“If you open up that can of worms (by calling witnesses), we’ll want the FBI to come in and tell us about how people actually pre-planned these attacks and what happened with the security footprint at the Capitol,” the South Carolina Republican continued, parroting a right-wing talking point that the attack was planned well before Trump urged his supporters at a pre-riot rally to march to the Capitol.
Graham did not mention that Trump ― even before the election ― whipped his supporters into a lie-fueled frenzy about voter fraud. “You open up Pandora’s box if you call one witness,” Graham said. “I hope we don’t call any and we vote and get this trial over next week when it starts.”
It's hard to parse these "warnings." I assume that if a politico warns the other side not to do something, he's worried about damage to his own side. But that's so obvious that the warning should backfire. Does Graham actually want the Democrats to call witnesses and open the door to weeks or months of testimony that might serve the interests of Republicans? If so, wouldn't the Democrats know that and resist the temptation to call witnesses... or does Graham know that and hope to con the Democrats into not calling witnesses? Infinite layers of potential interpretation.
I don't know what Graham is really up to, but I suspect both parties would like to get this over quickly and avoid a long public trial. But I would love to hear testimony about what really happened. How planned was the break in? Did Trump know of the plan? To me, Trump's guilt depends on whether he knew there was a plan to break into the Capitol. He never directly exhorts the crowd to do anything more than peacefully protest, but there are words that I would see as a signal to violence if there was a specific and widespread plan to break into the Capitol and Trump knew about it.
Now, back to Graham's warning. I think that if there are no sworn witnesses, it is much easier to vote against conviction. Unanswered questions of fact leave guilt unproved. In that light, I'd read Graham's warning in the most obvious way, as an indication of his awareness that witnesses will increase the chances of conviction and therefore an effort to get Democrats to help Trump's cause.
But I don't know how much evidence there is that the break in was planned and that Trump knew about it. Why don't I know? Did I miss a news report? Is it being suppressed? The easiest guess is that there is no such evidence. But I'm tired of the coyness. Open the Pandora's Box!
ADDED: The House Managers of the impeachment have released their trial memorandum — this 80-page PDF. I've only read the headings, but I'll post separately if I see references to the evidence I'm looking for, which is certainly something more than that Trump encouraged the belief that he had won the election, drew a big crowd to Washington, and cranked up the crowd to march to the Capitol in protest.
पोस्ट्स
२०२ टिप्पण्या:
202 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Please don't throw me into that briar patch !
Why are things always 'right wing' but never 'left wing'?
Is there an 'alt-left' in this country?
Because there sure as hell seems to be an 'alt-right.'
I think Graham is actually in good faith warning here.
Graham is giving an honest to God warning here: one witness means you have to allow ALL reasonable witnesses. And, if the charging instrument states that what Trump said about the election being stolen is a lie... all those hundreds of affidavits are suddenly reasonable witnesses. Calling the Antifa/BLM guy who it took a week or so to arrest after his CNN or whatever appearance, who encouraged people to attack police and burn the place down? Legit witness that shows it wasn't people listening to Trump.
It will turn into a circus if Trump is allowed to call witnesses. He'll demand to call in the FBI and Capitol Police who sent and received this report (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-riot-fbi-intelligence/2021/01/12/30d12748-546b-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html). He'll call in Nancy Pelosi to ask what she knew when; he'll call in the Mayor of DC and ask why she disarmed and refused the National Guard body armor, effectively making it so they wouldn't be able to defend the Capitol.
Graham, remember, isn't a huge Trump fan.
Turn this into a circus, and Trump is going to land several clean, good hits. There is no way that, if you listen to what the FBI warned the Capitol Police about, what the Mayor of DC and Pelosi did prior, etc., etc., that you can honestly believe the inciting incident for the riot was Trump's speech that called for peaceful protests, whether you think there are hidden dog whistles in there or not.
Or, maybe Graham WANTS that circus. I don't know. But, this isn't a legitimate trial anyway, so why not just let only the prosecution call witnesses? That would solve the problem, now, wouldn't it?
The PuffHo article is an example of telling me what to think: “talking point” for a key issue.
Witnesses?
Don't worry...they will find a 'whistle-blower' who cannot be named.
Someone who is very patriotic and would never lie.
Like a dough-faced colonel, or maybe a guy who heard his barber talking about his second cousin reading something on Twitter.
Or was it Facebook?
Doesn't matter...it was bad. And Trump is bad.
Also, we can't ever say the name of the witness.
That would be bad.
parroting a right-wing talking point that the attack was planned well before Trump urged his supporters at a pre-riot rally to march to the Capitol.
Graham did not mention that Trump ― even before the election ― whipped his supporters into a lie-fueled frenzy about voter fraud.
It’s just plain propaganda. I understand that it’s important to hone one’s skills at reading propaganda with a critical eye if this kind of propaganda is going to be all the news we get, but at some point it poisons your brain. Look what happened with the whole Maddow assassination cult.
Even so, calling the talk of vote rigging lies opens up Trump’s line of defense that we need to examine the evidence to honestly decide whether he is telling the truth or not. Claiming that all of his cases were tossed on grounds from standing to laches <-- Yes, that happened, to filing too late to the worst of all, that the remedy requested was too burdensome even if he was right, is not evidence that Trump was lying.
" Trump urged his supporters at a pre-riot rally to march to the Capitol."
Interesting choice of words by Politico's writer.
It was a rally... and Trump never once asked anyone to riot.
I would love to hear testimony about . . .
Are you really that naive?
"Graham did not mention that Trump ― even before the election ― whipped his supporters into a lie-fueled frenzy about voter fraud."
Funny, I don't recall that frenzy. Or the Trump lies about voter fraud. I do recall a lot of activity that looked just like a cover-up by the Democrats and the media.
It's OK to spread False Russian conspiracy lies - even after Hillary herself amassed mountains for money from the .... Russians.
Mere talk that the left helped steal the election for their old empty suit is...
VIOLENCE!
I think Graham is actually in good faith warning here.
Graham is giving an honest to God warning here: one witness means you have to allow ALL reasonable witnesses. And, if the charging instrument states that what Trump said about the election being stolen is a lie... all those hundreds of affidavits are suddenly reasonable witnesses.
This. Graham knows that Trump will turn it into a circus, and turn it from a discussion of whether Trump knew of a plot to break into the Capitol to a discussion of election fraud. Neither side wants that, because it would only help solidify Trump's support on the right at a time when the GOP establishment wants him to fade away.
serious question
WHY does Lindsey think that just 'cause the democrats get to call witnesses; that Trump and the republicans will get to call some too?
What are they going to do? Ask the impartial Patrick Leahy to allow it?
SO, "we" don't want to call witnesses. "we" don't have a judge, and we "want to get this over with".
This doesn't sound like any kind of "Trial" I ever heard of. Unless you count the USSR and Stalin's show trials.
Witnesses should be called by the dems to show 1) the extent of Trump's knowledge before the rally of the likelihood of violence (was he ever briefed?), and 2) what Trump was doing during the violence and why did he not take action sooner to quell the riot
As for the length of the trial, that is something that can be agreed to in advance. Eg, two days witnesses for each side. Graham knows that the choice isn't between no witnesses and a month long trial.
want not just have a Senate Lynching party? After the conviction, they can string up a Donald Trump mannequin.
Old Joke:
Romney: Let's burn Trump in Effigy.
Schumer: To hell with that, lets do it right here in the Senate.
"parroting a right-wing talking point"
Mean, mean FBI, cooking up all those right-wing talking points.
Does Graham actually want the Democrats to call witnesses and open the door to weeks or months of testimony that might serve the interests of Republicans?
I seem to recall a question about brown bears and tall, green, woods.
He never directly exhorts the crowd to do anything more than peacefully protest, but there are words that I would see as a signal to violence if there was a specific and widespread plan to break in the Capitol and Trump knew about it.
Bullshit.
"I don't know what Graham is really up to, but I suspect both parties would like to get this over quickly and avoid a long public trial."
Hilarious!
Look, this isn't hard.
Graham knows the democraticals/GOPe intend to conduct a Full and Lengthy Soviet Show Trial, the first of many no doubt, and Graham knows the democraticals/GOPe have no intention of allowing Trump or his team to mount any defense whatsoever. It is to be a weeks and weeks long hate fest to be followed up by actions to criminalize any actions or statements by anyone who opposes The New Order.
The mediaPR campaign to achieve this is already in full swing with every major lefty/GOPe media organ already declaring all Trump supporters the equivalent of ISIS.
Graham is signaling that this clear intent on the part of the democraticals/GOPe is a bridge too far for 40 to 45 of the Republicans in the Senate.
I can see that Althouse is still in complete "If only Slow Joe knew this was happening he would put a stop to it!" mode.
"Witnesses should be called by the dems to show 1) the extent of Trump's knowledge before the rally of the likelihood of violence (was he ever briefed?), and 2) what Trump was doing during the violence and why did he not take action sooner to quell the riot"
-- His request to send the Guard to DC was met with the Mayor saying they were only allowed to be present if they were unarmed and unarmored. The Capitol Police are Nancy Pelosi's job, and the Mayor of DC had defanged the federal response. Trump encouraged people to be peaceful and disperse. The people who should have taken action to quell the riot were the Capitol Police and their leadership, and the DC leadership. Both had made it clear the National Guard, at the time, was not welcome. You can't keep blaming Trump for "not doing anything," when every attempt for him to do something is hobbled by the people who SHOULD be responsible.
Lindsey Graham's actions in the last years makes you really wonder what comprising material Trump has on him.
What a lapdog.
Trump as addiction.
"all those hundreds of affidavits are suddenly reasonable witnesses."
An affidavit is not a witness. You would have to call the affiant who could then be cross examined. I have no problem with that if they have relevant information.
"Trump ally"?
More popcorn! ...BTW, nice painting. Is that a Rossetti?
It seems to me that the Democrats pursuing this silly trial at all is enormously unwise, but they're doing it anyway. So I don't have a lot of faith in their ability to heed any good advice regardless of who is proffering it and why.
Who knows? Perhaps the Democrats want a circus. Maybe they're hoping to distract from the failure theater that the Biden administration is becoming? They're obviously addicted to hating Trump.
I have to say, they know not what they do. Trump has absolutely nothing to lose here. They should settle down and do something reasonable, like releasing eight or nine tigers on the Senate floor.
I guess the Senate and the Establishment (and that includes Mitch the Bitch) don't care how this show trial is damaging the reputation of the United State Senate or how badly this will go down in history.
Romney is smugly proclaiming last February that he was proud to be only Republican who put "Principle above Party" and looked forward to reading the positive notices in the history books. Now, Romney has shown he's just a partisan hack and jealous Little girl who will do ANYTHING to hurt Trump. He's destroyed any idea that he's a "stateman". Just in case, anyone was still fooled by the pompous "Christian Gentleman' act he puts on.
By the way, if they call witnesses, maybe they can call the policeman who murdered Ashli Babbitt.
It would take more than your “if” and “and” to convince me because what you are alluding to is a widespread conspiracy with code words. That’s so out of phase with the actual results, where obvious enemies of Trump were doing some of the breaking and entering, and pro-Trump protesters can be seen wandering in open doors “manned” by the CapPD. So for your scenario you be true there was extensive planning and code words for... what exactly? Congress was not physically threatened compared to the Kavanaugh riots. Trump immediately told rioters through press at White House to cease any non-peaceful activity. There is no evidence of him being part of a plan.
Now someone somewhere planned the bombings or whatever those were. Funny how like the unarmed lady being killed the bombs just kind of don’t get reported on. Why? Why is there no media curiosity about who shot Ashli Babbet?
Ann Althouse said...
>>"Did Trump know of the plan?"<<
Well of course he did. And the planned trigger word from him to his thousands of drooling neanderthal cult members to go break into the Capitol building - and you know, mount the insurrection - was "peacefully."
>>"But I don't know how much evidence there is that the break in was planned and that Trump knew about it...The easiest guess is that there is no such evidence."<<
What I really want to know is if Trump hunkered down with a bunch of Hawaii-shirted boogaloo dudes in some bayou hideout the week before and worked the insurrection out in advance. And if he did, I'd like to know how much evidence there is of that. The easiest guess is that there is no such evidence. But let's keep asking just to make sure.
"Why are things always 'right wing' but never 'left wing'?"
There are "right wing people" and "normal people". That is all. Everybody knows this.
"As for the length of the trial, that is something that can be agreed to in advance. Eg, two days witnesses for each side. Graham knows that the choice isn't between no witnesses and a month long trial."
-- I mean, sure. If you don't want the defense to be able to present a full case with relevant witnesses. Just the list of witnesses that should be called by the defense:
* Capitol Police leadership
* Nancy Pelosi, as it is critical to know what she knew, when, and what orders she did and did not give the Capitol Police
* The Mayor of DC and her staff who dealt with the National Guard
* The arrested BLM/Antifa members who were present at the riot (their testimony is necessary to prove that Trump's "incitement," even if he did try and incite, was unneeded to cause some to riot.)
* The FBI authors of the report warning the Capitol Police
* Trump's speechwriters/staff who can quote the speech that says Trump called for Peaceful Protests and his tweets after the fact calling for calm and for people to disperse.
You can't do that in two days. And that's before we go into *anything else* but the very basic question.
Whether the first impeachment trial or this, any verdict of guilty will require witness testimony for me to consider it anything but a political farce.
Clearly the January 6th breach of the Capitol is the worst terrorist attack on the Capitol ever. EVER.
Um. Er. Ah.
Not so much. But much like the Bernie Bro who attempted to assassinate dozens of Republicans at a baseball practice, this has conveniently been consigned to the memory hole.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1980s-far-left-female-led-domestic-terrorism-group-bombed-us-capitol-180973904/
And lest we forget, Bill Clinton pardoned the terrorist Susan Rosenberg on his last day in office.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/woman-thought-behind-1983-capitol-bombing-plot-big-player-black-lives-matter
The Democrats are going to vote 50-0 to convict, just like they voted 48-0 to convict in Feb. If they fail to destroy Trump its only because the R's won't go along. Quit dreaming they are "reasonable" and imputing good faith to them. Stop being a gullible rube.
"I assume that if a politico warns the other side not to do something, he's worried about damage to his own side. But that's so obvious that the warning should backfire. Does Graham actually want the Democrats to call witnesses [...]? If so, wouldn't the Democrats know that and resist the temptation to call witnesses... or does Graham know that and hope to con the Democrats into not calling witnesses?"
Althouse channels Vizzini quite nicely.
Again, the ones that fomented violence at the Capitol were not Trump supporters.
Many Trump supporters were indeed inside the Capitol, as they were let in by the police. Some got caught up in the moment and did things they shouldn't have, but were in no way violent.
Whether there was election fraud isn't relevant since it is not a justification for a violent insurrection. Regardless, I think it is a great idea to use the trial to show that Biden won fair and square.
"...if there was a specific and widespread plan..."
Which, being both specific and widespread, would be difficult to keep secret. This argues against such a plan's existence for with the pressure being placed on those who did get into the capitol by authority someone would talk and provide evidence of the plan. And I haven't heard of that.
Adam Schiff would address the media about his close-door hearings into Trump-Russia collusion and say that he has gotten the proof. Later, Republicans got those transcripts released and each witness said there was no such proof.
Democrats never have to pay for over playing their hand, let alone lying.
Note they scheduled this trial just days after the end of the last trial as to not fall within 1 year of two impeachment trials.
... parroting a right-wing talking point that the attack was planned well before Trump urged his supporters at a pre-riot rally to march to the Capitol
Professional journalism in 2021
Painting is by John William Waterhouse, 1896.
What are they going to do? Ask the impartial Patrick Leahy to allow it?
The presiding official makes no ruling from the bench. It is cerimonial, and at best he can remind those presenting to stick to the agreed to Senate Rules governing this particular impeachment trial. If an unknown arises, the full Senate votes. That's 50/50, and Harris is not allowed to vote. There is NO constitutional duties enumerated in the constitution for the Vice President. But there are many never Trumpers that could vote to gore the Great Bull, that is Donald J Trump.
. Regardless, I think it is a great idea to use the trial to show that Biden won fair and square.
You assholes had ample opportunity to show Biden won fair and square, instead choosing to say "prove it", then not allowing any evidence.
As far as election fraud, it tends to result in violence the world over, nearly every time, so fuck you.
If the evidence I'm looking for is out there where it can be linked to, please link.
If it's not, doesn't that mean it's NOT there? Why wouldn't I have it by now?
"I'd read Graham's warning in the most obvious way, as an indication of his awareness that witnesses will increase the chances of conviction and therefore an effort to get Democrats to help Trump's cause."
-- See, I don't think this is true. If there was a witness who could say: "Trump and I planned this." Or: "I was on emails where the Trump team coordinated with us to attack the Capitol," *we'd have heard those witnesses.*
The prosecution side of this case needs to prove: A) Trump knew of a plan to attack the Capitol and B) Actively incited it. Thus far, no one has even attempted to prove A, and the "witnesses" we've been talked to about B include a crazy man dressed as a shaman insisting he did it because Trump told him to, and other like minded people who ignored Trump's plain language "peacefully protest" language, and Democrats who also insisted Trump conspired with Russia to hack the 2016 election. We've had zero witnesses that can testify *to the truth of A and B,* just what they *think* about the truth of A and B.
This is why I think that allowing witnesses would be *terrible* for the prosecution. Because every witness they bring would get asked: "Were you in communication with Trump or his team?" If no: "So you can't prove what he knew?" If yes: "Could you produce those documents? And, why did you lead an insurrection on the Capitol?"
I don't see anyway that witnesses help to convict Trump, without the unimaginable happening of someone who had a bad thing they could say and prove about Trump somehow not having had a chance to say it publicly yet.
"But I don't know how much evidence there is that the break in was planned and that Trump knew about it."
There is loads of evidence that it was planned, and none that Trump knew about it. Because the Antifa planners did not warn Donald Trump. But hey. How much evidence was there that Bret Kavanaugh tried to boink that dizzy whore? It doesn't take much when the jury contains a rich sampling of the most dishonest people on Earth.
For some reason Graham is still Judiciary Committee chair, and he is holding Garland's AG nomination hearing hostage to completion of impeachment trial.
Listen carefully. The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle, the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.
Nothing says valid trial like preventing witness testimony.
"There is loads of evidence that it was planned..."
I want specific evidence of a widely understood plan, not just something like one guy said what he planned or several guys separately tweeted that they had a plan.
And I asked for links to places that marshal all of this kind of evidence.
You did not link.
If a big plan was out there, I think the FBI would have tracked it. Did they? If they did, wouldn't they have informed Trump? Did they? The lack of an adequate defense suggests that they did not know.
Thanks to "President" Biden, normalcy and civility are being restored to our country's politics.
"Why are things always 'right wing' but never 'left wing'?"
Right-wing talking points is a left-wing talking point.
Team “Resist!” has important thoughts about insurrection.
"For some reason Graham is still Judiciary Committee chair, and he is holding Garland's AG nomination hearing hostage to completion of impeachment trial."
-- It's not "being held hostage." The Democrats have determined that impeaching a non-President is a matter of national security. It literally is. If we think Trump planned and plotted an armed coup, it is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, and needs to happen. Now. Immediately. Everything else can wait until we have resolved and determined what happened when someone tried a violent overthrow if the government.
If you DON'T think this is the most important thing, and that all other business should be on hold until we have gotten to the bottom of this... I question how serious a problem you really think the riot was. Because, putting the rest of business on hold until it is resolved seems perfectly reasonable *if Democrats actually believe their own rhetoric regarding the events.*
I've been saying that since the beginning. EVERYTHING should have been declassified, so we could root out the real crooks in Congress, and the Intel agencies who planned a Coup and finally got what they wanted with a fraudulent election.
I often wonder if people really believe what they claim to believe or they're just saying stuff for effect.
For example, let's assume this tiny rabble of miscreants who broke into the Senate really constituted some sort of failed insurrection attempt. That would mean that their must've been some sort of premeditation by at least a few of them, right? If so, it would imply that this plan would be was something that must've been farily widely disseminated, discussed, and probably written down somewhere. As far as I'm aware, no such plan has yet been found or revealed. But we'll live that for now.
For now, let's just assume that their was a plan and it was disseminated somehow. Who came up with this plan? Was it Trump himself? Do people really believe that? That Trump was in contact with some animal skin wearing goofball (or whomever) carefully planning the days events? And the plan was, to what exactly? Apparently to break in, mill around, and rifle through some papers?
Or maybe to take hostages? Do people truly believe that Trump wanted to hold Nancy Pelosi and her cronies hostage? Given Trump's history (which is very well known) when has he ever done anything even remotely like that? When has he ever committed a drastic, hyper violent criminal act like that?
Does Lindsey Graham want to open Pandora's Box?
Now I ain't what
You'd call a city slicker
Or claim to fame
To be a slitty licker
But every time Pandora comes my way
I get high
Can't explain the sensation
To get it on I gotta watch what I say
Or I'll catch hell
From the women's liberation
Good-like aura
Smell like a flora
Open up your door-a for me
Sweet Pandora
Mama crack a smile for me
Just for me, just for me
Just for me, just for me
"If a big plan was out there, I think the FBI would have tracked it. Did they? If they did, wouldn't they have informed Trump? Did they? The lack of an adequate defense suggests that they did not know."
-- From things like the WaPo story linked earlier, and this PBS piece (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-says-it-warned-about-possible-violence-ahead-of-u-s-capitol-riot), I think the best we have is a 9/11-like "something is going to maybe happen, be on alert," sort of warning... which the Capitol Police, Mayor of DC, and Nancy Pelosi decided meant: "Don't bother worrying too much." Exactly the extent of the FBI's warnings, I think, haven't been made public yet.
I can picture all the years of Harrisbiden taken up with Trump trials, appeals, investigations, revelations, insinuations; and all the media platforms in the country taken up with banning Trump, banning references to Trump, Banning references that might be to Trump, , banning criticism of Trump because it suggests Trump matters, banning jokes because they might be furtive references to Trump, banning poetry because metaphors might be about Trump, metaphorically. TDS v. TSM (Trump Still Matters). Go Bidet.
If a big plan was out there, I think the FBI would have tracked it. Did they? If they did, wouldn't they have informed Trump? Did they? The lack of an adequate defense suggests that they did not know.
Did they let Trump know that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election, like they told Hillary?? No they didn't. Trump can't trust the FBI when they are part of the Coup against him.
I didn't mean Bidet. I meant Hunter's dad.
Evidence of a plan:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-individuals-affiliated-oath-keepers-indicted-federal-court-conspiracy-obstruct
Whether there was election fraud isn't relevant since it is not a justification for a violent insurrection. Regardless, I think it is a great idea to use the trial to show that Biden won fair and square.
I see we have yet another troll/re-name
Exactly what person is claiming there is any justification for violence? Inserection? You keep using that word, but it doesn't mean what you think it does.
Investigating the election is the only thing ever requested, but it has been met with constant resistance. Arizona has just refused an independent audit. Georgia has destroyed evidence. Pennsylvania, is not cooperating. Judges in several states have ruled ballots counted were done so in direct violation of the law. Something they intentionally stalled until after Biden was imaculated.
Regardless, I think it is a great idea to use the trial to show that Biden won fair and square.
I wasn’t aware the impeachment had a court title Biden v. Trump. How does trying Trump show anything about election integrity? Is Schumer going to allow Trump to call witnesses regarding the election? I’m curious how the mind of an independent reaches these ideas.
From the "Oathkeeper" being charged link: "On Dec. 31, 2020, Caldwell posted, “THIS IS OUR CALL TO ACTION, FREINDS! SEE YOU ON THE 6TH IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ALONG WITH 2 MILLION OTHER LIKE-MINDED PATRIOTS.” In a subsequent post on Jan. 2, 2021, Caldwell stated, “It begins for real Jan 5 and 6 on Washington D.C. when we mobilize in the streets. Let them try to certify some crud on capitol hill with a million or more patriots in the streets. This kettle is set to boil…”"
If that's all it takes to show that there's plans of a riot/insurrection... the FBI needs to get to the Washington, D.C., Reddit, stat. Because there were loads of posts during the 2017 Inauguration Riots and the attack on the White House this year with posters coordinating to arrive and what to bring.
This is the weakest of sauce if they have nothing else. If these guys really go on trial over posts like that... but the *entire Reddits and Discords that organize protests/riots face no consequences,* I'm not sure I'd mind if the jury nullified it.
If a big plan was out there, I think the FBI would have tracked it. Did they? If they did, wouldn't they have informed Trump? Did they? The lack of an adequate defense suggests that they did not know.
Based on the FBI's history, if there was a big plan then it was probably organized by an undercover FBI agent, or an informer they were protecting.
>>independent said...
Evidence of a plan:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-individuals-affiliated-oath-keepers-indicted-federal-court-conspiracy-obstruct<<
That right there is some seriously weak tea.
"Ann Althouse said...
If the evidence I'm looking for is out there where it can be linked to, please link.
If it's not, doesn't that mean it's NOT there? Why wouldn't I have it by now?"
. . .
Perhaps by the same process by which other things elude you, such as content in the articles you link as described in the post below citing Freeman Hunt.
. . . . . .
""There is loads of evidence that it was planned..."
I want specific evidence of a widely understood plan, not just something like one guy said what he planned or several guys separately tweeted that they had a plan.
And I asked for links to places that marshal all of this kind of evidence.
You did not link.
If a big plan was out there, I think the FBI would have tracked it. Did they? If they did, wouldn't they have informed Trump? Did they? The lack of an adequate defense suggests that they did not know."
. . .
This is known as rationalizing, a process different from reasoning, but, if it keeps you in the place you want to be, who am I or anyone else to criticize it?
See, I don't think it is so weak you *couldn't* charge them. Given further actions, maybe even get a conviction. It's just... we haven't used this sort of weak justification for any other event in recent memory. So, I kind of assume they have stronger, more evidence than just people planning to show up to a heated protest that went out of control, when on Reddit during these, you can find people giving advice on how to hide improvised weapons and telling people they'll hide them from the police if the riot gets pushed back, along with constantly updating people to police presence/location. Like, yeah. This is worth looking into -- but not if we're holding them to the same standards as OTHER riots/insurrections over the years.
I'm for whatever gives the most entertainment.
In case there's any confusion, here's an example of real insurrection that happened just yesterday. Note that it's nothing like what happened January 6... not even in the same universe.
Oh Christ, now a link that doesn't say what you think is says.
Those indicted? They have been communicating about Going to DC to raise hell since November,2021. Plan? If something like "I'm going mess somebody up" sort of plan. Irrelevant to the Article of Impeachment
That's important, because the genius Democrats passed ONE article of impeachment. Centered on President Donald J Trump's speech of January 6, 2021
"This is known as rationalizing, a process different from reasoning, but, if it keeps you in the place you want to be, who am I or anyone else to criticize it?"
-- At least one other poster besides myself, provided links that show whether the FBI knew of things ahead of time, and to what extent there might have been a plan. What was asked for isn't rationalizing; it was asking for a source to back up a claim. Reviewing evidence and sources to determine whether to accept or reject a claim is pretty much the epitome of reasoning.
Blogger Readering said...
For some reason Graham is still Judiciary Committee chair, and he is holding Garland's AG nomination hearing hostage to completion of impeachment trial.
Gee, I wonder if somebody like Graham was watching and learning in the Spring of 2017 or 2001? That's when the elected president's appointments were held up for months. Gosh. Do you suppose the GOP is capable of learning?
As for Trump, there's no way he would think an invasion of the capitol would work in his favor, so there's the evidence. Trump's trying to get congress to do the audit that the courts refused to play a role in.
The investigation has been going on for less than one month. 200,000 people have provided information to the FBI. Makes sense to allow the investigation to play out a little bit before rushing to conclusions.
Further, if Trump was briefed that there was a high likelihood of violence and then riled up the crowd, it is partly on him. How does it matter if there was some grand detailed plan involving hundreds of people. It's a fucking mob. Since when is a mob planned. By its nature it is disorderly and largely spontaneous.
Let's have a really long trial. It reduces the opportunity for the Dems to pass their stupid ideas into law.
I'm all for a three year and nine month long trial. Then release the tigers referenced above.
If we can't be entertained by our government what use is it?
I agree with Gilbar's question: WHY does Lindsey think that just 'cause the democrats get to call witnesses; that Trump and the republicans will get to call some too?
The Democrats and their assistants in the media will not allow Republican questions, let alone allow Republicans to bring in their own witnesses or 'experts'. This just will not happen.
Evidence is not important here. All that is important to the Democrats is how many Republican Senators they and the media onslaught they'll produce can sway, arm-twist, and threaten to vote to impeach Trump. And if not impeach, then how many will agree to a censure that will prevent him from running for office again?
Anyone ready for a new administration yet?
Miss Inzee...
How come the US didn't prevent the bombing of Pearl Harbor it had been reading enciphered messages about? Because the messages didn't say they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor. Easy to read them retrospectively though.
"Further, if Trump was briefed that there was a high likelihood of violence and then riled up the crowd, it is partly on him."
-- Counterpoint: What if Trump knew there was a high likelihood of violence, and that's why he deliberately tried to convince the crowd to be peaceful, and failed, because people like the Antifa/BLM rioter who was arrested there was encouraging the crowd to attack police and "burn this down?"
What if games are fun!
Several commented in my comment. The point I was trying to get across is that Graham is acting like someone who does not want witnesses. Not like Brer Rabbit.
Best joke, it's the Groundhog day impeachment of Trump again.
, “THIS IS OUR CALL TO ACTION, FREINDS! SEE YOU ON THE 6TH IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ALONG WITH 2 MILLION OTHER LIKE-MINDED PATRIOTS.” In a subsequent post on Jan. 2, 2021, Caldwell stated, “It begins for real Jan 5 and 6 on Washington D.C. when we mobilize in the streets. Let them try to certify some crud on capitol hill with a million or more patriots in the streets. This kettle is set to boil…”
Evidence presented in the DOJ press release (bold emphasis mine). I didn’t copy the earlier paragraph that stated the conspiracy was messages between these 3 people only. I hope there is more than this for the DOJ’s case, otherwise jurors will be asked to accept that marches on the streets of DC is evidence of conspiracy to disrupt Congress. Interesting idea considering Matt Sablan’s comments about the Kavanaugh hearings.
"-- At least one other poster besides myself, provided links that show whether the FBI knew of things ahead of time, and to what extent there might have been a plan. What was asked for isn't rationalizing; it was asking for a source to back up a claim. Reviewing evidence and sources to determine whether to accept or reject a claim is pretty much the epitome of reasoning."
This
"If a big plan was out there, I think the FBI would have tracked it. Did they? If they did, wouldn't they have informed Trump? Did they? The lack of an adequate defense suggests that they did not know."
is rationalizing, which makes any demand for evidence a disingenuous demand for a snipe hunt to "bring me evidence that will satisfy me according to the circular rationalizing standards I've just laid down".
This sort of contrariness is a common method of driving blog conversation, but it is not reason.
Prof. Althouse wrote, “Trump's guilt depends on whether he knew there was a plan to break into the Capitol.” I concur, full stop. A full trial on the merits would be the best way to get an answer to this question, but I don’t think either side wants that.
It seems pretty straight forward: "The FBI would have informed Trump." (Ok, I'll fault Althouse here, as the FBI has routinely locked the administration out of the loop, or flat out lied to them, but it is an assumption as in a normal environment, the FBI would have alerted the Executive Branch.) Therefore, we need to know if the FBI did inform Trump.
Next, we have an assumption that had the FBI and Capitol Police known an attack was coming, they'd have tried to prevent it. A reasonable assumption. Since there wasn't an adequate defense, it is reasonable to assume they didn't know an attack was coming (assuming, again, that the Capitol Police/FBI are reasonable actors.)
So: She's saying, "given my reasoning seems correct, do you have proof that disproves my reasoning?"
That's not rationalization. That's *laying out an argument and asking for proof to the contrary.*
Makes sense to allow the investigation to play out a little bit before rushing to conclusions.
Few here support Pelosi’s rush to impeachment or Schumer’s rush to trial. It would make sense to have had an investigation first and then an actual trial in the courts. But that’s not the option we are being asked to contemplate or accept.
We still don’t know how Office Brian Sicknick died. The early reports that he was bludgeoned to death by a fire extinguisher is neither supported by Capitol Hill Police reports or his family that talked to him in the hospital before he died.
I don't know what Graham is really up to, but I suspect both parties would like to get this over quickly and avoid a long public trial.
That might be true if you are running under the assumption that the Dems are operating in good faith. The Biden? administration is a hot mess and needs anti-Trumpism for cover. You can see it here on AA in microcosm. It's never about Biden? policy or the immediate breaking of campaign promises. Just about Orange man bad. They need to keep him front and center. Anti-Trump is the glue that binds them.
Turns out the FBI was running the Proud Boys. The Capitol was left largely unprotected. So if there was a plan, who's plan was it?
Maybe that's the can of worms Lindsay Graham is warning about.
I'd open Pandora Waterhouse's box any time!
Good one, gilbar. I've often thought to ask if there are any other Danny Kaye fans about.
Narr
Nice little breastesses
Each senator has already decided how they will vote - even those that say this is not true - and the vote to convict will fail. I agree with rcocean that the Democrats will vote 50-0. The Republicans might lose two or three votes (Romney, Sasse, Murkowski). There is nothing else to be decided. This is a classic show trial and all the talk and proceedings are political propaganda. Witnesses will be called only to the extent their appearance favors the Democrat's message.
The only reason to watch is to see what Trump does. If he shows up it will be an instant hit, if not most of us will go about our daily lives and then check in for the updates here or other such places.
"Next, we have an assumption that had the FBI and Capitol Police known an attack was coming, they'd have tried to prevent it. A reasonable assumption. Since there wasn't an adequate defense, it is reasonable to assume they didn't know an attack was coming (assuming, again, that the Capitol Police/FBI are reasonable actors.)"
Given the Steele dossier and the behavior of Kevin Clinesmith, it is not at all a reasonable assumption. The precise opposite is the more reasonable assumption, given the preponderance of the evidence.
What you and Ms. Althouse are engaged in is arguing from a conclusion.
Stolen from another site... "We spent $738 billion on defense last year and the capitol was taken in 10 minutes by Duck Dynasty and some guy in a deerskin bikini". Now about that Seth Rich murder investigation... anything on that yet?
This sort of contrariness is a common method of driving blog conversation, but it is not reason.
That sentence is a short explanation of how the scientific method works to help us reason. You pose a question, develop a contrary hypothesis, and then test it. You need only provide evidence that the contrary is true, yet you opt for rhetoric.
The left have set the stage; they're battling Nazis and shampeachment 2 is their Nuremberg trial. And they have Hitler himself on trial! Oooo, how exciting! If the ratings are good they'll probably impeach more Republicans/Nazis; maybe even a few dead ones.
threaten to vote to impeach Trump. And if not impeach, then how many will agree to a censure that will prevent him from running for office again?
Nope. Not an option.
First constitutional scholarship, long before President Trump, separates President and Vice President from "Officer" These are two different classes of impeachment. Even letting that past. Punishment shall be limited to removal from office, and, holding on office of....etc.
Cant have barring without removal, (but barring doesn't apply to President
Hundreds of different paths have been attempted, but we always end up at the same place. This is nothing but a Pelosi temper tantrum. Likely a diversion for all the executive orders. Strange that calls for Unity of early afternoon of Jan, 20, turned into authoritarian rule, and a total bypassing of Congressional power, by the late afternoon of...Looking...yep Jan 20!
I don't think you understand formal logic if you think what was argued is an argument from a conclusion. This isn't that; an example of that is: "The room is dark, therefore, the lamp is broken." This argument doesn't attempt to connect the two statements, and even if it DID, the reason it is a fallacy is that the two statements aren't necessarily linked.
What is being argued, if we'll extend this analogy is actually *an argument with reasoning.* Something like: "The room is dark, and I believe there are no windows or other light sources, and the lamp is always on, therefore, the only way I believe the room could be dark is if the lamp were broken in some way." That's a valid argument; you could say: "You were wrong in your belief; a window was added in new construction and the lamp removed. The room is dark because the curtains are closed." Notice how you have to address the argument here, and explain why it is flawed. You can't just dismiss it by saying: "Just because the lamp is broken doesn't mean the room is dark," because the argument has put forward *why this is a valid belief.*
Google is broken.
I googled "evidence that capital riot was planned" and the search results came back.....numerous and somewhat accurate. Even on page 1.
" I suspect both parties would like to get this over quickly and avoid a long public trial"
Nonsense. Both parties can simply say he's out already, there is no point the circus, and quit today.
That they are not doing that proves that at least one side wants this to go forward.
Ann Althouse said...
If the evidence I'm looking for is out there where it can be linked to, please link.
If it's not, doesn't that mean it's NOT there? Why wouldn't I have it by now?
****************
I'm once again reminded of the idiocy expressed in the phrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Well, in most cases that's EXACTLY what it is.
parroting a right-wing talking point
But the left always speaks independently, after careful thought and consideration. That they use the same talking points just shows the rightness of their position. They individually came up with the same ideas! Often with the exact same phrasing. It's like a miracle!
Matt Sablan said...
...Turn this into a circus,...
-----------============
you misspell /fair fight/
Few here support Pelosi’s rush to impeachment or Schumer’s rush to trial. It would make sense to have had an investigation first and then an actual trial in the courts.
I wish this got 1/10 the analysis as the impeachment circus.
IF (this whole thing is based on 'if' scary) holding President Trump is the goal, a simple investigation, indictment and trial is the ONLY option.
Pro tip: President Trump has committed no crime, or broke any law. Impeachment is not tethered to law in anyway, as much as lawyers weigh in, this is pure politics. That's why using the word insurrection, is stupid on stilts. Insurrection comes with a list of required elements. Which is why it is not present in the very short and very concise, single article of impeachment.
You can have fair fights at circuses.
"This sort of contrariness is a common method of driving blog conversation, but it is not reason.
That sentence is a short explanation of how the scientific method works to help us reason. You pose a question, develop a contrary hypothesis, and then test it. You need only provide evidence that the contrary is true, yet you opt for rhetoric."
On the contrary, I provided a perfectly reasonable alternate explanation of why Ms. Althouse's demands could be understood as something more than a complete embarrassment to her, particularly given her confession earlier in the day that she does not even fully regard information she herself has pursued.
It really is a time tested blogging technique. Rod Dreher, for example, has used it for decades to provide a comfortable six figure income for himself.
Wake me up when he's acquittaled.
Evidence, DC don't need no stinking evidence.
We were just subjected to a years long "Russia collusion" investigation based on a fake dossier and built up by verifiable lies that have resulted in multiple firings. Yet media/leftists still speak as though this was a serious justified investigation. I agree with those who believe this second impeachment charade was concocted to distract from the disaster in the White House.
Professor, you have misidentified the audience. Graham is not playing to the Senate Democrats, he is playing to the public. HuffPo's usual shallow silliness aside, Trump is accused of exhorting an insurrection with his speech on Jan. 6. If the incursion was planned before that, it exonerates Trump of the charge against him.
Your suggestion that Trump may have known ahead of time and was using code demonstrates an odd and uncharacteristic obtuseness on your part. Such a thing would be so out of character for Trump, who has consistently accepted the official verdict on his policies no matter how much he may have shouted about it, that I would think only a blind "Orange Man Bad" cultist could possibly think it.
Pandora was apparently a very popular subject for the Pre-Raphaelites and other 19th century artists. An art historian could get a good book or article about it, especially with all that we know about the Pre-Raphaelite's lives and romantic/sexual entanglements (but I suppose one - or more - already have).
Trumpeachment? It seems like that was all a hundred years ago. I don't think the trial is going to change anything. The country wants it to be over.
"I don't know what Graham is really up to, but I suspect both parties would like to get this over quickly and avoid a long public trial."
Oh but Trump DOES want a long trial... and many witnesses.
He is gonna rub their noses in this 'trial'.
Graham did not mention that Trump ― even before the election ― whipped his supporters into a lie-fueled frenzy about voter fraud.
It's revealing left wingers keep saying things like this without noting their own actions - like publicly insisting Jacob Blake was unarmed - fit the responsibility framework they are asserting even more so than the Trump comments.
Sometimes I'm tempted to think left wingers invent their standards only to win the media moment without ever developing coherent principles.
Ok, I read the very short section providing evidence that Trump incited the riot during his speech. It quotes something about Trump saying “fight like hell” which is the most damning part I read, but it is neither a full quote of a sentence or paragraph, and the context around that quote is about what the crowd was saying or doing, which isn’t damning
I'm sure Graham is being met with baffled looks from the Democrats. What does it all have to do with justice? It's two minutes of hate gussied up as entertainment. If Trump demands witnesses, it will be construed as obstruction of justice.
Hollywood is writing these scripts. The box office gold standards are the Harry Potter, Star Wars double-digit sequel fests. Since the requirement that the impeached person needs to be in office has been waived is there any law or precedent barring a third (or fourth, etc.) impeachment, regardless of the outcome? Can't the Democrats keep circling back?
Joe Smith said...
Why are things always 'right wing' but never 'left wing'?
Is there an 'alt-left' in this country?
Since the left's alt-right counterpart controls left-side we just call it "the left".
If we're going to have a show trial, let's at least make it a good show.
Impeachment is not tethered to law in anyway, as much as lawyers weigh in, this is pure politics.
I agree. It does make sense why the Democrats are rushing to keep this as a trial of Impeachment, because it allows for a political outcome. I’m not sure what that outcome will be, but i doubt it will be conclusive.
"If a big plan was out there, I think the FBI would have tracked it. “
If the FBI did track it, and it exonerates Trump, why would you think you would see it? Have you been following the disclosures of FBI chicanery in the whole Russiagate infestigation and persecution?
Clinesmilth was caught red handed fabricating evidence for a FISA court and he didn’t even get a fine, and may not even be disbarred. Your trust in the FBI suggests that you are experiencing a little bit of denial about what the FBI actual is. As Crack about the FBI and Martin Luther King, and that is not even as far back as their political corruption goes.
Clinesmith, in fact, got a $100 special assessment to the court. Using the ACA ruling as my guiding light, I'll count it as a fine. Or maybe a tax.
Lindsay Graham is pleading for chastity... don't unlock Pandora's "box".
The tell-tale hearts beat ever louder.
I am beginning to think that the Democrats and Republicans will spend a lot of time arguing over the rules of the show trial. They will be so exhausted by the debate that the trial may never happen.
Yes, the President's Jan. 6 speech was so incendiary to violence, a gallows spontaneously erected on the capitol grounds.
I think you would need a text chain between Donald Trump and plotters. Just the fact the FBI informed the administration that mischief was being planned wouldn't be sufficient (and I've read they did not inform the administration). After all why would anyone in the administration believe anything the FBI said after four years of Russia collusion!
There is this:
"...Christopher Miller, was at the White House with his chief of staff, Kash Patel. They were meeting with President Trump on “an Iran issue,” Miller told me. But then the conversation switched gears. The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. “We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’” Miller responded. “And [Trump] goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’” At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, “‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God.”
I could not recall the last time a contingent that large had been called up to supplement law enforcement at all, much less at a demonstration—the Women’s March and the Million Man March sprang to mind—and so I asked the acting SECDEF why Trump threw out such a big number. “The president’s sometimes hyperbolic, as you’ve noticed. There were gonna be a million people in the street, I think was his expectation.” Miller maintained that initial reports on the anticipated crowd size were all over the map—anywhere from 5,000 to 40,000. “Park Police—everybody’s so hesitant to give numbers. So I think that was what was driving the president...”"
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/embedding-with-pentagon-leadership-in-trumps-chaotic-last-week
HMMMMMMM...maybe the President DID know something!
Since the requirement that the impeached person needs to be in office has been waived is there any law or precedent barring a third (or fourth, etc.) impeachment, regardless of the outcome? Can't the Democrats keep circling back?
If the GOP had any balls they'd impeach Obama for spying on Trump's campaign. Wouldn't that be fun.
Why wouldn't Graham call for the FBI to come in an testify about the people who planned this EVEN IF THEY DECIDE NOT TO PUT ON THIS TRUMP TRIAL?
What are they hiding? I for one am extremely interested in knowing who these people are and what they were up to.
Also Ann, this passive aggressive stuff about Trump "knowing something." Stop. Surely you are sharp enough to know that if the FBI or any other part of the swamp has the slightest shred of an inkling that Trump had any involvement it would be the only "news" on all media 24/7.
"Graham did not mention that Trump ― even before the election ― whipped his supporters into a lie-fueled frenzy about voter fraud."
Hmm, anyone have the time to pull up some of the hundreds of articles of Democrats screaming about vote fraud before the election?
We could start with all the "the USPS is going to make your mail in ballot disappear" conspiracy theory imbecility.
Blogger Jupiter said...
They should settle down and do something reasonable, like releasing eight or nine tigers on the Senate floor.
--
Parrots and Kangaroos, oh my!
I wonder how much of this is true.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-pennsylvania-mothers-path-to-insurrection-capitol-riot?utm_medium=social&mbid=social_twitter&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=twitter&utm_brand=tny
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/watch-trumps-lead-impeachment-lawyer-david-schoen-joins-sean-hannity-interview/
Overpaid bunch of bs artists...
Ann Althouse said, "But I would love to hear testimony about what really happened."
Yeah, That'll happen. Just like all the stuff we learned in the 1st impeachment trial.
I am amazed that anyone takes this impeachment seriously. Name one thing that the Dem congressmen have done with good and truthful intention.
As mob guys say in New Jersey; Ohhhhhhhhhhhh!
Reading the House document, yeah. They don't want witnesses: "Armed insurrectionists breached the Capitol—and as Vice President Pence, the Congress, and the Capitol Police feared for their lives—President Trump was described by those around him as “borderline enthusiastic because it meant the certification was being derailed.”
The House Impeachment papers *cite to a Twitter post without providing a permanent link so you can even go and see what was said.* Their next footnote goes to Vox citing an anonymous source. They cite to Trump retweeting his speech... and leave out the "peacefully protest" bit.
Look, I've literally read two paragraphs of this thing (the inaction/action section), because I was curious if they would admit that the Capitol Police and Mayor of DC made mistakes. Thus far, they haven't. This is an embarrassment of a document if these two paragraphs are indicative of anything.
There's a paragraph about people asking Trump to send the people home... and he did try. The post where he tried to tell people to go home? That's the post he was banned from Twitter and other platforms for. They state: "These tweets were, obviously, totally ineffectual at stopping the violence. And they did not reflect any substantial effort on the part of the President of the United States to protect the Congress."
Note: Trump *sent the National Guard to DC,* and DC *rejected their help.* Trump did everything he was allowed to do. You can't blame him that the Capitol Police failed, the Mayor of DC failed, and Nancy Pelosi failed in their jobs to provide security.
They criticism him for not telling people to go home... only to acknowledge he did. Just not as fast as they would have liked. And people *didn't listen to him.* Look, if you wanted to convince me Trump was inciting and a mastermind behind this who had these people at his beck and call... maybe demonstrate that they actually listened to him? I'm going to say: This "brief" isn't really a legal document. It's a political attack.
Althouse: Here's the answer to where the evidence is. The House states that they didn't need to find any: "Any claim that the House moved too quickly in responding to a violent insurrection that President Trump incited is mistaken. The House serves as a grand jury and prosecutor under the Constitution. The events that form the basis for President Trump’s impeachment occurred in plain view."
The evidence is there. If you don't see it, then well, the implication is something is wrong with you.
In earlier reporting, there was someone connected to Capitol security who claimed to have repeatedly plead for more support in advance.
Furthermore, they state: "For that reason, any process-based objections to this impeachment are wrong. This case does not involve secretive conduct, or a hidden conspiracy, requiring months or years of investigation. It does not raise complicated legal questions about the definition of a high crime and misdemeanor."
So. Yes. The evidence is Trump wanted a more deliberate examination of the election, and it took him awhile to get a situation where he was hobbled because the Mayor of DC undermined him and Nancy Pelosi and the Capitol Police failed to heed the FBI's warning, is clear evidence he should be impeached.
That's all the evidence they have. They assert there is no communication between Trump and his supporters that was "incitement" save his speeches. This is worse than I could have imagined.
"The Constitution authorizes impeachment and conviction for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” As Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers, impeachable offenses “are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”198 Therefore, whether President Trump’s conduct violated the criminal law is a question for prosecutors and courts; “offenses against the Constitution are different than offenses against the criminal code.”1
-- Even the House admits they may not have a criminal case. Which they then say... they can totes try him on something that isn't a high crime or misdemeanor. They're flat out saying: They don't know if his action was criminal of any level. But that it was bad, but not criminal bad. That's... that's remarkable.
But I don't know how much evidence there is that the break in was planned and that Trump knew about it. Why don't I know? Did I miss a news report? Is it being suppressed?
I don't think there's been any evidence presented that Trump knew about the break-in in advance, but there has been evidence (at least in the form of affidavits) filed in support of the proposition that the break in was planned. DOJ's page on the indictments connected with the Capitol Riot is here. If you search for the ones with "conspiracy," those are the ones that I think should present the relevant evidence.
The strongest is the one for three alleged members of the Oathkeepers -- Caldwell, Crowl, and Watkins. Down at paragraph 27, the affidavit excerpts purported Zello recordings, in which Watkins allegedly says: "We are sticking together and sticking to the plan." Most of the evidence is from January 6 or later, so it doesn't clearly establish a pre-existing plan, but Paragraph 48 recounts a bunch of pre-January 6 Facebook messages that don't explicitly lay out a plan to storm the Capitol, but are at least indicate that there is a "plan" and are suggestive of an intent to do something violent. Combined with the contemporaneous reference to "sticking to the plan," there's at least a suggestion that they planned to do what they actually did.
That said, the affidavit evidence presented in the other conspiracy cases seems a lot weaker with regard to any pre-existing plan, e.g. the Munchel-Eisenhardt affidavit doesn't really have anything to suggest that they went in with a plan to breach the capitol, even though conspiracy is alleged. The prosecutors may have additional evidence to present later on existence of a conspiracy, or maybe they just intend to show that the two defendants coordinated on the day of the riot. The Nichols and Harkrider affidavit has a little more meat (e.g. a "By Bullet or Ballot" meme, and a statement that they'll "make" Pence do the right thing, both paragraph 28), but it also doesn't really seem to add up to much evidence of a plan.
Lastly, while I don't think anyone's been arrested for it, the fact that the pipe bombs at the Republican National Committee headquarters and the Democratic National Committee headquarters were apparently placed the night before the Capitol riot also suggests that someone had a plan to commit some crimes in advance, although we don't yet have anything public that links those crimes directly to anyone or any group that participated in the Capitol riot.
Whether there was election fraud isn't relevant since it is not a justification for a violent insurrection. - Leftist posing as an 'Independent.'
So once again, it's a good thing that's not what happened, isn't it?
"The First Amendment does not constrain Congress from removing an official whose expression makes him unfit to hold or ever again occupy federal office."
-- What the actual hell? So, I guess we ARE back to McCarthyism.
Note: All these quotes come from the House Trial Brief Althouse linked later in the post (they are not quotes from other posters.)
The Brief further states: "Yet even if President Trump’s acts while occupying our highest office were treated like the acts of a private citizen, and even if the First Amendment somehow limited Congress’s power to respond to presidential abuses, a First Amendment defense would still fail. Speech is not protected where it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”"
But, earlier, the brief stated this wasn't a trial to determine criminal action. The only way a First Amendment defense could fail and we could prove speech isn't protected is via a criminal investigation. Incitement is a *crime,* and if you are saying what someone said violated the First Amendment, *you have to prove the crime it violated.*
This is internally inconsistent drivel.
"Given the tense, angry, and armed mob before him, President Trump’s speech—in which he stated “you’ll never take back our country with weakness,” proclaimed that “[y]ou have to show strength,” and exhorted his supporters to “go to the Capitol” and “fight like Hell” immediately before they stormed the Capitol—plainly satisfies that standard."
-- A. It does not. If it does... well, we've all done the "Waters, Harris, etc." need to be impeached too dance. So let's skip it.
B. That cannot be accepted on its face. It does not in any way plainly satisfy that standard.
"It would be perverse to suggest that our shared commitment to free speech requires the Senate to ignore the obvious: that President Trump is singularly responsible for the violence and destruction that unfolded in our seat of government on January 6."
-- Since we know there were BLM/Antifa members arrested among the rioters, we know Trump wasn't singularly responsible. This is such a weak brief. Unless, of course, Trump is a champion of BLM and Antifa now.
He cried Wolf! in the theatre...
The more I'm reading of this, the more I'm disappointed. I could have wrote this brief without the fancy footnotes, substituting standard left-wing posters on this and other blogs. There's no deep thought happening here. I feel sad for the time I've wasted reading it. There's nothing insightful, new, or spectacular. It's barely workmanlike. It's sloppy. But, whatever. They can get Trump.
The most dangerous thing here is that they think they can impeach people for having the wrong kinds of beliefs. That's actually authoritarian/totalitarian. It was just smuggled in there, and I bet they didn't even think of what it meant. Who knew that it would just take one bad orange man to redeem McCarthy and the witch hunts in the eyes of the House?
This is a pretty bad document. For example, it just asserts "nearly every legal expert" agrees that you can impeach former officials. Despite... you know, the Supreme Court implying you can't (not just through Roberts flipping the impeachment the bird, but via dismissing the emoluments cases), and there being... well many who don't. It's a disappointing document, as I expected something better than: "It's totes plain to see, we don't need any evidence, and besides, he had the wrong sorts of ideas, and we can impeach him for that -- and all the smart people agree with us."
"He spent months asserting, without evidence, that he won in a “landslide” and that the election was “stolen.”"
-- Oddly enough, no footnotes for THESE quotes. I mean, I'm sure Trump said it. But this is just LAZY. How do you write something this bad and STILL be lazy? Ok. I'm done with this document.
I'm still slackjawed at Ann's belief in 'link or it didn't happen'.
If Trump were to put out a statement today saying that he believed the impeachment was unconstitutional and ask his supporters to come to the Capitol next Tuesday and protest this unconstitutional action, would he be guilty of inciting an insurrection or would he simply be exercising his right to free speech and encouraging his supporters to exercise theirs and their right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Because that's exactly what he did on January 6 and for which he is now being persecuted.
She was right to ask for it. The House Brief states *they have no evidence* and need none besides Trump's speech and that an anonymous source reports he was "delighted" and that he took more time than they would have liked to respond to the attacks. It was the right thing to ask for, since the House Brief tells us *she was right to demand to see the evidence, since even the House has been unable to find anything but their own inferences.*
"If Trump were to put out a statement today saying that he believed the impeachment was unconstitutional and ask his supporters to come to the Capitol next Tuesday and protest this unconstitutional action, would he be guilty of inciting an insurrection or would he simply be exercising his right to free speech and encouraging his supporters to exercise theirs and their right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Because that's exactly what he did on January 6 and for which he is now being persecuted."
-- The House Brief answers that: "The First Amendment does not constrain Congress from removing an official whose expression makes him unfit to hold or ever again occupy federal office." If Congress wants to, per the House Brief, they can impeach anyone and deny anyone the opportunity to hold or occupy federal office if they believe your expression makes you unfit to do so.
So, yes. It would be impeachable, per the House. Theoretically, the House Brief makes it possible for Congress *to impeach anyone they have power over for thought crimes.*
The violence he had provoked unsurprisingly continued after President Trump released this
video. - Top of page 33 of the brief, under the section of Dereliction of Duty.
Who was unsurprised? Most people I know were surprised it happened at all. I was surprised when people claimed Trump incited the riot, when during the riot, he released the video telling people that if they support him, they should go home. I noted that tens of thousands did exactly what Trump asked. It seems at most, 1% did not. I suppose that 1% of the population might be violent isn't a surprise (actually it is to me, but I haven't counted the population in prison for violent assault). But, the fact Trump release a video asking people to go home flat out shows he wasn't derelict.
Could Trump have done more? Possibly, but I can't imagine any other action less than physical would have been better than his released video. I can imagine that any action he took or asked others to take that was physical would be portrayed as adding to the violence. He couldn't send more police, as the Executive has no jurisdiction over the Capitol (hence their own police). He couldn't send the military, that would have been called a military coup. Besides, he offered more security the day prior (more evidence he was trying to prevent an incident at the Capitol) and the DC Mayor and Pelosi refused the security. If Trump had walked to the Capitol himself, you know that would be portrayed as him leading the coup.
I make this comment about the Brief in full recognition that this trial is political and doesn't require a bar of "beyond reasonable doubt", but if the argument this Brief makes was presented to me as a juror in a criminal case; I can see the evidence for doubt in the Brief. That's actually a good thing for the honesty of the House Managers, but they'll need witnesses to back up their claims.
Re: Sablan:
Not sure why you would be disappointed. Did you expect more? The Trump impeachments have been pure political exercises. Viewing the situation as Althouse does -- which is similar to my view -- there's factual propositions about Trump's knowledge of and involvement in planning for a riot which, if proven, would support a conviction. If not proven, then acquittal. I haven't thought through exactly what the standard should be -- is it enough for him to muse about turbulent priests with the knowledge that there are people who might act? That seems a bit too vague.
Does he have to know there are people with an actual plan? Does he have to believe those people are waiting on his specific signal to move forward?
But that speculation doesn't matter at all, because neither Democrats nor Republicans are interested in a real trial here. That's why Democrats have tried to set the goalposts for conviction at "he claimed there was election fraud, and then there was a riot" (the negligence theory of incitement, I guess?) and Republicans have claimed the Senate doesn't even have jurisdiction. Requiring the impeachment managers to prove real misconduct creates too much risk for either side.
"That's actually a good thing for the honesty of the House Managers, but they'll need witnesses to back up their claims."
-- Their brief flatly rejects this. They state that you need nothing more than what you saw to convict Trump. That's why they're trying to not allow witnesses. Because *no witness improves their case,* because they have no evidence that Trump was trying to incite everyone. Everything is based on their own inferences because of four things:
* Trump didn't have faith in the election
* People rioted when Trump said words (even if those words were not to riot)
* Anonymous sources who can't be verified said Trump was delighted despite...
* ... Trump tried to encourage the protesters to leave, but it took longer than the House wanted.
They have no facts. That's why they want no witnesses.
It's more I expected them to actually assert a fact that proves incitement, rather than the "we all totally saw it" standard of evidence. Like, I was expecting some ATTEMPT at an argument. Not, whatever that 80 page thing was.
I think I'm also still shocked at this assertion: "The First Amendment does not constrain Congress from removing an official whose expression makes him unfit to hold or ever again occupy federal office." I never expected such a totalitarian thought to be considered mainstream, Democrat approved policy. I remember when Democrats supported free speech the government didn't like.
Politico’s “side”. Yup.
“An affidavit is not a witness. You would have to call the affiant who could then be cross examined. I have no problem with that if they have relevant information”.
Well you’re an earnest one aint’cha champ? Ya shoulda had that bored ape rimshot gif.
2/2/21, 10:17 AM
I don’t think Donald Trump gives one fuck what Lindsey Graham or any other DC piece of shit cares about. Being on the witnesses. Everybody.
So, here's my final thought on this. So long as the House Brief holds to the idea that Congress can impeach people for anything they say while they're in office if they deem it an "expression [that] makes him unfit to hold or ever again occupy office," this impeachment needs to be rejected, and every single member of the House who signed onto it needs to be voted out. I mean, I'm generally of the opinion if we just voted everyone out of the House every two to four years, that'd be general good policy, but the specific authors of this need to go.
Graham was all about Trump while he saw that as a means to get re-elected.
Same reason he was forever mugging on Hannity promising to get to the bottom of things.
The circus is not in town between the Super Bowl and March Madness. This impeachment thing is perfect. I want to see the machine gun turrets.
If the evidence I'm looking for is out there where it can be linked to, please link.
If it's not, doesn't that mean it's NOT there?
Ah, no.
If a big plan was out there, I think the FBI would have tracked it.
Are we discussing the same agency that tried to railroad Trump and his associates on Russia Collusion conspiracy charges that they already knew were bogus? That FBI? Just as you are living in a long ago Never-Never Land where the Times m and the Post were biased, but on the whole reputable, newspapers, so you wish to live in long ago Never
-Never Land where the FBI was an honest law enforcement organization. That’s not the world we live in since 2016.
Don’t forget that this is the same FBI that received two warnings that a person named Nikolas Cruz had a AR and was fantasizing about shooting up a school before the murde is 14 students in Parkland, and they did nothing.
"Unless, of course, Trump is a champion of BLM and Antifa now."
Well, now... haven't the past four years shown to everyone that Trump has the ability to make people think he's whatever they need him to be- regardless of logic, consistency and common sense? It's almost like a superpower.
How's the FBI doing with Hunter's laptop..
I hear Hunter's a WH adviser..leading a crack policy team.
They have no facts. That's why they want no witnesses.
That may be their position, but that "they have no facts is why they need witnesses" is my position.
I'm for whatever gives the most entertainment.
This.
Thank you rh.
For maximum entertainment, gotta have Shaman dude.
"To me, Trump's guilt depends on whether he knew there was a plan to break into the Capitol."
You're inferring a criminal conspiracy case, which would require criminal standards of evidence. Knock yourselves out.
"Whether there was election fraud isn't relevant since it is not a justification for a violent insurrection."
I'm curious to know what you think is sufficient. Perhaps a drug addict's death? Or that of a strong-arm robber?
Considering the fact that the Chief Justice will not be presiding over this trial, and the Constitution specifically says he must, why does anyone consider this goat fornication legitimate? Understand that I don't like Trump, and I'm glad he's gone (but not glad about who replaced him), but this show trial stuff is just plain crazy. I don't think burning down the house to get the burglar is a viable strategy.
""Whether there was election fraud isn't relevant since it is not a justification for a violent insurrection.”
The impeachment article asserts that he lied about election fraud. So it absolutely is relevant.
It’s interesting how the Democrats don’t want what they claim to have been a clean enough election looked into. It speaks of a guilty conscience. Why not use the occasion to demonstrate to one and all that the turtle on the fencepost, err I mean Joe Biden got there on his own.
"That's actually a good thing for the honesty of the House Managers”
You mean like Eric Swalwell who was sleeping with a ChiCom spy? The same Chicom’s who have showered the Biden family with millions of dollars in fees for something, one would think. They certainly weren’t for value in services rendered on the face of it alone.
"f Trump were to put out a statement today saying that he believed the impeachment was unconstitutional and ask his supporters to come to the Capitol next Tuesday”
First amendment right to peaceful demonstration has been suspended based on guilt by association that resulted in collective punishment. Try to keep up.
It’s amazing the contortions they will go to to proclaim guilt of a Republican, when the FBI said with a straight face regarding Hillary’s email handling that it was only “extreme carelessness” but not “gross negligence.” That’s some world class hair splitting there, and I am not sure that the hair they are splitting even exceeds Planck’s Constant in diameter. But they can leap mountains in logic to find Trump guilty of anything.
You go ahead and assume that if the FBI isn’t reporting exonerating evidence regarding Trump, that there is none.
Just look at the Flynn case where they withheld exonerating evidence just to get a Trump ally.
Blogger walter said...
Graham was all about Trump while he saw that as a means to get re-elected.
Same reason he was forever mugging on Hannity promising to get to the bottom of things.
He's now endorsing NT Liz Cheney.
"Whether there was election fraud isn't relevant since it is not a justification for a violent insurrection.”
"Whether or not police are shooting black male criminals isn't relevant since it is not a justification for a violent riots.”
Let us know when every Democrat politician who supported BLM has been removed from office and Amendment 14 blocked from ever holding any office again.
Until then?
FOAD
What is the matter with these people (reporters and pundits)? The fact that something is a "Republican (or Democratic) talking point" does not make it any more or less true; it doesn't even purport to do so. Calling something a talking point is the rhetorical equivalent of "Ya' muddah wears combat boots!"
Blogger Matt Sablan said...
"The First Amendment does not constrain Congress from removing an official whose expression makes him unfit to hold or ever again occupy federal office."
-- What the actual hell? So, I guess we ARE back to McCarthyism.
No. There were Communists in the US Gov't, and many were acting as agents for the USSR, an enemy of the US.
We're back to the Salem Witch Trials here
What could be better than to have DJT back in the limelight for months and months. Go get'em Dems!
So, Althouse wants actual grounds for the charge. Not likely.
but I'll post separately if I see references to the evidence I'm looking for, which is certainly something more than that Trump encouraged the belief that he had won the election, drew a big crowd to Washington, and cranked up the crowd to march to the Capitol in protest.
There isn't any or you would have heard about it. They're playing that any of those things is enough. If you claim it isn't, they'll claim the next one. Cycles back to the beginning after the third, providing an infinite amount of evidence.
Trump was outsmarted, is all. They set up the invasion to discredit him. There's no reason to listen to anything about the election after that.
Always more than happy to see a Pre-Raphaelite image in any way, shape or form. I wish I could afford to hang one on my walls. While he was no Millais, Hunt or Rosetti, it's still quite well done. I think it encompasses the whole later Victorian English Art period perfectly (or at least the one I'm interested in). I'd hang it on my wall no question if it was for sale and I could CrowdFund it.
Matt Sablan said...
""The First Amendment does not constrain Congress from removing an official whose expression makes him unfit to hold or ever again occupy federal office."
-- What the actual hell? So, I guess we ARE back to McCarthyism."
Yessir. It's a show trial. If they could march him to the Lubyanka and put a bullet behind his ear they tape that as well. If she could get one Pelosi would have an erection.
If she could get one Pelosi would have an erection.
Careful, Schumer accused Trump of inciting one.
Pandora's Box is interestingly ambiguous. It is full of evils, and when its open all the evils get out. But the box is shut and hope is in the box.
But its a box of evils. So is hope an evil? Is hope some kind of folly?
If hope is bad, and its in the box, not "out" that's Good!
If hope is good, and its in the box, that's bad! but why is Hope in a box of evils?
It's lots of fun to imagine calling a hostile witness to the stand and getting them to admit something that helps your case. I used to hear young lawyers fantasizing that: I'll ask the witness about X, and the witness will have to admit . . . . But why does the witness have to admit what you want? Unless you have an incriminating document, or an admission in a deposition, or something comparable, the witness will say whatever the witness wants to say, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. You never want to call a witness in a trial if you can't control their testimony. If you call the Mayor of DC and ask her why she did X, Y, or Z, and she says I did no such thing -- what do you do?
If there's to be a trial, the Defense should focus on presenting Trump's side of the story. For example, I think it would he helpful if some credible and knowledgeable witness could explain why the dismissals of most of the election challenges were not based on a determination on the merits that there was no fraud or other impropriety. I'd like to know what information Trump had about the events that were unfolding at the Capitol and what he did at each stage.
Inside Pandora’s Box lie two cans: of worms and whoop-ass. Choose wisely.
Althouse,
A comment on style: not to say one is right and the other wrong (what would 'wrong style' actually mean absent a prescribed style guide) but as an invitation to discuss.
You used the phrase "open the Pandora's box", where I would have ommitted the definite article and used simply "open Pandora's box".
The definite article grates my ear because we don't use it with proper noun's. On the on the other hand, since this is not the bix that Pandora herself opened, it is functioning here as a common noun, despite it being capitalized.
Oddly enough, given the many such boxes that exist, my ear has no problem with the phrase "this Pandora's box".
Now I think it's not my ear but my eye that felt it. I would probably have not have had this hiccup had you written "the pandora's box" (sans capitol)'
This is not a critique. It's just a stylistic point of possible interest, provoked by my own idiosyncrasities
Eh, it'll be great for gawking, like a train wreck or Muttering Joe trying to speak in complete sentences of more than two words. Not sure that Trump is Nixon in this Riotgate, complete with the Water Buffalo Lodge brother from The Flintstones on the dais. But 70's-era (D) that she is, Althouse has gotta ask what the President knew and when he knew it.
Think of the questions Trump's lawyers can ask, though. Why is the presiding official someone who previously voted to convict Trump and who also rejected the motion to dismiss? Is he really impartial, if he can and most likely will again vote to convict, regardless of any exculpatory evidence? Why is Sleeping-with-the-Enemy Swalwell one of the prosecutors? How is asking people to peacefully protest incitement? What are the legal considerations in such a "trial"? Why did Roberts pass on this trial? Is a Big Lie, whatever that means, a high crime and misdemeanor? If this trial is considered constitutional and not an attainder, does this mean we can go back and impeach anybody? If so, why not start with O and his veep sidekick, Muttering Joe?
By all means, call witnesses. Barring the proverbial bombshell on either side, this ends up pretty much along the lines of the vote to dismiss. Manchin and Sinema are wild cards. Mitt and the RINO's, not so much.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा