I heard a clip on the radio
Probably the most dead air they have had intentionally
- Status
Probably the most dead air they have had intentionally
I don't understand complaining about a lack of criminal referrals. The Attorney General has explicitly said that he's watching 100% of these hearings, and his 1/6 prosecutors are expected to do that same. The committee is also expected to turn over their materials after the end of these sessions to the DoJ.
Any referrals are purely vestigial: Garland will either indict or not with or without them.
Any referrals are purely vestigial: Garland will either indict or not with or without them.
I’ve seen mention that he has a stammer or other speech impediment. Not sure that makes it a better decision to put him on TV.
The information was obviously good, and I'm sure this was needed to get everything on the record.
That said, the bigger play here was to get more people to give a shit, and this isn't doing it. They can make all of the referrals they want, without political backing from an energized base nothing is going to happen. We all already knew everything they've said, they're just showing us more video of it.
I absolutely despise Jim Jordon, for many reasons everyone here already knows. And, no, I don't want the direct Democrat equivalent of him that lies and is a general ahole, but being able to get people to pay attention and have some energy is a huge part of politics. Putting on a dry show that puts normal CSPAN viewers off is not what we needed.
That said, the bigger play here was to get more people to give a shit, and this isn't doing it. They can make all of the referrals they want, without political backing from an energized base nothing is going to happen. We all already knew everything they've said, they're just showing us more video of it.
I absolutely despise Jim Jordon, for many reasons everyone here already knows. And, no, I don't want the direct Democrat equivalent of him that lies and is a general ahole, but being able to get people to pay attention and have some energy is a huge part of politics. Putting on a dry show that puts normal CSPAN viewers off is not what we needed.
He’s an extremely prominent right wing judge—he was on George W. Bush’s short list for the Supreme Court. For him to unequivocally say that Trump and his allies pose an ongoing, clear and present danger to our democracy is a pretty big deal. Even though he wasn’t particularly telegenic, I can see why they found it necessary to feature his testimony.
Your country, I would agree. The world, while it's not in great shape, is not in as dire a condition. As an example, here in Australia we just gave the conservative evangelicals the worst election defeat in 70 years and elected not only a progressive federal government but a fair selection of independents to help keep them honest.
Big deal to whom? Federal prosecutors? The six people in the country who even know that factoid? To the (330,000,000 - 6) people who aren't going to get how big a deal it is because the conveyance mechanism compels one to beg for the sweet release of death?
Lots of folks!
* Federal prosecutors, especially Merrick Garland
* The media (both reporters and pundits), who will filter and interpret the hearings for the zillions of people who don’t watch them live
* People who get their news from the media, rather than watching live
* Folks like me who are old enough to remember Luttig
* I suppose I could add open-minded Republican congresspeople who might be swayed by testimony, but I’m pretty sure there aren’t any of those.
The hearings have included an impressive amount of TV-friendly razzle dazzle. But they don’t have to be all flash all the time; there’s room for testimony like Luttig’s.
Edited to add: this article by Dan Balz in the Washington Post is a good example of how Luttig’s testimony can be useful despite the poor presentation.
The Opening Arguments podcast implied that he was trying to make his testimony as boring and uncompelling as possible.
My wife found an edit of his comments, where they removed all the pauses. It made it much easier to follow his train of thought, since each sentence didn't take 30 seconds to complete, but it was still exceptionally dry testimony that only a constitutional law scholar would probably love. I agree that the strength of his testimony was based on his name recognition and the ability to extract quotes for later use (his clear and present danger line is getting extensive use). It's just too bad that for anyone watching in real time, his delivery was far and away the main focal point.
It means nothing more or less than a referral does. The DoJ prosecutes or it doesn't. We don't know the inner working of that process and likely never will, just the decision.
I agree that it's too early to lament that no one is going to get indicted, as well as the idea that no referrals from the Committee won't actually mean much. If anything these hearings are just doing the PR work for the DOJ so when they announce indictments, no one is doing a "who is this Eastman guy?"
Meanwhile, Peter Navarro pled not guilty today on his Contempt of Congress charge. His attorney (after recognizing that representing himself would make him an even bigger idiot) asked the judge to postpone the trial until after his book tour is over. That got denied. Trial starts in November.
Meanwhile, Peter Navarro pled not guilty today on his Contempt of Congress charge. His attorney (after recognizing that representing himself would make him an even bigger idiot) asked the judge to postpone the trial until after his book tour is over. That got denied. Trial starts in November.
Um... what? If the DoJ were to indict Eastman, the answer to, "Who is this Eastman guy?" would be immediately and relentlessly answered by 24/7 cable news, the homepage of every online news source, and even late-night talk & comedy variety shows.And what I said was, that question has already been answered now. Not only that, it was answered in the format and tone as set by the Committee. Who is this John Eastman? Oh, he's the fucker who came up with the January 6th coup plan, who admitted that it would never survive a challenge in the Supreme Court, rationalized it probably causing bloodshed in the streets, tried to continue pursuing it after the 6th, and then asked for a presidential pardon. THAT guy.
NPR's interview with Luttig:
They ask him point blank whether anything can be done to undo this and he says point blank that it can't be done from outside.
Talk of a rising civil conflict has been circulating for some time. If people within the federal judiciary hold such a dim view, the odds for a peaceful resolution do not look good.
The plausible best case scenario for the US in the near-term is likely akin to that of pre-Civil War US. Which is to say, de facto Balkanization wherein much, much greater legal (and cultural) differences between the States become more normal. For example, consider how big a deal slavery is as both a philosophical ethical matter as well as rote practical organizational matter. It's a big, BIG issue. To say the least.
Yet, different US states "co-existed" being on polar opposite ends of that issue for a long, long time. That's about the dimensionality of the only viable path forward the US has right now given the condition of things. The cultural and political differences between Missouri and Massachusetts will likely widen as far on many fronts on issues that are as massive today as something like slavery was back then. So long as that tenuous armistice is allowed to progress without one side trying to use the Federal government to forcibly impose more existential congruence between the states, then I'd expect the convenience of commerce, monetary union, and national defense to keep the "United States" around for awhile in a somewhat peaceful condition where people are allowed to largely self-select into which version of America they want to live in by way of moving to areas more compatible with their views.
I think you have the wrong precedent there. The last time a significant portion of the country refused to accept the results of an election, the country was at war within 3 months.
I don't think either Democrats or Republicans realize just how dangerous this nonsense is.
I don't think either Democrats or Republicans realize just how dangerous this nonsense is.
Of course the problem with this will be the quality of life differences between states will be chalked up more to abuse of the federal government rather than market failures/regulation failures. It's just kicking the can down the road and making the problems even more deep rooted.
And yet here we are two years later with no civil war in sight?
After 2016 something like 1/3 of Democrats thought the election results were illegitimate (yes 2020 Trump voters are much worse percentage wise).
EDIT -
- A 58 percent majority of Clinton supporters say they accept Trump’s election, while 33 percent do not. Questions about Trump’s victory are passionate — 27 percent of Clinton supporters feel “strongly” he did not win legitimately.
There are sharp racial and gender differences in Clinton supporters’ acceptance of the results. Only 18 percent of whites who supported Clinton say Trump is not the legitimate winner, identical to the public overall, but fully 51 percent of black, Hispanic and other nonwhite Clinton supporters say Trump’s victory was illegitimate. Women who supported Clinton are twice as likely as men to question the legitimacy of Trump’s victory, 42 vs. 21 percent.
Let us never forget the pink hat brigade and their storming of the capitol after Trumps Election!
27% Thought Bush was illegitmate in 2000.
we had in 1992 Republicans questioning the legitimacy of Clintons win because he didn't have a majority or "mandate" and other bullshit that Gingrinch worked hard to spin up. This is just a long trend and inevitable escalation... and when one side does it, the other will see it and emulate it even if it's not consciously done.
27% Thought Bush was illegitmate in 2000.
we had in 1992 Republicans questioning the legitimacy of Clintons win because he didn't have a majority or "mandate" and other bullshit that Gingrinch worked hard to spin up. This is just a long trend and inevitable escalation... and when one side does it, the other will see it and emulate it even if it's not consciously done.
There's a huge difference between a minority of the very political saying something and a majority of the major losing party lying about the election results. If they're motivated enough to lie about it, what else are they motivated enough to do?
Point of order, the 2016 elections were attacked, and the federal government spent 4 years hardening state elections processes and educating local officials. I recommend reading up on the War on Pineapple to understand why the integrity of the 2020 election was fundamentally different than the 2016 election. In no small part because we learned lessons and implemented fixes.
What makes election integrity especially challenging is that the fraud drum has been beating for years now, so regardless of merit, is being casually accepted by people only superficially aware of political news. This, coupled with erosion of decency and fairness in public discourse makes egregious actions much less noteworthy.
I suppose that makes sense in a world where people trust journalists, confronting contradiction resulted in revising one's position, and people got their perspectives from more traditional new sources, but that's not the world you inhabit.
The Republicans are aware. The base has been wanting a hot Civil War since way back when they used to be called Democrats. The base is just big enough and cohesive enough to make that reality rather than curiosity.
Also, I don't understand people's inability to comprehend that I'm obviously talking about best case scenario given the practical conditions on the ground. Not best case scenario within the platonic ideal of circumstances. If "The Left" tries to compel its legitimacy among the non-conforming "Right" (e.g. abortion bans, etc.) by force, you're more likely to get a hot Civil War sooner rather than later. If "The Right" tries to compel the non-conforming "Left" (e.g. sanctuary cities, etc.), then you'll end up in a hot Civil War just not as quickly because the American Left is mostly non-confrontational and fine subordinating itself to the American Right.
There are only two paths forward in the US for the foreseeable future with respect to a kind of tenuous peaceful stability. Either the Left just lets itself be subordinated by the Right in order to avoid open conflict. Since there's absolutely no way in hell the Right would similarly capitulate, it would be up to the Left to "turn the other cheek" as it were. Alternatively, the scenario I think is the better alternative (as it still leaves open the possibility of people voting with their feet) is everyone more or less getting used to people who live someplace else going on about life in a way they vehemently disagree with, but they'll tolerate so long as it's happening "over there".
Sure it's entirely likely that the Christian Fascist death cult is principally expansionary, and in that case the best case scenario given practical realities won't happen either.
This is a fundamentally different phenomena: the Women's March never denied that Trump won the election by the election's rules and was only claiming that they didn't approve of the outcome, not that it was inherently illegitimate and therefore should be undone. Trump, on the other hand, is doing exactly that, calling for the 2020 election to be undone. Which is why one thing wasn't a threat to the Union while the other very much is.
Sadly, it's been drifting that way for a few years now. People tend to take things literally, even when the satire and puns should be obvious. Probably an indicator of the confrontational times we're living through.
Poe's Law continues to encompass more and more of our discourse.
and, as a result of this, I tend to play the straight man. Sadly, satire isn't very funny when you know that it will indeed be what the opposition claims / has already been claiming.
Disagree, it's still funny even if it's gallows humor. Plus "pussy hat riots" just has a nice ring to it.
Watching the GA election worker (and her mother) testify about the hell they've gone through, simply because they were some of the election workers when that box of ballots was taken out and counted. I would absolutely love it if they sue both Trump and Giuliani for millions of dollars for slander. These are women who are afraid to leave their homes because of all the crazy people that were unleashed on them by two people who KNEW they were doing their jobs correctly, but kept spinning the lie against them just so that one of them could stay in power.
Fuck both of them. This is amazingly powerful to have this low level election worker testify about how their lives were pretty much destroyed by these lies.
Fuck both of them. This is amazingly powerful to have this low level election worker testify about how their lives were pretty much destroyed by these lies.
I can't get over the last several years of listening to lawyers & media figures find clever ways of saying that rich & powerful liars can never be indicted because the standard of mens rea is too high in our Federal legal system for them to ever be convicted. That may be a feature for multi-millionaires and politicians but its a bug to the rest of us who live under a system that realistically assumes we are guilty if a cop is willing to testify against us.
And then me thinking, indict them. A DC jury will convict them. If SCOTUS wants to make it impossible to prosecute white collar criminals & corrupt politicians, even for attempting a coup, then it is on them.
Our establishment political and media class needs to wake the fuck up because I guarantee had this happened in France or any other of our peer nations, they would have locked Trump and his cronies up ASAP and made sure whatever judges were assigned to the case, were from the "bring back capital punishment" social club. Trump should be in Gitmo getting the terrorist spa package!
And then me thinking, indict them. A DC jury will convict them. If SCOTUS wants to make it impossible to prosecute white collar criminals & corrupt politicians, even for attempting a coup, then it is on them.
Our establishment political and media class needs to wake the fuck up because I guarantee had this happened in France or any other of our peer nations, they would have locked Trump and his cronies up ASAP and made sure whatever judges were assigned to the case, were from the "bring back capital punishment" social club. Trump should be in Gitmo getting the terrorist spa package!
I agree, WRT "indict them."
We're a democracy. If our laws suck regarding white collar crimes, the first step is to send a bunch of cases to the courts, have the defendants get off for reasons that normal people can see are bullshit, and then our politicians can harness the public rage to implement stricter laws.
We're a democracy. If our laws suck regarding white collar crimes, the first step is to send a bunch of cases to the courts, have the defendants get off for reasons that normal people can see are bullshit, and then our politicians can harness the public rage to implement stricter laws.
Yup. Start with the lawyers: Eastman, Giuliani, Ellis, and Powell. The people who certainly knew better about the law, but did it anyway. They're all pretty much slam dunks in terms of other people on the record as having conversations with them where they admitted they knew they didn't have evidence or the law on their side, but they pushed anyway.
And then for the love of God, indict Trump. Stop with the "but there will be civil unrest if they do". There won't be a democracy for long if he isn't. So pick one. And concern over whether they can convince a jury that Trump knew what he was doing was wrong? You know what, let his lawyers argue that he can't tell the difference. Let them argue that he had dozens of people saying that he lost fair and square and that he didn't have a legal argument to continue fighting, but he decided to take the advice of a handful of people who everyone else thought were idiots and who all ended up losing their ability to practice law. If they can convince a jury that he's a gullible egomaniac who can't tell right from wrong, so he can't be guilty of those crimes, I guess I'll take it.
And then for the love of God, indict Trump. Stop with the "but there will be civil unrest if they do". There won't be a democracy for long if he isn't. So pick one. And concern over whether they can convince a jury that Trump knew what he was doing was wrong? You know what, let his lawyers argue that he can't tell the difference. Let them argue that he had dozens of people saying that he lost fair and square and that he didn't have a legal argument to continue fighting, but he decided to take the advice of a handful of people who everyone else thought were idiots and who all ended up losing their ability to practice law. If they can convince a jury that he's a gullible egomaniac who can't tell right from wrong, so he can't be guilty of those crimes, I guess I'll take it.
I think ron johnson might be well advised to be getting himself a f'ing good criminal defence lawyer. The shaman got 41 months in a plea and he was not involved in attempting to pass along a slate of fake electors to the vice president.
The politicians aren't going to do that. There's a very good reason why the US never does much of anything to stop exploitation, corruption, etc. There are a lot of people in every class strata who don't want justice to be swift nor punishments harsh for those things because they hope themselves to be able to take advantage of them one day too. It's a flavor of "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" syndrome.
- Status