USA Politics (redux)

[SimonNZ]

Does "nimby" here mean anyone more critical or expressing more concern than, sa, an industry lobbyist?

Likewise "bedwetter" I've seen here a couple of times with this subject.

[Fëanor]

Does "nimby" here mean anyone more critical or expressing more concern than, sa, an industry lobbyist?

Likewise "bedwetter" I've seen here a couple of times with this subject.

Well, 'NIMBY' simply means "not in my backyard" referring to e.g. to  group homes, waste dumps, whatever.  In my instance nuclear waste caravans moving through city streets.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

So many news/developments today.

-The Republican Party (RNC) censures Cheney and Kinzinger, and calls the January 6 riot 'legitimate political discourse'.

-Beijing Olympic has started today while the US, UK, Japan, Canada, India, Australia, Lithuania, Kosovo, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia have implemented a diplomatic boycott.

-China joins Putin in calling for halt to NATO expansion.

-Michael Avenatti convicted for stealing from Stormy Daniels.

[JBS]

Also Pence in a speech to the Federalist Society says No, I did not have the power to overturn the election.

Ron DeSantis is revealed to have been in regular contact with Clarence Thomas.

North Carolina's state Supreme Court throws out the restricting maps produced by the state legislature as too gerrymandered.

[71 dB]

Also Pence in a speech to the Federalist Society says No, I did not have the power to overturn the election.

Instead of whining about Pence, the Republicans should be relieved Kamala Harris doesn't have the power to overturn the next election.

[Karl Henning]

Opinion: Trump's legal problems are about to get a whole lot worse

By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist
Today at 7:45 a.m. EST

A federal judge ruled last week that a trio of civil claims against defeated former president Donald Trump for his actions on and before the Jan. 6 insurrection can proceed. The cases, brought by 11 members of Congress and two Capitol Police officers, are a reminder that civil liability could deal a substantial blow to the instigator in chief.

In a 112-page opinion, District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta dismissed certain claims against Donald Trump Jr., former Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), all of whom joined Trump in his rally preceding the violence. But the language of the ruling was devastating for Trump. "The first ever presidential transfer of power marred by violence was over," the court explained. "These cases concern who, if anyone, should be held civilly liable for the events of January 6th."

The lawsuits make use of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which was originally aimed at White vigilantes who "conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof."

Mehta wrote that this allows people to sue who are harmed by violent conspiracies that "prevent federal officers from discharging their duties or accepting or holding office their duties or accepting or holding office." Trump sought to dismiss the suits, but Mehta refused, making several critical findings.

First, like the Supreme Court with Trump's attempt to conceal his tax returns, Mehta flat-out rejected Trump's absurd claim that he was acting in his executive capacity in trying to throw out the results of the 2020 election. Trump was able to contest the election through litigation, but the insurrection was Trump's last resort after his campaign lost more than 60 court battles challenging the results. Furthermore, Mehta wrote, Trump does not gain immunity simply because his actions touched on "matters of public concern." The court also rejected the notion that because Trump was acquitted in his impeachment trial he gets absolution from civil cases.

Second, Mehta held that congressional plaintiffs have standing to sue since they are indisputably "officers" within the meaning of the statute. Trump tried to prevent members of Congress from carrying out their duties regarding the tabulation of electoral college votes; therefore, they can sue. Mehta also found that the plaintiffs properly set forth a claim of conspiracy to prevent Congress from performing its duties by "force, intimidation, or threat."

Mehta wrote:

[Trump] repeatedly tweeted false claims of election fraud and corruption, contacted state and local officials to overturn election results, and urged the Vice President to send Electoral ballots back for recertification. The President communicated directly with his supporters, inviting them to Washington, D.C., to a rally on January 6, the day of the Certification, telling them it would be "wild." He directly participated in the rally's planning, and his campaign funded the rally with millions of dollars. At the rally itself, the President gave a rousing speech in which he repeated the false narrative of a stolen election. The crowd responded by chanting and screaming, "Storm the Capitol," "Invade the Capitol," "Take the Capitol right now," and "Fight for Trump." Still, the President ended his speech by telling the crowd that "we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." Almost immediately after these words, he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol to give "pride and boldness" to reluctant lawmakers "to take back our country." Importantly, it was the President and his campaign's idea to send thousands to the Capitol while the Certification was underway. It was not a planned part of the rally. In fact, the permit expressly stated that it did "not authorize a march from the Ellipse." From these alleged facts, it is at least plausible to infer that, when he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol, the President did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers' efforts to certify the Electoral College votes.

Focusing on the number of times Trump used "we" in his address to the mob, Mehta held that this "implies that the President and rally-goers were acting together towards a common goal." That, he wrote, "is the essence of a civil conspiracy."

Finally, Mehta held that Trump's words may not be protected by the First Amendment. Courts have long held that speakers are exempt from liability unless they were explicitly or implicitly "inciting imminent lawless action," which may apply to Trump's words. Mehta found:

Having considered the President's January 6 Rally Speech in its entirety and in context, the court concludes that the President's statements that, "[W]e fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," and "[W]e're going to try to and give [weak Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country," immediately before exhorting rally-goers to "walk down Pennsylvania Avenue," are plausibly words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment. ... It is reasonable to infer that the President would have known that some supporters viewed his invitation as a call to action ...

So, when the President said to the crowd at the end of his remarks, "We fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," moments before instructing them to march to the Capitol, the President's speech plausibly crossed the line into unprotected territory.

The opinion is not a decision on the merits, but in allowing the cases to go forward, it sets the stage for what could be a nightmarish trial for Trump. Trump may refuse to testify, but unlike a criminal proceeding, taking the Fifth could be used against him in a civil hearing. (Plus, in his flurry of post-presidential speeches remarking on the insurrection, he may have waived his Fifth Amendment rights or, at the very least, given plaintiffs even more statements showing he was seeking to overthrow the election.)

[milk]

Opinion: Trump's legal problems are about to get a whole lot worse

By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist
Today at 7:45 a.m. EST

A federal judge ruled last week that a trio of civil claims against defeated former president Donald Trump for his actions on and before the Jan. 6 insurrection can proceed. The cases, brought by 11 members of Congress and two Capitol Police officers, are a reminder that civil liability could deal a substantial blow to the instigator in chief.

In a 112-page opinion, District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta dismissed certain claims against Donald Trump Jr., former Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), all of whom joined Trump in his rally preceding the violence. But the language of the ruling was devastating for Trump. "The first ever presidential transfer of power marred by violence was over," the court explained. "These cases concern who, if anyone, should be held civilly liable for the events of January 6th."

The lawsuits make use of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which was originally aimed at White vigilantes who "conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof."

Mehta wrote that this allows people to sue who are harmed by violent conspiracies that "prevent federal officers from discharging their duties or accepting or holding office their duties or accepting or holding office." Trump sought to dismiss the suits, but Mehta refused, making several critical findings.

First, like the Supreme Court with Trump's attempt to conceal his tax returns, Mehta flat-out rejected Trump's absurd claim that he was acting in his executive capacity in trying to throw out the results of the 2020 election. Trump was able to contest the election through litigation, but the insurrection was Trump's last resort after his campaign lost more than 60 court battles challenging the results. Furthermore, Mehta wrote, Trump does not gain immunity simply because his actions touched on "matters of public concern." The court also rejected the notion that because Trump was acquitted in his impeachment trial he gets absolution from civil cases.

Second, Mehta held that congressional plaintiffs have standing to sue since they are indisputably "officers" within the meaning of the statute. Trump tried to prevent members of Congress from carrying out their duties regarding the tabulation of electoral college votes; therefore, they can sue. Mehta also found that the plaintiffs properly set forth a claim of conspiracy to prevent Congress from performing its duties by "force, intimidation, or threat."

Mehta wrote:

[Trump] repeatedly tweeted false claims of election fraud and corruption, contacted state and local officials to overturn election results, and urged the Vice President to send Electoral ballots back for recertification. The President communicated directly with his supporters, inviting them to Washington, D.C., to a rally on January 6, the day of the Certification, telling them it would be "wild." He directly participated in the rally's planning, and his campaign funded the rally with millions of dollars. At the rally itself, the President gave a rousing speech in which he repeated the false narrative of a stolen election. The crowd responded by chanting and screaming, "Storm the Capitol," "Invade the Capitol," "Take the Capitol right now," and "Fight for Trump." Still, the President ended his speech by telling the crowd that "we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." Almost immediately after these words, he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol to give "pride and boldness" to reluctant lawmakers "to take back our country." Importantly, it was the President and his campaign's idea to send thousands to the Capitol while the Certification was underway. It was not a planned part of the rally. In fact, the permit expressly stated that it did "not authorize a march from the Ellipse." From these alleged facts, it is at least plausible to infer that, when he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol, the President did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers' efforts to certify the Electoral College votes.

Focusing on the number of times Trump used "we" in his address to the mob, Mehta held that this "implies that the President and rally-goers were acting together towards a common goal." That, he wrote, "is the essence of a civil conspiracy."

Finally, Mehta held that Trump's words may not be protected by the First Amendment. Courts have long held that speakers are exempt from liability unless they were explicitly or implicitly "inciting imminent lawless action," which may apply to Trump's words. Mehta found:

Having considered the President's January 6 Rally Speech in its entirety and in context, the court concludes that the President's statements that, "[W]e fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," and "[W]e're going to try to and give [weak Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country," immediately before exhorting rally-goers to "walk down Pennsylvania Avenue," are plausibly words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment. ... It is reasonable to infer that the President would have known that some supporters viewed his invitation as a call to action ...

So, when the President said to the crowd at the end of his remarks, "We fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," moments before instructing them to march to the Capitol, the President's speech plausibly crossed the line into unprotected territory.

The opinion is not a decision on the merits, but in allowing the cases to go forward, it sets the stage for what could be a nightmarish trial for Trump. Trump may refuse to testify, but unlike a criminal proceeding, taking the Fifth could be used against him in a civil hearing. (Plus, in his flurry of post-presidential speeches remarking on the insurrection, he may have waived his Fifth Amendment rights or, at the very least, given plaintiffs even more statements showing he was seeking to overthrow the election.)

Will there finally be a limit to his madness and what can be inflicted on American society and politics? I agree with free speech broadly. His backers will scream free speech. I do not agree with giving social media platforms so much power over what can be said and who can be cancelled, etc. I do hope these cases are successful though. I'm going to sound schizophrenic here because I do think Trump-derangement syndrome exists. Sometimes, it seems, the country lost its mind and dems focused on the wrong things. But not this. There has to be some criminality here. There has to be a limit in how much damage one maniacal and unhinged character can do to American democracy. Trump and his people will stop at nothing and will justify anything. There has to be some firm whip to finally provide limits. Too much tolerance and society and the political order cannot stand.     

[Fëanor]

Will there finally be a limit to his madness and what can be inflicted on American society and politics? I agree with free speech broadly. His backers will scream free speech. I do not agree with giving social media platforms so much power over what can be said and who can be cancelled, etc. I do hope these cases are successful though. I'm going to sound schizophrenic here because I do think Trump-derangement syndrome exists. Sometimes, it seems, the country lost its mind and dems focused on the wrong things. But not this. There has to be some criminality here. There has to be a limit in how much damage one maniacal and unhinged character can do to American democracy. Trump and his people will stop at nothing and will justify anything. There has to be some firm whip to finally provide limits. Too much tolerance and society and the political order cannot stand.   

The politics change when radio became wide-spread, more so when TV arrived, and yet again with the advent of the Internet and social media.  The last has permitted the ignorant and irrational to communicate with, and thereby reinforce, each other as never before.  When the 30-40% of the populations so afflicted unite the USA and other democracies are in dire jeopardy -- bear in mind that there are always those who aren't so ignorant or irrational who are willing to exploit those who are for personal advantage.

Can threat be addressed?  How?  When dealing with the "bottom" 30-40% of the population education, the normally advocated solution, simply won't work.  These folks tend strongly not to listen to science or factual or rational explanations;  they crave simple solutions to complex problems, and listen instead to those who offer conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Countries such as China, Russia, and other control all media including social media, thus even (or most especially) the stupidest are swayed to the official line.  However this control is out of the question for democracies.

[arpeggio]

I do not know what the answer is.

It puzzles me how the IQ's of intelligent people drop by 50% when discussing politics.

One thing that drives me crazy is when someone accuses me of believing something that I do not believe in.

A great example of this occurred on Bill Maher's show a few years ago.  A right-wing pundit proclaimed that all Democrats claimed the Trump stole the election in 2016.  The rest of the panal responded that they knew Trump won the election.  We have over 300 million people in the US, so I am sure there are a few million misinformed people who may think that Trump stole the election from Hillary.  Whether we like it or not, Trump won the election.  Most of us know that.  Yet this right-wing genius on the show did not believe the rest of the panal and kept arguing with them about it.

[BasilValentine]

A great example of this occurred on Bill Maher's show a few years ago.  A right-wing pundit proclaimed that all Democrats claimed the Trump stole the election in 2016.  The rest of the panal responded that they knew Trump won the election.  We have over 300 million people in the US, so I am sure there are a few million misinformed people who may think that Trump stole the election from Hillary.  Whether we like it or not, Trump won the election.  Most of us know that.  Yet this right-wing genius on the show did not believe the rest of the panal and kept arguing with them about it.

Stole the 2016 election? Not in any normal sense. Trump did, however, solicit and accept massive illegal campaign contributions in the form of labor and intelligence (disinformation) services from a hostile foreign power, as well as actively colluding through intermediaries with that power and its intelligence services. The effect of these activities might well have swung the election in Trump's favor, although it would be impossible to definitively establish this. 

[Spotted Horses]

Remember we had George H. W. Bush, then George W. Bush, and people were fearing a Bush dynasty? Bushes like Jeb were supposedly waiting in the wings to continue the inexorable march of the Bushes. I suspect people had the same fear of the Kennedys.

The Kennedys degenerated to a point where sustaining life was an issue. Remember Michael, who killed himself skiing into a tree, and John John, who thought he could fly an airplane in dense fog without adequate training just because, well, he was a Kennedy. All that is left of them is a half-wit RFK Jr. who is telling us that the nurse giving you a free vaccine at CVS is basically a Nazi S.S. and Fauci is the moral equivalent of Dr Mengele. The Bushes have shriveled. Fred Trump was a shrewd guy who made millions (billions in today's currency) exploiting Federal subsidies to build affordable housing, Donald is imbecile, his offspring, Donald Jr. and Ivanka are morons. They will be gone. We have to be worried about who will come next.

[milk]

Stole the 2016 election? Not in any normal sense. Trump did, however, solicit and accept massive illegal campaign contributions in the form of labor and intelligence (disinformation) services from a hostile foreign power, as well as actively colluding through intermediaries with that power and its intelligence services. The effect of these activities might well have swung the election in Trump's favor, although it would be impossible to definitively establish this.

This is the part I find to be...I don't want to say "derangement," just unfounded. There was disinformation. I believe the coverage of it was overblown and that Clinton was just a terrible candidate who narrowly lost the popular vote. Democrats are good at blaming others for their myriad problems. Unfortunately, those problems have worsened and at the worst of times.

[Spotted Horses]

This is the part I find to be...I don't want to say "derangement," just unfounded. There was disinformation. I believe the coverage of it was overblown and that Clinton was just a terrible candidate who narrowly lost the popular vote. Democrats are good at blaming others for their myriad problems. Unfortunately, those problems have worsened and at the worst of times.

She won the popular vote by a healthy margin, she lost the electoral college vote after very narrow losses in several swing states.

The wasn't a great candidate but I don't think she was a 'terrible' candidate, but carried huge amounts of baggage due to her degenerate husband and other issues like "her emails." She could very well have won if she hadn't been torpedoes by Comey's totally inappropriate news conference, then the idiotic reopening of the case when Anthony Weiner's laptop was discovered. Your neglect of the Russian influence is not justified. The Russian intelligence service broke into the DNC's servers and coordinated with Roger Stone to dump embarrassing emails when they could do the most damage.

[arpeggio]

Many of the shenanigans may have (And please not I said MAY have) effected how people voted.

The bottom line is still, Trump won.

[Karl Henning]

Many of the shenanigans may have (And please not I said MAY have) effected how people voted.

The bottom line is still, Trump won.

And, be it said, legitimately. It's a disgrace, but it's the truth.

[SimonNZ]

"Trump Derangement Syndrome" describes the loyalists dressed head to toe in his merch, who send death threats and physically threaten anyone who has disagreed with him, who look forward to a civil war, and who will reach for their wallets with every fearmongering solicitation while talking about their "economic anxiety" and who wish to see him as president for life, excusing his every fault with whatever the days spin says.

The critics who see his every action as self serving and self dealing with no regard for others, the country, for laws or for democracy? They are spot on. No derangement. No syndrome.

[Fëanor]

This is the part I find to be...I don't want to say "derangement," just unfounded. There was disinformation. I believe the coverage of it was overblown and that Clinton was just a terrible candidate who narrowly lost the popular vote. Democrats are good at blaming others for their myriad problems. Unfortunately, those problems have worsened and at the worst of times.

Speaking of "terrible" candidates, will Biden run in '24?  (Trump certainly well if his health doesn't collapse before then, (dare we hope).)  If not Biden in '24, who might it be?  Kamala Harris?  My perspective is a bit distant, but judging by the few public appearances I've seen, she has all the charisma of a sweaty sock.  If the Democrat candidate, I don't see how see could win against Trump or, say, Ted Cruz.

[Spotted Horses]

Speaking of "terrible" candidates, will Biden run in '24?  (Trump certainly well if his health doesn't collapse before then, (dare we hope).)  If not Biden in '24, who might it be?  Kamala Harris?  My perspective is a bit distant, but judging by the few public appearances I've seen, she has all the charisma of a sweaty sock.  If the Democrat candidate, I don't see how see could win against Trump or, say, Ted Cruz.

Kamala Harris, when a Senator, did a good job cross examining various Trump appointees as part of Senate hearings. As a presidential candidate she did not articulate a vision for the country that was clear or convincing to me.

Among the previous set of Democratic candidates seeking the nomination, I liked Corey Booker. By the time my state's primary came around he had dropped out and I ended up voting for Elizabeth Warren. I don't think she'd be a great candidate, too much of a technocrat.

[Karl Henning]

Opinion: GOP hysterics about 'wokeness' aren't attracting voters

By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist

Today at 12:26 p.m. EST

A fleet of pundits will tell you the real problem for Democrats is that they talk too much about race and want to impose their "wokeness" on others. This supposedly provides the justification for book banning and prohibiting "critical race theory" in schools (even though it isn't taught to kids).

As it turns out, the public is much more progressive on matters of race than Republicans and those pundits believe. Two polls suggest the public doesn't like what Republicans are peddling.

A poll from Christopher Newport University's Wason Center for Civic Leadership in Virginia reports, "Voters support teaching how racism continues to impact American society (63% to 33%) and oppose a ban on the teaching of Critical Race Theory in public schools (57% to 35%)." That might explain in part why Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R), who moved to ban such education, is so unpopular.

That poll does not seem to be an outlier. CBS News reports on a poll it conducted with YouGov: "Large majorities — more than eight in 10 — don't think books should be banned from schools for discussing race and criticizing U.S. history, for depicting slavery in the past or more broadly for political ideas they disagree with." Whites, Blacks and parents all agree. So do more than 80 percent of Republicans. Moreover, CBS reports, "Four in 10 believe teaching about race in America makes people more racially tolerant today, too, well outpacing the few who think it does the opposite."

Despite trying to gin up public outrage on critical race theory, Republicans haven't succeeded in raising awareness on it. Most voters have heard little or nothing about it, CBS reports; those who are more familiar with it are more likely to be conservatives. A plurality thinks schools teach too little about Black American history.

The CBS-YouGov poll also found that three-quarters of its respondents said that "public schools should be allowed to teach about ideas and historical events that might make some students uncomfortable." More than 60 percent of Republicans say the same. And unlike the racial amnesiacs in the GOP, more than 70 percent of Americans think racism historically has been a major problem in the United States. Fifty-eight percent think it still is.

So have Republicans been barking up the wrong tree? Are Democrats tearing their hair out about their party being too "woke" freaking out over nothing? The data certainly contradicts the conventional wisdom. It also casts recent events into new light, such as the recall of San Francisco school board members who were criticized for being too focused on racial justice.

As a preliminary matter, don't confuse the genuine frustration among parents over school closures during the pandemic with the cultural wedge issues that right-wing media and MAGA politicians cook up. Democrats may have been tone-deaf as to the former, but it does not mean voters have bought into Republicans' extreme ideas on schooling. Democrats in San Francisco infuriated parents by attempting to rename schools when they should have been figuring out how to reopen them. These are not parents seeking to ban books or bastardize history.

Rather than run away from these issues, Democrats need to go on the offense. That means talking about the concerns of real voters — crime, missed schooling, inflation — and explaining that Republicans are embracing a radical, bizarre agenda that offers no practical solutions on these issues. Just look at the 11-point plan drawn up by Sen. Rick Scott (Fla.), head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, that devotes pages to made-up racial issues. Scott emphasized that the plan was his alone, not the committee's. Still, tell me again which party is obsessed with race?

Democrats also need to embrace values that Americans hold dear — democracy, fairness, opportunity and empathy. Democrats have been the pro-family party, trying to help working parents and make child-rearing less expensive. They need to be unabashed patriots (unlike Republicans defending armed insurrectionists and rooting for the Russian dictator) and defenders of American values.

Finally, Democrats should move to recapture the education issue. They supported funding to reopen schools in the American Rescue Plan; Republicans uniformly opposed it. Democrats want to pay teachers more, extend education to pre-K and teach accurate U.S. history. Republicans oppose all these. Instead, Republicans have sought to ban a book about the Holocaust, make life miserable for LGBTQ kids and create a litigation industry for parents to sue schools. Democrats should skewer Republicans on their politicization of education.

Democrats have been thrown on the defense by a party of trolls who seek to scare and infuriate the GOP base. Democrats need to respond by expressing solidarity with Americans' values and devise real solutions to their concerns.

[BasilValentine]

This is the part I find to be...I don't want to say "derangement," just unfounded. There was disinformation. I believe the coverage of it was overblown and that Clinton was just a terrible candidate who narrowly lost the popular vote. Democrats are good at blaming others for their myriad problems. Unfortunately, those problems have worsened and at the worst of times.

No, the coverage of the issue was not overblown. In fact, some of the critical data was buried and not revealed until redactions in the Mueller report were lifted. And of course Hillary was a bad candidate. It's not an either or situation. My point is that no one knows the extent to which Trump's illegal campaign activities and the collusion of his campaign with foreign actors affected the outcome of the election. To glibly assume it did not turn the election in Trump's favor is unwarranted. To glibly assume it did is equally unwarranted. It makes some people feel better to believe the former because the vulnerability of the system is scary.