Introduction

On January 6th 2021, incumbent President Trump made an attempt to overturn the election result in favour of Joe Biden by assembling a mob to storm the Capitol. This, and Trump’s stalling and repeated claims of ‘stolen elections’ has been subject to a slow drip of investigations aimed at him. These reached a summit during the series of hearings at Congress, unveiling a sordid story – all too common in capitalist ‘democracy’. The hearings were co-chaired by Democrat Chairman Bennie Thompson, and Republican Liz Cheney. Even before the public hearings – a federal judge had ruled that:

“Trump was likely involved in at least two potential crimes: conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of Congress.”

Wertheimer and Eisen

These hearings were skillfully orchestrated for a mass TV audience, and succeeded in capturing the attention of many:

“Nearly 20 million people watched the first hearing and 13 million tuned in on June 28 to catch Cassidy Hutchinson’s… testimony. CNN reports that almost six out of ten people in the United States are following the hearings, and CBS finds that nearly 70 percent believe it’s important to find out the truth. “

David Duhade July 10, 2022

Both Trump allies, high appointees, family and aides poured out streams of damning evidence. In particular Attorney General Barr. Thus far perhaps the 6th session was most riveting with top former White House aide, 26-year old, Cassidy Hutchinson. The

What have we learnt from the hearings?

Assessments Before the Hearings

Before examining that, I summarise briefly a prior assessment which proposed that:

“There are some very strange elements… it is extremely difficult to believe that anyone could have been ‘surprised’ by the January 6th ‘event’.”

(Hari Kumar

I argued that a very well choreographed movement had ‘stood down’ law enforcement, encouraging Trump to over-reach. Elements of the Republican party wished to get rid of the Trumpian ‘ghost’ they had called into existence.

But why should members of the Republican Party wish to participate in this? Because they are split between advocates of ‘dirty’ extraction industry (oil, gas, coal) and advocates for industrialists. The latter initially supported Trump to ‘re-shore’ industry, but then pulled back their support :

“the Republican Party is riven. .. they could not get rid of Trump without some form of public rejection of him…

As the ‘event’ was unfolding, The National Association of Manufacturers weighed in with condemnation quickly, and called for Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment – which disempowers the President and effectively removes him from office. “

Many progressives instinctively dismiss such views as ‘conspiracist’. But progressives often under-estimate the calculated deviousness and factionalism within the ruling class. Events at the on-going hearings confirm important pillars of my previous report.

Summary of Findings to Date

The US Secret Services destroyed messages January 5-6 and tried to remove Pence from the Capitol.

As Trump was trying to force Pence to refuse to ‘certify’ the elections results, the Secret Services were trying to whisk him away from the White House. But the Secret service has deleted key data:

“The House Select Committee… has subpoenaed the U.S. Secret Service for more information about text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021, that were reportedly erased or deleted.”

Democracy Now July 18 2022

“the erasure took place shortly after oversight officials requested the agency’s electronic communications…. The Secret Service has emerged as a key player in the explosive congressional hearings … Vice President Mike Pence was at the Capitol … When rioters entered the building, the Secret Service tried to whisk Pence away from the scene. “I’m not getting in the car,” Pence reportedly told them. . Had Pence entered the vice-presidential limo, he would have been taken to a secure location where he would have been unable to certify the presidential election results… “ If Pence had listened to the Secret Service and fled the Capitol.. a congressional official .. told The Intercept. “It could’ve been a successful coup, not just an attempted one.”

Ken Klippenstein , July 14, 2022, The Intercept

One can reasonably ask what did the Secret Services remove from their files?

Trump and his family fully knew he had lost the election

Trump was advised by aides he had lost. Rather more pithily, Attorney general Barr advised in response to his wish to publicise a ‘stolen election, as follows: “I told the president it was bullshit.” [2 minutes 46 s; and Barr at 2 minutes 18 s; CNN Five minute Summary video 9 June]

Both Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, both illegitimately appointed to enormous powers by Trump, testified they knew that the election was lost by Trump. Ivanka cited Barr’s advice.

Trump attempted to pressure voting officials and ‘find’ votes

Previously Georgia’s Secretary State Brad Raffensberger had been vocal about Trump’s pressure. At the Hearings he confirmed:

“Trump sought to procure nonexistent votes, with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger testifying about Trump’s pressure to get him to “find 11,780 votes.”

Wertheimer and Eisen

But in addition Republican high officials substantiated:

“Trump’s direct involvement in procuring an alternate slate of fraudulent electors through the testimony of live witnesses like Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and videotaped ones from Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel.”

Wertheimer and Eisen

Multiple evidences emerged that Trump actively planned the attempted coup with the right wing extremist groupings

When all that failed, Trump was in active planning mode with his supporters to storm the Capitol, amply confirmed by several strands of testimony including that of former aide Cassidy Hutchinson. She also confirmed that Trump has a mental age of approximately 3.75 years throwing tantrums where Trumps smashed plates of food against the wall and grabbed steering wheels of cars in motion:

“She said that Mr. Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the presidential limousine and lunged for his Secret Service agent because he wanted to go to the Capitol, and added that at one point he hurled his plate of lunch at a wall in the White House.

“I grabbed a towel and started wiping the ketchup off of the wall to help the valet out,” Ms. Hutchinson testified.”

Maggie Haberman

More disturbing was Trump’s support of mob calls to hang Pence for his defiance. The relevant section of the NPR transcript is worth reading:

“I overheard the President say… I don’t effing care that they (i.e. the mob) have weapons. … They’re not here to hurt me. Take that effing mags (i.e magnets to detect weapons that were screening the entry to an open-space meeting) away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away.… ..I remember Pat (i.e. White House counsel Pat Cipollone) saying… “ Mark (President Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows) we need to do something more. They’re literally calling for the vice president to be f’ing hung. And Mark had responded something to the effect of, you heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. ….

LIZ CHENEY: Let me pause here on this point. As rioters chanted hang Mike Pence, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, said that “Mike deserves it,” and that those rioters were not doing anything wrong. This is a sentiment that he has expressed at other times as well. In an interview with ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl, President Trump was asked about the supporters chanting hang Mike Pence last year. Instead of condemning them, the former president defended them. [Begin videotape]…

JONATHAN KARL: Saying hang Mike Pence.

DONALD TRUMP: Because it’s — it’s common sense, Jon. It’s common sense that you’re supposed to protect — how can you — if you know a vote is fraudulent, right, how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress?

Because the NPR transcript does not capture the powerful effect of a composed Hutchinson, the short clips videos are recommended: CNN Five minute Summary ; Liz Cheny Summmary (1minute 27s).

What Should Progressives Understand?

Whether or not there are legal consequences for Trump, Rudy Giuliani, or any of the criminal crew surrounding Trump – is almost irrelevant. If there are, it helps the narrative that “democracy” has reasserted itself. Although what has happened is the latest manifestation of a battle within the divided capitalist class of the USA, first revealed to us in Watergate.

I think there are two main things leftists and progressives should consider.

Some, including leaders of the DSA, continue to have constitutional illusions. Even now, after the Supreme Court’s evident ‘politicisation’ on climate, electoral laws, and now rescinding Roe vs Wade, David Duhalde, chair of the Democratic Socialists of America Fund, and former deputy director of DSA suggests:

“One way to prevent this authoritarian slide is through engaging in public pressure to push Garland and other Justice Department officials to prosecute Trump and his allies….We cannot have a multi-racial working-class socialist society without first achieving a functioning democracy.”

David Duhade July 10, 2022

While this is too naïve, we should not lurch to the other extreme and throw out the baby with the bath water. It is true the Republicans and the Democrats become ever more exposed to many as varieties of the same fruit cake.

But yet there remain differences and it is necessary to remind ourselves that we need to not only recognize them, but we need to utilize them. As V. I. Lenin wrote:

“A more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and without fail, most thoroughly, carefully, attentively and skilfully using every, even the smallest, ‘rift’ among the enemies, every antagonism of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who fail to understand this, fail to understand even a particle of Marxism, or of scientific, modern socialism in general.”

“Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder, Moscow 1952, p. 90.

Secondly, we are still woefully disunited. I will end with the same words as in my prior article:

“Until there is a real, organized mass movement of working people in the United States, we can expect nothing more than continued choreography.”

Hari Kumar

The left-wing surge that continues to engulf Latin America recently claimed its latest and most unlikely victim – Colombia. Gustavo Petro’s 50.46% election won as the first leftist coalition government in the country shook the US imperialist project. How did emerge from behind  the FARC guerilla war, evading right-wing death squads ? Left Berlin asked Germany-based Colombian left-wing activist Diana Sepúlveda.

1. How did Gustavo Petro reach such  popularity that he was able to convince the nation that he could be president, even after being a guerrilla fighter and being in prison?
Gustavo Petro’s political work has a long trajectory far beyond his past as a militant in the M-19. I would not say his triumph is due to his popularity, but, in my opinion, is attributed to several factors:
First, it is intrinsically linked to the 2016 peace process. After the signing of the peace process, the concept of the internal enemy disappears, making state repression and persecution against the Left unjustifiable.

This is a new situation. There was a division between those who support an armed struggle and those betting on the resolution of the conflict through democratic dialogue. It provided a wider margin of action allowing for the unification of the Left and generating inclusive forces in the Historical Pact.
This was the third time that Gustavo Petro tried to be President. His previous attempts gave him experience to manage campaign strategies, creating  discourse, and implementing effective political strategies.

Petro knew how to sustain a discourse with coherent content.  Unlike in previous years, we heard a moderate, calm Petro, dispelling mistrust and offering possibility of building on differences. Petro had accumulated experience as part of the opposition, denouncing corruption in the Senate. As mayor of Bogota he brought levels of malnutrition in the Colombian capital to zero and was named the sixth best mayor in the world. This obviously gave him a lot of credibility.

His closeness to the people is evident. His speeches in public squares were very powerful, and brought him closer to those who elected him. They related to one of his slogans: “the government of the people.” One of Petro’s best decisions was to appoint as Vice-President Francia Márquez, a woman who changes  politics, because of her humble origins, her skin color and the fact that she is a woman. These re-conceive power in Colombia – which now ceases to belong to a privileged class and passes to the common people.

What is most important to emphasize is that Petro, opened opportunities for other political forces to work together. Petro was not only representing Colombia Humana, he was also the candidate of the Historical Pact, a unity coalition of political, social and community forces, for real social and political change in Colombia.

2. Was there a broad-based grassroots movement to reach the population with the message of the need for change? Can you describe this effort of militants?
This has been a process of hard work by the Opposition against corruption and in defense of human rights and an “opening of the eyes” of the people, in a Colombia that cannot stand more war, inequality and injustice.

Social indicators today place Colombia among one of the most unequal and corrupt countries on the planet. Its traditional political system is based on patronage, extremely high levels of poverty, unemployment and job insecurity. Faced with this the people opened their eyes and took to the streets to demand structural changes. In response, governments only responded with repression and violence, leaving thousands wounded and dead.

In the last 15 years there has been a five-fold increase in social mobilizations in the country. Peasant, student, teacher, indigenous and union strikes, among others, marched not locally but across the entire nation. The social emergency spurred collective protests demanding not only guarantees from the government, but also political participation. This is a new element in protests Colombia.

The Opposition bench managed to unite in spite of its differences, to confront corruption state crimes, human rights violations and the defense of natural resources as one bloc.

The majority of the bench also left its privileged place in the Congress hall and decided to go into the streets to support the people and created protection and support systems for the victims of the protests. This was a rebirth of trust from the most vulnerable population towards a sector of Colombian politics that bet for change.

3. It was interesting how Petro’s coalition fought against the concept of the left-wing driven to violence by the FARC and the consequent US support against them. Will it change the  relationship with the US, especially considering their imperialist reaction to the Petro vote? How much impact did the 3 months of mobilizations of the general strike of 2021 have?

It is true that in Colombia to be a leftist is to be stigmatized and is almost synonymous with being a guerrilla, a chavista or a communist. That is why many comrades of the left lost their jobs. The road to democracy for the left seemed impossible in Colombia. Our history of bipartisan power and decades-long neo-liberal domination, meant being a leftist candidate was a death sentence.

The Colombian left had a very reduced participation in government until now and it advanced very slowly to reach power. There are three key moments that led to the triumph of Petro: the 1991 Constitution and the arrival of new political leaderships, the 2016 peace process and the social outburst of the last three years.

The M-19 guerrilla group, to which Gustavo Petro belonged, negotiated a peace agreement in the late 1980s and generated new leaders (eg Carlos Pizarro and Antonio Navarro Wolf). The M-19 managed to become a left-wing political party, a leading political force during the process of creating the 1991 Constitution. That document defending the Social State of Law, created a progressive constitution. It includes social rights such as the right to decent housing, health, and life itself.

Now, without the demobilization of the FARC in the 2016 peace process, Petro was unable to win the presidency, since the right-wing discourse stigmatized the left as synonymous with the guerrillas. Petro’s past as a militant of the M-19, further hampered left possibilities of coming to power. Finally, again, Petro’s support of the social movement of the last three years helped his triumph.

Relations with the United States will now have to change character. The fight against drugs will continue to be an issue, as will free trade agreements and the energy transition.

In my opinion, the issue of arms imports will be complicated, since Petro is betting on a peaceful Colombia and good relations with Venezuela and Cuba. He wishes to bring Latin America to dialogue and unity, as he expressed in his inauguration speech. The challenge will be to focus relations with the United States on the issues of both countries and the region.

4. Being the first leftist government to come to power, there are high expectations about this new president. How much can be achieved considering Colombia’s tumultuous past and the nation’s conservative framework?
Expectations are very high and I think we have to be realistic and be very clear that in four years we will not be able to change the history of Colombia. But I believe that this government will bet on total peace, on implementing the agreements of the peace process carried out with the ex-guerrilla FARC group and will seek dialogue with existing armed militias. It will be a government that will not attack protesting population and will respect human rights. It will be a government seeking to reform health, education and production systems. I believe that these will be the pillars of Petro’s government and time will tell.

5. Will there be a more forceful fight against right-wing terrorism, such as the Black Eagles and other groups?
Testimonies given before the JEP (Special Jurisdiction for Peace), as well as the investigations and denunciations by congressmen (eg. Iván Cepeda and Petro) revealed the reach of paramilitary groups  in Colombia; and how flawed institutions and governmental structures are. To the point that we talk about ‘para-politics’. It will not be easy to combat this scourge in just four years.
Criminal groups infiltrated all areas of the lives of Colombians. I personally do not believe that the so-called Black Eagles are a criminal group: there is a link between state agents and criminal groups that commit crimes under the name of the Black Eagles. The reach they have throughout the national territory can only occur with the complicity of state forces.

The goal has to be to put an end to state corruption but also to carry out reforms of the armed forces, to ensure that the police becomes a civilian force at the service of the population not under the command of the Ministry of Defense. Moreover, the ideology of ‘annihilating the enemy’, under which the public force was created must change to providing educational and training opportunities for police and military, based on principles of respect and defense of human rights.

I can imagine that the new Petro and Francia Márquez government, if given the opportunity, could bring in a peace process with paramilitaries and criminal groups, since their desire is for total peace.

6. Petro promised reforms to fight corruption and inequality. What success do you expect he will have in these areas; what other reforms do you think are key to keeping the faith that his voters place in him?
There are tangible reforms that can be achieved in the short and medium term. Petro announced the declaration of an economic emergency to prioritize the country’s hunger issues, this is achievable. Others are, pension reform – such as not increasing the pensionable age, currently 57 years old for women and 62 years old for men. He will also look to set up tariffs to protect national agriculture and industry, to lower inflation levels, especially in foodstuffs.

Petro will surely look to implementing the 2016 Peace Accord, giving priority to comprehensive rural reform, as recommended by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. These, among others, will surely be priorities in Petro’s government.

The coalition with Historical Pact (Pacto Historico in Spanish) will play a leading role, especially in the fight against corruption, especially in the Congress of the Republic.

7. Considering the alliances agreed to win the elections, both by the Historical Pact and with regional leaders of dubious character, how many changes can President Petro make in these four years?
Colombia is a diverse country, with a complex history of violence leaving victims on both all sides full of bitterness and anger. Petro received a country in disastrous conditions, both socially and politically. But a president has to be intelligent and strategic to be able to govern for everyone, and this is Petro’s proposal.

Petro does not only speak to those who follow him. He also speaks to the right-wing government, to the religious groups, to the elites and businessmen, and to the political parties in opposition. The objective is to carry out a great national dialogue, as this has not happened with previous governments.

His government’s success will depend on these rapprochements and on achieving agreements about the fundamentals. One of the great fears of many Colombians in the presidential campaign was the issue of expropriation and both Petro and Márquez ended this rumor and managed to initiate a rapprochement with some business associations. The Historical Pact might have finally entered the Congress with the right conditions but the road will be a long one.

8. Will Colombia be able to change from an oligarchic economy to a more egalitarian system, considering that Petro has said that he would not make expropriations as were enforced in Venezuela and Bolivia?
The objective of this government is not to completely change the system. But it is to make reforms to guarantee and defend the rights of the population. For this purpose, expropriations are un-necessary. Petro has studied different economic models and devised a vision to allow him to prioritize satisfying the basic needs of the population, while promoting sustainable, environmentally and community friendly productive initiatives. This has nothing to do with expropriation, but rather with progressive economic models. These project a  future, by creating conditions to guarantee economic stability while reducing poverty levels and promoting intellectual development. The investment is in the people, in their health, in their education, in their lives, just as many industrialized countries do.
We will continue to have rich people, but they will pay more taxes, as in many other countries.

9. As Petro has looked with admiration at what Chavez did in Venezuela, how will relations with his neighbor change in the next few years?
I think Petro will have to open the border with Venezuela that Iván Duque closed upon recognizing Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela.
Bilateral relations will have to be re-established because of nearly 1.8 million migrants who fled to Colombia, and the hardship for Colombians who live in Venezuela from to the border closure. The closing of the border created tension  between armed groups and the armies of both countries. As Petro himself tweeted: it is necessary to open the border and to ensure the exercise of human rights as the first step. Subsequently, there will be regional dialogues in which the Venezuelan President Maduro will have to take a position, since one of the objectives is to transition from combustible energies to clean energies. Venezuela, as a major oil producer, will have to decide whether to join this initiative or not.
In addition, attention to the refugee population will be another issue on the table.

10. Finally, what are Petro’s weaknesses and main threats, considering that thousands of left-wing activists and even politicians have been assassinated in the last decade?
There have been failed attempts to assassinate Petro, but this time we have a Petro who is not alone.

Let’s not forget that this government program was agreed by a coalition, it is useless to kill Petro, because we have new strong leaders  to implement this program, such as the vice-president Márquez. At this moment in the history of the country, an assassination is not in the interests of any of the sectors of the country. I believe that the attacks already have a different character. We have found out about them through media outlets (Semana magazine and RCN),  in charge of carrying out dirty smear campaigns to discredit the new government. I believe that they have its eyes set on Petro and will not miss the opportunity to attack and discredit him and his government as much as possible.

On the other hand, I imagine that reaching agreements with some unions and right-wing politicians on issues such as the extraction of natural resources or health reform, will be very difficult and that bloc will not yield in the negotiations.

But these are only speculations, because at this moment we are betting on the government of Petro and Francia with the Historical Pact; a government representing the majorities which talks to all sectors of Colombian society, a government pushing for real change in everyone’s lives.

Diana Sepúlveda is a Berlin-based social and political activist, a social communicator and a Professor of Human Rights. She is a member of Vamos por los Derechos International (Working for Rights International), militant of the Polo Democrático Alternativo political party and active member of the International Historical Pact that has backed the president in this coalition.