A Deeply Fractured US

[brihard]

And yet I don't recall a lot of shooting and explosions. Violent revolution, Tuesday for sure. Meanwhile, we find out Nancy Pelosi was so threatened she had time to play for a camera.

We’re speaking of the potential for violent action going forward, based on what people are actually currently saying about current events. Do please try to keep up. If you want to relitigate January 6th, there’s a thread for that.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Past provides clues to future. I can guess that there will be more left-inspired riots than right-inspired ones in the next 12 months.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

. Do please try to keep up.

Really? And this brought what to the conversation??
Bruce
Staff

 

[brihard]

Really? And this brought what to the conversation??
Bruce
Staff

Fair.

@Brad Sallows - I apologize, that wasn’t necessary or useful on my part.

Past provides clues to future. I can guess that there will be more left-inspired riots than right-inspired ones in the next 12 months.

The past, in this case, is that a love of Trump and perceived injustice against him has already resulted in a violent effort to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Police were assaulted with weapons, numerous crimes of violence were committed. That was without there being a real prospect of Trump being derived of his actual physical liberty.

While the delusion of immediately returning him to power is gone, he’s been very aggressively pushing the criminal indictments as a corrupt attempt to steal the 2024 election. Therefore, the same grievances in play in January 2021 are basically being leveraged. Add to this, Trump himself will be in custody, and later attending court, inside a known fixed point- that’s a focal point to physically rally around. And it’s in south Florida.

Add to that, numerous people have explicitly called for violence. Highly likely the vast majority are spouting BS that they would never themselves have the spine to act on- but it doesn’t take many.

I cannot say, and am not saying, that there will be violence resulting from this. I’m saying there’s a considerable potential that at some point in the course of Donald Trump’s criminal prosecutions - 2 so far, potentially one or two more to come - someone sufficiently ideologically radicalized might think they can kick off something bigger through violent acts that they envision as first steps. People have done worse things with less provocation and less focus. The only prudent thing for authorities to do would be to plan and prepare for this.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair.

@Brad Sallows - I apologize, that wasn’t necessary or useful on my part.



The past, in this case, is that a love of Trump and perceived injustice against him has already resulted in a violent effort to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Police were assaulted with weapons, numerous crimes of violence were committed. That was without there being a real prospect of Trump being derived of his actual physical liberty.

While the delusion of immediately returning him to power is gone, he’s been very aggressively pushing the criminal indictments as a corrupt attempt to steal the 2024 election. Therefore, the same grievances in play in January 2021 are basically being leveraged. Add to this, Trump himself will be in custody, and later attending court, inside a known fixed point- that’s a focal point to physically rally around. And it’s in south Florida.

Add to that, numerous people have explicitly called for violence. Highly likely the vast majority are spouting BS that they would never themselves have the spine to act on- but it doesn’t take many.

I cannot say, and am not saying, that there will be violence resulting from this. I’m saying there’s a considerable potential that at some point in the course of Donald Trump’s criminal prosecutions - 2 so far, potentially one or two more to come - someone sufficiently ideologically radicalized might think they can kick off something bigger through violent acts that they envision as first steps. People have done worse things with less provocation and less focus. The only prudent thing for authorities to do would be to plan and prepare for this.

Conversely, I think Brad is suggesting that while Trump supporters may be voicing some extreme rhetoric there are ample examples of what might happen if Trump is re-elected. There is a faction more than willing to resort to the French model and "take it to the streets".

 

[suffolkowner]

the real question is has this and will this increase or decrease Trumps chance of the GOP nomination and presidency?

 

[brihard]

Conversely, I think Brad is suggesting that while Trump supporters may be voicing some extreme rhetoric there are ample examples of what might happen if Trump is re-elected. There is a faction more than willing to resort to the French model and "take it to the streets".

And that’s fair. Absolutely I would expect to see civil unrest were he re-elected. He terrifies and infuriates a lot of people. Personally I would want and expect to see law and public order upheld regardless, so long as the right to peaceful protest is also upheld.

the real question is has this and will this increase or decrease Trumps chance of the GOP nomination and presidency?

Frig, who can say? I think this is going to peel a lot of veneer off of him, and perhaps a lot of people who’ve quietly questioned their loyalty to him may finally walk away over this. For some others it’ll galvanize them further- but anyone whose support for Trump is increased by this was already probably 100% committed anyway. I cannot imagine this whole thing netting him any new supporters that weren’t already firmly in his camp.

All of that is distinct from the mathemagic of their party primaries system. I won’t pretend I can guess what’ll happen there. Democrats may even hope he takes the primary to give them an easier job in the general.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Fair.

@Brad Sallows - I apologize, that wasn’t necessary or useful on my part.



The past, in this case, is that a love of Trump and perceived injustice against him has already resulted in a violent effort to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Police were assaulted with weapons, numerous crimes of violence were committed. That was without there being a real prospect of Trump being derived of his actual physical liberty.

While the delusion of immediately returning him to power is gone, he’s been very aggressively pushing the criminal indictments as a corrupt attempt to steal the 2024 election. Therefore, the same grievances in play in January 2021 are basically being leveraged. Add to this, Trump himself will be in custody, and later attending court, inside a known fixed point- that’s a focal point to physically rally around. And it’s in south Florida.

Add to that, numerous people have explicitly called for violence. Highly likely the vast majority are spouting BS that they would never themselves have the spine to act on- but it doesn’t take many.

I cannot say, and am not saying, that there will be violence resulting from this. I’m saying there’s a considerable potential that at some point in the course of Donald Trump’s criminal prosecutions - 2 so far, potentially one or two more to come - someone sufficiently ideologically radicalized might think they can kick off something bigger through violent acts that they envision as first steps. People have done worse things with less provocation and less focus. The only prudent thing for authorities to do would be to plan and prepare for this.

WWI started with one assassination, it only take one crazy sometimes to have a large effect

 

[Kirkhill]

Frig, who can say? I think this is going to peel a lot of veneer off of him, and perhaps a lot of people who’ve quietly questioned their loyalty to him may finally walk away over this. For some others it’ll galvanize them further- but anyone whose support for Trump is increased by this was already probably 100% committed anyway. I cannot imagine this whole thing netting him any new supporters that weren’t already firmly in his camp.

I rather take the view that for many this is just another example of an attempt to bring down a man who was democratically elected and then required to work in town run by his opposition.

The more attempts against him the less credible the next one is.

 

[brihard]

I rather take the view that for many this is just another example of an attempt to bring down a man who was democratically elected and then required to work in town run by his opposition.

The more attempts against him the less credible the next one is.

Many people may have that view, and that’s fine. He was indicted by a jury of regular citizens and if he’s convicted it will be by the same. He was democratically elected, and then he was democratically defeated. Sometime during that time frame he is alleged to have committed many serious offences. He doesn’t get to campaign on ‘lock her up’ and then expect to be immune from due criminal process. When you choose the behaviour, you choose the consequences.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Police were assaulted with weapons, numerous crimes of violence were committed.

Protests often involve assaults against police and numerous crimes of violence. So, sure, expect more of that. But there isn't much precedent on which to hang predictions of armed insurrection by insurrectionists who fight like they mean it. I am usually trying to look at a big picture (eg. all the similar things and patterns), never focusing on one thing as if it were being tried in court. I was never disposed to accounting the 6th Jan riots as a big deal, let alone "insurrection", and finding out about Pelosi's film stunt demolished the final shred of my willingness to take seriously the claims otherwise. Someone ought to point out to "those people" that they undermine their claims when they stage-manage crises and inquiries. Political/journalistic/expert credibility dissipates approximately as rapidly as trust in an adulterous marriage, and is almost as hard to rebuild. There is no "I can just exploit this a little bit for political advantage".

Reducing risk (of violence) requires resolving "perceived injustice". That's entirely in the hands of the political establishments which control the agencies. Simply denying that there are any grounds for perceiving injustice is an obvious course of action, and the least useful one. But that seems to be the course the US is on. Blame mostly ought accrue to the people who have power and exercise it selfishly, and not so much on the people without power who have not many options other than to react with futile destructive angry gestures. It ought to be profoundly dispiriting that so many people are willing to tolerate, and even excuse or defend, the intolerable conduct of the anointed class.

I was wrong that Trump would feel himself too old to run again; I was wrong that people would ignore him and he would fade away. Apparently he's still full of beans and everyone can't resist poking him with sticks. So I'm probably wrong again, but: IF the charges can be tried (or he pleads out) AND sentence pronounced before the primaries, THEN I incline to believing it will meaningfully diminish his chances of winning the primary. I simply don't think he has enough blind support, and I don't think everyone else will overlook a criminal conviction when there are other, more reasonable competent accomplished experienced emotionally balanced choices. A clue is that the legal talking heads that have deplored some of the past efforts against him are emphasizing the seriousness of (in particular) the "process" charges (obstruction, false statement). My prediction is void if Democrats anywhere start interfering in Republican primaries with the goal of promoting Trump.

 

[Remius]

Many people may have that view, and that’s fine. He was indicted by a jury of regular citizens and if he’s convicted it will be by the same. He was democratically elected, and then he was democratically defeated. Sometime during that time frame he is alleged to have committed many serious offences. He doesn’t get to campaign on ‘lock her up’ and then expect to be immune from due criminal process. When you choose the behaviour, you choose the consequences.

Some people do indeed have this view. Another view is the only reason he is running is to try and somehow avoid the legal jeopardy he knows he is in or would be in.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I doubt he can avoid his problems. All the discussion about whatever immunity a president enjoys is about indictment; I haven't seen anything about what happens if the indictment is a done deal. Regardless, it's a DoJ policy, not a constitutional provision - whether a president can be indicted/tried is an unresolved constitutional question.

A conviction doesn't bar him from running or holding the office.

I suppose if trial hasn't concluded and DoJ doesn't want the mess, it could withdraw charges and send all the files over to the House. It would be fun to see Democrats wrestling with the choice to impeach and convict Trump, depending on who the VP is. Republicans, who are always being prodded to declare themselves for or against Trump, would have less trouble (paid for the ticket, might as well take the ride).

Ironically the position is that neither Trump nor Biden is much desired by their parties, and a you-take-my-king-and-I-take-yours situation exists in which they secretly might prefer the tradeoff to happen (Trump convicted; Biden dirtied; both essentially disgraced). Each party could blame the other and not have to answer (much) to angry followers in their own party.

 

[TacticalTea]

In the past couple years we have seen armed groups attending legislatures, courthouses, etc. I can very easily imagine a concerted effort, at some point by some people, to block access to a courthouse where Trump criminal proceedings are being held. What then?

I'm reminded here of the assault on the Colombian Supreme Court, to destroy evidence against Escobar.

Surprisingly easy to disrupt institutions when they don't expect it.

Fair.

@Brad Sallows - I apologize, that wasn’t necessary or useful on my part.



The past, in this case, is that a love of Trump and perceived injustice against him has already resulted in a violent effort to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Police were assaulted with weapons, numerous crimes of violence were committed. That was without there being a real prospect of Trump being derived of his actual physical liberty.

While the delusion of immediately returning him to power is gone, he’s been very aggressively pushing the criminal indictments as a corrupt attempt to steal the 2024 election. Therefore, the same grievances in play in January 2021 are basically being leveraged. Add to this, Trump himself will be in custody, and later attending court, inside a known fixed point- that’s a focal point to physically rally around. And it’s in south Florida.

Add to that, numerous people have explicitly called for violence. Highly likely the vast majority are spouting BS that they would never themselves have the spine to act on- but it doesn’t take many.

I cannot say, and am not saying, that there will be violence resulting from this. I’m saying there’s a considerable potential that at some point in the course of Donald Trump’s criminal prosecutions - 2 so far, potentially one or two more to come - someone sufficiently ideologically radicalized might think they can kick off something bigger through violent acts that they envision as first steps. People have done worse things with less provocation and less focus. The only prudent thing for authorities to do would be to plan and prepare for this.

Last sentence the most important!

If it's in Florida, I do expect DeSantis to interfere - or at least, not cooperate - with security measures.

Here's to hoping that interference does not prove debilitating.

@Brad Sallows "Pelosi's camera stunt", what do you mean exactly? Anything beyond the fact that the very interesting role of speaker of the house of reps of the USA is closely followed by the media?

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Pelosi's camera stunt", what do you mean exactly? Anything beyond the fact that the very interesting role of speaker of the house of reps of the USA is closely followed by the media?

Alexandra Pelosi filming her mother for the former's documentary.

 

[TacticalTea]

Alexandra Pelosi filming her mother for the former's documentary.

If I recall, Trump was also being recorded that day.

That tends to happen to prominent political leaders.

The question is: would the actions have been largely the same had no cameras been present?

For Pelosi on Jan 6, I think the answer is fairly obviously "yes".

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sure. That just suggests that the people involved didn't feel like it was as much of an insurrection/crisis while it was happening as they did afterward, in front of news cameras.

Same thing applies as with "climate crisis" - actions mean more than rhetoric.

 

[QV]

What is more at risk of breach; hard copy documents in boxes locked away, or droves of data on an unsecured server connected to the internet?

DOJ whitewashed one gigantic problem away, even ignoring the hammer and bleach bit treatment of the evidence. Indicting 45 over this and not the others is peak corruption.

 

[KevinB]

What is more at risk of breach; hard copy documents in boxes locked away, or droves of data on an unsecured server connected to the internet?

Well when 45 has been shown to be showing hostile parties to the extent that is alleged— clearly that.
Don’t get me wrong, I think HRC should be behind bars too — but even as Sec State she didn’t get the same info that DJT had…

DOJ whitewashed one gigantic problem away, even ignoring the hammer and bleach bit treatment of the evidence. Indicting 45 over this and not the others is peak corruption.

DJT was more than able to go after her for her crimes. Heck he campaigned on it.
But he didn’t and that’s on him.

 

[QV]

Well when 45 has been shown to be showing hostile parties to the extent that is alleged— clearly that.
Don’t get me wrong, I think HRC should be behind bars too — but even as Sec State she didn’t get the same info that DJT had…



DJT was more than able to go after her for her crimes. Heck he campaigned on it.
But he didn’t and that’s on him.

I don't believe for one microsecond that 45 showed hostile parties US national secrets. Just like I didn't believe 45 colluded with Russia to throw the election.

I thought it was the DOJ's job under the AG to chase justice? Justice is not supposed to be political... If Trump had directed DOJ to do anything there would have been endless outcries of political interference.