Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 536988 times)

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4369
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7350 on: January 26, 2021, 09:46:33 AM »
The news this morning pointed out that we've had more COVID deaths now than Americans killed in WWII. Then they proceeded to talk about the ways you can't compare WWII deaths to COVID deaths which left me irritated. Regardless of how we want to split those hairs - it is lives lost and lives wasted.

Well, no, you can't directly compare them. Those deaths were caused by enemy soldiers who directly intended to kill US troops, and occurred over a period of nearly 4 years and more than 75 years ago (when both military and medical knowledge and technology were sufficiently less advanced).

We're up to 421,670 COVID-19 deaths in the US since records were first kept 11 months ago (or 141 9/11 death toll-equivalents, for further perspective).

Edit because the COVID-19 death toll (as per the Johns Hopkins tracker) has increased by 220 in the 5 minutes since posting.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2021, 09:51:42 AM by OtherJen »

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4274
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7351 on: January 26, 2021, 09:58:51 AM »
I guess a comparison of COVID health crisis and WWII would have to include a discussion about the policy/nation-building goals. Was the US ultimately secured by following the path that included those 400,000 deaths? American desperately tried to stay out of the war until our own soil was attacked at Pearl Harbor.

Fireball

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7352 on: January 28, 2021, 11:22:20 AM »
I guess a comparison of COVID health crisis and WWII would have to include a discussion about the policy/nation-building goals. Was the US ultimately secured by following the path that included those 400,000 deaths? American desperately tried to stay out of the war until our own soil was attacked at Pearl Harbor.

Hmmm. I don't know if I would say that, but that's probably for another thread.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2021, 11:27:44 AM by Fireball »

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2391
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7353 on: January 29, 2021, 03:46:12 AM »
I guess a comparison of COVID health crisis and WWII would have to include a discussion about the policy/nation-building goals. Was the US ultimately secured by following the path that included those 400,000 deaths? American desperately tried to stay out of the war until our own soil was attacked at Pearl Harbor.

Hmmm. I don't know if I would say that, but that's probably for another thread.
Because of the "own soil" naming of violently occupied territory?

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4274
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7354 on: January 29, 2021, 08:35:10 AM »
I'll own that using "own soil" to describe Hawai'i elides the circumstances under which the US gained control over the island chain.

If someone has reason to disbelieve that--in the domestic politics of 1941--US public sentiment towards sending troops and ships into combat changed because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I'll listen.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14392
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7355 on: January 29, 2021, 08:45:49 AM »
I'll own that using "own soil" to describe Hawai'i elides the circumstances under which the US gained control over the island chain.

If someone has reason to disbelieve that--in the domestic politics of 1941--US public sentiment towards sending troops and ships into combat changed because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I'll listen.

Having lived in Hawai'i and learned something of its pre-statehood history, I'm a bit confused here ("violently occupied territory" a la LennStar)
By popular accounts, the presence of the US naval base (Pearl Harbor) was generally welcomed by the nation of Hawai'i, and they were actively (i.e. politically) enguaged in moving towards joining the US even before the attack in 1941. Of course not everyone agreed at the time, but overall it was seen as mutually beneficial at the time. Hawai'ii even designed its flag as a political gesture to both the US and Great Brittan.  The monarchy saw close alliance, if not outright joining these western powers as essential for the prosperity of Hawai'i in the 20th century.


sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7356 on: January 29, 2021, 08:47:33 AM »
I'll own that using "own soil" to describe Hawai'i elides the circumstances under which the US gained control over the island chain.

If someone has reason to disbelieve that--in the domestic politics of 1941--US public sentiment towards sending troops and ships into combat changed because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I'll listen.

I assumed the comment was going the other way, rejecting the notion that the US "desperately tried to stay out of the war" until Pearl Harbor. The US military was attacked several times, and did its own attacking several times, before Pearl Harbor. Not to mention the supplies that we were sending to the Allies. The US definitively had a side before Pearl Harbor, we were definitely supporting the Allies and trying to sabotage the Axis, that was just the trigger that made us drop all pretenses and engage in an all-out hot war.

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2975
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7357 on: January 29, 2021, 08:52:33 AM »
I'll own that using "own soil" to describe Hawai'i elides the circumstances under which the US gained control over the island chain.

If someone has reason to disbelieve that--in the domestic politics of 1941--US public sentiment towards sending troops and ships into combat changed because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I'll listen.

I assumed the comment was going the other way, rejecting the notion that the US "desperately tried to stay out of the war" until Pearl Harbor. The US military was attacked several times, and did its own attacking several times, before Pearl Harbor. Not to mention the supplies that we were sending to the Allies. The US definitively had a side before Pearl Harbor, we were definitely supporting the Allies and trying to sabotage the Axis, that was just the trigger that made us drop all pretenses and engage in an all-out hot war.

Combining the actual timelines mentioned here, it has been argued that the US was desperately trying to join the war, but public sentiment required it's "Remember the Maine" moment.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14392
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7358 on: January 29, 2021, 08:55:15 AM »
I'll own that using "own soil" to describe Hawai'i elides the circumstances under which the US gained control over the island chain.

If someone has reason to disbelieve that--in the domestic politics of 1941--US public sentiment towards sending troops and ships into combat changed because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I'll listen.

I assumed the comment was going the other way, rejecting the notion that the US "desperately tried to stay out of the war" until Pearl Harbor. The US military was attacked several times, and did its own attacking several times, before Pearl Harbor. Not to mention the supplies that we were sending to the Allies. The US definitively had a side before Pearl Harbor, we were definitely supporting the Allies and trying to sabotage the Axis, that was just the trigger that made us drop all pretenses and engage in an all-out hot war.

No arguments there, though public sentiment WAS decidedly against openly joining the war up until Pearl Harbor.  We were actively supplying the allies with weapons and equipment as early as 1936. By 1939 we were ramping up production of everything from tanks to rifles

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17663
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7359 on: January 29, 2021, 09:01:32 AM »
I'll own that using "own soil" to describe Hawai'i elides the circumstances under which the US gained control over the island chain.

If someone has reason to disbelieve that--in the domestic politics of 1941--US public sentiment towards sending troops and ships into combat changed because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I'll listen.

I assumed the comment was going the other way, rejecting the notion that the US "desperately tried to stay out of the war" until Pearl Harbor. The US military was attacked several times, and did its own attacking several times, before Pearl Harbor. Not to mention the supplies that we were sending to the Allies. The US definitively had a side before Pearl Harbor, we were definitely supporting the Allies and trying to sabotage the Axis, that was just the trigger that made us drop all pretenses and engage in an all-out hot war.

Combining the actual timelines mentioned here, it has been argued that the US was desperately trying to join the war, but public sentiment required it's "Remember the Maine" moment.

Yeah.  The US had been supporting China's military through supplies, cash, and mercenaries prior to Pearl Harbour and Roosevelt was desperately trying to get the US into the war.  The whole reason the US military was in Hawaii to begin with was in the hopes of provoking the Japanese into military action.

FWIW - this was an instance where I think there was pretty clear cut reason to go to war.  Imperial Japan was aggressive, and perpetrated some pretty horrific crimes.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7360 on: January 29, 2021, 09:08:14 AM »
FWIW - this was an instance where I think there was pretty clear cut reason to go to war.  Imperial Japan was aggressive, and perpetrated some pretty horrific crimes.

Oh I don't think anyone's arguing with you. The Axis are some of the most unambiguous "bad guys" in modern history, and that's only slightly colored by the victors writing the history books. If there's ever any reason to go to war, it's to fight people like that.

But it's also not true that the US was "neutral" before Pearl Harbor (which I know is not what texan said). We had a side, we were supporting our side, and Japan felt like they had to stop us from supporting their enemies if they were going to have any chance of winning. That much is pretty factual, how dastardly the attack on Pearl Harbor was and how much we "desperately tried to stay out of the war" before that is more a matter of opinion.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4274
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7361 on: January 29, 2021, 09:10:43 AM »
I'll own that using "own soil" to describe Hawai'i elides the circumstances under which the US gained control over the island chain.

If someone has reason to disbelieve that--in the domestic politics of 1941--US public sentiment towards sending troops and ships into combat changed because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I'll listen.

I assumed the comment was going the other way, rejecting the notion that the US "desperately tried to stay out of the war" until Pearl Harbor. The US military was attacked several times, and did its own attacking several times, before Pearl Harbor. Not to mention the supplies that we were sending to the Allies. The US definitively had a side before Pearl Harbor, we were definitely supporting the Allies and trying to sabotage the Axis, that was just the trigger that made us drop all pretenses and engage in an all-out hot war.

Thanks for this list. There is no excused for me not acknowledging the Reuben James as I've been listening to the Kingston Trio song about it for decades.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14392
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7362 on: January 29, 2021, 09:16:30 AM »

FWIW - this was an instance where I think there was pretty clear cut reason to go to war.  Imperial Japan was aggressive, and perpetrated some pretty horrific crimes.

Speaking of which, I've been reading a book on 'Unit 731' -- something I knew absolutely nothing about until very recently. 

In a nutshell, Unit 731 was a ghastly testing ground for the Japanese Imperial military for designing and learning about the effects of chemical, biological and conventional weapons. They used living prisoners to test all sorts of lethal and sub-lethal devices, like spraying them with plague or tying them up in rows and detonating a bomb to see how lethal its range was.  Almost any conceivable military weapon at the time was tested on live subjects.

By some accounts, more than 250,000 were killed in experiments at Unit 731.  Some 4,000 Japanese worked at unit 731, but it remained a close secret until the 1980s.  After the war it's chief commander, Shirō Ishii, was allowed to retire to a quiet civilian life - he and almost all the other officers involved never went in front of war crime tribunals as the Nazis who ran the concentration/death camps did. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17663
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7363 on: January 29, 2021, 09:26:10 AM »

FWIW - this was an instance where I think there was pretty clear cut reason to go to war.  Imperial Japan was aggressive, and perpetrated some pretty horrific crimes.

Speaking of which, I've been reading a book on 'Unit 731' -- something I knew absolutely nothing about until very recently. 

In a nutshell, Unit 731 was a ghastly testing ground for the Japanese Imperial military for designing and learning about the effects of chemical, biological and conventional weapons. They used living prisoners to test all sorts of lethal and sub-lethal devices, like spraying them with plague or tying them up in rows and detonating a bomb to see how lethal its range was.  Almost any conceivable military weapon at the time was tested on live subjects.

By some accounts, more than 250,000 were killed in experiments at Unit 731.  Some 4,000 Japanese worked at unit 731, but it remained a close secret until the 1980s.  After the war it's chief commander, Shirō Ishii, was allowed to retire to a quiet civilian life - he and almost all the other officers involved never went in front of war crime tribunals as the Nazis who ran the concentration/death camps did.

Yep.  Including infecting people with disease to see how long it took for them to die, freezing people to death, and all manner of terrible shit.  Imperial Japan had this pseudo religious undertone to everything they did that was used as justification of some really terrible things.  I get the historical roots of why it happened . . . but there was some evil cultural shit going on.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5943

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7365 on: January 29, 2021, 11:03:29 AM »


Speaking of which, I've been reading a book on 'Unit 731' -- something I knew absolutely nothing about until very recently. 

In a nutshell, Unit 731 was a ghastly testing ground for the Japanese Imperial military for designing and learning about the effects of chemical, biological and conventional weapons. They used living prisoners to test all sorts of lethal and sub-lethal devices, like spraying them with plague or tying them up in rows and detonating a bomb to see how lethal its range was.  Almost any conceivable military weapon at the time was tested on live subjects.

By some accounts, more than 250,000 were killed in experiments at Unit 731.  Some 4,000 Japanese worked at unit 731, but it remained a close secret until the 1980s.  After the war it's chief commander, Shirō Ishii, was allowed to retire to a quiet civilian life - he and almost all the other officers involved never went in front of war crime tribunals as the Nazis who ran the concentration/death camps did.

Japanese soldiers also perpetrated the grisly Nanjing Massacre which included evil so bestial that it shocked some of the Nazis who lived there. I was told that soldiers murdered Chinese babies by tossing them up in the air and catching them on bayonets.

Wikipedia

“…Nanking should be remembered not only for the number of people slaughtered but for the cruel manner in which many met their deaths.

Chinese men were used for bayonet practice and in decapitation contests.

An estimated 20,000 – 80,000 Chinese women were raped.

Many soldiers went beyond rape to disembowel women, slice off their breasts, and nail them alive to walls.

Fathers were forced to rape their daughters, and sons their mothers, as other family members watched.

Not only did live burials, castration, the carving of organs, and the roasting of people become routine, but more diabolical tortures were practiced, such as hanging people by their tongues on iron hooks or burying people to their waists and watching them get torn apart by German shepherds.

So sickening was the spectacle that even Nazis in the city were horrified, one proclaiming the massacre to be the work of bestial machinery.”
« Last Edit: January 29, 2021, 11:08:36 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17663
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7366 on: January 29, 2021, 12:15:12 PM »
Fathers were forced to rape their daughters, and sons their mothers, as other family members watched.

Echoes of the innocent men in US military custody who were forced to rape other male prisoners for the pleasure of their American captors in Abu Ghraib.


It's important not to get too comfortable and to remember that no person is very far away from atrocity . . . usually it's just our laws and leadership that prevent it.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4658
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7367 on: January 29, 2021, 12:28:12 PM »
 All good reasons to enforce the law on participants in recent events. We don't want anyone in power to get too comfortable calling for violence and not get prosecuted. A decade or so of unlimited rhetoric like we have recently witnessed might lead to some seriously bad outcomes. We wind up with someone truly unhinged who wants to nuke an international neighbor or invade Mexico or something similar.

A situation where words and actions derail a society going along just fine before.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2391
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7368 on: January 30, 2021, 04:32:56 AM »
Uhh, the Nanjing Massacre. *shudder* I had to do a paper on it. I didn't feel good that whole week I wrote it, I can tell you! It was a worse feeling than standing in a Nazi gas chamber.

I'll own that using "own soil" to describe Hawai'i elides the circumstances under which the US gained control over the island chain.

If someone has reason to disbelieve that--in the domestic politics of 1941--US public sentiment towards sending troops and ships into combat changed because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I'll listen.

Having lived in Hawai'i and learned something of its pre-statehood history, I'm a bit confused here ("violently occupied territory" a la LennStar)
By popular accounts, the presence of the US naval base (Pearl Harbor) was generally welcomed by the nation of Hawai'i, and they were actively (i.e. politically) enguaged in moving towards joining the US even before the attack in 1941. Of course not everyone agreed at the time, but overall it was seen as mutually beneficial at the time. Hawai'ii even designed its flag as a political gesture to both the US and Great Brittan.  The monarchy saw close alliance, if not outright joining these western powers as essential for the prosperity of Hawai'i in the 20th century.
The Queen of Hawaii was arrested in 1893 by US marines based on the wishes of "Banana" Dole, who then became president. And during the Mexican-US war the US government annexed Hawaii (the US government simply declared "it's our's now") because of it's strategic importance.
It may not have been a bloody war, but it still was a coup under weapons, hence "violent" is the correct description. 

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3174
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7369 on: January 31, 2021, 04:08:03 AM »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6312
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7370 on: January 31, 2021, 04:55:06 AM »
Hahaha, Donnie's lawyers quit!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-impeachment-lawyers-quit_n_601613a8c5b63b0fb2817d9c
As I understand it Trump wants his lawyers to continue with the "election was stolen" motif and they can't do that in a trial without losing their licences.  So a complete impass: he won't find any lawyer that cares about their licence to defend him in a formal legal setting on that basis.

If Trump accepts that the election was fair, he has no defence for his "stop the steal" rhetoric.  If he doesn't accept that the election was fair he can't get a lawyer to defend his impeachment.  An interesting dilemma for him.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4369
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7371 on: January 31, 2021, 05:01:03 AM »
Hahaha, Donnie's lawyers quit!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-impeachment-lawyers-quit_n_601613a8c5b63b0fb2817d9c
As I understand it Trump wants his lawyers to continue with the "election was stolen" motif and they can't do that in a trial without losing their licences.  So a complete impass: he won't find any lawyer that cares about their licence to defend him in a formal legal setting on that basis.

If Trump accepts that the election was fair, he has no defence for his "stop the steal" rhetoric.  If he doesn't accept that the election was fair he can't get a lawyer to defend his impeachment.  An interesting dilemma for him.

He won't be convicted either way, and knows it, so he may as well forgo the lawyers and represent himself.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3515
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7372 on: January 31, 2021, 05:58:41 AM »
Recently, DW discovered C-SPAN and has been binging all kinds of content. She found this from the White House Correspondents Dinner. Only 100 days into Trump's term, yet all of these comments could have been made a month ago and we wouldn't have known the difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7oG74nHSTQ

markbike528CBX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Location: the Everbrown part of the Evergreen State (WA)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7373 on: January 31, 2021, 06:14:23 AM »
Hahaha, Donnie's lawyers quit!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-impeachment-lawyers-quit_n_601613a8c5b63b0fb2817d9c
As I understand it Trump wants his lawyers to continue with the "election was stolen" motif and they can't do that in a trial without losing their licences.  So a complete impass: he won't find any lawyer that cares about their licence to defend him in a formal legal setting on that basis.

If Trump accepts that the election was fair, he has no defence for his "stop the steal" rhetoric.  If he doesn't accept that the election was fair he can't get a lawyer to defend his impeachment.  An interesting dilemma for him.

He won't be convicted either way, and knows it, so he may as well forgo the lawyers and represent himself.
And if a lawyer loses a license defending him, then he won't have to pay for lawyer services.
  A win-win for him. /s

markbike528CBX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Location: the Everbrown part of the Evergreen State (WA)
Re: Trump giggle of the day
« Reply #7374 on: January 31, 2021, 06:17:57 AM »
Could we change the name of the thread to giggle of the day?

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4420
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7375 on: January 31, 2021, 06:58:40 AM »
If you want a giggle, can have giuliani's twitter quote, where he inadvertently lumps reagan and trump and traitors together. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indy100.com/offbeat/rudy-giuliani-trump-twitter-oxford-comma-b1794124%3famp 

Alfred J Quack

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Location: Netherlands
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7376 on: January 31, 2021, 07:03:30 AM »
Hahaha, Donnie's lawyers quit!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-impeachment-lawyers-quit_n_601613a8c5b63b0fb2817d9c
As I understand it Trump wants his lawyers to continue with the "election was stolen" motif and they can't do that in a trial without losing their licences.  So a complete impass: he won't find any lawyer that cares about their licence to defend him in a formal legal setting on that basis.

If Trump accepts that the election was fair, he has no defence for his "stop the steal" rhetoric.  If he doesn't accept that the election was fair he can't get a lawyer to defend his impeachment.  An interesting dilemma for him.

He won't be convicted either way, and knows it, so he may as well forgo the lawyers and represent himself.

Well, if he's is own lawyer he must really be the bestest lawyer ever, even if he does have a fool for a client.

OzzieandHarriet

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 497
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7377 on: January 31, 2021, 09:15:24 AM »
This isn’t so much “of the day” as “of the year,” but ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/us/politics/trump-right-wing-domestic-terrorism.html

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17663
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7378 on: January 31, 2021, 10:14:06 AM »
This isn’t so much “of the day” as “of the year,” but ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/us/politics/trump-right-wing-domestic-terrorism.html

It's almost like there were consequences for pretending that both sides are equal . . . when the risk and threat from extreme right groups were in reality far worse.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4659
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7379 on: January 31, 2021, 12:30:18 PM »
Is that article really just one sentence long? I got blocked by pop asking me to signup, so i opened in incognito, and it's one sentence long.

Quote
WASHINGTON — As racial justice protests erupted nationwide last year, President Donald J. Trump, struggling to find a winning campaign theme, hit on a message that he stressed over and over: The real domestic threat to the United States emanated from the radical left, even though law enforcement authorities had long since concluded it came from the far right.

Dollar Slice

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6842
  • Age: 43
  • Location: New York City
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7380 on: January 31, 2021, 12:53:15 PM »
Is that article really just one sentence long? I got blocked by pop asking me to signup, so i opened in incognito, and it's one sentence long.

Quote
WASHINGTON — As racial justice protests erupted nationwide last year, President Donald J. Trump, struggling to find a winning campaign theme, hit on a message that he stressed over and over: The real domestic threat to the United States emanated from the radical left, even though law enforcement authorities had long since concluded it came from the far right.

No, that's just the first paragraph. It's a long article. Maybe they figured out a way to beat your paywall avoidance.

OzzieandHarriet

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 497
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7381 on: January 31, 2021, 01:46:16 PM »
This isn’t so much “of the day” as “of the year,” but ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/us/politics/trump-right-wing-domestic-terrorism.html

It's almost like there were consequences for pretending that both sides are equal . . . when the risk and threat from extreme right groups were in reality far worse.

I have a strong suspicion the misdirection was intentional.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3515
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7382 on: January 31, 2021, 05:08:18 PM »
This isn’t so much “of the day” as “of the year,” but ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/us/politics/trump-right-wing-domestic-terrorism.html

It's almost like there were consequences for pretending that both sides are equal . . . when the risk and threat from extreme right groups were in reality far worse.

I have a strong suspicion the misdirection was intentional.

The current Republican narrative is not to condemn the 6 Jan rioters, but to say "we condemn all violence" or "both sides are responsible for 6 Jan" without naming names.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17663
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7383 on: January 31, 2021, 05:48:00 PM »
This isn’t so much “of the day” as “of the year,” but ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/us/politics/trump-right-wing-domestic-terrorism.html

It's almost like there were consequences for pretending that both sides are equal . . . when the risk and threat from extreme right groups were in reality far worse.

I have a strong suspicion the misdirection was intentional.

The current Republican narrative is not to condemn the 6 Jan rioters, but to say "we condemn all violence" or "both sides are responsible for 6 Jan" without naming names.

All lives matter, right?

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5543
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7384 on: February 01, 2021, 09:04:55 AM »
Trump found some lawyers for his impeachment trial. I don't know if it would be good for the country but it would be comical if they argued the "election was stolen" case. Especially if the Shaman was called as a witness.


sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7385 on: February 01, 2021, 09:19:44 AM »
Trump found some lawyers for his impeachment trial. I don't know if it would be good for the country but it would be comical if they argued the "election was stolen" case. Especially if the Shaman was called as a witness.

I understand that Trump is pushing this line of defense, but I don't get why.  It's not a defense to the charge.  Even if the election really had been stolen, you can't incite an insurrection or violence or anything like that. 

But then again, I do get why.  They don't have to put on a real defense to the actual charges, since they already have acquittal in the bag.  But it is an opportuity for them to further the Big Lie, so why wouldn't they take it and further inflame the conspiracy theorists and desperate white supremacists, in fact inflaming further future violence.

This March 4th conspiracy theory is next up and Trump is getting handed the perfect opportunity to make his followers even more rabid in time for it.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7386 on: February 01, 2021, 09:49:07 AM »
Trump found some lawyers for his impeachment trial. I don't know if it would be good for the country but it would be comical if they argued the "election was stolen" case. Especially if the Shaman was called as a witness.

I understand that Trump is pushing this line of defense, but I don't get why.  It's not a defense to the charge.  Even if the election really had been stolen, you can't incite an insurrection or violence or anything like that. 

But then again, I do get why.  They don't have to put on a real defense to the actual charges, since they already have acquittal in the bag.  But it is an opportuity for them to further the Big Lie, so why wouldn't they take it and further inflame the conspiracy theorists and desperate white supremacists, in fact inflaming further future violence.

This March 4th conspiracy theory is next up and Trump is getting handed the perfect opportunity to make his followers even more rabid in time for it.

Hmm, I actually don't 100% agree with this. If the election were actually stolen, then you wouldn't be inciting an insurrection. You would be inviting a militia to take out the real insurrectionists.

Just like if Trump had actually succeeded in performing a coup of the government, I think we would have likely seen several assassination attempts which honestly, in my mind, would have been a valid form of overthrowing an illegitimate regime.

The real problem Trump has here is that he is a known liar, isn't very smart, and has no evidence to back his claims. If this were a regular court instead of a kangaroo senate court, this would be an open and shut case Trump goes to jail with the rest of the insurrectionists.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2021, 09:59:07 AM by FIPurpose »

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4274
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7387 on: February 01, 2021, 09:52:25 AM »
Indeed the real tragedy isn't that Trump cannot find an attorney to defend him, but that it doesn't matter.

markbike528CBX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Location: the Everbrown part of the Evergreen State (WA)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7388 on: February 01, 2021, 09:52:53 AM »
Maybe Trump will be found not guilty on the grounds of insanity.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7389 on: February 01, 2021, 09:58:33 AM »
Trump found some lawyers for his impeachment trial. I don't know if it would be good for the country but it would be comical if they argued the "election was stolen" case. Especially if the Shaman was called as a witness.

I understand that Trump is pushing this line of defense, but I don't get why.  It's not a defense to the charge.  Even if the election really had been stolen, you can't incite an insurrection or violence or anything like that. 

But then again, I do get why.  They don't have to put on a real defense to the actual charges, since they already have acquittal in the bag.  But it is an opportuity for them to further the Big Lie, so why wouldn't they take it and further inflame the conspiracy theorists and desperate white supremacists, in fact inflaming further future violence.

This March 4th conspiracy theory is next up and Trump is getting handed the perfect opportunity to make his followers even more rabid in time for it.

Hmm, I actually don't 100% agree with this. If the election were actually stolen, then you wouldn't be inciting an insurrection. You would inviting a militia to take out the real insurrectionists.

Just like if Trump had actually succeeded in performing a coup of the government, I think we would have likely seen several assassination attempts and honestly, in my mind, would have been a valid form of overthrowing an illegitimate regime.

The real problem Trump has here is that he is a known liar, isn't very smart, and has no evidence to back his claims. If this were a regular court instead of a kangaroo senate court, this would be an open and shut case Trump goes to jail with the rest of the insurrectionists.

You still do not have a right to do the bolded.  There are processes to redress stolen elections.  You follow the processes.  That's the whole reason we have the Rule of Law in this country, not just so that you can chuck it out the window when you feel like you've given it a fair try.  Rule of Law even admits that sometimes the guilty will go free, sometimes the law won't get the right outcome, but by living in this society, we agree to abide by those results even sometimes when the law gets it wrong.  If Trump and his crazy followers had been right, they still don't have the right, under the law, to go all vigilante and choose their own methods of justice.  Bush v. Gore is a great example of a serious injustice.  But it was the outcome under the law and that's how America works.

Of course, impeachment and conviction is more about politics than a legal proceeding precisely, but it's just as important that we uphold the rule of law here as if someone had gone and murdered a person after they found out that person had stolen money from their mom, or if Harvey Weinstein gets out of jail tomorrow and a group of women descend on him and tear him limb from limb.  Those things may be deserved but it's still not ok.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7390 on: February 01, 2021, 10:05:21 AM »
Trump found some lawyers for his impeachment trial. I don't know if it would be good for the country but it would be comical if they argued the "election was stolen" case. Especially if the Shaman was called as a witness.

I understand that Trump is pushing this line of defense, but I don't get why.  It's not a defense to the charge.  Even if the election really had been stolen, you can't incite an insurrection or violence or anything like that. 

But then again, I do get why.  They don't have to put on a real defense to the actual charges, since they already have acquittal in the bag.  But it is an opportuity for them to further the Big Lie, so why wouldn't they take it and further inflame the conspiracy theorists and desperate white supremacists, in fact inflaming further future violence.

This March 4th conspiracy theory is next up and Trump is getting handed the perfect opportunity to make his followers even more rabid in time for it.

Hmm, I actually don't 100% agree with this. If the election were actually stolen, then you wouldn't be inciting an insurrection. You would inviting a militia to take out the real insurrectionists.

Just like if Trump had actually succeeded in performing a coup of the government, I think we would have likely seen several assassination attempts and honestly, in my mind, would have been a valid form of overthrowing an illegitimate regime.

The real problem Trump has here is that he is a known liar, isn't very smart, and has no evidence to back his claims. If this were a regular court instead of a kangaroo senate court, this would be an open and shut case Trump goes to jail with the rest of the insurrectionists.

You still do not have a right to do the bolded.  There are processes to redress stolen elections.  You follow the processes.  That's the whole reason we have the Rule of Law in this country, not just so that you can chuck it out the window when you feel like you've given it a fair try.  Rule of Law even admits that sometimes the guilty will go free, sometimes the law won't get the right outcome, but by living in this society, we agree to abide by those results even sometimes when the law gets it wrong.  If Trump and his crazy followers had been right, they still don't have the right, under the law, to go all vigilante and choose their own methods of justice.  Bush v. Gore is a great example of a serious injustice.  But it was the outcome under the law and that's how America works.

Of course, impeachment and conviction is more about politics than a legal proceeding precisely, but it's just as important that we uphold the rule of law here as if someone had gone and murdered a person after they found out that person had stolen money from their mom, or if Harvey Weinstein gets out of jail tomorrow and a group of women descend on him and tear him limb from limb.  Those things may be deserved but it's still not ok.

The hypothetical of Trump performing a coup and maintaining power precludes that idea that the "Rule of Law" has already been thrown out the window. But here's where the part of Trump is just plain stupid comes in: in order to successfully perform a coup, you'd need the backing of the cabinet, the military leaders, and controlling power over at least 60% of congress. Even if he had succeeded in executing Pence, he still would have failed because no one with any power was backing him except about 20% of the House and 7% of the Senate.

It was a stupid move then, it's a stupid defense now.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2868
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7391 on: February 01, 2021, 10:05:42 AM »
What other defense does Trump have than stop the steal, though? That is the only possible justification for his actions. What will be more interesting is the gymnastics the senators will go through to to make their case against impeachment. Will they argue stop the steal? Will they stick to "unconstitutional" because he is out of office, despite precedent to the contrary? I expect the dissonance between observable reality and conspiracy will be sickening. "There are 5 lights" as they saying goes.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4659
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7392 on: February 01, 2021, 10:19:17 AM »
Maybe Trump will be found not guilty on the grounds of insanity.

He'll be found not guilty on the grounds of the republican party being a lost cause bag of dog shit.  I kept thinking every time they crossed another line that "surely this the point the GOP will say 'no, no, this is too far, even for us'" but they never do.  I don't believe there is any limit to the depravity.  They will continue in bad faith indefinitely no matter what.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7393 on: February 01, 2021, 10:21:02 AM »
What other defense does Trump have than stop the steal, though? That is the only possible justification for his actions. What will be more interesting is the gymnastics the senators will go through to to make their case against impeachment. Will they argue stop the steal? Will they stick to "unconstitutional" because he is out of office, despite precedent to the contrary? I expect the dissonance between observable reality and conspiracy will be sickening. "There are 5 lights" as they saying goes.

Honestly, I think he has a perfectly decent defense in asserting that he didn't incite the insurrection.  These kinds of charges are genuinely hard to convict on in normal courts of law, because so much of it has to be done "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" in the sense that someone intended this particular outcome.  And it's really hard, as conservatives like to say nowadays, to "know what's in his heart".  There are cases where there are sometimes really good smoking guns, where you have people on tape saying, "Let's tell X this so that he then does Y."  But usually it's not that clear.  Mob prosecutions are very very analogous to this situation and is why successful ones have been so amazing.  And that's with juries that may be predisposed to being open to hold mob bosses to account.  We don't have that here. 

Trump just needs to plead that what he believed he was doing was rallying a perfectly peaceful march to the Capitol and he can't be responsible if they went off the rails and killed people. Any reference to violence or arms was, of course, purely joking.  In fact, I've been reading various theories of how all the RW extremists are taking up preposterous clothing, mascots (Pepe the Frog) etc. in order to bolster their defense that everything they do is just joking and a fun outlet.  "You can't take us seriously" they are saying as they are threatening lives both verbally and physically. 

It'd be a challenging case to prove in a normal court of law with a truly unbiased jury.  I think Trump is in a decent position.  But of course, just following normal rules and procedures is unfair to him in his own mind, so he has to make it extra dramatic and dangerous. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17663
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7394 on: February 01, 2021, 10:26:56 AM »
What other defense does Trump have than stop the steal, though? That is the only possible justification for his actions. What will be more interesting is the gymnastics the senators will go through to to make their case against impeachment. Will they argue stop the steal? Will they stick to "unconstitutional" because he is out of office, despite precedent to the contrary? I expect the dissonance between observable reality and conspiracy will be sickening. "There are 5 lights" as they saying goes.

Honestly, I think he has a perfectly decent defense in asserting that he didn't incite the insurrection.  These kinds of charges are genuinely hard to convict on in normal courts of law, because so much of it has to be done "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" in the sense that someone intended this particular outcome.  And it's really hard, as conservatives like to say nowadays, to "know what's in his heart".  There are cases where there are sometimes really good smoking guns, where you have people on tape saying, "Let's tell X this so that he then does Y."  But usually it's not that clear.  Mob prosecutions are very very analogous to this situation and is why successful ones have been so amazing.  And that's with juries that may be predisposed to being open to hold mob bosses to account.  We don't have that here. 

Trump just needs to plead that what he believed he was doing was rallying a perfectly peaceful march to the Capitol and he can't be responsible if they went off the rails and killed people. Any reference to violence or arms was, of course, purely joking.  In fact, I've been reading various theories of how all the RW extremists are taking up preposterous clothing, mascots (Pepe the Frog) etc. in order to bolster their defense that everything they do is just joking and a fun outlet.  "You can't take us seriously" they are saying as they are threatening lives both verbally and physically. 

It'd be a challenging case to prove in a normal court of law with a truly unbiased jury.  I think Trump is in a decent position.  But of course, just following normal rules and procedures is unfair to him in his own mind, so he has to make it extra dramatic and dangerous.

I think this depends a lot on the mood of the court.

Charles Manson never committed a murder or directly told anyone to commit time for murders . . . but he went to jail anyway.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15111
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7395 on: February 01, 2021, 10:56:32 AM »
What other defense does Trump have than stop the steal, though? That is the only possible justification for his actions. What will be more interesting is the gymnastics the senators will go through to to make their case against impeachment. Will they argue stop the steal? Will they stick to "unconstitutional" because he is out of office, despite precedent to the contrary? I expect the dissonance between observable reality and conspiracy will be sickening. "There are 5 lights" as they saying goes.

Honestly, I think he has a perfectly decent defense in asserting that he didn't incite the insurrection.  These kinds of charges are genuinely hard to convict on in normal courts of law, because so much of it has to be done "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" in the sense that someone intended this particular outcome.  And it's really hard, as conservatives like to say nowadays, to "know what's in his heart".  There are cases where there are sometimes really good smoking guns, where you have people on tape saying, "Let's tell X this so that he then does Y."  But usually it's not that clear.  Mob prosecutions are very very analogous to this situation and is why successful ones have been so amazing.  And that's with juries that may be predisposed to being open to hold mob bosses to account.  We don't have that here. 

Trump just needs to plead that what he believed he was doing was rallying a perfectly peaceful march to the Capitol and he can't be responsible if they went off the rails and killed people. Any reference to violence or arms was, of course, purely joking.  In fact, I've been reading various theories of how all the RW extremists are taking up preposterous clothing, mascots (Pepe the Frog) etc. in order to bolster their defense that everything they do is just joking and a fun outlet.  "You can't take us seriously" they are saying as they are threatening lives both verbally and physically. 

It'd be a challenging case to prove in a normal court of law with a truly unbiased jury.  I think Trump is in a decent position.  But of course, just following normal rules and procedures is unfair to him in his own mind, so he has to make it extra dramatic and dangerous.

I think this depends a lot on the mood of the court.

Charles Manson never committed a murder or directly told anyone to commit time for murders . . . but he went to jail anyway.

"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" Is relevant here. 

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7396 on: February 01, 2021, 11:34:09 AM »
What other defense does Trump have than stop the steal, though? That is the only possible justification for his actions. What will be more interesting is the gymnastics the senators will go through to to make their case against impeachment. Will they argue stop the steal? Will they stick to "unconstitutional" because he is out of office, despite precedent to the contrary? I expect the dissonance between observable reality and conspiracy will be sickening. "There are 5 lights" as they saying goes.

Honestly, I think he has a perfectly decent defense in asserting that he didn't incite the insurrection.  These kinds of charges are genuinely hard to convict on in normal courts of law, because so much of it has to be done "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" in the sense that someone intended this particular outcome.  And it's really hard, as conservatives like to say nowadays, to "know what's in his heart".  There are cases where there are sometimes really good smoking guns, where you have people on tape saying, "Let's tell X this so that he then does Y."  But usually it's not that clear.  Mob prosecutions are very very analogous to this situation and is why successful ones have been so amazing.  And that's with juries that may be predisposed to being open to hold mob bosses to account.  We don't have that here. 

Trump just needs to plead that what he believed he was doing was rallying a perfectly peaceful march to the Capitol and he can't be responsible if they went off the rails and killed people. Any reference to violence or arms was, of course, purely joking.  In fact, I've been reading various theories of how all the RW extremists are taking up preposterous clothing, mascots (Pepe the Frog) etc. in order to bolster their defense that everything they do is just joking and a fun outlet.  "You can't take us seriously" they are saying as they are threatening lives both verbally and physically. 

It'd be a challenging case to prove in a normal court of law with a truly unbiased jury.  I think Trump is in a decent position.  But of course, just following normal rules and procedures is unfair to him in his own mind, so he has to make it extra dramatic and dangerous.

I think this depends a lot on the mood of the court.

Charles Manson never committed a murder or directly told anyone to commit time for murders . . . but he went to jail anyway.

Not impossible, just challenging. And yes, I think the mood of the court always makes it easier to convict dirtbag satanist hippies and whatever other stereotypes people had at the time, than to convict a former president, a successful businessman who wears suits and hugs the flag, even if he is a rapist and a racist and "strong man", which are all in the best traditions of the powerful and admired in our history.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4420
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7397 on: February 01, 2021, 11:51:04 AM »
In case you are curious this is what one of my senators responded with, when I wrote them. Reading between the lines no the GOP rank and file are going to cover Trump's *ss rather than do their constitutional duty under the laws regarding impeachment. Reasons: that he is no longer president and b) we senators shouldn't decide who the people get to vote for or not. FFS

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the impeachment of former President Donald J. Trump.

As you may know, on January 13, 2021, the House voted 232-197 to impeach then-President Trump. The article alleges then-President Trump was responsible for the assault on the Capitol Building that interrupted the joint session of Congress to count the Electoral College votes. On January 25, 2021, the House impeachment managers delivered the article of impeachment to the Senate. On January 26, 2021, the members of the Senate were sworn-in as jurors, and we swore an oath to “do impartial justice to the Constitution and laws.”

Even though Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that removing then-President Trump from office was an urgent matter, even giving then-Vice President Mike Pence an ultimatum to invoke the 25th Amendment, she curiously chose not to transmit the articles to the Senate until then-President Trump had already left office.

The Senate is scheduled to begin the impeachment trial on February 9, 2021. During the impeachment trial, the House impeachment managers and former President Trump’s counsel will present their respective cases. Senators will then have the opportunity to question the House impeachment managers and former President Trump’s counsel.

On January 6, 2021, we faced one of the darkest days of our history as a violent mob attempted to stop Congress’ joint session to certify the Electoral College votes. The criminals who participated in the attack assaulted the very foundations of our constitutional republic. They overran the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP), laid waste to the Capitol building, threatened the lives of lawmakers, and left six people dead in their wake. Sadly, this included a USCP officer who was murdered during the assault, and another who tragically took his own life in the days after. Over 50 USCP officers were injured during this vicious attack. Despite failures by some, many brave USCP officers protected lawmakers and prevented even further violence.

Once this insurrection was put down by our brave men and women in uniform, Congress resumed counting of the Electoral College votes into the early hours of the morning. My colleagues and I were determined to not allow the assault on the Capitol and our democratic system to prevent Congress from fulfilling its constitutional duty. Following the violent attack, I was glad to fulfill my constitutional obligation as a U.S. Senator to certify the results of the Electoral College. I voted against all objections, or in other words, I voted to certify the electoral votes from all states that were subject to objections. The Framers of our Constitution made it clear that the power to certify elections is reserved to the states, not Congress.

We are learning more details about the extent of this attack with every passing day, and everyone who participated in this disgusting assault on our democracy should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Currently, over 150 individuals have been charged in federal court for their actions on the Capitol attack. The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation continue the investigation into the attacks and are also looking into the speakers who attended the rally.

When it comes to the current impeachment process, I believe we must balance accountability with avoiding setting precedents that could be abused in the future. I believe impeaching a former President who is now a private citizen is unwise, especially if the primary goal is to disqualify an individual citizen from running for public office.

For example, my Democratic colleagues would have rightfully objected if Republicans – when they controlled both houses of Congress – used the impeachment power to justify disqualifying former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016. The great hallmark of our democratic republic is self-government, and I have faith in the American people to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates and make an informed decision themselves, just as they have done every four years since George Washington was elected as our first president. I do not believe Congress should dictate to the American people who they can and cannot vote for.

With that said, as a U.S. Senator, I have a constitutional responsibility to participate fully in the Senate impeachment trial as a juror. I will listen to both sides, consider the evidence, and join my colleagues in rendering a verdict. Any federal official who is subject to the impeachment process deserves fairness and due process. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind moving forward.

Again, thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again about other important issues.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4659
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7398 on: February 01, 2021, 12:00:47 PM »
That old chestnut.  We don't want to set a dangerous precedent by holding him accountable, so instead we are going to set a different dangerous precedent that this is allowable.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6312
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7399 on: February 01, 2021, 01:01:44 PM »
In case you are curious this is what one of my senators responded with, when I wrote them. Reading between the lines no the GOP rank and file are going to cover Trump's *ss rather than do their constitutional duty under the laws regarding impeachment. Reasons: that he is no longer president and b) we senators shouldn't decide who the people get to vote for or not. FFS

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the impeachment of former President Donald J. Trump.

As you may know, on January 13, 2021, the House voted 232-197 to impeach then-President Trump. The article alleges then-President Trump was responsible for the assault on the Capitol Building that interrupted the joint session of Congress to count the Electoral College votes. On January 25, 2021, the House impeachment managers delivered the article of impeachment to the Senate. On January 26, 2021, the members of the Senate were sworn-in as jurors, and we swore an oath to “do impartial justice to the Constitution and laws.”

Even though Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that removing then-President Trump from office was an urgent matter, even giving then-Vice President Mike Pence an ultimatum to invoke the 25th Amendment, she curiously chose not to transmit the articles to the Senate until then-President Trump had already left office.

The Senate is scheduled to begin the impeachment trial on February 9, 2021. During the impeachment trial, the House impeachment managers and former President Trump’s counsel will present their respective cases. Senators will then have the opportunity to question the House impeachment managers and former President Trump’s counsel.

On January 6, 2021, we faced one of the darkest days of our history as a violent mob attempted to stop Congress’ joint session to certify the Electoral College votes. The criminals who participated in the attack assaulted the very foundations of our constitutional republic. They overran the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP), laid waste to the Capitol building, threatened the lives of lawmakers, and left six people dead in their wake. Sadly, this included a USCP officer who was murdered during the assault, and another who tragically took his own life in the days after. Over 50 USCP officers were injured during this vicious attack. Despite failures by some, many brave USCP officers protected lawmakers and prevented even further violence.

Once this insurrection was put down by our brave men and women in uniform, Congress resumed counting of the Electoral College votes into the early hours of the morning. My colleagues and I were determined to not allow the assault on the Capitol and our democratic system to prevent Congress from fulfilling its constitutional duty. Following the violent attack, I was glad to fulfill my constitutional obligation as a U.S. Senator to certify the results of the Electoral College. I voted against all objections, or in other words, I voted to certify the electoral votes from all states that were subject to objections. The Framers of our Constitution made it clear that the power to certify elections is reserved to the states, not Congress.

We are learning more details about the extent of this attack with every passing day, and everyone who participated in this disgusting assault on our democracy should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Currently, over 150 individuals have been charged in federal court for their actions on the Capitol attack. The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation continue the investigation into the attacks and are also looking into the speakers who attended the rally.

When it comes to the current impeachment process, I believe we must balance accountability with avoiding setting precedents that could be abused in the future. I believe impeaching a former President who is now a private citizen is unwise, especially if the primary goal is to disqualify an individual citizen from running for public office.

For example, my Democratic colleagues would have rightfully objected if Republicans – when they controlled both houses of Congress – used the impeachment power to justify disqualifying former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016. The great hallmark of our democratic republic is self-government, and I have faith in the American people to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates and make an informed decision themselves, just as they have done every four years since George Washington was elected as our first president. I do not believe Congress should dictate to the American people who they can and cannot vote for.

With that said, as a U.S. Senator, I have a constitutional responsibility to participate fully in the Senate impeachment trial as a juror. I will listen to both sides, consider the evidence, and join my colleagues in rendering a verdict. Any federal official who is subject to the impeachment process deserves fairness and due process. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind moving forward.

Again, thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again about other important issues.
Paragraph 4: Mitch McConnell, then Senate Majority leader, made it clear that he would prevent recall of the Senate until the day before inauguration.  Given that obstructive behaviour Speaker Pelosi's decision to transmit the articles of impeachment after inauguration created no real delay in dealing with the matter.

Paragraph 9: Trump is not being impeached "as a private citizen", he has already been impeached while still President.  He is being tried by the Senate as a former President, for offences committed while President, in accordance with the obligations of the Constitution.   The reference to Hillary Clinton being impeached is merely an attempt at distraction.  The statement that Congress should not dictate who Americans can vote for is unconstitutional: the Constitution itself provides a disqualification procedure which the Senate cannot abrogate once the House has impeached.

Paragraph 10: Paragraphs 4 and 9 make it clear that the Senator is either ignorant of the Constitution or deliberately misinterpreting it.  In that context their statements about fairness and due process cannot be taken at face value.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2021, 03:24:40 PM by former player »