Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

From the above:"Many sophisticated observers of the January 6 committee will judge its success by two key metrics: whether the panel refers former President Donald Trump for criminal investigation and, if so, whether Attorney General Merrick Garland actually proceeds. But committee members are doing another job at least as important as advising the Justice Department: They are giving an off-ramp to those who accepted Trump’s insistence that the 2020 election was stolen out from under him—and who might excuse or even support violence done in his name."

They, and we, should think carefully about this. So far, they are doing an excellent job of making it unmistakable clear what happened. That is a fine thing for an investigating committee to do. After it is absolutely clear what happened, I think the Attorney General will decide whether or not to bring criminal charges. It would be a mistake to have it become whether or not the Attorney General does what the committee recommends. The decision should be based on the Attorney General's assessment, after seeing what has been presented, of the legal case. If the planning that went into the insurrection, and the egging on of a violence-prone mob in a manner that clearly implied that Mark Pence had to be forcefully prevented from certifying the election is not seen as grounds for a fair number of indictments, then Congress needs to pass some important laws. I would be very surprised if no indictments followed from the hearings. Clearly there should be indictments.

What I am getting at: This should not become "Will the Attorney general do what the committee tells him to do or won't he?", it should be "The committee has done its job, now will the Attorney General do what clearly needs to be done, and if not why not?" It's a subtle difference, but I think it is important for it to go down the second path. Among other things, in matters like this, there are (so I understand it) strategic matters of just who gets indicted first and for what. Let the AG plan this out.

 

I agree with one caveat: the DOJ must make a legal judgement as to charging without consideration to political consequences or damage to the country. There can be no greater damage than for the DOJ to assume the position that the office of President is above answering to the rule of law because of some nebulous future damage.

[Winstonm]

Oddly enough. what these Jan 6 hearings may be doing is resurrecting the Republican Party by divorcing itself from Trump in favor of democracy.

[johnu]

Oddly enough. what these Jan 6 hearings may be doing is resurrecting the Republican Party by divorcing itself from Trump in favor of democracy.

In poll after poll, about 70% of Republicans say they don’t think Joe Biden is the legitimate winner of the 2020 election.

 

Former President Donald Trump has made the “stolen” 2020 election the centerpiece of his post-White House political life. Virtually every statement he sends out invokes the false theme.

 

The polling shows it has been effective, not just with the crowd that stormed the Capitol on his behalf on Jan. 6, 2021, but with members of the Republican Party almost a year and a half later.

 

The multiple recounts and audits that confirmed Joe Biden’s win have changed little. With remarkable consistency, a scant one-quarter of Republican voters tell pollsters that Biden won legitimately. That was the view they shared in the spring of 2021, and the fraction remains about the same today.

[Winstonm]

In poll after poll, about 70% of Republicans say they don’t think Joe Biden is the legitimate e winner of the 2020 election.

 

You have noticed that these hearings have been pointed directly at those who deny or have doubts about the legitimacy of the election?

 

I’ve pretty much lost confidence in polling as a legitimate source of reliable information.

[pilowsky]

70% of Americans don't know that Georgia is a country near Russia.

100% of Americans can't spell English words correctly.

In the mind of a person asked if their favourite team "legitimately" lost any competition the answer is "no - we wuz robbed".

 

Ask them if they can spell "legitimately" and see how you go.

 

The percentage of bonkers is the same all over the world.

But there are so many Americans that the total amount of nuttiness is amplified.

[y66]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-22/jan-6-was-the-culmination-of-trump-allies-violent-threats?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=220622&utm_campaign=author_18529680

 

What explained the devastating weight of Tuesday’s hearing of the House Jan. 6 committee? The testimony barely mentioned the attack on the Capitol or other events of that day.

 

Instead we heard, in new and terrifying detail, about Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Republican officials in state after state to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. By expanding the scope of the events covered, the panel heard from witnesses who recounted just how massive and systematic the efforts by Trump and his allies really were — and how violence and threats of violence played a central role in it.

 

We still do not have firm evidence tying Trump specifically to organized violent outbreaks, including the Capitol attack. But we’ve now seen enough that it’s clear Trump either knew his words would put people in danger or he should have known. And the same goes for those around him.

 

Those of us who have followed this story closely already knew the broad outlines and even many details in the stories of Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers; Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger; Gabriel Sterling of the Georgia secretary of state’s office, and Georgia election worker Shaye Moss.

 

But Tuesday’s airing of their accounts, one after another, was just brutal. Bowers endured Saturday protests outside his house, with armed Trump fans calling him (among other things) a pedophile. Sterling described how he was moved to give his forceful public statement denouncing efforts to overturn the election after seeing a staffer in his office overwhelmed by vicious, personal attacks on social media. Moss and her mother were so intimidated by the president’s attacks and those of his followers that they basically shut down their lives.

 

In other words, the committee artfully made the case that the violence of Jan. 6 was only a continuation of violent efforts to bully everyone who stood in the way of the president and his desire to stay in office, regardless of the facts and the law.

 

We already knew that the fraud accusations that Trump and his allies made were investigated and found to be false or frivolous, based on obvious fictions or misunderstandings of normal procedures. And that, despite this, Trump ramped up pressure on Republican officeholders in states that Joe Biden had won.

 

We knew about the scheme, probably criminal and certainly outside of the law and the Constitution, to submit slates of false electors in states that Trump had lost. And about his call to Raffensperger, in which the then president of the United States begged, cajoled and threatened him to “find” the votes needed to reverse the Georgia outcome — this figured prominently in Trump’s second impeachment and Senate trial.

 

There was some new detail. For example, Rudy Giuliani told Bowers that “we've got lots of theories — we just don't have any evidence.” I don’t think that was previously reported, and it helped make the committee’s point that the conspirators were well aware that Trump had lost the election.

 

And we knew that violence and threats of violence had been present throughout the post-election period and were a regular feature of Trump’s rallies from the start of his 2016 run for president.

 

In contrast to Trump and his allies, Tuesday’s witnesses stood out as patriots. Committee Chair Bennie Thompson in his opening remarks thanked the various elected officials, bureaucrats and election workers who have testified “for their service”: The US is defended, after all, by its democratic institutions — defined by the men and women who do their jobs faithfully or not — even more than by its military might, and has been since 1776. It was inspiring to watching Bowers, Raffensperger, Sterling and Moss stand up for democracy, despite the costs that they have had to endure — especially when you consider how few Republicans have been willing to rally to their side.

 

It’s not yet clear how strong the legal case against Trump will be. But I agree with the political scientist Alex Garlick, who said that “the more we learn from the January 6 committee, the more it becomes obvious that the Senate's inability to convict Trump in February 2021 was a failure of historical proportions.”

[Winstonm]

The failure of Biblical proportions (think Sodom and Gomorrah) is to continue to support Trump and his allies.

[hrothgar]

Well worth a read

 

(Its long)

 

https://www.brookings.edu/research/trump-on-trial/

[Chas_P]

What does that have to do with it? This is like asking whether drunk drivers work for the liquor industry. You don't have to be a member to be highly influenced by the NRA's rhetoric or take advantage of the gun "freedoms" that they advocate.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, you have a perfect example of pure, unadulterated horseshit. No one claims that drunken drivers have a constitutional right to drive drunk. But (I'm pretty sure) a majority of Americans share the view that they have a constitutional right to own firearms. Don't damn the law-obiding. Damn (and punish) the criminals.

[pilowsky]

Most Americans do not think the laws surrounding gun ownership are restrictive enough.

]Roughly half of Americans (53%) favor stricter gun laws, a decline since 2019, [/color]according to the Center's April 2021 survey. Smaller shares say these laws are about right (32%) or should be less strict (14%). The share of Americans who say gun laws should be stricter has decreased from 60% in September 2019. Current opinions are in line with what they were in March 2017.

[Gerardo]

Here, ladies and gentlemen, you have a perfect example of pure, unadulterated horseshit. [snip]

 

what's up with the fanfare? Happens most of the time you open your mouth.

[johnu]

You have noticed that these hearings have been pointed directly at those who deny or have doubts about the legitimacy of the election?

The true QOP believers aren't watching the hearings because they are watching Fox Propaganda Channel, One anti-America News, NewsMin, or just getting their news from russian bots on facebook. Fox Propaganda made the decision to lose hundreds of thousands of advertising dollars by going commercial free during the hearings so their users wouldn't be tempted to switch channels during the pillow guy's commercials.

[hrothgar]

Here, ladies and gentlemen, you have a perfect example of pure, unadulterated horseshit. No one claims that drunken drivers have a constitutional right to drive drunk. But (I'm pretty sure) a majority of Americans share the view that they have a constitutional right to own firearms. Don't damn the law-obiding. Damn (and punish) the criminals.

 

Aw! Look

 

*****wit is trying to change the conversation

 

He's retreating from his original bullshit claim and switching over to a new bullshit claim!

 

Nice try *****wit...

 

Sadly for you, some of us actually have working short term memories and we're able to remember what the actual discussion was about

[Winstonm]

I see that the Bailey and Bailey circus is in town.

 

On a similar note, these January 6th hearings have revealed to me something that before I sort of knew but truly didn't totally comprehend, and that is the depth and power of Trump's immense understanding and utilization of the power of perceptions. Truly, if he has a superpower that is it. His sole purpose in trying to place his own AG (Clark) into the DOJ was due Clark's assurance that he would send from the DOJ a fake letter that stated there had been fraud committed in the election and that the DOJ was investigating.

 

Think about that for a moment-Trump's sole goal was to create the perception of legitimacy to his Big Lie. And he was willing to discredit, possibly forever, the reputation of the United States Department of Justice in his false cause.

 

And the Republican Senators did not convict him in impeachment proceedings. and many Republicans still say they would vote for him again if he is the nominee or the party for president.

 

[PeterAlan]

With yesterday's and today's Supreme Court decisions, we're seeing just how much the US has been Trumped for decades to come (with a little help from Mitch McConnell).

[mikeh]

The true QOP believers aren't watching the hearings because they are watching Fox Propaganda Channel, One anti-America News, NewsMin, or just getting their news from russian bots on facebook. Fox Propaganda made the decision to lose hundreds of thousands of advertising dollars by going commercial free during the hearings so their users wouldn't be tempted to switch channels during the pillow guy's commercials.

It seems clear that the Murdochs have decided to jump off of the Trump bandwagon and onto that of de Santis. Fox is now showing at least some of the hearings and some talking heads on Fox are now criticizing Trump. The WSJ has openly stated that Trump should not be the GOP nominee and has thrown its support behind de Santis

 

It’s been widely reported that Rupert Murdoch has never been a real fan of the Donald, but supported him because he would deliver the goods for Murdoch’s agenda. Now that he’s seen as the damaged goods he was all along, it’s time to find another tool. De Santis seems to fit that criterion.

 

It is amusing, in a sick way, how the plutocrat Murdoch seems to have held the same view of Trump as the plutocrat Putin seems to have held.

[Cyberyeti]

It seems clear that the Murdochs have decided to jump off of the Trump bandwagon and onto that of de Santis. Fox is now showing at least some of the hearings and some talking heads on Fox are now criticizing Trump. The WSJ has openly stated that Trump should not be the GOP nominee and has thrown its support behind de Santis

 

It’s been widely reported that Rupert Murdoch has never been a real fan of the Donald, but supported him because he would deliver the goods for Murdoch’s agenda. Now that he’s seen as the damaged goods he was all along, it’s time to find another tool. De Santis seems to fit that criterion.

 

It is amusing, in a sick way, how the plutocrat Murdoch seems to have held the same view of Trump as the plutocrat Putin seems to have held.

 

It's interesting the view of Murdoch in the US. In the UK, he has 2 newspapers, the Sun - tabloid, everything everybody despises about Murdoch. The Times, broadsheet much more balanced, often with a different view on big issues to the Sun (eg Sun pro Brexit, Times pro remain at the time of the referendum, got behind Brexit after the vote).

 

His TV station is nothing like as biased as Fox.

[Winstonm]

I am waiting next for the SCOTUS to re-institute dueling as a cost-saving and business-friendly (think funeral directors and mortuaries) alternative to civil courts.

 

They have moved us back to 1850 so I see no reason why 1750 should not be the ultimate goal.

[mikeh]

It's interesting the view of Murdoch in the US. In the UK, he has 2 newspapers, the Sun - tabloid, everything everybody despises about Murdoch. The Times, broadsheet much more balanced, often with a different view on big issues to the Sun (eg Sun pro Brexit, Times pro remain at the time of the referendum, got behind Brexit after the vote).

 

His TV station is nothing like as biased as Fox.

Iirc, he couldn’t legally do in the UK that which he can do in the US. Fox outright lies in the US. While the UK is currently home to a couple of right wing fringe networks, my understanding is that those networks operate under more constraints (when purporting to state facts as opposed to opinions) than their US counterparts. We have a federal body overseeing television and radio in Canada and the CRTC is, I gather, the main reason Fox has not been able to set up here.

[PassedOut]

No one claims that drunken drivers have a constitutional right to drive drunk. But (I'm pretty sure) a majority of Americans share the view that they have a constitutional right to own firearms. Don't damn the law-obiding. Damn (and punish) the criminals.

Yes, criminals should be punished. But as Benjamin Franklin said in 1736:

 

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Punishing the shooters doesn't bring victims back to life.

[kenberg]

I am waiting next for the SCOTUS to re-institute dueling as a cost-saving and business-friendly (think funeral directors and mortuaries) alternative to civil courts.

 

They have moved us back to 1850 so I see no reason why 1750 should not be the ultimate goal.

 

Also there are some witches that we need to do something about. And vampires.

[Winstonm]

Also there are some witches that we need to do something about. And vampires.

 

Sure, bring Hillary again.🤣

[Winstonm]

Yes, criminals should be punished. But as Benjamin Franklin said in 1736:

 

 

Punishing the shooters doesn't bring victims back to life.

Wouldn’t banning military-style rifles fall under the umbrella of prevention?We no longer worry in the US about contracting small pox, not because we arrested the spreaders but because we eradicated the underlying cause of the illness, and that is prevention writ large.

[PassedOut]

Wouldn’t banning military-style rifles fall under the umbrella of prevention?

It would.

[y66]

With sorrow — for this court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent.