Surprised to not read anything about whether the Jan 6 Committee should make criminal referrals to DOJ, since clearly they are consciously making a case that a criminal conspiracy existed in the ONLY attempted coup in our nation's history.
It's an interesting question - most of us, in the heat of passion and after 6 years of little to no …
Surprised to not read anything about whether the Jan 6 Committee should make criminal referrals to DOJ, since clearly they are consciously making a case that a criminal conspiracy existed in the ONLY attempted coup in our nation's history.
It's an interesting question - most of us, in the heat of passion and after 6 years of little to no accountability, would probably answer with a resounding "YES". But think back to Lincoln after the war, or Ford and his pardon of Nixon. They both acted in what they thought was the best path forward to heal a nation.
My own view - they did the right thing from an historical view. But these are not normal times, and if we let an attempted coup go unpunished, we will not be so lucky when the next attempted coup is successful. If trump and his minions have taught us anything, it's that we should not rely on the inherent good nature of "men" to willingly and faithfully keep the "norms" and do the right thing. There's far too much at stake when they choose not to.
One reason I think they should make the referral is because they are charged with the Congressional investigation, and they are also a co-equal branch of government. That has to start mattering again, doesn't it? I never liked Barr and so many others who kept advocating for an all-powerful presidency....
However Congress isn't the enforcement arm of the Government. They are the legislative body that can pass laws but have no power to enforce them. If they can't actually enforce the laws, why fan partisan flames by making a referral? At least that's the argument I can see them making. Or maybe they're waiting till the end of the hearings to make the referral, once all the evidence has been presented and they've made their case to the American people
You and Tom both make a good point. I think the counter to that is this - the MAGA crowd (both politicians and electorate) are going to claim partisan motives anyway. Do either of you ever think that many Republican elected officials, the very same ones who will cry "partisan politics" the loudest, secretly hope the Democrats make the referral? One could say it isn't necessary because DOJ can come to their own conclusions, but in terms of history, I think that it is important that they do, since it is well within their purview to do so, and because supporting the Rule of Law for EVERYONE is absolutely necessary at this time and place in history.
But a referral feeds into the political vendetta narrative. The DOJ is supposed to act independently from the rest of the executive branch--as Barr says he told Trump...
My opinion is that the conspiracy we are currently learning about goes so much deeper than prior examples, it’s imperative to bring final justice to bear, or we will lose the country to authoritarianism.
One example from history that feels similar to Trumpism, but gets less comparative attention right now than Watergate, is the era of McCarthyism. I need to read more about that, since it predates my cognitive awareness. Were as many Americans on board, as with Trumpism? Maybe a good topic for The Bulwark?
No need to hate bursting my bubble, especially if I'm wrong on the facts. I'm pretty old, and relying on memory just isn't as reliable as it used to be!
Close page and re-open often works to fix that. Also, I've found that occasionally when I've done this, when I re-opened the like had actually gone through and the icon was lit.
I think the fact that all focus is on "should we" and what the repercussions would be and fear of what may happen if we do, and not on the opposite, is such a crock of, well, you know. All the concern is on what the perpetrators will do if the rug is pulled out from under them and not on what the rest of the country, the majority, the actual "winners" of the election are losing, have lost, and may yet lose more of if it is not done. Where are the discussions on the fact that this scam is costing us a country, a history, a heritage AND a future?
If there is no real accountability, and I mean at ALL levels - not just the top, but every single grifting, power-hungry, cowardly, two-faced enabler, needs to be held accountable for their actions AND inactions. If there was something that could have/should have been done or made public and you waited to write it in a book? That is a dereliction of your oath of office... no dog-catcher job for you again, EVER. This needs to follow every one of them into infinity. Personally, I'd start garnishing their profits to pay back the American Taxpayer for how much we have shelled out wading through and cleaning up their garbage.
My focus is on the DOJ, but anyone that says a criminal referral looks too political is not looking at this through the lens of history. With all the evidence and testimony that is coming to light, the January 6th Committee would be another example of dereliction of duty if they do not disclose ... and acknowledge... there may have been crimes committed. They continue with their legislative purpose, but the DOJ then takes its turn at bat. For me, it's a crime if you DON'T post a "Bridge out Ahead" warning.
Don't forget that Bill Stepien was the guy from the NY Port authority when "Bridgegate " was going on for Chris Christy. Stepien then went up to NH to try to screw with the electoral process there. Currently, he's managing the campaign for a Trump promoted candidate in Wyoming. This particular piece of shit should not be let off of any hook. He's no hero.
I feel like Stepien got a pass in Monday’s hearing, in which he appears like a reasonable guy, on the side of moral,integrity. It was only in the after-analyses that I’m learning he ain’t so squeaky clean. But I missed several segments of the actual hearing, so I could be wrong that he got a pass. I want to see his newborn baby!
Garland has stated that he is watching the hearings closely and the DOJ made a request for materials from the committee a few weeks ago. This committee is trying really hard not to appear politically motivated and that this is about the truth and making sure it is recorded in the record. Like Jacob said earlier, the DOJ doesn't need a referral to press charges. I think it's smart to go "here's everything we found and hot damn is it bad" and then leave any legal actions to the DOJ. It won't stop the Traitors (all the politicians who support the Big Lie) from calling it a partisan witch-hunt but maybe, just maybe, the committee's professionalism and "just the facts ma'am" approach will cause some of those on the fence to take a serious look.
Absolutely, dare to dream. That's why this is such an interesting question, because there are pros and cons to either view, and it's great when someone can espouse the reasoning that lands on what is probably the less "popular" view. You make very good points!
Garland is apparently "scared to death" about indicting Trump. So he may indeed pass on such a route, claiming all the various evil possibilities. I think that would be a terrible mistake. Trump floated a coup attempt, and regardless of the results he needs to be charged and tried. There would be no civil war, as we have SWAT teams and the National Guard, enough of whom are NOT Trump acolytes. Just my opinion, and I admit I hate Trump with a passion and hate his acolytes even worse.
Yes, but the Confederacy had lost the war, Nixon had lost the support of Americans. It is possible to be merciful after winning. (Although I note that the Confederacy killed Lincoln and destroyed Reconstruction in a paroxysm of violence. Mercy was wasted on them.) But Trump still has the support of a gigantic cult, nearly all elected Republicans, and a gigantic media dedicatrd to him. Being merciful to Trump doesn't heal anything.
Yes. A critical distinction. Which leads me to want to educate myself on the history McCarthy-ism, which seems more similar to our current situation. Maybe.
The Founders themselves were aware of the character flaws of the demagogue, the rascals among us, and they put checks in the Constitution to punish and root them out; we are just incapable of using them in a two party system with extreme polarization, since they prudently set the bar for Impeachments and conviction very high. They anticipated a corrupt politician, but they didn't anticipate a corrupt political party.
There are consequences to criminal referrals and enforcing accountability; worst case scenario would be deadly political violence. In a nation where the aggrieved party is packing military-grade heat, this is not ideal. There are also consequences to not holding the malefactors to account; worst case scenario is the end of our democracy. I'll take my chances with enforcing accountability.
If you cannot act to punish and deter behavior like we have seen from Trump et al because of fears of political upheaval or strife, then the battle is already lost. We are simply coasting our way to what comes after the current system when somebody with the will and ability to act decides it is time.
If you indict and try and if you cannot get a conviction (because of a series of mistrials brought on by people refusing to vote to convict out of partisan or cult loyalty), the same thing applies.
The pathway to a democratic future and the continuation of the Republic (and perhaps its improvement) continues to narrow as people of no character continue to play games in pursuit of the satisfaction of personal ambition.. and voters of low character and low thought continue to vote for them.
I asked myself this Q the other day: "What keeps a country together?"
For me, the answer was caring about each other and building bonds across communities. What I have seen instead in the history of this country since the 1980's is a mass-culture of trying to make as much money as possible to live your best life and give your kids their best lives--even if it is at the expense of other members of society. That's how we got a nation of individuals and families going it their own way instead of citizens trying to advance the nation. That's how we got a broken meritocracy that revolves around money and which schools you came from instead of true talent. That's how we got The Big Sort and geographic political polarization. That's how we got runaway wealth inequality and a broken economic ladder. That's why nobody is fixing it. Capitalism and the rat race for riches gave us an unequal society, and why fix an unequal society when you're on top? Why not just keep that exploitation going? It basically guarantees that your kids don't have to run as fast when it's their turn to enter the rat race. Imagine a game of Texas Hold Em where the players doing the best can buy aces from the dealer with their profits when they don't have a hand they like. That's the unequal economy we're living in. That's the exploitation we're living under.
If the country is full of individuals, and the individuals doing best are of a "fuck it, I've got mine" attitude at scale, then this country is destined for civil war, plain and simple. And I've seen what happens to the well-off families during civil wars. Their neighbors kill them for their money. Think there are homicide investigations during civil wars? There aren't. Not even when there's a central government in control. The bodies just get chalked up as another political killing, nothing more. The folks who have it good in this country ought to think real hard about that as we move into increasingly-unstable political territory as a country. Foreign wars work out great for the rich (their profit shares increase), but civil wars do not.
It used to be, in the olden days (the true olden days, which ended basically the same time this country started). There was no real expectation of fairness or equality or the same law for everyone. There were clear social classes and (by and large) you were expected to stay where you "belonged." There weren't really any ladders other than through getting rid of the people above you (which rarely worked domestically and usually only happened when outsiders came in and took their place).
Then we started talking about law and equality. Expectations were created. Since there was a fair amount of land and resources that could be taken from the natives, there was room to climb up. Opportunities to be had if you were ruthless enough or corrupt enough, or connected enough. But that is gone now. Taking advantage of the "new" frontier requires education, connection, funding--which means in many cases the people with actual ideas end up holding the brown end of the stick, while others make tons of money off their ideas and innovations... or they just got bought out and shelved so as to kill competition.
A lot of this stuff was largely invisible because there was no video, no internet, no social media, no 24/7 news cycle. The higher visibility of the actuality of existence and the limits of opportunity creates anger and resentment--because the words and actions don't match the narrative, don't match the grand principles.
Having Mammon as your God (regardless of what God you might supposedly confess) amplifies it. Capitalism atomized culture and society. Niche marketing is increasingly a thing, The isolation of segments of society into smaller groups based upon interests is a thing. The internet did not connect people, it segregated them--because now you can see and hear only what you WANT to see and hear.
Most of these people truly believe they are invincible and that they can keep doing what they are doing with no repercussions. It is blatantly obvious--and it IS true, until you reach that magic point when it is no longer true... and it is almost always a surprise.
The 'atomization of culture and society' (a great description) by capitalism is a real problem and a real danger to democracy...an economic system that mirrors and encourages one of the driving aspects of human nature. As with many things, when used in 'moderation' (read smart and meaningful 'regulation' here??), not particularly or at least overly harmful, I think. 'Penny capitalism' works great. Local and regional pretty well, too. When it gets to national level large fault lines and cracks start to appear and global capitalism is a bunch of tectonic plates waiting to slip and shift. Absent 'moderation', not sure what other 'ism' might be the answer to this danger.
Like nearly all our problems, it comes down to our 'nature'. We're all greedy to some degree. Not many of us are satisfied with the bare minimum. But many of us seem to have a built-in 'governor' on the throttle of our desire to acquire things. The word 'enough' actually has meaning. Those for whom the word has no meaning are the real danger. Not only to us, but ultimately to themselves as well.
Your observation about the internet and its segregating effect is spot on. Are we here in this comment section not the perfect example of that?
It seems to me every citizen in the richest country in the world should have a baseline prosperity at least somewhat above the poverty level. There will always be people who want more than the baseline, and they should be free to work l.awfully towards the goals. The vast income inequality should not be a feature of a well-governed republic.
But let the bottom even start pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-06-08/us-income-inequality-fell-during-the-covid-pandemic) and the first thing the GOP wants to do is put "entitlements" and government benefits on the chopping block, because they see it as a zero-sum situation. Every dollar that goes to the poorest among us is one less dollar for them, even if they already have more money than they or their offspring for at least three generations can possibly spend, even after paying for, say, a vanity rocket to space.
You are correct that most people talking up a hot civil war have no idea what they are talking about.
(As an aside, there are a few things we could do with Social Security, which is designed as an insurance program against indigent o;d age. One reason there is a Social Security income ceiling is the assumption that if you are making $over 147,000 per year (in 2022), which is nearly twice the median income (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4491634-median-household-income-january-2022), then presumably you do not need the insurance and do not need to be paying premiums, also known as your FICA contributions.
If you made twice the median income and start drawing Social Security today, you can expect $3400 in benefits. This is a cap. You will not receive more as your income increases. Perhaps that amount should gradually reduce as your retirement increases until at some point benefits cease entirely. Because of the ceiling, some wealthy people pay as little as 0.8% FICA. Means testing as been proposed. In this report, the reduction starts at the 75th percentile. https://www.nber.org/digest/sep16/means-testing-social-security-income-versus-wealth).
Too true. And they're likely to be done away with by their own side too. It isn't like the guys playing militia in the forest have some great love for the wealthy sons, daughters, and or grandchildren of the people who had the actually success. Way too easy to come up with a justification to simply take what they have.
In the end, most any of us can come up with a justification for just about anything, don't you think? Human nature being what it is? Kind of makes me wonder sometimes how we've managed to not only survive but 'thrive' as a species for as long as we have. Answer to that way above my 'pay grade', I guess.
Probably a survival trait to be able to rationalize away moral qualms. If you can't sleep at night after hitting Oog over the head and taking his stuff, you aren't going to be well rested enough to defend your prizes. ;)
You're welcome. IDK...just what came to mind as I read your comment here, which I think is pretty spot on.
(Have since pictured Madame knitting away and suddenly exclaiming in French "Mick Mulvaney? What the hell kind of name is that?? Spelling, please." My brain gets a little weird sometimes, I know.)
Like a lot of writers and commenters I follow on Substack and elsewhere, he has a lot of knowledge about a lot of things that I do not. But the mark of a *good* writer to me (and the mind behind the writing) is that, more often than not, when this situation arises, I can follow along - even with an occasional pronounced limp, which a few minutes with Google can often cure sufficiently to hobble to the end with at least the satisfaction of having learned something new, and the added bonus of having found it interesting to do so.
I'm writing a book, actually. You get a free signed copy. That shit won't be ready for another few years though. Hoping to flip it before I turn 40 lol.
Which brings up another good point - if you aren't willing to stand up for the Rule of Law out of fear of consequences from the extremist GQP and its electorate, haven't we already lost the Rule of Law?
Law that you cannot or will not enforce ceases to be law--just as norms that you cannot or will not enforce cease to be norms. Not enforcing the law results in contempt for the law and its agents.
If you have contempt for the law (because it is toothless) and for the norms that surround it--why would you expect people to then follow another law (the Constitution) or the norms that surround THAT.
I am not sure that all of these politicians or bureaucrats understand that--but I believe that Cheney does--and I believe that is why she is doing what she is doing.
What is your political career worth, if you had to destroy everything that gave it actual value in order to maintain it? For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, if he lose his own soul?
I’ve been playing “thought experiments” in my own mind, about how a whole hearted prosecution of Trump & conspirators would play out in the public sphere. One wrench in the gears (among many) is the Trumpist mindset among the majority of law enforcement and even the military. I just don’t see how we would prepare for the inevitable civil strife. I’m guessing that’s the elephant in the room in the DOJ.
I’d be interested in further discussion about this.
You are right; I just looked it up, and according to Military Times, Trump’s approval within the military started out around 46%, but was significantly underwater toward the end of his term, with only 38% favorable and 42% strongly unfavorable.
Police unions did endorse Trump, so you are right there too. And that’s probably more significant to the risks of prosecuting and maybe jailing Trump.
I think you're wrong. According to "Coalition for American Veterans PAC", "In the end, while the majority of America chose Joe Biden to be the next President of the United States, Veterans as a bloc voted to re-elect Donald Trump. According to national exit polling conducted by both CNN and The New York Times, Veterans as a group voted for President Donald Trump by a margin of 54% to Joe Biden’s 44%"
I read that Biden made headway in terms of how they voted in 2016, but that is still a very wide schism, especially given all of the reasons one would expect the military to turn away from trump.
To be honest, it scares the hell out of me, along with Law Enforcement....
I hope you're right. It just seems that trump gave them ample reason to not support him for re-election, so to stick with him anyway makes me think these are the die-hards. He won by a 26 point margin in 2016 - so falling to a 10 point margin in 2020 is significant.
Another good point. I'm interested in further discussion too, which is why I was surprised to not read anything about it in today's Morning Shots. On the surface, it seems to be a cut-and-dried question, but it really isn't...
Nixon was pardoned as a spent force. While he got some PR rehabilitation at the end of his life, he spent most of his post-presidency as a pariah who gave us the term for corrupt political malfeasance.
Trump and his ilk only regret that the coup didn't work. So you're right, this isn't healing wounds by showing grace to a defeated party, this is about punishing misbehavior in order to protect against future recurrence.
Thing is, DOJ doesn't need a criminal referral to act. They can act independently of the commission. Hence, I think, the decision not to do criminal referrals - makes the commission less explicitly a criminal prosecution, just laying out the predicates for a criminal prosecution. If DOJ doesn't do anything after that, that's on Merrick Garland.
If the DOJ isn't already pursuing this that's on Merrick Garland's head. It's getting to be too late to just start up a criminal investigation into Trump.
2016 was the first election I felt was the most important of our lives. Voters did not come through n the numbers needed. So subsequent elections have and will continue to be the most important in our lives until Trumpism is thoroughly eradicated.
Agreed and agreed, but would add that it also was true in 2020. If trump and trumpism had faded away - maybe. But it didn't - it metastasized and is even worse now because 90+% of an entire party has hopped upon the crazy train. Even if they think trump is mentally deficient, morally lacking, unfit for office, corrupt, and a danger to our country, they all say they would vote for him again if he was the Repubican nominee....
I have to admit, I sort of bought into that 'best thing for the country' bit for a while. But looking back on it, knowing what I know now (which includes knowing that I still don't *know it all*), what the hell did a guy my age *know* back then?? I mean about what politics is really all about and how it actually works. At least an average sort of young man who didn't have a deep interest in such things then.
Makes it a bit easier to understand how a person's perspective about a lot of things can change with the passage of time and accumulation of experience in life.
Now, if I could dig him up, I'd lock him up and loose the key for a good long time.
Surprised to not read anything about whether the Jan 6 Committee should make criminal referrals to DOJ, since clearly they are consciously making a case that a criminal conspiracy existed in the ONLY attempted coup in our nation's history.
It's an interesting question - most of us, in the heat of passion and after 6 years of little to no accountability, would probably answer with a resounding "YES". But think back to Lincoln after the war, or Ford and his pardon of Nixon. They both acted in what they thought was the best path forward to heal a nation.
My own view - they did the right thing from an historical view. But these are not normal times, and if we let an attempted coup go unpunished, we will not be so lucky when the next attempted coup is successful. If trump and his minions have taught us anything, it's that we should not rely on the inherent good nature of "men" to willingly and faithfully keep the "norms" and do the right thing. There's far too much at stake when they choose not to.
I vote for criminal referrals.
I don't see why a referral is necessary. The evidence is TV.
One reason I think they should make the referral is because they are charged with the Congressional investigation, and they are also a co-equal branch of government. That has to start mattering again, doesn't it? I never liked Barr and so many others who kept advocating for an all-powerful presidency....
However Congress isn't the enforcement arm of the Government. They are the legislative body that can pass laws but have no power to enforce them. If they can't actually enforce the laws, why fan partisan flames by making a referral? At least that's the argument I can see them making. Or maybe they're waiting till the end of the hearings to make the referral, once all the evidence has been presented and they've made their case to the American people
You and Tom both make a good point. I think the counter to that is this - the MAGA crowd (both politicians and electorate) are going to claim partisan motives anyway. Do either of you ever think that many Republican elected officials, the very same ones who will cry "partisan politics" the loudest, secretly hope the Democrats make the referral? One could say it isn't necessary because DOJ can come to their own conclusions, but in terms of history, I think that it is important that they do, since it is well within their purview to do so, and because supporting the Rule of Law for EVERYONE is absolutely necessary at this time and place in history.
But a referral feeds into the political vendetta narrative. The DOJ is supposed to act independently from the rest of the executive branch--as Barr says he told Trump...
My opinion is that the conspiracy we are currently learning about goes so much deeper than prior examples, it’s imperative to bring final justice to bear, or we will lose the country to authoritarianism.
One example from history that feels similar to Trumpism, but gets less comparative attention right now than Watergate, is the era of McCarthyism. I need to read more about that, since it predates my cognitive awareness. Were as many Americans on board, as with Trumpism? Maybe a good topic for The Bulwark?
I'm not sure there were as many Americans on board, but for damn sure, there were not as many elected Republicans on board.
No need to hate bursting my bubble, especially if I'm wrong on the facts. I'm pretty old, and relying on memory just isn't as reliable as it used to be!
Tried to click the Love button, but it didn't work.
Close page and re-open often works to fix that. Also, I've found that occasionally when I've done this, when I re-opened the like had actually gone through and the icon was lit.
We agree with you because we believe Democracy cannot survive without the Rule of Law being observed.
I think the fact that all focus is on "should we" and what the repercussions would be and fear of what may happen if we do, and not on the opposite, is such a crock of, well, you know. All the concern is on what the perpetrators will do if the rug is pulled out from under them and not on what the rest of the country, the majority, the actual "winners" of the election are losing, have lost, and may yet lose more of if it is not done. Where are the discussions on the fact that this scam is costing us a country, a history, a heritage AND a future?
If there is no real accountability, and I mean at ALL levels - not just the top, but every single grifting, power-hungry, cowardly, two-faced enabler, needs to be held accountable for their actions AND inactions. If there was something that could have/should have been done or made public and you waited to write it in a book? That is a dereliction of your oath of office... no dog-catcher job for you again, EVER. This needs to follow every one of them into infinity. Personally, I'd start garnishing their profits to pay back the American Taxpayer for how much we have shelled out wading through and cleaning up their garbage.
My focus is on the DOJ, but anyone that says a criminal referral looks too political is not looking at this through the lens of history. With all the evidence and testimony that is coming to light, the January 6th Committee would be another example of dereliction of duty if they do not disclose ... and acknowledge... there may have been crimes committed. They continue with their legislative purpose, but the DOJ then takes its turn at bat. For me, it's a crime if you DON'T post a "Bridge out Ahead" warning.
Don't forget that Bill Stepien was the guy from the NY Port authority when "Bridgegate " was going on for Chris Christy. Stepien then went up to NH to try to screw with the electoral process there. Currently, he's managing the campaign for a Trump promoted candidate in Wyoming. This particular piece of shit should not be let off of any hook. He's no hero.
I feel like Stepien got a pass in Monday’s hearing, in which he appears like a reasonable guy, on the side of moral,integrity. It was only in the after-analyses that I’m learning he ain’t so squeaky clean. But I missed several segments of the actual hearing, so I could be wrong that he got a pass. I want to see his newborn baby!
He also got a pass by not being there in person as originally planned, not sure how it would have played differently if he had been there.
I'm not sure either, but there in person makes him vulnerable to perjury if he tries to spin some unexpected question too much. A shame, really.
Attempted like.
Did it for you [and me].
I second the vote.
Garland has stated that he is watching the hearings closely and the DOJ made a request for materials from the committee a few weeks ago. This committee is trying really hard not to appear politically motivated and that this is about the truth and making sure it is recorded in the record. Like Jacob said earlier, the DOJ doesn't need a referral to press charges. I think it's smart to go "here's everything we found and hot damn is it bad" and then leave any legal actions to the DOJ. It won't stop the Traitors (all the politicians who support the Big Lie) from calling it a partisan witch-hunt but maybe, just maybe, the committee's professionalism and "just the facts ma'am" approach will cause some of those on the fence to take a serious look.
I know, dare to dream right?
Absolutely, dare to dream. That's why this is such an interesting question, because there are pros and cons to either view, and it's great when someone can espouse the reasoning that lands on what is probably the less "popular" view. You make very good points!
Garland is apparently "scared to death" about indicting Trump. So he may indeed pass on such a route, claiming all the various evil possibilities. I think that would be a terrible mistake. Trump floated a coup attempt, and regardless of the results he needs to be charged and tried. There would be no civil war, as we have SWAT teams and the National Guard, enough of whom are NOT Trump acolytes. Just my opinion, and I admit I hate Trump with a passion and hate his acolytes even worse.
In the words of Mark Slackmyer in Doonesbury: "Guilty,Guilty, Guilty"
That brings back memories.
Yes, but the Confederacy had lost the war, Nixon had lost the support of Americans. It is possible to be merciful after winning. (Although I note that the Confederacy killed Lincoln and destroyed Reconstruction in a paroxysm of violence. Mercy was wasted on them.) But Trump still has the support of a gigantic cult, nearly all elected Republicans, and a gigantic media dedicatrd to him. Being merciful to Trump doesn't heal anything.
Yes. A critical distinction. Which leads me to want to educate myself on the history McCarthy-ism, which seems more similar to our current situation. Maybe.
The Founders themselves were aware of the character flaws of the demagogue, the rascals among us, and they put checks in the Constitution to punish and root them out; we are just incapable of using them in a two party system with extreme polarization, since they prudently set the bar for Impeachments and conviction very high. They anticipated a corrupt politician, but they didn't anticipate a corrupt political party.
There are consequences to criminal referrals and enforcing accountability; worst case scenario would be deadly political violence. In a nation where the aggrieved party is packing military-grade heat, this is not ideal. There are also consequences to not holding the malefactors to account; worst case scenario is the end of our democracy. I'll take my chances with enforcing accountability.
Yes. All day. Every day. Screw 'the guns'. We don't do this, we're surely gonna' get 'em at some point anyway.
If you cannot act to punish and deter behavior like we have seen from Trump et al because of fears of political upheaval or strife, then the battle is already lost. We are simply coasting our way to what comes after the current system when somebody with the will and ability to act decides it is time.
If you indict and try and if you cannot get a conviction (because of a series of mistrials brought on by people refusing to vote to convict out of partisan or cult loyalty), the same thing applies.
The pathway to a democratic future and the continuation of the Republic (and perhaps its improvement) continues to narrow as people of no character continue to play games in pursuit of the satisfaction of personal ambition.. and voters of low character and low thought continue to vote for them.
I asked myself this Q the other day: "What keeps a country together?"
For me, the answer was caring about each other and building bonds across communities. What I have seen instead in the history of this country since the 1980's is a mass-culture of trying to make as much money as possible to live your best life and give your kids their best lives--even if it is at the expense of other members of society. That's how we got a nation of individuals and families going it their own way instead of citizens trying to advance the nation. That's how we got a broken meritocracy that revolves around money and which schools you came from instead of true talent. That's how we got The Big Sort and geographic political polarization. That's how we got runaway wealth inequality and a broken economic ladder. That's why nobody is fixing it. Capitalism and the rat race for riches gave us an unequal society, and why fix an unequal society when you're on top? Why not just keep that exploitation going? It basically guarantees that your kids don't have to run as fast when it's their turn to enter the rat race. Imagine a game of Texas Hold Em where the players doing the best can buy aces from the dealer with their profits when they don't have a hand they like. That's the unequal economy we're living in. That's the exploitation we're living under.
If the country is full of individuals, and the individuals doing best are of a "fuck it, I've got mine" attitude at scale, then this country is destined for civil war, plain and simple. And I've seen what happens to the well-off families during civil wars. Their neighbors kill them for their money. Think there are homicide investigations during civil wars? There aren't. Not even when there's a central government in control. The bodies just get chalked up as another political killing, nothing more. The folks who have it good in this country ought to think real hard about that as we move into increasingly-unstable political territory as a country. Foreign wars work out great for the rich (their profit shares increase), but civil wars do not.
I agree.
It used to be, in the olden days (the true olden days, which ended basically the same time this country started). There was no real expectation of fairness or equality or the same law for everyone. There were clear social classes and (by and large) you were expected to stay where you "belonged." There weren't really any ladders other than through getting rid of the people above you (which rarely worked domestically and usually only happened when outsiders came in and took their place).
Then we started talking about law and equality. Expectations were created. Since there was a fair amount of land and resources that could be taken from the natives, there was room to climb up. Opportunities to be had if you were ruthless enough or corrupt enough, or connected enough. But that is gone now. Taking advantage of the "new" frontier requires education, connection, funding--which means in many cases the people with actual ideas end up holding the brown end of the stick, while others make tons of money off their ideas and innovations... or they just got bought out and shelved so as to kill competition.
A lot of this stuff was largely invisible because there was no video, no internet, no social media, no 24/7 news cycle. The higher visibility of the actuality of existence and the limits of opportunity creates anger and resentment--because the words and actions don't match the narrative, don't match the grand principles.
Having Mammon as your God (regardless of what God you might supposedly confess) amplifies it. Capitalism atomized culture and society. Niche marketing is increasingly a thing, The isolation of segments of society into smaller groups based upon interests is a thing. The internet did not connect people, it segregated them--because now you can see and hear only what you WANT to see and hear.
Most of these people truly believe they are invincible and that they can keep doing what they are doing with no repercussions. It is blatantly obvious--and it IS true, until you reach that magic point when it is no longer true... and it is almost always a surprise.
The 'atomization of culture and society' (a great description) by capitalism is a real problem and a real danger to democracy...an economic system that mirrors and encourages one of the driving aspects of human nature. As with many things, when used in 'moderation' (read smart and meaningful 'regulation' here??), not particularly or at least overly harmful, I think. 'Penny capitalism' works great. Local and regional pretty well, too. When it gets to national level large fault lines and cracks start to appear and global capitalism is a bunch of tectonic plates waiting to slip and shift. Absent 'moderation', not sure what other 'ism' might be the answer to this danger.
Like nearly all our problems, it comes down to our 'nature'. We're all greedy to some degree. Not many of us are satisfied with the bare minimum. But many of us seem to have a built-in 'governor' on the throttle of our desire to acquire things. The word 'enough' actually has meaning. Those for whom the word has no meaning are the real danger. Not only to us, but ultimately to themselves as well.
Your observation about the internet and its segregating effect is spot on. Are we here in this comment section not the perfect example of that?
It seems to me every citizen in the richest country in the world should have a baseline prosperity at least somewhat above the poverty level. There will always be people who want more than the baseline, and they should be free to work l.awfully towards the goals. The vast income inequality should not be a feature of a well-governed republic.
But let the bottom even start pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-06-08/us-income-inequality-fell-during-the-covid-pandemic) and the first thing the GOP wants to do is put "entitlements" and government benefits on the chopping block, because they see it as a zero-sum situation. Every dollar that goes to the poorest among us is one less dollar for them, even if they already have more money than they or their offspring for at least three generations can possibly spend, even after paying for, say, a vanity rocket to space.
You are correct that most people talking up a hot civil war have no idea what they are talking about.
(As an aside, there are a few things we could do with Social Security, which is designed as an insurance program against indigent o;d age. One reason there is a Social Security income ceiling is the assumption that if you are making $over 147,000 per year (in 2022), which is nearly twice the median income (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4491634-median-household-income-january-2022), then presumably you do not need the insurance and do not need to be paying premiums, also known as your FICA contributions.
If you made twice the median income and start drawing Social Security today, you can expect $3400 in benefits. This is a cap. You will not receive more as your income increases. Perhaps that amount should gradually reduce as your retirement increases until at some point benefits cease entirely. Because of the ceiling, some wealthy people pay as little as 0.8% FICA. Means testing as been proposed. In this report, the reduction starts at the 75th percentile. https://www.nber.org/digest/sep16/means-testing-social-security-income-versus-wealth).
I don't think many of the wealthy and 'elite' ever consider the possibility of some modern-day Madame Defarge knitting their names between the slices.
Too true. And they're likely to be done away with by their own side too. It isn't like the guys playing militia in the forest have some great love for the wealthy sons, daughters, and or grandchildren of the people who had the actually success. Way too easy to come up with a justification to simply take what they have.
In the end, most any of us can come up with a justification for just about anything, don't you think? Human nature being what it is? Kind of makes me wonder sometimes how we've managed to not only survive but 'thrive' as a species for as long as we have. Answer to that way above my 'pay grade', I guess.
Probably a survival trait to be able to rationalize away moral qualms. If you can't sleep at night after hitting Oog over the head and taking his stuff, you aren't going to be well rested enough to defend your prizes. ;)
;-)) !!
I do appreciate a good Dickens ref. Thank you for that.
You're welcome. IDK...just what came to mind as I read your comment here, which I think is pretty spot on.
(Have since pictured Madame knitting away and suddenly exclaiming in French "Mick Mulvaney? What the hell kind of name is that?? Spelling, please." My brain gets a little weird sometimes, I know.)
You know, I read a lot of what this guy posts, and I actually had this thought myself a couple of times. He ain't half bad, is he?
Like a lot of writers and commenters I follow on Substack and elsewhere, he has a lot of knowledge about a lot of things that I do not. But the mark of a *good* writer to me (and the mind behind the writing) is that, more often than not, when this situation arises, I can follow along - even with an occasional pronounced limp, which a few minutes with Google can often cure sufficiently to hobble to the end with at least the satisfaction of having learned something new, and the added bonus of having found it interesting to do so.
I'm writing a book, actually. You get a free signed copy. That shit won't be ready for another few years though. Hoping to flip it before I turn 40 lol.
Which brings up another good point - if you aren't willing to stand up for the Rule of Law out of fear of consequences from the extremist GQP and its electorate, haven't we already lost the Rule of Law?
That is kind of the point, yes.
Law that you cannot or will not enforce ceases to be law--just as norms that you cannot or will not enforce cease to be norms. Not enforcing the law results in contempt for the law and its agents.
If you have contempt for the law (because it is toothless) and for the norms that surround it--why would you expect people to then follow another law (the Constitution) or the norms that surround THAT.
I am not sure that all of these politicians or bureaucrats understand that--but I believe that Cheney does--and I believe that is why she is doing what she is doing.
What is your political career worth, if you had to destroy everything that gave it actual value in order to maintain it? For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, if he lose his own soul?
I’ve been playing “thought experiments” in my own mind, about how a whole hearted prosecution of Trump & conspirators would play out in the public sphere. One wrench in the gears (among many) is the Trumpist mindset among the majority of law enforcement and even the military. I just don’t see how we would prepare for the inevitable civil strife. I’m guessing that’s the elephant in the room in the DOJ.
I’d be interested in further discussion about this.
It feels like the majority of police officers have a Trumpist mindset. But I don't know if that is actually true.
I highly doubt the military is majority Trumpist. When I was serving in the 1980s Reagan wasn't our favorite person in the world.
You are right; I just looked it up, and according to Military Times, Trump’s approval within the military started out around 46%, but was significantly underwater toward the end of his term, with only 38% favorable and 42% strongly unfavorable.
Police unions did endorse Trump, so you are right there too. And that’s probably more significant to the risks of prosecuting and maybe jailing Trump.
I think you're wrong. According to "Coalition for American Veterans PAC", "In the end, while the majority of America chose Joe Biden to be the next President of the United States, Veterans as a bloc voted to re-elect Donald Trump. According to national exit polling conducted by both CNN and The New York Times, Veterans as a group voted for President Donald Trump by a margin of 54% to Joe Biden’s 44%"
I read that Biden made headway in terms of how they voted in 2016, but that is still a very wide schism, especially given all of the reasons one would expect the military to turn away from trump.
To be honest, it scares the hell out of me, along with Law Enforcement....
Sure, the military has always leaned more republican. That doesn't make them Trumpists.
I hope you're right. It just seems that trump gave them ample reason to not support him for re-election, so to stick with him anyway makes me think these are the die-hards. He won by a 26 point margin in 2016 - so falling to a 10 point margin in 2020 is significant.
Another good point. I'm interested in further discussion too, which is why I was surprised to not read anything about it in today's Morning Shots. On the surface, it seems to be a cut-and-dried question, but it really isn't...
Nixon was pardoned as a spent force. While he got some PR rehabilitation at the end of his life, he spent most of his post-presidency as a pariah who gave us the term for corrupt political malfeasance.
Trump and his ilk only regret that the coup didn't work. So you're right, this isn't healing wounds by showing grace to a defeated party, this is about punishing misbehavior in order to protect against future recurrence.
The amazing thing about Nixon is that he probably would have won if the dirty tricks hadn’t occurred.
Nixon did win.
Thing is, DOJ doesn't need a criminal referral to act. They can act independently of the commission. Hence, I think, the decision not to do criminal referrals - makes the commission less explicitly a criminal prosecution, just laying out the predicates for a criminal prosecution. If DOJ doesn't do anything after that, that's on Merrick Garland.
If the DOJ isn't already pursuing this that's on Merrick Garland's head. It's getting to be too late to just start up a criminal investigation into Trump.
November elections will decide the question of whether or not investigations will continue.
On some forum I read a comment about the exhaustion of every election being ‘the most important of our lives’. Man, do I feel that!
Same.
Except now that might actually be true.
2016 was the first election I felt was the most important of our lives. Voters did not come through n the numbers needed. So subsequent elections have and will continue to be the most important in our lives until Trumpism is thoroughly eradicated.
Agreed and agreed, but would add that it also was true in 2020. If trump and trumpism had faded away - maybe. But it didn't - it metastasized and is even worse now because 90+% of an entire party has hopped upon the crazy train. Even if they think trump is mentally deficient, morally lacking, unfit for office, corrupt, and a danger to our country, they all say they would vote for him again if he was the Repubican nominee....
First time I was eligible to vote, I went with Tricky Dick as well. A very inauspicious start to my participation in our democracy. :-(
I have to admit, I sort of bought into that 'best thing for the country' bit for a while. But looking back on it, knowing what I know now (which includes knowing that I still don't *know it all*), what the hell did a guy my age *know* back then?? I mean about what politics is really all about and how it actually works. At least an average sort of young man who didn't have a deep interest in such things then.
Makes it a bit easier to understand how a person's perspective about a lot of things can change with the passage of time and accumulation of experience in life.
Now, if I could dig him up, I'd lock him up and loose the key for a good long time.