The incitement comes from telling his supporters that the election was a fraud and telling them that it had been ‘stolen’. From then on of course they thought that the whole government was illegitimate and that they were entitled, if not duty bound, to use any means necessary to reinstate their rightful leader. Once they were in that frame of mind all he needed to say was ‘March on the Capitol’ and they joined the dots. It may not be enough to convict him, but we all know that’s what happened.
1 Like
Love this guy, supremely well said.
2 Likes
Saw that earlier.
That has to be one of his best rants ever. he built up a proper head of steam and there was no slowing down. I reckon there was another good 5 minutes in there if he wanted to. Some classic little phrases as well.
2 Likes
I’m sure if Trump had only intended they metaphorically fight, and was as horrified as the rest of us at the violence, it might have taken him less than two days to condemn it.
2 Likes
Doubt that will be a valid submission. There really will have to be a lot gainsaid to convict him.
1 Like
They won’t convict him because half the Republican Party are fucking cowards who are more concerned with their own careers than the good of their country.
Nixon was actually impeached for far, far less than Trump has got away with. Difference is that there was actually some principles in politics back then.
3 Likes
Sorry I was only talking in the context of a legal issue; darnit. I dont doubt that Trump rallied his people to some extent; I just have real difficulty with the police letting them in, and the so called, coup plotters, then knowing fuck all what to do. Its really suspicious this part, dont you think?
1 Like
You are assuming the burden of proof in an impeachment trial is akin to criminal. It isn’t.
4 Likes
Im not assuming anything; other than observing an issue of legal causation.
1 Like
More and more, it seems obvious that there was an absurd range of intentions and preparation. Most of the people there were just following a flow, and getting out of hand as a mob does. A select number had a much clearer plan and had specific tasks that they meant to accomplish, but some failed to manage. It seems likely that some element of the planning was focused on getting large numbers there, and then as far as they could go, in order to provide cover.
2 Likes
The suspicion that guided tours were taken beforehand is certainly a strong suggestion that a certain group were planning something. How far up the chain that goes could be Hollywood
2 Likes
Right, but the assumption that the idea of legal causation is operative is itself just that. I personally think it is likely to be a good one, but the Senate is free to define its own rules for evidence, burden of proof, and conviction. I think you are likely correct that the legal norms will be applied to more than just the form of the trial, but when the charge includes something along the lines of ‘failing to defend the Constitution’, it has already departed from that to some extent.
2 Likes
A former colleague with Senate-side experience suspects that if Tuberville had been elected in 2018, there would have been tours of the Senate side as well, and events might have played out differently.
3 Likes
My imagination is running wild right now including Russian provocateurs on social media stoking the fire with Trump knowing about it etc.
Hollywood. Should I consider a writing career?
1 Like
Most of this stuff is too wildly improbable and absurd to be plausible as fiction. If you were sitting in a cinema, and the film had a scene where a guy was wearing furs and a horned hat, you’d probably walk out because the film was just so damn stupid.
6 Likes
Your spot on. It’s so absurd you would not believe it if it was in a movie.
It’s not like the US is Fiji.
For all the monitoring, anti terrorism measures, billions and billions placed into law enforcement and national security it was quite frankly absurd.
Think about that Al qaeda operative who must have spent years and years trying to figure out how to get into the Capitol building. Somewhere his boss is giving him shit because all that was needed was to dress like Bullwinkle.
8 Likes
Oh interesting, all sounds utterly arbitrary.
2 Likes
It all relies on norms to such an astonishing degree. The Constitution only delineates four requirements:
- Support of two-thirds of Senators
present is necessary to convict - Senators must take an oath or an affirmation
- Punishments the Senate can issue cannot extend further than removal from office and
disqualification from holding future office - In the case of a presidential impeachment trial, the Chief Justice, and not the Vice President or a Senator, is the presiding officer.
Rules and procedures have evolved over time, and in the past the Senate has chosen to adhere to precedent - but the rules themselves are largely subject merely to a majority vote, not even the 3/5ths ‘cloture’ mark. Except for the ones that require unanimous consent…and of course, stare decisis is a quaint notion at best when applied to US law.
3 Likes
1 Like
2 Likes