government. a decade ago the new york times admitteded and they published a piece on the rise of domestic surveillance abuse which exploded. the patriot act became a short hand for government abuse in overreaching which inflicted collateral damage on political dissent and religious liberty. that s still true and still a tragedy. what is fascinating is that the new york times stopped acknowledging it. there was not a single mention of the 9-11 anniversary on the front page of yesterday s paper. the paper that purports to represent new york the epicenter of the 9-11 attack. why would the new york times ignore 9-11? a good question. because the new york times and the tiny leadership class it represents now endorses the nationwide crackdown on civil rights that 9-11 made possible. they benefit from it. it s how they keep power. so 9-11 was less a trag than an opportunities. if you don t believe that watch how joe biden commemorated that anniversary yesterday it s not
the wider public through the right wing media concocting with that man, steve bannon, they called the green bay sweep involved persuading members of congress to challenge the college electoral results setting off a chain reaction by their theory also by their cockamamie theory lead to stage legislators appointing trump elengthers. months after the january 6th committee made a criminal reseveral navarro to the department of justice, turn over records including communications with donald trump. at the time navarro s contempt with congress, cited executive privilege as a reason for stonewalling the select committee even though he wrote a book and went on television to boast about his role in the insurrection and how his plan for a bloodless coup would have succeeded if it weren t for the violence on january 6th. here he is. peter navarro on this very network with our amazing colleague, ari melber. we ll see ari in a moment. on yesterday. the very same die the indictment unseal
hijackers. to suggest otherwise is insane. drawing a parallel between the election and protests of january 6th and the fall of the twin towers? lunacy, but kamala harris didn t pause like the question was a set up. just nodded. this unspecified internal threat is like al-qaeda: very dangerous and harmful. you may wonder what is this threat? we just declared a new war on terror but against whom? who is this threat? it s you. as the vice-president said, anyone who questions the legitimacies of the last election. didn t kamala harris call the 2016 presidential election
events that began with january 6th, the actual attack and now branched out and bridged out into investigation of conspiracy amongst far-right groups including the proud boys and oath keepers to attack the capitol and we re seeing beginnings offen a investigation that leads closer to the white house with subpoenas asking about the lawyers who worked on several of the schemes that were intended to overturn the election nap is a separate matter from we ve seen today with peter navarro. a very limited indictment. katie, i ll come back to you. so many your remarks, incredibly helpful clarifying the legal directions and places i wanted fod go. first i want to bring harry litman back in a second. harry, i realize i made comments about peter navarro. i m not a lawyer. perhaps the things he said were not gibberish. i d like to know am i right in my asment saying gibberish or were have legitimacies of what
platform. it focuses on the funders, not the secret sauce, not whether he decides to unilaterally reinstate putin or trump or what twitter represents which could be something he could do to enrich his companies that could be legal most of the time. going back to komanduri said helping trump along with the gop which in turn will help increase his own bank account. musk talks about limited bank account. he goes on talking about the legitimacies. you need to know this, he s made a thin and maybe dangerous argument that democracies are essentially just corporations with military. the government is the biggest corporation with a monopoly on violence and where you have no