the guy with the horns is willing to testify https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jake-a...t-trial/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=110223262
The Capitol insurrection isn't moderating the GOP. It's making them more extreme This explains the instant consensus on parts of the right that the Capitol putsch was actually an antifa conspiracy. New Yorker writer Luke Mogelson, who has been reporting on conservatives for a long time and accompanied the insurrectionists when they stormed the Capitol, saw this firsthand. One rank-and-file conservative called him afterward, wanting to know what had happened. "She was upset — she did not believe that 'Trump people' could have done what the media were alleging," he writes. He spoke with her and others on speakerphone, relating his alarming experience. But soon the woman had soothed her cognitive dissonance with clumsily forged agitprop. "Less than an hour after we got off the phone, the woman texted me a screenshot of a CNN broadcast with a news bulletin that read, 'ANTIFA HAS TAKEN RESPONSIBLITLY FOR STORMING CAPITAL HILL.'" But then on the other hand, a small portion of the Republican base thinks the putsch was actually good. It would be a mistake to say Republicans are lying about all this. They are more accurately BSing, in the sense meant by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt. Reality is entirely instrumental to the BSer: "His eye is not on the facts at all … except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose." Today, not only do conservatives say whatever is most politically convenient regardless of the truth, they themselves no longer understand that is what they are doing. The very best BSer is someone who can gin up a genuine belief in absolutely anything on cue. There can be little doubt that had the Capitol putsch ended with multiple members of Congress or even Mike Pence being lynched (as very nearly happened), Republican behavior would not be any different than it is now. They would be quiet for a time while the conservative media desperately searched around for some excuse or misdirection, and once they found one, both base voters and the leadership would dose up on the excuse through Tucker Carlson and photoshopped screenshots on Facebook, and decide everything was fine. Until the conservative movement pays a real and repeated price for accommodating violent lunacy, it is only going to keep going around in a self-perpetuating cycle of madness. (God help us when someone cruises to power calling Rep. Greene a RINO sellout.) Should they win national power before that happens, that will likely be the end of American democracy. The most common precursor to a successful putsch is an unsuccessful one.
"Impeachment in the Age of Trump: Laurence Tribe’s Evolving Views Of Impeachable Conduct": https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/...mp-the-evolving-views-of-impeachable-conduct/ excerpt: In the end, my main objection to Tribe’s analysis is not simply his personal or ad hominem attacks. It is the other consistent element: certainty. In the Clinton and Trump impeachments, Tribe regularly claimed clarity and certainty on issues that have divided academics. Appearing on CNN, Trump [sic] regularly assures viewers that opposing positions are stupid and nonsensical and personally attacks both political and academic figures. That undermines what is an important national debate. In virtually every interview I have given on retroactive trials, I have noted that this is a close question upon which academics disagree. *** It seems like the rage of social media has corrupted such dialogue for some academics where the preference is to engage in gratuitous attacks and exaggerated analysis. As academics, we can regain a degree of civility and substance in our national dialogue by example. We can trade insults like school children or engage in a passionate but deliberative debate. That may sound naive or even “stupid” to some. However, it is the very thing that distinguishes intellectual from visceral discourse. more at the link
The Republican Party wants to set a dangerous precedence for this country. Just one example of comments made by our Trump toy soldiers from Texas. When asked about Trump's actions in relation to the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a member of GOP leadership, said: "I'm not going to defend them." "I think he's been held accountable in the court of public opinion already," Cornyn said when asked if the Senate should take any actions, arguing it would set a "dangerous precedent" to convict a former President. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/01/29/...ans-trump-impeachment-capitol-riot/index.html Since when has public opinion accountability been enough? Is this a get out of jail free card to everyone committing crimes? Just let public opinion be their sentence. That's good enough.There are people in jail who have done far less than people walking free like Trump and all the criminals he has pardoned. So what precedence are they setting for any future Precedence? If you lose the election you can sue sue sue for recounts. You can lie, stir up conspiracies, and gather extremists in rallies to storm the Capitol and it is fine. Tell everyone they stole the election. Make them believe you were robbed. Make the winner seem like the enemy. You won't lose your lifetime benefits. In fact, just do anything you want, no matter how bad it is and we won't vote to impeach you. Start early, just in case you lose. Pardon a bunch of your lying criminal associates to stir up the masses. Have them associate with radical groups and build up a following of people armed and ready to fight for you. Have them spread your lies. Stir people up. Tell them their mission is to fight for our country. Make the winner seem like the enemy. I mean seriously. The precedent they don't want to set is the exact precedent they should want to set. They try to belittle the dangers of not wanting to hold Trump accountable by calling it a kangaroo court. How dare they stand up for excusing anything and everything a President does prior to leaving office. There are many soldiers in the military who get a bad conduct discharge and lose any benefits for doing far less. They are saying it's different for the Commander in Chief of those same troops? The Republican Party is acknowledging that they want the power to never be held accountable for doing something like this in the future. The precedence they want to set is disturbing beyond belief. This my friends, is the year of truth. The truth is becoming blatantly apparent that these type politicians believe truth and accountability are traits they don't hold true to. It's all about power.
Althouse excerpts passages from the Bobbitt essay, and then comments more directly in the comments: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2021/01/there-is-no-authority-granted-to.html excerpts: Ann Althouse said... "The author wrongly assumes the Constitution has anything to do with this. Leftists pay no heed to the strictures or structures of the document." Actually this piece, by a very eminent constitutional scholar, has forced people to take notice. And even ruthless politicos can see, sometimes, that a legal argument is a stumbling block for what they want to do. 1/30/21, 6:14 AM Ann Althouse said... You don't have to honor or feel bound by the Constitution to realize that other people do and that they will punish you politically for violating it. Also, part of Bobbitt's argument is that if the Constitution is interpreted to permit this Senate trial of Trump for the purpose of disqualifying him from running for office again, it will set a precedent that you won't be too pleased to see used against you. As Justice Jackson wrote, dissenting in a very famous case, "The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need." 1/30/21, 6:20 AM more at the link
Cornyn is just recycling Collin's "I think he learned his lesson." again. It's obvious to me that Trump didn't learn his lesson then and neither he nor most Congressional Republicans either. In the 1/5/2021 War Council Thread it lays out how many people might've been involved in the planning and execution of this. This goes much farther than Trump himself and if lessons are going to be learned many many more people need to be held accountable. At the moment other than some idiots who posted themselves on social media or gave their name in interviews not many are being held to account for this.
Turley asks why the House is seemingly sitting on its hands: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/...ings-to-establish-incitement-to-insurrection/ excerpt: There has clearly been inquiries and limited testimony but very little information has been made publicly, including information that is clearly in the possession or available to the House. Instead reports indicate that the House is building what was described as an “emotionally charged” case before the Senate with cellphone calls and witness testimony rather than evidence focusing on the intent element. I admit that I have the bias of a criminal defense attorney but that is not a case for conviction. It is a case of public appeal. This question is even more striking given the public statements of key witnesses like former Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller and his two closest aides, Kashyap “Kash” Patel and Ezra Cohen. Miller says that Trump told him the day before the riot that “You’re going to need 10,000 people.” Miller added “No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’” He said Trump responded “You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do. You’re going to need 10,000.’” That account shows Trump knew that there might be problems with the rally the next day. Many voiced the same concern. However, it also shows Trump warning that troops would be needed. The question is whether he did anything to prepare for such a deployment or interfere or delay with deployment. Witnesses like Miller would know. Yet, they are giving interviews but not public testimony under oath. The House has held hearings on the riot but those hearings seem weirdly tailored to avoid core issues related to the trial. For example, U.S. Capitol Police chief Yogananda D. Pittman testified but did so in a closed session. She reportedly apologized to Congress “and the American people” for the obvious securing failures on Jan. 6th. She also said that they were aware of the danger of a riot in advance but failed to take adequate steps” “Let me be clear: the Department should have been more prepared for this attack.” Maj. Gen. William Walker, the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, has also given interviews and said that deployment of his troops were delayed by over an hour because he needed approval from the Pentagon. He said that he usually has authority to deploy without approval. If that is true, why was he not called for testimony in the House to explain the timeline and whether the authority was removed specifically for that day? There is a great deal of information in the hands of Congress on the requests for deployment and interaction with the Trump Administration. There are records and other non-witness sources of evidence that could also be used to create a record. Yet, the House has been comparatively passive in calling those witnesses that it wants to hear from in the Senate. Again, why? This is the same pattern with the first Trump impeachment when the House waited weeks demanding witnesses that it could have called or subpoenaed before the House Judiciary Committee. It did nothing and then denounced the lack of testimony on key issues. Both trials turned on intent and the House could not expect to prevail without such evidence. It was like a case of planned obsolescence in building a case to collapse. There are by my count at least ten key witnesses who have already spoken publicly or would be easily attainable including Miller, Walker, Pittman, Patel, Cohen and others. Yet, there is nothing but crickets from the House. more at the link
given the spinelessness in so many senators, he doesn’t need legal representation. Trump, representing self: “Yeah I attacked Congress. I’d do it again. I may do it again, people are saying.” Rand Paul: “Uh, precedent. Liberals. Democrats. Protect the Constitution. Turley quote. Must acquit.”
I read that the lawyers wanted to build the case on the technicalities of impeaching a former president, while Trump wanted them to exclusively push more of the "Stop The Steal" BS that necessitated the impeachment in the first place - basically his plan is to use the trial as a venue to push more sedition and the lawyers weren't interested in putting their names on that.
