Huge appreciation and wishes for success to Liz Cheney.
On this 78th anniversary of D-day we can only hope that the revelations made public to us this week will confirm truth and evidence so overwhelming that Merrick Garland & the DOJ will have a D-day of their own this month. 🌻
Jun 6, 2022·edited Jun 6, 2022Liked by Robert Reich
Yes, Congresswoman Cheney is shouldering a huge responsibility, but, both she, and Congressman Adam Kinziger have shown they have the integrity and the respect for our Constitution to serve the United States. I admire their courage. While I respectfully disagree with their politics. I have no respect for any of the retrumplicans. I sincerely hope they don't erupt in another display of anarchy.
Congresswoman Cheney proved her loyalty to US by being the ONLY American in the dying Trumplican party. She chose AMERICA over BUNKERBOY. And again, although I support nothing she stands for, I think she will "Lock Him Up."
While it sounds "guilt-inducing" to call Trumpelstiltorangeskin a "one-man crime wave" it it so misleading it can have negative repercussions. He is only one man, but he is the crime boss of a whole army of political criminals who are all GUILTY! of trying to undermine democracy, and trying to set up a autocracy--or more correctly, a kingdom.
This is the most significant challenge to our Democratic self government experiment ever. It is ironic that it is a Republican who holds the key to our defense, and has bravely stayed the course. I hope that Liz Cheney can prevail in her role, and that she and her family will be unharmed.
Jun 6, 2022·edited Jun 6, 2022Liked by Robert Reich
I will join with Dr Reich in appreciating Ms Cheney's service - and include honoring her as honorable, as well - but never willingly vote for her.
I deliberately >chose< the word "willingly," because I'm beginning to sense that as loyal Democrats, Democratically inclined independents, or even Social Democratic and Socialist allies, we may necessarily come to realize that appreciating Ms Cheney's service is a compelling signal that we've arrived at a really absurd condition in US politics. After all, honoring someone simply for abiding by their oath of office rather than support an attempted political coup is a >really low< standard, don't you think?
To me, there seems to be one, and only one valid and effective possible means of correcting the situation: vote the wankers out of office. But how can that be accomplished in this political environment, given that money is in charge? It would seem the probable solution is - at best - counterintuitive. Since, we can only work with and rely on a Republican like Ms Cheney if she remains in office, we need to see that she and like-minded Republicans remain in office.
However, whoever runs in the general election depends on who wins primary elections. The Republicans who win primary elections are elected by other Republicans. Here's the absurd, counterintuitive possible solution. We must register as Republicans and primary the current crop of bastard Republi-wankers sorry arses, so they're don't even have the option to run as Republicans. The best possible outcome would be that they'd attempt a 3rd party bid, just as George Wallace did in '68. It split the Democratic party. Southern Democrats voted Wallace and Nixon won. (In a similar manner, I could validly argue that Bill Clinton owes his entire political destiny to Ross Perot.) That's with the understanding that strategy could backfire if they've learned from history. They could turn the tables by mirroring the strategy. However, I'm inclined to believe that Manchin and Sinema >may< be evidence they wouldn't need to mirror anything, since they >may< be employing that kind of strategy in the first place.
Liz Cheney also needs to restore her family's reputation after her father sullied: (1) the US's international reputation as a country different that those run by despots who torture prisoners; and (2) Colin Powell's reputation by forcing him to tell the WMD lies to the UN, furthering to the US's Middle East & Afghan debacles.
btw, DZK, I've always thought Clinton would never have won without Perot's 3rd party. And, in the documentary on Roy Cohn, Reagan thanked him for supporting John Anderson's 3rd party (although I think the disgraced Chappaquiddick survivor undermined Carter, never had a chance to win in November, should've stayed out of the race, and demonstrates the jack-arse party's willingness to act as a circular firing squad)
Most Democratic politicians are scared of campaign finance reform and losing big donors, though few are as obvious as Sinema & Manchin...
Alas, it's the tax-hating, Libertarian DARK MONEY that Jane Mayer wrote about (in her book with that name) that assembled the long-term strategy of aligning evangelicals and gun-lovers to yield tax cuts via state govts & gerrymandering.
Mitch ; Bottom line is that when bribes are not only acceptable, but money as speech is legal, what kind of real representation is there for the common individual citizen? No money from outside our borders from non citizens should be in our elections.
The problem with money from outside our country, it is so easy to give and so many are willing to hide the giving and donate it around. Our Supreme Court didn't really care about that because they were so anxious to get money to Republican candidates they didn't seem to be bothered about where the money came from.
I all but forgot about Anderson. Thanks for a'bringin' him up! Y'know, what's really weird is that I used to play jazz with a soprano sax player that looked so much like Anderson he made a gag of it - particularly at the DC McReagan and other Republican campaign functions we were hired to play at the time! Your circular firing squad criticism is sound, as well. I was bemused by it before I first became more politically conscious. (It's important to understand I noticed even before I became politically aware!) Once I began figuring out what was a'goin' on, it began annoyin' the livin' $hi7 out of me. ("Why don't y'just help write the Republicans' goddam talking points for them, why don't'ch'a?" I used to think!) I'm almost >certain< it played into ol' Ronald McReagan's thinking when he uttered his "11th Commandment:" "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican," and goddam if they don't still usually observe it - in case it's gotten past your notice. (although the Q-publicans seem less inclined to observe it with regard to non-Q-publicans, these days!)
On the other hand, I wouldn't hold my breath until your points (1) & (2) come to pass. Besides, as much as I liked him, Powell disgraced >himself.< He could've resigned - unless he was somehow honestly convinced there were WMDs in Iraq, in which case he should simply plead "dumbass." And I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening, either - seein's how he no longer even has a breath to hold! Nevertheless, I don't see how he couldn't have realized the whole WMDs thing was charade "the ol' shrub" - little bush - was running to boost his stats, just from the way ol' W liked to make his best, Kenneth Copland style, "I'm gon'na scare the livin' $hi7 out of little kids"-type face on every time he mentioned WMDs. >I< certainly noticed it! Yet I was ultimately astonished at how many voters bought it, too. It should've prepared me to not be as shocked when the next generation of those self-same voters bought into ol' Tweety's bullshit!
My sister called Baby Bush's attack on Iraq the moment the Supreme Court declared him the winner of the 2000 election. She is not political but understands how families work. His daddy didn't "finish the job" by going all the way into Iraq, so Baby Bush had to prove he was a better man. Powell knew better but went along anyway. There are a bunch of Republicans today who know better but go along with Trump's insanity because they think they will get something for it. And, they have. None of them has even been indicted for anything and are still able to run for office.
BTW: I was still a'burnin' & bitchin' 'bout how he bought his votes with the promise of gutting the $4,000,000,000,000 surplus the Clinton administration managed to put aside, as "tax rebate checks for all!" ("A chicken in every pot!")
Not at all. It's perfectly true and I've never been neurotic about my age. Hell! I'm astonished I survived puberty! LOL! ];-)> (Sad, but true, many young folks don't, these days, especially in the Black community.)
DZK ; These musings of yours remind me of the Spy vs Spy mice cartoon in Mad magazine at least a half century ago. I was just about to register Republican and realized that was a daredevil's gamble! But if only it could work!
Daredevil's gamble? Consider Sherlock Holmes' reasoning: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Besides, it doesn't mean you're locked in to voting Republican in the general election.
Twisted logic was its stock in trade! Y'could add Rocky & Bullwinkle into the mix! ("Fractured Fairytales?") In Niccolo Machiavelli's "History of Florence," he recounts an event that actually reads like a Fractured Fairytale based on Romeo & Juliet - simultaneously funny and horrific!
Yes, a low standard indeed. Years ago I helped re-elect Lisa Murkowski as a write-in, after a right-wing total wacko won the primary & knocked her off the ballot in red Alaska.
Now >there's< an interesting idea. Start a 3rd party for traditional Republicans who get primaried in states that hold traditional primaries - or strategically in states that don't hold trad primes. That could be a way of splitting the Republican party that hadn't occurred to me - although it's perfectly obvious! I >really like< it! Well done on you! (I >know< you didn't say that. I extrapolated from what you >did< say.)
In California the primaries no longer work that way, unfortunately. I wish they did. Everyone runs on the same ballot and the top two vote getters go on to the general election. That means that one party might not even be on the general ballot for a given office. It’s unfair and pointless, IMO. I hope it doesn’t survive.
Alaska is having their first non-partisan primary with 48 candidates for Don Young's seat (including Sarah Palin & Santa Claus- a Bernie supporter). The top FOUR will go on to the general election, then be ranked-choice. Will be interesting. Red Alaska even mailed everyone a ballot.
Don't get rid of that method, refine it. Run two primaries, one for each party, and let absolutely everyone and anyone vote on both. Let "We the People" decide the two candidates we want to choose between. Maybe that way we can get two people worth voting for, and political platforms will come back into fashion. Right now Repuglycans are voting for the most outlandish gun-toter on the slate. By allowing everyone who wants, party affiliations aside, to vote for the party's candidate to run in the real election, we can get rid of the lunatics and battle between people who care about the Constitution.
Nice idea but probably impossible given the state of things. I do wonder how various elections would go however. Sounds a bit like the battle of the bands.
It would be best if we had Ranked Choice voting, but the QOP hates it, and even the Democrats are scared of it. Pay attention to Murkowski's Top 4 Ranked Choice race in Alaska
As I’ve said here before, ranked choice voting where I live has sometimes resulted in no Democrats on my ballot for certain offices. I am a Democrat and I don’t like that.
If they were number 3 in primary votes, what chance would they have in getting elected in the general? We're voting on instituting ranked-choice in my city- it may encourage more people to run. Weird that CA only allows the top two in the general- could continue the ranked-choice with at least three.
I don’t know but I suspect in some cases the vote is being split and potentially popular candidates are being eliminated. But I could be wrong. All I know is that if only two Republicans are running and no one else I don’t have a say.
Towards your first thought, voting the "wankers" out of office, this is why the best strategy the Democrats can use in this election is a two-pronged attack: 1) Necessary action on gun violence, and 2) fighting the repeal of Roe v Wade, and thus eroding the rights of all perceived minorities. There are many reasons voters who do not come out for mid-terms (or even the quadrennials), so give every decent American two good reasons to vote this year, and literally annihilate the Repuglycan Party. SAVE AMERICA! SAVE DEMOCRACY! SAVE WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOICE! CHOOSE GUN CONTROL OVER GUN VIOLENCE! Aim for 75 Senate seats, make sure you get a minimum 60 so that the filibuster can be "legally and certainly" ended. Then the ruling party will be able to deal effectively to create and pass legislation to promote democratic principles. "WE the people" must speak, and speak loudly!
I agree. Honoring people for doing what they have sworn to do is a pretty low bar, but in today's politics, I guess we should be grateful for what we can get from Republicans.
The difference between Nixon and Trump is that Nixon faced a group of Senators who preferred the Constitution to the president's lies. Barry Goldwater told him to his face that he didn't have the Senate votes and that he didn't have Goldwater's vote. But Trump has no such cadre of Constitutional loyalists in his GOP. No one woman can block the flood. And the thousands of Trump supporters in the Red states will try their damnedest to put him in the White House again. Cry, the beloved country.
Martha Ture ; While it is true that "No one woman can block the flood.", There are millions of Democrats who will vote, especially with what is at stake today. There is also the possibility that other high ranking Republicans involved and exposed will end up being taken into custody if they refuse to cooperate or are found guilty of perjury, or just plain guilty as charged.
Martha, Laurie. This isn't an impeachment proceeding. Just an investigation.
If indicted, the defendants' day in court will be before juries. Judicial not political.
IMHO about 7000 people are in jeopardy of being indicted. Consider all those phony state electors. Consider all who spread the big lie.
18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Daniel, I once told a friend, a very good Boston attorney, why his proposal re California water was unrealistic. I showed him a map of reservoirs and pipelines, and I said "Look, this isn't political, it's just arithmetic." Ken wisely rejoined "Of course arithmetic is political." Therefore, it does not appear to be in the cards that any GOP Senator or member of Congress, having been shown to have knowingly participated in an attempt to overthrow the government, will suffer anything, even hives, rashes, or mosquito bites, as a result of the investigation. IMHO. I would, of course, love to be wrong. As for The Former Guy, and Mitch McConnell, and Kevin McCarthy, et al, I send my grandmother's curse to each of them. Trinkn zoln im piavkes. (Leeches should drink him dry.)
That's not true. At all. These folks could lose their liberty, their livelihoods.
Not Perry Mason where the defendant comes lean.
If witnesses, other evidence document guilt, the defendant will have the right to remain silent. Anything they say, whether or not in custody could be held against them.
Defendants are subject to collateral attack if implicated if a violation of law.
Politics and the media aren't involved once there is an indictment other than voir dire.
I think a lot of the potential defendants will flip. Even Giuliani, Don Jr. Ivanka, etc are cooperating in part. Experience dictates there is some behind the scenes negotiation. What these folks need is a get out of jail free card that can only come through a deal with DOJ. The AG must pass on any deal.
Daniel Solomon ; Exhaustive and complete. I, a mere non educated mortal (as far as the law goes), thank you for this look at the codes. I wonder when intent is 'proved' or looked at. I keep hearing pundits on TV and seeing them wring their hands about this 'difficult to prove' aspect of guilt. I realize that this is an investigation, and am glad it is finally happening, in view of the public. Thank you for this.
An old saying is that to indict, if a prosecutor wants, a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. Once the case goes to trial the judge instructs the jury how to determine intent.
"Scienter" is the legal term in criminal law for intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. General allegations of scienter should demonstrate:
1. The defendant's motive and opportunity to deceive.
2. Circumstantial evidence of the defendant having consciously made the misrepresentation.
In other words, it can be inferred from the facts.
Mitch ; When ? I think it could apply and the dots could be connected. If only that could happen. Where there's smoke there's fire. There is plenty of smoke, for sure! Our 'house' is burning down!!!!
While I don't know of recent applications, my wife likes to watch re-runs of old Law & Order shows. I don't know how old the show was, but one crazy episode showed that RICO has been totally up-ended from its original intent. This 2004 article mentions some of the other applications
Deep in the article, there's this quote: "By this bootstrapping logic, Guiliani was able to drop the equivalent of a nuclear bomb on any target, at any time, no matter how trivial or harmless the underlying conduct." Wouldn't it be apropos to use RICO against Guiliani and other Jan 6ers?
Thank you, Laurie. If you want to examine the probabilities of Democratic turnout prevailing, in detail, https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/even-great-year-republicans-winnable-seats-are-limited. If we want to examine the probability of high ranking GOPs being found guilty of perjury or taken into custody, Google recent history on this topic. If we want to consider what difference a finding of perjury would make to GOP voters, we need to present the case for and against, in detail. It's not a fun project, but it is realism. I don't enjoy always being the ca-ca in the punch bowl, but I do require facts with which to make forecasts. That sad truth is why Jim and I moved away from our home in California, leaving friends of 40+ years. The facts told us the trajectory was worse, not better.
These are grim statistics. The hearings will be televised, and the public will most likely watch. We will see what happens. I look forward to seeing what is revealed. I also stubbornly hold onto the FACT that although Joe Biden is an establishment Democrat and far from perfect, he was elected by the majority over tRump, who has since really shown his true colors. In spite of his incessant flag waving, they are not Red White and Blue. 'Realism' as in polls or trajectories are not facts. Besides, I do not drink punch.
Yeah, realism is in the polls, actually. You might want to check out G. Elliott Morris, an excellent statistician, who writes for The Economist and has his own substack blog. Joe was elected by 42,000 votes. No more. Since that election, we now face the GOP governors, attorneys general, secretaries of state, election officials, reduced polling places, rules against mail-in ballots, and gerrymandered maps. It's bad.
That's why I am so big on Field Team 6. Can buck the trend. Has millions of names of unregistered potential voters who trend Democratic. In order to win, we need to FLIP four Senate races in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. We have millions of unregistered likely Democratic women in our database from these states, and we need to reach all of them to help them get registered and vote for pro-choice, pro-woman Democrats. https://www.fieldteam6.org/
Yes, and as much as I detested Nixon, he did know the duties of his office and have a knowledge of the Constitution. Trump is embarrassingly ignorant of the constitution, geography, world affairs and most basic restraints of dignity. With him, there are no guardrails, which is why this whole issue makes me apprehensive.
Not Watergate. The Republican House leadership will not participate. There will probably be no cross examination, except when the chair permits the prosecution to question hostile witnesses.
Will insurrectionists admit they were involved in a coup? If so, will they implicate others?
I saw and heard Navarro admit he was running a "Green Bay sweep" and that Trump and more than 100 members of Congress were involved. Need proof that the sweep was a coup and that others were involved. Substantiating evidence?
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
As of today groups of 3%ers and Proud Boys have been charged under this statute. Some members have pled guilty and ostensibly will turn state's evidence against the leaders.
I guess the law does not apply to Republicans who will follow their pathetic leader anywhere even though he has no clue where he is going and doesn't really care as long as he is being cheered on and those around him agree with whatever he says, which often makes no sense. That's no problem because they aren't really listening beyond hearing the things they will have to repeat incessantly: "Lock her up, the election was stolen, there was so much fraud, we won the popular vote too." Ugh!
NYT: "Here’s one way to do that: get clear public commitments from every Senate Democrat (and candidate for Senate) not only to vote for the Roe bill in January 2023 but also to change the filibuster rules to ensure that a majority vote would actually pass the bill and send it to the White House for the president’s signature."
Leads right back to what I have been saying for a month now. Use RvW and gun violence to get decent people out to vote! The rest will take care of itself, and government might get to do its job again!
Through all of the lies and complicity of republicans in support of the Trump phony narrative I am most disgusted and insulted by the disregard for obvious election truth by Trump himself. The telephone recording of Trump shamelessly attempting to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger by asking him to "find" enough votes was, for me, all the proof I need to support banning Trump from elected office FOREVER.
Nixon's pardon and the failure to prosecute him for his crimes laid the ground work for trump. That pardon said to the public that, as Nixon claimed, Presidents are above the law. We are now reaping a bitter harvest from that decision.
Rep. Cheney, if you are reading this, thank you so very much for your courage and integrity in standing firm to defend our Constitution! At a time when it is easy to feel ashamed for our country, you make me proud to be an American.
Nixon was more devious and disruptive than generally acknowledged. According to a recent column in the Washington Post by Woodward and Bernstein, Nixon sabotaged the 1972 presidential campaign of Sen. Edmund Muskie into oblivion because he thought Muskie would be the hardest Democrat to beat. Indeed, Nixon beat the eventual nominee George McGovern in a landslide. But, the authors acknowledge that Trump is worse.
What is less commented on about Trump's lies of a stolen election is that he has made it easier for Republicans in Congress to obstruct Biden's efforts to govern. An overwhelming majority of Republicans now believe the 2020 election was stolen and Biden is an illegitimate president, and they are therefore unwilling to support any action he takes as president. Perhaps Mitch McConnell is secretly thanking Trump for this.
Yes, Liz Cheney has shown great courage, and she has a heavy burden. I can imagine that Trump will be sending out instant comments that the testimony is all lies and a partisan "witch hunt." The committee, and Liz Cheney must make a special effort to be dispassionate and objective.
Mitch McConnell was blocking President Obama long before tRump was around. I'm sure he liked that tRump enabled him further though, because that is his M.O.
Best advice. Don't fight the evidence. Best lawyers waive opening. No delays. Start with best evidence.
I like the play within the play. The perils of Pence.
Picture the memo Pence's chief of staff sent to the Secret Service BEFORE 1/6 that Pence was in danger. [For effect, the witness reads it into the record.]
Picture the limmo that Pence refused to take.
Picture video: “If Mike Pence does the right thing we win the election,” Trump to crowd.
Picture the Trump tweets against Pence w/date and times.
Picture a gallows. Picture signs "hang Pence." Picture the noose from the gallows.
Picture the Pence family being taken to a safe location.
Picture the memos of/ transcripts of threats to the Pence family.
I think it's a little early to commend Liz Cheney for her service on the Committee on January 6, 2021, until we see how the hearings and the results of the play out. Undeniably, she has served the committee members well but we need to learn a bit more about what her service has entailed and what the committee's findings and recommendations are. To me, the case is an open and shut one (and it was an open and shut one even before the committee's work began). The former president took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law and he preceded to ignore his oath--as though he had never taken such--and repeatedly defy the Constitution, rule of law, and precedents leading to the culmination of his "career" in public service (what?) on January 6, 2021 and the start of his career as an insurrectionist (I prefer traitor). (I suppose one could argue that the Oath of Office is a mere formality, something like the frosting on the cake, but the intent is, I believe, more than formality and public show, it is a symbolic and serious affirmation of the way things are to go...and never did with Trump. I believe that a good portion of the American public does not expect that justice will be fully served on Trump; after all he has a great track record of evading his duties and responsibilities, placing the blame on others, demeaning those within and without the GOP, and substituting lies and deceit for a search for truth and justice. He will most probably once again waltz away from his planned and nearly successful coup and remain what he really is: a traitor to his country. I think we're all certain of that. However, if the Committee (and Liz Cheney) have done their jobs and uncovered the truth fully and fairly, they will have done a service to the country. If we want a nation (and leaders) who want to follow the guiding principle behind good governance, we have to expect that for once in a long while, our leaders--irrespective of party affiliation and family legacy--will seek the truth no matter where it leads. This is absolutely no time for party politics but, for some of our leaders, that is regrettably the only thing the know. Let's hope that Liz Cheney and the rest of the committee know a bit more about good governance as well.
Aye right ! No such blatant criminality has ever been rained down on our nation or people by a sitting president . Not to mention the national divisiveness which he has fomented . It boggles my mind that ANYONE can gaze upon & listen to lil donnie and place an iota of trust in he, his persona or rhetoric . Woe the day when the criminals are in charge ! That is the legacy of the frump administration. Along with the baring of the underbelly of his questionable supporters . He IS a criminal. He DOES represent a low point in our nation's government and history . And he NEEDS to be called on the carpet and prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his blatant crimes . He was raised with the silver spoon in his yap . Raised with a notion of entitlement and a self serving nature . He is actually the personification of the social strata infecting our nation and people. Come on folks, he IS the 1% ! Our nation and people NEED to take a stand against such . I hope Liz Cheney stands up for WE THE PEOPLE .
Thanks for this cogent synopsis of our compelling need to stand up for the rule of law. I have contributed repeatedly to Rep. Cheney just because of her position in this case. Integrity should be rewarded, not trashed with calls for lockstep party unity. I hope the Wyoming voters don't punish her as Trump demands. And I hope AG Garland and the DOJ are readying their case. They need to do their jobs.
Huge appreciation and wishes for success to Liz Cheney.
On this 78th anniversary of D-day we can only hope that the revelations made public to us this week will confirm truth and evidence so overwhelming that Merrick Garland & the DOJ will have a D-day of their own this month. 🌻
Well said, Anne!
Thank You Laurie 🙏 🌻
Amen! This is our political D-Day!
Fingers crossed, Ruth! 🤞🌻
Yes, Congresswoman Cheney is shouldering a huge responsibility, but, both she, and Congressman Adam Kinziger have shown they have the integrity and the respect for our Constitution to serve the United States. I admire their courage. While I respectfully disagree with their politics. I have no respect for any of the retrumplicans. I sincerely hope they don't erupt in another display of anarchy.
Congresswoman Cheney proved her loyalty to US by being the ONLY American in the dying Trumplican party. She chose AMERICA over BUNKERBOY. And again, although I support nothing she stands for, I think she will "Lock Him Up."
I agree. Love the "bunkerboy", I had almost forgotten it! :-)
I refuse to use his proper name. I instead "Bunkerboy" or some other insulting, yet accurate, nickname.
I prefer "Spanky". Remember Stormy?
Excellent analysis of what Liz Chaney is facing - my hope is that DOJ indicts and prosecutes "one man crime wave" tRump after all is said and done!
While it sounds "guilt-inducing" to call Trumpelstiltorangeskin a "one-man crime wave" it it so misleading it can have negative repercussions. He is only one man, but he is the crime boss of a whole army of political criminals who are all GUILTY! of trying to undermine democracy, and trying to set up a autocracy--or more correctly, a kingdom.
the fish stinks from the head - cut off the head and the rest of the corrupt body will die
If it were only so simple. There are a number of people waiting in the wings to take over. Watch the frenzy when The Donald disappears.
DeSantis perhaps? That's scary!
Yeah, imagine DeSantis President if the United States of America. If that does not make your blood boil, I do not know what would.
I wish the DOJ would indict Trump for crimes that if anyone else, particularly Democrats, had done them would already be in jail.
This is the most significant challenge to our Democratic self government experiment ever. It is ironic that it is a Republican who holds the key to our defense, and has bravely stayed the course. I hope that Liz Cheney can prevail in her role, and that she and her family will be unharmed.
Politics make strange bedfellows and all that. 😀
Treachery could backfire! But how sweet it could be. only thing is dirty deeds can be done by the other side of the aisle, as we already know.
It is. And the irony is startling. And I hope she can and she and her family will, too. 🌻
I will join with Dr Reich in appreciating Ms Cheney's service - and include honoring her as honorable, as well - but never willingly vote for her.
I deliberately >chose< the word "willingly," because I'm beginning to sense that as loyal Democrats, Democratically inclined independents, or even Social Democratic and Socialist allies, we may necessarily come to realize that appreciating Ms Cheney's service is a compelling signal that we've arrived at a really absurd condition in US politics. After all, honoring someone simply for abiding by their oath of office rather than support an attempted political coup is a >really low< standard, don't you think?
To me, there seems to be one, and only one valid and effective possible means of correcting the situation: vote the wankers out of office. But how can that be accomplished in this political environment, given that money is in charge? It would seem the probable solution is - at best - counterintuitive. Since, we can only work with and rely on a Republican like Ms Cheney if she remains in office, we need to see that she and like-minded Republicans remain in office.
However, whoever runs in the general election depends on who wins primary elections. The Republicans who win primary elections are elected by other Republicans. Here's the absurd, counterintuitive possible solution. We must register as Republicans and primary the current crop of bastard Republi-wankers sorry arses, so they're don't even have the option to run as Republicans. The best possible outcome would be that they'd attempt a 3rd party bid, just as George Wallace did in '68. It split the Democratic party. Southern Democrats voted Wallace and Nixon won. (In a similar manner, I could validly argue that Bill Clinton owes his entire political destiny to Ross Perot.) That's with the understanding that strategy could backfire if they've learned from history. They could turn the tables by mirroring the strategy. However, I'm inclined to believe that Manchin and Sinema >may< be evidence they wouldn't need to mirror anything, since they >may< be employing that kind of strategy in the first place.
Liz Cheney also needs to restore her family's reputation after her father sullied: (1) the US's international reputation as a country different that those run by despots who torture prisoners; and (2) Colin Powell's reputation by forcing him to tell the WMD lies to the UN, furthering to the US's Middle East & Afghan debacles.
btw, DZK, I've always thought Clinton would never have won without Perot's 3rd party. And, in the documentary on Roy Cohn, Reagan thanked him for supporting John Anderson's 3rd party (although I think the disgraced Chappaquiddick survivor undermined Carter, never had a chance to win in November, should've stayed out of the race, and demonstrates the jack-arse party's willingness to act as a circular firing squad)
the G.O.P. have had their own missteps, but MONEY keeps them ahead of the game. I call it a game because it runs on money.
Most Democratic politicians are scared of campaign finance reform and losing big donors, though few are as obvious as Sinema & Manchin...
Alas, it's the tax-hating, Libertarian DARK MONEY that Jane Mayer wrote about (in her book with that name) that assembled the long-term strategy of aligning evangelicals and gun-lovers to yield tax cuts via state govts & gerrymandering.
https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-4-18-22-n1294580
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/08/09/the-big-money-behind-the-big-lie
Mitch ; Bottom line is that when bribes are not only acceptable, but money as speech is legal, what kind of real representation is there for the common individual citizen? No money from outside our borders from non citizens should be in our elections.
The problem with money from outside our country, it is so easy to give and so many are willing to hide the giving and donate it around. Our Supreme Court didn't really care about that because they were so anxious to get money to Republican candidates they didn't seem to be bothered about where the money came from.
Isn't it in our Constitution that money from abroad is not allowed?
I all but forgot about Anderson. Thanks for a'bringin' him up! Y'know, what's really weird is that I used to play jazz with a soprano sax player that looked so much like Anderson he made a gag of it - particularly at the DC McReagan and other Republican campaign functions we were hired to play at the time! Your circular firing squad criticism is sound, as well. I was bemused by it before I first became more politically conscious. (It's important to understand I noticed even before I became politically aware!) Once I began figuring out what was a'goin' on, it began annoyin' the livin' $hi7 out of me. ("Why don't y'just help write the Republicans' goddam talking points for them, why don't'ch'a?" I used to think!) I'm almost >certain< it played into ol' Ronald McReagan's thinking when he uttered his "11th Commandment:" "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican," and goddam if they don't still usually observe it - in case it's gotten past your notice. (although the Q-publicans seem less inclined to observe it with regard to non-Q-publicans, these days!)
On the other hand, I wouldn't hold my breath until your points (1) & (2) come to pass. Besides, as much as I liked him, Powell disgraced >himself.< He could've resigned - unless he was somehow honestly convinced there were WMDs in Iraq, in which case he should simply plead "dumbass." And I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening, either - seein's how he no longer even has a breath to hold! Nevertheless, I don't see how he couldn't have realized the whole WMDs thing was charade "the ol' shrub" - little bush - was running to boost his stats, just from the way ol' W liked to make his best, Kenneth Copland style, "I'm gon'na scare the livin' $hi7 out of little kids"-type face on every time he mentioned WMDs. >I< certainly noticed it! Yet I was ultimately astonished at how many voters bought it, too. It should've prepared me to not be as shocked when the next generation of those self-same voters bought into ol' Tweety's bullshit!
My sister called Baby Bush's attack on Iraq the moment the Supreme Court declared him the winner of the 2000 election. She is not political but understands how families work. His daddy didn't "finish the job" by going all the way into Iraq, so Baby Bush had to prove he was a better man. Powell knew better but went along anyway. There are a bunch of Republicans today who know better but go along with Trump's insanity because they think they will get something for it. And, they have. None of them has even been indicted for anything and are still able to run for office.
Verrry perceptive, your sister. You're no slouch, yourself!
Very good!!!
BTW: I was still a'burnin' & bitchin' 'bout how he bought his votes with the promise of gutting the $4,000,000,000,000 surplus the Clinton administration managed to put aside, as "tax rebate checks for all!" ("A chicken in every pot!")
Damn You’re… older than me! 😎
Damn right! I >lived< that crap and saw it unfold in excruciating detail! LOL! ];-)>
I said that only to make you laugh and was hoping you’d see it that way. Sorry if I have offended you in any way. Peace ☮️
Not at all. It's perfectly true and I've never been neurotic about my age. Hell! I'm astonished I survived puberty! LOL! ];-)> (Sad, but true, many young folks don't, these days, especially in the Black community.)
I can always say 'I gave a former presidential candidate a ride across the Bay'. Anderson and I talked sports cars and the new Giants ballpark ..
Did he moonlight as a soprano sax player? >I< certainly always wondered - in the back of my mind - if the guy I worked with was impersonating himself!
No, he wasn't Alan Greenspan ..
So, Greenspan played soprano sax? Is that what you're saying?
DZK ; These musings of yours remind me of the Spy vs Spy mice cartoon in Mad magazine at least a half century ago. I was just about to register Republican and realized that was a daredevil's gamble! But if only it could work!
Daredevil's gamble? Consider Sherlock Holmes' reasoning: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Besides, it doesn't mean you're locked in to voting Republican in the general election.
phew!
Hell! I learned everything I know about politics from MAD magazine! LOL!
What, me worry? 🤣🤣
"Mad" was a great teacher!!
Twisted logic was its stock in trade! Y'could add Rocky & Bullwinkle into the mix! ("Fractured Fairytales?") In Niccolo Machiavelli's "History of Florence," he recounts an event that actually reads like a Fractured Fairytale based on Romeo & Juliet - simultaneously funny and horrific!
https://archive.org/details/historyofflorenc00mach
Not to give away the game, it involves someone offering another "a drink with her father."
LOL!
(Or maybe it was MAD diplomacy! I'm soooo confused! LOL! ];-)> )
Yes, a low standard indeed. Years ago I helped re-elect Lisa Murkowski as a write-in, after a right-wing total wacko won the primary & knocked her off the ballot in red Alaska.
Now >there's< an interesting idea. Start a 3rd party for traditional Republicans who get primaried in states that hold traditional primaries - or strategically in states that don't hold trad primes. That could be a way of splitting the Republican party that hadn't occurred to me - although it's perfectly obvious! I >really like< it! Well done on you! (I >know< you didn't say that. I extrapolated from what you >did< say.)
In California the primaries no longer work that way, unfortunately. I wish they did. Everyone runs on the same ballot and the top two vote getters go on to the general election. That means that one party might not even be on the general ballot for a given office. It’s unfair and pointless, IMO. I hope it doesn’t survive.
Well, then, lets go with Gilda Radner: "Never mind!"
Alaska is having their first non-partisan primary with 48 candidates for Don Young's seat (including Sarah Palin & Santa Claus- a Bernie supporter). The top FOUR will go on to the general election, then be ranked-choice. Will be interesting. Red Alaska even mailed everyone a ballot.
Forty-eight candidates. Wow. That’s a lot of ego floating around. I hope Palin loses.
Don't get rid of that method, refine it. Run two primaries, one for each party, and let absolutely everyone and anyone vote on both. Let "We the People" decide the two candidates we want to choose between. Maybe that way we can get two people worth voting for, and political platforms will come back into fashion. Right now Repuglycans are voting for the most outlandish gun-toter on the slate. By allowing everyone who wants, party affiliations aside, to vote for the party's candidate to run in the real election, we can get rid of the lunatics and battle between people who care about the Constitution.
Nice idea but probably impossible given the state of things. I do wonder how various elections would go however. Sounds a bit like the battle of the bands.
It would be best if we had Ranked Choice voting, but the QOP hates it, and even the Democrats are scared of it. Pay attention to Murkowski's Top 4 Ranked Choice race in Alaska
As I’ve said here before, ranked choice voting where I live has sometimes resulted in no Democrats on my ballot for certain offices. I am a Democrat and I don’t like that.
If they were number 3 in primary votes, what chance would they have in getting elected in the general? We're voting on instituting ranked-choice in my city- it may encourage more people to run. Weird that CA only allows the top two in the general- could continue the ranked-choice with at least three.
I don’t know but I suspect in some cases the vote is being split and potentially popular candidates are being eliminated. But I could be wrong. All I know is that if only two Republicans are running and no one else I don’t have a say.
These are desperate times!
Damn You’re… knowledgeable 😎
Towards your first thought, voting the "wankers" out of office, this is why the best strategy the Democrats can use in this election is a two-pronged attack: 1) Necessary action on gun violence, and 2) fighting the repeal of Roe v Wade, and thus eroding the rights of all perceived minorities. There are many reasons voters who do not come out for mid-terms (or even the quadrennials), so give every decent American two good reasons to vote this year, and literally annihilate the Repuglycan Party. SAVE AMERICA! SAVE DEMOCRACY! SAVE WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOICE! CHOOSE GUN CONTROL OVER GUN VIOLENCE! Aim for 75 Senate seats, make sure you get a minimum 60 so that the filibuster can be "legally and certainly" ended. Then the ruling party will be able to deal effectively to create and pass legislation to promote democratic principles. "WE the people" must speak, and speak loudly!
I agree. Honoring people for doing what they have sworn to do is a pretty low bar, but in today's politics, I guess we should be grateful for what we can get from Republicans.
The difference between Nixon and Trump is that Nixon faced a group of Senators who preferred the Constitution to the president's lies. Barry Goldwater told him to his face that he didn't have the Senate votes and that he didn't have Goldwater's vote. But Trump has no such cadre of Constitutional loyalists in his GOP. No one woman can block the flood. And the thousands of Trump supporters in the Red states will try their damnedest to put him in the White House again. Cry, the beloved country.
Martha Ture ; While it is true that "No one woman can block the flood.", There are millions of Democrats who will vote, especially with what is at stake today. There is also the possibility that other high ranking Republicans involved and exposed will end up being taken into custody if they refuse to cooperate or are found guilty of perjury, or just plain guilty as charged.
Martha, Laurie. This isn't an impeachment proceeding. Just an investigation.
If indicted, the defendants' day in court will be before juries. Judicial not political.
IMHO about 7000 people are in jeopardy of being indicted. Consider all those phony state electors. Consider all who spread the big lie.
18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Daniel, I once told a friend, a very good Boston attorney, why his proposal re California water was unrealistic. I showed him a map of reservoirs and pipelines, and I said "Look, this isn't political, it's just arithmetic." Ken wisely rejoined "Of course arithmetic is political." Therefore, it does not appear to be in the cards that any GOP Senator or member of Congress, having been shown to have knowingly participated in an attempt to overthrow the government, will suffer anything, even hives, rashes, or mosquito bites, as a result of the investigation. IMHO. I would, of course, love to be wrong. As for The Former Guy, and Mitch McConnell, and Kevin McCarthy, et al, I send my grandmother's curse to each of them. Trinkn zoln im piavkes. (Leeches should drink him dry.)
That's not true. At all. These folks could lose their liberty, their livelihoods.
Not Perry Mason where the defendant comes lean.
If witnesses, other evidence document guilt, the defendant will have the right to remain silent. Anything they say, whether or not in custody could be held against them.
Defendants are subject to collateral attack if implicated if a violation of law.
Your faith in the law prevailing over politics and media is greater than mine.
Politics and the media aren't involved once there is an indictment other than voir dire.
I think a lot of the potential defendants will flip. Even Giuliani, Don Jr. Ivanka, etc are cooperating in part. Experience dictates there is some behind the scenes negotiation. What these folks need is a get out of jail free card that can only come through a deal with DOJ. The AG must pass on any deal.
Good one, Martha!
My grandmother's curses are like liquor. They feel good, but don't work.
Fun to read! they do give a smile!
"hives, rashes, or mosquito bites? LOLOLOL!
"Trinkn zoln im piavkes?" >LOVE< IT!
Cool!
Daniel Solomon ; Exhaustive and complete. I, a mere non educated mortal (as far as the law goes), thank you for this look at the codes. I wonder when intent is 'proved' or looked at. I keep hearing pundits on TV and seeing them wring their hands about this 'difficult to prove' aspect of guilt. I realize that this is an investigation, and am glad it is finally happening, in view of the public. Thank you for this.
An old saying is that to indict, if a prosecutor wants, a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. Once the case goes to trial the judge instructs the jury how to determine intent.
"Scienter" is the legal term in criminal law for intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. General allegations of scienter should demonstrate:
1. The defendant's motive and opportunity to deceive.
2. Circumstantial evidence of the defendant having consciously made the misrepresentation.
In other words, it can be inferred from the facts.
I wonder if this is where they get the expression ; "reading the tea leaves" in pundit world?
Kind of reminds me of séance, only without the crystal ball.
Is it pronounced like a version of science? or scientist with a different ending?
Everything in the law is Anglicized.
Haven't there also been some creative applications of RICO laws?
Mitch ; When ? I think it could apply and the dots could be connected. If only that could happen. Where there's smoke there's fire. There is plenty of smoke, for sure! Our 'house' is burning down!!!!
While I don't know of recent applications, my wife likes to watch re-runs of old Law & Order shows. I don't know how old the show was, but one crazy episode showed that RICO has been totally up-ended from its original intent. This 2004 article mentions some of the other applications
https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=215
Deep in the article, there's this quote: "By this bootstrapping logic, Guiliani was able to drop the equivalent of a nuclear bomb on any target, at any time, no matter how trivial or harmless the underlying conduct." Wouldn't it be apropos to use RICO against Guiliani and other Jan 6ers?
Mitch ; I have though RICO would be apropos. I am not an attorney, but it seems there is a wide latitude for interpretation of laws.
Thank you, Laurie. If you want to examine the probabilities of Democratic turnout prevailing, in detail, https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/even-great-year-republicans-winnable-seats-are-limited. If we want to examine the probability of high ranking GOPs being found guilty of perjury or taken into custody, Google recent history on this topic. If we want to consider what difference a finding of perjury would make to GOP voters, we need to present the case for and against, in detail. It's not a fun project, but it is realism. I don't enjoy always being the ca-ca in the punch bowl, but I do require facts with which to make forecasts. That sad truth is why Jim and I moved away from our home in California, leaving friends of 40+ years. The facts told us the trajectory was worse, not better.
These are grim statistics. The hearings will be televised, and the public will most likely watch. We will see what happens. I look forward to seeing what is revealed. I also stubbornly hold onto the FACT that although Joe Biden is an establishment Democrat and far from perfect, he was elected by the majority over tRump, who has since really shown his true colors. In spite of his incessant flag waving, they are not Red White and Blue. 'Realism' as in polls or trajectories are not facts. Besides, I do not drink punch.
Yeah, realism is in the polls, actually. You might want to check out G. Elliott Morris, an excellent statistician, who writes for The Economist and has his own substack blog. Joe was elected by 42,000 votes. No more. Since that election, we now face the GOP governors, attorneys general, secretaries of state, election officials, reduced polling places, rules against mail-in ballots, and gerrymandered maps. It's bad.
This is the most chilling comment I’ve seen so far, frightening as hell.
That's why I am so big on Field Team 6. Can buck the trend. Has millions of names of unregistered potential voters who trend Democratic. In order to win, we need to FLIP four Senate races in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. We have millions of unregistered likely Democratic women in our database from these states, and we need to reach all of them to help them get registered and vote for pro-choice, pro-woman Democrats. https://www.fieldteam6.org/
Contact Mervis Reissig
merv4peace@gmail.com
Yes, and as much as I detested Nixon, he did know the duties of his office and have a knowledge of the Constitution. Trump is embarrassingly ignorant of the constitution, geography, world affairs and most basic restraints of dignity. With him, there are no guardrails, which is why this whole issue makes me apprehensive.
Not Watergate. The Republican House leadership will not participate. There will probably be no cross examination, except when the chair permits the prosecution to question hostile witnesses.
Will insurrectionists admit they were involved in a coup? If so, will they implicate others?
I saw and heard Navarro admit he was running a "Green Bay sweep" and that Trump and more than 100 members of Congress were involved. Need proof that the sweep was a coup and that others were involved. Substantiating evidence?
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
As of today groups of 3%ers and Proud Boys have been charged under this statute. Some members have pled guilty and ostensibly will turn state's evidence against the leaders.
I guess the law does not apply to Republicans who will follow their pathetic leader anywhere even though he has no clue where he is going and doesn't really care as long as he is being cheered on and those around him agree with whatever he says, which often makes no sense. That's no problem because they aren't really listening beyond hearing the things they will have to repeat incessantly: "Lock her up, the election was stolen, there was so much fraud, we won the popular vote too." Ugh!
This is not impeachment.
Don't need to change many minds -- only need a few. Approximately 72% of all Americans know that an insurrection occurred. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-americans-jan-attack-threatened-democracy-poll/story?id=81990555
NYT: "Here’s one way to do that: get clear public commitments from every Senate Democrat (and candidate for Senate) not only to vote for the Roe bill in January 2023 but also to change the filibuster rules to ensure that a majority vote would actually pass the bill and send it to the White House for the president’s signature."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/06/opinion/democrats-midterms-abortion-roe.html?fbclid=IwAR1b2I-Jl6d1sT1JTeFOWB4N7ioWz90lpZMTXU8rPAj734yNxVjvaMqZWnQ
Leads right back to what I have been saying for a month now. Use RvW and gun violence to get decent people out to vote! The rest will take care of itself, and government might get to do its job again!
Through all of the lies and complicity of republicans in support of the Trump phony narrative I am most disgusted and insulted by the disregard for obvious election truth by Trump himself. The telephone recording of Trump shamelessly attempting to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger by asking him to "find" enough votes was, for me, all the proof I need to support banning Trump from elected office FOREVER.
I disagree with every public stance Ms. Cheney has taken but I admire her commitment to the constitution and the rule of law.
We must hold Trump accountable for his actions or next time will be worse.
Nixon's pardon and the failure to prosecute him for his crimes laid the ground work for trump. That pardon said to the public that, as Nixon claimed, Presidents are above the law. We are now reaping a bitter harvest from that decision.
Rep. Cheney, if you are reading this, thank you so very much for your courage and integrity in standing firm to defend our Constitution! At a time when it is easy to feel ashamed for our country, you make me proud to be an American.
It's her duty.
Agreed. But so many of our representatives don’t understand or believe that anymore.
Nixon was more devious and disruptive than generally acknowledged. According to a recent column in the Washington Post by Woodward and Bernstein, Nixon sabotaged the 1972 presidential campaign of Sen. Edmund Muskie into oblivion because he thought Muskie would be the hardest Democrat to beat. Indeed, Nixon beat the eventual nominee George McGovern in a landslide. But, the authors acknowledge that Trump is worse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/05/woodward-bernstein-nixon-trump/
What is less commented on about Trump's lies of a stolen election is that he has made it easier for Republicans in Congress to obstruct Biden's efforts to govern. An overwhelming majority of Republicans now believe the 2020 election was stolen and Biden is an illegitimate president, and they are therefore unwilling to support any action he takes as president. Perhaps Mitch McConnell is secretly thanking Trump for this.
Yes, Liz Cheney has shown great courage, and she has a heavy burden. I can imagine that Trump will be sending out instant comments that the testimony is all lies and a partisan "witch hunt." The committee, and Liz Cheney must make a special effort to be dispassionate and objective.
Mitch McConnell was blocking President Obama long before tRump was around. I'm sure he liked that tRump enabled him further though, because that is his M.O.
We now know Nixon was a traitor. Disrupted the peace process in 1968.
Public attention should be on the evidence, the testimony and not on the prosecutors.
Agree, but I fear the news media will give too much attention to Trump's response.
Best advice. Don't fight the evidence. Best lawyers waive opening. No delays. Start with best evidence.
I like the play within the play. The perils of Pence.
Picture the memo Pence's chief of staff sent to the Secret Service BEFORE 1/6 that Pence was in danger. [For effect, the witness reads it into the record.]
Picture the limmo that Pence refused to take.
Picture video: “If Mike Pence does the right thing we win the election,” Trump to crowd.
Picture the Trump tweets against Pence w/date and times.
Picture a gallows. Picture signs "hang Pence." Picture the noose from the gallows.
Picture the Pence family being taken to a safe location.
Picture the memos of/ transcripts of threats to the Pence family.
Later tie everything together.
I agree. it hurts my heart
I think it's a little early to commend Liz Cheney for her service on the Committee on January 6, 2021, until we see how the hearings and the results of the play out. Undeniably, she has served the committee members well but we need to learn a bit more about what her service has entailed and what the committee's findings and recommendations are. To me, the case is an open and shut one (and it was an open and shut one even before the committee's work began). The former president took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law and he preceded to ignore his oath--as though he had never taken such--and repeatedly defy the Constitution, rule of law, and precedents leading to the culmination of his "career" in public service (what?) on January 6, 2021 and the start of his career as an insurrectionist (I prefer traitor). (I suppose one could argue that the Oath of Office is a mere formality, something like the frosting on the cake, but the intent is, I believe, more than formality and public show, it is a symbolic and serious affirmation of the way things are to go...and never did with Trump. I believe that a good portion of the American public does not expect that justice will be fully served on Trump; after all he has a great track record of evading his duties and responsibilities, placing the blame on others, demeaning those within and without the GOP, and substituting lies and deceit for a search for truth and justice. He will most probably once again waltz away from his planned and nearly successful coup and remain what he really is: a traitor to his country. I think we're all certain of that. However, if the Committee (and Liz Cheney) have done their jobs and uncovered the truth fully and fairly, they will have done a service to the country. If we want a nation (and leaders) who want to follow the guiding principle behind good governance, we have to expect that for once in a long while, our leaders--irrespective of party affiliation and family legacy--will seek the truth no matter where it leads. This is absolutely no time for party politics but, for some of our leaders, that is regrettably the only thing the know. Let's hope that Liz Cheney and the rest of the committee know a bit more about good governance as well.
Aye right ! No such blatant criminality has ever been rained down on our nation or people by a sitting president . Not to mention the national divisiveness which he has fomented . It boggles my mind that ANYONE can gaze upon & listen to lil donnie and place an iota of trust in he, his persona or rhetoric . Woe the day when the criminals are in charge ! That is the legacy of the frump administration. Along with the baring of the underbelly of his questionable supporters . He IS a criminal. He DOES represent a low point in our nation's government and history . And he NEEDS to be called on the carpet and prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his blatant crimes . He was raised with the silver spoon in his yap . Raised with a notion of entitlement and a self serving nature . He is actually the personification of the social strata infecting our nation and people. Come on folks, he IS the 1% ! Our nation and people NEED to take a stand against such . I hope Liz Cheney stands up for WE THE PEOPLE .
I will be glued to my television throughout the hearings of the Jan 6 committee, and record it all.
Thanks for this cogent synopsis of our compelling need to stand up for the rule of law. I have contributed repeatedly to Rep. Cheney just because of her position in this case. Integrity should be rewarded, not trashed with calls for lockstep party unity. I hope the Wyoming voters don't punish her as Trump demands. And I hope AG Garland and the DOJ are readying their case. They need to do their jobs.