Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

The last part is apparently not correct.

The reps impeach (indict): not a problem.

They send the indictment to the Senate where he gets a (very) speedy trial.

In the incredibly unlikely event that a 2/3 majority vote to convict him at that trial (this has never happened), then and only then do they proceed to determine what the penalty is.

A simple majority is enough to decide the penalty, BUT they will not even have that until 22 January when Georgia is required to certify the results of the Senate election.

Even if they did by some miracle, decide that the penalty ought to be never being allowed to hold public office again - vanishingly unlikely - like being dealt 13 spades unlikely, THEN he would not be permitted to hold office again.

This punishment has been meted out to Judges, Never Presidents.

 

In the end, a person was murdered by the riot that Trump incited. A massive all-in FBI investigation is underway.

Let's see how citizen Trump gets on in Fifth Avenue with his now infamous claim about shooting people after the 20th.

 

I don't know how you make this claim.

 

There is nothing that prevents the 4th article of the 25th Amendment being used - and it takes 28 days to fully take effect - while during that time impeachment and conviction could occur. There is no set timeline in the Constitution for impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate.

 

Now, the reality is that the best hope for resolution is most likely neither - as it will be virtually impossible to garner the necessary majority of cabinet members plus vice-president to invoke the 25th, while the Senate Republicans will not vote to convict this close to the end.

 

We can only look forward to more domestic terrorism from the far right militants.

 

PS: Btw, what you may be confused about is that the wording in the Constitution about not exceeding removal and not holding any office does not mean the Senate decides how to punish but that the Senate cannot exceed those bounds. In other words, they cannot add criminal liability and punishments.

PSS: Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

The key word is "grant". Granting is a transitional word meaning between or among two or more persons in the originalists reading of the text. It is quite clear that in the late 17oo's this was the understanding of the word grant - and the other times that the word grant is used in the Constitution is consistent with this usage.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Winstonm

[y66]

From Storming The U.S. Capitol Was About Maintaining White Power In America by Hakeem Jefferson at 538:

 

And most recently, Larry Bartels, a renowned scholar of American politics at Vanderbilt University, wrote the following in his research focused on the erosion of Republicans’ commitment to democracy:

 

The support expressed by many Republicans for violations of a variety of crucial democratic norms is primarily attributable not to partisan affect, enthusiasm for President Trump, political cynicism, economic conservatism, or general cultural conservatism, but to what I have termed ethnic antagonism. The single survey item with the highest average correlation with antidemocratic sentiments is not a measure of attitudes toward Trump, but an item inviting respondents to agree that “discrimination against whites is as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.” Not far behind are items positing that “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country,” that immigrants get more than their fair share of government resources, that people on welfare often have it better than those who work for a living, that speaking English is “essential for being a true American,” and that African-Americans “need to stop using racism as an excuse.”

To summarize Bartels’s claims, white Republicans who have come to oppose democracy do so, in part, because they don’t like those whom they believe democracy serves. And, more than that, they believe that the interests of nonwhite Americans have been given priority over the interests of their racial group. Many white Americans seem to be asking themselves, Why act in defense of a democracy that benefits “those people”?

 

[The Police’s Tepid Response To The Capitol Breach Wasn’t An Aberration]

 

So, let’s return to the images of Wednesday, when a crowd of white people gathered at the Capitol with American flags and Trump flags and symbols of the Confederacy. For these white Americans, the notion of America itself is likely one that is white, making the American flag they so proudly wield as a symbol also one of white supremacy and white racial domination. Of course, the iconography of the failed Confederacy, alongside other reminders of white racial violence, including the placing of a noose around a tree near the Capitol, are intentional, too. For those who broke glass in windows of the Capitol, who marched in opposition to American democracy, who held up as a model the seditious behaviors of slaveholding states, who threatened the lives of elected officials and caused chaos that lays bare the dangerous situation we are in as a country — these are not political protesters asking their government for a redress of grievances. Nor are they patriots whose actions should be countenanced in a society governed by the rule of law.

 

Instead, we must characterize them as they are: They are a dangerous mob of grievous white people worried that their position in the status hierarchy is threatened by a multiracial coalition of Americans who brought Biden to power and defeated Trump, whom back in 2017 Ta-Nehisi Coates called the first white president. Making this provocative point, Coates wrote, “It is often said that Trump has no real ideology, which is not true — his ideology is white supremacy, in all its truculent and sanctimonious power.” So, when we think about those who gathered in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday and who will surely continue their advance in opposition to democratic rule, let it not be lost on us that they do not simply come in defense of Donald Trump. They come in defense of white supremacy.

[Zelandakh]

If you were Speaker Pelosi, and President Trump offered to refrain from pardoning the rioters at the Capitol in exchange for not being impeached, would you take the deal?

If I were in that position, my stance on impeachment would not be directed from any offer from Trump but rather based on Republicans, particularly Senators. If there were cross-party support for impeachment then I would bring it; if not then it is better to talk with influential people (Chiefs of Staff, etc) behind the scenes than push ahead with something that will just end up entrenching divisions and making it more difficult for JB to get things done.

[y66]

https://noahpinion.substack.com/?utm_campaign=pub&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy

 

America is in a period of Cold Civil War. Yes, the backlash from the failed coup attempt of 1/6 caused most Republican leaders to denounce violent insurrection, and even forced Trump to back down (at least, for a moment). But hopes that this will finally be the point where “the fever breaks” and the Right acquiesces to majoritarian electoral democracy seem overly optimistic. For example, a YouGov poll on 1/7 found that around half of Republicans approved of the coup attempt.

 

And a Morning Consult poll found that the same percentage of Republicans blame Joe Biden for the attack as blame Donald Trump.:

 

Meanwhile, right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh endorsed the coup attempt, likening it to the American Revolution.

 

So there’s a substantial fraction of the political Right — representing tens of millions of Americans — that’s all in on civil strife. The “fever” has not broken. In my mind, the next questions to ask are:

 

1. 
    
   
2. Why is the Right increasingly extremist and intransigent?
   
3. How should the Left (broadly defined) respond to this extremism and intransigence?
   
4. What are the likely outcomes?
   

I certainly can’t claim to be an expert in any of this; there are some topics I have specialized knowledge in, but politics and civil unrest are not among those topics. Nor am I a neutral observer — I obviously think the people who stormed the Capitol and put Congress to flight in an attempt to overturn a free and fair democratic election are the Bad Guys, both for what they did on 1/6 and for the larger principles they represent.

 

Furthermore, there are a number of important topics I’m not even going to cover in this post. For example, I’m not even going to touch on extremism on the Left (I’ll talk about that in future posts; for now, suffice it to say that I’m more worried about it than I used to be, but far less worried than I am about extremism on the Right). Nor am I going to spend much time litigating the actual ideological issues involved; that would be the labor of a lifetime.

 

Instead, I’ll just think out loud about the three questions above.

 

...

 

It will also be easier to end the Cold Civil War if Republican leaders start calling for it to end. There are a few encouraging signs on this front. Mitch McConnell and many other Republican leaders explicitly denounced 1/6 as an “insurrection”, and Tom Cotton has shown the GOP a way forward by positioning himself firmly in opposition to the coup attempt. The GOP is not going to drop its love of public order, but a leadership that views law-and-order ideology in racially and ideologically neutral terms would go a long way toward disabusing Republican voters that an actual civil war is in the offing. (Of course, denouncing and disavowing Trump, his attempted election theft, and the Republicans like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley who supported that attempt would help a lot.) Republicans need to retreat, retrench, regroup, continue cultivating nonwhite Americans, and wait for the Dems and the Left to overreach so they can stage a comeback. To do this, they need to expel the Trumpists, insurrectionists, and alt-righters from their ranks.

 

Finally, Americans may simply get exhausted. Peter Turchin, who believes he can predict waves of social unrest (and who successfully predicted the Cold Civil War back in 2010), incorporates exhaustion into his model, and thinks the peak of unrest will come sometime in the early 2020s. Past waves of unrest in the 1920s and 1970s killed a lot of people and scared the heck out of many more, but ultimately never toppled the nation or caused civil wars.

 

So I think we’re in for some more years of the Cold Civil War. Cold wars aren’t like hot wars — they don’t end with a bang. But if we hold firm, I think we can see a light at the end of the tunnel. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for the late 2020s.

[kenberg]

https://noahpinion.substack.com/?utm_campaign=pub&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy

Fairly often I use your link to read the full article and often I am glad I did. That applies very much here. Perhaps I will say more later, but for now I just recommend looking at the whole thing. That's different from saying that I agree with the whole thing.

[Winstonm]

From Storming The U.S. Capitol Was About Maintaining White Power In America by Hakeem Jefferson at 538:

 

 

 

The single survey item with the highest average correlation with antidemocratic sentiments is not a measure of attitudes toward Trump, but an item inviting respondents to agree that “discrimination against whites is as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.”

I read earlier today of a study that has found a key integral that forecasts support of Trump to be an adherence to the belief in a hierarchical structure of society where white men sit atop.

I was born into an entire family (mohter's side) of Nazarene Christian pastors - quite restrictive - and I can tell you this structure is what they all taught and were taught. It takes a tremendous effort to break out of that worldview, sometimes only a catastrophe can create the necessary impetus to change.

[Trinidad]

If we could preemptively send him to retirement and let Pence handle matters for the remaining 11 days that would be best. But I am not so sure that will be happening, it seems it won't. And impeachment, however justified, won't protect the country unless we get conviction. I think Trump belongs in jail and I hope he eventually goes there. But we have to get through these 11 days. I am open to ideas, but broad agreement that we need to act within minutes if a national emergency arises might be the best we can do.

Just my little theory:

 

Yesterday, I got the feeling that Trump de facto is retired. The video that he read from autocue was certainly not reflecting the opinion of Donald J. Trump. It is my impression that his cabinet has him by the balls. If he doesn't behave, they will invoke the 25th amendment. One of the things he had to do to stay president, in name only, is to record the video.

As soon as Pence thinks that Trump crosses the line that he (Pence) drew, Pence will formally be the acting president. If Trump behaves and nicely plays golf for the remaining 261.25 hours, his reward will be that he gets to finish his term as president.

 

Rik

[johnu]

If you were Speaker Pelosi, and President Trump offered to refrain from pardoning the rioters at the Capitol in exchange for not being impeached, would you take the deal?

I think you hope he makes the offer and it is documented on video, audio, in writing. I believe this quid pro quo for pardons would make the pardons illegal. IANACL

[kenberg]

Just my little theory:

 

Yesterday, I got the feeling that Trump de facto is retired. The video that he read from autocue was certainly not reflecting the opinion of Donald J. Trump. It is my impression that his cabinet has him by the balls. If he doesn't behave, they will invoke the 25th amendment. One of the things he had to do to stay president, in name only, is to record the video.

As soon as Pence thinks that Trump crosses the line that he (Pence) drew, Pence will formally be the acting president. If Trump behaves and nicely plays golf for the remaining 261.25 hours, his reward will be that he gets to finish his term as president.

 

Rik

 

I like this, I don't know if it is correct, but it might be and I really like it. It does explain the "recital" of Trump on that video. Whoever was controlling Trump's lips, it wasn't Trump. No doubt (in my mind anyway) Trump's actions before the Ga vote led to two new Dems in the Senate. Pence, backed by others, might very well have said early Thursday "Ok, that's it, read what we have written, go play golf, shut up".. He would have put it in nicer terms. Maybe yes, maybe no, but it's a very nice thought.

[pilowsky]

Interesting. SCOTUS has never considered that questions. Most legal scholars seem to think preemptive pardons are possible. But pillowsky is apparently better scholar of US constitutional law than all of them, seems to know better.

 

Whether or not SCOTUS has considered something or not is a red herring. What you are doing is raising a straw man argument for the purposes of saying something that you believe about pillowsky (whoever that is).

 

All pilowsky said Mr Bayer was that innocent people cannot be pardoned. This is a self-evident statement.

All that you need to know is that you are guilty until proven innocent. You do not have to be a constitutional lawyer.

 

Since you claim to know exactly what SCOTUS has and hasn't ruled upon, it sounds like you are the one that sounds like you know better.

Pilowsky is much more circumspect - not sure about pillowsky.

 

Where's Sheldon - he'll know for sure. He knows everything. Although you seem to be limping into third place after that guy who's upset about Alderaan.

[johnu]

Just my little theory:

 

Yesterday, I got the feeling that Trump de facto is retired. The video that he read from autocue was certainly not reflecting the opinion of Donald J. Trump. It is my impression that his cabinet has him by the balls. If he doesn't behave, they will invoke the 25th amendment. One of the things he had to do to stay president, in name only, is to record the video.

As soon as Pence thinks that Trump crosses the line that he (Pence) drew, Pence will formally be the acting president. If Trump behaves and nicely plays golf for the remaining 261.25 hours, his reward will be that he gets to finish his term as president.

 

Rik

There have been reports from inside sources that the Manchurian President was furious that he was cornered into making that video apology. You didn't have to see the video to know that these were more lies from the Liar in Chief.

 

The RNC seems to be perfectly OK with the domestic terrorism at the Capitol

 

In Capital, a G.O.P. Crisis. At the R.N.C. Meeting, a Trump Celebration.

 

In a chandelier-adorned ballroom at the seaside Ritz-Carlton here, there was no mention of President Trump’s disruption of the coronavirus relief package or his phone call to the Georgia secretary of state demanding that he help steal the election, both of which contributed to Republicans’ losing control of the Senate.

 

And while the R.N.C. chair, Ronna McDaniel, condemned the attack on the Capitol, neither she nor any other speaker so much as publicly hinted at Mr. Trump’s role in inciting a mob assault on America’s seat of government.

 

“I surely embrace President Trump,” said Michele Fiore, the committeewoman from Nevada, where Republicans have lost two Senate races and the governorship since 2016. Ms. Fiore, who was sporting a Trump-emblazoned vest, said the president was “absolutely” a positive force in the party.

:o :o :o

[Winstonm]

There is one thing we should never forget - anyone who ever voted for Donald Trump is complicit in the murder of the capitol police officer. The reasoning for that claim? Simple. The only advantage Trump has ever had is that he seemingly commands a large voting block. This, and only this, made him acceptable to the Republican party. Had Trump been crushed in his reelection bid - say only 20 million total votes - it is without a doubt the party would have turned against him. Without that backing, the orchestrated insurgency could not have occurred.

 

The Big Lie of Trump's version of My Struggle is that the election was fraudulently stolen from him and he won by a landslide. In order for the Big Lie to work, it must be repeated by an echo chamber. Without the support of 74 million votes, no one would have allowed the rants to continue unabated - nor joined in an echoing chorus.

 

So far we have managed to negate Trump's Big Lie. But it has left casualties, including a slain police officer in the nation's capitol. And every Trump voter shares the blame for that death.

 

Never forget that.

[johnu]

There is one thing we should never forget - anyone who ever voted for Donald Trump is complicit in the murder of the capitol police officer. The reasoning for that claim? Simple. The only advantage Trump has ever had is that he seemingly commands as large voting block. This, and only this, made him acceptable to the Republican party. Had Trump been crushed in his reelection bid - say only 20 million total votes - it is without a doubt the party would have turned against him. Without that backing, the orchestrated insurgency could not have occurred.

 

The Big Lie of Trump's version of My Struggle is that the election was fraudulently stolen from him and he won by a landslide. In order for the Big Lie to work, it must be repeated by an echo chamber. Without the support of 74 million votes, no one would have allowed the rants to continue unabated - even joined in with the chorus.

I've got to respectfully disagree. The bigger the loss, the bigger the election fraud. Instead of 6 states out to steal the election, there would have been 10 or 15, 25, 50 states that were stealing the election. This would be proof there is a Deep State working against the Felon in Chief. A truly global conspiracy to keep the Sociopath in Chief from being reelected.

[Zelandakh]

Interesting. SCOTUS has never considered that questions. Most legal scholars seem to think preemptive pardons are possible.

Not only possible. The very first pardon in US history included preemptive pardons for around 150 people. And famously Jimmy Carter issued an incredibly broad pardon to Vietnam draft-dodgers, which clearly included many people who had not been charged with anything, who would never have been charged with anything and/or were not guilty of the charge. A preemptive pardon is clearly allowed.

 

What is almost certainly not allowed is preemptively pardoning a future crime. That is quite different from a past event with a future conviction. So Trump can issue pardons to his friends and family for any and all possible charges on events up to Jan 20th regardless of whether charges have been brought before that date. But anything that is done by those individuals after that date would not be covered.

[shyams]

Just my little theory:

 

Yesterday, I got the feeling that Trump de facto is retired. The video that he read from autocue was certainly not reflecting the opinion of Donald J. Trump. It is my impression that his cabinet has him by the balls. If he doesn't behave, they will invoke the 25th amendment. One of the things he had to do to stay president, in name only, is to record the video.

As soon as Pence thinks that Trump crosses the line that he (Pence) drew, Pence will formally be the acting president. If Trump behaves and nicely plays golf for the remaining 261.25 hours, his reward will be that he gets to finish his term as president.

 

Rik

When I saw the Trump video, I got a strong feeling that the final product was made from multiple takes by Trump. I noticed that the camera angle shifted abruptly and jarringly some 80 seconds into the clip. I wouldn't be surprised if some ramblings were deleted and/or Trump was asked to re-record a portion or some portions of the speech.

[pilowsky]

Not only possible. The very first pardon in US history included preemptive pardons for around 150 people. And famously Jimmy Carter issued an incredibly broad pardon to Vietnam draft-dodgers, which clearly included many people who had not been charged with anything, who would never have been charged with anything and/or were not guilty of the charge. A preemptive pardon is clearly allowed.

 

What is almost certainly not allowed is preemptively pardoning a future crime. That is quite different from a past event with a future conviction. So Trump can issue pardons to his friends and family for any and all possible charges on events up to Jan 20th regardless of whether charges have been brought before that date. But anything that is done by those individuals after that date would not be covered.

 

In that case, I defer to the humble opinions of the Water cooler legal scholars Mr Z and Mr B.

Is the address of your Chambers 1060 W Addison by any chance?

[shyams]

In that case, I humbly defer to the humble thoughtful opinions of the Water cooler legal scholars posters Mr Z and Mr B.

Is the address of your Chambers 1060 W Addison by any chance?

FYP. Didn't you once say something to the effect that communication is your forte?

[pilowsky]

FYP. Didn't you once say something to the effect that communication is your forte?

 

Haha - like a joke except for that little bit at. the end that's supposed make you laugh.

[Winstonm]

From a Yahoo article about the insurrection at the capitol:

 

 

 

"Grabbing my press pass, they saw that my ID said The New York Times and became really angry," Schaff wrote on Thursday. "They threw me to the floor, trying to take my cameras. I started screaming for help as loudly as I could. No one came. People just watched. At this point, I thought I could be killed and no one would stop them."

 

Schaff made it out safely, but only after police officers trained their guns on her until other journalists stepped in to vouch for her as a member of the press.

 

"This will be the start of a civil war revolution," Schaff said one of the rioters told her.

 

my emphasis

 

Charlie Manson told his "family" their actions would start a race war. How many will the cult kill this time?

[Winstonm]

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," the Constitution says. "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

 

We're looking at you, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley.

 

So is the Houston Chronicle , the hometown newspaper of Ted Cruz.

 

Editorial: Resign, Senator Cruz. Your lies cost lives.

 

[cherdano]

If I were in that position, my stance on impeachment would not be directed from any offer from Trump but rather based on Republicans, particularly Senators. If there were cross-party support for impeachment then I would bring it; if not then it is better to talk with influential people (Chiefs of Staff, etc) behind the scenes than push ahead with something that will just end up entrenching divisions and making it more difficult for JB to get things done.

I really think this is wrong, and minimizes the gravity of what happened.

 

First, I am not sure it's widely appreciated yet how close of a call this was. A timeline that differs by a few minutes here and there, and plenty of members of Congress could have gotten killed.

Have a look at this thread, and the WP linked in it: https://twitter.com/gokpkd/status/1348139743377289217

Also, here some related pictures by @zeynep:

 

And as often, @pwnallthethings said it better than anyone else:

One of the points of impeachment is as a marker for history; to note in the annals that the action of that individual was so terrible that it must be branded forever as outside of the acceptable limits of the constitutional order.

The question for America is: is calling the election "stolen" for months after losing an election, poisoning supporters' brains until they riot at the Capitol to overturn it, while prowling the halls looking to execute legislators and the VP outside of the limits of US democracy?

To ask it is to answer it, of course. But that's the question impeachment asks. And why the US can't move on, and why no national healing can happen without first answering it. It is a baseline question on which democracy itself rests.

https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/1348013517702631425

 

There is no greater danger to democracy than a violent coup against one branch of government supported by another branch of government. When that happens, you have to put out all the stops to say "This cannot happen and will not succeed, and anyone who attempts it will face consequences". Every branch of government should do its duty in that process, and you cannot just move on wit "but this will cost a full day of confirming Joe Biden appointees"-logic.

 

The House should put forward impeachment. The text should lay out the gravity of what happened (POTUS refused to recognize a certified election loss, lied again and again to his supporters about the legitimacy of his opponents' win, encouraged them to storm the capitol, and blocked necessary law enforcement help where he could). Then put it to the Senators - their lives were in danger as well, and when forced to make a decision, I think it's not out of the question enough of them will come through (if only to get rid of one primary opponent in 2024). If not, you will still get an impeachment that got a majority in the Senate to vote to convict.

[cherdano]

Obviously, calling every Republican Senate staffer to ask what tweaks to the text might get their boss to support impeachment is fair game. But you can't gauge support for an eventual vote to convict that way - much easier for them to let it be known that they wouldn't vote for it, then actually go on the record and vote to support the insurrection that could have cost their colleagues' lives.

[Winstonm]

Special Council to the House Judiciary Committee Norman Eisen gets it:

 

When the call failed, with Raffensperger rebuffing him, Trump turned to his last refuge and his latest high crime and misdemeanor: inciting his mob. They were his hardest-core supporters, urged by his Twitter feed to come to Washington. He urged them, "Be there, will be wild!" And when they gathered, he exhorted them to march on the Capitol and said, "If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."

 

Every Republican member of Congress who failed to impeach, convict and remove him bears some responsibility for what happened next.

 

 

 

And when you extend the logic, everyone who voted for him has some degree of responsibility for his actions as president.

[Trinidad]

And when you extend the logic, everyone who voted for him has some degree of responsibility for his actions as president.

I think that there is a significant group of people who voted Trump on November 3rd, but who didn't agree with Trump's actions after the election (think Brad Raffensperger). Voting in an (essentially) two candidate system, means that you vote for the person who you think is the better of the two. This may be because you think he is great or it may be because you think he is the lesser of evils.

 

I do not think that conservative people with core Christian values (that, for the record, I do not share) voted for Trump because they wanted him to lie about election results, refuse to admit he had lost or to have him he incite riots. They voted for Trump for having Pence as V.P., for appointing conservative judges, for turning over Roe vs Wade. They voted against liberalism, legalization of marihuana, euthanasia, lhbtq rights, raising taxes.

 

There is only one person responsible for Trump's actions. That is Trump himself, until the moment he dies or is deemed insane (whichever comes first).

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

I think that there is a significant group of people who voted Trump on November 3rd, but who didn't agree with Trump's actions after the election (think Brad Raffensperger). Voting in an (essentially) two candidate system, means that you vote for the person who you think is the better of the two. This may be because you think he is great or it may be because you think he is the lesser of evils.

 

I do not think that conservative people with core Christian values (that, for the record, I do not share) voted for Trump because they wanted him to lie about election results, refuse to admit he had lost or to have him he incite riots. They voted for Trump for having Pence as V.P., for appointing conservative judges, for turning over Roe vs Wade. They voted against liberalism, legalization of marihuana, euthanasia, lhbtq rights, raising taxes.

 

There is only one person responsible for Trump's actions. That is Trump himself, until the moment he dies or is deemed insane (whichever comes first).

 

Rik

 

Rik, I didn't say everyone who voted for him agreed with him - but everyone who voted for him has a degree of responsibility. His character has been on display for 73 years.