From the trial memorandum of the House Managers — PDF.
It's this stage of the event — what Trump did after we know he knew the crowd had breached the Capitol — that has the most power to convince me that he deserves to be convicted. I can't see the evidence that there was an advance plan to storm the Capitol, and that, if there was, Trump knew about it, and, therefore, that we should read the language of his rally speech in that light. But at some point, we can see that Trump knew the mayhem was in progress, and clearly he ought to have done what he could to stop what his supporters were doing in his name.
It's not that easy to find the time line in the memo. The House Managers are keen to give the impression that Trump knew what was in the offing before he started the rally speech. If you don't accept that argument, you may be frustrated. What time was the first breach of the Capitol? When did Trump finish his speech? When was Trump informed about what happened? I see:
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy confirmed that he had “talked to the President” on the telephone and said: “I think we need to make a statement. Make sure that we can calm individuals down.”
I'd like to know at what time that happened. And "we can calm individuals down" is something that could be said about protests outside the building, before any breach or threat to the members of Congress.
Mick Mulvaney, the President’s former Acting Chief of Staff, tweeted that President Trump “can stop this now and needs to do exactly that. Tell these folks to go home.”
We're given a time stamp for that: 3:01. And yet, as the memo states, Trump had tweeted at 2:38 PM: "support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement … Stay peaceful!" and "ask[ed] everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order."
The memo has to acknowledge those tweets, but it diminishes them as "totally ineffectual" and not a "substantial effort... to protect the Congress." Trump could have tweeted different words — ordering his supporters out of the Capitol — but those are the words he used. He stressed peacefulness, I think, because he wanted a big, expressive protest, and he wasn't ready to accept that the rally was not a success. The great majority of his supporters were peaceful, but some had transgressed.
Finally, at 4:17, Trump put up his video telling his supporters "you have to go home now."
When did the protesters break into the Capitol? The NYT says it begins at 2:11. The Senate calls a recess at 2:13. Trump's "Stay peaceful!" and "No violence!" tweets came 25 minutes later. His "go home" video went up an hour and 39 minutes after that.
The memo stresses that this was "more than three hours from the start of the siege," but we're judging Trump's behavior, so that stress feels deceptive. It seems to me that Trump, in his speech, called for a peaceful march to the Capitol. He repeated his "peace" theme in 2 tweets very soon after he, I presume, heard of the breach of the building. And then it took an hour and 39 minutes before he got out the message "you have to go home now." It was video, so some time was consumed scripting and recording the video.
He could have acted more quickly. Did he believe the marauders in the Capitol were watching his Twitter feed waiting for orders? Was he simply numb and slow to process the information? Did he have some sort of idea that it wasn't so bad for his supporters to be in the Capitol terrorizing the members of Congress — that maybe they deserved it? Was he "'delighted' by the mayhem"?
Is that a quote from Trump — "delighted"? The trial memo gives a footnote for the quote: "Andrew Prokop, Republican Senator: White House Aides Say Trump Was 'Delighted' as Capitol Was Stormed" (Vox).
The quote — I discover from Vox, not from the House Managers' memo — is from Ben Sasse (speaking on Hugh Hewitt's radio show):
“I don’t have any idea what was in his heart about what he wanted to happen once they were in the Capitol, but he wanted there to be chaos. And I’m sure you’ve also had conversations with other senior White House officials, as I have. As this was unfolding on television, Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building. He was delighted.”
So, "delighted" is Sasse's characterization of how unnamed White House officials characterized Trump's mood. Even if the officials and Sasse (and Vox) were observing and interpreting accurately, I still can't tell what Trump was happy about — perhaps his own rousing speech and the great size and enthusiasm of the crowd on the street. I think the danger to the members of Congress became overwhelmingly important, and Trump was slow to admit it or to say anything that would take the energy out of his intense effort to convince everyone that he'd actually won the election.
That's my reaction to the presentation of the facts in the memo.
Posts
235 comments:
1 – 200 of 235 Newer› Newest»I always wondered what is was like to live in Soviet Russia. Now I know.
Enjoy the gulag, Comrade alanc709.
I live in the Seattle-area. Already in a gulag.
Thank you Professor Althouse. “Trump reportedly was delighted” is double hearsay opinion from Nebraska Never Trumper Ben Sasse.
I don't see what the big deal is. We have Presidents guilty of major crimes and we still allow them to be President. Why is Trump so special, outside the fact lefties are obsessed with him?
"Thank you Professor Althouse. “Trump reportedly was delighted” is double hearsay opinion from Nebraska Never Trumper Ben Sasse."
It's at least triple hearsay. Officials, Sasse, Vox. But we also don't know if the officials who spoke to Sasse were the ones in the room with Trump. They could have heard second hand.
There's this idea that Trump could have stopped the protesters who were in the building and he choose not to.
That idea coincides with the characterization of Trump as the leader of a planned insurrection. If he didn't act like the insurrection leader, it could mean that he didn't see himself that way, and he was surprised and had a hard time seeing its relationship to who he was and what he was doing.
I can't help thinking of the protests and riots last summer, when so many people observed a distinction between the peaceful protesters and the violent rioters and considered it very important to preserve the tradition of street demonstrations.
I wrote about this yesterday in the comments. I think had Trump done more than he did, it would have been used to damn his as initially complicit. As it was, over 99 % of marchers went home when requested.
One thing I’ve noticed about Trump over the years is that he frequently does OTOH. The Mexicans as rapists and Charlottesville used that.
Trump’s speeches are frequently capable of two meanings. Ambiguous.
The House Managers know that the Federal Rules of Evidence don’t apply and the judge is biased. It will be The Greatest Show Trial in American History.
Thump hatred justifies hearsay. Meanwhile statements on tape of Sanders, Waters, Harris, Peloosi and other Democrat officials encouraging violence are ignored.
This somewhat echoes my read from the post yesterday. There's no solid evidence. Well. Hearsay and conjecture are kinda of evidence. Another thing the Simpson's predicted.
Oh, please! It has been well-established that the Capitol breach occurred while Trump was still speaking. The agents provocateurs there had the thing planned in advance and shepherded the followers inside. Even if Trump had been immediately informed and cut into his own speech immediately to tell the intruders to leave the Capitol and go home, IT WOULD HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT WATCHING HIS SPEECH!
But, I still find this part more concerning than the nonexistent evidence: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 wonder how many supporters of impeachment signed on for this. Maybe that one poster who goes on about warlock trials wasn't too far off.
Still. If being happy a riot happens is impeachable... I'm fine with applying that rule broadly if we want. It's a weird one, but losing Trump is worth the trade.
Executive Order #473 states triple hearsay is 50% stronger than double hearsay.
A policeman can not be prosecuted or held liable for failing to interrupt or prevent a crime. A fireman can not be prosecuted or held liable for failing to enter a burning building. How is it that Donald Trump can be prosecuted for not attempting to quell a riot in a place where he has no authority or jurisdiction?
I don’t have any idea what was in his heart about what he wanted to happen once they were in the Capitol, but he wanted there to be chaos
The second half of this statement is a perfect contradiction of the first. We're supposed to take this seriously?
If being happy a riot happens is impeachable... I'm fine with applying that rule broadly if we want.
I agree. After all, the current VP provided mater I’ll support to rioters over the summer by creating and contributing to defense funds. Doesn’t the need for a defense fund suggest they went further than a lawful protest. Come on Democrats, lower that bar.
Clearly. Lots of bad actors in this drama. I am no where near as upset about the "storming of the Capitol" as all the Trump haters, and even some defenders. In fact, I'm not upset about it at all, especially not that it is well over and clear that it was a mostly peaceful protest with a few mischief makers sprinkled in.
"I'm fine with applying that rule broadly if we want.”
LOL. The rules apply to whom those that apply them wish to apply them. We have a government of men, not of laws.
All your analysis assumes the peacefully rally is the same people in the Capital. Assumption not in evidence. We know BLM placed pipe bombs the night before. President Trump had not yet released the piped bombers.
The House document is 100% opinion and not supported by facts.
As always, Democrat have NEVER found Trumps actions in question. It is always second guessing what the President SHOULD have done.
Ann, do you really want the standard for impeachment to be a pissing match about would should/could/might/wish, was done?
I do not like the way he comported himself as the riot was going on, but were the people breaking the windows also checking Trump's twitter timeline?
Were the people beating the cops checking online for what Trump was saying?
To me, the cop beaters were in a class by themselves. Who were they? I want them all arrested and tried and hopefully jailed. They don't seem representative of Trump supporters to me, to start beating up cops and throwing fire extinguishers. I want to hear from and about them. What time did that happen? Was it known? Did Trump know?
When you see the video of the cop on the floor of the Senate, he doesn't act like someone who knows other cops have been getting beaten by mobs.
What was communication like?
What were the people who were violent looking at for motivation right then?
It's not really a stretch to think Trump was reluctant to tell the protesters to "go home now". It would represent a major win for Pelosi to have to call off what was a show of support for him. That hardly constitutes the same thing as 'go gettum boys!'. Typical Trump.
Hopefully there will be some examination of why the extra security that was offered was turned down.
And, although it's probably irrelevant to the proceedings, cities are still aflame. Peacefully aflame of course. What a shitshow.
I guess I'm asking: Do they think Trump should have gone to the Capitol himself, to stop the riot?
"But we also don't know if the officials who spoke to Sasse were the ones in the room with Trump.”
In a serious trial, this would call for witnesses, but this is an official kangaroo court, so second hand opinions as reported in newspapers is enough evidence.
" but were the people breaking the windows also checking Trump's twitter timeline?”
Twitter suppressed Trump’s twitter call for peace as “incitement"
Tim, even worse, the House Brief cites a Twitter post at one point. Not just news reports, tweets. And not just when quoting Trump.
F-ing liars. THEY have incited more hate and violence in this country by calling us all White Supremacists and Nazis for 4 years. Maxine calling for her supporters to chase us out of restaurants and gas stations... The little Brown Shirts of the left burning down the country (now nominated for a PEACE PRIZE????) What the hell did they expect?? This is a wake up call, that the left is missing. God Bless America.
Seriously, if you think that anything about this means he should be convicted, then every single student you ever taught got ripped off. This is one of those things I read by “constitutional law professors” that proves you guys aren’t smart. You’re ambulance chasers. Period.
Until we know who was breaking the windows, it’s kind of hard to know who is at fault. I have no doubt it was planned, I have serious doubts that the breaking of windows using specific Ante-Fa tactics was planned by MAGA Nation.
I also have zero trust in the FIB to disinterestedly investigate this or to report their findings in any honest way.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol has a timeline. It does not mention that walking from the Ellipse to the Capitol would take at least 30 minutes, and reportedly more like 45 minutes due to heavy foot traffic that day.
The police line around the Capitol was breached 53 minutes after Trump started his speech, 17 minutes before he ended it. Trump's tweet to "Stay peaceful!" was some 25 minutes after the first rioter entered the Capitol building.
alanc709 said...I always wondered what is was like to live in Soviet Russia. Now I know.
Be careful what you say. The punishment for thought crime will be delivered by the oligarchy.
I understand why my stepson is so close lipped. He is a college senior and doesn't want to be cancelled. The Trump show trial is anther way of warning people to keep their mouths shut.
Now let's impeach Kamala for raising money for the rioters and looters that burned down our country and for these words...“But they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop. And that’s – they’re not – this is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop.” “And everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop….
“They’re not gonna stop before election day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after election day."
“And that should be – everyone should take note of that.” “They’re not gonna let up. And they should not. And we should not.”
THAT is incitement. Impeach Kamala today!!!
But at some point, we can see that Trump knew the mayhem was in progress, and clearly he ought to have done what he could to stop what his supporters were doing in his name.
And that point can be determined by hearsay.
Because lawyers are people trained to make shit up whenever they want to support a position they have already taken.
MayBee said...
Do they think Trump should have gone to the Capitol himself, to stop the riot?
Yes. However, Democrat mayors and governors had no responsibility to stop the "mostly peaceful protests" that destroyed parts of Portland, Seattle, and other urban areas.
Francisco D said...
MayBee said...
Do they think Trump should have gone to the Capitol himself, to stop the riot?
Yes. However, Democrat mayors and governors had no responsibility to stop the "mostly peaceful protests" that destroyed parts of Portland, Seattle, and other urban areas.
2/3/21, 7:00 AM
And their new Vice President is proud of them and helped support their bail outs.
I can give you word by word quotes from Kamala Harris inciting insurrection.
The people she incited did Billions of dollars in damage all across the country.
The people Kamala Harris incited murdered multiple Police Offcers. Actually murdered them. Not died the next day after going home. Walked up to their car and shot them through the window murdered.
Trump's first tweet after the Capitol was breached, sent at 2:24, was "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!” That's egging on a violent mob, not trying to calm it.
And 2:11 was when the mob entered the building. It was riotous far before that. Evacuation of the Capitol was ordered at 1:26.
It serves him right for saying grab them by the pussy.
BLM was laying siege to a police station yesterday.
Antifa occupied a hotel and forced all of the people staying there to hide in their rooms while they attacked the staff and demanded free accommodations.
They have burned and looted thousands of businesses.
That is what insurrection looks like.
Tom said...
Trump's first tweet after the Capitol was breached, sent at 2:24, was "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!” That's egging on a violent mob, not trying to calm it.
And 2:11 was when the mob entered the building. It was riotous far before that. Evacuation of the Capitol was ordered at 1:26.
“They’re not gonna stop before election day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after election day."
“And that should be – everyone should take note of that.” “They’re not gonna let up. And they should not. And we should not.”
Kamala Harris
Tom, you are just a piece of shit fascist.
This is one of those things I read by “constitutional law professors” that proves you guys aren’t smart. You’re ambulance chasers. Period.
I wouldn't say ambulance chasers. Political opportunists, yes. Cherry pickers in the way the devil quotes scripture- certainly. Principled? Definitely not.
Vasiliy Vasilievich Ulrikh nods.
Guilty enough for purpose. Start the engines up and we'll finish this up out back of the Capitol behind the trucks. Unity. No platform for hatred.
"I can't see the evidence that there was an advance plan to storm the Capitol, and that, if there was, Trump knew about it, and, therefore, that we should read the language of his rally speech in that light."
It seems to me that to believe that Trump had a plan for the capitol to be stormed then he would have a plan for a follow up, that is "Now what?" In the spirit of the Underwear Gnomes:
1) Storm Capitol.
2) ??
3) President Trump.
I am not seeing how you go from Step 1 to Step 3, and for all people telling me that Trump is impulsive, if he planned Step 1 he would have some plan to get to Step 3. Why didn't he continue with his plan once the capitol was breached?
I think it is also worth noting that from what I have heard, there was next to no cell phone reception on the National Mall because the crowd, due to its size, completely overwhelmed the cell phone network. I've seen several stories about how people in other areas of the Mall had no idea what was happening- because they weren't close enough to observe it, and they had no way to find out through social media. Thus, I think you also have to make the case that had Trump chosen to tweet earlier that it would have mattered. I don't think it would have.
Furthermore, I think it is a problem to base his guilt or innocence on his personal reaction to something he had no control over. The Articles of Impeachment aren't about his state of mind or whether he was delighted or upset about what happened at the Capitol building. The memo draws attention to his "delight" because they want to create an inference that he intended for the rioters to breach the building. Even if he was (hypothetically) tickled pink by the incursion, if he is to be convicted, it needs to be for the reasons set forward in the Articles. The Articles claim that he "incited" the protestors. His feelings about the riot after the fact are irrelevant to whether he incited them.
It is perfectly fine to think poorly of Trump based on his reaction to the riot, if we ever get a clear picture of what it was- but thinking poorly of Trump isn't a basis for convicting him. We extend more due process than that to ordinary criminal defendants. We ought to extend it to the President as well.
>>that has the most power to convince me that he deserves to be convicted.
Convicted? Are you granting that the Senate has the power to try him?
Saying "his mob" is bullshit. There is no evidence that it was a mob sent by him. I find what happened on 1/6/21 far less important than the ongoing death and destruction from last year when dozens died. And Democrats literally cheered for rioters and raised bail money so the rioters could go do it so more. When you have Trump egging on death like this let me know and until then fuck off with your "his words could have calmed them" bullshit. IF he did not SEND them then he did not have any power to call them off. And IF he is responsible for NOT calling them off what about the other fifty cities including DC that burned?
Who is to be impeached for Minneapolis and Seattle and Portland and St. Louis and Chicago and Kenosha? Huh? Who?
This is a farce. And the political theatre is killing our country.
The Articles of Impeachment are a reword of the House resolution demanding VP Pence invoke the 25th Amendment. The Democrats were so mad about Pence’s dereliction of duty, they changed a few words and passed the Articles of Impeachment. Then giggled.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has accused Sen. Ted Cruz of trying to have her murdered on Jan. 6. Then she released an Instagram video in which she accused an unnamed — Capitol Police officer of possibly trying to lead her to her death during the riot at the Capitol. “Was he trying to actually put us in a vulnerable situation?” she asks, noting that he was looking at her “in all of this anger and hostility.”
Who are the nutcases in Congress again, and why are we even giving them the time of day when they act like this imbecile???
The troll farms are impossible to deny.
There are douchey fascist minders like "Tom" that show up on all of these threads and spout the state line.
Nobody believes you "Tom."
Or "Arturo."
You are fascist minders.
"How likely is it that Democrats stole votes or destroyed pro_Trump ballots in several states to ensure that Biden would win:"
All Voters - 47% Very Likely. 37% Very Unlikely.
You know what's best?
Democrats - 30% Very Likely. 20% Very Unlikely.
The fascist regime is losing it's grip.
just to be clear;
If the Senate can't get 67 votes for conviction; then President Trump returns to office?
Right?
remember all the concoctions people made up? Back in 2017? About how we'd get rid of Trump?
And then Hilary would become President?
It's the same here, isn't it?
Althouse wrote that has the most power to convince me that he deserves to be convicted
But you weren't interested in discussing the massive election fraud, some of which happened in your own backyard that caused this entire false episode.
Does this get a "convictions I hope will happen" tag?
Why didn't Ben Sasse stop the riot if he knew what everyone was thinking?
Well, I’m not a pointy head intellectual Reham, so I’m gonna go with ambulance chasers.
Saying "his mob" is bullshit
They say without evidence...
All the Ds with the fervor of Andrey Vyshinsky during the Moscow Show Trials.
Here have a retired UW Law Professor, open to the idea that someone out of office, who was cheated out of the office, can be convicted in a farce impeachment trial so they can never run for office again.
With all the lawfare that the left likes to engage in, imagine what they will do with this if successful. Marjorie Taylor Greene isn’t going to shut up about the election fraud. Why not just impeach her, ban her from Twitter and FB, and prevent her from ever holding office again or speaking freely.
I would expect nothing less out of The University of Wisconsin. What’s next? Althouse opens up to the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, or perhaps becomes a fan of the “Reality Czar” idea being floated around Washington these days????
"Seriously, if you think that anything about this means he should be convicted, then every single student you ever taught got ripped off. This is one of those things I read by “constitutional law professors” that proves you guys aren’t smart. You’re ambulance chasers. Period."
So you're saying *I'm* quick to judgment.
Irony noted.
Admittedly, I had a "that which is falling deserves to be pushed" kind of attitude when I voted for Trump in 2016. And honestly, schadenfreude alone was reason enough to vote for him. Watching our arrogant, condescending elite class squirming on election night was embarrassingly gratifying. For a brief moment, they had that permanent smirk wiped off their face.
I'd be much less disturbed about Trump delighting in causing mayhem if it was more than anything but childish pettiness. Instead of Tweeting, Trump could've caused mayhem in many more useful ways. Pardoning Deep State enemies like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden is one example. That they didn't get pardoned but Bannon did is all you need to know about what a dipshit Trump is. He also could have played whistleblower himself and declassified covert operations. He could have released the remaining GTMO detainees. He could release the contents of his daily briefings. Trump needed a little more creativity.
Trump impeached for publicly noticing the crimes of democrats.
Again.
We're a clown country without virtue.
"Serious people" debating various aspects of this impeachment/trial as if it were legitimate proves the point.
The cowardice of seeking a position about this sham Impeachment trial, other than, “this is total bullshit” while refusing to analyze the election fraud; the ROOT CAUSE of Jan 6, 2021 is quite thick.
Self-preservation is a strong motivator. If COVID taught us nothing else… it was that self-preservation is a greater value to Americans than freedom for themselves, or others.
Seems its been bullshit turtles...all the way down.
I am not seeing how you go from Step 1 to Step 3, and for all people telling me that Trump is impulsive, if he planned Step 1 he would have some plan to get to Step 3. Why didn't he continue with his plan once the capitol was breached?
I believe that is her point. Even if you accept the notion this was a planned insurrection and then give a favorable reading of Trump’s speech to that notion; steps are missing. There is a disconnected in the argument being made by Democrats.
I’m not saying you’re a pointy head intellectual Reham.
So you're saying *I'm* quick to judgment
There they go again, now invoking the super-secret-but-definitely-in-some-statute-somewhere mandatory waiting period on judgement.
@donald:
This is one of those things I read by “constitutional law professors” that proves you guys aren’t smart. You’re ambulance chasers. Period.
I'm not sure you know what "ambulance chaser" means.
So you're saying *I'm* quick to judgment.
Irony noted.
LOLz...
There's enough irony in most of these comment threads to fill up a virtual Bessemer furnace.
Right. The guy who had no problem violently clearing out a public square with an NG turned into his own praetorian guard, in order to stage a photo op at a church he wasn't wanted at - with a bible awkwardly held in the wrong hand - had such a hard time responding effectively to the "special" mob he "loved." It was just so hard for a guy who advocated punching protesters in the face, carrying them out in stretchers, having the cops rough them up and paying their legal fines to do something timely about the slightly indelicate way in which the capitol was stormed. What a poor guy. His situation begs for sympathy and understanding.
As for not knowing about the speech, video of the capitol mob shows they were streaming audio of it aloud as they waited to march on the orders of that very presidential leader who left the scene as soon as they started to make their move at his command. The perpetual hearings for ben ghazi crowd is either being gullible or disingenuous. Either way, those qualities don't entitle whomever you're defending to a seat in the highest office in the land. Try having some standards for a change.
I'm not sure you know what "ambulance chaser" means.
You start your day off, picking a fight by intentional taking the phrase literally?
“I can't help thinking of the protests and riots last summer, when so many people observed a distinction between the peaceful protesters and the violent rioters and considered it very important to preserve the tradition of street demonstrations.”
This exactly. Over the summer, any violence was regarded as anomalous, ignored or sometimes blamed on the police just for being there. If violence can be connected in any way to Trump and his supporters, it will be. If some Trumper punches someone, well, that means Amy Coney Barrett is an illegitimate Justice.
Browndog said… We're a clown country without virtue…."Serious people" debating various aspects of this impeachment/trial as if it were legitimate proves the point.
That’s it right there buddy. Madison, WI in a nutshell. Or, maybe even a Nutcracker.
But remember. It’s very important to be taken seriously by people who take themselves very seriously.
>>"Serious people" debating various aspects of this impeachment/trial as if it were legitimate proves the point.
That's the whole point. Just jump past "should the trial even take place?" and let's assume he's guilty and start debating the punishment.
Ironically, that's a very Trump-like move.
"piece of shit fascist."
Thank you for having the courage to take this brave stand in defense of racially motivated police brutality. That takes a lot of integrity.
Ann Althouse said...
"Seriously, if you think that anything about this means he should be convicted, then every single student you ever taught got ripped off. This is one of those things I read by “constitutional law professors” that proves you guys aren’t smart. You’re ambulance chasers. Period."
So you're saying *I'm* quick to judgment.
Irony noted.
This does not reflect well on you professor.
I think he is absolutely correct:
"Seriously, if you think that anything about this means he should be convicted, then every single student you ever taught got ripped off."
if: "you think that anything about this means he should be convicted"
then: "then every single student you ever taught got ripped off."
This is 100% correct.
"This is one of those things I read by “constitutional law professors” that proves you guys aren’t smart. You’re ambulance chasers. Period."
I don't like the term ambulance chasers. It doesn't reinforce his point. Ambulance chasers are more amoral than stupid.
Constitutional law professors are bullshit artists. Marbury vs. Madison by itself makes this statement true. After that you just need to say "Kelo" or "Roe v. Wade."
How long is the Constitution?"
First answer on Quora:
"Gary Porter, I teach Saturday Seminars on the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions.
Answered 2 years ago · Author has 6.2K answers and 950.2K answer views
It depends; the original Constitution, as others have pointed out, took up four pages of parchment; today’s standard pocket Constitution normally devotes 17 printed pages to the basic Constitution and another 17 to the Amendments.
Neither of these tells you what the Constitution means today. For that you must purchase or download the 3000+ pages of the U.S. Constitution, Analysis and Interpretation
, which shows you what the Supreme Court thinks the sparse words of the original document mean and how they should direct the actions of the government."
"A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said. "According to the Hennepin County Attorney's office, Thomas Moseley, 29, had been arrested and released in cases involving allegations that include damaging a police precinct in August and rioting in December. He was arrested again on Jan. 27, just 22 days after his latest release. During that span, he is also suspected of trying to illegally purchase a gun, and officers are investigating that matter." (from Don Surber)
Impeach for aiding and abetting an insurrectionist!
WHY is THIS okay for a Senator now Vice President. IMPEACH!!!!
Is there a "correct" and "incorrect" hand to hold the bible with?
Here have a retired UW Law Professor, open to the idea that someone out of office, who was cheated out of the office, can be convicted in a farce impeachment trial so they can never run for office again.
Gusty,
There is no conviction (meant both ways) and no penalty.
It is not a trial. It is a show.
Is there an "awkward" vs. a "convincing" way to pretend to hold a bible that you violently beat a bunch of citizens to pose for a photo op with?
Some people will believe anything. These people also want to convince America that they have good reasons for keeping a con man from being convicted of impeachment.
Althouse said...So you're saying *I'm* quick to judgment.
You were pretty quick about wiping out anything about the election fraud. Even the ballot harvesting that happened in your own backyard, or that MGT believed some "stupid things".
But...I still think you KNOW the election was stolen. You just can't write the words. The price to pay is too high. Especially in Madison.
But they are handing out Gold Stars for taking a sham Impeachment Trial seriously.
The Regressives really, really hate us, and they want us to bow down to them. Nothing shows that more than this....."Elon Musk is being investigated by the DOJ for allegedly discriminating against an applicant who is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident."
It seems like they are working for illegals now, and F-ck the rest of us. And they wonder why they are hated??
"According to the DOJ, in March 2020, a non-U.S. citizen inquiring about the position of technology strategy associate at SpaceX was asked about his citizenship status. DOJ attorney Lisa Sandoval stated that SpaceX “ultimately failed to hire him for the position because he is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.”
Last Thursday, the DOJ filed a request with a judge “to order SpaceX to comply with an administrative subpoena for documents related to how the company hires,” CNBC reported. The DOJ wants SpaceX to comply with its subpoena within two weeks.
The disgruntled applicant initially filed a complaint of employee discrimination with the DOJ’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) on May 29, 2020. The IER enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which has an anti-discrimination provision prohibiting citizenship status and national origin discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee.
IER emailed SpaceX on June 8 that an investigation was underway and asked SpaceX to hand over information and documents related to its hiring and employment eligibility verification processes. The letter stated, “IER’s investigation is not … limited only to the specific allegations and/or claims that [the Charging Party] made in the charge summarized above. Our investigation therefore may also explore whether [SpaceX] engages in any pattern or practice of discrimination that 8 U.S.C. § 1324b prohibits.”
According to the document filed on Thursday, SpaceX responded on August 28, sending the DOJ a Form I-9 spreadsheet, but “SpaceX refused to produce any Form I-9 supporting documentation, such as copies of employees’ passports, driver’s licenses, or Social Security cards, as requested.”
On October 7, 2020, IER obtained the subpoena from an OCAHO administrative law judge; SpaceX received the subpoena on October 12. On October 20, representatives from the DOJ met with SpaceX’s counsel; on October 26, SpaceX filed to either revoke or modify the subpoena, arguing that the subpoena exceeded IER’s authority. On November 1, IER filed its opposition to SpaceX’s action.
On December 1, 2020, OCAHO denied SpaceX’s petition to modify or revoke and ordered SpaceX to comply with the subpoena. On December 11, 2020, SpaceX said it had received OCAHO’s order but notified IER that it did “not intend to produce any additional information in response to the administrative subpoena.”
The DOJ asserted, “This Court should order SpaceX to comply with the Subpoena because, as OCAHO ruled: (1) IER has authority to investigate SpaceX, (2) IER followed proper procedural requirements, (3) the evidence sought by the Subpoena is directly relevant to IER’s investigation, and (4) the investigation is not unduly burdensome.”
“Petitioner’s failure to establish overbreadth or undue burden also means that this Court should not modify the Subpoena, such as by requiring IER to accept a sampling of the Form I-9 supporting documentation or anything less than what is sought,” the DOJ concluded."
This is the bullshit we have to live with for the next 4 years?? It can't end soon enough for me. What a freaking joke.
"Elon Musk is being investigated by the DOJ for allegedly discriminating against an applicant who is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident
They could just as easily be investigating him for hiring same. Not a nation of laws...
Lost in all this is what was Trump told about the situation and when. How much did he know about what was happening inside the building versus those protesting outside? Where was his focus? We know the timeline of his tweets and video (the output). What was the input? I'm not impressed by pearl clutching over the three hour response.
BTW, I've just finished Rick Atkinson's account of the battle of the bulge. For point of reference, it took Ike days to appreciate the situation; even longer for Bradley. I'm not equating the situations. I'm pointing out that informational/decision making friction always works against reactions happening as fast as others judge they should have after the fact.
I for one believe hpudding instead of the factual evidence that is presented here because lil' puddin' is morally outraged by the bad orange man. because............reasons.
Trump is being impeached now for the same reason he was impeached before, and for the same reason the Resistance has fomented conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory for the last four years, while every left of center media outlet has breathlessly reported how “ the walls are closing in” while fantasizing about Trump being frog marched to a dark cell.
Trump is gross. He is an offensive person. He is a blowhard. A buffoon. A barefaced liar, a liar who lies even when the lie is demonstrable. A braggart whose braggadocio will extend to the most trivially embarrassing things. He is eo ipso dangerous, not because of any policy or actual actions but because he is by his own nature an affront to office of the President. His uncouth keister sits in the place where men of moral rectitude, deep erudition, charm, grace, courage, and vision once sat. It is not to be born. And he sits there not humbly, recognizing his unworthiness, but contemptuously, as if it was beneath him to follow in the footsteps of Washington. It is as if the last four years Trump spent every day shitting on the Resolute desk and then smearing it all over the drapes.
And that’s pretty much it. Except for that last bit I actually agree, even though I held my nose and voted for Trump last time. But these days have made me much more cynical. And I was pretty cynical. I can recall, as most Democrats affect not recalling, that charm (Clinton), grace (JFK), erudition (Jefferson), courage (Grant), and vision (Wilson) all have their downsides.
This is the bullshit we have to live with for the next 4 years?
You ride into town and hang the first couple of people you see in order seed fear in the rest if them.
I fully expect Senator Leahy to shut down the Trump Defense being allowed to present anything on the massive election fraud. That’s why he’s in charge. Just like when corrupt John Roberts refused to read the name of the “whistleblower”.
If I had a Genie in a bottle I would wish Trump could send in My Cousin Vinny as his defense lawyer, and the Water Buffalo Shaman guy would escort him to the front of the Senate Chamber.
Trump isn’t the only American Citizen that is going to face farce trials during the Biden / Harris years. He’s just the first. General Flynn was the trial balloon.
I'll be Madison, WI is excited at all the upcoming opportunities. The University of Wisconsin has an army of "serious" lawyers willing to participate.
hpudding said...
Right. The guy who had no problem violently clearing out a public square with an NG turned into his own praetorian guard, in order to stage a photo op at a church he wasn't wanted at - with a bible awkwardly held in the wrong hand ...
So what you're saying is...
You travel a lot, spending a lot of time at airports.
"Kamala Harris says the ‘protests’ are essential for our ‘evolution’ as a country.” (snip)
“Nothing that we have achieved that has been about progress, in particular around civil rights, has come without a fight, and so I always am going to interpret these protests as an essential component of evolution in our country — as an essential component or mark of a real democracy,” the California senator said during an interview held as part of the NAACP’s national convention Friday, which was held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Protests were “necessary,” the Democratic candidate for Vice President said, as “the people’s voices must be heard, and it is often the people who must speak to get their government to do what it is supposed to do, but may not do naturally unless the people speak loudly — and obviously peacefully.”
Harris also praised the “brilliance” and “impact” of Black Lives Matter, without criticizing the ongoing violence at rallies held in the organization’s name in cities across the country, nor the shooting of two police officers in Louisville. “I actually believe that ‘Black Lives Matter’ has been the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system,” the former California Attorney General said." American Thinker
Not really Anne. I’m saying that even allowing for the possibility is complete bullshit and only some pointy headed lawyer or political hack would think differently. But what the hell I know. My only point of reference is the constitution and the Federalist Papers which are
pretty plainly worded if you ask me.
"Reasons."
Oh, there certainly are quite a few. At least for patriotic Americans who have... standards.
But I can understand why a party with nothing going for it apart from a violently lawless, tantrum-throwing cult of personality con man charging the helm would have trouble with those things.
It will be interesting to see the insurrectionism defenders here continue to weasel around any character witnesses for the guy whose most passionately devoted flock will now testify in the well of the Senate regarding how malevolently they were used and misled by him.
So Animal Farm- Snowball incited an insurrection among the chickens, 3came forward to confess, while the sheep remain sheep. The question: who would u have dinner w/- living or dead? How cool to sup w/Orwell.
The worst part was when, after a period of reflection, Trump said, "People will do what they do."
Oh, (checks notes). Never mind.
There were people there, at the front of the race to break the windows, who were clearly not there to support Trump. At least, they were there because anarchists love an anarchistic event, at most, they were there specifically to create chaos and destruction knowing it would be blamed on Trump supporters. Not saying there were no Trump supporters in the crowd. I am saying that they were not at the head of it.
We do not know the backgrounds of those who have been arrested. Not surprisingly- with a few exceptions, that information is not being released. Nor is there any talk of why some Capitol police were opening up gates and funneling protestors toward a more riotous crowd up at the building itself.
That said, imagine you're in that crowd. A mob. You're doing what humans typically do: you are following the mob as they are encouraged- both by Capitol police and bullhorn imploring Antifa provocateurs. The noise is huge. You're moving forward, running walking, then getting crunched in the crowd which is slowing to a stop. Are you going to be looking at a text from Pres. Trump at that moment and yelling to those around you, "Hey...the President wants us to stop." Nah. It's beyond that point.
Trump had no control over the mob. This was huge, and sparked by those who were planted to do just that- spark a mob. And once the mob gets going, it will run it's course. But the truth is not the important thing to discover here. It never is. What is important is that the narrative be backed up. That can be done. They hold the information flow. They can make it happen.
Wince said...
The worst part was when, after a period of reflection, Trump said, "People will do what they do."
Oh, (checks notes). Never mind.
2/3/21, 8:00 AM
Good one!!
I'm 2000 miles away and I can smell the bullshit from here.
John Henry
mob?
So we are not doing the "mostly peaceful" thing in this case?
reportedly 'delighted' by the mayhem he had unleashed
Whenever I see that word in a "news" story, I substitute "[reporter made up]".
"I can't help thinking of the protests and riots last summer, when so many people observed a distinction between the peaceful protesters and the violent rioters and considered it very important to preserve the tradition of street demonstrations."
Trump's rhetoric fanned the flames of riot last summer too. He did that because BLM helped him win states in 2016. He was derelict in his duty then too. The difference is that the January 6 rioters were his mob, that he gathered in Washington, DC, on the day the electoral votes were to be counted, and that he sent down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol.
Narrative! Hahaha. That's a good one!
Try this narrative on for size. Guy who says, "I'd like to punch (a protester) in the face," I love the old days - they'd be carried out on a stretcher," "be a little more violent," has no influence whatsoever on his violent mobs - despite the tantrum he threw when he lost his device for communicating to them and several million others in 140 characters. Yes, very credible narrative. Those who believed and listened to him all along (not those doing double-speak for him in the Insurrection Defense squad here) will testify to the contrary. Oh, Trump is just so powerless to influence his violent goons, goes their narrative! I never realized he thought he was so impotent. But I guess you did. Trump is just such an important figurehead for the Republicans - they will defend him at any cost, BUT he has no influence whatsoever and no responsibility when it comes to what he communicates to his followers. Hilarious!
They could just as easily be investigating him for hiring same.
Indeed. SpaceX policy of not hiring non-citizens is compliant with International Law, of which the US is a party, that is designed to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The Democrat Party's new name is the Smear Party. They'll tell you that every Republican is a racist, white supremist, Nazi, fascist, wants to kill AOC (that's probably partly true, we'd like to see her political career killed.), and wants to suppress the vote.
It's this stage of the event — what Trump did after we know he knew the crowd had breached the Capitol — that has the most power to convince me that he deserves to be convicted.
Convicted of what?
Ann Althouse said...
"I can't help thinking of the protests and riots last summer, when so many people observed a distinction between the peaceful protesters and the violent rioters and considered it very important to preserve the tradition of street demonstrations."
So many people! So many prog people! So very important!
I can't help thinking of the four years of continual, dishonest, partisan prog BS we have just endured, so I am just a tad, how I shall I put it, impatient with the Althousian tendency to judge a claim in the Dem's latest sham attack in good faith.
I don’t have any idea what was in his heart about what he wanted to happen once they were in the Capitol, but he wanted there to be chaos.
I think that President Trump wanted his crowd -- the people who attended his speech -- to walk peacefully to the Capitol building.
We don't know what Trump knew specifically about the incursion. If, at the time he was "delighted", it was only that people were pushing the police line, well, that different than a breach.
Sasse and others all "alarmed" at the Capitol were quick to come out against the clearing of Lafayette Square after two nights of near breach of the White House and the burning of a historical church. A clearing that began long after anyone not living in a downtown DC hotel could have reached their home/lodgings before the curfew went into effect.
But it is cute, the "his supporters" language. A not so subtle effort to steer the thoughts that they took direction. After all, "Trump supporter" is really just an idea and not a hierarchical organization.
The Capitol riots is an incredibly dull topic for me, but Althouse has managed to write the only interesting piece about it with this post.
CWJ @ 7:45: “... BTW, I've just finished Rick Atkinson's account of the battle of the bulge. For point of reference, it took Ike days to appreciate the situation; even longer for Bradley. I'm not equating the situations. I'm pointing out that informational/decision making friction always works against reactions happening as fast as others judge they should have after the fact.”. WORD.
The compression of timelines in hindsight is a deep problem. So easy to judge later that somebody “should have” seen something, or seen it sooner, or appreciated its significance, or acted thus rather than otherwise. The evidence against Trump is a dog’s breakfast of supposition, hearsay, opinion, conjecture, projection, blame-shifting, selective editing and outright falsehoods. In other words, the usual Rashomon Stew, except here enhanced by a hot sauce (years and decades in the making) of personal animus and mindless loathing, plus a desperate need to erase this warlock from our history.
Good luck with that.
"dereliction of duty to take charge of a decisive security response"? Since when is the president in charge of the Capitol police?
Suppose that a Black man were prosecuted with such "evidence" and "legal reasoning".
The suggestion that Trump was "delighted" at the riot because he thought it would prevent Congress from certifying his defeat doesn't pass the laugh test. That wasn't going to happen, unless the rioters managed to prevent Congress from reassembling at another time (which is what they did) or place (which would have been possible if necessary). The only thing the riot could have achieved was a temporary inconvenience and--something that actually happened--to enrage Trump's opponents far more effectively than Trump's blathering about a stolen election was able to enrage his supporters.
Left Bank— that is some deep thinking, comrade. The traitorous Trump wanted riots all the time and was repeatedly frustrated and angered by the “peaceful protests.” He lives for riots. It is part of his masterplan to squeeze those who have sold him short.
Or maybe you are just an idiot who approves of impeachment trials of private citizens followed by bills of attainder.
The Kamala stuff is beside the point when the question is whether Trump's behavior was irresponsible or impeachable. Kamala and other Democrats have been horribly irresponsible with respect to the BLM/antifa mobs. They should be held responsible for that through whatever process is available (recalls, expulsion, being voted out of office, etc.). Most of them won't be because the electorate is polarized and irresponsible itself in the aggregate, but they should be. If the point of the Kamala talk is that Democrats are hypocrites, that's fine. Not much argument here. If the point is that one person should be held responsible only if other people are held responsible for similar acts, there is some merit to that, just from a fairness of the system kind of perspective. The debate then becomes about similarity of acts. And then you have to ask when is it prudent to draw a line and stop letting public officials get away with betrayals of the public trust, even if it means that one person gets punished while others don't. But ultimately, that Kamala was irresponsible is irrelevant to the question whether Trump was irresponsible, which is the narrow question raised by the original post.
Trump's statement "And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p***y. You can do anything." is a truth about pervert Hollywood, television and the casting couch. This also applies to Jeffery Epstein's friends, mostly Democrats.
I think that President Trump wanted his crowd -- the people who attended his speech -- to walk peacefully to the Capitol building.
You just don't get it, do you? Trump's supporters (and the House impeachment managers) understand that "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" was simply coded language for "Burn the motherfucker down."
Trump's rhetoric fanned the flames of riot last summer too. He did that because BLM helped him win states in 2016. He was derelict in his duty then too.
No, the thing that started the riot last summer was the media reaction and coverage of the George Floyd mess. Trump had absolutely nothing to do with that situation whatsoever. The media are 100% at fault for that, and the mayors and governors are responsible for actually fanning the flames. You are a bald-faced liar.
The difference is that the January 6 rioters were his mob, that he gathered in Washington, DC, on the day the electoral votes were to be counted, and that he sent down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol.
No one "sent" anyone anywhere. People willingly went to the capitol and protested. A few yahoos went in, egged on by people who were there entirely to incite a riot (most likely Antifa, anarchists or Dem party operatives), and the only people that got seriously hurt or died (with one exception) were the people who breached the building. Which is the exact opposite of what happened over the summer, where cops and store owners were murdered, businesses and neighborhoods were turned into infernos, and Dems paid for the bail of the people doing it.
You're a gaslighting hack, Charles. You know you're lying through your teeth, which makes you as bad as any Soviet politburo propagandist. You should be ashamed of yourself, but somehow I don't think you're capable of shame.
@iowan2:
You start your day off, picking a fight by intentional taking the phrase literally?
No, I took it idiomatically. And the phrase makes no sense in that context. As for picking a fight, I think saying Ann's students were all ripped off, that she's not smart, and that she's an ambulance chaser qualifies more than me pointing out that Donald uses phrases he doesn't seem to understand.
We can deal with Trump as soon as we know Obama’s role in the Russia hoax. After all, we’ve waited 4 years for that information. I see no reason for Trump to jump to the front of the line.
Why can’t Democrats understand: If on January 6 the President had persuaded the Vice President to utter the name Donald Trump instead of Joe Biden to Congress, Trump would still be President — you can look it up in the Constitution.
Two top Democratic strategists have exited the presidential campaign after explosive undercover videos showed them discussing voter fraud and their roles in planting paid agitators at campaign events for Republican candidate Donald Trump.
Robert Creamer, founder of Democracy Advocates and the husband of Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, stepped down from the campaign Tuesday, a day after Scott Foval was fired from his post as national field director of Americans United for Change.
Robert Creamer was inside the Obama White House, more than 300 time. In the Oval Office 47 times
Creamer was the man, working under direction of Obama, that HIRED people to cause violence at Trump rallies. Obama is still in DC and still hiring persons to foment violence. We know who is doing the planning. Past performance IS indicative of future results.
The people who are responsible and accountable for the breach are the people who actually breached the Capital. That said, recalling the mob that Rand Paul and his wife endured while walking back to their hotel, and no democratic condemnation of that, lends credibility to their complicity in the breach. They reaped the whirlwind, and they need to own up to it.
I also keep wondering if it should be a matter of expectation that the Speaker or Majority Leader should stand pat in the face of these types of things... kind of like going down with the ship mentality. They did not stand (surrounded by Capital police of course) and defend the event by speaking with the people inside to try to calm things down themselves. I realize that this would be foolish depending upon the situation, but it does seem that we have elected people who have no courage to defend their place in the system. They didn’t even try. The actors in the Senate chamber were pretty respectful in this particular case.
hpudding at 7:29 AM
... with a bible awkwardly held in the wrong hand ...
??????
Like PJ Media describing Trump's response as "eviscerating" the Dem arguments--this is not an unbiased analysis of the facts, it is a court filing explicitly arguing for a particular point of view. It cannot lie, but it has broad discretion to choose and shade the facts in a certain direction.
The fact that it gets so vague about sourcing on these points undermines their truth value, but no conclusions can be made based on either filing except that these are the arguments they are making. During the hearings, we'll learn more about whose argument is a better encapsulation of what happened and how much blame Trump gets.
2000 plus Capital Police to cover 2 sq miles, DC Police more than a thousand. Capital Police budget more than 500 million a year. Capital Police report to Nancy.
Who is fault again?
Blogger Jupiter said...
"But at some point, we can see that Trump knew the mayhem was in progress, and clearly he ought to have done what he could to stop what his supporters were doing in his name."
Clearly? Look, Chuck-the-suck Schumer is clearly a sickening example of human depravity. That is clear. That the people trashing the Capitol were Trump supporters is not so clear.
Oh, that's right. You only do legacy media. Never mind.
My two cents
https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/03/chuck-schumer-used-violent-rhetoric-to-sic-a-mob-on-two-supreme-court-justices
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/06/25/maxine_waters_god_is_on_our_side.html
Here is what whipping us insurrection and violence really looks
Frightened these bottom feeders so they strike out at Trump and eventually at the 53 percent. Hide your guns and money...
"was reportedly" is code for "we're making this up"
https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1356974484964704256
Do Schumer, et al., have any suggestions about how Trump should have communicated with the rioters in the building, to stop their depredations? Or is the assumption simply that Trump has telepathic control over his minions of evil, along with the Antifa agitators mixed among them, across time and space?
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer threatened the two most recently confirmed justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. " - Chucky Schumer.
"Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, who attended Kavanaugh’s immediate swearing in, were hit with water bottles and tomatoes when their car left the court afterward. Some 164 people were arrested in that protest. "
“We were planning to shut down the Capitol Building but the authorities were so scared of this #WomensWave that they shut it down for us,”
Some insurrections are okay, others not so much.
That was from The Federalist. https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/03/chuck-schumer-used-violent-rhetoric-to-sic-a-mob-on-two-supreme-court-justices/
Althouse: “It's this stage of the event — what Trump did after we know he knew the crowd had breached the Capitol — that has the most power to convince me that he deserves to be convicted.”
Good lord! Never mind that the impeachment is illegal or that it can’t be proved that Trump incited the riot or whatever the DemMediaswine consortium are calling it now. He “deserves to be convicted” for not stopping it or something - because we lefties can prove he could have stopped it. Right? Or maybe it’s just that he failed to condemn it in what his critics think was a timely manner.
Who knew that schadenfreude is an impeachable offense? Certainly not anyone with more than passing familiarity with criminal law and the rules of evidence.
Maybe he’s guilty of gawking with the intent to gloat. Let’s ask Queen Nan or Mittens or, apparently, Professor Althouse.
Ultimately it's unknowable whether Trump encouraged an insurrection or not -- the available evidence seems to be too fuzzy and nit-picking.
It just comes down to "the feelz". How you feel about Trump.
If you like Trump, he said the right things in reasonable time to quell a riot. If you don't like Trump nothing he could have said at any time would ever exonerate him. Simple as that.
"It's this stage of the event — what Trump did after we know he knew the crowd had breached the Capitol — that has the most power to convince me that he deserves to be convicted."
Your goalposts have moved.
Inciting a riot has nothing to do with what happened AFTER the riot.
It is nice that Trump will be at the Capitol today paying respects to the police officer who tried to protect Congress from his mob. I must say that I was surprised when I heard. I really didn't think he had it in him.
"President Trump was reportedly..."
There's no vagueness there...
Other loose ends
https://www.thenewneo.com/2021/01/30/update-on-officer-sicknicks-death/
"It is nice that Trump will be at the Capitol today paying respects to the police officer who tried to protect Congress from his mob. I must say that I was surprised when I heard. I really didn't think he had it in him."
And the still unnamed Capitol cop will show up at Babbitt's funeral to pay his respects...
Browndog:” We're a clown country without virtue.”
Pardon?
“ We're a clown country without virtue.”
A reminder, there are multiple levels of debate going on:
Is the Impeachment Constitutional: I'd say no, but Congress is currently going ahead with it, so most discussion is moot, but certainly it is reasonable to state an agreement or disagreement. There is a side discussion on the political vs criminal trial aspects and another discussion on whether the desired punishment is Constitutional
Is their a reasonable case: I'd say no, but a case is being presented by both sides, and there is value and entertainment in discussing the merits and demerits of the cases. By cases, there is the Democrats claim of insurrection and Trump's claim of a rigged/stolen election. To be clear, I don't know if the election was stolen, but I do think there are reasonable cases regarding rigging that should have been addressed by State Legislatures and failing that, the US Congress. Alas, that didn't happen.
How Trump should respond: I'd say drag it out by claiming it is unlawful. But Trump lost much of his legal team, as they disagreed with his desire to go on the offensive and plead his case. I appreciate his zeal, but as I see the trial as a political act; Trump's strategy will likely fail, because it is suited to a courtroom.
How the public should respond: Not as much debate here as of yet, but claiming people disagree with you because they are arguing in one debate area (and mostly hypothetical rather that advocating) and you are arguing about another debate area; this strategy isn't likely to gain support for your cause.
Ann Althouse reportedly picks up extra money as a pole dancer in a strip club. I, myself, am dubious about that but a “journalist” would never lie about someone they dislike intensely, would they?
This is all prelude to the show.
Perhaps it will be The Greatest Show on Earth.
"Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," - Chuck Schumer 3 Jan 2017 with the "you" being President-Elect Donald Trump.
I think that is an incitement to insurrection by the US Intelligence agencies. And there is plenty of evidence of the creation of a "resistance" movement within the government that seemed emboldened by remarks like Schumer's and in violation of the oaths of office of Schumer and the various civil-servants that participated.
This impeachment is hysteria repeating itself as farce.
"But at some point, we can see that Trump knew the mayhem was in progress, and clearly he ought to have done what he could to stop what his supporters were doing in his name."
Now do "Black Lives Matter' and all the Democrats who supported it.
How many innocent people had to be murdered by BLM supporters before it was inappropriate for Democrat "leaders" to kneel for BLM?
How many homes and businesses had to be destroyed before in became incumbent upon those Democrat politicians who supported BLM to do "what [they] could to stop" the violence, the riots, the murders being done in its name?
How many rioting thugs had to be set free by Democrat "prosecutors", how many times did law enforcement have to be blocked from stopping the riots, before voters clearly ought to have done what they could to stop Democrats who were enabling the violence, by refusing to vote for any Democrat, anywhere, and always supporting their Republican opponent?
How is it that it took until "Republicans" "rioted" before political violence became "unacceptable"?
And yes, Professor Althouse, when you refused to chose between Biden and Trump, you effectively stated that the Democrats political violence was acceptable. Because if it wasn't acceptable, you wouldn't have accepted it, and you would have voted for Trump to stop it.
"President Trump was reportedly 'delighted' by the mayhem he had unleashed, because it was preventing Congress from affirming his election loss."
"reportedly"
By who? Some Democrat activist with a byline claimed to have spoken to some anonymous individual who "reported" that Trump did what the activist wanted to claim, and that's grounds for impeachment and conviction?
Welcome to the Salem Witch trials, but without the intelligence, judgement, and thoughtfulness
hpudding said...
"Reasons."
"Oh, there certainly are quite a few. At least for patriotic Americans who have... standards."
certainly no one of your acquaintance. Your standards are fungible in any case.
The whole proceeding- it isn't impeachment since you can't impeach anyone who is a private citizen-is a dog and pony show for the slack jawed base. Lil'puddin' will be in the stands with his popcorn in one hand and a sucker in the other drooling over the proceedings.
have fun kid.
"Ann Althouse reportedly picks up extra money as a pole dancer in a strip club."
Name and address of club?
And can you break a twenty into ones?
: )
Seamus said...
You just don't get it, do you? Trump's supporters (and the House impeachment managers) understand that "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" was simply coded language for "Burn the motherfucker down."
Plain language, written or spoken, never means what the English language instructs it to mean.
It mean whatever democrats says it means. They are not bound by the simple constructs of a civilized society. They are far more advanced than that.
We wouldn't understand. Too complex for the common man.
Cruel CVT.
Pardoning Deep State enemies like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden is one example. That they didn't get pardoned but Bannon did is all you need to know about what a dipshit Trump is.
Farmer reading minds again. I was kind of in favor of pardoning those two. Maybe he had reasons you don't know. Nah. That couldn't be it since you can read his mind. As far as declassifying, there are articles pointing out why he had no access to them. The same people who lied to him about Syria.
I see "Tom" and the troll farm are getting started.
"reportedly"
By who?
"My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who heard Trump talking at the protest last night. I guess it's pretty serious."
Leland said...
I believe that is her point. Even if you accept the notion this was a planned insurrection and then give a favorable reading of Trump’s speech to that notion; steps are missing. There is a disconnected in the argument being made by Democrats.
2/3/21, 7:26 AM
Sorry but you can't use those two words in the same sentence: argument & Democrats. They are NOT even attempting to make an argument. There is no logic involved. It is all about feelz.
First, we don't yet know what happened at the Capital and the identities of those who instigated the actual destruction of windows and doors. That matters. Many of the people in the videos appear to be clueless demonstrators who were simply moved forward with the crowd, possibly not knowing that they were breaking the law. The person who took the now infamous video of the murder of Ashli Babbitt was an Antifa lieutenant who is under indictment in Utah for other Antifa-related crimes. What was the role of Antifa in this event? We don't know.
Second, there is not an objective measure in retrospect of when someone should have taken action when there are undesirable outcomes. Hindsight is not 20/20 -- a flawed cliche in this case. Even in hindsight we have no way of knowing if different actions would produce better outcomes.
Third, more than one reporter have said they did not have data access on their cellphones, probably because of bandwidth overload. Consequently, it is likely that none of Trump's tweets were received in real time anyway. Being accused of not doing something that would have been ineffectual is not a legitimate accusation.
I think that is an incitement to insurrection by the US Intelligence agencies.
Heaven help me, I have wondered about that. We do it in other countries.
I want to know about the pipe bombs and the people who were violent with the cops.
And wendybar mentioned Craemer, who was never investigated very hard.
The left has had organized and often violent protests since the anti-globalization movement. They've morphed into various causes, and at times are international. Anti-globalization, anti-Bush cheating, anti-war, LaRaza, the SEIU/Recall Walker things, Occupy, Ferguson BLM, Riots against Trump (which at first had some element of LaRaza, no?) Antifa, Extinction Rebellion, BLM/Antifa.
Many of the riots on the left follow the lies of Benjamin Crump, and then the BLM movement.
And then suddenly, Trump's people start beating up cops on the Capitol steps.
Who in the crowd would even know you could smash the Capitol windows open? I never would have suspected that's something you could do.
"Being accused of not doing something that would have been ineffectual is not a legitimate accusation."
Unless it's an accusation of Trump. Then, anything goes. Because reasons.
Thousand currents thats the name its not about the wellbeing of african americans
People are so stirred up (or at least people on Twitter are so stirred up) calling this an "armed insurrection" they aren't even taking the time to realize that our government did not care when it was happening with much more ferocity in our cities and in our homes.
AOC had the nerve to talk about how traumatized she was. Never once has she talked about people like my pregnant niece who got stuck in a car in the middle of the looters, got to her hotel room, and the place nextdoor was on fire.
*She* was told she needed to understand the pain of the people doing the rioting. AOC and her cohort do not care about anyone but themselves.
Does that not infurate people?
Prof. Althouse’s summary of the evidence is meticulous but it leaves me longing for a real trial on the merits. Call all the witnesses, including Mr. Trump, put them under oath, and examine and cross-examine them. What people say at trial is often quite different from what they say to policemen, reporters or even their own lawyers, before trial. I also want to see forensic evidence: any relevant written or electronic communications or recordings starting two weeks before the riot.
@Michael K:
Farmer reading minds again. I was kind of in favor of pardoning those two. Maybe he had reasons you don't know. Nah. That couldn't be it since you can read his mind.
I'm criticizing his actions. The thoughts that led to those actions aren't of particular interest to me and aren't available to me anyway. You could say "maybe he had reasons you don't know" about every single decision he makes. In which case, how can you criticize anything he does?
President Trump was "reportedly" . . .
Why do you read and highlight and perpetuate this crap???
It's this stage of the event — what Trump did after we know he knew the crowd had breached the Capitol — that has the most power to convince me that he deserves to be convicted.
Except THAT'S NOT IN THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE. TRUMP WAS NOT CHARGED WITH THAT.
there is no more sure thing in this world than something that Trump "reportedly" did or said. Take it to the bank with your pee tape.
I see "Tom" and the troll farm are getting started.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’ll admit when I first learned of the Venezuelan-Chinese-Dominion-Georgia-Republican plot to steal Trump’s landslide I was a bit skeptical, but that was before I’d heard about the Hebrew Space Lasers.
All that this time- and resource-wasting second-impeachment ruckus demonstrates is that, once again, the Democrats have failed to recognize a win, put it in their pocket, and get on with governing for the whole country (not merely the coastal enclaves.)
They want their "pound of flesh." But recall the words of Portia:
"For as thou urgest justice, be assured
Thou shalt have justice more than thou desirest."
The Dem filing reads more as a closing argument than as a prosecution founded in facts. Any proceeding in the Senate will serve only to further alienate non-"Never Trump" Republicans & conservatives who only supported Trump for his policies that reflected their desire for a smaller, less intrusive federal government, fewer but more strategic international commitments, and a stronger, more effective enforcement of immigration laws (among other conservative policies, now-abandoned by the R Party.)
By way of example only and not in limitation of the Senate's position between the "rock" of Scylla and the "hard place" of Charybdis, the Senate proceeding will either allow Trump to present a defense against the charge of "false" claims re: election by presenting evidence that the courts have thus far denied him via dismissal on technicalities, or the Senate will also deny that opportunity to him, thereby underlining the weaknesses of, & vengeance-driven, prosecution of this impeachment.
It will not be a good look for the Dems to pursue this, but when has that ever stopped them from doing stupid stuff?
the backstory to thousand currents
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/when-far-left-female-led-domestic-terrorism-group-lloyd-billingsley/
A policeman can not be prosecuted or held liable for failing to interrupt or prevent a crime. A fireman can not be prosecuted or held liable for failing to enter a burning building. How is it that Donald Trump can be prosecuted for not attempting to quell a riot in a place where he has no authority or jurisdiction?
This is true but the process Trump is facing is political. Althouse correctly has spotted the issue:
Did Trump have the opportunity to do or even say something to keep the protest from getting out of hand.
Trump communicates thru twitter - because the MSM doesn't give trump a fair platform like they do democrats.
when did Twitter cut off Trump?
Also I think the rally was peaceful and Trump thought so too. I think there were some bad actors and stupid Trump supporters who did not behave and perhaps planned something stupid based on their absurd notion that could stop the certification. But I really think it's obvious there were planned left-wing plants stirring shit, breaking windows, opening doors, and ushering in the mayhem.
Trump has been described as a provocateur, instigator, mischievous, etc. But never as a "callithumpian." According to the internet:
1836, U.S. colloquial, probably a fanciful construction at one time designating a society of social reformers, then in reference to "noisy disturbers of elections and meetings"
Trump is also a callithumpian.
Seamus said...
"I think that President Trump wanted his crowd -- the people who attended his speech -- to walk peacefully to the Capitol building."
You just don't get it, do you? Trump's supporters (and the House impeachment managers) understand that "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" was simply coded language for "Burn the motherfucker down."
I'm a Trump supporter, and that is not MY understanding.
So, you're delusional and a liar.
The fact that the crowd did NOT go over there and just start shooting people and burning the thing down shows that you are completely and totally wrong. Because a crowd that had accepted that message would killed 100+ "defenders" in the first hour of their attack.
"It's this stage of the event — what Trump did after we know he knew the crowd had breached the Capitol — that has the most power to convince me that he deserves to be convicted."
Althouse, Democrat politicians have been encouraging lawlessness and public disorder for some time now, and the lying liars who always lie have called it "mostly peaceful". And there has been a lot of it, as you have good reason to know. The idea that Donald Trump and his 80 million supporters are responsible for what that galoot with the horns did at the Capitol is ridiculous, and you know that, too. You are allowing yourself to be buffaloed by the likes of George Sneffalopalus and Whoopi Goldberg, people with the intellectual heft of bubble gum. If they began to blame Trump for the phases of the Moon, you would be dubious at first, but after they all shouted it for a few days, you would start to think there might be something to it. You should be ashamed of yourself.
anyone see even ONE interview by a the MSM of any Trump supporter who was at the Rally?
Blogger J. Farmer said...
...
You could say "maybe he had reasons you don't know" about every single decision he makes. In which case, how can you criticize anything he does?
This explains most of the excuses used by loyalists through time.
Temujin 8:02 -
Great post.
"We do not know the backgrounds of those who have been arrested. Not surprisingly- with a few exceptions, that information is not being released. Nor is there any talk of why some Capitol police were opening up gates and funneling protestors toward a more riotous crowd up at the building itself. "
worth a repeat.
The left successfully sparked a mob, indeed. and yes - I am disappointed in the gullible Trump supporters.. and the nut jobs. there are nut jobs on both sides.
But here is no doubt that leftist provocateurs were there, pretending to be maga.
but hey - after a summer of Antifa violence that was dismissed as "mostly peaceful" by the hack press - what's a few more lies?
now richard haas, wants a 9/11 style commission, to 'commemorate' the event, btw ocasio cortez wasn't even in the building, I guess she was doing yoga,
I'm a Trump supporter, and that is not MY understanding.
So, you're delusional and a liar.
I think the commenter Seamus was being facetious here, not saying he believed that was what Trump was really saying.
This is good video timeline of the events at the Capitol. The mob started to tear down fencing and storm the Capitol at 12:03. By 12:50 there was a lot of fighting with the police, pepper gas, etc. The Capitol was invaded by 2:05 pm.
https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1346855006876688386
At 2:24 pm Trump tweeted about Pence's lack of courage. His first tweet asking for peace was at 2:38.
I want to think the best of those on the left, but they do their level best to disabuse me of that notion.
"I think the danger to the members of Congress became overwhelmingly important"
Why?
Why is danger to a member of Congress more important than danger to police officers who are on duty, legally doing their jobs?
Why is danger to a member of Congress more important than danger to American citizens who are having their homes and / or businesses burned down? Being raped? being beaten? being murdered?
Since when did we get patents of nobility? And when did we decide that Democrat Congress members, and ONLY Democrat Congress members, all received them?
I remember when Bernie Bro James T. Hodgkinson tried to murder the members of the House GOP Softball team. I don't remember Democrats standing up and saying that was wrong. I don't remember any attacks on Democrats for their inflammatory language that led to the attack.
So, when did this unconstitutional patent of nobility come into effect?
I Callahan said...
I think the commenter Seamus was being facetious here, not saying he believed that was what Trump was really saying.
That is possibly true. I'l wait to see if Seamus jumps in to agree with you. :-)
I’ve seen reports from people who were in the Capitol building who by were unaware of the violence taking place in other parts of the building. How would Trump know what was happening when no one did.
My biggest criticism of the attack on Trump is that it suggests that his intention was to prevent the vote through a riot. In fact the riot prevented the plan to debate and present alternate electors or send the electors back to the disputed states. While that was a long short there was some precedent. The chaos caused by the mob prevented the plan as Senators withdrew their support.
I don’t know much about Sasse or even if he was accurately quoted but he is being used to advance a narrative which is completely contrary to what was planned and intended. Something is very off in this fictional depiction and I do not believe it at all.
The only way one can know that Trump had any intention of inciting a riot is to claim mind reading power, the power to read Trump's mind, and report the darkness observed.
That's the nature of pure hatred.
Long “shot” not long short is what I intended.
sasse has proven himself time and again, like justin amash, yet I don't see the particular angle,
I remember when Bernie Bro James T. Hodgkinson tried to murder the members of the House GOP Softball team. I don't remember Democrats standing up and saying that was wrong. I don't remember any attacks on Democrats for their inflammatory language that led to the attack.
We have never seen the email exchanges between Dick Durbin and Hodgkinson. We know there were some.
Farmer, you often respond to what you think someone said or thought. Example:
Pardoning Deep State enemies like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden is one example. That they didn't get pardoned but Bannon did is all you need to know about what a dipshit Trump is.
Howard is another mindreader.
Blogger Howard said...
Blogger J. Farmer said...
...
You could say "maybe he had reasons you don't know" about every single decision he makes. In which case, how can you criticize anything he does?
This explains most of the excuses used by loyalists through time.
Howard knows who is correct, of course, because he knows everything.
"Tom" doesn't like being described as a troll. Tom, act less like one if you don't like it.
knowing what we know now, that indictment was to preempt the info that jimmy lal, had relayed, that became the balding report, re chinese corporate liasons with leading political and business officials,
"Howard knows who is correct, of course, because he knows everything."
It's because Howard is our moral superior. He knows what people think and how they ought to live. If it wasn't for a public payroll Howard would be in tears sitting on a curb.
MayBee 10:19 FTW
This whole Jan 6 event has “intelligence false flag” written all over it.
Infiltrate an actual event with trained agitators to cause just enough violence and mayhem to get the right people all riled up, and then rely on sympathetic media coverage to spin up the narrative to achieve a larger political goal.
Easy to accomplish, cheap, effective, plausible deniability, no possible legal ramifications, and you set up targets for persecution and public scorn.
The only thing stopping them is their “character and good will”. Right, that’s believable.
Need I remind anyone that several eyewitness accounts have backed up this version of events?
But sure, let’s argue instead about whether Trump tried hard enough to stop a riot in real time, several blocks away, using tweets and videos.
"Tom" doesn't like being described as a troll. Tom, act less like one if you don't like it.
I just think it's funny that you think my mild-mannered comments are trollish, and that you're the commenter police or something. On this blog. With the general tone of commenters here, where rudeness, name calling, and personal attacks are the norm. I'm the troll. That's funny.
This is by far the most trollish comment I've posted here, and it doesn't even come that close to actual trolling.
He also reportedly colluded with Russian and refused to go see some soldier's graves because it was raining. How well did that reportage age?
“The idea that Donald Trump and his 80 million supporters are responsible for what that galoot with the horns did at the Capitol is ridiculous, and you know that, too.”
How do you know Trump has 80 million supporters when only 74 million voted for him? 81 million voters voted against him.
THE BRITISH ARE COMING!
THE BRITISH ARE COMING!
SHELTER IN PLACE!
Politics is the opiate of the masses©
Post a Comment