[pilowsky]

 johnu, on 2021-January-07, 23:54, said:

Were you born under a turnip truck McEnany is the White House Press Secretary. It is not her job to give information or answer questions What are you thinking?

LOL - I'm not sure if Kayleigh knows that the earth is round (well, an oblate spheroid anyway)

[pilowsky]

Has anyone read Scoop - Evelyn Waugh?
Loosely based on a Murdoch like character...

[Zelandakh]

 johnu, on 2021-January-07, 22:32, said:

I don't watch a lot of CNN but I saw something about indictments very late night/early morning in a segment I watched. I'm not sure why they didn't give it more coverage, especially since a number of US Attorneys have come out and said that they will prosecute anybody from their jurisdictions. MSNBC has had many segments about US Attorneys prosecuting these domestic terrorists and what to expect when Biden takes over and appoints replacement US Attorneys.

I suspect that the focus on calling these people domestic terrorists is part of the issue here. It gives the impression of organisation from within. While some of the mob were indeed domestic terrorists, the vast majority were just following directions. They are as much terrorists as the average soldier in a war zone, at least in the normal sense of the word. They should of course be prosecuted but to my mind the leaders who incited them to violence are far more responsible and they are the ones that need to face justice on the more serious charges.

In a way, this has made life much more comfortable for the Biden administration. Prior to these events, the Biden DoJ and AG were going to have a very difficult decision about whether to advance prosecutions against DJT and, if so, which ones. Now I think they basically have to and will have far less pushback from Republicans on those charges. We will see though; the GOP is not going away and if charges end up coming in primary season, it could well be politically more convenient for GOP representatives to be outraged rather than understanding. For better or worse, the Trump base is going to remain the GOP base for the foreseeable future. How the party navigate around that will define much of the coming election cycle just as much as what the Dems decide to do with the levers of power in the 2 elected branches.

[kenberg]

Joe Biden won the election and will become president on January 20, 2001.

That's a simple sentence.

Donald Trump has yet to say it.

I'm one of those sentimental slobs who enjoys watching old movies on TCM. In My Favorite Wife Cary Grant's wife Irene Dunne was in a shipwreck and after seven years he has her declared dead and marries a new wife. On the same day, his first wife, Dunne, returns. She has been rescued from an island where she has been surviving for all this time. Grant promises to explain this to his new wife but just can't see how to do it. Irene Dunne gets frustrated and suggests that he do it by saying "My wife has come back".

I recommend this movie to Donald Trump.

[Winstonm]

As it turns out, one of the domestic terrorists who invaded the capitol struck a policeman in the head with a fire extinguisher. That policeman has now died. That raises the stakes for all involved.

[kenberg]

I have spent a lifetime with the general belief that we should not write people off as hopeless. For those who still support Trump, I make an exception.

I don't know just what the law says or how it has been applied when someone stokes a riot that results in death as well as insurrection. I suppose the defense was "I didn't actually do the killing or the insurrection". But at some point the results, in a general sense, were completely predictable. Of course Trump did not know that someone would be photographed leaning back in Pelosi's chair and he didn't know a cop would die from being hit on the head with s fire extinguisher. But if you preach to hyped up mob that they need to go down to the capitol building to combat the steal of an election, you don't get to avoid responsibility for what happens next. Certainly you do not get to avoid moral responsibility and I would hope that you also cannot avoid legal responsibility.

Someone on the news yesterday was sang, with regard to the lack of preparation, that a lot of people will be looking for jobs when this is examined. no doubt. I would hope a lot of people will also be going to jail. Including Donald Trump.

But right now we must get through the remaining 12 days. This is by no means a certainty. We cannot afford to trust Trump to beave in any responsible manner for the remainder of his term. He has given ample proof of that.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-January-08, 09:48, said:

I have spent a lifetime with the general belief that we should not write people off as hopeless. For those who still support Trump, I make an exception.

I don't know just what the law says or how it has been applied when someone stokes a riot that results in death as well as insurrection. I suppose the defense was "I didn't actually do the killing or the insurrection". But at some point the results, in a general sense, were completely predictable. Of course Trump did not know that someone would be photographed leaning back in Pelosi's chair and he didn't know a cop would die from being hit on the head with s fire extinguisher. But if you preach to hyped up mob that they need to go down to the capitol building to combat the steal of an election, you don't get to avoid responsibility for what happens next. Certainly you do not get to avoid moral responsibility and I would hope that you also cannot avoid legal responsibility.

Someone on the news yesterday was sang, with regard to the lack of preparation, that a lot of people will be looking for jobs when this is examined. no doubt. I would hope a lot of people will also be going to jail. Including Donald Trump.

But right now we must get through the remaining 12 days. This is by no means a certainty. We cannot afford to trust Trump to beave in any responsible manner for the remainder of his term. He has given ample proof of that.

This rationales narrow for the continuance of support for Donald Trump; at this point, only racism and xenophobia are left to account.

[Winstonm]

To see a lot more about who these people were and what they were doing in the capitol building, I strongly suggest absorbing the images on this twitter thread:

[pilowsky]

Here is an image of a harmless non-violent patriot visiting his elected officials so that he can calmly explain his grievances.
I hope you understand the friendly symbology on his T-shirt, and it's meaning.

[akwoo]

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

[y66]

From Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski calls on President Trump to resign, questions her future as a Republican by James Brooks at Anchorage Daily News:

Linda Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska said:

I want him out.

Quote

I think I am including myself as part of a group of members that wants to work to try to bring things together in the Senate and wants to try to get some business done. And this is going to be a (Biden) administration where I’m going to be disagreeing with where they’re taking us on a lot of issues and policy, but I would like to think that we’re never going to question their fidelity to the oath of office.

[Winstonm]

A solution:
https://www.yahoo.co...-220743981.html

Quote

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which was ratified in 1967, addresses the involuntary removal of a president from office. It has never been invoked. It requires, Koh said, "the vice president plus eight heads of executive departments [to] send a letter in which they say the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office."

There are currently a total of 15 heads of executive departments — comprising Cabinet secretaries and a few other top officials — so eight members would constitute a majority. Koh clarified that as members of those executive departments resign, as Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao did on Thursday, their replacements would be authorized to act. (Not counting replacements for DeVos and Chao, there are three acting Cabinet secretaries — of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security — who have not been confirmed by the Senate.) The signed letter would instantly strip the president of his powers and could happen within an hour. "I don't think it's an accident that DeVos and Chao are resigning. I don't think they'll want to take a stand if asked to sign a 25th Amendment letter," Koh said.



Next steps: The president would have an opportunity to respond. If he disagrees and insists he is able to do his job, the vice president and those eight heads of executive departments have four days to decide whether to send a letter to the speaker of the House (Democrat Nancy Pelosi) and the president pro tempore of the Senate (Republican Chuck Grassley). Both houses of Congress would have 21 days to debate and vote. Koh pointed out, "Normally, for the whole process to play out takes at least 28 days. Here, we're at the very end of Trump's presidency."

But if the concern is keeping Trump from starting a war, the whole process wouldn't have to play out, Koh said. Once the 25th Amendment is invoked, Pence would become acting president and assume the powers of the presidency. "Trump would be the president without powers," Koh explained. "In other words, he would serve as president till his term expired, but he couldn't have access to the powers of the presidency. He couldn't veto any bill, he couldn't sign legislation or anything like that. He couldn't make appointments, he couldn't pardon people. [Pence] has a real constitutional tool that he can use."

Or are they AINO (Americans In Name Only)?

[shyams]

My suggestion for inaction (re. an early exit):

I find the whole clamour to get him impeached or (weirder still) removed by invoking the 25th Amendment a huge waste of time. He is gone in 10 days; the best one can do is to barely care when he leaves.

It must be clear by now that he needs attention as much as you & I need oxygen. It matters not one bit whether the attention is for things he perceives as "positive" or truly negative stuff; what matters is that the glare of public attention is on him. The sane course of action is to do the opposite of what feeds him; his Twitter ban is probably driving him completely bonkers.

Use the same formula in the real world. Instead of impeachment proceedings (a self-congratulatory effort by Dem leadership; also aimed at showing themselves as the "custodians of the moral high ground"), they should perhaps describe the entire debacle as a fiasco (yes, it is a lie but a useful one). Pelosi (or someone less diplomatic) goes on TV to say that the man was "stupid enough not to realise that his words will incite such a profound reaction. Such stupidity is rather expected from a person who is rapidly losing his grip on all matters under his control"

He's stuck -- he can't say that he's not stupid (because then by inference, he has agreed to incitement) and he can't sit there silently with the "stupid" label stuck firmly on him.

Just an opinion! But honestly folks, the impeachment gains nothing --- it will only continue to drive a wedge between the two tribes.

[Winstonm]

 shyams, on 2021-January-08, 21:41, said:

My suggestion for inaction (re. an early exit):

I find the whole clamour to get him impeached or (weirder still) removed by invoking the 25th Amendment a huge waste of time. He is gone in 10 days; the best one can do is to barely care when he leaves.

It must be clear by now that he needs attention as much as you & I need oxygen. It matters not one bit whether the attention is for things he perceives as "positive" or truly negative stuff; what matters is that the glare of public attention is on him. The sane course of action is to do the opposite of what feeds him; his Twitter ban is probably driving him completely bonkers.

Use the same formula in the real world. Instead of impeachment proceedings (a self-congratulatory effort by Dem leadership; also aimed at showing themselves as the "custodians of the moral high ground"), they should perhaps describe the entire debacle as a fiasco (yes, it is a lie but a useful one). Pelosi (or someone less diplomatic) goes on TV to say that the man was "stupid enough not to realise that his words will incite such a profound reaction. Such stupidity is rather expected from a person who is rapidly losing his grip on all matters under his control"

He's stuck -- he can't say that he's not stupid (because then by inference, he has agreed to incitement) and he can't sit there silently with the "stupid" label stuck firmly on him.

Just an opinion! But honestly folks, the impeachment gains nothing --- it will only continue to drive a wedge between the two tribes.

Invoking the 25th Amendment strips him of power immediately without removing him from office. This means no quid pro quo pardons, no nuclear strikes, no power to do anything. Impeachment and conviction means he cannot ever again be elected to office.

Rather than none, both 25th amendment and impeachment and conviction are warranted and a better outcome than pretending we are safe for 12 days.

[pilowsky]

 Winstonm, on 2021-January-08, 22:48, said:

Invoking the 25th Amendment strips him of power immediately without removing him from office. This means no quid pro quo pardons, no nuclear strikes, no power to do anything. Impeachment and conviction means he cannot ever again be elected to office.

Rather than none, both 25th amendment and impeachment and conviction are warranted and a better outcome than pretending we are safe for 12 days.

The last part is apparently not correct.
The reps impeach (indict): not a problem.
They send the indictment to the Senate where he gets a (very) speedy trial.
In the incredibly unlikely event that a 2/3 majority vote to convict him at that trial (this has never happened), then and only then do they proceed to determine what the penalty is.
A simple majority is enough to decide the penalty, BUT they will not even have that until 22 January when Georgia is required to certify the results of the Senate election.
Even if they did by some miracle, decide that the penalty ought to be never being allowed to hold public office again - vanishingly unlikely - like being dealt 13 spades unlikely, THEN he would not be permitted to hold office again.
This punishment has been meted out to Judges, Never Presidents.

In the end, a person was murdered by the riot that Trump incited. A massive all-in FBI investigation is underway.
Let's see how citizen Trump gets on in Fifth Avenue with his now infamous claim about shooting people after the 20th.

[awm]

The last time we had a Democratic president, Senate Republicans voted in lock step to filibuster all legislation and almost every court nomination (until the filibuster was eliminated for the latter). If they do this again for the next few years, it may be bad for Democrats but it will be worse for the country. We need legislation to provide economic relief, to fix the immigration system, to improve voting in this country, and so on.

The question is how to peel a few Republicans away, so that they at least consider the merits of what they're asked to vote on instead of just trying to obstruct everything. Trump has created the biggest split in the Republican party in recent memory, between those who endorse his lies about election fraud (in the hope of becoming popular with his base) and those who reject his attacks on democracy (either out of principle or believing that Trump will not look so good to Republican voters when he's out of office). It's possible that another impeachment will force Republican Senators to really commit one way or the other, which could be good for Democrats going forward. Already, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska seems to be considering becoming an independent!

[cherdano]

 akwoo, on 2021-January-08, 16:25, said:

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

No.
If you think Trump will pardon the rioters, you misunderstand Trump. He pardons his friends. He despises his supporters.

[pilowsky]

The point is moot. No convictions will be rendered until after Jan 20.
Anyway, even Trump cannot pardon (presumed) innocent people - especially those that he has just thrown under the bus.
I don't even think God can do that.

[kenberg]

 shyams, on 2021-January-08, 21:41, said:

My suggestion for inaction (re. an early exit):

I find the whole clamour to get him impeached or (weirder still) removed by invoking the 25th Amendment a huge waste of time. He is gone in 10 days; the best one can do is to barely care when he leaves.

It must be clear by now that he needs attention as much as you & I need oxygen. It matters not one bit whether the attention is for things he perceives as "positive" or truly negative stuff; what matters is that the glare of public attention is on him. The sane course of action is to do the opposite of what feeds him; his Twitter ban is probably driving him completely bonkers.

Use the same formula in the real world. Instead of impeachment proceedings (a self-congratulatory effort by Dem leadership; also aimed at showing themselves as the "custodians of the moral high ground"), they should perhaps describe the entire debacle as a fiasco (yes, it is a lie but a useful one). Pelosi (or someone less diplomatic) goes on TV to say that the man was "stupid enough not to realise that his words will incite such a profound reaction. Such stupidity is rather expected from a person who is rapidly losing his grip on all matters under his control"

He's stuck -- he can't say that he's not stupid (because then by inference, he has agreed to incitement) and he can't sit there silently with the "stupid" label stuck firmly on him.

Just an opinion! But honestly folks, the impeachment gains nothing --- it will only continue to drive a wedge between the two tribes.

First a quick thought about your last sentence. If we are thinking of the tribe that cannot see any reason to criticize Trump for his actions last Wednesday the wedge is already firmly there. They will not be peacefully joining the rest of us any time soom.

But now to the more general question of what should be done. First, I don't know.. But maybe this. I think there could be widespread agreement among leaders that we need to be prepared. Those entrusted with the defense of the capitol last Wednesday were not prepared,. Trump is unhinged, there is nothing we can confidently say he will not do. If everything can stay quiet for the next11 days then maybe that's the right plan. But perhaps a large number, far beyond a majority, could get together on the basis that if there is, in the next 11 days, a national crisis of any sort, real or purported, then we need Pence, not Trump, to be calling the shots. I can imagine quite a large number of people agreeing with that.

Four years ago my biggest problem with the Trump presidency was exctly that. In an emergency I do not want my safety, and the country's safety, to be in his hands. I really hope there is finally broad agreement on that.

The 25th could be invoked in minutes, of need be. I think Lindsey Graham said something like that. He has been a bit incoherent lately but I think there was something along the lines of him not being ready for the 25th but if something else happened then yes. I realize it's Pence and the cabinet folks that we would be depending on for this, but there is probably some similar thinking there.


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

[cherdano]

 pilowsky, on 2021-January-09, 05:38, said:

The point is moot. No convictions will be rendered until after Jan 20.
Anyway, even Trump cannot pardon (presumed) innocent people - especially those that he has just thrown under the bus.
I don't even think God can do that.

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