Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Moore v Harper

 

This needs to be resolved; but not by this SCOTUS.

[Winstonm]

NBC is still reporting this Trump-Bannon stunt as if it were legitimate. It's not. It is a stunt to make it appear as if Bannon had a legitimate reason to withhold testimony. Genuine document expert and journalist Marcy Wheeler explains it:

 

In a motion in limine from the government seeking to exclude Bannon's latest manufactured stunt from his trial, DOJ revealed that a surprise witness identified in a recent filing was in fact Trump's lawyer, Justin Clark, and Clark confirmed much of what I had laid out in my post.

 

On June 29, 2022, former President Donald Trump's attorney, who sent the letter on which the Defendant claimed his noncompliance was based, confirmed what his correspondence has already established: that

the former President never invoked executive privilege over any particular information or materials

; that the former President's counsel never asked or was asked to attend the Defendant's deposition before the Select Committee; that

the Defendant's attorney misrepresented to the Committee what the former President's counsel had told the Defendant's attorney

; and that

the former President's counsel made clear to the Defendant's attorney that the letter provided no basis for total noncompliance

.3 Even the Defendant's claim that the reason he is now willing to testify is because the former President is "waiving" executive privilege is subject to question given all of the evidence and law that has been addressed in this case, of which he must be aware, demonstrating that executive privilege never provided a basis for total noncompliance in the first place.

 

3 The Government provided an FBI report of the interview in which the attorney made these statements to the Defendant on June 30, 2022, the day after the interview was conducted. [my emphasis]

 

In other words, Justin Clark has testified (and may, at Bannon's trial) that what Trump has gotten a bunch of credulous journalists reporting as fact is a lie.

Trump's own attorney says Trump is lying (and by association, the journalists got badly duped).

[my emphasis]

The media is being duped and they continue to play Trump's game.

[kenberg]

In the first four years after leaving the presidency, how many times do you recall the names of ex-presidents making headlines? Every time the name Trump is placed in a headline it is a shot-in-the-arm for Republicans. It's free advertising for the grifter and the party he still leads.

 

I'm a little unclear on what "work" you think the Democrats can and should be doing. Without eliminating the filibuster or having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the big plans cannot happen. All that's left is executive orders and blather. Trump was, and still is, an expert at making blather appear to be concrete action; yes, it is effective; yes, it would be great if the Democrats could find a candidate who could compete or even outcompete that oratory, not with bombast, but with delivery of the message, I am here, I am doing something, even when unable to do something.

 

One thing I think you miss is the nature of the enemy-I hate to say it, but these people have become the enemy of choice, and I really don't think you appreciate how much influence nationally they are providing. This is why we should not give free advertising to them, or their leader, Trump.

 

 

[/center]

Maybe you are right and I am wrong. But I remember the "silent majority" and "Democrats for Reagan" too well to think rationality wins elections. Elections are a popularity contest, and framing and exposure have much to do with who gets stuck in the minds of voters.

 

 

I'll just clarify what I meant by the work that the Dems need to be doing. They need to do some straight thinking about why they do not have a clear majority in the Senate and in the House, and this thinking absolutely must focus on what they, the Dems, are doing wrong. It's easy, way too easy, to explain defeat by citing the stupidity of the voters or the incompetence of the media or by a dozen other things. You mentioned Reagan. Let's take him as an example, and then Clinton. In 1980, Reagan defeated Carter as Carter ran for re-election. In 1992, Clinton defeated GHW Bush as Bush ran for re-election. This change was not because voters got a brain transplant during the12 intervening years. The media was pretty much the same in 1992 as it was in 1980. And so?

Reagan was a good candidate and he ran a good campaign. Clinton was a good candidate and he ran a good campaign. Issues that were important to voters were addressed. Looking at 2016, how could Trump win? Hillary Clinton was not that great a candidate and she ran a very poor campaign. Of course she could, and did, explain that she did everything right and it was all just really unfair. OK, but the bottom line is that she lost, and I am suggesting Dems need to think about why she lost. And that thought needs to center on reasons that they can do something about. Whining about the media might make them feel satisfied, but to win they need to look at mistakes that they themselves have made and try to do better.

 

I think that the Dems have not been doing a very good job with thinking through why they lose races that they should win. Explanations that are based on it being someone else's fault should be put aside.

[Winstonm]

I'll just clarify what I meant by the work that the Dems need to be doing. They need to do some straight thinking about why they do not have a clear majority in the Senate and in the House, and this thinking absolutely must focus on what they, the Dems, are doing wrong. It's easy, way too easy, to explain defeat by citing the stupidity of the voters or the incompetence of the media or by a dozen other things. You mentioned Reagan. Let's take him as an example, and then Clinton. In 1980, Reagan defeated Carter as Carter ran for re-election. In 1992, Clinton defeated GHW Bush as Bush ran for re-election. This change was not because voters got a brain transplant during the12 intervening years. The media was pretty much the same in 1992 as it was in 1980. And so?

Reagan was a good candidate and he ran a good campaign. Clinton was a good candidate and he ran a good campaign. Issues that were important to voters were addressed. Looking at 2016, how could Trump win? Hillary Clinton was not that great a candidate and she ran a very poor campaign. Of course she could, and did, explain that she did everything right and it was all just really unfair. OK, but the bottom line is that she lost, and I am suggesting Dems need to think about why she lost. And that thought needs to center on reasons that they can do something about. Whining about the media might make them feel satisfied, but to win they need to look at mistakes that they themselves have made and try to do better.

 

I think that the Dems have not been doing a very good job with thinking through why they lose races that they should win. Explanations that are based on it being someone else's fault should be put aside.

 

I think maybe you misunderstand my position or else I have stated it poorly.

 

These are two separate issues. I agree with you about the lameness of the Democratic Party's messaging. Campaigning is critical.

 

Journalism sucks: That is not related to politics. It is related to journalism. It is not hard to find basic facts about some things, like reading documents provided by the courts before reporting rumors. Here is an explanation of why that sucks:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/11/trump-attorney-justin-clark-fbi-00045073

 

 

[awm]

They need to do some straight thinking about why they do not have a clear majority in the Senate and in the House, and this thinking absolutely must focus on what they, the Dems, are doing wrong.

 

This is made very difficult by structural issues. The fact is, the Democrats win the majority of votes nationwide quite consistently -- for example, they have won more votes than the Republicans in seven of the last eight presidential elections (the lone exception being 2004 when Bush was riding the wave of post-9/11 patriotism). When we poll the population as a whole (instead of just "likely voters") Democrats do even better, and when we poll policy positions Democrats do even better still. The Democrats won in 2020 by most measures (they won the presidency with 7 million-plus more votes than their opponent, and won majorities in both houses of the legislature). It's a strange time to be telling them that their strategy needs rethinking and they better focus on what they're doing wrong!

 

The issue is that the United States is not really democratic, in the sense that not every person's vote counts the same. Voters in some regions have substantially more political power than others, and this is even more significant in Congress and state legislatures (due to gerrymandering) than it is at the presidential level. And of course, Supreme Court justices are not elected at all, with the last three being appointed by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by senators who represented less than half the country.

 

Of course, Democrats could presumably change their policies and/or their campaign strategy to better accommodate this reality. But this means disappointing their current supporters who represent quite a bit more than half the country. It's hard to decide to cede ground to guns and racism when the advocates of these things represent a shrinking minority (and their opponents a growing majority), even if this is the way to win elections.

[Winstonm]

This is made very difficult by structural issues. The fact is, the Democrats win the majority of votes nationwide quite consistently -- for example, they have won more votes than the Republicans in seven of the last eight presidential elections (the lone exception being 2004 when Bush was riding the wave of post-9/11 patriotism). When we poll the population as a whole (instead of just "likely voters") Democrats do even better, and when we poll policy positions Democrats do even better still. The Democrats won in 2020 by most measures (they won the presidency with 7 million-plus more votes than their opponent, and won majorities in both houses of the legislature). It's a strange time to be telling them that their strategy needs rethinking and they better focus on what they're doing wrong!

 

The issue is that the United States is not really democratic, in the sense that not every person's vote counts the same. Voters in some regions have substantially more political power than others, and this is even more significant in Congress and state legislatures (due to gerrymandering) than it is at the presidential level. And of course, Supreme Court justices are not elected at all, with the last three being appointed by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by senators who represented less than half the country.

 

Of course, Democrats could presumably change their policies and/or their campaign strategy to better accommodate this reality. But this means disappointing their current supporters who represent quite a bit more than half the country. It's hard to decide to cede ground to guns and racism when the advocates of these things represent a shrinking minority (and their opponents a growing majority), even if this is the way to win elections.

 

The twin but competing traits a candidate needs are to be likable and forceful. Democrats need better candidates. Although the systemic issues are probably too great to overcome, at least Democrats could look and sound good while losing.

[y66]

Now would be a good time for Dems to work in good faith with Joe Manchin on stuff they can pass like cutting drug costs for seniors, improving the financial health of Medicare, closing a tax loophole that benefits the wealthy and reducing methane leaks. Could happen: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/07/10/democrats-manchin-spending-deal/

[mycroft]

This assumes that Joe Manchin will work in good faith with the Democrats. Or knows how to.

 

Of course, it also assumes that the Democrats know how to understand English when it is spoken by anyone. Or can recognize the second (thousandth) time someone tries to pull the wool over their eyes.

 

Seriously, I can't tell if they're terminally naïve, literally incapable of learning from experience, or just assuming the public is. Or, literally don't care as long as their life isn't affected, I guess.

[barmar]

There is no Executive Privilege for Steve Bannon. That is the story.

 

You don’t even have to put Trump’s name in the story to tell the story. Headline should be, “ Ex-president makes ridiculous claim about non-existent executive privilege “.

 

Then the story explains that EP is the current president’s to claim or waive, not the past, and it doesn’t apply to Steve Bannon anyway. You tell a factual story and educate your readers without providing free publicity to a grifter trying to take down the American electoral system

.

Since when does Trump care whether his claims are true or legal? He'll make the claim, and then it has to go to court to have his claim declined. This is often a successful delaying tactic, if nothing else. And in the meanwhile he can refer to this as part of the Democratic "witch hunt".

 

It's factually true that he tried to exert executive privilege, and he's now reversed this stance. Now if Bannon were to refuse to testify, he has less of a leg to stand on.

[Winstonm]

Since when does Trump care whether his claims are true or legal? He'll make the claim, and then it has to go to court to have his claim declined. This is often a successful delaying tactic, if nothing else. And in the meanwhile he can refer to this as part of the Democratic "witch hunt".

 

It's factually true that he tried to exert executive privilege, and he's now reversed this stance. Now if Bannon were to refuse to testify, he has less of a leg to stand on.

 

No! It is not true. Trump’s own attorney said in a court filing it wasn’t true.

The only reason to try this scam was to make Bannon “appear” as if he had cause to duck the subpoena and the media ate it up and tried to help. It was and is BS, it is closer to attempted obstruction of Justice by falsifying a claim. Trump never tried to claim EP for Bannon.

[y66]

NEW: ex-AG William Barr has been subpoenaed as part of the ongoing 2020 election defamation suit against Fox News brought by Dominion

 

It's the latest sign that the company's suits against those who pushed false claims of fraud may be gathering steam

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/attorney-general-bill-barr-subpoenaed-dominion-2020-election/story?id=86607488

[Winstonm]

It's an embarrassment that it takes an Opinion writer to document accurately the Trump/Bannon scam on America that the stenography corps wrote as genuine.

 

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/steve-bannon-s-jan-6-committee-testimony-offer-sham-n1297006

[Winstonm]

This assumes that Joe Manchin will work in good faith with the Democrats. Or knows how to.

 

It also assumes that Manchin really is a Democrat instead of a Republican mole.

[kenberg]

It also assumes that Manchin really is a Democrat instead of a Republican mole.

 

A DINO?

[Winstonm]

A DINO?

You are right. A mole would be more deeply buried in the party.

[y66]

How is whining about Manchin working for Dems?

[Winstonm]

How is whining about Manchin working for Dems?

Bitching about Manchin is a Sin enema

[Winstonm]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/how-supreme-court-could-upend-integrity-our-elections/670472/

[y66]

Sinema is a space cadet posing as a principled maverick. Manchin represents a state where Trump beat Biden by 38.9 percentage points. I have no idea what Schumer's problem is.

[y66]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-07-13/republican-boycott-of-jan-6-committee-is-backfiring?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=220713&utm_campaign=author_18529680

 

Tuesday’s hearing of the House committee investigating the assault on the US Capitol of Jan. 6, 2021 provided a stark reminder of how the boycott by all but two Republicans has set the context of the proceedings. Remember: After Speaker Nancy Pelosi vetoed Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s suggestions for Republicans to serve on the panel, McCarthy pulled all Republican participation, leaving Pelosi to name two Republican adversaries of former President Donald Trump who defied the boycott.

 

The hallmark of these hearings — seven this summer and one last year — has been that they’ve run smoothly. They start on time. There is no partisan sniping. No motions made and argued over. The use of taped segments — from depositions and from other evidence — has been professional and effective. The hearings even appear to end on time.

 

The committee has been shockingly effective at teasing each session in advance without giving away the bulk of their story. There’s even a ritual at the end in which Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the senior of the two Republicans, previews the next hearing and drops a bombshell, supplying the media with a sidebar story and keeping everyone’s interest up to the last moment. This Tuesday’s Cheney surprise was the revelation that Trump tried (unsuccessfully) to contact a committee witness.

 

It’s not unusual for a lot of what happens in congressional hearings to be scripted; indeed, it’s pretty normal. But even when partisanship is minimized and members are cooperative (and yes, even in these days of partisan polarization, there’s plenty of cooperation), representatives almost always read off their own individual scripts, with no more than halting coordination even within the parties. For a hearing to be centrally scripted … that’s highly unusual.

 

Some of this would have been possible had there been additional, dissenting Republicans on the committee. But it would have been a lot harder. Even if the other Republicans had been pro-democracy and acted in good faith — unlikely, but let’s suppose — they probably would have appealed to the impulse of many journalists to hold both parties responsible for any disputes that break out. More likely, they would have deliberately provoked fights to make the story about committee squabbling, rather than the evidence presented. They also could have selectively leaked things from the depositions to take the steam out of the hearings. But even just adding minority member time would have broken up the force and the effectiveness of the presentations.

 

To be sure, it would also have given critics a chance to expose weak points in the committee’s argument. Tuesday’s session demonstrated how. The topic was actions taken by Trump after losing the 2020 election, from mid-December up to Jan. 6, with the committee trying to pin the eventual violence on Trump himself.

 

If the committee’s goal was simply to prove that Trump was aware of the potential for violence, including violence by organized militia-like groups, and even encouraged it, it was successful. However, I thought it was less successful at tying Trump directly to those groups. Overlap between the extended Trump camp and the extremist groups was exposed — Trump confidant Roger Stone, in particular, was involved with both — but a few skeptics on the committee could have pushed the majority harder about whether there was more to Trump’s involvement than simply inspiring anyone who was willing to follow him to commit mayhem.

 

I don’t mean to minimize what the committee did demonstrate, which was certainly more than enough to produce a legitimate impeachment and conviction if Trump was still president, and may now be enough for indictment and conviction. And the committee has said that it hasn’t yet revealed all the evidence it has gathered. But the feel of the hearing would have been different had there been someone present to poke holes at the conclusions drawn by the current members. Different, but perhaps not weaker; after all, one defense Trump can now trot out on the political stage is that no one is standing up for him in the committee, which is true even if the bulk of what is being presented is irrefutable.

 

One thing that is clear after eight hearings: Pelosi was correct to veto the Republican attempt to add committee members who were deeply involved in Trump’s plotting. But that still left McCarthy with plenty of options, including strong Trump supporters who didn’t get involved in planning to overturn the election and, in doing so, to overthrow the legitimate US government.

 

Because if there’s one thing that’s been obvious starting on Election Day 2020 and is even more obvious now that we’ve seen hours of evidence, not to mention 18 months of Trump's public behavior, that overthrowing the government is exactly what Trump and his allies were attempting to do. Unfortunately, it seems that there are only two Republicans in the entire House of Representatives willing to side with democracy and against the former president. But they’ve made the committee a lot more effective.

[barmar]

The great thing about the committee hearings is that the members fully understand the subject matter. Compare them to past hearings on things like social media, where they needed Twitter's business model explained to them. But democracy is the bread and butter of Congressmen (even when they're not achieving it, they know how it should work), and they can tell when someone is trying to subvert it.

[Gilithin]

But democracy is the bread and butter of Congressmen (even when they're not achieving it, they know how it should work), and they can tell when someone is trying to subvert it.

While this might be true of the committee members, it does not appear to be the case for the majority of the GOP caucus.

[mikeh]

While this might be true of the committee members, it does not appear to be the case for the majority of the GOP caucus.

I strongly disagree. I suspect that all but a fringe group (mtg and boebert come to mind) do understand how democracy should work, but they either disapprove of democracy (too many uppity poor people or gays or liberals get to vote) or they put avoidance of losing their seats if they speak out in support of the committee ahead of any sense of obligation to their country or their oath (not that many self-professed Christians ever seem to take oaths seriously if upholding it seems even slightly inconvenient).

[pilowsky]

It's a very unusual politician that would allow anything to stand in the way of being (re-)elected.

The debate about abortion is a good example.

 

In Australia rabid anti-abortionists number about 10% of the population most lower house elections are decided by a much smaller margin.

But this particular group will vote en bloc on this single issue.

 

It seems that in the USA [guns|abortion|money] will galvanise millions.

And yet, in the USA the largest number of voters don't.

 

Even in 2020, "I didn't vote" scored higher than any individual presidential candidate.

Why is this?

This apathy about elections and a general sense that their vote is meaningless suggests a bred in the bone sense of hopelessness and a lack of social cohesion.

The fervent opposition to supporting a meaningful standard of living for all is present on both sides of the aisle in the USA.

 

Reading this forum I get a sense that Bridge is all about money in the USA (true for all sports) and has little to do with leisure and meeting friends.

Michael Lewis' book 'Moneyball' captures this attitude perfectly: when leisure is solely about making money a society loses its soul.

[y66]

https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/judge-issues-stay-after-lindsey-graham-asks-court-to-quash-georgia-election-probe-subpoena/article_0ecb0aa0-02df-11ed-b8be-0b706980886b.html

 

The debate over whether U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham must testify in Georgia next month as part of an investigation into possible criminal interference in the 2020 elections will now head to a federal courtroom in Greenville.

 

South Carolina U.S. District Judge Henry Herlong on July 13 issued an order staying the execution of the subpoena for Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is one many figures from Trump’s inner circle who have been asked to testify before a special grand jury in Fulton County, Ga.

 

The judge has scheduled a hearing on the motion for July 20.

 

The legal action came after Graham’s attorneys argued in federal court filings that Graham should not have to comply with the subpoena issued last week by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

 

Graham, who remains one of former President Donald Trump’s closest Republican allies in the Senate, is being asked to testify about at least two phone conversations he had with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Raffensperger’s staff in the days after the 2020 presidential election.

 

In her subpoena, Willis said she sought Graham’s testimony as part of an investigation into what she alleges is a “multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump Campaign to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere.”

 

After Graham and his legal team said they would fight the subpoena, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney issued a ruling that ordered Graham to testify on Aug. 2, describing him as a “necessary and material witness” to the grand jury probe.

Sponsored

 

But Graham’s attorneys argue in their July 12 filings that their high-profile client should not have to testify, largely because of the unique legal privileges afforded to Graham as a member of the Senate.

 

The legal argument, which was outlined in a 13-page document filed in Graham’s home state of South Carolina, cites the obscure “speech and debate” clause in the U.S. Constitution that grants elected officials some degree of legal immunity.

 

That clause states that in all cases “except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace,” senators and representatives “shall not be questioned” outside of Congress “for any Speech or Debate in either House.”

 

According to Graham and his attorneys, those protections are absolute.

 

“What I’m trying to do is do my day job,” Graham said in a July 12 interview on Fox News Radio. “If we open up county prosecutors being able to call every member of the Senate based on some investigation they think is good for the country, we’ll ruin the place.”

 

Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, said the clause specifically grants members of Congress special privileges. It allows senators and representatives to not be subpoenaed or investigated by outsiders with respect to their official functions, such as why they voted the way they did or what they wrote in a legislative report.

 

“But that does not extend by any expert’s view to when a senator tries to look into an election in another state,” Tribe said in an interview with The Post and Courier. “When Lindsey Graham calls people in Georgia — even if he doesn’t do anything improper and is trying to find out about the Georgia election, or especially if he’s trying to influence it — that’s completely outside what the speech and debate clause is about.”