GASLIGHTING WEEKLY chronicles gaslighting episodes noted in the previous week. This newsletter will result in a book telling the story about how gaslighting violates the First Amendment rights of Republicans to choose their candidate for President of the United States.
“Gaslighting Republicans: How the Political Industrial Complex Hijacked the Party” will educate the delegates to the 2024 Republican National Convention about their Constitutionally protected right to vote freely for their candidate of choice.
GASLIGHTING, def. “manipulating citizens into thinking they are wrong, even when they’re right.”
Political gaslighting “is bad for politics because it contributes to a political system in which citizens’ attitudes are unmoored from the evidence about how things really are, and that is politically dangerous.”1.
This periodic newsletter will focus on political gaslighting intended to manipulate Republicans into thinking primaries choose their presidential nominee, not the Republican delegates to the quadrennial Republican National Convention.
MEDIA GASLIGHTER THIS WEEK: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER MAGGIE HABERMAN
Maggie Haberman earned the honors position this week for her comments in the “On Politics” feature in the New York Times discussing how “It’s beyond early to be talking about the next presidential election…”.
This piece is notable mainly for the subtle way Haberman opines about the 2024 nomination process, and the matter-of-fact assumption that primaries will be involved.
”I think they all have to survive a G.O.P. Primary…” and “There is going to be little room for a Republican to separate from Trump in the primary…and then pivot back in a general election…”, says Haberman.
This is gaslighting at its best!
While this short piece of political gossip appears innocuous, the omission of any reference to the Republican National Convention and the role delegates play in the nomination process betrays her bias.
Haberman, and the rest of the Political Industrial Complex (PIC) want the primaries to choose the nominee; not the Republican Party National Convention.
Why do we say Haberman is gaslighting?
Because she knows the truth. But, like the rest of the media gaslighters, she refuses to tell it. She knows delegates are not “bound”.
The short version of the principle truth, fatal to primaries, is the question of whether the delegates to the Republican National Convention are “bound” to vote like robots and cast their individual votes according to the results of previously held primaries.
Delegates to any Republican National Convention can NEVER be “bound” to primary results prior to the convention.
The illusion of binding is a complex fabrication of the narrative created by the Political Industry which includes collaboration with the staff of the Republican National Committee through its Counsel’s Office.
Here is how it works.
As a member of the Republican National Committee from 1999 to 2016, I was deeply involved in the rule making process. I served on the Republican National Convention Rules Committee in 2008, 2012 and 2016.
Beginning in 2008, I witnessed the fraudulent insertion of the word “bind” into the delegate election section of the rules, which would become the rules for the 2012 cycle. Being new to rules making at that time, I did not immediately realize the impact of that one word, “bind”.
By 2012, however, it became clear that the ability to “bind” delegates to vote according to the results of primaries dramatically increased the “value” of primaries. Prior to this event, people my age will recall the term ‘presidential preference primaries’ which meant they were simply straw polls; advisory at best.
As I witnessed the shenanigans of the Romney campaign’s Ben Ginsberg during the Convention Rules Committee in 2012, I realized just how difficult it would be to restore the right to nominate to its “rightful” owners, the Republican National Convention delegates.
In an attempt do so, I collaborated with Sean Parnell to write a book with the sole purpose of educating the delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention about the fact that they were not bound to vote according to primary results prior to the convention.
That book, UNBOUND, is a comprehensive compilation of the history of the Republican Party with respect to the election of the party’s convention delegates.
In UNBOUND we detail the history of the freedom to choose in the Republican Party.
We point out that the Republican Party is unique in that it is not a permanent organization.
We note that the highest authority of the Republican Party is the quadrennial Republican National Convention, and that each convention makes its own rules for that one convention only.
We describe how the Republican National Committee is a creation of the Republican National Convention, charged with the duty to manage the affairs of the party until the next convention.
We tell how the First Amendment guarantees the right of the party to govern itself, the individual right of delegates to vote as they choose, and that the rules of the Republican Party are superior to state laws.
But most importantly, we point out that delegates can only be “bound” to vote according to primary results if they adopt convention rules to do so themselves.
In the preface to UNBOUND, published prior to the 2016 Republican National Convention, we wrote “so long as the 2016 Republican National Convention…does not substantially change Rule 37 (b) and Rule 38, then the freedom of delegates to vote their conscience will be preserved.”
The Trump campaign believed us.
And with the able assistance of the Trump campaign, and most notably attorneys William McGinley and Don McGahn, the 2016 convention amended Rule 37 (b) to add the following:
however, that in any event, the vote of each state for the nomination for President shall be announced and recorded (or in the absence of an announcement shall be recorded) in accordance with the results of any binding Presidential preference vote or direct election of delegates bound or pledged pursuant to these rules, state party rules, or state law.
Thus, in 2016, we forced the Trump campaign to recognize the need to include “binding” in the convention rules just as the Ford campaign did in 1976; the only other time in the history of the party that delegates voted to bind themselves.
So, when the delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention arrived in Cleveland, they were not bound.
But, RNC Chairman Reince Preibus allowed the Trump campaign to take over the operation of the convention rules committee.
William McGinley and Don McGahn, attorneys for the Trump campaign, directed the conduct of the rules committee.
In a future newsletter, dealing with gaslighting lawyers, you will learn more about these individuals.
What happened in Cleveland, fortunately, is no secret.
CSPAN recorded every minute of the marathon one day session of the rules committee. There is also a complete word for word transcript of the entire meeting.
And, of course, the room was full of reporters all day long.
So, here’s how they dun it.
As in the two previous convention rules committees I have served on, we were told this committee would meet for two and a half days.
And, as in previous conventions, the approach was to begin with Rule 1 and work in numerical order until done.
Two sections of the rules we would be working on dealt with “binding” delegates; specifically, Rule 16 in the section CALL OF THE NEXT CONVENTION, and Rule 37, in the section PROCEEDINGS OF NATIONAL CONVENTION.
For clarity, these two sections of the rules apply to entirely different periods of time.
The Preamble to the Rules of the Republican Party make this crystal clear.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the following be and hereby are adopted as The Rules of the Republican Party, composed of the rules for the election and government of the Republican National Committee until the next national convention, the rules under which delegates and alternate delegates shall be allotted to the respective states in the next national convention, and the rules under which such delegates and alternate delegates shall be elected and under which contests shall be considered, and the rules of business of this national convention.
Therefore, of the rules adopted in Cleveland, only the rules governing the Proceedings of the National Convention applied to the 2016 convention.
The rest of the rules applied to the period of time from the close of the 2016 convention “until the next convention” (2020). And, even though the 2020 convention did not occur, “binding” is always a moot point when the incumbent Republican President is the candidate.
And, the obvious principle applicable here is that one convention cannot bind a future convention.
Knowing that to be absolutely certain that the 2016 convention would not consider any candidate other than their client, Trump’s lawyers orchestrated moves to have the very last amendment adopted late, at 11:30 PM, on the first night of the rules committee meeting. That was the amendment to Rule 37 (b).
But the finesse was even deeper than this!
As you can see for yourself on the CSPAN record, or read in the transcript, this amendment confused rules committee members who were not “in on the scheme”. Some protested. This is redundant! We did “binding” in Rule 16!
Hilarious, it was.
But, good lawyers anticipate problems. And, of course, there would be problems tomorrow with those concerned about “redundant” “binding”.
But, tomorrow never came.
The lawyers early in the day orchestrated, first, a fake printer breakdown; and then the final insult. “We will complete our work as a committee in a single day”, proudly proclaimed the committee chairperson, Enid Mickelson.
With this history, it helps to understand that now is the time for gaslighters to do their best to fool the public about “binding primaries” ahead of the 2024 nomination process.
Haberman and company are writing about the future “primary race” like it is business as usual.
They deliberately avoid and omit any discussion of the effect that the failure to hold a convention in 2020 will have on the Republican Party.
They need to cement the narrative of the “2024 primary” like never before.
Here’s why.
The script below is from Eric Appleman’s Democracy in Action website.
Appleman simply published the RNC’s excuse for the cancellation of the 2020 Republican National Convention.
Their own words (RNC staff) make frauds and liars out of the staff of the Republican National Committee because they knew Rule 37(e) applies only to a convention while it is in session. It is not an excuse to cancel a convention!
Rule 37(e) does not authorize the executive committee to do anything.
From Democracy in Action website:
June 10 2020 RNC Executive Committee Meeting
The RNC Executive Committee met on June 10, 2020 and unanimously approved RNC Rule 37(e) procedures that outline how the official business of the convention will take place in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The Executive Committee approved the following:
In-person delegate participation in Charlotte for the Rule 37(e) proceedings will include six delegates from each state and territory for a total of 336 delegates. Each state and territory delegation will typically include the State Party Chairman, National Committeeman, National Committeewoman, the two Credentials Committee members, and the State Delegation Chairman.
All delegates regardless of whether they are physically present in Charlotte can vote for the President and Vice President nominations. On all other convention business, the six delegates participating in the proceedings will be voting. Delegates not present will designate one of the delegates present as a proxy to cast their vote for the nominations. Bound delegates who do not submit a proxy will have their vote counted for the candidate to whom they are bound.
Only the Credentials Committee will meet. The Procedures specifically say the other committees shall not convene (including the platform committee).
The 2016 Platform will serve as the Party Platform until 2024 and no changes to the platform are permitted.
There will be an Acceptance Session of the Convention, which is the celebration event that will happen in a separate location. All delegates and alternates will be permitted to attend, and each may bring a guest if permitted by law.
postscript Jan. 24, 2021 by Eric M. Appleman
Was there a legitimate 2020 Republican National Convention?
(ema - Jan. 24, 2021) An interesting question which received little if any notice at the time of the convention, but has emerged following the election is whether the events in Charlotte and Washington, DC constituted a legitimate convention under the party rules. The RNC executive committee, arguing Rule 37(e) gave it "wide latitude," made sweeping changes to basic elements of the convention, eliminating some altogether. For example, the Rules and Resolutions Committees did not even meet. However, the text of Rule 37(e) seems pretty narrow:
If the Republican National Committee determines that the national convention cannot convene or is unable to conduct its business either within the convention site or within the convention city, then and only then, the roll call for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall be allowed to be conducted according to procedures authorized by the Republican National Committee.
-Call to the 2020 Republican National Convention (adopted Nov. 20, 2019)
The legitimacy of the 2020 convention matters because of the unique organization of the RNC, wherein every four years the Republican National Convention sets rules under which the RNC operates until the next convention. If the convention was not legitimate the current organization of the RNC may be called into question. A possible remedy to the situation would be for the RNC to hold a convention in 2022 to set the rules for 2024.
The New York Times will not tell the truth. They avoid it.
They “want” to hear from readers, they say.
We want to hear from our readers. Have a question? We’ll try to answer it. Have a comment? We’re all ears. Email us atonpolitics@nytimes.com or follow me on Twitter at @llerer
So, we asked them. In the following email from January 30, 2021:
From: Curly Haugland <curly@recsupply.com>
Date: January 30, 2021 at 9:58:47 AM CST
To:onpolitics@nytimes.com
Subject:Does the Republican National Committee even exist?
Without a National Convention of delegates in 2020 to create it, does the Republican National Committee actually exist?This is a question where the answer can be determined based on readily available facts, and is a “yes” or “no” question. Please “show your work” in response.Show us your stuff!
Best regards!
On October 2, 2019, the New York Times published Haberman and Karnie writing “Republicans Changing Delegate Rules”. The next day, I sent Maggi and Annie the following email:
From: Curly Haugland <curly@recsupply.com>
Date: October 3, 2019 at 11:27:13 AM CDT
To: "maggie.haberman@nytimes.com" <maggie.haberman@nytimes.com>, "annie.karnie@nytimes.com" <annie.karnie@nytimes.com>
Subject:GOP Delegate “binding”
Hi Maggie and Annie,I just read your article “Republicans Changing Delegate Rules...” which, in the second paragraph, refers to the Rule 16 filings content as “(states) delegate allocation plans, the methods by which they will choose and BIND delegates...”.
While this statement is not sourced, from whatever source, it is not true.
The question of whether or not delegates are “bound” cannot be known until and unless the 2020 convention adopts its Rules governing the Proceedings of National Convention.
As in 2016, all delegates arrive at every national convention “unbound”. Only twice in the entire history of the Republican Party have delegates been “bound” to vote according to primary results, in 1976 and 2016.
I was a member of the Convention Rules Committee that amended Convention Rule Rule 37(b) to bind the 2016 delegates.
Convention rules are adopted by each convention, and apply to that one convention only. See Robert’s Rules of Order RONR (11th Ed.) p.618, ll. 1-17.
Prior to the 2016 convention, I became convinced that the Political Industrial Complex would do whatever was necessary to gaslight the public into believing that primaries were “binding” according to the proceedings outlined in each state’s Rule 16 filings.
The media’s role in the 2016 gaslighting cannot be ignored as the horse race reporting of primaries provided, as it does today, easy daily fodder for all forms of media—to say nothing of the millions, if not billions of dollars raised and spent by the PIC which offers rich rewards for all “gaslighters”.
In an attempt to educate 2016 delegates about their duties and responsibilities to the Republican Party, Sean Parnell and I wrote a book entitled “UNBOUND”.
We succeeded in that the changed language in Rule 37(b) was virtually identical to the language we wrote about in “UNBOUND” in Chapter 2, page 28; that language necessary to bind delegates specifically to vote according to primary results.
The first step in the gaslighting process for 2020 is the delegate selection process as filed in the recent Rule 16 filings. This is the gaslighting intended to fool everyone into believing that “the will of the voters” nullifies the First Amendment rights of individual Republican Party members.
The “how” about this part of the gaslighting process is the subject of the first chapter of my upcoming book, Gaslighting Republicans: How the Political Industrial Complex Hijacked the Party.
This email is for background only intended to assist your journalism with facts about the presidential nomination process.
Incidentally, do you know that the Democratic Party actually does NOT bind it’s convention delegates?
Best regards.
Curly Haugland
No amount of political gaslighting can destroy the truth; it simply hides it from view.
In fairness to the various authors of this media gaslighting, we acknowledge that each was assigned to write this propaganda in the first place, and none of it was likely published without being reviewed by superior editors.
Thanks for reading!
“Gaslighting Citizens”, NYU La & Philosophy Colloquium. Eric Beerbohm and Ryan Davis