A Deeply Fractured US

[Brad Sallows]

He’s certainly a continuous fountain of baffling absurdity. Problem is some of what he says has potential to motivate deranged people to do dangerous things.

Constraints on what politicians may say will have to be tightened a lot to eliminate the risk that people - much less deranged people - will be moved to do dangerous things.

 

[brihard]

Constraints on what politicians may say will have to be tightened a lot to eliminate the risk that people - much less deranged people - will be moved to do dangerous things.

Sure, but the combination of political prominence, unsophisticated audience, threatening or violent rhetoric, and proneness to ideological radicalization is unusually potent in his case. The combination of risk factors is higher than usual, and a whole bunch of recent court cases demonstrate that. It had been a long time since America had a sedition problem.

 

[KevinB]

Constraints on what politicians may say will have to be tightened a lot to eliminate the risk that people - much less deranged people - will be moved to do dangerous things.

In the House Rep Paul Gosar was even more pointed and called for Gen Milley to be killed --- I'm frankly stunned no one seems to care other than on Twitter - and I'm a little upset that the Capital Police didn't drag him out and charge him.

DC Code, § 22–2107​

Penalty for solicitation of murder or other crime of violence.​

(a) Whoever is guilty of soliciting a murder, whether or not such murder occurs, shall be sentenced to a period of imprisonment not exceeding 20 years, a fine not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.

(b) Whoever is guilty of soliciting a crime of violence as defined by § 23-1331(4), whether or not such crime occurs, shall be sentenced to a period of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sure, but the combination of political prominence, unsophisticated audience, threatening or violent rhetoric, and proneness to ideological radicalization is unusually potent in his case. The combination of risk factors is higher than usual, and a whole bunch of recent court cases demonstrate that. It had been a long time since America had a sedition problem.

Sure. But there's no negotiating the meaning of "dangerous" down to exclude, say, "mostly peaceful" rioting that is given a pass by large numbers of sympathetic people in elected positions. There is no "we're just going to focus on this one very specific tiny part of all the politically/ideologically-motivated violence in order to achieve one very narrow particular political objective".

Who knows what exactly contributes to setting someone like James Hodgkinson in motion? The only solution which offers any hope is to dial everything back.

 

[brihard]

Sure. But there's no negotiating the meaning of "dangerous" down to exclude, say, "mostly peaceful" rioting that is given a pass by large numbers of sympathetic people in elected positions. There is no "we're just going to focus on this one very specific tiny part of all the politically/ideologically-motivated violence in order to achieve one very narrow particular political objective".

Who knows what exactly contributes to setting someone like James Hodgkinson in motion? The only solution which offers any hope is to dial everything back.

Cool, whatever. I’m not here to play ‘what about’ games tonight. Trump and Trumpism have a particularly potent, widespread, and dangerous potential and some demonstrated ability to instigate political violence in the United States, in a way no other individual nor their cult of personality in the US presently or in recent memory can. If you want to have a different conversation from that, have at ‘er, but that’s what I’m speaking to.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Someone doesn't want to roll the dice.

Trump co-defendant pleads guilty in Georgia, becoming first to reach plea deal in election-subversion case

Part of the plea deal for Scott Hall, a bail bondsman who breached election equipment, requires him to testify against other co-defendants.

www.politico.com

Trump co-defendant pleads guilty in Georgia, becoming first to reach plea deal in election-subversion case​

Part of the plea deal for Scott Hall, a bail bondsman who breached election equipment, requires him to testify against other co-defendants.

A defendant charged alongside former President Donald Trump in Georgia has pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. Scott Hall, a Georgia bail bondsman, is the first person to reach a plea deal in the case, in which Trump and 18 others were charged with racketeering conspiracy for their efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Hall, 59, who was involved in a breach of election equipment, pleaded guilty Friday in Atlanta to five counts of conspiring to commit intentional interference with performance of election duties. The plea deal included an agreement to a sentence of five years of probation, a $5,000 fine and a letter of apology to the state.

Part of the plea deal requires Hall to testify against others at future trials or hearings of “any co-defendants” in the election racketeering case. The felony charges against Hall were dropped as part of the agreement.

Trump was not mentioned by name during Hall’s plea hearing, but a Fulton County prosecutor did mention co-defendant and former Trump attorney Sidney Powell as being involved in the alleged scheme to gain access to Dominion voting machines in Coffee County, Ga.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee indicated that Hall’s plea was scheduled hastily on Friday. A prosecutor said Hall provided a recorded statement about his involvement to the district attorney’s office earlier in the day.

. . .

 

[brihard]

Someone doesn't want to roll the dice.

Trump co-defendant pleads guilty in Georgia, becoming first to reach plea deal in election-subversion case

Part of the plea deal for Scott Hall, a bail bondsman who breached election equipment, requires him to testify against other co-defendants.

www.politico.com

Staring down the barrel of a RICO charge sucks. There will be others. You can bet several people got on the phone with their lawyers and want to find out what kind of deal they can get for cooperation and testimony while there are still such deals to be had.

 

[Remius]

House of cards starting to crumble…

 

[McG]

Trump and Trumpism have a particularly potent, widespread, and dangerous potential and some demonstrated ability to instigate political violence in the United States,

Yep.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1707878369264578683

 

[brihard]

House of cards starting to crumble…

Yup. And a state criminal charge cannot be pardoned by a president.

 

[kkwd]

Yup. And a state criminal charge cannot be pardoned by a president.

Realistically what do you think the chances this will go well for the county. It is a county case with only county resources, they have no access to state resources. The RICO case against Young Thug has been ongoing since January. Seeing the famous ( or infamous) status of the defendants in the Trump case it should be a real doozy. Another RICO case recently brought was against the protestors of the "Cop City" by the state's attorney general. In that case there are complaints of infringement of freedom of speech.
Cop City Protest
Article Link
Here is what the others are accused of.

Jimenez represents Coradrius Dorsey, aka “Polo” or “Juicy,” in the RICO trial of Young Thug (real name, Jeffery Williams). Along with Dorsey and the megastar rapper, seven other defendants are also on trial on various charges, including murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, theft, drug dealing, carjacking, and witness intimidation.

 

[brihard]

Realistically what do you think the chances this will go well for the county. It is a county case with only county resources, they have no access to state resources. The RICO case against Young Thug has been ongoing since January. Seeing the famous ( or infamous) status of the defendants in the Trump case it should be a real doozy. Another RICO case recently brought was against the protestors of the "Cop City" by the state's attorney general. In that case there are complaints of infringement of freedom of speech.
Cop City Protest
Article Link
Here is what the others are accused of.

I’m not particularly sure what it is you’re asking. RICO prosecutions are complex and challenging, but are also regularly done with success.

The status and fame of a defendant does not in and of itself necessarily add complexity to a case. Obviously if they have lots of money to throw at good lawyers, the defense has a better chance, and a lot can be done to try to delay the prosecution and big it down. But the wheels of Justice do still keep turning, and eventually a case works it’s way through the system one way or another- and one of those ways is to land before a jury.

The first guilty plea is being entered, and that will come with cooperation. Two defendants - Ken Chesebro and Sydney Powell - have requested speedy trial under Georgia law. Their trial starts next month and that will be an additional reality check to others if they’re found guilty. I think we’ll see 18 defendants drop to a smaller and more manageable number pretty quickly.

I make no prediction about how it will eventually go for Trump himself, save that I expect his lawyers to throw every possible legal wrench in the works. A few of the people closest to Trump and his inner circle - Powell, Giuliani, Meadows, Clark, and Eastman - will be bellwethers of sorts.

 

[RangerRay]

The Nihilism Of Trump's GOP

There's not a democratic institution they won't vandalize for power.

andrewsullivan.substack.com

The Nihilism Of Trump's GOP​

There's not a democratic institution they won't vandalize for power.​

ANDREW SULLIVAN

The most poignant passage in the just-published excerpt of McKay Coppins’ biography of Mitt Romney is not the image of him eating cold salmon-and-ketchup sandwiches, but of him prepping for the impeachment of Donald J Trump:

Romney did his best to be a model juror — he took notes, parsed the arguments, and agonized each night in his journal over how he should vote. “Interestingly, sometimes I think I will be voting to convict, and sometimes I think I will vote to exonerate,” he wrote on January 23. “I jot down my reasons for each, but when I finish, I begin to consider the other side of the argument … I do the same thing — with less analysis of course — in bed. That’s probably why I’m not sleeping more than 4 or 5 hours.”

What’s poignant is the sincerity. And its rarity. It’s not a huge request of a Senator, after all: to take his or her Constitutional duties with a modicum of seriousness, especially when it comes to something as drastic as the impeachment of a president. And yet Romney was one of the very few Republican Senators who did. And he’ll be gone soon enough.

It’s worth comparing him to Mitch McConnell, mysteriously beloved by conservative columnists, whose jaw-dropping cynicism has done so much to hollow out what’s left of liberal democratic norms this past decade. “This is a political process,” McConnell instructed his troops on the impeachment process. Ignore the plain Constitutional text describing your obligations. Just do what is in the immediate interests of you own party and forget about the rest. McConnell is (barely) living proof of Romney’s remark to Coppins: “A very large portion of my party really doesn’t believe in the Constitution.”

He’s not wrong. This week’s launching of an impeachment inquiry into President Biden when there is no solid proof of a “high crime” anywhere in sight is also far outside Constitutional norms. Investigate the Biden family’s lobbying connections? Sure. Search for any indication that the president was secretly on the take from foreign sources? Absolutely. Make Biden pay a political price for staying too close to his sleaze-ridden grifter son, Hunter? Go for it.

But impeachment? On the basis of evidence yet to be found? On the tenuous principle that “courts have historically proved more willing to honor congressional demands when they are made as part of an impeachment inquiry”? That’s a recipe for routine impeachment for routine congressional oversight. It makes Newt Gingrich look like Howard Baker.

It’s not just in Washington. In Wisconsin, a crucible for partisan insanity, the state GOP appears intent on impeaching a recently elected state Supreme Court justice, Janet Protasiewicz, before she has even issued a ruling! Her alleged high crime is to have expressed an opinion about the grotesquely gerrymanderedcongressional maps that Wisconsin Republicans have constructed to give them a super-majority in state government out of all proportion to how they do in the actual vote. The charge is that having expressed an opinion during an election campaign, she is required to recuse herself from voting on the constitutionality of the gerrymander.

The trouble is this standard has never been applied to any other justices in the past, has in fact been dismissed in other cases with GOP-backed judges, and is clearly designed simply to block a liberal majority of 4-3 on the court. (The Wisconsin Judicial Commission cleared Protasiewicz of any violation of the rules.) The same state GOP, it should be noted, reacted to losing the governorship in 2018 by instantly voting to strip the new Democratic governor of many of the powers of his Republican predecessor. And, for good measure, they voted this week to impeach their non-partisan elections supervisor, despite no evidence that the elections of 2020 were anything but legit. I mean: why the fuck not?

The theme that connects all these dots is simply a refusal to grant legitimacy to the Democratic Party — even if that party wins a majority of the votes, even if they play by the rules, even if this means flouting the obvious democratic wishes of the voters. That’s also the underlying rationale behind Trump’s grotesque attempt to overthrow the results of the last presidential election — with no evidence of malfeasance. It is that no Democrat has a right to be president; and if they are elected, it must be because they cheated.

In yet another instance of Republican extremism, Senator Tommy Tuberville has effectively shut downthe usual process for more than 300 promotions within the military for months now in order to protest the Pentagon’s policy of reimbursing female servicemembers who want to travel out of state to get an abortion. The Navy’s No. 2 officer told the Senate this week, “It will take years to recover … from the promotion delays.” This from a party that claims to respect federalism, and to care about national security. Quite obviously, neither is true. And let’s not talk about the possibility of another federal government shutdown, because the GOP is happier throwing tantrums than governing the country.

Yes, the Democrats are not blameless. The campaign to expand the Supreme Court, or to delegitimize it, because Trump lucked out on nominations, is an attempt to get around ordinary Constitutional politics. So, in a way, was the hyping of Russian interference in the 2016 election; and the new argument that the Constitution already has a provision for barring Trump from running for office again. But these notions have not been endorsed by the president, and are not seriously on the table. In the GOP, in stark contrast, the abuses are real, ongoing, and rooted in a deep rejection of liberal democracy by the Trump base.

All of these GOP tactics are abuses of legitimate procedures for extraneous and utterly cynical partisan ends. Some call these maneuvers authoritarian, but that, to me, suggests something too constructive. These abuses are varieties of vandalism and nihilism, procedural moves in the tit-for-tat destruction of liberal democracy, committed by partisans dedicated to no principle other than keeping the other party out of power.

MAGA is not interested in building anything, in winning a real majority, in constructing an actual future rather than lamenting an invented past. Everything is performative and destructive. It’s all driven by who they are against rather than what they are for. As a Republican Senator told Romney as he settled in, their view is that the first consideration in voting on any bill should always be: “Will this help me win re-election?”

There’s no definitive moment in the collapse of a republic, but that quote comes close. If all you care about is your own grip on power, regard the opposing party as ipso facto illegitimate, and give zero fucks for the system as a whole, a liberal democracy has effectively ceased to exist. A single major party, captured by radicals and nihilists, can do that.

 

[Brad Sallows]

At least Sullivan managed to note that "Yes, the Democrats are not blameless."

When people are prepared to include their team in reforms that will cost them political advantage, I'll take them seriously. Everything he noted - politically-driven investigations and impeachments; sabotaging elected officials; adhering to party interests despite obvious constitutional and other guidelines; gerrymandering for electoral advantage and to squeeze out the other party; refusal to grant legitimacy to a political outcome - is something Democrats have done and have given no notice that they intend to stop doing.

 

[Kirkhill]

Left.
Right.
Left.
Right...

Sometimes I wish people would stop trying so hard and just take their hands off the wheel for a bit and observe. Try to figure out what the stable state is before deciding if they need to fix it.

Beware of the man with a plan.

 

[RangerRay]

Beware of the man with a plan.

“I alone can fix it. “

- Donald Trump

Beware indeed of the man on the white horse.

 

[Kirkhill]

“I alone can fix it. “

- Donald Trump

Beware indeed of the man on the white horse.

You raise a good point.

Which is more problematic? A single man with a plan? Or a mob of believers following a plan?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Trump doesn't fix anything. I can guess that pretty much everything substantial that emerged from his White House was a pet project of someone else who conceived and delivered it, with a little bit of his involvement. Fortunately few of them were "muscular foreign policy realists". Just as well the Bush-era establishment was cast into the wilderness; the last thing needed is them behind a pliable president.

 

[Kirkhill]

Trump doesn't fix anything. I can guess that pretty much everything substantial that emerged from his White House was a pet project of someone else who conceived and delivered it, with a little bit of his involvement. Fortunately few of them were "muscular foreign policy realists". Just as well the Bush-era establishment was cast into the wilderness; the last thing needed is them behind a pliable president.

Probably true.

But if he is responsible for the errors of his staff, as well as his own errors, doesn't he get to take credit for the successes of his staff? After all he hired them, let them run with their project and backed their play.

Same rules apply for Biden and Trudeau.

 

[lenaitch]

In the House Rep Paul Gosar was even more pointed and called for Gen Milley to be killed --- I'm frankly stunned no one seems to care other than on Twitter - and I'm a little upset that the Capital Police didn't drag him out and charge him.

DC Code, § 22–2107​

Penalty for solicitation of murder or other crime of violence.​

(a) Whoever is guilty of soliciting a murder, whether or not such murder occurs, shall be sentenced to a period of imprisonment not exceeding 20 years, a fine not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.

(b) Whoever is guilty of soliciting a crime of violence as defined by § 23-1331(4), whether or not such crime occurs, shall be sentenced to a period of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.

I'm not aware of the context nor familiar with the system. If he said it on the floor of the House, is there some manner of immunity?