Why hasn't Trump been prosecuted for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot? | The Week
Once in while an article comes around that gets straight to the heart of the matter. This is one.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Why we can't seem to punish Trump for the Capitol riot
...But America is not a normal country. The low-level chumps, lunatics, and small business owners who made up the bulk of the putschists are being prosecuted, thus far mostly for relatively minor crimes like trespassing or disorderly conduct, though a few received felony charges. And Trump and other organizers are getting off scot-free.
One year ago today, a violent mob of right-wing extremists stormed the heart of American democracy trying to keep then-President Donald Trump in power after his election loss. Egged on by Trump and his top cronies, they seriously injured dozens of Capitol Police officers, disrupted the election certification, threatened the lives of congressional Democrats and then-Vice President Mike Pence, and wreaked havoc inside the Capitol itself.
As my colleague David Faris writes, there's presently little sign Democrats are capable of using their congressional majorities to patch the holes in the electoral framework Trump tried to exploit. But there's a much more obvious and straightforward step President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland could take: throwing Trump and his accomplices in jail.
In a speech on Wednesday, Garland insisted he "remains committed to holding all Jan. 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law — whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible." If that's true, why have only the rabble had their days in court?
Trump whipped up his putsch in public, right in front of live television cameras. The evidence necessary to bring charges has been visible for an entire year, yet Garland has done nothing. Most observers expect neither Trump nor any of his closest aides will face prosecution, because impunity is the rule for elites in this country. And if that expectation is correct, he or someone like him will try to seize power again, by fraud or force, and sooner or later will succeed.
For context, it may be worth considering the typical response to a failed putsch throughout history. It doesn't look like Garland's empty rhetoric.
When Lucius Sergius Catilina attempted to overthrow the Roman Republic in 63 BCE, he was hunted down by the military and killed along with all his followers. When Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland, invaded England to try to depose Henry IV, he was defeated, beheaded, and his head displayed on the London Bridge. When a group of army officers attempted to overthrow the French Republic in 1961, they were arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned (though some later had their sentences commuted).
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, all this happened because of the incumbent government's self-preservation instinct. States punish insurrectionists both as a signal that sedition won't be tolerated and to take specific dangerous figures out of play.
Historical exceptions to this practice only further the point: When Adolf Hitler attempted a putsch in 1923, for instance, he got off with a slap on the wrist thanks to a sympathetic right-wing judge. A decade later he was chancellor.
It's not hard to imagine what a normal country would do in response to something like Jan. 6. The putschists who stormed the Capitol would be prosecuted, of course, but the principal organizers would get the primary attention of law enforcement. We don't need medieval barbarities to deter sedition — enforcing existing laws would be just fine.
Trump, his lawyer John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, the cadre of members of Congress who helped the plot along, and everyone else who gave speeches whipping up the crowd beforehand — every one of these would be charged with insurrection and seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S. Code § 2383-84. The cases would be open-and-shut. Every other Republican who voted to overturn the election would be kicked out of Congress and permanently banned from holding any federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
But America is not a normal country. The low-level chumps, lunatics, and small business owners who made up the bulk of the putschists are being prosecuted, thus far mostly for relatively minor crimes like trespassing or disorderly conduct, though a few received felony charges. And Trump and other organizers are getting off scot-free.
Whatever Garland may say, it seems the federal law enforcement apparatus is unwilling or unable to consider Trump's mob as real criminals. And despite Garland's talk of accountability "at any level," it categorically refuses to prosecute the ringleaders. We saw last year how the Capitol Police brass totally failed to prepare for the putsch despite clear warnings and how numerous officers fraternized with the mob. Law enforcement generally, from police departments to the FBI to the judiciary, leans conservative.
Yet that only pushes the question back one level. Garland could easily set up a special unit to make sure key prosecutions aren't slow-walked, but he hasn't done it.
I see two main reasons: One, our political culture is saturated with a profound, knee-jerk chauvinism about the Constitution and America's supposed status as the land of freedom. Politicians are constantly flapping their jaws about how the U.S. is a "city on a hill" or "the land of opportunity," as if every other nation is somehow Tsarist Russia. "In no other country on Earth is my story even possible," said then-Sen. Barack Obama in his famous 2004 DNC keynote address, as if America is the only place where someone with an immigrant parent could possibly get elected to the legislature (it isn't, for the record).
But two, the Constitution, together with the rest of the legal machinery underpinning the electoral system, is in reality an embarrassing, outdated piece of junk — the political equivalent of a rusting 100-year-old truck that will barely idle and can't into any gear except reverse. Well before the 2020 election, Barton Gellman wrote an article in The Atlantic carefully explaining how the Electoral Count Act (which nominally governs presidential transition process) is a vague, sloppy mess with multiple inconsistencies. The bizarre American tradition of allowing an election loser to remain president for two months meant that Trump had ample time to try to exploit this janky system to cling to power.
It was darkly amusing to watch American chauvinists ponderously refuse to grapple with this after Trump's initial refusal to concede defeat. Here's Benjamin Wittes, editor-in-chief of Lawfare and an influential member of the Beltway elite, on November 19, 2020:
Lots of countries are unjustly proud of their constitutions or political systems. But the real American exceptionalism is this: In no other country is there such a yawning abyss between the pompous self-satisfaction of the political culture and the grubby reality of the ancient, crumbling, jerry-rigged political institutions.
That, I submit, explains Garland's refusal to prosecute someone who is certain to try to seize power again if he can: Whenever something awful happens to demonstrate that the U.S. is just another ordinary country with many foibles, or that the political class is full of deranged criminals, the chauvinist instinct is to sweep it under the rug and deny anything is wrong.
Garland is so hypnotized by illusions of American greatness he can't believe what's happening right under his nose. The blow to American pride would be too strong and what it would reveal about America's fallen state too traumatizing.
Better to just keep playing make-believe until it's too late.
Tags
Who is online
69 visitors
"But two, the Constitution, together with the rest of the legal machinery underpinning the electoral system, is in reality an embarrassing, outdated piece of junk — the political equivalent of a rusting 100-year-old truck that will barely idle and can't into any gear except reverse."
There is no known credible evidence that the above mentioned parties committed a crime. Then there are those embarrassing and outdated legal concepts like presumption of innocence and due process s/
So what exactly do you blame the current state of prosecutions on? An inept and/or incompetent Biden Justice Department?
And yet, not ONE SINGLE PERSON has been charged with sedition or insurrection.
Is that due to sheer incompetency from Biden's Justice Dept.?
Funny that the author actually thinks members of Congress would all be banned for doing what they can legally do! He's a moron.
[deleted]
Finally, the truth.
In what alternate reality universe?
That's where the alt-right resides - in some alternate reality universe.
What "truth"?
Where?
That's the answer.
Gee.
All of you have it all figured out.
Ya'll planning on clueing Biden and Garland in sometime this year?
Or afraid they'll laugh at the suggestion?
Been thinking this for at least three years. Trump's real crimes were committed at Helsinki and the following incidences from that point.
1. Abandonment of the Kurds.
2. The killing of our soldiers in Niger.
3. Turning over our bases in Syria to the Russians.
4. Expansion of Turkish control in the ME.
5. The 'disapperaring' of Khashoggi.
And these are five things we know about. There are many more.
Why hasn't Interpol knocked on his door for international theft after he had his staff take artwork from an ambassador's private residence. It turned out the items were reproductions with the originals locked away.
Perhaps Interpol is just part of the vast right-wing conspiracy theory Hillary peddles?
Probably because there is so much 'stuff'' concerning the Trumps. And the Ambassador's staff obviously knew ( who and what ) they were dealing with and exercised the necessary precautions.
Ever anything new to peddle?
Naw, I'm kinda hung up on Helsinki and Trump!!!!
The ambassador did indeed use reproductions to avoid losing them to theft, but that was long before Trump visited. But theft is theft, reproductions or not and the fact that the items left the country on AF 1 and that falls under international theft. There needs to be a separate investigative team to handle all the smaller crimes (ie - using the presidential seal without permission to promote his golf course) apart from the J6C who needs to just concentrate on the crimes associated with the insurrection.
Maybe because the art work taken was US government property...
hey, who needs FACTS like that when it destroys the Democratic narrative?
I know. But the actions taken by the Trumpers is typical Trump.
Well, there was the 4+ year witch hunt in to Trump and his connections to find something that they had done wrong. Why did it come up empty?
The stupidity, it burns!
What Kurds were abandoned? Seriously, we are still in Syria. All Trump did was reduce the number of troops present, and move them to secure the Syrian oil fields. Think that made Russia or Syria happy? Was the left upset when Obama withdrew our troops from Iraq abandoning the Iraqi Kurds? Funny, don't remember a peep out the Democrats or the media.
If you are this upset about the Kurds, who weren't abandoned; how upset are you at Biden abandoning US citizens, Green Card holders, and Special VISA holders in Afghanistan? These are people that have every right to return, or come to the US. Instead Biden has "Turned the page"; and done jack shit to get them out. His administration is making it hard for charities and private individuals to conduct rescue operation in Afghanistan by forcing them to take everyone to a third party country to await vetting by the State Department. Funny, Biden wasn't worried about vetting all of the Afghans that managed to make it into the air port in Kabul. No vetting required, get in and you were put on a plane out of Afghanistan. Many were brought directly to the US, and are be held at their will at 3 US military bases.
Or Carter not getting the US hostages out in Iran? Under your definition that more than qualifies as abandonment.
This is what you are upset about? Do you think Trump has direct day to day control of troop deployments? Then where were you for Clinton's Black Hawk Down? How about Obama/Hillary and Benghazi? Or Biden and the 10 soldiers killed at the Karzai Airport in Kabul thanks to his shitty withdrawal plan the left US forces exposed holding down an airport that was vulnerable to attack?
You mean the Syrians didn't claim them? I mean they are in Syria after all. Of course there wasn't much to claim considering Trump had the US Air Force blow them up as we were departing. Those that he didn't have dismantled first that is.
If this upset you. How do you feel about Biden abandoning US military bases to the Taliban; and the weapons/vehicles that went with them? Bagram is likely to become a Chinese base. Biden didn't diminish Bagram's defensive capabilities or use as a major air field in any way.
Really, that is what you want to hang your hat on? Think Turkey has toned it down now that Biden is in charge? Better throw in Russia (Ukraine), China (Taiwan), and Iran (expanding all over the ME). All three of those countries would also like to thank Biden for giving them a lion's share of the controlling interest in Afghanistan. Seems the Taliban are more than willing to be accommodating for enemies of the US.
So Trump made Khashoggi disappear? Have any proof of that? Believe that was a Saudi Crown Prince that ordered it done; and it was carried out by Saudi intelligence officials. Outside of wording a stern letter of condemnation that was sure to piss a major US ally off, what was Trump to do? Biden made the strong condemnation, and look where it got him. Went groveling to the Saudi to get oil production increased; and instead was threatened with an oil reduction from OPEC. That is what worthless virtue signaling gets you.
Looking forward to you finding more. Anything you can come up with I can find a Democrat that did it ten times worse.
. Every other Republican who voted to overturn the election would be kicked out of Congress and permanently banned from holding any federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Lol. I'll take this argument seriously when all of the dozens of Democrats who voted to overturn the 2000, 2004 and 2016 election are treated similarly.
n, Barton Gellman wrote an article in The Atlantic carefully explaining how the Electoral Count Act (which nominally governs presidential transition process) is a vague, sloppy mess with multiple inconsistencies. The
This is true, yet Chuck Schumer adamantly refuses to consider legislation to reform it, even though republicans like John Thune and Susan Collins have signaled a willingness to proceed. One can only wonder why Democrats don't want to fix the actual problem.
How about the candidate with the most votes wins? The concept of 'The Electoral College' has as much relevance in the 22nd Century as a spitoon.
So the system of government started by the Founding Fathers just isn't good enough for you anymore?
Bet it was just fine when Carter, Clinton, and Obama won.
Slavery was legal then and the foundation of the Southern economies. Slavery is no longer legal and the slave states no longer require the added protections afforded by the Electoral College----which was created as a 'carrot' to the slave states which would not join the Confederation without it.
The Electoral college wasn't created to protect the southern states and the institution of slavery... It was created to protect the small states Deleware, Maryland, Rhode Island etc.. From the large wealthy states like New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Virginia...
Ah, the electoral college was created by the constitution, NOT the Articles of Confederation which it replaced....
Which also occurred almost 100 years before any state was declared a "Slave" state.... Being that is the historical facts, how could it have been held as a carrot to any slave state?
false
Explain how that's false please....
The whole first paragraph is false.
Go read Federalist 68 and let Hamilton explain it to you.
I don’t recall any mention of slave states in 68.
I don't see a mention of slave states in NWM's false first paragraph Greg.
Hamilton argument in 68 for the electoral college had NOTHING to do with 'protecting small states from large wealthy states'.
68 utterly refutes NWM's statement.
Next.
Your saying that because of this paragraph from wiki...
Interests of slave-holding states [ edit ]
The interests of slave-holding states may have influenced the choice of the Electoral College as the mode of electing the president. James Wilson proposed the use of a direct election by the people, but he gained no support for this idea, and it was decided that the president would be elected by Congress. When the entire draft of the Constitution was considered, Gouverneur Morris brought the debate back up and decided he too wanted the people to choose the president. James Madison agreed that election by "the people at large was in his opinion the fittest" way to go about electing the president, [1] but he knew that the less populous slave states would not be influential under such a system, and he backed the Electoral College. Another factor here was the so-called Three-Fifths Compromise , which gave added power to the slave-holding states under the Electoral College which they would not have had under any likely form of popular vote. [2]
Which leads us to
Finkelman, Paul (2001). "Proslavery origins of the Electoral College". Cardozo L. Rev . 23 .
So lets take a look at Finkelman, Paul
Here are his credentials... From Wiki....
Expert witness and analyst [ edit ]
Called an "excellent legal historian", [8] even by scholars who disagree with him, Finkelman was an expert witness against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore in Glassroth v. Moore (Al. 2002)(the "Ten Commandments" case), as well as an expert witness for the plaintiff in Popov v. Hayashi (S.F. Sup. Ct. CA, 2002) (determining who owned Barry Bonds 's 73rd home run ball). Professor Finkelman has also been part of amicus curiae briefs for cases related to Guantanamo Bay detainment camp , gay marriage in New York State , affirmative action , and separation of church and state . In 2013, he was the lead named amicus in briefs before the Supreme Court involving affirmative action ( Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action [9] ) and prayer delivered at public meetings ( Town of Greece v. Galloway [10] ). The U.S Supreme Court has cited Finkelman five times, including in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's majority opinion in Timbs v. Indiana (2019). [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
In April 2007, Finkelman appeared at Harvard Law School for a retrial of the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. [16] He was an expert witness for Sandford. [17] Attorney Kenneth Starr was another expert witness before the mock court of federal justices; led by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer .
Finkelman has also appeared in several historical films, including Ken Burns 's documentary on Thomas Jefferson (for which he was invited to the Clinton White House), and a documentary about the Barry Bonds' home run ball, Up for Grabs . Television and radio programs which have used him as an analyst have been broadcast on NPR , PBS , CNN , and ESPN . Finkelman has served on numerous editorial and advisory boards, as well as delivered more than 150 papers and lectures in the United States, and in Austria, Canada, China, Colombia (SA), France, Germany, Ireland (Eire), Israel, Italy, Japan, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
Looks to me like he has hit all the liberal bases, made all the liberal arguments...
This is why you can't trust Wiki that much anymore, (without checking it's sources) it's slowly being re-written into a racist liberal viewpoint...
Looking to see who posted that drivel on the Federalist 68 article... and see if I can get that "BIASED OPINION" removed...
WOW, that there is a fuck load of blathering just to post a strawman NWM.
I have read and understand ALL of the Federalist papers and 68 more than once, especially since 2016. I JUST reviewed it before I posted my comment to Greg.
Though history shows that Hamilton's ideals were somewhat naive in 68, I choose to accept Hamilton's reasoning for creating the Electoral College over your fabrications.
Well then your understanding is a lot different and opposite than mine, and I actually wrote papers in school over it... (got "A"s for them as well)
But then such is true of most liberals, taking plain meanings and imparting their own understanding to them...
Here is Federalist #68...
That's the Yale school of law's online version... (they have it in paper as well, I've held it in my hands) If you really need it I'll post it verbatim so everyone can read it...
YOU tell me where it says ANYTHING about slavery in any manner relating to ANYTHING?
I think I'll be waiting a long time.... But then you have to eat your own blathering... I think I will take Hamilton's version over your faulty politically rationalized and modified version...
NEXT....
What part of I've READ it multiple times don't you understand? You want to debate it, start a fucking seed and I'll be there.
You've got nothing but strawmen.
I didn't say 68 said ANYTHING about slavery NWM.
What I AM saying is that the Electoral College was NOT created to protect small states from large wealthy states and that Hamilton's 68 PROVES that fact.
How about YOU tell me where 68 says ANYTHING about protecting small states from large wealthy states?
Come on, there must be SOMETHING in 68 about your 'small state/large state' thingy right?
Or maybe you've got some other source for your fantasy. If so, post a link.
If not, just admit that you pulled that bullshit out of your nether region and move on.
I posted it, you make your case for it backing up BBL's position that it aided slave states, that's where you jumped in... I rejected his argument cogently and factually, he said it was false Greg asked him where it was false and you jumped in saying the entire first paragraph was...
Greg then asked you how?
So BBL's position was that the electoral college was formed to protect slave states, I refuted that and that's what your defending...
Anything else is moving the goal posts, and is a massive fail... You claimed that Federalist #68 proves me wrong, ergo sum, BBL is correct...
So in your infinite understanding of federalist #68, far greater than mine, show us where it supports BBL's claim using it's actual written text?
I suspect I'll be waiting for a long time.... And thank you for the opportunity again...
But you didn't and THAT is where I 'jumped in'.
Hamilton's Federalist 68 is THE go document for the reasoning for creating the Electoral College. There is nothing in 68 about 'protecting smaller states from larger wealthy states'.
That is what is FALSE about your statement and THAT is my posit. I supported it by citing 68.
Despite the A you got for your paper in school, you've offered NOTHING to support your bullshit posit except blather.
And that is YOU changing the goal posts, the discussion was about the electoral college being created to support the slave states...
Here I'll quote it for you..
BBL Said:
THAT is what you jumped in to defend with Federalist #68... Well get to defending it... The rest of your blather is just that blather...
Now I can support the rest of my statements, just this is not the place for that discussion, this discussion was about the electoral college being created to support the slave states, which is patently false...
The rest of YOUR blather is attempting to change the debate subject in an effort to discredit one part and ergo sum allow you to argue it discredits all of it...
And that's a MASSIVE fail... your not changing the debate here... Prove your assertion that Federalist #68 establishes that the electoral college was created as a "Carrot" to the slave states....
Please do... I want to hear that convoluted reasoning... You want a discussion on the other part? start an article I'll be glad to give all the proof necessary....
But for this discussion stick to the subject...
Because it just is. What are you protecting?
In those elections a 'scared crybaby' was not in the picture and neither was a right wing information system set up by Russian Oligarchs up and running to promote lies, mistrust, division and fear as has been done during The Trump Administration.
Wrong again.
I jumped in to prove YOUR posit that the Electoral College was created to 'protect small states from large wealthy states' false. I did. Own it.
Or you could just keep
.
Your call.
Thank you, you ever hear of the Connecticut Compromise?
I'm sure you haven't... I'll give ya an easy read, if you need it in the founders own words I can provide that as well and their commentaries on it...
The Connecticut Compromise... from Britannia.com... If you want the actual debates in the Constitutional Convention, I can provide those as well..
Everything from the formulation of congress to the electoral college is based upon it, without it there wouldn't have been a constitution and probably no United States...
So your first statement is correct, Your WRONG again...
And you can dig your hole as deep as you want...
Connecticut Compromise? Does that have something to do with equal representation?..
One of the first decisions of the convention, yes equal representation for the states in the senate regardless of size and wealth and proportional representation in the House of Representatives depending on population...
Establishing the bicameral legislature known as Congress and the numbers of representatives in each... which controls the proportions and size of the electoral college... Without it there would be no government... So yes the electoral college was a way to protect the small states from the larger ones for the purpose of electing our government...
OOOOH, conspiracy theories!
How very novel.
I totally agree. It should be the popular vote, not the ECV that determines the winner.
More bullshit.
First of all, there was ALREADY a United States prior to the Constitution.
Secondly, your own link shows that there were multiple options debated. Despite your proclamation, there is no evidence that choosing a different option would have shit canned the Constitution.
Thirdly, the Connecticut Compromise that you linked, was approved in July 1787 and had NOTHING to do with WHY the Electoral College was CREATED.
After months of debate about how to appoint the Executive, the Committee report came out in AUGUST and still included the Executive being appointed directly by the legislature. The debate included a vote to have the Executive elected directly by the people. That motion was defeated by a 2-9 vote.
Note that in August there were multiple days of debate about the number of electors.
If the July Connecticut Compromise on the numbers in Congress was all that and a bag of potato chips, why the days of debate in August about the number of electors?
If you want to re-argue the constitutional convention issues, go right ahead.. I'll take the smart way out and figure they made the decisions the best way they could and came to the correct ones...
At this late date it is pointless... In the end they created what we deal with today, the whys are plain...
Argue with yourself, you win... {chuckle}
You brought it up NWM:
If you want to bail now, go right ahead...
It answered your issue decisively, sorry you wish to argue semantics, doesn't change that fact...
Not bailing, just not playing your game... Cause it is just not worth it, you take yes but to a whole new level.. but it's all the same in the end...
It simply isn't worth my time to be run around the mulberry bush with you...
If you want to declare victory, go for it, I'll let you... you haven't won anything worth anything.... howl at the moon all you want..
Enjoy it..
Only in your mind.
What have YOU been arguing for the last two days?
You haven't posted any facts to support your claim that the Electoral College was created to protect small states from large wealthy states.
Pretty funny after you've posted 2 days of comments doing just that.
No need NWM. I've posted historical facts. A win for me would be if my posts encourage members to do their own research and make their own judgements.
Where is your linkage to historical fact?
it's crap until we have the linkage... I've posted links.. You, nothing...
Hello Nowhere Man. I have followed most of your discussion with Dulay and others regarding the origin and reason for the Electoral College, including its treatment in Federalist #68. At this point, it occurs to me that you might all be partially correct in some aspects and incorrect in others.
The electoral college as described by Madison was a multifaceted compromise to assuage the fears of some of the founders with respect to how the president would be elected. Some wanted an elected Congress to pick the president, others insisted on a straight popular vote. There was also the concern about whether the people would be informed enough about the men they would elect to the nation's highest office, which was the crux of Madison's writings in Federalist #68 about more informed "electors" making that selection. There was also indeed much discussion about how many electors would be assigned to each state (the same discussion regarding how many seats should be allotted in the House of Reps based on population), and the concern of the states with large populations of slaves led to the 3/5ths compromise which impacted more than simply the number of electors. So the interests of slave holding states did have a little to do with the final arrangement of the electoral college, but really the main focus of the 3/5ths compromise was to allow southern states to base their number of congressional seats on a higher population that included 60 percent of the slave population. More on all of this HERE .
Each side in the presidential election debate had good reasons for not liking the idea of the other, given the history of the places from where they came, hence the less than perfect compromise known as the electoral college.
It was agreed that the number of electors selected by each state would equal the number of representatives in Congress (i.e. the two senators per state plus their representatives in the House). It was the bicameral arrangement of the House and Senate that was to give a more equal voice to the smaller and less wealthy states by affording them two senators, same as the larger states. That had nothing to do with the electoral college, and that "bicameralism" of Madison's Federalist #62 was pretty much trashed by the 17th amendment in 1913 when the States no longer selected their two senators but rather elected them by the popular vote just like their House representatives, but I digress. The number of electors in each state was simply arranged to match the quantity of those representatives in each state but was not necessarily intended to protect the smaller states from the larger ones, and the two groups (reps and electors) otherwise were to have no relation to each other.
Having said all that, I don't really have much of an issue with the electoral college itself, just how it has been implemented over the years into a power tool for the two party system we now find ourselves trapped in. The article to which I linked above touches on that:
It is this highly partisan party influence, and the "winner take all" bullshit in most of the states that has corrupted the original concept of the electoral college. And today, the partisan electoral college and the "winner takes all" concept that almost all the states have since adopted, does the exact opposite of protecting the smaller states, or districts/counties within the states, from the more populous and wealthy states/districts/counties when it comes to the election of the President and VP. California is a prime example of that, and perhaps Texas too if we want to honestly consider the partisan impacts both ways.
My point being that the electoral college compromise in 1787/1788 really bears no resemblance to what it has become today. So perhaps rather than arguing about how or why it started (especially through a modern partisan tinted lens), perhaps we should take a closer look at what it has become today, and maybe do something about it.
Well gee NWM, you told me that you could furnish me with 'the actual debates in the Constitutional Convention'.
You obviously don't need me to hold your hand...
You have the information NWM. You got an A on your paper. Use your research...
Yet your link doesn't mean what you say it means so it's irrelevant.
Well said.
One of the things that has screwed up the Electoral College AND the Congress is the cap on the number of Representatives in the House. It's arbitrary and no longer 'representative' of the population of the country.
I agree that the winner take all laws suck, further usurping representation.
Now this I absolutely agree with, I came to this conclusion about ten years ago... Washington, being the president of the convention remained silent on the issue during the convention, but voiced his concerns in letters to delegates delivered outside of the convention... His biggest worry was partisanship, he felt that it should be outlawed... Failing that he feared that partisanship was the worst thing that could happen to the new nation... He also stated several times that there was an underlying current of partisanship in the convention itself and feared that it would cause the convention to fail...
On the electoral college he thought it was the best compromise that could be made as it covered everyone's concerns, his advice was to make the electors votes be tied to their districts individually which Nebraska and Maine do today and not allow partisanship to dictate how they vote...
He considered it as big a failure of the convention as Jefferson felt the 3/5th compromise was...
The easy solution would be to mandate that the electors vote be tied to their district... Exactly as Washington envisioned it..
Secondly, restore the Senators to their proper place in the structure of the government as originally set up... and repeal the 17th amendment...
Everyone that wishes to argue that the Connecticut compromise was not as important as some of the others seem to refuse to realize that without the general framework of that compromise being worked out first, none of the delegates saw any reason to advance any further with the convention... The other two proposals were revised proposals for fixing the articles of confederation, some states were for each and others were not.. I believe that the NY and PA delegations was ready to walk away from the convention if that issue wasn't resolved...
Given Trumbull's suggested compromise was accepted, that resolved the issue, and the convention continued... It became the basis of everything negotiated afterwards including the 3.5th compromise... Without the 3/5th compromise we wouldn't have had a constitution either, and that was decided on the basis of the structure Trumbull outlined... So was the Electoral college how yo make the selection of the president fair... given the limitations of the day and yeah they were aware of what we today call "Fly-over states"... They wanted to avoid that situation becoming reality... There was a lot of discussion over how the electors were to be selected and who controlled the process.. They debated it at length and eventually kicked the can down the road by leaving it to the individual states to not only figure selection out but allocation as well...
Washington made the suggestion that at least the electors vote should be tied to it's district, but it was completely rejected by the delegates... The constitution was also designed to balance the needs of the people with the needs of the states which were not always in agreement...
After Washington's two terms (when partisanship was undercover in deferment to Washington's disgust of such) partisan ship came out in force and very quickly the states figured out that the parties would have much more power if they tied the electors into blocks... The states could still pick the electors but once picked they had to vote the way the state voted.... The parties then eliminated all vestiges of independence of electors by setting up rules mandating dual slates of electors, one from each party, and the party that won the state had their slate of electors chosen...
I agree that is where the excellent and ingenious system that was the electoral college as envisioned at the convention, and created in our constitution, was perverted into the unjust and unfair monstrosity it is today... it is a political mechanism to make the larger states more important than the smaller states... And both political sides conspired to make it that way...
The way it is today it makes elections easier for the parties, and much much worse for the people... couple that with Gerrymandering, (another partisan throwback to the convention days) and political elections in the US have been rigged in favor of two political parties ever since...
Like Washington plainly expressed political parties and partisanship is the bane of a free nation...
And I see no reason to disagree with him... everything he said it would cause has come true...
Agree to Disagree
Well said, 100% agreement here..
Well not entirely "arbitrary". HERE is a pretty good run-down on how the 435 member number came about and why it is now a matter of "re-apportionment" rather than simply adding members as the population grows. I suppose the need to balance a manageable size of a governing body with the growth of the population is a reasonable concern. The next re-apportionment might occur in 2023 (3 years after the 2020 census). There are several other good links in that PDF for further reading on this and related matters.
Also, the changes that set the size of the House membership came about by legislative process. So those laws are not set in stone, and they can still be discussed and brought before a legislative review and vote again.
I rather like that idea. I had proposed that same thing here a couple years ago when the EC came up in another article.
Can't say I hate that idea either. I recall writing a great deal about that here a couple years back. The 17th Amendment impacted the core structure of the Constitution (specifically the structure of Congress) more than any of the other Amendments, in my opinion.
I've made both those arguments on numerous occasions both here, NV and DU many times... All I've gotten is sparse agreement and a ton of argument against... Several years ago the last time it came up right here as well... we were probably arguing on the same side...
Yes the 17th amendment fundamentally changed the structure of this government, and not for the better...
Excellent opinion/article HERE at The Hill on this very subject. Enjoy!
Oh yes, EXCELLENT review....
quote:
Directly what I was talking about.... The 17th amendment was special interest driven and allowed wealth to invade the federal government...
EXACTLY what the Senate was created to help prevent... Confine wealth corruption to the individual states and make senators answerable to the states they come from...
Thanks for the link.... Excellent read I've added it to my archives...
As if wealth has never, never, ever invaded a government be it a form of monarchy, communism
theocracy or republic or democracy.
The problem is people
not the form of government
smh
Bingo, absolute wealth corrupts everything it throws it's money at.... The way they set up the Senate originally was to severely limit it's ability to do that...
Trust you to always have the right answer, Freewill
Do you think that impact was good or bad?
In my research, it seems to me that the founders bias of 'landed' white men being more worthy of governance is a mindset that died far too slowly. That left millions of free white men and many millions more of women and POC disenfranchised. It wasn't until the 1828 election that there was near 'universal' suffrage for free white men. It was another 40 years before AA men ostensibly gained the vote and almost 100 years after the 17th before women did.
While there were no 'Partys' at the time of the Constitutional Convention, there were decided 'factions' at play throughout.
Federalists v. Antifederalists.
Madison's description in Federalist 10, of a 'faction':
So it's telling that so many conflate 'factions' with 'Partys'.
While Madison decried factions, he, along with Jefferson, founded the 'Democratic-Republican Party' to oppose Hamilton's 'Federalist Party'. All before the Bill of Rights was ratified.
Well I don't know about "right answer", but it will be well-informed or it won't be presented. And I'm not afraid to learn and be wrong from time to time either.
This brings to mind the old adage about "too many cooks in the kitchen".
I understand your point, and I think it is a good one, but the essay/article to which I linked, and the quote you lifted from it, makes it clear why managing the number of representatives is important. Most importantly to ensure that they can represent their constituents effectively and actually get things done. No matter the size of a representative's constituency, there are always going to be those who feel that their local representative does not represent them adequately, especially in today's age of deep partisan divide. But if representatives can't effectively represent those who voted them into office because there are "too many cooks in the kitchen", then what difference does it make whether their constituents number 750,000 rather than 600,000?
Apportionment had been around even before the PAA of 1929, and in 1941 Congress adopted the current formula for reapportioning House seats (Huntington-Hill Method, or Method of Equal Proportions). It is fair and based solely on the decennial census per the Constitution. How the States redraw their district lines in response to the reapportionment has historically been fraught with claims of jerrymandering by both parties. Even if there were more seats, the same process would be followed, the apportionment would take place and those claims of jerrymandering would likely be amplified as the larger deck is shuffled.
Trying to provide more effective representation in this case makes more sense than worrying about the granularity of that representation, especially where that granularity is simply dictated by lines on a map. IMHO.
I'd lean more toward the bad, mostly for the reasons outlined in The Hill article to which I linked above, primarily the discarding of the concept of "Bicameralism" as it relates to how the two chambers of Congress are elected.
Be that as it may, that is how the country was founded. Might we have been better off then and now, indeed would we even be here, if "landed white men" hadn't been around, and put their lives on the line to establish a society that has eventually evolved well beyond the old bigoted and misogynistic ways? History is what it is and we eventually evolve, but what good does it do to constantly scrutinize the founders under the lens of today's more enlightened morality?
Furthermore, that had nothing to do with the 17th Amendment and the now debunked reasons for it in 1912/1913, as the article to which I linked makes clear. The bicameral design of the original Constitution was to form two branches of the legislative body answering to two separate constituencies, the Senate to the elected state governments and the House directly to the people. That way the Senators are selected by the elected State Legislatures who are all in the best position to understand the business of the State as it relates to the Federal Government, and select two Senators to carry out those duties in the interests of the State. The intricacies of which cannot be expected to be understood by all the people who since the 17th Amendment elect the Senators directly through popular vote, the same way as the House of Representatives. It could be said that the 17th created more problems and more corruption than it was originally sold to be solving.
You said,
Huh? The 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, and the unrelated 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote in 1920. Not sure where this 100 years comes from. Having said that, I agree with you whole-heartedly about the slowness in which these rights came about. It would have been nice if all those rights were afforded ALL the citizens immediately upon the ratification of the Constitution. But that is the problem with history isn't it? It doesn't always conform with modern day knowledge, philosophies, morality, ethics and policies. It evolves just as the physical human form has evolved, and evolution takes time. I am just happy that it happens and things get better as a result. To the extent that we can move it along faster, that's great, but tearing down the founders because of the outdated time in which they lived really doesn't help much to solve the problems of today does it? We can't change the past, we can only learn from it and move forward to change what we can today.
These two sentences are back to back in the same paragraph:
1828 to 1913. Almost 100 years.
1828 to 1920. Almost 100 years.
Sorry, I read that as written. Almost 100 years after the 17th Amendment would have been circa 2013.
Yes, going forward in the same understanding of principles in which the original solution was presented.... That is the political problem today, some, mostly liberals but some conservatives as well, wish not only to update the old language and limits, but change the underlying philosophy as well which changes the entire point of what was created... Usually to the benefit of one particular party over every one else...
In the context in which Washington and even Madison used the term, it is clear that "Partys" could most certainly be a subset of "factions", even the modern definition of a political "party". Washington even used the word "Party" in his farewell address multiple times, even foretelling the dangers of letting "parties" dominate the landscape of our political discourse. So it isn't a matter of conflation it is a matter of the nature, or end result, of letting "factions" or "parties" override the will and cooperation of the people.
Now certainly Washington could not have imagined the "parties" exactly as they exist today, but I think it is pretty clear based on our current state of partisan division and paralysis that he had a pretty good crystal ball going there as to what happens when we leave our Constitution in the hands of "factions" or "parties". He described in very precise terms the predicament that our modern "parties" have left us in today. Washington's last paragraph above has to give you goosebumps.
And if you look at how the first 6 elections went down, you will see factions taking over the election process, in the 16 years after Washington retired, political parties (factions) completely took over the selection of the president... Washington knew EXACTLY what he was talking about...
It was political factions in the house that awarded the presidency to Thomas Jefferson over John Adams after an intense lobbying effort by Jefferson, as a result,
One of Adams last official acts was to attempt to pack the federal judiciary with Federalist judges which Jefferson and Madison conspired to prevent by delaying the delivery of the required commissions until after Adams was out of office and Jefferson was in office, what happened then,
Created the first major case before the Supreme Court, Marbury vs Madison, in which the Supreme Court used as a vehicle to take for itself powers that the constitution didn't grant them, and in thanks for the opportunity to do that they decided in favor of Madison, defeating Adams Federalist party's attempt to pack the court... AS a result of all these shenanigans stemming directly from Factions at the behest of Jefferson,
Washington NEVER spoke or wrote to Jefferson EVER AGAIN.... Complete divorce from him in society... Complete rejection of friendship...
You think today's politics is nasty business? Two of the most important of our founding fathers wound up never speaking to each other ever again...
Washington absolutely knew about the influence of factional politics...
Context is lost when you truncate sentences.
mmmmmmmmmmmm
Washington knew his men. They taught him how far you could bring troops along for an idea.
An idea no matter how cool, loses impetus to the realities of hunger and mortgages.
Washington knew power & influence would corrupt.
He certainly did and warned us of it...
Agreed, and meaning is lost when a sentence is poorly formed. But that is neither here nor there as now I understand what you meant.
That's a deal.
Since there were NO votes in 2000 or 2016, we'll just have to deal with who's left in office from ONE 2004 vote.
Name the Congressman who are still in office and I'd be willing to trade them for all of these guys:
Senators:
Cruz (R-TX)
Hawley (R-MO)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Marshall (R-KS)
Tuberville (R-AL)
Congressmen:
Aderholt
Allen
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Banks
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brooks
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Crawford
Davidson
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Estes
Fallon
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Guest
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hudson
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
LaMalfa
Lamborn
LaTurner
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Malliotakis
Mann
Mast
McCarthy
McClain
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Moore (AL)
Mullin
Nehls
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Rutherford
Scalise
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Steube
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wright
Zeldin
I haven't compared the AZ vote to the PA vote so there may be some additions...
Deal?
Lol. That's simply untrue. Have you heard of google?
Why do you just make things up rather than try and argue honestly with facts? Your b.s. semantic deflections only drive home how afraid you are of substance.
Oh then YOU should be able to post links to the votes taken in Congress in the 2000 and 2016 joint sessions.
Please proceed.
For those who like facts and know that I actually post them, believe me, there were NO fucking votes in 2000 or 2016 because NO Senators supported the challenge made by House members. I actually reviewed the facts BEFORE I posted, instead of spewing bullshit as has become the MO of the right.
So come on Sean, let's argue honestly with facts. When you post some, we can start.
Now watch y'all, silence will ensue...
No shit. Which is why I wrote "Your b.s. semantic deflections only drive home how afraid you are of substance."
Because you can't defend that Democrats tried to keep Congress from certifying the election in 2001 and 2017, as well as 2005. Since you can't, you pretend there's some sort of substantive difference between what the Democrats did in those years. But of course there isn't. Every time the Democrats lost, they've tried to overturn the election in Congress. Just because they got one step further in 2005 doesn't erase what they also tried to do in 2001 and 2017. The Democrats tried to stop certification each time. Period.
It's obvious what you are doing. Since you can't win on substance, you deflect with inanities and pretend it means something. .
SSDD
Really Sean? Substance? You made an offer, I accepted. You haven't made a 'substantive' argument for anything.
Oh, does anyone notice that Sean went from claiming they VOTED against to they 'tried to keep' REALLY fast.
I did...
Defend what? A handful of objections from the likes of Maxine Waters?
Thankfully the Honorable Mike Pence followed the law also.
Context matters.
anyone notice that Sean went from claiming that the VOTED against to they 'tried to keep' REALLY
And yet its still means the same thing. The Democrats tried to stop Congress from certifying the election, in 2001, 2005 and 2017.
So you've wasted time and energy and accomplished nothing but wasting my time. Congrats on that.
Comparing what any Democrats in the past have done to protest election results and what Trump and his army of liars have done for the past 14 months is ridiculous.
Yes, it does.
Maybe take a look at this statement from your link "recent precedents for challenging Electoral College certification in Congress have come not from Republican lawmakers, but from Democrats. " and then square that with the preposterous claim "every Republican who voted to overturn the election would be kicked out of Congress and permanently banned from holding any federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment"
If you think Republicans should be kicked out of Congress for following Democratic precedent, there's not much else I need to say
Yes it is.
It's like saying that Maxine Waters or Louie Gohmert were credible in any way.
What is the basis for Republicans contesting the 2020 election results?
This is the epitome of "there is no there there". Not a single investigative body ( and many have looked) has found any voter fraud that would effect the results in even a single state.
The Republican Party is a complete embarrassment to this country.
No it doen't.
Two or three people using procedural issues to make a point which was shot down by Gore and Biden?
There was never any traction or hope of success.
No, you are responsible for your own time and how you waste it, no one else.
I know, it's the first line I quoted from the link...
Why would I "square" something I never said.
God if it was only that easy to make you shut up, however it's as ludicrous as many Watters or Gohmert or
AOC quotes
nice try...
No it doesn't Sean.
Words MATTER.
Why do you just make things up rather than try and argue honestly with facts?
Your b.s. semantic deflections only drive home how afraid you are of substance.
YOU set the predicate at voting and now you want to pretend that an unsupported challenge is the same as the House and Senate voting.
It isn't.
BTW, House Republicans challenged three states, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada, without Senate support. That makes a total of 5 states challenged, with only 2 supported by Senators.
They had no factual basis.
That is proven by the fact that the second Senate supported challenge, which was to the Pennsylvania electors. The Senate didn't even hold a debate. They convened and immediately voted. If Hawley had a conscience, he would have been embarrassed for supporting the challenge. Alas...
[deleted]
Words MATTER.
Of course they do. So does relevance.
It isn't.
Of course it is. They were all attempts t to stop the certification of an election. Trying to pretend it's no big deal when John Lewis or Jim Clyburn does it but it's worthy of removal from office when a Republican does is asinine and blatant hypocrisy.
What's next? claiming it's okay the Democrats tried to overthrow the election in Congress because the sun wasn't out when they did, but it was for the Republicans, therefore Republicans should be kicked out of Congress?
I can't wait!
It is more like typical. Some here cry so many MAGA tears that they are drowning in them.
Actually, they aren't. You stated that relevance matters. A House challenge is irrelevant if it isn't supported by at least ONE Senator.
Secondly, a successful challenge to state's electors would NOT stop the certification of an election.
FAIL.
Ever hear of Barbara Boxer?
Based on your comment that started this thread, you demanded for equal penalties before you would take a comment seriously. Nothing to do with squaring two different member's statements.
Wow, because some leftist blogger who hides at "The Week "or "The Washington Post" writes an article
you assume it is the opinion of everyone you disagree with on partisan grounds?
Are you capable of being serious anymore?
Ridiculous comment Sean. Trump was not prepared to accept a loss in 2016 either, and that was before the election even occurred.
Obviously this is his mindset and strategy. If he loses he was cheated.
It is all bullshit.
There IS no comparison between what Democrats have said or done in the past and what Trump and his followers have said or done for the past 14 months and you look like a fool for saying there is.
That was the argument made by the author of this seed. I addressed it.
It's sad this confuses you so much.
Are you capable of being serious anymore?
Have you ever been?
How do you type this with a straight face? Of course it was an attempt to the stop the certification of an election. You seem to think because it failed it wasn't an attempt. Do you understand what attempt means?
[deleted]
Of course it does. Just because your partisan interests are at stake is no justification for telling untruths.
A Democrat trying to stop the certification of an election is the same as a Republican trying to stop the certification of an election. [Deleted]
So.... we're saying the people who objected to the 2020 certification were credible?
The same as Boxer's in 2005.
No John, the real embarrassment are the batshit stupid partisans who are so emotional they can't manage to look at anything objectively.
"we"? you got a mouse in your pocket?
YOU don't understand what the LAW says Sean.
Both the Constitution AND the Electoral Count Act ensure that even a successful challenge would NOT 'stop the certification of an election'.
Educate yourself...
And therein lies a portion of the problem of perception and balance.
There are certain extremes to which everything is black and white, both sides have them
I would venture to guess that at least 90% of the citizenry is in the
million shades of grey zones.
Some 14 year old in a suburb of Dallas shot and killed 4 other kids in a fast food shop last week;
Is that in any way comparable to the way 4 people lost their lives at the Capitol on 01/06/21?
.
We expect Boxer, Gohmert, Watters and Greene to do and say stupid shit
and the majority of us simply dismiss them.
We do not and have only once before behaved this way over a legitimate election.
That time it was the beginning of a secessionist civil war.
What was attempted by a few malcontents every election should never be compared
to the amount of House Members and Senators that appeared to bow to the cult of Donald
and tried to circumvent an election, which 60 lawsuits later at who knows what cost to the RNC
and $519 million in recounts that changed nothing.
We came within hours of losing a democratic republic from both within and without on January 6 2021.
Luckily the rule of law prevailed.
Funny thing to me is, had the Trump supporters
( and they were Trump supporters to the last man and woman ) not rioted and caused death and destruction
during the day,
What might have happened that day in Congress....
Did it affect Mike Pence's final decision?
The big difference is there was documented evidence that there were major issues in Ohio in 2004.
And this conclusion/ideal is what I completely disagree with... We were never at any time at risk of losing our republic... it would take a lot more than 700 whacked out crazies to topple the US government, so much so that the claim itself is ludicrous....
The problem comes from those that believe that hyperbolic claim having actual power and lumping all of us in the loyal opposition with those 700 crazies.... Cause one asshole attained the presidency by usurping a political party cause the party in question couldn't get their collective heads out of their asses...
The problem here, is most of the opposition still has their heads directly up Hillary's ass with her deplorable statement... Makes it very easy to lump everyone who disagrees with you into that one singular category to be ignored/despised...
It's the gift that keeps giving and giving and giving... It will never go away until the democrats divorce themselves from it... With it you have declared everyone who disagrees with you an enemy of the state that needs to be destroyed...
Personally, I wish the democrats keep right on running with it as loud and as proudly as you can... Keep right on pounding away that 700 crazies could topple the US Government and use that to justify oppressing the rest of the nation that disagrees with them...
It's what the nation has really needed to see for the last 40 years or so, what happens when one party has absolute control...
As much as I dislike it and as much as I rail against it, I also welcome it... cause we are getting a glimpse of what an autocratic government in the US mold would be like... I believe just enough of a glimpse for a good look see but not enough to do any real long term damage...
I have great hopes for the nations future, it has always been a fight to remain free, and a fight we have managed to win every time it has reared it's ugly head... I have no doubt it will be won again...
You know, I am really tired of listening to this "both sides are at fault for Trumpism and Trump" shit for the past 6 years. NO ONE but Republicans and right wing cowards and nut jobs are responsible for the harm Donald Trump has done to this country. No one. I wish "non partisans " , some of which we see on this forum, would stop placating these far right nut cases by saying "both sides" so much.
I have thought about leaving Newstalkers because of some of the apathy we have had about Trump over the years.
Y'all should just stop and come to grips with this.
Here is a video that shows a Trump interview from I believe sometime this past week
It is bonkers.
Just fucking stop.
Exactly what I was describing as a
faulty perception by the fringes....
Thanks for clarifying your position.
No one has ever had as much absolute control as Trump has had recently
Thank ( fill in the blank ) he/they failed.
more evidence that there should be a cut off age to run for office
and a mandatory retirement age
I fucking grew up waiting for Strom Thurmond to die
and some of his children died instead...black and white children.
What a hypocrite POS that one was ...
in spades...
Funny, the rest of us are tired of your insane Trump fixation.
You mean the melodrama you are determined to exaggerate.
You can't communicate on an internet forum with people who don't share your obsession? Dude. Seriously. What the fuck?
No. We didn't.
The hysteria people are willing to embrace is just staggering.
... are tired of the sycophantic defense of Trump's malfeasance and lies by his acolytes and cultists.
... may be irreparable yet there are many who seemingly support the destruction he caused and that he and his cronies continue to inflict on our country.
According to certain posters' twisting and projection, deflection, and denial - 1/6/21 was a false flag event, perpetrated by the 'left'.
So true John, so true. And we're the ones expected to be 'graceful' and to just move along like nothing ever happened.
I dont give a damn what you like. No one has an "unhealthy" obsession with Trump. What we do have are countless people who either make excuses for him or are apathetic about it. If that were not the case the asshole would have been gone off the national stage years ago. Many years ago.
Did you type that with a straight face??
what do you think of the interview trump gave with OAN a few days ago? Is this a person you want to see in our national politics? Man up.
Not possible.
He is so delusional.
Compared to this one.........................
Pretty much.........................
You have no sense of your own absurdity.
Not only does Trump make verbal mistakes as much or more that Biden does, he is also a known habitual liar, crook, bigot, moron and cheat.
The only reason you can make such a comparison is because the English language permits it. There is no such comparison in reality.
The election was 14 fucking months ago and NO evidence of cheating has been shown.
Get a grip for gods sake.
Opinions do vary LOL And your obsession is, again, duly noted.
For the first time in six years may I suggest you take your own advice?
What if there was no riot and Pence refused to certify?
Of course I do. You obviously don't understand what's going on here.
I'm going to make this very simple to keep the strawmen, deflections, red herrings and other deflections from you to a minimum.
The Republicans in Congress did what the Democrats did the last three times they lost. Trying to claim it's okay for one party to do it but members of the other party should be kicked out of Congress for doing it is the height of disingenuousness.
The election conspiracists can hide, but they always give themselves away.
What if Gore had refused to certify? What if Mondale had refused to certify? Or Humphrey?
It wouldn't have mattered. Everybody would have sued each other and the SCOTUS would have installed Biden.
We have a system. It was designed by incredibly thoughtful and serious men who lived in a time when the biggest threat to liberty was a single tyrant taking over. They literally fought a very desperate war to get free of one, and they were not going to be so careless as to accidentally replace that tyrant with a home-grown one.
The better question is why you would ask that question.
You're talking about Mike Pence. This is a man who won't be alone with any woman to whom he isn't married. He is America's biggest choirboy. He would be a preacher, but he's too honest.
How delusional do you have to be to think he's going to create even a minor constitutional issue to help Trump? Not with a gun to his head would he do that, and it wouldn't have mattered anyway.
If you could bring down America with a few hundred unarmed idiots and a threat to the Vice President, somebody would have done that shit a long time ago.
The real issue is the brainless hysteria that overtakes otherwise intelligent people at the very mention of Trump's name. People don't just lose their minds, they rip them out of their skulls, throw them away and run in the opposite direction.
Trump is supposedly responsible for everything from Obama's immigration practices to a Saudi citizen being killed by the Saudi government on Saudi soil.
Old man plays a drum in a park while a teenage kid smiles. Kid was wearing MAGA hat at the time, so somehow it's a national crisis.
Donald Trump is an epically obnoxious man who spent 4 years in a job where the powers are strictly limited by the US Constitution. Yet there is a seemingly endless line of terrified liberals who convince themselves that he is some unstoppable force of evil who can do whatever he wants with a wave of his hand.
He was the President of the United States, not Lord fucking Voldemort.
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Oh but I DO Sean. I also understand the law.
I'll reiterate, both the Constitution AND the Electoral Count Act ensure that even a successful challenge would NOT 'stop the certification of an election'.
Educate yourself...
Devolving to the 'I'm rubber, you're glue' retort I see.
Awww.
Keep telling yourself that.
He cannot 'be gone" when people continually obsess about him?
Trump isn't hiding, he's living large on his minion's donations in FL.
How long are you just going to keep spouting irrelevancies?
Amazing how you bother to reply while ignoring the relevant point that (and I'll say it again) The Republicans in Congress did what the Democrats did the last three times they lost.
I look forward to you now declaring I'm wrong [deleted]
Who were these people?
What sort of "ordinary tourists" were they...???
Well, here's one who was wearing a "Camp Auschwitz" T-Shirt:
Hat tip: Michael Beschloss, Twitter
Jan 6 2001, NYTimes lead story (The image at the linked site is much clearer-- text of article there is very easy to read)
:
PENCE SAID TO TELL TRUMP THAT VOTES CAN'T BE BLOCKED
Caught Between Constitutional Duty And Pressure From The President
I don't think so...
Sure don't look like Auschwitz to me....
Not enough letters and the starting letter is a "W"....
BAZINGA!!!
(I capped that from a full screen video online of what actually happened)
You're wrong. Here is another picture of the fucking Nazi outside the Capitol in his "Camp Auschwitz" t-shirt. He was identified and arrested.
Well I guess if he had posted that photo up front there would have been no question would there? From the image he posted it doesn't say Auschwitz....
The t-shirt does say Auschwitz, but from the angle in the photo the letter A is partially obscured, which is why I posted the photo I did.
but, but, but ...
Have you had you eyes checked lately?
Yeah. Hillary's emails too, right?
GIYF!!!
Send that POS to Auschwitz itself. He already has the uniform.
As always, but of course, the deflection, projection, and denial continues - and the blame on anyone but those responsible.
Ahh yes, the implication that a few hundred of the worst Capitol Hill rioters are representative of 75 million Trump voters!
After over of year of you doing the same for BLM protestors, that's pretty fucking hypocritical Vic.
What ever. But it was the simple Nazi sympathizer store clerk, meat cutter, postal carrier, school teacher, etc. that stood by and permitted the Nazi Regime to continue its rampage. So, one could say, "Yes," to your question.
"What ever. But it was the simple Nazi sympathizer store clerk, meat cutter, postal carrier, school teacher, etc. that stood by and permitted the Nazi Regime to continue its rampage. So, one could say, "Yes," to your question."
It's a definite "Hell Yes" to that statement.
Hillary was off by half.
Whatshisname and his supporters aren't bringing us their best.
The notion that Merrick Garland is somehow complicit or responsible in some kind of political corruption or refusing to pursue justice is patently absurd.
The call for a purge-type response is even more ridiculous. That is the stuff of ancient barbarian regimes or modern day distatorships.
The Ukraine, the Baltics and South America come to mind
I don’t know why anyone would be surprised at the speed at which the federal government works … or, more appropriately, doesn’t work.
Apparently the Army has a full proof vaccine coming out next year....