Poll: 70% of Republicans Thought Effort to Overturn Election Results Was "Justified"
Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am
Lies work. Even big, totally unsupported lies work. In fact, those might work best of all:
In fact, amid the recent focus on the congressional GOP's direction now, under one in five rank-and-file Republicans favor a conviction, while most still broadly value loyalty to Mr. Trump. Many current Republicans say they might even join a new party headed by Mr. Trump if he were to start one. And while almost all call violence unacceptable, most Republicans feel that efforts by Mr. Trump and some Republicans to overturn the 2020 results were justified.
There's plenty in the poll about loyalty to Trump, how Americans view his impeachment, yada yada yada. I think the clear story here is what percentage of Americans believe it was OK to try to steal an election. The answer is 39% — but fully 70% of Republicans:
I find that incredibly ominous. Had Donald Trump prevailed in stealing the election, I would have considered it a coup that would justify armed revolution and removing him by literally any force necessary. The fact that fully 70% of the people from my former party would support such an act is terrifying, and makes me wonder how inevitable is our ultimate slide into violence.
252 Responses to "Poll: 70% of Republicans Thought Effort to Overturn Election Results Was "Justified""
Can the people who supported alternate means articulate clearly what on earth they would be fighting for? What does Trump actually represent?
Appalled (1a17de) — 2/9/2021 @ 8:45 am
It is just a fact that, in 2016, the biggest liar was nominated and the 2nd biggest liar, Cruz, was runner-up.
The GOP has been the Emotional Party, not the Factual Party, for awhile. We're the party of feelings, not reason.
Paul Montagu (77c694) — 2/9/2021 @ 8:57 am
appalled. I think many are simply voicing their view that they wanted a different result.
Survey results are ok for general trends, and it's true it's disturbing that 70% of Republicans will sign on to the opinion that the election should be overturned. But it's also true that many survey answerers are just not that bright, or not listening carefully, or playing games with the person asking the question. After all, apparently 9% of those voting for Biden also wanted to overturn the result.
Victor (4959fb) — 2/9/2021 @ 8:57 am
The people who say it was justified probably believe that the election was in fact stolen, or that there was strong evidence of that.
Sammy Finkelman (57e37d) — 2/9/2021 @ 8:59 am
Something I've wondered about for a while is the current absolute membership size of the Republican party.
Of course this is a very fuzzy concept that gets harder to define the more you look at it. But let's start with, "will self-identify as a Republican to a pollster".
I'm pretty sure that number has gone down over the last few years. But how much?
john (cd2753) — 2/9/2021 @ 9:01 am
I'm not even sure we can parse out the cause and effect at this point, if we ever could. Republicans tell the voters that the election is stolen, and the voters come to believe it. But are Republicans telling the voters that because they know what's the base wants to hear as a means to give them cover, or have the voters believed it because the Republicans tell them that's the case?
It's important to the extent that the Republican party may be, if it isn't already, the party of thugs who want to impose their will regardless of what the voters say.
JohnnyAgreeable (c49787) — 2/9/2021 @ 9:08 am
This is really a measure of the level of investment people have in elections. If you had asked Democrats in January 2001 whether Congress should overturn the Florida results, you might have seen the same kind of thing.
We have gotten to the point where it is the End of the World if the other guy gets in. Far too much power is concentrated in one person, and the idea that someone who does not hold your values might get to wield that power makes accepting a loss, particularly one that is (or seems) close, is difficult or impossible for many.
Trump said and did things that Gore and Hillary probably wanted to say and do, but were convinced that it was politically unsupportable and would harm the nation; arguments that did not stop Trump. It remains to be see what happens going forward, as the precedent is damaged.
A conviction here would be a political statement that such behavior is still intolerable. An acquittal would say the opposite.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/9/2021 @ 9:23 am
People like them, with similar needs. Whatever they are.
Cruz, along with others, was deeply affected by the Trump regime. No one got out unscathed. Assuming that a President Cruz would have followed the same path that Senator Cruz did the last four years isn't supportable. It's not even likely.
Cruz is more like Saruman here. Without the temptation, he might not have strayed off the path.
Since Sammy likes timelines:
Trump's lawyers say he was immediately 'horrified' by the Capitol attack. Here's what his allies and aides said really happened that day.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/9/2021 @ 9:43 am
We have gotten to the point where it is the End of the World if the other guy gets in.
Kevin, one of the other questions was if you view the other party as enemies or political opponents. There was big split with more republicans saying enemies and more dems saying political opponents. that plays a role also
Time123 (306531) — 2/9/2021 @ 9:48 am
Pat, I think your framing that 70% of republicans believe stealing an election is OK is incorrect.
Almost all of those 70% do not believe the attempts made by Trump et al were election stealing but stopping an election from being stolen.
I think gullible rubes is a more apt label than democracy haters.
nate (1f1d55) — 2/9/2021 @ 9:56 am
I hate commenting on such topics, but I really do suspect that Trump represented "Not the Elect" (to borrow from John McWhorter). I have many extended family members who are good and kind people who voted Trump, and since I did not, I was asked many times about it. My discussions with family weren't so much about Trump's positive qualities, but about his resistance to the Left's cultural imperialism. And what is happening now from the press just reinforces their point of view. The pro-Trump faction takes advantage of this, of course.
I hope that the non-Left promotes candidates who are open about resisting this push by the Left, rather than supporting weirdnesses from the Trump faction.
If you haven't read excerpts from John McWhorter's upcoming book "The Elect" (which, to my mind, is similar to Thomas Sowell's "Vision of the Annointed"), you should consider doing so.
The sooner we just ignore Trump, and get to the real issue here, the better.
Simon Jester (cca7be) — 2/9/2021 @ 9:57 am
Trump was saying that the election would be stolen months before Election Day. Promise made, promise kept.
nk (1d9030) — 2/9/2021 @ 9:58 am
P.S. And everyone—Left, Right, and Middle—is unable NOT to take advantage of any kind of crisis or fight these days.
I think the clear story here is what percentage of Americans believe it was OK to try to steal an election.
A percentage of a percentage. The emerging awareness- hence the rooting populism and spurts of riotous behavior- is that the elections are, essentially, "rigged" — a 'shorthand' term for it– by the two self-serving political parties, with staid, stagnant ideologies which an increasing number of the independently minded electorate do not embrace. They have "rigged" the 'system' for decades to their own advantage – 'gerrymandering' et al., from the local level up to the national level and remain increasingly unresponsive to the needs of the governed who pay the freight. So populism roots and grows. How my times have we read on this forum that "your vote doesn't count" due to one party control of a school board, a city– a state or national legislature.
The impeachment silliness is just another log on the fires of discontent. The citizenry demands priority action: vaccine out and efficently distributed; emergency Covid financial relief in their pockets; schools and commerce opened and a concerted organized effort to return to normal life. Instead, more goofy political posturing wasting time and resources. As the Royals indignantly swept up the plaster, glass and podium splinters, Nancy, Chuck, Mitch and Kevin likely gagged on these words:
"In the final analysis, the riot is the language of the unheard." – MLK, 1967
DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 2/9/2021 @ 9:59 am
Jake Angeli, who wore a fur hat with horns while raiding U.S. Capitol, apologizes
The Phoenix man who took part in the Jan. 6 raid on the U.S. Capitol wearing a fur hat with horns, apologized on Monday for entering the building and expressed disappointment in former President Donald Trump, at whose behest he had traveled to D.C.
In his statement released on Monday, Angeli apologized for entering the U.S. Capitol.
"I deeply regret and am very sorry I entered into the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021," he said. "I should not have been there. Period.
"I am sorry for having aroused fear in the hearts of others. That was wrong. Period."
Angeli also asked for patience for himself and others who "are having a very difficult time piecing together all that happened to us, around us, and by us. We are good people who care deeply about our country."
"I have to leave judging him up to other people," he said. "It is my aim to focus on what is important at this time. What is important is for me to apologize."
When you lose the Qanon Shaman……
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/9/2021 @ 10:00 am
But let's start with, "will self-identify as a Republican to a pollster".
If that is the case, why haven't the pollsters that we're familiar with created a new "right-wing sounding name" subsidiary and have hired right-wing sounding callers to man the phones? Does Rassmussen get less hang-ups and call screens and more candid answers if they do get a live person?
urbanleftbehind (619898) — 2/9/2021 @ 10:07 am
Q Shaman lends cred to the deniers, seems more like a frustrated actor each passing day. I bet he's in the next Sharknado or DTWS. During a Hawley administration, he's the next Bachelor.
I may have missed it but I have not seen this question answered yet.
If Trump failed to stop the riots… if he failed to authorize the National Guard and other agencies to end the riots, wasn't he engaging in insurrection with his INACTION? If he showed pleasure in the riots, as reported, while being the only person who could stop it… and he did not do so in a timely manner… shouldn't that be enough to convict him?
noel (9fead1) — 2/9/2021 @ 10:09 am
there was big split with more republicans saying enemies and more dems saying political opponents
When your guy wins, you can be magnanimous. Had the same question been asked after Bush-Gore, the Democrats the angry ones.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/9/2021 @ 10:12 am
> Had Donald Trump prevailed in stealing the election, I would have considered it a coup that would justify armed revolution and removing him by literally any force necessary.
And a large chunk of the Trumpists feel that way about Biden's win, which they are convinced was the result of nefarious forces stealing the election.
I'm having a very hard time understanding how the republic can avoid collapse in the next decade or two.
aphrael (4c4719) — 2/9/2021 @ 10:12 am
Trump was the sheriff that watched from his rocking chair as his buddy robbed the bank.
Indeed. Pat views it as he does, but that 70% looked at it differently. Maybe a few Republicans thought even stealing the election would be OK, given the perceived stakes, but that was not the narrative that was espoused.
It is perhaps rhetorically fair to supplant their stated reasons with one's alternative beliefs, but it is not factual.
Willie Sutton regretting robbing that last bank.
The Constitutional Case for the Impeachability of Former Federal Officials: An Analysis of the Law, History, and Practice of Late Impeachment
This article considers the constitutional case for the impeachability of federal officers after they have left office. As a practical matter, while it may rarely be worthwhile to pursue a late impeachment (as with regular impeachment), this does not change the fact that it can be done, or that certain facts may make it desirable. The article principally argues that: (1) Late impeachment was practiced in England and, unlike other aspects of English impeachment, was never explicitly ruled out in America. Indeed, some state constitutions made late impeachability explicit, or even required. (2) Structurally, impeachment is designed not just to remove but to deter, and this effect would be severely undermined if it faded away near the end of a term. Convicted impeachees can be disqualified from future federal office, an important punishment that should not be automatically mooted if the officer resigns or the president removes him. (3) The precedents are mixed, but the Senate has approved late impeachment. Senate opponents of late impeachment have not prevented late trials, and they cannot alter the formal declaration of a majority of the Senate in one case that officers can indeed be impeached after they have left office.
The collapse comes whenyou dismiss elections as untrustworthy and rely on other means.
Not if you are among the 45 Republicans who voted that putting a former president on trial for impeachment is unconstitutional. Trump could shoot someone on live TV and they still would vote against impeachment.
This video they are playing is incredibly damning. Can the public be swayed far enough to make some Republicans fear the voters more than they fear Trump?
Impeachment is a political act. Clinton was provably guilty of perjury, but that was not the issue; it was "is this enough to remove him from office" and the answer was no.
If his party believes that the public (or at least that portion that might vote for them) will tolerate their acquitting Trump, then Trump will be acquitted. If they believe that those same voters will NOT tolerate acquittal, then Trump will be convicted. Their fig leaf regarding the "January exception" is an acknowledgement that they are on shaky ground.
Can it be made so shaky that senators who quailed at the thought of Trump dissing them, realize that their greater peril is remaining by his side?
@29. atch the world through a straw: CBS 101.
DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 2/9/2021 @ 10:41 am
^W
It is interesting that some at the 1787 Convention thought that officials should only be impeachable AFTER they left office, and that this became part of the discussion. If they did not explicitly state it in the Constitution is not because they didn't think it was true, but because they didn't think it was necessary.
Joe Neguse seems to have his "talking to the jury" face on.
@33.
On deck, Ronald Reagan:
'On March 5, 1987, Rep. Henry B. González (D-TX) introduced H.Res. 111, with six articles against President Ronald Reagan regarding the Iran-Contra affair to the House Judiciary Committee where no further action was taken. While no further action was taken on this particular bill, it led directly to the joint hearings of the subject that dominated the news later that year. After the hearings were over, USA Today reported that articles of impeachment were discussed but decided against.'
Let's nail his Rawhide to the barn door for posterity too. Then go to work on Washint and Jefferson for slave ownership. Then Ike fr U-2 lies, LBJ for the Gulf of Tonkin lies; FDR for setting up Pear Harbor… Scratch deep enough and they're all "impeachable" for something. The hell w/Watergate, 'The Big Dick' should have been impeached for mixing ketchup with cottage cheese…
-source,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_efforts_for_presidents_of_the_United_States
What the should have done is had standing, fill-in-the-blank-censure papers to submit on him once a month for four years. No balls; no guts; no leadership.
DCSCA —
Do you think that Trump's "Big Lie" regarding the election was true or arguable? If not, do you think the Big Lie was in any way harmful? If harmful, do you think Trump should pay no penalty?
I am sympathetic to the idea that this kabuki theatre is a waste of time. I'm not sympathetic that Trump should skate freely away. Which leaves me conflicted. Because the politics of the situation is going to stomp all over what I think should happen.
Appalled (1a17de) — 2/9/2021 @ 10:57 am
The nevertrumpers in the GOP are so void of leadership; so scared; so incapable of managing and policing the party they've lost control over, that in desperation, they have to try to use the Constitution to clean itself of Rump Trump. Try a 12-pack of Charmin' instead.
I'm not sympathetic that Trump should skate freely away
He lost.
If the "removal and disqualification" construction requires both or neither, the Rep Alcee Hastings is in deep doo-doo.
that in desperation, they have to try to use the Constitution
This phrase, in itself, speaks volumes about the poster.
Not according to his followers. Not according to Trump. Trump should pay a price for that lie. Unlike Fox, he probably can't be sued.
He did this on the way out. There is no principled reason why the Senate cannot try a former official. The Founders only arguments were: who should try impeachments, and whether officials could be impeached while in office. They did not spell all this out in the Constiutution (but quite clearly allowed it with their specific language). Lots of obvious things they did not expect their descendants to be utterly stupid about.
Brian Kalt
@ProfBrianKalt
One odd thing they (the President's lawyers) do is cite me citing other sources instead of just citing those sources (e.g., p.17 & n.47). Another more problematic thing: they suggest that I was endorsing an argument when what I actually did was note that argument–and reject it (e.g., p.21 n.57).
Plagiarists!
Impeached "civil officials" are to be removed on conviction. "Persons" and "Parties" can be both removed and disqualified.
They don't rate that high.
@41. Trump should pay a price for that lie.
Pay a price?
Plagiarism: Biden should pay a price for that lie.
Iran-Contra: Reagan should pay a price for that lie.
Vietnam: LBJ should pay a price for that lie.
U-2: Eisenhower Trump should pay a price for that lie.
No WMD: Dubya should pay a price for that lie.
No new taxes: Pappy Bush should pay a price for that lie.
You can keep your doctor: Obama should pay a price for that lie.
Nixon, FDR… Washington, Jefferson– and what the hell, Lincoln must have done something wrong; and lets nail Andrew Johnson again, too, for posterity… yeah, make'em all pay for their lies. Impeach the presidents, living and the dead. Then start on sentors.
Unlike Fox, he probably can't be sued.
Wrongful deaths.
Perhaps some on trial for the insurrection could sue him.
I think we call that whataboutism in these here parts…In any event, while some of that was pretty significant, none of that got to the basic issue of vote stealing.
In case you missed January 6, the consequences of The Big Lie were significant. One of the way to repair those consequences is for having some significant portion of GOP to admit that it was a fib — that the dear sweet base is, um, mistaken. They won't, so we'll have to hope that Time Wounds All Heels…
@42 He did this on the way out.
He did what 'on the way out'…? Did you drink bleach when he was in?
Impeach him a third time!
The Founders weren't gods nor keen on political parties to begin with but what BOTH these useless parties have done in the past 40 years is cheapen the value and impact of impeachment as a constitutional instrument. They can't persuade nor control their dwindling members anymore so they must try to use the Constitution itself as a weapon to police their party structures and cling to office. The leadership vacuum is astonishing– and tragic. Hence populism roots deeper– and grows.
@49. No, we call that reality.
So you hate the guy. Conservatives have lost control of their party and are so desperate to try to regain some say that they're trying to use the Constitution to police the party and prevent a n American citizen from possibly running again– because they can't persuade their own members to not support him. You can recognize who the true bad guys are in this drama.
^48.
@48. In case you missed January 6, the consequences of The Big Lie were significant.
RE 1/6/21– see #16.
You don't seem to grasp that what we witnessed was a symptom to a bigger issue. "The Big Lie" of the past 40 years was and is Reaganomics. What you saw were the folks- the Buchanan Pitchforker-types, left behind by it and the wreckage it left in their lives and communities; they've had it and finally stormed the castle to the horror of the Royals inside. This populism has been simmering, stirring and growing for decades– and it boiled over. Buchanan, Perot, Palin… Trump. He's just the latest vessel. This has little todo w/him. And these angry citizens will find another vessel to carry their flag forward– until one of these parties gets wise, stops seducing and abandoning these people to win majorities in election cycles and tends to their needs. Start w/getting them vaccine and financial aid and getting the back to work–not Impeachment Theater.
The Constitutional argument following the timeline video was powerful. It should be interesting to see how well the defense argues.
The poll numbers quoted in the post seem like what you get with a loaded question. My gut feeling after the election was that it may well have been stolen by actions in key states, and so I supported Trump filing lawsuits to contest the results. When those lawsuits turned out not to be backed by evidence, I didn't support any further actions to challenge the election results. The challenges in Congress to the election were, at best, misguided and should not have been made even if (a big "if") those making them sincerely believed they were right. I wanted Trump to resign after the Capitol riot because whether he technically incited it or not he certainly created the climate that made it possible. But does my initial support for the lawsuits put me among the 70% who backed Trump's effort to "dismiss or overturn" the election results? Feels like before you know it people like me will be retroactively defined as insurrectionists.
It would be great if people could just cool off a bit. People who really strongly opposed Trump are not evil. People who really strongly supported Trump are also not evil. We're all Americans and no one is going anywhere, so people are going to need to figure out how to get along with those Other People who are so wrong about everything. It feels like there's a distressing amount of vindictiveness and vengefulness in the air.
RL formerly in Glendale (fda61c) — 2/9/2021 @ 11:57 am
Where did Castor get that suit? His tailor should be impeached.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/9/2021 @ 12:04 pm
I like you without the stock phrases, by the way.
As you may or may not be aware, while the senate spends tome watching multi-media presentations about the constitution, the House mark-up work on Biden's 1.9 trillion thingy goes on. The $1,400 checks will be heading out pretty soon.
I think you are right about Trump being a symptom rather than the underlying disease. It's worth remembering, though, that the symptoms are what really kills you, and they can create other underlying conditions. The idea that a political party can just fail to accept an election result sounds alarmingly 1860 to me.
Appalled (1a17de) — 2/9/2021 @ 12:09 pm
But does my initial support for the lawsuits put me among the 70% who backed Trump's effort to "dismiss or overturn" the election results? Feels like before you know it people like me will be retroactively defined as insurrectionists.
Depends on how you would have chosen to answer the question. You raise a good point that the survey doesn't differentiate between people like yourself, and the domestic terrorists that attacked the capital. It would be a better survey if it had.
Time123 (306531) — 2/9/2021 @ 12:12 pm
Kevin M, at 27 — sure, but at this point a large chunk of the population believes that the *conduct of the elections* is such that their results cannot be trusted to be an accurate reporting of the way people voted.
How does a Republic survive when a large chunk of the population believes election results are lies?
aphrael (4c4719) — 2/9/2021 @ 12:14 pm
This, incidentally, is a large part of why I am furious at Trump and his enablers in the Congress — their actions, by causing people to believe in an electoral fraud which didn't happen, are incredibly destabilizing.
It doesn't. Which is why I think this impeachment is important, for many of the same reasons I felt the first one was not. I am depressed to think that Trump will view that 70% as a win.
I distrust phrases like "the wrong side of history", but I think it is apt here.
You raise a good point that the survey doesn't differentiate between people like yourself, and the domestic terrorists that attacked the capital. It would be a better survey if it had.
Doesn't matter. As we can see, it is being protrayed as if they supproted the inurrection.
BTW, does Castor have a point he's getting to?
One last thought. One of those cornerstone ideals we have, as of 2020, is that every vote counts and is counted. It's foundational. Trump and his media enablers are getting at that foundation with a crowbar without any concept of the consequences of bring that all down might be. Read Patterico's own post:
Had Donald Trump prevailed in stealing the election, I would have considered it a coup that would justify armed revolution and removing him by literally any force necessary.
Is Castor really making the argument that this impeachment is not based on a high crime?
Kevin M, at 61 — i'm not convinced they're on the wrong side of history. The thing that keeps me up at night is the worry that they're on the *right* side of history, and that the Republic is doomed.
A question to be asked: A vote on conviction might well be based on a political calculation, or facts regarding guilt, or the gravity of the alleged crime. But how can a vote on a purely constitutional question be based on any of those questions?
That's how I initially read it, and how I assumed respondents had answered it. Now I'm not as sure.
Time123 (69b2fc) — 2/9/2021 @ 12:40 pm
Wait until a Dem candidate loses and is able to even plausibly claim voter suppression.
and that the Republic is doomed.
Well, let's hope for Augustus then. Trump is somewhere between Tiberius and Nero..
Before, a non-starter. Now?
@56. Well, we tend to agree on that. The recipe for 1/6 could have been any two or three elements coming together as a catalyst- not just a Trump thing- and it finally just boiled over like milk I a saucepan. Obviously that's no excuse for it- but the real concern to us all should is the obtuse response by the party elites- Nancy, Chuck, Mitch, Kevin and so forth… even Liz… they're just don't get it; they've been insulated nd inside the bubble too long and used these people oe time to many. You think Biden is making any friends killing that pipeline and using $15 min., wage as a throw-away to finesse legislate? He's using them, too w/that faux promise. These angry 'pitchforkers' are resourceful, too. Bumping or policing them off popular social media only drives the to more darker areas or more creative ways of communicating within their communities. Everything from old CB radios to shortwave… OTOH, they're all not the brightest bulbs, hamming it up for easy ID to the cameras and 15 minutes of fame [as well as 15-to years in prison]– even many o/t Boston Tea Partiers had the sense to disguise themselves as Mohawks to avoid recognition.
DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 2/9/2021 @ 12:43 pm
Abrams tried it in GA. She made some noise and endeared herself to her base but moved on. I'm wondering what happens next time. Especially if the candidate is running as an anti-elite populist.
@56. Nancy's had that paperwork in the can for months. We're already well into February and the mutations grow, the deaths grow… the need for vaccine grows… whatever ppened to 'shut I down'?!? President Plagiarist's pitch grows stale already– it was $2000 before the election— not $1400… and by the time it gets out another $2000 will be needed… he's as slippery half-century old swamp creature as they come and he'll create excuses for not getting things done as all old senators do. The Daily press briefings are already growing tedious, too; by July 4 regrets will set in.
Yes, I thought of Abrams after I sent that. She's now the Democrat hero there.
Lies work. Even big, totally unsupported lies work. In fact, those might work best of all
The experts agree:
All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
– My Struggle
Dave (1bb933) — 2/9/2021 @ 12:54 pm
Could someone tell me what these defense attorneys are arguing about? Other than "it's bad."
@76: Shorter
Well, I dunno, maybe they did steal his landslide.
Trump voters 79% Republicans 70% This is todays populist republican party. So you never trumpers think you are going to retake control of the republican party by buying your way back into power? Good luck with that! Pepperdine university is running ads paid by the donor class saying never trumpers should be welcomed back into power in the republican party and cheney and other never trumpets should not be primaried.
asset (18e0e0) — 2/9/2021 @ 12:57 pm
Schoen is arguing that we risk civil war if the Senate proceeds. That's just a hair's-breadth from saying that the iunsurrection was justified.
The recipe for 1/6 started almost 30 years ago in Waco and Ruby Ridge, continued through Oklahoma City 5 years later, through the Shaare Zedek Synagogue (University City, MI) shootings in 1977, the Tree of Life shootings in 2018, and the El Paso and the Chabad of Poway shootings in 2019.
It's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/9/2021 @ 12:59 pm
I hope that they do primary Cheney. I suspect that they will run the most knuckle-dragging and racist candidate possible, all others being less pure. They primaried Paul Ryan and he got 80% of the vote
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/9/2021 @ 1:01 pm
…..the mutations grow, the deaths grow… the need for vaccine grows…
The major part of the problem is that the vaccines are bought by the federal government and rationed out to the states. Distribution would have been better if the states were allowed to buy directly from Big Pharma directly, cutting out the FedGov middleman.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/9/2021 @ 1:03 pm
@ asset, #79:
https://youtu.be/lYnhckZcllU
Demosthenes (1d6f6c) — 2/9/2021 @ 1:05 pm
And again, the defense argues that the charges are trivial and made up, simply to get back at Donald Trump. In actual fact, the Congress refrained from impeaching Trump earlier, even though Trump's actions in December (if not November) were high crimes already. They waited until he actually crossed the Rubicon, and this they call a trivial excuse? Eff them.
I have yet to hear an argument to the point at issue. If this were a legislative matter, I would rule these clowns out of order.
Did he just blame the House for the Senate not starting a trial immediately? Does he not know who he is talking to? The man is a liar, and a stupid one, too.
Bruce Castor didn't give any of the legal arguments as to why impeachment doesn't apply, and, at the end he actually said they changed what they were going to say because the pre-buttal (not his word) was so well done. (but he said at the end that they had arguments and Mr. Schoen wold give some.)
He did give one legal argument, but that goes to a later stage.
He said ir was in their submitted materials and that the House managers were good lawyers for ignoring that. It was that this article of impeachment was indivisible – because they made it that way. It didn't happen in the case of President Clinton, where it said he was guilty of one or more of the following things (and split it into more than one count, too, unless that"s what Bruce Castor means) But it did here.
And he said to convict they would have to accept all the allegations. And one of them at least was ridiculous – involving the 14th amendment. I think what he meant to say was that nothing there remotely qualified as insurrection or rebellion against the United States (which meant in the 1860s; joining the Confederacy)
Sammy Finkelman (e4c3a1) — 2/9/2021 @ 1:25 pm
I wouldn't worry too much. It's one poll. One. And looks like it was a straight phone poll, which can skew the data a bit.
Hoi Polloi (139bf6) — 2/9/2021 @ 1:25 pm
Trump once suggested impeaching Obama after he was out of office
Well of course he did.
Dave (1bb933) — 2/9/2021 @ 1:26 pm
He'll deny it now, even if you show him tape.
it was a straight phone poll, which can skew the data a bit.
phone polls tend to get the unemployed and others with little to do. Maybe that's more people these days, but generally those things skew left.
The tape was obviously faked by the same fake news media that faked the election results.
aphrael (4c4719) — 2/9/2021 @ 1:49 pm
One of Trump's impeachment lawyers sued him last year — and accused him of making claims about fraud with 'no evidence'
Last year, Philadelphia lawyer Michael T. van der Veen filed a lawsuit against then-President Donald Trump accusing him of making "repeated claims" that mail voting is ripe with fraud "despite having no evidence in support of these claims."
How a longtime personal-injury lawyer found himself at the center of that trial, which opened Tuesday, may say more about his client than his own legal career. Trump struggled to find lawyers to take on his case, parting ways with several who were unwilling to claim that the 2020 election was stolen, as the president is said to have wanted them to do.
Van der Veen's route to Trump's legal team began when the firm he founded — van der Veen, O'Neill, Hartshorn and Levin — hired Bruce L. Castor Jr. in December. Castor, a former prosecutor from suburban Philadelphia, in turn was recommended to Trump aides and hired last month.
Now, van der Veen's name and signature appear in Trump's impeachment filings alongside Castor's, as well as those of David Schoen, an Atlanta-based lawyer Trump brought on last week. ……
It has been just a few months since his name was on a very different legal document — a lawsuit against Trump, the U.S. Postal Service and Postmaster General Louis DeJoy filed in federal court in August on behalf of Melvin Johnakin, an independent candidate who last year unsuccessfully sought to challenge Rep. Dwight Evans (D-Pa.). Johnakin claimed in the suit that operational changes at the federal agency would make it harder for voters to cast ballots during the coronavirus pandemic, part of a wave of litigation against the Postal Service last year.
In Philadelphia, van der Veen is best-known for his law firm's ubiquitous ads on local news radio station KYW-AM, which are reminiscent of East Coast electronics chain Crazy Eddie's high-octane TV pitches from the 1980s.
"Whether you're walking down Chestnut or Market, Frankurt or Aramingo, be careful and watch your step," the announcer nearly shouts in one of van der Veen's radio spots. "But if the walkway isn't clear, and you fall and get hurt due to snow and ice, call 215-546-1000 for van der Veen, O'Neill Hartshorn and Levin — trial lawyers excelling in the area of the law most critical to your family."
"The 'V,' " the announcer concludes, 'is for 'Victory.' "
The tape shown earlier today has already been called a "Hollywood production" by Trump's lawyers.
It's how we've been doing Presidential elections since 2001. Loser spews smoke claiming that it means fire.
It went on hiatus during the Obama years because A. Obama had good margins and B. No one wanted to be smeared as racist.
Our new way of doing close elections came back with some zest in 2016 and only got worse in 2020.
I look forward to another close race in 2024.
I read somewhere that several Secretaries of State let some polls stay open later and let late votes count contrary to their own state laws. The excuse was that they did not want to disenfranchise voters in such a contentious race. If so, that's very nice and thoughtful, but in the future they should stick to the law. All votes that meet the standards should be counted and all those who do not, should not be counted. Good rules scrupulously followed and evenly applied should lead to less controversy and better poll #'s.
steveg (43b7a5) — 2/9/2021 @ 2:03 pm
Kevin M – the video was slickly produced (in the way it alternated between the floor and the riot).
That said, I *really* did not want to see the shooting.
Steveg, 2000 was (in effect) a tie and demonstrated that we have really bad systems in place for resolving ties — in part because nobody knows what they are and so nobody has faith or confidence in them.
> I read somewhere that several Secretaries of State let some polls stay open later and let late votes count contrary to their own state laws
I'd need to see specifics to feel confident opining. That said, it's *common* in California that polling places are ordered to stay open late because of some natural disaster (fire or earthquake), and it's common for court orders to force polling places to stay open in big cities when there are long lines.
So my *presumption* is that the story you read is actually an example of one of these things, done via a normal process, which is getting transmitted with incredulous anger by someone who doesn't know the normal process and is outraged at the outcome.
I think that all elections within 0.1% of the total vote should be decided by a coin flip.
Senate has voted 56-44 to hold that the trial is constitutional, with six republicans joining all fifty democrats.
Trump will be acquitted.
I continue to believe this means he will be President on January 21, 2025.
"It went on hiatus during the Obama years because A. Obama had good margins"
Birtherism
"and B. No one wanted to be smeared as racist."
Lol you're ridiculous.
Davethulhu (6ba00b) — 2/9/2021 @ 2:28 pm
Kevin M — I don't know that that's the right threshold, but I do think there comes a point where determining the 'actual' result is impossible given the error margin of our system, and at that point we might as well use a coin flip.
(In 2000 I thought it was quite clear that the actual result in Florida was indeterminable and within the margin of error of Florida's voting system, so while I thought the *reasoning* in Bush v. Gore was laughable, the outcome never bothered me. We couldn't know the actual result, so any reasonable process that follows from that is fine).
It's fitting that Trump has an ambulance chaser as a lawyer.
It's important that the rules be followed so that the election is fair in the way a card game is fair. As a principled matter Equal access to voting is important. But, finding out that more legitimate voters we able to cast ballots because a polling location stayed open doesn't outrage me in any way. I agree the rules need to be applied equally but this isn't the same as ballots being thrown out, or false ballots cast.
Time123 (69b2fc) — 2/9/2021 @ 2:34 pm
Time123 — something like 40% of the elections I have voted in, one or more polling places in my state have been kept open late due to some local problem that necessitated it. I can't remember a general presidential election in which that hasn't happened in at least one major city outside my state.
So … this is normal. There's a process for it. It's well established. But it's only known to the people in elections offices and freaks like me who follow this kind of thing for fun.
A bunch of people who don't like the result have been latching on to these *perfectly normal* exceptions, asserting that they're a sign of malfeasance, and selling a lie about malfeasance to people who don't ordinarily pay attention to such things.
It's infuriating.
I wanted to see a lot more of them.
Dave, my point was that i was not psychologically prepared to watch someone die today,and i would not have watched the video had i been aware.
106, rejoinder of year, Dave! I'd have preferred something on the order of either the penultimate scene of The Last Samurai or the actual Sharpeville Massacre (whose 50th anniversary last March went unnoted because of things).
urbanleftbehind (619898) — 2/9/2021 @ 3:37 pm
I'm sorry it upset you aphrael, and it speaks to your decency that you are repulsed by violence even if justified.
thank you, and that's an awkward thing! if i think it is justified, should i not have the stomach to watch it happen?
Shooting women is un-American.
nk (1d9030) — 2/9/2021 @ 3:53 pm
if i think it is justified, should i not have the stomach to watch it happen?
Empathy is a good thing.
109. aphrael (4c4719) — 2/9/2021 @ 2:27 pm
The 6th Republican, was Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) who also commented about the arguments.
Sommeone said to an aide of Trump texted reporters that Bruce Castor was trying to calm things down by not talking about the legal arguments (and instead he spent time talking about Senator Everett DirksenD, whoo died in 1969, and how his speeches were on a record that his parents played) but Trump was said not to be happy about his lawyers.
The Senate wqas going to accommodate Trump lawyer David Schoen about the Sabbath and hold a session on Sunday but he abruptly dropped his request Monday night and said the Trump team could get along without him. He spoke today after Castor but his manner or voice was very nasty sounding, like talk radio host Ben Shapiro so maybe he's better not speaking too much.
If everything breaks right for him.
I'm sorry it upset you aphrael, aslo, but I submit that editing such scenes out distorts their meaning. As is happened, one officer, in one place felt he needed to do that to protect others. Both the minimal force (although fatal) and the situation where it occurred are important to the narrative.
What bothers me is that this was not a political question. It had nothing to do with guilt, responsibility or the individual charged. It was "Does this case belong here?" and only one side presented any argument worth the name. The defenders just filled time.
That 44 GOP Senators chose to ignore the clear legal facts, the precedents, the Founders' own words and the plain language and distinctions of the Constitution and all common sense, and vote to destroy precedent going forward to align with a treasonous jackinapes (and affront to all human decency) means that the GOP is now bereft of all honor.
Trump was quite displeased with his impeachment defense team
Cocooned at his Mar-a-Lago estate, Trump watched as his defense attorneys responded to an emotional presentation by House impeachment managers with a series of dry, technical and at times meandering arguments about due process and the constitutionality of the proceedings. As they droned on, he grew increasingly frustrated with the sharp contrast between their muted response and the prosecution's opening salvo, according to two people familiar with his thinking.
It didn't help that his lead attorney, former Pennsylvania prosecutor Bruce Castor, name-checked Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who just days ago slammed his state party for their "weird worship" of Trump. Castor also referred to Trump as the "former president," conceding that he had in fact lost the 2020 election when he was removed by "smart" voters last November.
Trump, according to those familiar with his thinking, saw his legal team's performance as a missed opportunity and also was annoyed by the public criticism of his attorneys. And he wasn't the only one.
At one point during Castor's remarks, the right-wing network Newsmax––which Trump had been watching throughout the day, according to a person familiar with his viewing habits––cut away to a segment featuring the ex-president's former impeachment attorney Alan Dershowitz.
"I have no idea what he is doing," Dershowitz said of Castor, shaking his head dismissively. "The American people are entitled to an argument… but this, just, after all kinds of very strong presentations on the part of the House managers… it does not appear to me to be effective advocacy."
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who met with GOP senators ahead of the trial to brief them on theories about its constitutionality, suggested Castor spent too much time focusing on extraneous arguments before arriving at the core of Trump's defense.
"I am surprised by the exhaustion of so much time before addressing the concrete and compelling constitutional arguments," Turley said in a text message. "They have a finite amount of time but you could not tell that this long opening."
The decidedly frosty reaction from Trump and his allies mirrored the reviews that some GOP Senators offered upon leaving the chamber. And it raised a variety of questions: would the ex-president demand an adjustment of strategy? Was he regretting not appearing himself? And, most intriguing, what would his offerings be if he still had a Twitter account?
Sad stuff. Trump sycophancy proved to be pricey, both in terms of honor, integrity, and principles. I can never take seriously claims made by a few of them to be "constitutional conservatives". Sad thing is many of these senators were solid, principled conservatives prior to Trump's presidency. It's disheartening to see what has become of them, many of whom I supported in the past.
HCI (92ea66) — 2/9/2021 @ 5:02 pm
Bruce Castor: The Disaster Artist
Bruce Castor's opening statement in defense of former President Donald Trump was one of the worst presentations I have ever seen by a public speaker, in any context.
On style, he was akin to a checked-out, tenured college professor who did no preparation for a lecture that had been designed by his TA. His manner was listless and utterly devoid of charisma—halting mumblecore, with Castor frequently pausing for applause. (There was none.) He would have had more gravitas had he been replaced with the filter of a regal kitten.
Castor's argumentation was so indolent that it made Sleepy Joe Biden look like the Energizer Bunny on meth.
According to Google, Castor is just 59 years old—a spring sloth, by the standards of the legal profession. But you might have thought he was a nonagenarian with declining mental acuity. He began anecdotes only to abandon them. He took meandering digressions—remember what a record player was? His allegories were hard to decipher. At one point early in the argument, he seemed to imply that Trump's crimes were more akin to manslaughter than murder. (Agree!)……
Castor started one sentence by saying that he originally planned to use the phrase "release the whirlwind" but then realized it had already been taken. (Presumably someone warned him that it would sound too much like Sidney QAnon Powell's "release the Kraken.")……
If Trump could be defended on the merits, he would be. And if he'd been a less dangerous demagogue, then he would have been able to get a better lawyer to take his case.
The reality is that almost none of Trump's defenders are attempting to defend him on the merits……….
Sad Embarrassing thing is many of these senators convinced us they were solid, principled conservatives prior to Trump's presidency.
Rip,
Even before that, his attire was a joke. It looked like what a fat guy ends up with off the rack at JC Penney. It. Didn't. fit. In a world of bespoke suits, he looked like a bumpkin before he even started.
Inglewood-Newport Fault, and I was in Newport Beach in a house built on a sandbar. I could not stand up.
Since it is clear that impeachment won't work, Plan B would be to indict him, in DC, on charges of insurrection, incitement to insurrection, sedition and treason. Maybe with 44 John Doe indictments for accessories.
That video timeline pretty much makes the case for sedition.
KM @121-
Loved your comment at #55.
Inglewood-Newport Fault…..
I think it was on the Sierra Madre Fault zone.
Prominent surface faulting trending N72°W was observed along the San Fernando Fault Zone from a point south of Sylmar, stretching nearly continuously for 6 miles (9.7 km) east to the Little Tujunga Canyon. Additional breaks occurred farther to the east that were in a more scattered fashion, while the western portion of the most affected area had less pronounced scarps, especially the detached Mission Wells segment. Although the complete Sierra Madre Fault Zone had previously been mapped and classified by name into its constituent faults, the clusters of fault breaks provided a natural way to identify and refer to each section. As categorized during the intensive studies immediately following the earthquake, they were labeled the Mission Wells segment, Sylmar segment, Tujunga segment, Foothills area, and the Veterans fault.
That's what you get when you hire a bargain basement lawyer. You get bargain basement suits.
OT- wet with history; 50 years ago today– when America truly was great, when actions spoke louder to the world than words stitched on a goofy red hat…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nz_zGTYggQ
DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 2/9/2021 @ 5:52 pm
When you are on national TV on 37 networks and the first thought in everyone's mind is "What is he wearing?!" you know that their entire presentation is going to be awful, since the presentation of the presentation is awful.
That's what they said at the time. I remember Richard Nixon calling his favorite news anchor (George Putnam) on-air on Channel 5, to get the details his own people didn't have.
Note: George Putnam was allegedly the model for Ted Baxter on the MTM show.
Kevin, at 115: it must be a terrible experience to realize that most of the party's elected officeholders have been lying to everyone about who they are and what they value.
Castor has worn gray pin-stripe all his professional life. I suspect that it's the unofficial uniform of Washington and Lee law school alumni, but I'm not telling you why I suspect it. And it's by no means cheap — it is tailor-made of bespoke cloth, and the loose fit is intentional, as is the "ugly" tie. Those are also badges of a certain class of persons.
As for his "performance", I'm reminded of a story about the juror who opined that the lawyer was not particularly good and it was lucky for him that his client was innocent.
And how come you guys missed this?
'I continue to believe this means he [Trump] will be President on January 21, 2025.'
With his diet and age??
"45 minutes. We'll be dead by then."- Astronaut Clayton Stone [James Franciscus] 'Marooned' 1969
124. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/9/2021 @ 5:39 pm
The first problem with that timeline is that it so edited that it makes it sound like right after Trump said:
and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close electiob
. He said:
and after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you After this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down. We're going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We're going walk down to the Capitol…
While according to rev.com
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6
They were said about 13 minutes apart.
They could have indicated there is a break. Rev.com doesn;t have the word "and" before the "after" but I thought that there could be an error in the transcrpt, and as a matter of fact there is:
https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-speech-campaign-rally-the-ellipse-january-6-2021
…has the word "and". (In that link you can also get the video)
But that's not what's really wrong with what the House manager's video says.
Because Trump says:
and after this, we're going to walk down…to the Capitol
After this.
And what does the video say? And make doubly clear with subtitles?
As President Trump continues his speech, a wave of supporters begins marching to the Capitol
They're not listening to him!
They are not going to the Capitol "after this" but while he is still speaking!!
The House managers are ignoring what their own evidence tells them!
There's more:
This idea of going to the Capitol did not come out of the blue. There was an advertised rally scheduled there! And Trump was going to speak there, too.
As he says:
and I'll be there with you.
and this was not a blatant lie by Trump that he made up on the spur of the moment.
Because Alex Jones is on video telling the crowd at the Capitol to go in a certain direction because Trump was scheduled to speak.
Two sources.
Now maybe Donald Trump and Alex Jones and others were conspiring together – I'm certainly not against all possible conspiracy theories – but before you say that, you need some indication that that's the way it was.
It quite possible that Alex Jones and Donald Trump did NOT conspire together, and Donald Trump at least thought he was going to speak there.
And there's more. What did Donald Trump say they would do when they got to the Capitol? Right after they cut ff his words.
and we're going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
Doesn't sound like he was anticipating a riot.
Remember, it's his partisans whom he is telling that to. If they're not supposed to understand they should storm the Capitol, who is supposed to understand that??
And what's more:
The people who stormed the Capitol and the people who listened to Trump speak are, by and large, not the same people. This video makes it seem like they are !
Because it completely omits from the timeline the demonstration that was scheduled to take place on the North Lawn of the Capitol
I bet maybe half the Senators don't know about that. It has vanished into the memory hole.
But you find it using the Wayback machine:
http://web.archive.org/web/20210106005050/https://wildprotest.com
Sammy, your entire argument over and over is basically: He admired it, said it was a nice business. Said it would be a shame if something happened to it. He wasn't even there. Those guys, who may or may not have been employed by his company at one point, he doesn't even know them, those guys. They were the ones who were there.
The King didn't order the knights to chase and kill Thomas. They had been friends. Best friends. How could he know his knights would chase Thomas into the church and strike him down. The king is a pious man, he never would've had anyone killed in a church.
Nic (896fdf) — 2/9/2021 @ 7:38 pm
109.I'm sorry it upset you aphrael, and it speaks to your decency that you are repulsed by violence even if justified.
it must be a terrible experience to realize that most of the party's elected officeholders have been lying to everyone about who they are and what they value.
Oh, I don't think they were. It's just that the ground under them changed and too many of them chose to "get their minds right."
Every Democrat worth mentioning supported the high-fascist "New Green Deal", a plan for militarizing America to fight climate change, no dissent allowed. Now, maybe they didn't mean it, really, but they too showed no principles signing on to that screed.
Sammy @136: The whole event took about 4 hours and they compressed it into 12 minutes.
Politics is the second-oldest profession (Ronald Reagan). This means that politicians are going to do what the customer wants. The number of prominent politicians with principles that they will choose over re-election is small. Sturgeon's Law has it at 10%, and I think that's high.
For every Wayne Morse (who opposed the Vietnam War in 1954), there's 10 Bob Packwoods.
I find it sad that the GOP is still entranced by the Master of Lies, but I blame the people who voted for Trump and left them with the choice of Trump or retirement. Few were principled enough to chose retirement.
"@111. Shooting women is un-American."
Certainly unjustified; excessive use of force shooting a citizen to death– and created a martyr. It is quite a graphic segment of video given the time frame; deeply disturbing; as horrid as Ruby popping Oswald on live television; or Zapruder frame 313– which was essentially hid from the citizenry for decades.
"I do not choose to have people accuse me of false promises for the sake of cheap sensationalism, or to be compromised by your lieutenant. Castrate him." – Walter Chalmers [Robert Vaughn] 'Bullitt' 1968
141.Politics is the second-oldest profession (Ronald Reagan).
He would know. 😉
The people who stormed the Capitol and the people who listened to Trump speak are, by and large, not the same people.
Sammy, are you implying that the people who stormed the Capitol had never heard Trump speak or tweet about the terrible outrage of a "stolen election" at any time during the previous two months? That they knew nothing about Trump's tweet in December urging his fans to be in D.C. on January 6 for a "wild" protest? That they had never heard him rage that a horrible crime was being committed against them unless they could "take back" their country?
Why were people saying on camera, right before the building was breached, that they were answering Trump's call to action?
Cell phone data prove that large numbers of people did in fact go from the Ellipse to the Capitol, and many of them headed over there before Trump finished his rant. But once again, the January 6 rant was only one of many things Trump did to foment a violent rage among his base.
Whether or not he "anticipated a riot," he certainly hoped that the mob's presence would influence the legislators' actions, just as he was phoning legislators during the siege to pressure them. The reports that he was happy that the certification was being delayed are entirely plausible. It's nonsensical to think he wanted a crowd to show up and just politely applaud outside the Capitol while legislators did whatever they were planning to do anyway.
We also know, from Trump's later statements on the day, that he did not greatly disapprove of what the insurrectionists had done. He had to be lobbied by aides to make his "go in peace" statement, in which he also told the rioters "we love you, you're very special." His later tweet was basically congratulatory toward them.
Radegunda (20775b) — 2/9/2021 @ 9:12 pm
Sammy, why doesn't this merit highlighting too?
We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
It is not irrational to read that, in context, as meaning that Trump hoped his listeners could somehow encourage those people to do what he wanted.
Trump has a history of publicly bullying people to do what he wants. There's plenty of basis to conclude that he wanted the mob to amplify his bullying of Congress.
I think Sammy is just a very literal person, very detail oriented, and with a low tolerance for ambiguity. I don't think he's being disingenuous, willfully blind, or engaging in motivated reasoning. I say that after reading his comments for a long time with great appreciation for how thoroughly he researches and dives into a subject.
Time123 (ae9d89) — 2/10/2021 @ 6:29 am
Patty has now not only fully and completely justified the Enhanced Capitol Sit-in, but argued that it in fact didn't go far enough and that the Capitol should have been burned to the ground and all inside slaughtered like Jehu slaughtered the priests of Baal. No gap between disapproval and full-blown murderous war! No escalation path, no examination of prior well-known constitutional remedies for the process, nothing that normal people would consider a reasonable change in temperament and force posture, just zero to Adolf in 10 seconds!
"The fact that fully 70% of the people from my former party would support such an act is terrifying, and makes me wonder how inevitable is our ultimate slide into violence."
Eric Swallowswell is TERRIFIED and JADED over the FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY now that the people he just called for the nuclear genociding of had the TEMERITY to set up gallows and guillotines outside his place of work. It makes him JUST SO TIRED of DEALING WITH THESE CHALLENGES TO HIS SERVANT LEADERSHIP. These emotions are TOTALLY REAL AND NOT OBVIOUS POSTURING
Impeachment Caterer (f05fd9) — 2/10/2021 @ 7:03 am
@147, Ma'am this is an Arby's.
I think I will recycle Patterico's original comment on the Articles of Impeachment here, because it is germane to your thoughts and the assault of literalism we are likely to get from Sammy as this trial goes forward:
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: This is as good a place as any to lay down a marker: Democrats are screwing up this impeachment (like they screwed up the last one, by failing to include an article charging obstruction of justice). There should absolutely be an article of abuse of power in service of an attempt to reverse the results of a free and fair election.
GOP senators will, ludicrously, stick to the legal definition of "incitement" (which is likely not met by Trump's behavior) as their excuse to vote against the article that has been unveiled. They are entitled to vote on the facts and are not bound by the way the Democrats have charged it, but if they want an excuse (and many do) that one comes ready-made.
Meanwhile they had to shoehorn the Raffensperger call into this, and did so awkwardly, when it would have neatly fit an article of abuse of power to reverse an election result.
Ultimately, it will not work, and the fault will still lie with the Senate Republicans who vote to acquit — but the Democrats are making the bad result easier.
Is there nothing Nancy Pelosi can't screw up?
Sammy has a POV which to me misses the point of the many impeachable things Trump did. But the impeachment article drafted by Democratic lawyers invites this line of attack, and the GOP, looking for a place to hide, will embrace it.
Appalled (1a17de) — 2/10/2021 @ 7:25 am
Georgia Prosecutors Open Criminal Investigation of Trump Call
On Wednesday, Fani Willis, the recently elected Democratic prosecutor in Fulton County, sent a letter to numerous officials in state government, including Mr. Raffensperger, requesting that they preserve documents related to Mr. Trump's call, according to a state official with knowledge of the letter. The letter explicitly stated that the request was part of a criminal investigation, said the official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal matters.
The inquiry makes Georgia the second state after New York where Mr. Trump faces a criminal investigation. And it comes in a jurisdiction where potential jurors are unlikely to be hospitable to the former president; Fulton County encompasses most of Atlanta and overwhelmingly supported President Biden in the November election.
The Fulton County investigation comes on the heels of a decision Monday by Mr. Raffensperger's office to open an administrative inquiry.
Former prosecutors said Mr. Trump's calls might run afoul of at least three state laws. One is criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, which can be either a felony or a misdemeanor; as a felony, it is punishable by at least a year in prison. There is also a related conspiracy charge, which can be prosecuted either as a misdemeanor or a felony. A third law, a misdemeanor offense, bars "intentional interference" with another person's "performance of election duties."
Rip Murdock (cc5a6a) — 2/10/2021 @ 7:32 am
It is well known that I have a weakness for Nancy Pelosi, so I'll just characterize it as the Republicans clinging to the flotsam of the wrecked ship, while Nancy Pelosi is using the (orange) tar from the keel to smear them with, stretching it out for as long as it lasts.
@ Impeachment Caterer, #147:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48H34ukFe8g
Demosthenes (d7fc81) — 2/10/2021 @ 7:52 am
McConnell is telling his members to vote their conscience, which I take to mean that he's not going to whip them for or against conviction. Recall that on January 21st, McConnell differed with Sammy.
"The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people, and they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like."
You'd think that, after such a statement, McConnell had already convicted Trump of incitement to insurrection, but he's in the Coward Caucus and he'll likely vote "no". However, there may be more than five or six GOP Senators who may vote "aye", especially if Trump's lawyers continue their gross incompetence at trial.
Paul Montagu (f2fc3f) — 2/10/2021 @ 7:57 am
As Nic asked earlier, about whether Trump's inaction after the Capitol was stormed made him further complicit in the insurrection, I believe Trump's lawyers were trying to cover for it in their brief.
Trump tweeted calls for peace "upon hearing of the reports of violence" and took "immediate steps" to mobilize resources to counter the rioters storming the building, his lawyers argued in a brief filed Monday in advance of Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. It is "absolutely not true," they wrote, that Trump failed to act swiftly to quell the riot.
But that revisionist history conflicts with the timeline of events on the day of the Capitol riot, as well as accounts of multiple people in contact with the president that day, who have said Trump was initially pleased to see a halt in the counting of the electoral college votes. Some former White House officials have acknowledged that he only belatedly and reluctantly issued calls for peace, after first ignoring public and private entreaties to do so.
That lie about Trump's so-called "immediate steps" put forth by Castor-Schoen is going to blow back in their faces at trial.
McConnell is telling his members to vote their conscience……
They can only vote their conscience if they have one, and so far only six do.
Let your conscience be your guide-
Did I miss something? I thought that was how we got here.
We are in a Babel phase where nothing means what it used to… conscience has been redefined in popular speak as personal desire mixed with a dash of naked ambition.
I'm an admirer of naked ambition when it comes to… um a different topic… but when conscience becomes "what my power drunk party wants" we are in for a cold bleak winter.
In this impeachment trial, I'd like to see people in both parties break opposite.
Finally, I object to Mitt Romney being placed amongst those who are voting out of conscience.
Mitt has repeatedly sold his soul for a few disingenuos words from CNN and most people know he's a needy dupe who gets trashed by those same people within minutes of leaving the studio
steveg (43b7a5) — 2/10/2021 @ 9:26 am
Sammy, your entire argument over and over is basically: He admired it, said it was a nice business.
Ny entire argument is that Trump did not incite it with his words. Either Trump is more heavily involved in instigating the storming of the Capitol, or he's not responsible at all. And there are ways ti get closer to the truth.
I think there was a conspiracy, that went back weeks in general, (and may have been secretly pushed by Russia) and at least two weeks, and there are signs that the storming of the Capitol and the rally at the Ellipse were linked, and Trump may have played a bit part in the conspiracy, but it is very possible that he didn't know it.
Do we all have such confidence in the sagacity of Donald Trump?
This is not a really good comparison.
After the fact, true, he tried to use the riot:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/trump-tells-capitol-rioters-to-go-home-now-but-still-calls-the-election-stolen.html
"These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long," he wrote. "Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"
But that doesn't mean that, in fact, it was caused (merely) by his claims. This was a lie, actually.
Not just the bigger lie about a landslide victory being stripped away, which he couldn't have believed, but the smaller lie about it being a natural outcome of something. That's an obvous lie, but a familiar one.
People whom no one would say had anything to do with riots try to use them to lobby. That's a bad thing. It doesn't indicate guilt.
That may actually be a cover story. It's not so apparent here, but if it was true he instigated it, then Trump could never have been serious about going to the Capitol.
But, unless Alex Jones and Donald Trump independently came up with the same lie, or conspired together to tell that lie, he really did plan to go there and therefore did not know what was about to happen.
And another question: if this is a cover story, and he never did plan to go to the Capitol, why didn't he use it? / The purpose of a cover story is to be used.
It's like as if neither Henry II nor his defenders ever said that he said "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
Because so far neither Trump nor his defenders have pointed this out. (BTW, if they did they could quickly establish if it was true, and the House could also find out.)
An innocent person often has defenses he doesn't even realize; a guilty person who creates a false defense will probably use it. So the fact that, to date, Trump hasn't used this, means the innocent interpretation is to be preferred.
And another thing; rump said that he would speak at the Capitol so awkwardly, everybody missed that Trump said he was going to be at the second rally at the Capitol. (well some did, but they were busy pointing out that Trump never appeared there, meaning that he lied about being there with them. And they possibly had no knowledge of the second scheduled rally.
Sammy Finkelman (e4c3a1) — 2/10/2021 @ 9:29 am
149. Appalled (1a17de) — 2/10/2021 @ 7:25 am
Sammy has a POV which to me misses the point of the many impeachable things Trump did.
He;s accused of things he didn't do, that in fact would be impossible to do (I don't think anyone could intentionally incite a riot by any of the public acts that Trump did) and he's not accused of much that he did do.
But the impeachment article drafted by Democratic lawyers invites this line of attack, and the GOP, looking for a place to hide, will embrace it.
I think this was drafted by people other than the current managers. Possibly by political consultanta of the type who write campaign commercials.
Now what would be a good thing to argue over is:
Q. Should Trump be impeached on the basis of anything he did that in the eyes of the Senators voting e merits conviction, i.e. is the text of the Article of Impeachment irrelevant; or should he only be impeached if the specific allegation(s) that the House brought forth are true?
but the House managers may very well not argue that.
Trump's political operation paid more than $3.5 million to Jan. 6 organizers
Newly identified payments in recent Federal Election Commission filings show people involved in organizing the protests on Jan. 6 received even larger sums from Trump's 2020 campaign than previously known.
OpenSecrets unearthed more than $3.5 million in direct payments from Trump's 2020 campaign, along with its joint fundraising committees, to people and firms involved in the Washington, D.C. demonstration before a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol.
Recent FEC filings show at least three individuals listed on permit records for the Washington, D.C. demonstration were on the Trump campaign's payroll through Nov. 30, 2020.
The Trump campaign paid Event Strategies Inc., a firm named in a permit for the rally that also employed two individuals involved in the demonstration, as recently as Dec. 15, just three weeks before the attacks on the U.S. Capitol. That's according to the most recent FEC filings covering spending through the end of 2020.
But the American public may never know the full extent of the Trump campaign's payments to organizers involved in the protests. That's because the campaign used an opaque payment scheme that concealed details of hundreds of millions of dollars in spending by routing payments through shell companies where the ultimate payee is hidden.
Trump's 2020 campaign and joint fundraising committee, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, spent more than $771 million through American Made Media Consultants LLC, according to new data analyzed by OpenSecrets. The secretive limited-liability company was created by campaign aides and members of Trump's inner circle to act as a "clearinghouse" to pay vendors, concealing the campaign's transactions with those vendors.
Sammy:
I don't see why Trump's actions need defending. He should be proud of what happened on Jan. 6. His supporters nearly did "Stop the Steal." Why is he so shy?
French on precedents :
But here's the reality at the heart of all arguments about precedent—precedents are set (or maintained) either way. To illustrate, let's walk back through the history above, with the lens reversed.
Before the Mueller investigation, Trump's defenders were suggesting that we should set the precedent of not investigating campaigns when there is evidence that campaigns were reaching out to a hostile foreign power for assistance in winning an American election.
During the Michael Cohen investigation, Trump's defenders were hoping to establish that the president's lawyers should enjoy special immunity from lawful searches even in the presence of substantial evidence of criminal misconduct.
During the Mueller investigation, the GOP hoped to establish a precedent that firing an FBI director or a special counsel or ordering the cessation of an investigation even for corrupt motives could not form the foundation of an obstruction of justice impeachment count.
During the first impeachment, the GOP established the precedent that demanding a foreign ally to investigate a conspiracy theory and a domestic political opponent as a condition for receiving vital military aid does not constitute grounds for removal from office.
And now, during the second impeachment, a majority of the Senate GOP has voted twice that it's unconstitutional to try a former president for acts of grotesque misconduct committed while in office.
If you line one set of precedents up against the other, which ones reflect the operation of the rule of law and political accountability in a healthy constitutional republic? Which ones establish a culture of impunity that would shock the conscience of many of America's Founding Fathers?
Now, there are new precedents to be set. And the most important precedent is now absolutely clear: The Senate must lay down a marker that no president can get away with a campaign of lies, pressure, and public incitement designed explicitly to reverse the results of a lawful election and block the peaceful transfer of power. All the arguments about precedent pale in comparison to this one. If sufficient members of the GOP vote to acquit (and they likely will), the precedent they will establish is that there is virtually no bottom to presidential behavior that the modern partisan can't excuse, rationalize, or defend.
Even worse, that same GOP Senate majority is likely to set a precedent that threats work. In his impeachment argument today, David Schoen, one of Trump's lawyers, argued that "This trial will tear this country apart, perhaps like we've only seen once before in our history."
The reference to the Civil War was clear.
Compounding the disaster, the GOP Senate majority will almost certainly set a precedent that sophistry succeeds. The president's legal team is mounting a legal defense centered around the First Amendment—arguing that the president's words to the mob on January 6 did not meet the legal definition of incitement and that he should thus be constitutionally immune from impeachment and conviction.
This is specious. Applying the First Amendment to protect a president from the constitutionally defined political remedies for abuses of power would do grave damage to the structure of checks and balances. It would defy the intent of the Founders.
Paul Montagu (5b5997) — 2/10/2021 @ 9:51 am
t whether Trump's inaction after the Capitol was stormed made him further complicit in the insurrection, I believe Trump's lawyers were trying to cover for it in their brief.
I think they dispute some of the published accounts, and they may not have gotten much out of Trump.
Anything authoritative would go into how and when his second speech was cancelled.
That would have had to have been the very first thing that happened after he got news, and you could pick it up from there. Who told him not to go?
Unless the speech never was on his schedule in the first place which would imply real guilt. I thnk it will be borne out that the people with the permit had him speaking at the Capitol rally.
the GOP established the precedent that demanding a foreign ally to investigate a conspiracy theory and a domestic political opponent as a condition for receiving vital military aid does not constitute grounds for removal from office
Trump's big defense was that he never made it a condition for military aid or for anything. Which was the truth. EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland made it a condition, and that only in September, 2019, and he quickly got shot down.
Now the reason Sondland did that is that was trying to get Donald Trump to release his hold on the aid. As for Trump's inquiry, he had been told something by Giuliani who had been told some things by Ukrainians probably acting for Putin.
The Senate must lay down a marker that no president can get away with a campaign of lies, pressure, and public incitement designed explicitly to reverse the results of a lawful election and block the peaceful transfer of power
That's a very good idea, but that's not in the Article of Impeachment.
I said before that the House needed to pass another impeachment resolution. I said they could try it at the same time; it could be like a superseding indictment.
I said a 2/3 majority in the Senate was achievable, but they had to negotiate the wording with Mitch McConnell, or somebody familiar with his thinking. (it would be kind of a delicate situation.)
If they were serious about disqualifying Donald Trump from ever holding public office again.
Sammy Finkelman (e4c3a1) — 2/10/2021 @ 10:06 am
144. Radegunda (20775b) — 2/9/2021 @ 9:12 pm
The people who stormed the Capitol heard a lot of things from Trump, or that Trump endorsed but not that they should storm the Capitol.
That they knew nothing about Trump's tweet in December urging his fans to be in D.C. on January 6 for a "wild" protest?
Just what does that mean? It;s a good wueston who got Trump to tweet that. The website was called wildpotest.com Most people assumed any reference to violence was fighting with counter-protesters. Mayor of Washington Muriel Bowser asked counter-demonstrators not to make an appearance and they didn't.
For the same reason Islamic extremists say Mohammed, or even God, told them to kill people. Did he?
Cell phone data prove that large numbers of people did in fact go from the Ellipse to the Capitol, and many of them headed over there before Trump finished his rant.
Are they the only people who went to the Capitol?
Whether or not he "anticipated a riot," he certainly hoped that the mob's presence would influence the legislators' actions, just as he was phoning legislators during the siege to pressure them.
Right, right, right, right. right.,
The reports that he was happy that the certification was being delayed are entirely plausible.
No question about it. That's what he wanted.
It's nonsensical to think he wanted a crowd to show up and just politely applaud outside the Capitol while legislators did whatever they were planning to do anyway.
He thought their numbers, which he greatly overestimated lied about, would influence wavering Republicans.
It was an attempt to use them.
We don't actually have anything authoritative about what he had to be urged to do, but I would assume it took the argument that police were being assaulted to move him.
Telling them he loved them is what mothers and other relatives of of hostage takers always say, and are probably told to say, so that means nothing.
Anything authoritative about what Trump did that afternoon would deal with how and when his scheduled appearance at the Capitol was cancelled.
Sammy, Trump is the one who blocked funding for the Javelins, not Sondland. He's responsible for holding things up until he got what he wanted from Zelensky, and he only released it after the whistleblower account hit the front pages.
Paul Montagu (5b5997) — 2/10/2021 @ 10:38 am
It was an attempt to use them…
He thought their numbers…would influence INTIMIDATE wavering Republicans.
FTFY.
If the best defense that can be mustered against the statement "Trump was trying to incite a riot" is the counter "No, he wasn't, he was just trying to use other people as his proxies to bully a co-equal branch of government into not fulfilling their constitutional duty," then he should still be toast. Should be, but won't be.
Demosthenes (d7fc81) — 2/10/2021 @ 10:38 am
Sorry. My last comment takes bits from two of Sammy's comments, but I neglected to put both comment references in.
Noqw the House managers are saying this is nit just about one speech (GOOD) and that Donald Trump was involved in planning it.
What they are not proving is that Donald Trump planned a riot
Repeatedly asking people to come to Washington on January 6, or endorsing that, and calling them the cavalry doesn't mean he understood a sort of quasi-military attack was in the works.
We need something more.
The answer to the question:
"What did the president know, and when did he know it?"
Not: "Words like 'wild', `fight', `strong' and `cavalry' prove that he knew what everybody was planing and wanted his audience to participate in violence.
168. Demosthenes (d7fc81) — 2/10/2021 @ 10:38 am
Because they overcharged him.
He was trying to bully them politically, (still is) but not physically intimidate them like Benito Mussolini did with his March on Rome in October, 1922.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Rome
even for Mussolini to succeed the King had to cave in. Mussolini's rle was not firmly established though, until he started assassinating people. (the 10 June 1924 assassination of Giacomo Matteotti)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giacomo_Matteotti
On 30 May 1924, he openly spoke in the Italian Parliament alleging the Fascists committed fraud in the recently held elections, and denounced the violence they used to gain votes. Eleven days later he was kidnapped and killed by Fascists.
The Senate is coming back into session.
Proud Boy charged in insurrection blasts Trump's 'deception' in new court filing
Dominic Pezzola, who was indicted last month and charged with conspiracy, urged a federal court to grant his release pending trial, emphasizing that his involvement in the Proud Boys was recent and minimal and that he has no other criminal history. But the most notable part of Pezzola's 15-page motion for leniency was his thorough repudiation of Trump.
"[D]efendant acted out of the delusional belief that he was a 'patriot' protecting his country … He was responding to the entreaties of the-then commander in chief, President Trump," Pezzola's lawyer argued in the filing. "The President maintained that the election had been stolen and it was the duty of loyal citizens to 'stop the steal.' Admittedly there was no rational basis for the claim, but it is apparent defendant was one of millions of Americans who were misled by the President's deception."
"Many of those who heeded his call will be spending substantial portions if not the remainder of their lives in prison as a consequence," Pezzola's attorney wrote. "Meanwhile Donald Trump resumes his life of luxury and privilege."
"Given the combination of the defendant's actions on that day, his professed intentions to commit additional violence, and his access to the means to carry out that violence in a largely undetectable way, there are simply no conditions nor combinations of conditions of release that can assure the safety of the community if the defendant is released," prosecutors wrote to the court last month.
Since 1/6, the Turtle talks, his salary uninterrupted; his checks clear, while more Americans die, desperate for vaccine and Covid economic relief.
They've learned nothing.
…… desperate for vaccine and Covid economic relief.
Moral: Don't depend on the Federal government.
He was trying to bully them politically, (still is) but not physically intimidate them…
1. You have no proof of that.
2. Thousands of people surrounding a building where you are doing your job, who have gathered for the purpose of protesting you doing your job, is physically intimidating — whether it is meant to be or not. And that's if they don't break in. Which they did.
@176. No. Moral: don't depend on political parties inhabited by swamp creatures who slither and slime on your dime.
This is what we call a life lesson.
Dave (1bb933) — 2/10/2021 @ 11:29 am
@178-
Same thing. It would have been better for states to contract directly with pharma companies rather than have FedGov ration vaccines to the states.
I know this has come up before
In the days after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, the phone lines and websites of local election officials across the country were jumping: Tens of thousands of Republicans were calling or logging on to switch their party affiliations.
In California, more than 33,000 registered Republicans left the party during the three weeks after the Washington riot. In Pennsylvania, more than 12,000 voters left the GOP in the past month, and more than 10,000 Republicans changed their registration in Arizona.
If this sticks, what does a 10K drop in republican participation do in a swing states like PA and AZ?
Time123 (f5cf77) — 2/10/2021 @ 11:41 am
Cong. Jamie Raskin, son of radical Marcus Raskin.
@179. Reaganomics.
@180. No. It's not.
One problem – they describe alot of bad things but then say that when Trump ran out of non-violent options he turned to violence. Back to concentrating on Jan 6.
Now delegate from Virgin Islands will attempt to prove that Trump planned the attack and not in secret.
DCSCA: What do you expect Congress to do about vaccine availability?
Palm Beach welcomes sexual predator
@180. States are worse; infected with the lower, lesser slime swamp creatures not at the Federal level. State government sucks. Only surpassed by county government, city and town councils. America ain't Mayberry, North Carolina; more like Sparta, Mississippi.
@186. =flashback= 1961: Golly. What do you expect Congress to do about avoiding a Red Moon?
=mikedrop=
States are worse; ….. State government sucks. Only surpassed by county government, city and town councils.
I guess you're out of luck, then, if you're depending on government. Which you seem to be.
@190. No. Government is an engine fine by design– until you pour dirt into it; if you back/support/donate/depend on the political parties you're not only out of luck- you're out of your mind.
No idea of the reference.
@192. Next time there's a full moon: salute it.
There was a permit! With barricades.
The accusation is that Trump periodically praised violence.
The delegate is going by a couple of talking points. Stand by (probably a mistaken word) the bus nearly run off the road. Where Trump added a fight song to and said "I love Texas"
The bus attack was organized by Keith Lee she says.
Now she's quoting this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/us/capitol-riot-funding.html
n online videos, the 41-year-old Texan pointed out the flimsiness of the fencing. He cheered the arrival, long before President Trump's rally at the other end of the mall, of far-right militiamen encircling the building. Then, armed with a bullhorn, Mr. Lee called out for the mob to rush in, until his voice echoed from the dome of the Rotunda…
…Backed by surging crowds, Mr. Lee had made his way into the Rotunda and by 3 p.m. — after a fellow assailant had been shot, police officers had been injured and local authorities were pleading for help — he was back outside using his megaphone to urge others into the building. "If we do it together," he insisted, "there's no violence!"
She can say Trump cultivated him, but she can't say his earlier speech triggered it. She's arguing that because Trump was associated with these people (at least he accepted their support) he was in cahoots with all of what they did. Which would assume they told him. That's the question.
She claimed that they had originally planned to stay at the ellipse till after the electoral vote count was complete.
But where is the mention of the permit for the Capitol rally? Like there was only one rally planned.
Sammy Finkelman (e4c3a1) — 2/10/2021 @ 12:08 pm
She claims that the Trump administration (or Trump people) was monitoring all web sites and forums.
Someone said somewhere that Trump would help them avoid problems from the National Guard so all they needed was to overcome the 2,000 Capitol police. But was that true that Trump was going to disable the National Guard?
She quoted a lot of things but not wildprotest.com or Trumps's statement that he would be the second rally.
The House manager quoted that "trial by combat" line of Giuliani!
Which has been given a spin it cannot hold. That they won't drop.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1346847382768676864
"Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent. And if we're wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we're right, and lot of them will go to jail. So — let's have trial by combat" — Giuliani
Not a call to the crowd to use physical violence.
https://news.yahoo.com/rudy-giuliani-says-trial-combat-065754290.html
President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani told The Hill on Tuesday that he was making a "Game of Thrones" reference when he told a crowd at Trump's January 6 "Save America" rally that "we will have a trial by combat."
"I was referencing the kind of trial that took place for Tyrion in that very famous documentary about fictitious medieval England," Giuliani told the reporter Brett Samuels. "When Tyrion, who is a very small man, is accused of murder. He didn't commit murder, he can't defend himself, and he hires a champion to defend him."
In the original reference, Two people instead of a crowd.
Like Goliath's challenge which David took up.
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08a17.htm
I Samuel 17:8-9 And he stood and cried unto the armies of Israel, and said unto them: 'Why do ye come out to set your battle in array? am not I a Philistine, and ye servants to Saul? choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me. ט אִם-יוּכַל לְהִלָּחֵם אִתִּי, וְהִכָּנִי–וְהָיִינוּ לָכֶם, לַעֲבָדִים; וְאִם-אֲנִי אוּכַל-לוֹ, וְהִכִּיתִיו–וִהְיִיתֶם לָנוּ לַעֲבָדִים, וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֹתָנוּ. 9 If he be able to fight with me, and kill me, then will we be your servants; but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants, and serve us.'
Sammy, you will be interested in this:
What do you expect Congress to do about vaccine availability?
They could hold hearings.
Biden wants to send money.
Sammy Finkelman (e4c3a1) — 2/10/2021 @ 1:05 pm
Justsecurity has a pro-political-spin bias.
Not too bad. It;s got a capture of the the wildprotest.com web page that I linked to through the Wayback machine. Something the House maanagers apparently haven't discovered yet.
Trump later replies to another tweet by Kylie Jane Kremer, announcing he will attend the protests on Jan. 6.
Protests. Lural. So justsecurity vouches for Trump's claimed intention to be at the Capitol.
Earlier that year, Trump and his allies had repeatedly singled out Whitmer and the state of Michigan. In April, armed protesters had stormed the state capitol, earning the praise of Trump.
"The Governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire," Trump tweeted on May 1. "These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal."
For moe onn that, see this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/politics/michigan-state-capitol.html
The House managers don;t seem to be citing that, either.
They seem to be arguing that because of this long track record of what is actually tolerance of some violence by his supporters, Trump instigated it and planned it, because he knew what they would do, and it is not only Jn 6, but they also seem to be saying what he did on Jan 6 did it.
See Pierre run. Run, run, run.
So Delecto.
GOP senators will, ludicrously, stick to the legal definition of "incitement" (which is likely not met by Trump's behavior) as their excuse to vote against the article that has been unveiled.
I actually think that the House managers are making a good case for incitement, if not sedition. IF they can show (and I think they can) that Trump sent his army with the intention of seizing Congress, or large numbers of members, then it is actually treason.
The video and other reports of a jubilant Trump watching the insurrection unfold, and not seeming to understand why his staff were aghast, speaks volumes about his expectations and motives.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/10/2021 @ 1:38 pm
News flash….I guess Reagan invented capitalism
Corollary: more socialism creates a higher living standard…apparently. If only everyone could work for NASA…
More nonsense: people who have not lost work due to pandemic shutdowns or whose business has not been shutdown don't need $2k checks…and it is silly to run up debt by not targeting relief.
Government is not efficient at much….why do we imagine Trump or Biden or Congress would be able to make vaccine delivery faster….I'm actually impressed that we've made as much progress as we have. There's no magic "faster vaccine" button for Congress to push….
AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 2/10/2021 @ 1:38 pm
Those on the other side think that only 44 stalwart defenders remain, in a sea of traitors. I'm kind of expecting some McVeighs.
It's hard to believe that Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence dead and it wouldn't have done him any good. It could make sense as part of a coup, but if they had seized the Capitol that would not have been the end of it. How many millions of people are in the United States Armed Forces and the National Guard?
How many would side with Trump and how many with the rest of the government?
So it is hard to see how Trump and the mob organizers were on the same page.
A story is now running that in 2017, Jamie Raskin attempted to block Florida's electoral votes being cast for Trump for a technical reason.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/01/13/flashback_lead_impeachment_manager_jamie_raskin_attempted_to_object_to_electoral_vote_certification_for_trump_in_2017.html
…but if they had seized the Capitol that would not have been the end of it. How many millions of people are in the United States Armed Forces and the National Guard?
Well, until the crisis was resolved, Trump would rule by martial law.
"Today, the 687th day of the Capitol Hostage Crisis, President Trump declared that those claiming the hostage-takers were not Antifa would have their ration cards voided."
Golly, in 2021 "Hostile takeover" is now a "military term"?!?!
Gee, in Ronnie's America of the 1980's along Wall Street, it was simply called:
Reaganomics. 😉
Step 1: Create broad doubt about the legitimacy of the election outcome. –> Trump did this.
Step 2: Create a break in the standard process for a transfer of power. –> This was attempted on the 6th.
Step 3: Identify a reason to suspend rules that limit your power. –> Antifa
Step 4: Claim control to establish order, and resolve concerns about the legitimacy of the election.
Step 5: Run a new election that you win or identify how the previous election was flawed.
Trump needed a pretext to halt / delay the transfer of power. It didn't matter what it was, he just needed something. He also needed a pretext to establish order. We were close. If Pence and the DOJ had gone along and if counter protestors had shown up Jan 7 might have started with Trump announcing that he was declaring martial law while the issues with the election were figured out and the DOJ was investigating 'concerns' in key states, but don't worry Jan 20 will still be the inauguration.
Time123 (f5cf77) — 2/10/2021 @ 1:53 pm
Shorter Shirkey:
"They rioters were Antifa in drag!"
"Sorry, I take it back."
"No, I'm not sorry! They're Antifa in drag!"
Paul Montagu (77c694) — 2/10/2021 @ 1:53 pm
He upset the MI base by not supporting Trump in in stealing the election. Needs to shore up his support. Or he's a corrupt liar. Hard to say. But it's a matter of faith among many conservatives that the assault on the US capital was Antifa's doing.
Heh… getting a lot of schadenfreude on twitter that Jamie Raskin is the public face of an impeachment trial based on the premise that Trump "incited an insurrection" by encouraging Republicans to block the Electoral College certification…in which Raskin, himself, objected to the electoral votes casted by Florida in 2017. Who then, was interviewed by the Baltimore Sun:
https://jamieraskin.com/news/baltimore-sun-rep-jamie-raskin-not-seeing-electoral-college-challenge-trump
"I would love to challenge the Electoral College vote because our election was badly tainted by everything from cyber-sabotage by Vladimir Putin, to deliberate voter suppression by Republicans in numerous swing states,"…"But it's a very hard thing to prove that an election would have turned out differently than it did, and the law requires a challenge from both the House and the Senate, and I'm not seeing that happen."
I mean…can the real-life West Wing script get any sillier?
whembly (ee52fd) — 2/10/2021 @ 2:01 pm
@206, ninja'ed by ya…
The article says 70% of republicans and 79% of trump voters overturning the election is justified. The number of republicans who support trump ;but but think he lost would be another 15% to 20% Those never trumper republicans and economic libertarian free trade conservatives are running around like chickens with their heads cut off! Who is leaving the party? Moderate republicans ;but their numbers are small. Hatred of hillary by moderate suburban republicans unified the party in 2016. By the way trump won electoral collage by 77,000 votes in three states mi, pa. and wi. Thanks to green party siphoning off democrat votes. In 2020 despite biden getting 7,000,000 more votes he won electoral collage by 44,000 votes in three states az, ga. and wi. Thanks to democrats prevent green party access to ballot in those and other states.
asset (7dd86b) — 2/10/2021 @ 2:05 pm
It's okay when Democrats do it because Russia.
Hoi Polloi (139bf6) — 2/10/2021 @ 2:48 pm
203. News flash….I guess Reagan invented capitalism
Guess again:
"Voodoo economics." – GHWBush
Sammy Finkelman (e4c3a1) — 2/10/2021 @ 1:05 pm:
Neither of which will increase vaccine availability or improve the horrendous distribution. As I have said before, the states should have been allowed to purchase vaccines on the open market. Centralized procurement by FedGov and rationing it to the states is centralized planning.
Because explaining that it's impossible to do something because there's insufficient evidence is the same as doing it despite having insufficient evidence.
Dave (1bb933) — 2/10/2021 @ 2:56 pm
Biden Administration Reverses DOJ Position in Texas ACA Case
Earlier today, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler sent a letter informing the Supreme Court that the Department of Justice has reconsidered its position on the constitutionality of the mandate-sans-penalty and the severability of the mandate from the remainder of the Act.
Of note, the brief does not alter the Justice Department's position on whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims.
Larry Flynt (78) has died.
> 70% of republicans and 79% of trump voters overturning the election is justified.
yes, precisely.
70% of republicans and 79% of trump voters believe the lie that the election was stolen, and they stand for the *effective* abolition of the republic, *now*.
trump and his movement represent the largest threat to the republic since 1860 and possibly since the end of the revolutionary war.
aphrael (4c4719) — 2/10/2021 @ 4:09 pm
>the states should have been allowed to purchase vaccines on the open market
thereby creating a bidding war where wealthy states could monopolize vaccine access and poor states could get frozen out.
as a californian, i guess this plan would have been good for me, but it would have been terrible for the country.
>but not physically intimidate them
encouraging an angry mob is not physically intimidating?
even if we accept the premise that Trump didn't *intend* for the angry mob to storm the capitol, once they did, his refusal to intervene and stop it (both with rhetoric and with troops) shows that he was content to allow the intimidation to proceed.
the man is a menace to the republic, as are his followers.
@Sammy@196 The SecDef had issued orders On Jan 4 that the Nat Guard could not go out to help without his expressed permission. And he never gave permission, even when asked repeatedly. In the end it was the Secretary of the Army and Pence that gave permission for the Nat Guard to help. Who is it that directs the SecDef? 3 guesses and the first two don't count.
Nic (896fdf) — 2/10/2021 @ 4:23 pm
As a fellow Californian I agree, and it was exactly how the Trump administration left the states to acquire PPE and ventilators. It would be a victory over centralized planning.
Now this is what you call a straddle by the hypocritical Mr. Cruz.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate voted on the constitutional question of whether an impeachment trial may be held for Donald Trump now that he is out of office. Six Republicans joined all 50 Democrats in answering that question in the affirmative. Texas senator Ted Cruz was one of the 44 Republicans who voted that former president Donald Trump is not "subject to a court of impeachment for acts committed while president," but in an article on Fox News, Cruz argues that, in fact, the Constitution does give Congress the authority to impeach and convict a former president.
If the democrats are smart, they will run a law and order, blue dog democrat against Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, neither of whom share my values. They will probably run another Beto, who might as well be Barbara Boxer.
Every time I feel smug about recognizing Trump early, I remember I failed to recognize Cruz.
Dustin (4237e0) — 2/10/2021 @ 5:00 pm
Dustin, as a fellow regretful Cruz voter, all I can say is that he put on a *much* better act than Trump ever did.
Yeah Cruz was clever. That bit with the corn farmers really was a clever calculation. But that's all Cruz is. A constant cynical calculation.
Both Cornyn and Cruz are brilliant lawyers and know what it means to license someone from Trump's movement to try this crap in some form in 2024.
Better yet, the Dems should get youngish, media-savvy military veterans to run against the Ivy League pansies like Cruz.
Cruz is neither clever or 2-face..hes just an easy scare trying to outrun being a "Rubio". The Indiana guys in the sunglasses showed how to get to him.
urbanleftbehind (379a1e) — 2/10/2021 @ 5:37 pm
So, if Trump and his army were attacking the United States, is that treason? If it is, is voting to acquit Trump giving them aid and comfort?
I haven't been the same, myself, since I realized that The Maltese Falcon was really a love story.
107. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/10/2021 @ 1:48 pm
There is no provision for declaring martial law, even limited to the boundaries of Washington, D.C. so already you;re going outside the constitution, and if not re-elected. Trump would stop being resident in two weeks.
There doesn't seem to have been any talk of taking hostages, although that was the presumed purpose of the Zip ties a few rioters had. Only of lynching Mike Pence and killing Nancy Pelosi. The House managers say that Trump's singular focus that day was postponing the vote certification. They cited a call at 2 pm which Mike Lee seems to be disputing.
The argument is that the only contact Trump made outside the White House when this was getting started was a call to Mike Lee's cell phone (which he mistakenly thought belonged to Tommy Tuberville?) but he still got Tommy Tuberville because they were together.
And the claim was that when Mike Lee picked up the phone, Trump said "Tommy?" And Mike Lee passed the phone along to newly elected Tommy Tuberville, and he could tell that the substance of the call was a request for Tommy Tuberville to object to more states (that's the only place I heard of that – I think the plan was always for six, enough to bring Biden;s electoral vote total below Trump's)
And that the conversation continued for about 5 or 6 minutes, until it ended because they were being evacuated (why would it have to end? It's a cell phone!)
And that Giuliani called the same phone number again at 7 om, and they know it was co-ordinated with Trump because he had the same wrong number for Tommy Tuberville, and they said they had it on tape, and you heard a few words from Giuliani played.
This story apparently came from a news article.
Senator Mike Lee asked that something I am not sure what but maybe this be stricken from the record, and Senator Patrick Leahy ruled that under the rules the counsel were not restricted as to what evidence they could cite and Senator Mike Lee appealed it and they started to vote and there was confusion as to exactly what they were voting on.
Mike Lee apparently didn't want a restriction on what they could say but merely that what they said he said be stricken from the record because he was the only witness and he said what he was quoted as saying in the newspaper was not true. And Senator Manchin wanted to know what Senator Lee was disputing.
And it occurred to someone that the situation could be resolved without creating a precedent that they did not want by the managers withdrawing what they said. And Senator Schumer arranged the managers would withdraw that bit, which was not crucial to their case, subject to being able to say it again later.
Once you see it, it's so obvious how pathetic he is that it's hard to understand how you never saw it, but I disagree.
It was a clever calculation for Cruz to 'tell it like it is' to Iowa farmers or his own party. I thought he was an awkward looking nerd who really cared about being a conservative, on limited government, would really not care about upsetting anybody on the way. Turns out he was just saying whatever he needed to say of course, and would trade his wife's honor for a vote. Amazing.
So, how many people have been watching this trial do you suppose? IF you aren't watching it, it would be possible to continue to think whatever your think, but if you are following this thing in any detail OMG.
Each senator that votes against conviction will have these scenes haunt them in every ad for their entire future. They ought to consider going cold turkey rather than mainlining this crap for the rest of their lives.
@233. Yes- it stings with passion:
"When you're slapped, you'll take it and like it." – Samuel Spade [Humphrey Bogart] ' The Maltese Falcon' 1941
Excerpts from what the House managers produced would make for good ads against Donald Trump, but, if it came to running ads against him, they'd probably find them too controversial and prefer simple lies and exaggerations.
222. aphrael (4c4719) — 2/10/2021 @ 4:11 pm
a bidding war where wealthy states could monopolize vaccine access and poor states could get frozen out.
Bidding wars can go both ways, and the vaccine companies consider the price they are charging different countries to be a trade secret so if states could buy the price would go down. Pretty soon there'll be a glut. There could also be national price controls.
> (why would it have to end? It's a cell phone!)
it's hard to maintain a conversation while you're being evacuated, even if it's technically possible to continue the call.
> so if states could buy the price would go down
i don't follow how that's possible. can you spell it out for me?
There could also be national price controls.
There are. Price to the consumer, delivered, is zero.
20. noel (9fead1) — 2/9/2021 @ 10:09 am
The House managers seem to be resting their case on several different ideas, but always go back to incited them that day with his words, which they claim meant more than you might think because of the history and because he was president.
They say his tweets that day barely and only belatedly even acknowledge what what was going on.
We have price controls for Covid tests, but doctors in some cases weren't being paid their costs so they stopped doing tem so freely.. There also the price to the consumer is zero.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/dutch-auction
Vaccine c ompanies can;t charge poorer states too much money or they won't buy it. Other states culd argue whyshould they pay more than, say, Alabama. Vaccine companies can declare some palaces, like Puerto Rico, charity cases, but there's a limit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/world/europe/vaccine-secret-contracts-prices.html
One of the key terms of the vaccine contracts — the price per dose — is frequently redacted in the public versions of government contracts. The companies consider this a trade secret. Some drug companies have included clauses in their supply contracts that allow them to suspend deliveries if countries reveal the price.
That has to be because if everyone kew the price, rices would be lower.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/29/917899357/how-operation-warp-speeds-big-vaccine-contracts-could-stay-secret
I keep telling Mrs. Montagu that Road House is a love story. Why doesn't she believe me.
It's my conclusion that women prefer their romances in writing, Paul.
Speaking of which, you must be familiar with Ernest Haycox, whose Western stories are mostly set in Oregon during the second half of the 1800s-early 1900s, and made into any number of movies, but most notably Stagecoach and Union Pacific.
Never heard of Haycox, nk, but I'll check him out. I read a lot of L'Amour and the like a decade or three back, but lately my westerns have been binge-watching Longmire, a sentimental favorite.
Vaccine c ompanies can;t charge poorer states too much money or they won't buy it.
So they sell to CA, NY, TX, etc, first. After a year or two they sell to MS.
Kevin M, at 250 — yeah, that's what i'm imagining. great for california, bad for america.
aphrael (4c4719) — 2/10/2021 @ 10:00 pm
Vaccine companies can;t charge poorer states too much money or they won't buy it.
Since they are really dealing with countries, it's countries like Brazil and South Africa, that are missing out. But there are competing vaccines, somewhat limited by trying to stick to ones approved by OECD countries. Still they buy them from Russia or China, or maybe get it paid for by Covax.
The delay is nit as long as a year. They're making too much vaccine and they have competitors coming along.