I would say it was hilarious the way that conservatives have so desperately tried to re-write the narrative of January 6th, 2021, if it weren't so dangerous. Don't take my word for it -- look up what Republicans said on that day and shortly thereafter. Many have completely changed their tune from that day, a day when those Republicans in Congress were hiding or running for their lives. The people they are now calling political hostages were the same ones that Senator Lindsey Graham was saying should be shot in the head. Ted Cruz called it a violent terrorist attack. Someone will respond "Who cares what politicians say?" Well, it matters if they are trying to reframe the publicly accepted narrative of what happened that day. It matters if they are contradicting what they said earlier. For one thing, it shows they are insincere and changing their stance out of a political calculation. That political calculation is to downplay January 6th to enable Trump to have a better chance to get back in the White House. If they had any integrity at all they would stick behind their original positions and stand up for the Constitution of the USA and against Trump.

Trump hates democracy, he hates America and wants to destroy it and replace it with an authoritarian state. Trump loves only Trump. He had the empathy of a lizard while watching the violence unfold on January 6th, 2021. His own people have testified to this.

Don't support him.

They have the power to fire a President if he commits a crime. They don't have the power to try and convict an actual criminal case which is why he wouldn't have been jailed if found guilty by the Senate.

Right, impeachment is not a criminal trial. It's a unique process. Trying impeachment involves both the judicial and legislative branches. The Senate tries, the Chief Justice presides. If convicted he "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law". And through this process he has been acquitted.

Yes, and the only punishment. But someone who does things like kill or steal military secrets should be punished by more than just being fired. They ought be criminally prosecuted and jailed if found guilty.

They should be criminally prosecuted, and probably would if they were convicted of those crimes in the Senate. They should not be criminally prosecuted if they were acquitted.

From being fired, yes. That doesn't preclude subsequent criminal prosecution.

It doesn't include it either. What precludes it is the double jeopardy clause of the 5th.

The Senate tries, the Chief Justice presides. If convicted he "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law". — NOS4A2

It doesn't include it either. What precludes it is the double jeopardy clause of the 5th. — NOS4A2

This would be a contradiction though, since double jeopardy applies whether or not you've been convicted.

They should be criminally prosecuted, and probably would if they were convicted of those crimes in the Senate. They should not be criminally prosecuted if they were acquitted. — NOS4A2

This is the position of Trump's attorney, but I'm pretty confident it will fail, but more importantly- I feel strongly that we should all hope it does fail.

We should hope it fails, because it would permit a President to commit any crime that a small number of Senators are willing to countenance.

What precludes it is the double jeopardy clause of the 5th. — NOS4A2

As per the Constitution, if convicted he "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” and so clearly double jeopardy doesn’t apply, precisely because impeachment and removal from office isn’t a criminal matter.

Your suggestion is that double jeopardy only applies if acquitted. As I’ve mentioned before, this is denying the antecedent. It’s a straightforward formal fallacy. That he can be prosecuted if convicted isn’t that he can’t be prosecuted if acquitted. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers” are only liable if convicted.

The other screaming irony is that Trump stood at the campaign podium two days ago and swore that when elected, he would 'indict Joe Biden for acts committed while he was President' :lol: Of course, it should be no surprise that Trump sees no contradictiction there, as he's incapable of entertaining two ideas at the same time.

This is the position of Trump's attorney, but I'm pretty confident it will fail, but more importantly- I feel strongly that we should all hope it does fail.

We should hope it fails, because it would permit a President to commit any crime that a small number of Senators are willing to countenance.

I hope it passes because a salty prosecutor could indict the presidents he doesn’t like, and it would render useless a check on the executive and judicial branch. Impeachment is far better measure because it leaves the power to convict and acquit their leaders in the hands of the representatives of the people, such as it is.

Of course, it should be no surprise that Trump sees no contradictiction there, as he's incapable of entertaining two ideas at the same time. — Wayfarer

Do you really believe this or is it just rhetoric?

Do you really believe this or is it just rhetoric? — baker

If you waste any time listening to Trump's stream-of-consciousness ramblings, you will quickly discern that it contains a multitude of contradictions, deceptions and lies.

Some (like George Lakoff, the cognitive linguist and philosopher) might say this is his brilliance in framing - in recognizing that consistency doesn't count if you want to dominate discourse where it matters. He 'cuts through' regardless. If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance then baffle them with your bullshit - as we used to say.

RIght, there was a long discussion years back about whether Trump falls into Harry Frankfurter's designation of a bullshitter - answer is resounding yes.

It's such a shame this thread still exists, I honestly thought after the jan 6th atrocity and his election wipeouts it would be all consigned to the past. Someone has to come up with the wooden stake. Hopefully soon.

I hope it passes because a salty prosecutor could indict the presidents he doesn’t like, — NOS4A2

But it's in the hands of a jury to convict. Efforts are made to select jurors that will impartially judge the facts. Senators can be expected to be biased, and as I said - their biases could permit crimes to be committed by the President that would never be judged by a jury.

...and it would render useless a check on the executive and judicial branch.

It does no such thing. The potential to hold a President criminally liable for his crimes has no effect on the power of impeachment.

Impeachment is far better measure because it leaves the power to convict and acquit their leaders in the hands of the representatives of the people, such as it is.

Being a representative of the people means there's an incentive to base one's impeachment (or removal) vote on the wishes of constituents, rather than on the facts of the case. That's not even consistent with the 6th Amendment.

Efforts are made to select jurors that will impartially judge the facts — Relativist

Absolutely not.

Incidentally, something came out of the reporting on the hearing on Trump's claims for immunity from prosecution. Trump is arguing that, as he wasn't convicted by the Senate after Congress impeached him over the Jan 6th atrocity, then he shouldn't face further consequences. But at the time Senator Mitch McConnell said, of the Senate decision to acquit, in a speech directly after the acquittal vote, McConnell delivered a blistering rebuke of Trump's actions, calling them a "disgraceful dereliction of duty" and stating that he was "practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day" of the Capitol riot. He denounced the "wild falsehoods" Trump fed to his supporters and condemned his role in inciting the attack.

But despite his harsh criticism, McConnell voted to acquit Trump. He based his decision on a legal argument that the Senate lacked the constitutional authority to convict a former president. He contended that impeachment is meant to remove officials from office, not punish them after they have left office. But he added "The former President is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. Didn't get away with anything yet. Yet."

It's kind of a 'heads I win, tails you loose' proposal from Trump.

And I'm still utterly convinced that Trump's candidacy will collapse before the Republican Convention in July in Milwaukee.

I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.


Unless that person was black, that would probably win him votes. :vomit:

I think that will be my new favourite emoticon. — Benkei

You agree with his factual understanding of the current political and social climate then.

At no point did he say he would enjoy doing so, naturally he did not say he wouldn't, let alone the idea he would or wanted to have. He simply called a spade a spade and, at least in this particular scenario, happened to have told the truth.

People don't like the ugly reality of our own nature being revealed to them, we like well manicured lawns, white picket fences, adorable canines, matching iPhone covers, and our freshly made deli sandwiches cut in delectable slices with a fancy cocktail sword skewering each. So much so those who actually wish to change the status quo, at least be a barrier and source of proliferation toward neutralization of the social ills that plague, not us but someone else (therefore not an immediate concern), are often ignored as if their message of awareness was as good as the degeneracy itself. We would rather shoot the messenger, before we would accept a message directed at oneself we find too intimately revealing or personal for one's concocted sense of morals and standards, guidelines that deep down we know we would break at the first hint of losing said vanities and "givens" we have enjoyed since time immemorial, provided it is reasonably likely we would still gain the upper hand and come out on top.

This is neither a critique or praise of Trump nor one of his supporters, critics, or those in between. Simply a reminder that this is the world we live in, and ignoring the grim if not revolting realities that come with existence, only benefits those who wish to proliferate and propagate them further.

Do you not agree?

It's such a shame this thread still exists, I honestly thought after the jan 6th atrocity and his election wipeouts it would be all consigned to the past. — Wayfarer

BTW, it's a shame you never read The Different Drum. It provides a lot of perspective good for a forum moderator to have.

You mean M. Scott Peck? I did read Road Less Travelled in the 90's, one of my favourites.

You mean M. Scott Peck? I did read Road Less Travelled in the 90's, one of my favourites. — Wayfarer

Yeah, we've discussed it before. The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, as the name might suggest, has a lot of relevance to the workings of a community such as TPF.

:up:

Seriously? You don't think efforts are made to select impartial juries?

I could get someone saying it's not always sucessful, but there's no question that the effort is made and the result is better than seating a jury that is knowingly biased.

I could get someone saying it's not always sucessful, but there's no question that the effort is made and the result is better than seating a jury that is knowingly biased. — Relativist

In a criminal case, both sides will actively attempt to choose jurors they deem favourable, or exclude jurors the deem unfavourable during voir dire.

I think, if you're under the impression that council representing a side in a case want impartial jury members, you've not considered the job they are being paid to do.. Win.

In a criminal case, both sides will actively attempt to choose jurors they deem favourable, or exclude jurors the deem unfavourable during voir dire. — AmadeusD

These attempts consist of strikes, so they aren't selecting favorable jurors, they are only eliminating unfavorable ones. This process of competing interests leads to a set of jurors less likely to favor either side.

Judges also identify reasons to eliminate jurors for reasons associated with partiality or prejudice. It's their duty to protect a defendant's 6th amendment rights. Convictions have been overturned on appeal when prejudice by jurors has been identified.

Yep, I understand that. But lawyers gonna lawyer, and they are extremely tricky. You're right that the system shouldn't be open to this type of crap, but it seems it is.

This process of competing interests leads to a set of jurors less likely to favor either side. — Relativist

I would refer (though, this is extremely low-brow stuff in terms of the convo we're having) the opening scenes of The Devil's Advocate for a fictional take on how lawyers tend to voir dire. It is a scurrilous process at worst, and cynical at best. Maybe i'm the cynical one :rofl: I deal with these things almost daily and am somewhat disillusioned by the idea that lawyers can't fuck with the process. They are, after all, all humans.

My main point is that it's more impartial that a bunch of Senators. Their tendency is to vote with their party. No one is struck from the jury matter how blatant their bias. That's why they are not appropriate gatekeepers to criminal prosecution. It makes it border a reverse bill of attainder.

My main point is that it's more impartial that a bunch of Senators — Relativist

Thats definitely true - they're allowed to do it in the open!

These folk comprise a fair percentage of Clown'ers...

45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a ‘Christian Nation’
^{— Gregory A Smith, Michael Rotolo, Patricia Tevington · Pew Research Center · Oct 27, 2022}

But they hold differing opinions about what that phrase means, and two-thirds of U.S. adults say churches should keep out of politics

A Christian Nation? Understanding the Threat of Christian Nationalism to American Democracy and Culture
^{— Melissa Deckman et al · PRRI / Brookings · Feb 8, 2023}

The rising influence of Christian nationalism in some segments of American politics poses a major threat to the health of our democracy. Increasingly, the major battle lines of the culture war are being drawn between a right animated by a Christian nationalist worldview and Americans who embrace the country’s growing racial and religious diversity.

Christ, Country, and Conspiracies? Christian Nationalism, Biblical Literalism, and Belief in Conspiracy Theories
^{— Brooklyn Walker, Abigail Vegter · Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion · May 8, 2023}

Like many, we were deeply affected by the sharp divisions, fueled by conspiracy theories, that arose around COVID-19 and the 2020 presidential election.
We noted that conspiracy theories related to both COVID-19 and the Big Lie gained traction in religious communities that tended towards biblical literalism and Christian nationalism, leading us to wonder if either of these two aspects of American religion (biblical literalism and Christian nationalism) were related to a broader tendency for Americans to think in conspiratorial ways.
Christian nationalism links being Christian to being American. In the view of many Christian nationalists, this linkage is threatened by secularization and other social changes. Biblical literalism is the belief that each word in the Bible should be accepted as God’s word spoken directly to readers, not to be filtered through religious elites.
Using survey data, we find that the sense of a threatened nation inherent in Christian nationalism and the anti-elite tendencies in biblical literalism amplify conspiracy thinking, and that the two have especially strong effects when they occur together. We conclude that Christian nationalist and biblical literalist support of COVID-19 and the 2020 election conspiracy theories are not a one-off; Christian nationalists and biblical literalists are likely to buy into future conspiracy theories, too.
We were surprised at the effect sizes we observed. When occurring together, biblical literalism and Christian nationalism had a much stronger effect than well-established predictors of conspiracy thinking, like education. It’s also important not to lump all religious activity together — religious service attendance was consistently associated with less conspiracy thinking.
We measured conspiracy thinking by respondents’ agreement with eight different conspiracy theories. Social scientists have developed other measures of conspiracy thinking that don’t rely on respondents’ knowledge of specific conspiracy theories. Replicating our models with one of these more general measures would certainly strengthen the findings.
Also, we can’t stop with diagnosing the problem — we need to think deeply about how Christian nationalists and biblical literalists might become less susceptible to conspiracy thinking. — Brooklyn Walker · Jun 11, 2023

(emphases mine)

Those figures seem like more than an insignificant fringe (to me). Lowering the numbers to, say, 15-20% of (possibly incorrigible) US voters still give a fair bloc of Clown supporters. Not sure what to expect if the Clown doesn't make it to the ballots, I guess it depends on who does?

So Trumps civil fraud trial concluded today. Assuming he’s on the hook for over $300 million— what happens then? He appeals…but he appeals in NY, right? It isn’t going to federal courts.

So he’s likely screwed. But I have a feeling he’ll worm his way out of this somehow.

@jgill

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said shooting people who cross the border is the only tool the state is not using to deter migrants because the Biden administration would sue the state for “murder.”

“We are using every tool that can be used from building a border wall, to building these border barriers, to passing this law that I signed that led to another lawsuit by the Biden administration where I signed a law making it illegal for somebody to enter Texas from another country,” Abbott said on “The Dana Loesch Show” last week.

“The only thing that we’re not doing is we’re not shooting people who come across the border, because of course the Biden administration would charge us with murder,” Abbott later added.

The implication being that, were there no law against it.... :yikes:

(source)

The implication being that, were there no law against it.... :yikes: — Wayfarer

Oh, if only that nitwit president had not invited the world to surge the border. Guess Robert Gates is right. Sad state of affairs. Maybe Michelle will rescue our country.

more than an insignificant fringe — jorndoe

Those that can might like a listen to The Coming Storm podcast. A review here.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/jan/08/the-coming-storm-review-gabriel-gatehouse-bbc-qanon-conspiracy-movement-now-where-were-we-podcast-barry-cryer-bob-gemma-cairney-gets-classical