Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Btw, for those who disagree with removing Trump from office immediately it might be good to read this reporting from the WaPo:

 

Vice President Pence worked directly with acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Mark A. Milley, as well as with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), concerning the unrest at the Capitol and military deployments, the people said.

As for Trump, one of the people said, "he was completely, totally out of it." This person added, "He made no attempt to reach out to them."

Instead of exercising his commander-in-chief duties to help protect the Capitol from an attempted insurrection, Trump watched the attack play out on television. Though not necessarily enjoying himself, he was "bemused" by the spectacle because he thought his supporters were literally fighting for him, according to a close adviser. But, this person said, he was turned off by what he considered the "low-class" spectacle of people in ragtag costumes rummaging through the Capitol.

 

"completely, totally out of it" while the capitol was under assault and worried because the insurrectionists weren't dressed like Wall Street bankers should be a hint as to how dangerous he is right now.

[y66]

From https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/short-thoughts-on-the-coup?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo3NTkzNjUyLCJwb3N0X2lkIjozMTIwMjA0NywiXyI6IlFBcEZlIiwiaWF0IjoxNjEwMzA4NDEzLCJleHAiOjE2MTAzMTIwMTMsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0zNTM0NSIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.o2mzJhnSjG4SrAKyEUTTO4nV13Om8zaKPnu-tpEkqHw

 

Way back in 2014, Marc Andreessen tweeted: “Silicon Valley is nerd culture, and we are the bro's natural enemy.” That line has stuck with me. It was in my mind again as I witnessed basically the entire Silicon Valley establishment rear up to smash Donald Trump’s social media presence out of existence in the wake of the coup of 1/6. Facebook was first to ban Trump, and the other big companies quickly followed:

 

In the past 48 hours:

-Twitter banned QAnon accounts

-Twitter banned Trump

-Reddit banned r/donaldtrump

-Reddit banned the head moderator of r/conspiracy

-YouTube banned Steve Bannon's show

-Discord banned TheDonald dot win's channel

-Google banned Parler from its app store

The ultimate blow came when Amazon Web Services booted Parler off of its servers entirely, effectively destroying the right-wing Twitter clone. As a friend noted, this was “god-tier banhammering.” When a tech company annihilates another tech company, you know the nerds are pissed.

 

Much of the discussion around these moves has focused on the idea of fairness, and of tech platforms as public spaces. I’ll write about this soon. But for now, I’m just thinking about what these moves say about the political culture of the tech industry.

 

Some people think of Silicon Valley as a haven of right-wing thought. This is probably because A) businesses are businesses, which are always suspected of being right-wing, B) there are a few prominent right-wing tech people, and C) the industry tends to be pretty White and male (or White and Asian and male) overall.

 

But the stereotype is wrong. Silicon Valley people, like most educated Americans, tend to be liberal Democrats. They tend to be a bit more libertarian on economic issues than most Americans, which is unsurprising given the economic interests of their industry. And bosses tend to be less liberal than regular workers, which is also to be expected. But anyone who knows people in tech (or just reads the news) knows that the surveys are not wrong — tech is pretty culturally liberal, and increasingly concerned about economic inequality too.

 

Overall, tech people are just normie Democrats, and tech leaders are just normie Democrats who have recently found reasons not to like high taxes and regulation. But the idea of Silicon Valley as being populated with toxic right-wing bros is, frankly, nuts. Over the last few years, tech industry nerds have watched with horror as various right-wingers have tried to claim nerd-dom as their own.

 

But entryism by a handful of right-wing channer bros was one thing. The coup of 1/6 was entirely another matter. As normie Democrats, tech nerds have an innate respect for freedom, democracy, and the idea of America — they don’t like seeing some crazy-ass bros smashing up Congress. As successful Americans, they respect the country that has allowed them to earn their fortunes. And as nerds, they have an innate desire for order and the primacy of peaceful institutions over violent mobs.

 

Thus, 1/6 represents the moment when the bros finally pushed the nerds too far, and the nerds struck back.

[johnu]

To Chas_Troll_ManchurianPresidentStooge

 

One thing Biden wouldn't do, that the Seditionist in Chief has done is lead Domestic Terrorists to engage in violent, seditious, and insurrectionist acts against the USA. It doesn't really need to be said. As much as I despise many of the ultra right fringe racist and white supremacist Republicans political leaders, I believe there are only 10-20% of them that would also go down the sedition and insurrection path with the Manchurian President.

[johnu]

Man Armed With Assault Rifle Texted Plans To Shoot Nancy Pelosi, Officials Say

 

Just another Manchurian President supporter Domestic Terrorist ....

 

A Georgia man texted people his intentions to shoot House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “on live TV” while making his way to the nation’s capital with an assault rifle for Wednesday’s pro-Trump rally, authorities said.

 

Cleveland Grover Meredith Jr. was arrested at a Washington, D.C., hotel on Thursday after his disturbing plans were discovered in text messages that he had sent to friends, The New York Times reported, citing federal documents.

 

“I predict that within 12 days, many in our country will die,” he said in one text.

 

A trailer that he had attached to his vehicle had three guns inside: a Glock 19, a 9 mm pistol and an assault rifle. He also had hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Meredith, who told authorities he was traveling from Colorado, said he knew Washington has strict gun laws and so he put the weapons in his trailer.

[pilowsky]

The latest trend on TikTok and twitter is American teens giving congressional leaders advice on what to do to keep safe if crazed armed gun-toting strangers come rampaging through their building.

They are full of helpful advice such as 'pretend to be dead" and "run in ZigZags".

This advice is intended as an alternative to enacting useful gun control legislation.

https://www.buzzfeed...ots-gun-control

eg

"I don't feel sorry for congress at all. Oh, I'm sorry, did you have to hide under your desk because of guns? Wah wah wah.

I've only had to do that six times since kindergarten.

School is terrifying. Maybe now they'll pass gun reform"

Alisa Valdés-Rodríguez, M.S. (@AlisaValdesRod1)

 

[y66]

The House of Representatives appears to be moving both very fast and very slowly toward impeaching President Donald Trump. With a final vote likely by the end of the week, we’ll have the fastest-ever impeachment, which is remarkable given that few politicians were even talking about it until Jan. 6. But it’s also true that even though House Democrats are saying that Trump should not be in office one minute longer after he egged on the rioters who invaded the Capitol that day, they didn’t impeach him on Thursday, or Friday, or over the weekend, and they’ll apparently not be impeaching him on Monday. Indeed, they’re trying to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to initiate procedures to remove him, or for Trump to just resign, both choices that are far inferior to Congressional action.

 

Is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi making a mistake by going ahead now with impeachment? It’s hard to tell. Impeachment is not just a moral statement. Impeachment is a political act, and that means that it should be applied prudently and carefully.

 

It’s easy for people on the sidelines (myself included) to believe that the House should have impeached Trump in the wee hours of Jan. 7, immediately after the mob was routed and Congress completed the count of the electoral votes that certified Joe Biden’s victory in the November election. It’s just as easy to say that the Senate should have followed with a quick trial that very afternoon and voted to convict and remove him.

 

But Pelosi needs to be practical. It’s possible that she waited because she wanted to be certain that impeachment would actually pass on the House floor, where she manages a newly narrow Democratic majority. It’s also possible that she waited, and perhaps is still waiting, because she believes that waiting will help build bipartisan support. I’m not talking about wishful thinking; I’m suggesting the possibility that she has reason to believe that a somewhat more deliberate process will deliver the votes of several Republicans. I have no idea whether that’s true or not — but if it is, it might well be worth the delay.

 

That’s especially true because it appears extremely unlikely that the Senate will take up any impeachment resolution before Trump leaves office on Jan. 20. It would take unanimous consent from senators to make it happen, and that seems impossible even if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell supported it. There’s still an argument that a quick impeachment would exert at least some pressure on Trump to stop fomenting insurrection, given that it would be easier for him to be removed (should the Senate suddenly decide to do so) once the Senate had received articles of impeachment. That too, however, is more likely if the House vote is bipartisan.

 

Meanwhile, Republicans have retreated to the flimsiest of defenses against impeachment and removal. Take Texas Representative Kevin Brady, who argued that impeachment would “further divide the country,” or New York’s Elise Stefanik, who claims that impeachment amounts to “politically shaming millions of Trump voters.” These claims collapse as long as everyone, Biden and Trump voters alike, is on the side of democracy and the Constitution. Impeachment would only divide insurrectionists from those who support the rule of law; it would only shame that minority of Trump voters who believe it is just fine for him to undermine a free and fair election by asking election officials to “find” nonexistent votes and by encouraging a mob to riot.

 

What’s striking about these defenses of Trump (and these are only two examples from many Trump defenders in and out of Congress) is that they say nothing about whether the president is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and nothing about whether his offenses are so grave that they demand the extraordinary action of impeachment and removal in the last days of his term. Surely that’s what matters, not whether standing up for the republic is divisive or hurts the feelings of those who oppose it.

 

Political scientist Jay Ulfelder argues, based on his research, that “the U.S. should harshly punish GOP leaders who attempted to keep Trump in power despite losing the election and fomented insurrection to advance that effort.” As conservative columnist Philip Klein notes, the fact that any Senate action will almost certainly not commence until after Jan. 20 means that there’s an option of using the process of impeachment and trial to fully investigate exactly what happened, both in the Jan. 6 insurrection and in Trump’s long-term efforts to overturn the legitimate election results. The good news is that such procedures might be a good way to celebrate the heroes of the last two months, whether it’s honest election officials (many of them Republicans) who resisted pressure from Trump and his supporters, including those in the House and Senate, or if it’s the Capitol police and other law-enforcement personnel who helped prevent an even worse result when the mob attacked.

 

The one thing that simply can’t happen without causing enormous damage would be just ignoring the whole thing in the name of unity. The good news is that while Brady and Stefanik and others were evading responsibility, virtually all congressional Democrats and at least a handful of Republicans appeared to be taking the matter seriously. What matters most isn’t whether Pelosi is moving too slowly or not. What matters most is whether the Republican Party can rid itself of the enemies of democracy that have brought us to this moment.

[y66]

The Roots of Josh Hawley’s Rage

 

In today’s Republican Party, the path to power is to build up a lie in order to overturn democracy. At least that is what Senator Josh Hawley was telling us when he offered a clenched-fist salute to the pro-Trump mob before it ransacked the Capitol, and it is the same message he delivered on the floor of the Senate in the aftermath of the attack, when he doubled down on the lies about electoral fraud that incited the insurrection in the first place. How did we get to the point where one of the bright young stars of the Republican Party appears to be at war with both truth and democracy?

 

Mr. Hawley himself, as it happens, has been making the answer plain for some time. It’s just a matter of listening to what he has been saying.

 

In multiple speeches, an interview and a widely shared article for Christianity Today, Mr. Hawley has explained that the blame for society’s ills traces all the way back to Pelagius — a British-born monk who lived 17 centuries ago. In a 2019 commencement address at The King’s College, a small conservative Christian college devoted to “a biblical worldview,” Mr. Hawley denounced Pelagius for teaching that human beings have the freedom to choose how they live their lives and that grace comes to those who do good things, as opposed to those who believe the right doctrines.

 

The most eloquent summary of the Pelagian vision, Mr. Hawley went on to say, can be found in the Supreme Court’s 1992 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Mr. Hawley specifically cited Justice Anthony Kennedy’s words reprovingly: “At the heart of liberty,” Kennedy wrote, “is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” The fifth century church fathers were right to condemn this terrifying variety of heresy, Mr. Hawley argued: “Replacing it and repairing the harm it has caused is one of the challenges of our day.”

 

In other words, Mr. Hawley’s idea of freedom is the freedom to conform to what he and his preferred religious authorities know to be right. Mr. Hawley is not shy about making the point explicit. In a 2017 speech to the American Renewal Project, he declared — paraphrasing the Dutch Reformed theologian and onetime prime minister Abraham Kuyper — “There is not one square inch of all creation over which Jesus Christ is not Lord.” Mr. Kuyper is perhaps best known for his claim that Christianity has sole legitimate authority over all aspects of human life.

 

“We are called to take that message into every sphere of life that we touch, including the political realm,” Mr. Hawley said. “That is our charge. To take the Lordship of Christ, that message, into the public realm, and to seek the obedience of the nations. Of our nation!”

 

Mr. Hawley has built his political career among people who believe that Shariah is just around the corner even as they attempt to secure privileges for their preferred religious groups to discriminate against those of whom they disapprove. Before he won election as a senator, he worked for Becket, a legal advocacy group that often coordinates with the right-wing legal juggernaut the Alliance Defending Freedom. He is a familiar presence on the Christian right media circuit.

 

The American Renewal Project, which hosted the event where Mr. Hawley delivered the speech I mentioned earlier, was founded by David Lane, a political organizer who has long worked behind the scenes to connect conservative pastors and Christian nationalist figures with politicians. The choice America faces, according to Mr. Lane, is “to be faithful to Jesus or to pagan secularism.”

 

The line of thought here is starkly binary and nihilistic. It says that human existence in an inevitably pluralistic, modern society committed to equality is inherently worthless. It comes with the idea that a right-minded elite of religiously pure individuals should aim to capture the levers of government, then use that power to rescue society from eternal darkness and reshape it in accord with a divinely-approved view of righteousness.

 

At the heart of Mr. Hawley’s condemnation of our terrifyingly Pelagian world lies a dark conclusion about the achievements of modern, liberal, pluralistic societies. When he was still attorney general, William Barr articulated this conclusion in a speech at the University of Notre Dame Law School, where he blamed “the growing ascendancy of secularism” for amplifying “virtually every measure of social pathology,” and maintained that “free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people.”

 

Christian nationalists’ acceptance of President Trump’s spectacular turpitude these past four years was a good measure of just how dire they think our situation is. Even a corrupt sociopath was better, in their eyes, than the horrifying freedom that religious moderates and liberals, along with the many Americans who don’t happen to be religious, offer the world.

 

That this neo-medieval vision is incompatible with constitutional democracy is clear. But in case you’re in doubt, consider where some of the most militant and coordinated support for Mr. Trump’s postelection assault on the American constitutional system has come from. The Conservative Action Project, a group associated with the Council for National Policy, which serves as a networking organization for America’s religious and economic right-wing elite, made its position clear in a statement issued a week before the insurrection.

 

It called for members of the Senate to “contest the electoral votes” from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other states that were the focus of Republicans’ baseless allegations. Among the signatories was Cleta Mitchell, the lawyer who advised Mr. Trump and participated in the president’s call on Jan. 2 with Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state. Cosignatories to this disinformation exercise included Bob McEwen, the executive director of the Council for National Policy; Morton C. Blackwell of The Leadership Institute; Alfred S. Regnery, the former publisher; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch; and more than a dozen others.

 

Although many of the foot soldiers in the assault on the Capitol appear to have been white males aligned with white supremacist movements, it would be a mistake to overlook the powerful role of the rhetoric of religious nationalism in their ranks. At a rally in Washington on Jan. 5, on the eve of Electoral College certification, the right-wing pastor Greg Locke said that God is raising up “an army of patriots.” Another pastor, Brian Gibson, put it this way: “The church of the Lord Jesus Christ started America,” and added, “We’re going to take our nation back!”

 

In the aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection, a number of Christian nationalist leaders issued statements condemning violence — on both sides. How very kind of them. But few if any appear willing to acknowledge the instrumental role they played in perpetuating the fraudulent allegations of a stolen election that were at the root of the insurrection.

 

They seem, like Mr. Hawley himself, to live in a post-truth environment. And this gets to the core of the Hawley enigma. The brash young senator styles himself not just a deep thinker who ruminates about late-Roman era heretics, but a man of the people, a champion of “the great American middle,” as he wrote in an article for The American Conservative, and a foe of the “ruling elite.” Mr. Hawley has even managed to turn a few progressive heads with his economic populism, including his attacks on tech monopolies.

 

Yet Mr. Hawley isn’t against elites per se. He is all for an elite, provided that it is a religiously righteous elite. He is a graduate of Stanford University and Yale Law School and he clerked for John Roberts, the chief justice. Mr. Hawley, in other words, is a successful meritocrat of the Federalist Society variety. His greatest rival in that department is the Princeton debater Ted Cruz. They are résumé jockeys in a system that rewards those who do the best job of mobilizing fear and irrationalism. They are what happens when callow ambition meets the grotesque inequalities and injustices of our age.

 

Over the past few days, following his participation in the failed efforts to overturn the election, Mr. Hawley’s career prospects may have dimmed. Two of his home state newspapers have called for his resignation; his political mentor, John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, has described his earlier support for Mr. Hawley as “the biggest mistake I’ve ever made”; and Simon & Schuster dropped his book. On the other hand, there is some reporting that suggests his complicity in efforts to overturn the election may have boosted his standing with Mr. Trump’s base. But the question that matters is not whether Mr. Hawley stays or goes, but whether he is simply replaced by the next wannabe demagogue in line. We are about to find out whether there are leaders of principle left in today’s Republican Party.

 

Make no mistake: Mr. Hawley is a symptom, not a cause. He is a product of the same underlying forces that brought us President Trump and the present crisis of American democracy. Unless we find a way to address these forces and the fundamental pathologies that drive them, then next month or next year we will be forced to contend with a new and perhaps more successful version of Mr. Hawley.

[Winstonm]

This description of the call capitol police chief Sund made to the DOD asking for the National Guard is a microcosm of the Trump era:

"I am making an urgent, urgent immediate request for National Guard assistance," Sund recalled saying. "I have got to get boots on the ground."

 

On the call were several officials from the D.C. government, as well as officials from the Pentagon, including Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt, director of the Army Staff. The D.C. contingent was flabbergasted to hear Piatt say that he could not recommend that his boss, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, approve the request.

"I don't like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background," Piatt said, according to Sund and others on the call.

Again and again, Sund said, "The situation is dire," recalled John Falcicchio, the chief of staff for D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser. "Literally, this guy is on the phone, I mean, crying out for help. It's burned in my memories." my emphasis

Myself, I prefer the National Guard in front of the Capitol visual to the one that shows Trump in the oval office; the first may save lives - the second without doubt causes unnecessary deaths.

 

[y66]

This description of the call capitol police chief Sund made to the DOD asking for the National Guard is a microcosm of the Trump era:

They didn't learn anything from the Bonnie Situation scene in "Pulp Fiction":

 

Jules [on the phone to his boss, asking for help]: You got to appreciate what an explosive element this Bonnie situation is. I mean, if she comes home from a hard day's work and finds a bunch of gangsters in her kitchen doing a bunch of gangster sh*t, there ain't no telling what she's liable to do.

 

Marcellus: Yeah, I've grasped that, Jules. All I'm doing is contemplating the "ifs".

 

Jules: I don't want to hear no motherf*cking "ifs". All I want to hear from your ass is "You ain't got no problem. I'm on the motherf*cker. Go back in there, chill them n*ggers out and wait for the cavalry, which will be coming directly."

 

Marcellus: You ain't got no problem, Jules. I'm on the motherf*cker. Go back in there and chill them n*ggers out and wait for The Wolf, who should be coming directly.

 

Jules: You're sending The Wolf?

 

Marcellus: Oh, you feel better, motherf*cker?

 

Jules: Sh*t, negro. That's all you had to say. [hangs up]

[Winstonm]

I wish to offer my salute to the PGA for removing the Trump National golf course from hosting the PGA golf championship of 2022. Trump has no shame, and as an ex-president not much fear of prosecution and imprisonment. But the PGA has found his weakness by hitting him directly in the pocketbook.

 

Well done, PGA!

[Cyberyeti]

I wish to offer my salute to the PGA for removing the Trump National golf course from hosting the PGA golf championship of 2022. Trump has no shame, and as an ex-president not much fear of prosecution and imprisonment. But the PGA has found his weakness by hitting him directly in the pocketbook.

 

Well done, PGA!

 

The pocketbook hit he can absorb, the slap to the ego burns way more

[Winstonm]

The pocketbook hit he can absorb, the slap to the ego burns way more

 

I really doubt he is as well off as you think he is. It is not his ego that is harmed - it is his immense greed that is being harmed.

[pilowsky]

The pocketbook hit he can absorb, the slap to the ego burns way more

 

The effect of changes in reputation and the extent to which other people will do business with you has a dramatic effect on the income of people like Murdoch.

Murdoch's base salary is (in USD) $7,100, or less than $200 dollars a week.

His total 'compensation' - I think it's the rest of us that ought to be compensated - is $43,589,554 from Twenty-first Century Fox.

Effectively the only money these people make is from you consuming their tawdry wares.

Stop doing that and they'll be on skid row.

 

In the case of the Trump family, the term 'base' salary carries a special meaning.

The Trump name does not appear on this site - I guess because it's a Private company - but no doubt it will be similar.

Refuse to do business with them and watch their fortunes plummet.

Being President (even Past) comes with a lot of perks. If he is 're'-impeached, and convicted, he loses not just the ability to run again, but all the accoutrements that come with the position, Money, secret service protection everything.

If everyone refuses to do business with any company that associates themselves with him, his family etc watch how fast he shrivels to nothing.

This is already happening.

 

I'm doing my bit I refuse to watch television or read any newspaper or watch any entertainment connected with or sponsored by the Murdoch Family.

If you read the History of the Murdoch's you will discover that Trumps are just the latest in a long line of Frankensteins going back to WWI when he tried to oust General John Monash.

 

Cancel culture is just another term for not voting for or paying them. It's the only tool that the citizenry has.

Mandela and Gandhi would call it 'civil disobedience'

 

You will not die if you don't watch the Simpsons.

 

I wish they would just f f f fade away, then we could return to normality. But they won't if people keep associating with them.

 

Trump and his family watched while the Capitol was stormed - with glee.

[johnu]

I wish to offer my salute to the PGA for removing the Trump National golf course from hosting the PGA golf championship of 2022. Trump has no shame, and as an ex-president not much fear of prosecution and imprisonment. But the PGA has found his weakness by hitting him directly in the pocketbook.

 

Well done, PGA!

The PGA previously moved a World Golf Championship event from the Manchurian President Doral golf course to Mexico. The reported reason was that they had lost their main sponsor. As one of the premier non-major tournaments, on a legendary golf course, on the golf calendar, and with tournament slots at a premium, it's hard to imagine that they couldn't line up another sponsor.

[y66]

Maggie Haberman at NYT reported that Trump feels "gutted" by the PGA move. That sounds right to me. Professional golfers are his homies (or so he probably thinks).

[cherdano]

I have to say, I am not impressed by Pelosi in this saga.

@pwnallthethings said it better than anyone else:

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

Once you ask that question, you don't answer it saying "Dear Cabinet, won't you please invoke the 25th amendment? If not, we'll go ahead and decide on our action. No? Ok, well then. Hmm. We are going ahead to impeach! - Maybe Wednesday - but please, can't you go ahead and invoke the 25th so we don't have to do this please? Please?? And also, once we do it, I guess we'll find time this summer to send it to the Senate for impeachment, because we don't really want to wait one day to get the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction confirmed because of this."

[Winstonm]

Maggie Haberman at NYT reported that Trump feels "gutted" by the PGA move. That sounds right to me. Professional golfers are his homies (or so he probably thinks).

 

Yes, and I read he is more concerned about losing the tournament than the second impeachment.

[Winstonm]

I have to say, I am not impressed by Pelosi in this saga.

 

Once you ask that question, you don't answer it saying "Dear Cabinet, won't you please invoke the 25th amendment? If not, we'll go ahead and decide on our action. No? Ok, well then. Hmm. We are going ahead to impeach! - Maybe Wednesday - but please, can't you go ahead and invoke the 25th so we don't have to do this please? Please?? And also, once we do it, I guess we'll find time this summer to send it to the Senate for impeachment, because we don't really want to wait one day to get the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction confirmed because of this."

 

Nancy Pelosi reminds me of Robert Duvall's character in The Godfather - she's not a wartime consigliere.

[Winstonm]

This is an important Twitter thread from a husband and wife who photograph DC events, including Black Live Matter protests and the Trump insurrection on Jan. 6.

[johnu]

I have to say, I am not impressed by Pelosi in this saga.

 

Once you ask that question, you don't answer it saying "Dear Cabinet, won't you please invoke the 25th amendment? If not, we'll go ahead and decide on our action. No? Ok, well then. Hmm. We are going ahead to impeach! - Maybe Wednesday - but please, can't you go ahead and invoke the 25th so we don't have to do this please? Please?? And also, once we do it, I guess we'll find time this summer to send it to the Senate for impeachment, because we don't really want to wait one day to get the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction confirmed because of this."

If the 25th Amendment was invoked, the Manchurian President could be removed in a matter of hours. The country wouldn't have to worry that the Criminal in Chief would take a presidential action that could endanger national, or world security.

 

If articles of impeachment were drawn up and voted in the House the next morning after the attack by Domestic Terrorists, the Seditionist in Chief would not be removed before January 20 when Biden takes office. That is, if he is going to be removed. If every senator voted, at least 19 Republican senators would need to vote to convict. In last year's impeachment, only Romney voted to convict on 1 of the counts. Currently, only 2 or 3 Republican senators have given any indication that they may even consider conviction. Instead of Repugs saying let the voters decide like they did the 1st impeachment, now they're saying an impeachment is divisive to the country and of course, they are uniters, not dividers. IMO, there is close to 0% that the Senate will vote to convict, and 0% that an impeachment vote will happen before noon, January 20.

 

So, as a practical matter, impeachment has 0% chance of actually removing the Manchurian President from office before January 20. Impeachment will not make the US, and the world, safe from the Sociopath in Chief.

[pilowsky]

If the 25th Amendment was invoked, the Manchurian President could be removed in a matter of hours. The country wouldn't have to worry that the Criminal in Chief would take a presidential action that could endanger national, or world security.

 

If articles of impeachment were drawn up and voted in the House the next morning after the attack by Domestic Terrorists, the Seditionist in Chief would not be removed before January 20 when Biden takes office. That is, if he is going to be removed. If every senator voted, at least 19 Republican senators would need to vote to convict. In last year's impeachment, only Romney voted to convict on 1 of the counts. Currently, only 2 or 3 Republican senators have given any indication that they may even consider conviction. Instead of Repugs saying let the voters decide like they did the 1st impeachment, now they're saying an impeachment is divisive to the country and of course, they are uniters, not dividers. IMO, there is close to 0% that the Senate will vote to convict, and 0% that an impeachment vote will happen before noon, January 20.

 

So, as a practical matter, impeachment has 0% chance of actually removing the Manchurian President from office before January 20. Impeachment will not make the US, and the world, safe from the Sociopath in Chief.

 

I'm a reasonable judge of character, and it sounds to me like you aren't all that fond of Mr Trump.

Hard to believe really since he's such a tolerant amiable and genteel person whose only concern is others' wellbeing.

 

I wonder if any of the lawyers know if Trump could be Impeached (=indicted) and then a Trial could occur after Jan. 20.

What I'm getting at is that removal from office is not the only reason for impeachment. Consequences other than removal from office can follow.

 

I don't think anything like this has happened in America in the past. Now might be the time for a Presidential Precedent.

 

[Winstonm]

I think the most likely outcome of this is not the best outcome: impeachment without conviction.

 

However, I hope even after Trump is removed from office that the 14th Amendment is invoked and voted on (only a majority is needed) and then the courts uphold the vote so that he becomes ineligible to hold elected office ever again. It seems appropriate to use an Amendment that targeted ex-Confederate soldiers and officials in order to hold a white supremacist president accountable.

[y66]

Seems quite possible that Trump getting to stay on Twitter for four years cost him re-election, and getting banned last week saved him from getting impeached and convicted this month.

[kenberg]

I often start with simplicity. Donald Trump's actions on Jan 6 justify putting him in jail. I am, for the moment, speaking in what I think is right. But legally? I think if I gathered a bunch of hot heads around me and spoke for an hour or so about how the election was stolen and ho they should march down to the capitol to fix this, telling them they have to be tough etc (I have not read the speech in its entirety) and then if they did that, they broke into the capitol trashed the place, and people died, if this had been me I believe I would right now be in jail as would any of you. Giuliani, if he keeps his license, can launch a defense. The big boys will play and I am not a big boy. But I do no believe that I could do what Trump did without going to jail, and he shouldn't either.

 

I am fine with impeaching him but I want him out of the presidency and I want him in jail. Politics always gets involved in impeachment but I think 12 jurors would have no trouble at all seeing the jail thing my way.

 

A word about impeachment. Some R's should welcome it. It gives them a clear chance to vote as they believe. And I think the tice has been shifting with voters, and I think it will be shifting a good deal more. People really don't like seeing a mob invade the capitol and drag cops around and whack cops over the head with a fire extinguisher. Some do, but really most don't. And so Trump didn't do that? Right. He got other people to do it and then made sure he was far enough away so that he could say "Wasn't me". Some people are crazed enough to buy this sham. Most, at least after they take some time and think about it, aren't.

 

He stoked a riot, a rebellion against the government, lawmakers had to flee, they could have been killed. some people were killed, I think "Wasn't me" just is not going to cut it, not legally and not with voters.

[Winstonm]

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), No. 3 Republican in the House, said Tuesday she will vote to impeach President Trump, saying there has “never been a greater betrayal” by a president to his office and his oath to the Constitution days after a pro-Trump mob attacked the Capitol.

Perhaps now the dam will break...