Split Thread A second impeachment

[bruto]

It would probably help if they stopped saying things like "We need a strong Republican party" and started speaking plainly about how totally corrupt their counterparts have become.

We actually don't need a strong Republican party, and I really wish one of these journalists would press the Dems on statements like these, because I have no idea what they mean by this.

If the party itself can be saved, an extended period of time as a powerless minority party is probably necessary to spur meaningful reform. Or it can just whither and become replaced by some other party.

I agree that we certainly do not need what passes for the Republican party to be strong, and that it would be a great benefit to the nation and the world if they were to fall apart and become an impotent minority. Unfortunately, I think it's clear that much more must be done before that minority is impotent even if the official power structure leaves them out.

I think a reasonably strong bipartisan system is ultimately of benefit, not only to keep one side from getting overconfident and despotic, but to keep the lunatic fringes which tend to attach to them from gaining traction. But before that can happen the Republicans will have to repudiate the corruption and the lunatic fringe that has become its voice.

Alas our experience with climate change gives us warning of how hard that will be. The current opportunists look only as far as the next primary. In the face of power loss, procrastination rules.

I'm reminded of an old cartoon I saw somewhere (probably Punch in the 1970's) of a couple of people standing beside a tall tall pagoda. One says to the other "We'll have to build another level. This one has termites too."

 

[turingtest]

In washing his hands of guilt McConnell said it's up to the justice system, not him to hold Trump accountable.

So here's my question, is Trump legally liable for not responding to the riot?

That's McConnell trying to eat his cake and have it too. He wasn't being asked to make any legal judgement, only, by a political process, an entirely proper political one. My guess would be that, no, there's no way to hold Trump legally liable for not responding properly to the riot; I'm not even sure there's a way to hold him legally liable for the broader charges brought in the impeachment article, the whole package of actions that culminated in the Jan 6 riots (though I guess Georgia is going to try to for one of those actions, I don't expect anything solid to actually come of it). And I would bet that, for any Democratic president who did anything close to what Trump did, McConnell would never decide that he should have no role in holding him or her accountable.

So McConnell gets the best of both worlds- he washes his hands in front of his constituents of any guilt for the political judgement he could have made, and passes the burden on to a legal system that he probably doesn't really expect to ever saddle his party with the stain of having elected and sustained a President whose actions were judged criminal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The takeover of the GOP reminds me of Rajneeshpuram. They moved in on a church and inserted members that outnumbered the original church goers. Then they voted themselves onto the board and took control of the church's assets.

They also set up their own town and government. Move in, grow until your numbers are enough to takeover. Now the system itself is yours, complete with the assets.

They failed in the end.

 

[Mumbles]

He, don't forget Nixon. Or Ford's pardon of him.


I've heart people say the rot set in with Reagan and his anti-intellectualism, but we need to look at the two GOP presidents before him.

This is why I included all the way back to Barry Goldwater's run. Reagan was basically the main GOP equivalent to 1960s-70s George Wallace as far as civil rights went, but no less than lifelong GOP member Jackie Robinson likened being black at the 1964 convention to being a Jew in Hitler's Germany. People tend to be more familiar with Nixon's racist and anti-semitic views, and they're starting to get a grasp on Reagan's hatred of black Americans, but Goldwater tends to get ignored, despite...well, all that stuff in the essay I linked.

(and Lily-white republicanism went further back than that by decades, but Goldwater is when it really took over). Anti-intellelectualism, along with "trickle-down" theory and neoliberalism (meaning the belief that free markets do everything better, not just "anyone to the right of me", which is an unfortunate but popular second definition), soon followed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's McConnell trying to eat his cake and have it too. He wasn't being asked to make any legal judgement, only, by a political process, a political one. My guess would be that, no, there's no way to hold Trump legally liable for not responding properly to the riot; I'm not even sure there's a way to hold him legally liable for the broader charges brought in the impeachment article, the whole package of actions that culminated in the Jan 6 riots (though I guess Georgia is going to try to for one of those actions, I don't expect anything solid to actually come of it). And I would bet that, for any Democratic president who did anything close to what Trump did, McConnell would never decide that he should have no role in holding him or her accountable.

So McConnell gets the best of both worlds- he washes his hands in front of his constituents of any guilt for the political judgement he could have made, and passes the burden on to a legal system that he probably doesn't really expect to ever saddle his party with the stain of having elected and sustained a President whose actions were judged criminal.

I'm sure it's criminal that he incited the riot and insurrection. I'd love for the FBI to build a case against him for treason.

But responding to the riot is more like negligence. So maybe if we can charge a police officer with dereliction of duty then maybe that's what 'not responding' was.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

In washing his hands of guilt McConnell said it's up to the justice system, not him to hold Trump accountable.

So here's my question, is Trump legally liable for not responding to the riot?

The answer depends on which 12 Americans you ask.

Only one of them has to say no for it to become necessary to ask another group of 12.

Although, I also wonder how do you find jurors who are not already informed on and have strong opinions about Jan 6th?

 

[bruto]

Those reactionaries aren't declaring war just against Democrats who might think it's worthwhile trying to meet them halfway, they're declaring war against members of their own party who won't toe their line (Politico via MSN):

The "big tent" GOP doesn't even have room in their own party for diversity of opinion; just more evidence that the folks who mouth "unity!" at anyone outside of it isn't talking about unity at all, they're demanding nothing less than unconditional surrender.

True enough, once again the Republican party, while shrilly shouting against political correctness and "cancel culture," is acting just like a bunch of bolsheviks, purging their party of diversity, and thus assuring that the worst of the worst will be at the helm. They're working harder to get rid of moderate voices than to censure raving lunatics who lie, foment rebellion, advocate assassination and attribute natural disaster to Jewish lasers from outer space.

In a way, I sort of hope they succeed. I think the party needs the moderates more than the moderates need the party. When the Republicans tried to shut down Jim Jeffords, he just left and won as an independent. Same with Lowell Weicker.

I just wish more Republicans had the guts to walk and tell the lunatic fringe to crash and burn without them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I started to answer my own question then somehow lost track.

You can be charged for dereliction of duty if you are in the military. So does Commander in Chief mean military code of justice applies?


Just looked and no he isn't. Oh well.

 

[Puppycow]

I'm sure that someone has already posted McConnell's remarks.

Even though he ultimately didn't vote to convict, I do appreciate his acknowledgment of the facts.

He said that the narrative that the election was stolen was based on "false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole" and that Trump committed "a disgraceful dereliction of duty". He said that the rioters "used terrorism" and that they did so "because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an election."

The reason he gave for voting no seems to be based on a rather narrow interpretation of the constitution, and is not to absolve Trump of his responsibility.

I mean, just read his whole statement. It's very damning, and it acknowledges that Trump lost the election and the whole narrative by Trump that it was stolen is a lie.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I started to answer my own question then somehow lost track.

You can be charged for dereliction of duty if you are in the military. So does Commander in Chief mean military code of justice applies?


Just looked and no he isn't. Oh well.

I recall a podcast that gave the following scenario...

The President simply goes on a permanent vacation, and stops doing any of the work a President is required to do. Clearly not a crime, but a “mis-demeanor” - literally bad behavior - that he could be impeached for. I think “dereliction of duty” can be used in a descriptive sense, and need not refer to a specific crime.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sure that someone has already posted McConnell's remarks.

Even though he ultimately didn't vote to convict, I do appreciate his acknowledgment of the facts. ...

It makes it worse. He knew Trump was guilty and he used an unsupportable excuse to vote not-guilty.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I recall a podcast that gave the following scenario...

The President simply goes on a permanent vacation, and stops doing any of the work a President is required to do. Clearly not a crime, but a “mis-demeanor” - literally bad behavior - that he could be impeached for. I think “dereliction of duty” can be used in a descriptive sense, and need not refer to a specific crime.

I'm just talking about the crimes 'civilian' Trump can still be charged for.

 

[Puppycow]

It makes it worse. He knew Trump was guilty and he used an unsupportable excuse to vote not-guilty.

To make an analogy, it's like Trump got off on a technicality.

Like jury not convicting a guilty defendant because someone forgot to read him his Miranda rights.

I'm just glad that at least he acknowledged the facts: Biden won the election. It wasn't stolen. The rioters did what they did that day because of Trump's lie that the election had been stolen. He didn't try to pretend otherwise.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To make an analogy, it's like Trump got off on a technicality.

Like jury not convicting a guilty defendant because someone forgot to read him his Miranda rights.

I'm just glad that at least he acknowledged the facts: Biden won the election. It wasn't stolen. The rioters did what they did that day because of Trump's lie that the election had been stolen. He didn't try to pretend otherwise.

If you look at the whole picture:

1) McConnell refused to try the case until Trump was out of office
2) The House Managers made a very clear evidence supported claim it was not unconstitutional.
3) The only support the GOP Senators had that it was unconstitutional was on theoretical grounds.

It wasn't a technical reason, it was a faux technical excuse.

 

[sphenisc]

If you look at the whole picture:

1) McConnell refused to try the case until Trump was out of office
2) The House Managers made a very clear evidence supported claim it was not unconstitutional.
3) The only support the GOP Senators had that it was unconstitutional was on theoretical grounds.

It wasn't a technical reason, it was a faux technical excuse.

Does 1) mean he knowingly assisted Trump in evading due process? Shouldn't that be some kind of impeachable offence?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'm just talking about the crimes 'civilian' Trump can still be charged for.

Oh. Got it.

I had recently suggested “dereliction of duty” as a charge I thought should have been charged in the second impeachment, so I thought that’s what you were referring to.

Never mind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does 1) mean he knowingly assisted Trump in evading due process? Shouldn't that be some kind of impeachable offence?

Hard to prove intent. Pelosi was ready to give the impeachment documents to McConnell. The Senate was in recess, he refused to call them back which he had the authority to do. He knew Trump was guilty then.

And then McConnell could still argue Trump faces due process as a civilian.

 

[dirtywick]

people are mad at Mitch but Dems got the senate majority and immediately folded.

Better get used to it

 

[bruto]

It makes it worse. He knew Trump was guilty and he used an unsupportable excuse to vote not-guilty.

Once again, I agree (it's getting to be a bad habit!). And I'd add that it would not surprise me too much if the ex, with Moscow Mitch's help, pulls a catch-22 out: that a sitting President has immunity from criminal prosecution, so the remedy for disciplining a sitting President can't be used because he's out, and the remedy for disciplining a non-sitting president can't be used because he wasn't out then. And all the time Mitcn gets to play both sides - oh so sorry my hands are tied.

 

[SezMe]

Since President Obama broke the precedent of staying away from political criticism of a sitting President, I would expect we will be seeing quite a bit of Trump after his acquittal. After all fair is fair.

I'd like you to provide the first public comment Obama made that was criticism of T****. Include the date as well as the content.