Impeachment, Take Two (and Other Trump News)

[elone]

I wonder what Trump is going to say NOW??? Is he going to compliment Putin's genius once more???

Already done that.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-again-praises-putin-moments-before-russia-launches-invasion-of-ukraine-042841605.html

[gaggedLouise]

The Texas wing of the GOP has officially adopted a platform saying that Joe Biden is not the legitimate President and that he won by voter fraud (obviously they mean that the fraud was accepted by the US Congress and likely even engineered or ordered by some people on the top levels of the Democrat party). How does this not count as sedition, or at least propagating sedition?

The Republican Party of Texas adopted a new party platform over the weekend that falsely claims that President Joe Biden was not legitimately elected.

"We reject the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States," the resolution reads. Nearly 5,000 delegates attending the Texas GOP Convention in Houston passed the resolution by voice vote.

"Texas Republicans rightly have no faith in the 2020 election results and we don’t care how many times the elites tell us we have to," party Chairman Matt Rinaldi said in a statement. "The Texas Republican Party is raising record funds for election integrity, and we’ve made election integrity a top priority to ensure Texas never goes the way of Pennsylvania, Georgia, or Arizona. We refuse to let Democrats rig the elections in 2022 or 2024.”

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/20/texas-gop-platform-false-claim-biden-election/7682535001/

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/20/1106229988/texas-gops-new-platform-says-biden-didnt-really-win-it-also-calls-for-secession?t=1655864998341

And before anyone replies "but Hillary said Russia, Russia...." there's one vital difference here. After the 2016 election, there were no claims from leading democrats that Hillary Clinton had been cheated out of electors or votes she should have had, or that the act of transferring the office of president to Trump had been illegal in itself. The claims were that some of the methods of the Trump campaign could have been illegal and broken campaign law, and that Trump was incompetent for the job, but there were no serious claims that his actual entry into the office had broken the law. (It is very difficult to prosecute election campaign methods and bring them to court, once the guy has won, because a US president has wide-ranging immunity from actual prosecution).

[Oniya]

I saw the headline, and then later saw another one about the reaction of former GOP Presidential candidate, John Kasich:

Kasich says 'even clowns were embarrassed' by Texas GOP convention that included declaration that Biden 'was not legitimately elected' and called homosexuality an 'abnormal lifestyle choice'

(Internet news needs to learn how to write headlines.  That's a frickin' lede right there.)

I'm not sure how they think that advocating actual secession (and loss of federal assistance) is not sedition, to answer your question.  However, it's worth noting that the past week has seen a lot of evidence put before Congress that Trump knew he lost and that there was no fraud.  Other than such things as Senator Ron Johnson trying to have a slate of 'alternative' electors delivered to Pence, and Trump lawyer John Eastman trying to detail how Pence could throw a curveball into his basically ceremonial role. 

[gaggedLouise]

I saw the headline, and then later saw another one about the reaction of former GOP Presidential candidate, John Kasich:

Kasich says 'even clowns were embarrassed' by Texas GOP convention that included declaration that Biden 'was not legitimately elected' and called homosexuality an 'abnormal lifestyle choice'

(Internet news needs to learn how to write headlines.  That's a frickin' lede right there.)

I'm not sure how they think that advocating actual secession (and loss of federal assistance) is not sedition, to answer your question.  However, it's worth noting that the past week has seen a lot of evidence put before Congress that Trump knew he lost and that there was no fraud.  Other than such things as Senator Ron Johnson trying to have a slate of 'alternative' electors delivered to Pence, and Trump lawyer John Eastman trying to detail how Pence could throw a curveball into his basically ceremonial role.

Yes, I've been watching some parts of the Committe hearings too, directly or in the following news. And they really bring out once again how shocking and deliberately illegal the whole episode was.  Pence isn't quite the hero some want to cast him as - he could have alerted the FBI, or the cabinet, or the media, about what Trump wanted him to do - but at least he steadfastly refused to play along with Trump's scheme when the day came, and made sure that the new president was properly confirmed.

It's interesting with the Eastman memo because much of "his" plan for overturning the election was actually detailed by Jenna Ellis already in mid-December. It was widely discussed on social media, I saw those posts on social media here in Sweden (and even made a few posts myself saying "this is never going to work").  People knew in advance that things were going to come to a head on January 6 and that it could turn violent, the secret was already out. It's a real mystery why the FBI and the police forces were not better prepared. (Also, I wonder who oriiginally came up with that plan - perhaps Rudy Giuliani, Jenna's boss at the time?)

[Oniya]

So, I did a little more looking around, and there's a Supreme Court decision that explains the legal status of 'secession'.  In Texas v. White, the ruling was that you can't just saunter up to the federal government and say 'Yo, we outie.'  There's either got to be an agreement between the states that said territory can leave the Union, or you've got to have a revolution. 

I'm willing to bet that there are more people in Texas who want to stay part of the US than there are people who want to leave it.  This sort of situation makes a revolution a real hard sell.

[gaggedLouise]

So, I did a little more looking around, and there's a Supreme Court decision that explains the legal status of 'secession'.  In Texas v. White, the ruling was that you can't just saunter up to the federal government and say 'Yo, we outie.'  There's either got to be an agreement between the states that said territory can leave the Union, or you've got to have a revolution. 

I'm willing to bet that there are more people in Texas who want to stay part of the US than there are people who want to leave it.  This sort of situation makes a revolution a real hard sell.

I meant sedition (roughly the same as treason, sabotaging the core workings of government), not secession. :)

Many Texans famously think they have a legal option of pulling out of the USA (no, they don't).

But let's say that you have a sheriff or a mayor declaring "I'm not accepting any laws or legal directives signed after January 20, 2021, because they were not signed by the legal president. And I'm not taking any orders from the governor of this state, because he accepted the fraudulent election and certified it for this state, I only accept laws signed by President Trump! (and by his predecessors)".

That would be clear sedition, right?

[Laughing Hyena]

Beau had something on this topic concerning Texas stating that the Republican party would be severely crippled in terms of political strength if Texas somehow did secede. Wouldn't happen since the other states wouldn't sign off on it obviously.

But even more so, it's more about making a talking point for people inclined to listen to the GOP,  to rile them up. But even if it would somehow by some miracle worked and Texas left, the consequences for anyone without a golden parachute would be immense.

All the US military and federal bases, equipment and border presence would be gone. Texas would have to make their own currency and their economy would more than likely tank even harder. Trade deals and treaties would need to be made, their chain of command would need to be reestablished. And so forth. In short a big mess.

Ironic that the GOP whom pander so hard to being "America First" are the very people talking about breaking away from it.

[Oniya]

I meant sedition (roughly the same as treason, sabotaging the core workings of government), not secession. :)

I referenced that in my first response :)  I can't see any reason why advocating secession wouldn't be sedition.  By the SCOTUS decision on Texas v. White, they'd need either an agreement from the federal government that they can pack up (and that's not likely to happen - I think the Republican portion of the Congress would try to haul them back just to keep the votes), or they'd need to start a revolution - which would sabotage the core workings of government.

In addition, continuing The Big Lie also sabotages the core workings of government, as an attempt to claim that the way people voted wasn't the way they voted. 

[GloomCookie]

Yeah I saw that about Texas declaring Biden illigitimate and was like "God damn it y'all, don't drop the fuckin ball."

I vote Republican but only because I'm not a fan of the way Democrats run things, but holy hell do clowns like these make me look at the other parties that I know ain't got a shot in Hell of winning simply because assholes like this make us all look stupid by association. Biden was declared the winner, and has been in office 1.5 years at this point. What are you gonna do? Go back in time and change it?

I've hinted at my disdain for GOP candidates like Tom Cotton before but Jesus Christ on a bicycle they make him look tolerable. It's like they took that part of the handbook that says "Thou shalt oppose the Democratic party" and decided to crank it to 11 and then 12 and then snapped the fucking knob off.

I wanna see Tim Poole try and defend this nonsense. I barely watch him anymore since half the things out of his mouth are about an impending civil war, but I doubt he's gonna have much luck with this.

Ugh. Whyyyy? This is the same bullshit that happened when Obama was in office, where a handful of idiots would go around declaring things like Obama was from Kenya and sold off the US to the United Nations. These are the same idiots who found out it was 12 September in Australia and wanted to know why they didn't call us and warn 9/11 was going to happen.

[gaggedLouise]

In addition, continuing The Big Lie also sabotages the core workings of government, as an attempt to claim that the way people voted wasn't the way they voted.

Yes exactly. Popular elections are like the use of paper money - if you wage a campaign of discrediting election results without any factual evidence, if some people are claiming that "many ballots that were cast are fake although nobody except us can determine that they are" and "elections have been taken over by an army of shadow voters and this is being covered up by those counting the votes", then those people (spreading those claims) are really trying to break the system and undermine the role of elections. It felt really obvious to me even before election day, and even more so afterwards as Trump and his crowd pitched up the claims of many millions of stolen votes.

Undermining elections and making them suspect (without any actual proof) is a step towards undermining democracy, how can people not see that? :)  (Well, of course there is the meme that "The US was not meant to be a democracy, but a republic" -  in the Roman republic there was no such thing as free access to politics for everybody and the principle of "one man, one vote for all citizens" was only formally true.)

[Beorning]

What intrigues me is this:

If Texas GOP openly say that they don't recognize the authority of the US President and they talk about Texas unilaterally seceding from the US (which, as you noted, would be illegal)... shouldn't they be put on some FBI watchlist of subversive organizations?

I mean, do they get to say such things on the merit of being a part of an established political party?

[TheGlyphstone]

The boundaries of what is permitted under the 1st amendment right to free speech is very extensive. They can talk about it all they like, but the FBI can't do anything unless there is evidence they are actually taking steps to make it happen.

[gaggedLouise]

The boundaries of what is permitted under the 1st amendment right to free speech is very extensive. They can talk about it all they like, but the FBI can't do anything unless there is evidence they are actually taking steps to make it happen.

...and once they actually start making such plans (in secret, of course), get noticed by the FBI, indicted and served an invitation to come in and get interrogated, they can all start pleading the 5th amendment, right? :) (which Trump's sons and Roger Stone did hundreds of times hwne they were heard at some trials relating to Donnie up in New York)

[TheGlyphstone]

If the FBI has enough evidence to file an indictment, they generally don't need to compel testimony from the person they are trying to press charges against.

[Callie Del Noire]

True but Trump and Co can’t face an indictment without public posturing n

[Beorning]

So... what do you think of yesterday's hearings? Specifically, the bit about Trump attacking his driver? Does this sound credible to you or not?

[Oniya]

The idea that Trump would throw a tantrum upon being told he can't do something he wants to do is absolutely credible to me.

[GloomCookie]

My biggest problem with it is that it assumes Trump would be riding shotgun. He was still acting president at the time and under Secret Service protection, meaning they would have him riding around in The Beast in the back, with glass between him and the driver. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there's a lot of other statements that don't add up for me.

For example, the insurrection was supposed to be armed, but literally everyone left their guns in their vehicles? Really? Last time I checked that sounds like something you don't just walk out and forget on a regular basis. I get paranoid about leaving anything in my truck when I go inside to work and will check my keys three or four times. I'm pretty sure if you're there for the deliberate act of staging an armed insurrection, the entire group won't just forget their guns.

I dunno, some of this sounds a little off to me.

[elone]

Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.


https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662

Fits Trump to a tee.  I don't think the U.S. is ready to put an ex-president in jail, even one as bad as Trump who deserves it.

[TheGlyphstone]

As someone who hasn't watched any of the hearings so far, have they actually mentioned guns in the context of being armed? At the risk of having my 'Murica card taken away, there are lots of weapons besides firearms that you can carry.

[Oniya]

According to NPR, at least three people are facing gun-related charges in connection with the Jan 6 insurrection.  NPR also goes into some more detail here about what other weapons were there.  The vast majority of the 800 rioters were not searched.

[TheVillain]

My biggest problem with it is that it assumes Trump would be riding shotgun. He was still acting president at the time and under Secret Service protection, meaning they would have him riding around in The Beast in the back, with glass between him and the driver. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there's a lot of other statements that don't add up for me.

For example, the insurrection was supposed to be armed, but literally everyone left their guns in their vehicles? Really? Last time I checked that sounds like something you don't just walk out and forget on a regular basis. I get paranoid about leaving anything in my truck when I go inside to work and will check my keys three or four times. I'm pretty sure if you're there for the deliberate act of staging an armed insurrection, the entire group won't just forget their guns.

I dunno, some of this sounds a little off to me.

Fair point about the guns, think I can help with that. Most of the Rioters weren't searched as mentioned. It was also discovered that a lot of the people who intended to storm the Capital with Guns tried to establish weapon's caches before the security perimeter was set beforehand but the way events went down cut off their access. We know for a fact some of them intended to be very heavily armed when they went into the building, but in the moment couldn't access their caches.

[TheGlyphstone]

According to NPR, at least three people are facing gun-related charges in connection with the Jan 6 insurrection.  NPR also goes into some more detail here about what other weapons were there.  The vast majority of the 800 rioters were not searched.

Thanks, I figured the answer had to be somewhere.

[Oniya]

They may have left their guns in their cars because they figured it would look really bad to get anywhere near a Secret Service detail while carrying a platoon's-worth of rifles and ammo.  At least the one protecting the guy they liked.

[Oniya]

Double post, as I've been wandering through the recent NPR coverage.

This article is a good summation of what Hutchinson testified to, as well as some additional points.  However, the thing that most amused me was the correction at the bottom:

Correction June 28, 2022

In a previous version of this story, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was inaccurately described as being nonplussed by the violence during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol, according to Cassidy Hutchinson his principal aide, Cassidy Hutchinson. He was unperturbed, according to Hutchinson.

My linguiphilic heart...