and the Middle East, even as it looks for new “spheres of influence” (read: territorial subjugation and conquest) within Europe.

DeSantis warns against a “blank check” for Ukraine, but it looks like he would give Putin a “blank check” in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Is that in the American national interest?

Conclusion. For these reasons, GOP voters who take foreign policy seriously cannot possibly support DeSantis for president in 2024.

Instead, they must look elsewhere: to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Senator Tim Scott, and Vice President Mike Pence. These men and women appear to be Reagaites. DeSantis, unfortunately, is a Trumpster.

Feature photo credit: Trump and DeSantis, two peas in the same isolationist or non-interventionist foreign policy pod, courtesy of Vanity Fair.

Jacob Anthony Chansley and the January 6 Miscarriage of Justice

Jacob Anthony Chansley and the January 6 Miscarriage of Justice

By John R Guardiano on March 11, 2023

Chansley and other Jan. 6 defendants are peaceful and simple-minded dupes who got played by Trump and were screwed by the Biden Department of Injustice.

The Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol was a shameful and disgraceful event for which President Trump was rightfully impeached (by the House of Representatives) and wrongfully acquitted (by the Senate).

As a result, no American who loves his country should ever think of voting for Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

If our ex-president had any sense of honor and shame, he would devote himself to good deeds and public works of charity and penance rather than run again for president.

But Trump’s dishonor and impeachable conduct does not mean that the thousands of Americans who came to the nation’s capital Jan. 6 were all “insurrectionists” who “threatened our democracy.”

Peaceful Dupes. This characterization is simply untrue as we knew at the time and as we now know in more detail today. The vast majority of the protesters, in fact, were peaceful but simple-minded dupes who were played and taken in by Trump’s lies and deception.

Two to three hundred of the protesters, by contrast, were violent agitators who used flag poles, baseball bats, bear spray, and other items to violently assault the police. These violent agitators deserve swift and appropriate punishment. No one disputes that.

Yet, in a gross act of prosecutorial overreach, many peaceful Jan. 6 protesters reportedly have been charged with crimes and subsumed into the criminal justice system for months upon months of never-ending incarceration and administrative delay while their cases are reviewed and prosecuted.

For many of the protesters, their “crime” was to show up at the Capitol and “trespass” into the building, thereby “obstructing” an official federal proceeding.

Trespassing and Obstruction. But the charge of “trespassing” and “obstruction” is manifestly unfair when you consider that most of the protesters genuinely believed they had a right to enter the Capitol. Trump himself basically said they had that right in his earlier Jan. 6 speech inciting them to “stop the steal.”

The Capitol, after all, is often referred to as “the people’s house.” The inference is that since the Capitol, or “people’s house,” is paid for and supported by the taxpaying public, then the public has a right to enter the building.

For this reason, some of the protesters shouted “This is our house!” as they stormed into the Capitol building. And in fact, the Capitol historically has been open and hospitable to visiting constituents in a way that other federal buildings (e.g., the FBI headquarters and the Pentagon) have not been.

The Capitol Police, moreover, implicitly buttressed this notion when, at some entry points, they opened the doors of the Capitol and stood by and watched as protesters streamed into the building.

We saw this in video taken by participants and observers of the Jan. 6 protest. And we see it again with the release of some 41,000 hours of surveillance video, snippets of which were shown on Fox News this week by Tucker Carlson.

Now, Carlson is no one’s idea of a fair or honest journalist. His reporting and analysis of Russia’s war on Ukraine has been dishonest and objectively pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine. But the Jan. 6 video that Carlson has shown doesn’t lie.

One defendant in particular, Jacob Anthony Chansley, appears to have been unfairly singled out for harsh and excessive punishment.

Chansely was sentenced to 41 months in prison for “obstruction of an official proceeding.” But as law professor Jonathan Turley observes:

The newly released Fox footage from that day raises serious questions over the prosecution and punishment of Chansley. The videotapes aired on Tucker Carlson this week show Chansley being escorted by officers through the Capitol.

Two officers appear to not only guide him to the floor but actually appear to be trying to open locked doors for him.

At one point, Chansley is shown walking unimpeded through a large number of armed officers with his four-foot flag-draped spear and horned Viking helmet on his way to the Senate floor.

Why didn’t the police stop Chansley? Because, we are told, there was a violent riot going on nearby and the outnumbered police were trying to “deescalate the situation.” Confronting Chansley, we are told, by Andrew C. McCarthy,

might have attracted attention and sparked a forcible reaction from him and other demonstrators. That would have been dangerous for the police (many of whom suffered injuries during the uprising) and for the demonstrators (one of whom was killed by an officer, and others of whom died during that afternoon’s frenzy).

The police objective, in those moments, was to stabilize an already bad situation so that it did not become a bloodletting.

Self-Serving Rationalization. I’m sorry, but this is a hyperbolic and self-serving rationalization for the Capitol Police interactions with Chansley. And it simply does not comport with the factual record, the video footage, and the geography of the Capitol building.

Yes, there was a violent riot that was developing outside of the Capitol; and there was a swarm of loud and agitated protesters within other parts of the Capitol. But as Turley points out, at the time in question, Chansley was far removed from the crowd, the noise, and the agitation.

At no point in the videotapes does Chansley appear violent or threatening. Indeed, he appears to thank the officers for their guidance and assistance. On the Senate floor, Chansley actually gave a prayer to thank the officers who agreed “to allow us into the building.”

The “new footage,” notes Wilfred Reilly, “reveals that Chansley and his first line of protesters/rioters were heavily outnumbered—at one point nine to one—by Capitol force officers with semi-automatic sidearms once inside the building.”

Adds New York Post reporter Miranda Devine:

In a jailhouse interview played by Carlson, he [Chansley], says: “The one very serious regret that I have [is] believing that when we were waved in by the police officers, that it was acceptable.”

And how, exactly, was Chansley, engaged in “obstruction of an official proceeding”? He walked into an empty Senate gallery opened for him by the Capitol Police. And for that, this nonviolent, first offender, and Navy veteran was given a “heavy 41-month sentence” after initially being held in solitary confinement, Turley notes.

Violent offenders, by contrast, are sometimes given much lighter sentences. David Jakubonis, for instance, was charged last year with second degree assault for attacking New York GOP gubernatorial candidate Rep. Lee Zeldin.

Jakubonis was arrested July 23, 2022, and released in late October “under strict conditions,” according to RochsterFirst.com.

He would have to go through a 28-day alcohol program at the VA in Bath, he would wear a GPS monitor and a monitor to gauge his alcohol intake, and after the Bath program, go to Veterans Treatment Court and live at the Richards House—a housing program provided by the Veterans Outreach Center.

Evidence Withheld. In light of all this, why did the Judge Royce Lamberth, who adjudicated Chansley’s case, come down so hard on him?

In large part, says Turley, because the judge didn’t know what we now know. He didn’t see the same video footage that we all have now seen.

Incredibly, this footage was withheld from Chansley’s attorney—even though, in the American legal system, exculpatory evidence must be shared with a defendant and his attorney.

“I have great respect for Judge Lamberth,” says Turley. He “has always shown an admirable resistance to public pressure in high profile cases. I cannot imagine that Lamberth would not have found this footage material and frankly alarming.”

The bottom line: justice is supposed to be blind and discriminating. But it is hard not to conclude that in the case of Chansley—and doubtless other wrongly maligned Jan. 6 defendants as well—justice was politicized, disproportionate, and vengeful.

Chansley and other like-minded Jan. 6 defendants are guilty of being simple-minded dupes who fell for Trump’s lies and deception. But they are not violent insurrectionists. They threatened no one and they assaulted no one. Others did and they deserve their punishment and comeuppance.

But Chansley deserves better—and America deserves better—than the miscarriage of justice carried out against him without liberty and justice for all in the name of freedom and democracy.

Our nation should right this wrong even as it rejects Trump’s contemptible quest to regain the presidency.

Feature photo credit: Jan. 6 defendant Jacob Anthony Chansley, courtesy of CBS News.