Twigs and branches

One wonders if perhaps Guantanamo Bay would serve as a prisoner of war holding camp for all those being charged in The Cracker Barrel Uprising

I just wanted to mention that I enjoyed seeing Senator Mazie Hirono’s tweet:

‘Gollum has lost his precious’

Little bit of case based moral exploration I did on the nature of friendship and snitching.

https://deponysum.com/2020/12/21/of-calculus-cheating-and-the-duties-of-a-friend-and-parent/

de Pony Sum : Huh. So, I went to a college (Rice) that had an honor code, and we all swear to uphold it, to snitch if needed, as part of matriculation. I thought it was great: it meant take-home exams, no proctoring, and by and large being treated like honest adults. And yeah, sometimes people got caught cheating, by being snitched-upon.

The idea that someone is in the wrong, for reporting cheating in school, strikes me as fundamentally wrong. Your argument basically is that cheating is a victimless crime. So let’s go with that: is it wrong for me to report someone who cheats on their taxes? Hey, it’s a victimless crime! But this is wrong: we are all victims when someone cheats on their taxes, because someone must pay to support government. Similarly, if cheating is unpunished, then everyone will cheat, and eventually those who are honest will be penalized.

Someone who reports cheating is doing necessary garbage pickup. And should be applauded. Now that doesn’t make the father correct. The father’s position is that the son did wrong by reporting his classmates, and should now confess to them. But this is (again) bullshit. The -classmates- did wrong by cheating. The son merely reported them — to clean up the garbage. The father should commend his son for honesty, and for upholding good standards. He might counsel his son that yes, there are assholes in the world who will cheat, steal, fiddle their taxes, and will make you feel badly if you report them. But it’s a citizen’s duty to report those crimes. The father might recommend that the son choose better friends: friends who aren’t cheaters and liars.

I mean …. how is this even remotely controversial? The son did the right thing and should be commended.

and thinking about it?

Do you guys remember when I used to call Trump over and over again ‘The Clownstick” -(as one of Americas most ”profound” Philosophers had called him)
As I always hoped that one could break the TrumpFEAVER with ”The Great American Humor” –
BUT then so many – not only of y’all objected?

And there was all this advice to take ”the whole thing” more seriously and when I wrote to the NYT and suggested the headline:

THE AMERICAN POEPLE ELECTED TRUMP TO DESTROY THEIR GOVERNMENT
my friend at moderation wrote me with the advice NOT being so silly.
AND NOW
as we all have turned really… serious…

What NOW?

and as Hidari –
on another threat mentioned the article:
”Trump May Face Prosecution — but Not for His War Crimes”

and I had responded to this article with the comment:

”I read the article now 3 -(in words:”three”) – times –
as I couldn’t believe that in an article about holding Trump ”accountable” –
neither the word ”Pandemic” nor ”Covid” appeared?

How in the World could these words be forgotten by anybody who writes about:
”Trump May Face Prosecution — but Not for His War Crimes” –
during –
”THE WAR AGAINST THE INVISiBLE ENEMY”
(as Trump called it)

HOW?!!!

AND
the comment:

”Calls are mounting for post-presidency prosecution of Trump and with very good reason. But they center around Trump’s personal and brazen crookedness. On the issue of his war crimes? Nothing”.

But didn’t Jon Schwarz already told you: ”They’re essentially the same thing”? (Trump and Reagan and Bush and Obama and every other US President?) And IF these Presidents are ”ALL the same thing” – why in the World would any of these US President be prosecuted for ”War Crimes”? –

INSTEAD OF IN A PANDEMIC – for the death of Hundred of Thousands of Americans
Because hardly anybody on TI asks: On the issue of the deaths in a Pandemic?

Nothing”.

(end quotes)

So – HOW ABOUT – NOW?
each time – somebody ask for accountability of the Right-Wing Racist Science Denier NOT derailing to ”something completely different” -(like Hillary or Obama)
AND I also never ever will ask again:
”How in the World could these words be forgotten by anybody who writes about:
”Trump May Face Prosecution — but Not for His War Crimes” –

General ramblings

The slightly flippant response to the “is Donald Trump a fascist?” is “probably not – that would require some degree of effort and ideological commitment”. For myself, I don’t find it a particularly interesting question – I am less concerned with people’s internal models and more by their actions [1]. Trump bears some responsibility for the harm he has caused, and it would be rather good if he faces some repercussions [2]. After all, if he can incite violence against US citizens without consequences [3], then it sets a rather bad precedent (and, perhaps, sets rather a bad president too).

To comment briefly, it seems right-wing rioters engaged in violence and intimidation (with some having stated an aim of murdering members of the US government), and this should lead to a firm reaction from the law (via, ideally, a thorough investigation leading to prosecutions under the appropriate laws – including of those who aided and abetted). Otherwise, of course, the implication is that so long as you are the “right sort of person” (e.g. with the right bank-balance, the right political views, etc.) you will face little-to-no consequences for your actions (a message which, if you’ll indulge me voicing my opinion, is one I feel is sent quite enough these days). It would be nice to imagine that this will cause US law enforcement and media to take right-wing domestic violence and terrorism seriously in the long term – but I suspect that won’t be any more the case than it has been in the last couple of decades (particularly given how eager some seem to be to downplay these events).

It appears to me that the discussion on the January 6 thread got rather side-tracked – perhaps oddly, given we now have open threads for that very reason. In order to avoid contributing to derailment, I shall make some general comments here.

The arguments regarding US foreign policy crimes smacks a little of whataboutary (the tendency to propose “you shouldn’t care about X because Y is much more important”). I am always a little suspicious of anyone who follows this line of argument, as it so frequently is employed to divert attention from issues which may be more easily addressed to those which are not. However, as this is an open thread (where I may indulge myself with responses however little interest there may be) I will engage briefly.

Should there be an accounting for US actions abroad? In my opinion, absolutely yes – but that is equally true for every country engaging in negative actions. Given that former Prime Minister Tony Blair (for example) has yet to see any significant repercussions for his various questionable actions (from nearly two decades ago now), I would say it is both highly unlikely to happen and far from constrained to the US only (tempting though it may be to imagine otherwise for both). If we follow the argument that “because the US has not carried out significant action regarding its negative foreign policy, Americans don’t care about Americans committing war crimes” then we should apply the same test to the UK. That would then seem to lead us to conclude that, for example, Jeremy Corbyn (despite being generally opposed military intervention) is actually pro-war crimes (if I need to explain why this would seem reveal the argument to be something of an overgeneralisation, then frankly I despair). Moreover, I find the train of logic driving this response to the US capital riots somewhat curious – after all, if one truly cares about people facing consequences for their actions (wrt. foreign policy), I am unconvinced the best way to address this is to argue that it is unimportant that people face consequences for their actions (wrt. inciting and engaging in riots). But perhaps I am missing the brilliant insight driving this.

As a final note, it is fascinating watching some trying to pretend that reasonable concern over people storming the US capital (some with the stated goal of murdering elected representatives) is “hysteria”. Apparently some would have me believe this is no-biggie, and we should probably all forget about it and the various bad actors involved. Personally, I am old enough to remember the consequences of other times when actions were rapidly memory-holed. Were I to believe that those commentators are capable of such reflection, I would suggest perhaps it would be worth considering what the consequences of ignoring this would be – and whether or not it is likely to be generally negative.

But then again, I am old and weary – and it is difficult for me to have much optimism for the future these days, though I respect those who still do.

[1] This is not to say internal models are unimportant (beliefs inform actions), but they are difficult to ascertain externally except by the exhibited behaviour. This is why, in general, I tend not to say “X is racist/sexist/etc.” but rather “X’s actions are in keeping with them being racist/sexist/etc., and none contradict that hypothesis”. A personal quirk, perhaps, but it does help me avoid the tiresome “but how do you know what X really believes” response.

[2] To exploit the age-old example, Trump not only shouted fire in a crowded theatre, but also told people to ignore those trying to direct them to the exists, called for the fire chief to be locked up, said the theatre owners were deliberate arsonists, and only now is slightly walking this back to reluctantly and begrudgingly say that perhaps it would be bad to trample the staff to death – but there totally is smoke! It was interesting to watch someone trying to imply that taking away his megaphone under such conditions was somehow wrong.

[3] Something Trump has done for quite some time now – aided and abetted by the Republican party, amongst others.

I thought this was an interesting article: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/01/whoops-dander-way-back-up-whats-with-the-vaccines.html. As Naked Capitalism has cut off its comments, maybe this would be a good place to make them.

As for Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., there are many alternatives, and as rants on the major rant vehicles are impeded, they will flow elsewhere. I’m especially interested in peer-to-peer stuff (fx https://peer.tube), as it would be much more difficult to impede and less susceptible to being forced back into old-style one-to-many media mode.

Hidari @ 7: I want all readers to read this comment carefully. He minimizes the gravity of the attack on America’s government, minimizes the continuing danger to American democracy, and pooh-poohs any efforts to defend against that danger.

To paraphrase A. Moxon here (search for “Historians”): http://www.armoxon.com/2017/01/sky.html

Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party defend Trump and Trumpists, not because they hated Jews are white supremacists, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. hatred of liberals and mainstream progressives.

That word is “Nazi.” Trumpist. Nobody cares about their motives anymore.

Hidari@7:

In order to run again, Trump really needs a media outlet (there will be a blanket ban on coverage of him by the corporate media for a good year or so after he leaves office).

Counterpoint: there’s a buck to be made covering Trump, and once the likes of Newsmax and OAN filter off enough of Fox’s viewership, there’s no chance they’ll choose principle over money. I agree with your analysis of Pelosi et al’s slow walking any meaningful remedy, b/c they’re die-hard institutionalists who’d rather be captains of a sinking ship than let everyone loose on lifeboats to chart their own course. But that same calculus will cut the other way when it comes to media bans.

Additionally, Trump is still the head of the GOP and can influence fundraising. Unless there’s a very strong repudiation of him – and no, some corps pledging to cease funding Congressmembers who voted to support the insurrection is not that – this will still give him outsized influence. The only hope of your prediction playing out as such is if Trump gets convicted of something, but as soon as that happens, your predicted blanket media coverage embargo will crumble.

CM@8:

Concur 100%. This feels like a deeply unpopular take in the US, but you hit every point pitch-perfect. We’re taught from early childhood that “snitching” or “tattling” is immoral (I remember seeing children’s programs on PBS teaching this lovely lesson), but that attitude is critical for inculcating complicity and from there tolerance for corruption & inequity. To tie it to the scenario outlined by the essay, cheating in such a way that your friend knows about it and must choose between complicit loyalty to you and loyalty to socially prescribed ideals of fairness itself “violated this duty of loyalty”. Willfully putting your friends into a position where they must compromise their ethics to protect their friends from the consequences is betrayal of those friends, plain and simple – and depending on how willfully it’s done it can be a thoroughly manipulative behavior. It’s a predatory and selfish behavior in any case.

And this:

WASHINGTON ― Capitol Police briefed Democrats on Monday night about three more potentially gruesome demonstrations planned in the coming days, with one plot to encircle the U.S. Capitol and assassinate Democrats and some Republicans.

On a private call Monday night, new leaders of the Capitol Police told House Democrats they were closely monitoring three separate plans that could pose serious threats to members of Congress as Washington prepares for Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration on Jan. 20.

The first is a demonstration billed as the “largest armed protest ever to take place on American soil.”

Another is a protest in honor of Ashli Babbitt, the woman killed while trying to climb into the Speaker’s Lobby during Wednesday’s pro-Trump siege of the Capitol.

And another demonstration, which three members said was by far the most concerning plot, would involve insurrectionists forming a perimeter around the Capitol, the White House and the Supreme Court, and then blocking Democrats from entering the Capitol ― perhaps even killing them ― so that Republicans could take control of the government”.

@20

No. Trump does not want to run in 2024, for good reasons. But he wants everyone to believe that he wants to run. The Democrats also want people to believe he will run for obvious political reasons. But there are many reasons to think that Trump’s (inferred) ‘plans’ to run are not real.

‘Essentially, at this point, Trump appears just as interested in people talking about a Trump 2024 campaign as he is in actually launching a real campaign….

Formally running for president would mean a lot of things aides say Trump doesn’t want to deal with: financial disclosure forms, building campaign infrastructure, the possibility of losing again. But simply teasing a presidential run — without actually filing the paperwork or erecting a campaign — gets Trump the attention he needs for the next two years.

Attention will help sustain his business, parts of which lost millions of dollars while he was in office. Attention will help pay off his debts, which will need to be paid off in the coming years. Attention will help discredit his investigators, who are examining whether Trump illegally inflated his assets.’

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/14/trump-2024-possible-run-444460
After the farce a few days ago Trump’s serious 2024 political plans are simply dead. But the corporate media, who made a fortune from promoting Trump, and then pretending to oppose him, on spurious grounds, will ‘big up’ his options, partly because they love playing the game with him, partly because he raises newspaper sales, partly because it helps the Democrats, and partly because they are deeply cynical silly people who find the idea of American ‘democracy’ amusing. The Democrats will also pretend that Trump might have a chance in 2024 for their own completely cynical reasons, which you can probably guess at.

But while it’s not completely impossible that Trump might throw his hat into the ring, or run as an Independent, the chances of him becoming the Republican candidate are zero and his chances of winning in 2024 are literally zero (for a start, Trump is an old fat man. Not to put too fine a point on it, he may be dead by then or otherwise incapacitated).

And Democrats know this, which shows the brazen cynicism of their fake ‘impeachment’ effort.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/14/trump-2024-possible-run-444460

and I don’t know how many writers or commenters for Twitter or Facebook are on this blog?

BUT if you are a writer for Twitter and Facebook and your ”Bosses” decide to fire YOU –
(for writing violent or crazy stuff) you always can publish your own ”Patreon Pages” or go to ”substack” – where you even earn money – just by keeping it ”civil”.

So much to the GREAT Freedom of FREE SPEECH.

nastywoman: I don’t remember where you are based, but maybe you have some knowledge (or maybe some other reader) about the following subject. I’ve read that Germany has a very different approach to censorship than the US does. Germany views some forms of speech as inherently opposed to democracy, and they prohibit that speech. So for instance, Nazi speech and symbols of all kinds are outlawed. This has led (amusingly, in the laugh-because-otherwise-you’ll-cry sense) to neo-Nazis adopting Confederate (as in US Civil War) symbols, and (so I hear) now Trumpist symbols. They aren’t stupid, b/c the Confederates were proto-Fascist in many ways, I guess

Anyway, I’m curious what sort of discussion happens about this approach to censoring dangerous speech. I don’t know enough about Germany’s approach to these things, but it seems like it has some very strong points in its favor. I mean, what we’re doing in the US is manifestly failing.

BTW, I’ve also read about the German economic policy of “ordoliberalism” which I didn’t understand too well, but seemed a very interesting way to run an economy. Wish I could find more introductory texts about that, too.

Lordy, once Mutti Merkel retires, I’d so love it if she’d come to America and run our de-Trumpification commission.

nastywoman,
while I agree completely with Fr. Dr. Merkel, I think this is the least of the troubling aspects of the US legal system. The whole thing really needs a complete rework, starting with finding a way to make the referees neutral rather than partisan.

Hidari @ 7: I want all readers to read this comment carefully.

What makes you think that would be a good way for me to use my time?

Social media banned Trump & friends probably at the strong suggestion of FBI or DHS alarmed at the threat spike.

Counterinsurgency 101: Disrupt their lines of communication.

Anyone showing up at these next demonstrations will be photographed & run through facial recognition.

Anyone wearing a “vanilla ISIS burka” will be followed back to their trucks, so cops can write down the license plates.

Hi John, sorry for double posting but the comment form behaves strangely; hope something came thtrough to you. Thanks for trying to keep CT worrthwhile reading and debating, currently you are a lone fighter ;-)

#7 – Hidari has the … uh … right of it.

Remember how we all thought Harry Reid’s removal of the filibuster for judicial appointees was a good thing?

Well, when the R’s got back in power they used THAT to you-know-who’s benefit.

It is a mistake to conclude that the 2020 election results were a sound thumping forever more of ‘Republicanism’. Don’t forget we D’s LOST seats in The House.

No.

The election was a strong repudiation of Teh Donald.

Just let him go. And let President Biden get on with HEALING the country. Some of the R’s I know – I never unfriended anyone over policy disagreements – voted against the OrangeMan. They will readily switch back to a ‘normal’ R candidate if President Biden ( notice how much I like typing that ) is seen to be vindictive.

We waited 4 long years for Inauguration Day 2021. Waiting 8 more DAYS shouldn’t be that hard. Just binge watch something for Pete’s sake.

Of course, as always, YMMV :-}

Notgoodenough—

I think Trump should be impeached and forbidden from ever holding office for inciting the violence on January 6. As horrible as our political culture is, Trump has made it worse.

And I have no problem including Great Britain among the countries that don’t take war crimes seriously. Obviously Blair should be in prison.

Most of your post just struck me as an example of what is wrong with our political culture. We don’t punish people for committing some of the worst crimes imaginable, so bringing it up when people are bloviating about the rule of law is “ whataboutery”. Guilty as charged. I consider “ whataboutery neither good nor bad in itself. It depends on the circumstances.

However, since in this case I completely agree that Trump should have the book thrown at him for his attempts to undermine the election, your charge doesn’t really work in my case.

Hidari might differ. He can speak for himself.

Donald @ 40

”However, since in this case I completely agree that Trump should have the book thrown at him for his attempts to undermine the election, your charge doesn’t really work in my case.”

If you are not engaging in whataboutary then my comments regarding whataboutary don’t apply to you, do they?

”I think Trump should be impeached and forbidden from ever holding office for inciting the violence on January 6. As horrible as our political culture is, Trump has made it worse.”

I am not an expert, and so would not posit exactly what consequences Trump should face, but this seems a reasonable statement to me.

”And I have no problem including Great Britain among the countries that don’t take war crimes seriously. Obviously Blair should be in prison.”

If you read the posts carefully, you will see that “someone” suggested that because Country X has not taken war crimes seriously, literally every single “educated middle class” person in that country supports (or, at the least, is indifferent to) war crimes. My point was that this is a bit of an overgeneralisation.

And, as someone who spent about over a decade involved in protesting various “military adventures”, anyone suggesting I approve of – or at the least am indifferent to – war crimes may, if I can be so bold, feel free to take a long walk off a short pier. Yourself included, should you fall into that category.

”Most of your post just struck me as an example of what is wrong with our political culture.”

Then you credit me with far more significance than I have.

”We don’t punish people for committing some of the worst crimes imaginable, so bringing it up when people are bloviating about the rule of law is “ whataboutery”. Guilty as charged. I consider “ whataboutery neither good nor bad in itself. It depends on the circumstances.”

I said “the arguments regarding US foreign policy crimes smacks a little of whataboutary”. Had I levelled a charge at you, I would have said something like “Donald is guilty of whataboutary” – the fact that I didn’t say that would indicate I didn’t level a charge at you.

Personally, as I repeatedly said in my previous comment, I would like to see people face consequences appropriate to their actions (you insistence on using the word “punish” is interesting, but perhaps a digression). That is a general principle, not limited solely to the US rioters.

But, as you appear to have missed my point entirely, I will try to make it a little clearer to you. Bringing up war crimes is not whataboutery. Bringing up war crimes in a discussion only tangentially related (via the rule of law) is not necessarily whataboutary. Bringing up war crimes as an example of something we should all focus on to the exclusion of considering recent events in the US capital (and the subsequent likely events in US politics, the actual topic of the thread if you recall) would be.

I have no issues with people discussing the importance of considering war crimes – but I would note that we have an open thread for discussions which are tangential to the topic of the main thread. This was instigated recently to prevent threads from being derailed. I have been guilty of this behaviour before – and by commenting here, rather than in the January 6 thread, I was trying to avoid doing so again (the effort is minimal, the points can be made, and threads may continue more smoothly).

On this open thread you are free to offer your insights into how exactly we will achieve such lofty goals as holding powerful people accountable for their actions (I genuinely welcome hearing practical suggestions and well-considered insights). I look forward to you doing so, and outlining your plan of action. After all, if you are insisting that we need to focus the discussion on war crimes, then you surely have something new and significant to add (something which I haven’t already been made aware of during the last 18 years or so that I have been marching, writing letters, phoning my MP, etc. etc. etc.).

Here is your platform – I lend you my ears. I look forward to you offering your thoughts.

Final remarks

I have, many times, tolerated people implying that if I don’t prioritise the things they prioritise, when they want them prioritised, then I don’t care enough about whatever the thing they prioritise is. I am, I freely admit, a little bit tired of it. As someone who has been an activist in many areas for a while, I tend to believe a good approach is to do what you can when and where you can. If I am not focussed on what you are focussed on right now, it does not mean I am neglectful of the topic – it means I am prioritising things in accordance with what impacts I am able to make, and using the time and energy I have to make a difference where I can. I would recommend you read up on spoon theory to get an idea of where I am coming from, but frankly I really can’t be bothered educating someone in activism 101.

To put it simply, holding the US rioters (and those who are responsible for instigation, aiding, abetting, etc.) accountable for their actions is something which should be done. Holding people who have abused positions of power with respect to foreign policy is something which should be done. These are not mutually exclusive – but one is, I suspect, a more long-term project than the other. If we are not able to hold people who have abused positions of power with respect to foreign policy fully accountable, I don’t think the best solution is to then ignore or downplay the actions of the US rioters (as some have been doing).

As I said previously:

“if one truly cares about people facing consequences for their actions (wrt. foreign policy), I am unconvinced the best way to address this is to argue that it is unimportant that people face consequences for their actions (wrt. inciting and engaging in riots).”

If you wish to call that “bloviating about the rule of law”, you may do so. I would disagree, but you’ve made it quite clear how little you value anything I have to say (which is, of course, your prerogative).

I will note much of your post strikes me as illustrating many of the issues with discourse in general. Rather than asking me any of my positions, you appear to have made many assumptions about what I believe and prioritise. I’m afraid I have little interest in interacting with people who exhibit such behaviour, and will probably not bother responding to you again.

@28
I’m currently based on a BEAUTIFUL Lake in the middle of European – which borders 4 countries and very much hope to be able to go back to teh US homeland -(or London) soon again –
and –
Yes!-
Germany has a very different approach to – what I wouldn’t call ”censorship” – of inciting hate or violence.

It’s just NOT tolerated by the government and get’s punished –
just like it is NOT tolerated and get’s punished if you start to beat somebody else up in a bar or even outside on the street.

And that’s because – somehow these Germans had learned how easy it is to incite violence – with words.
And that’s why Nazi speech and symbols are outlawed.
And that’s why this has led ”(amusingly, in the laugh-because-otherwise-you’ll-cry sense) to neo-Nazis adopting Confederate (as in US Civil War) symbols, and (so I hear) now Trumpist symbols”.
AND that’s why Trump was not only THE Candidate of US Racist Science Denying Right Wingers BUT also of (nearly) every German Neo-Nazi!
(with the exception of the very nationalistic German Neo-Nazis who prioritise an immense hate for Americans – and everything ”American’)

And about the German economic policy of “ordoliberalism” –
or preference for any type of ”order” is just a general… let’s call it – ”cultural” expression of what my American mom always told me:

Why don’t you get a f… grip on this chaos.

AND I HAVE
to respond to:
”Anyway! I’m bowing out of these threads now as I detect a distinct lack of enthusiasm of my fact-based objections to the media created narrative. But please remember three little aphorisms for you all to reflect upon”.

Not SOOO fast – as each one of these little aphorisms are as ”trump” as calling a ”insurrection” a ”farce”.
As the truth is:
1: Those who know Trump best fear him most. Those who know Trump least fear him like a Hidari.

2: to use (kind of) an anti-fascistic Martin Niemöller ”Zitat” for (kind of) defending fascistic speech – is… is so… revolting that I will… I really would like to… to pie Hidari.

3: The Right-Wing media is not your friend.
while die NYT – die Zeit und der Guardian very much is…

I don’t quite understand the meme that claims Trump to be lazy (even Erik Loomis at LGM took that line. I seriously would like to know by what metric that laziness has been determined.

I’m only guessing here, but I’m guessing that the metric being used is not ‘magnitude of effects produced’ but ‘time devoted to actually doing the job’.

Yes he did a lot of golfing, and he also nearly destroyed American democarcy, and nearly gutted the regulatory state, and nearly transfigured the federal judiciary.

With a minimum of effort invested! Some might call that laziness and some might call it efficiency.

@49

Yes I know that I said I was heading off, but just to clarify: @49.
I didn’t say that Trump won’t get impeached (i.e. by Congress) although it’s unlikely. I think that Trump won’t get impeached and removed from office by the Senate because there is just not enough time. Please remember that the weekend is a holiday, and Biden becomes President on the 20th, middday. Trump won’t be in office on the 20th, he plans to be in Scotland. So removing him from office on the 20th will be a completely meaningless exercise as he won’t even be there. So the Democrats have, essentially, 4 (maybe 5 at a push) days to push through a process that normally takes weeks or months.

Whatever McConnell’s personal feelings (and despite the hysteria of the media, over recent ‘leaks’ from McConnell, it is not actually a surprise that McConnell dislikes Trump) he has already written to the Democrats stating that it is essentially impossible for the Senate to sit and remove Trump from office in the time scale necessary.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-says-impeachment-trial-wont-happen-before-inauguration-2021-1?r=US&IR=T

Incidentally, there is an ‘urban myth’ going around that if Trump is impeached and removed from office then he can’t run for President again. He can (although he almost certainly won’t). That would take a separate legal action.

and as Hidari just won’t let go:
removing Trump from office or actually just impeaching him for the second time will NOT be ”a completely meaningless exercise” – as it teaches ”trumpers” that they are actually hold accountable – and can’t play the American people for fools anymore.

”it teaches ”trumpers” that they are actually hold accountable – and can’t play the American people for fools anymore”.

and so WE finally won!

And do y’all know that I – WE play ”this type of Internet game” since a very, very long time – ever since Glenn Greenwald and US togethA defeated Hillary in her efforts to defeat Obama –

But THEN – tragically my friend Glenn fell out of LOVE with Obama – and like one of my dissapoited Lovers accused Obama to be just like Bush.
And then – somehow – more and more readers on the Internet thought that Obama was just like Bush until the Utmost STUPID couldn’t differentiate between any politicians anymore and every US was ”alike” and Trump was just like Bernie – just because both of them – supposedly – were ”anti-mainstream –
AND THEN!! –
even commenters on a pretty sophisticated blog like CT sounded so much like Glenn Greenwald – that our Plagiarism Software thought Glenn Greenwald was/is posting here?

And is it YOU… Glenn – Hidari?
or are you just one the many followers of a silly narrative – who might be one of the utmost STUPID ”narratives” which brought US ”trump” in the first place?

AND perhaps you guys don’t know – that with the help of some international Communication Design Students there was this ”Experiment” on the Internet in the last year.
From Germany.

From Expats – who didn’t want
AGAIN –
giving so much credit to Russian Gamers for… ”erecting” the US President.

And so they flooded the Internet with thousands and thousand of posts too –
BUT with ”anti-trump” post – trying to follow trumps advice to DOMINATE!

And as they thought that TI was one of the… centers – for the very destructive ”and Whatabout Obama” -(or Hillary? – or ”them bad, bad Democrats) – they totally – absolutely DOMINATED the comment section of TI – in order to – DESTROY the
”now to something completely different”…

Hidari-

I didn’t say that Trump won’t get impeached (i.e. by Congress) although it’s unlikely.

Trump’s just been impeached. Again.

Maybe you should back off commenting on politics for awhile and take some time to hone your analytic skills.

I think it starts with ordinary people rejecting the implied hierarchy of what we are supposed to care about. We are supposed to care about corruption and whether or not Trump colluded with Russia in 2016 and whether he incited the riot in the Capitol, but complicity in genocide is more in the category of a bad policy choice.

People don’t suppose what you suppose they do. It is of course possible to reject something that doesn’t actually exist, but it is slightly more complicated than rejecting something which does actually exist.

Step 1 is that we get everyone to agree that genocide is really bad.

People already agree that genocide is really bad. You’d be hard pressed to find people who disagree.

Step 2–. One then points out that for no good reason we supported the Saudi war in Yemen.

That has already been pointed out.

Step 3. Point out that we hold people accountable for vastly lesser crimes.

That, too, has already been pointed out.

Step 4. Wait for the implications to sink in….

Are you allowed to do anything else while you’re waiting?

Hidari@52:

Article I, section 3, clause 7:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Disqualification is not a separate legal action. It’s not a mandatory penalty in cases of impeachment, but it absolutely is the same legal action. You’re just as correct about this as you were about the likelihood of Trump being impeached by the House (not the Congress, the House) again. You’re really making it look like you should stick to commenting on UK political processes.

I fail to see why some commentators here do not just allow that the fact that the titular head of the USA urged–that’s as weak a word as necessary–his followers to march on the capitol the very day his successor was to be formally and finally elected, which thus resulted in a militaristic action against Constitutional process, is sufficient to declare him an insurrectionist. He’s now number one on the list of worst US presidents by a long shot. Just let the facts talk as countless videos attest. Gawd how I hate the diversion of tu quoque and the endless list of non sequiturs. Trump is an incompetent would-be dictator who had no clue as to how he could ultimately exhibit the paradox of self-hubris.

@62
Take it up with Chuck Schumer who evidently disagrees with you (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/donald-trump-second-impeachment-key-takeaways)

According to Mitch McConnell: ‘ “Given the rules, procedures, and Senate precedents that govern presidential impeachment trials, there is simply no chance that a fair or serious trial could conclude before President-elect Biden is sworn in next week.”‘ (by ‘conclude’ he means ‘take place in its entirety’. In other words, his understanding is, it’s impossible to remove Trump from office before his term expires).

It’s worthwhile pointing out that he is not saying this because he loves Trump: he obviously doesn’t. He is simply stating the fact that, according to his understanding of the Constitution,and the procedures that govern the Senate, it is literally impossible for this to happen (he would probably quite like to impeach Trump and remove him from office, but his hands are tied, in other words).

As for impeachment and removal of Trump from office after Trump has left office, well, your guess is as good as mine. It’s like murdering someone after they’re dead. It’s never been done before, it’s a deeply weird thing to do, and it’s not at all clear it’s even possible or that it even makes sense.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics/mcconnell-democrats-impeachment-trial-trump/index.html

And now, I really am off.

celebrating the heroes of the insurrection –

https://youtu.be/nz-zWeqtVo8

Chetan 28: “I don’t know enough about Germany’s approach to these things, but it seems like it has some very strong points in its favor. I mean, what we’re doing in the US is manifestly failing.”

Ianal but I think it is wrong to assume (although it is often claimed) that US law has no remedy against freedom of speech abuses. Incitement to violence and a forteriori incitement to terrorist acts can be and are frequently prosecuted, just not or rarely in the context of White Supremacist violence (I wonder why that is the case?). Defamation and libel can be prosecuted. Lying to judges can be prosecuted. The issue is really that Trumpist, White Supremacist criminals have been treated with kids gloves for so long. That tweet in which Sidney Powell called for the execution of the Vice President? If that had been a muslim or antifa or environmentalist activist, that person would have promptly gotten a knock on the door. Why doesn’t it even occur to any journos to ask why Powell wasn’t prosecuted?

The company Dominion, after having been defamed for weeks in the worst way imaginable, finally sued some of the parties that had defamed them. These are civil suits but the law is so clearly on theor side they should be able to crush all those defendants. Why weren’t these suits filed earlier, and shouldn’t they have been able to get some sort of restraining orders against the perpetrators (some media outlets did in fact have to walk back their defamation)? Aren’t there even criminal remedies for willful and repeated defamation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law)? I don’t know enough about these last questions, perhaps somebody with more legal background can help answer them, but very clearly there are remedies under US law that could and should have been pursued much earlier and much more forcefully.

As to the German legal approach: In these discussions about freedom of speech abuses, at issue is often the law against Volksverhetzung (§130 StGB), meaning hate speech against specific racial, ethnic or religious groups. I don’t think that was applicable in the context of the coup attempt. More relevant are the following lesser known statutes:
§105 Coercion of constitutional organs
§107 Disruption of electoral process
§111 Public incitement to commit offences
§126 Disturbing public peace by threatening to commit offences
§140 Rewarding and approval of offences

Full English text: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/

For example under §107, an attempt to disrupt the determination of an election result by threat of force can be prosecuted. A threat of force is enough. Same under §105. All of the offences above involve threats or other acts of speech specifically aimed at disturbing the peace. They do not criminalize mere opinions or even lies.

Comments or corrections welcome.

Since John’s Brexit thread has closed, some more pushback on his contention that “the Poles won’t go away”:
https://amp.ft.com/content/def33cfe-45c7-4323-bd08-d4fc42051f09

According to Mitch McConnell: ‘ “Given the rules, procedures, and Senate precedents that govern presidential impeachment trials, there is simply no chance that a fair or serious trial could conclude before President-elect Biden is sworn in next week.”‘ (by ‘conclude’ he means ‘take place in its entirety’. In other words, his understanding is, it’s impossible to remove Trump from office before his term expires).

Hey everybody, this is your big chance to sell Hidari the Brooklyn Bridge! I myself have sent him a letter offering to share a $200m bank account with you, that was once owned by the wife of Mobotu Sese Seko. He believes this tripe.

Gaslighter.

and so –
I read somewhere:

It started with ”Pussy” -(grabbing)
AND
– it ended with ”Pussy” (Pence)

Oh – for the FT article, if yo google the appropriate headline you should be able to access that way (at least that works for me).

e.g. googling “UK workers’ rights at risk in plans to rip up EU labour market rules” and clicking on the ft.com link (for me the first one) took me to the unrestricted article. I hope this works for anyone else interested in reading this.

Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. – Karl Marx</block quote>

On seeing the farcical elements of the recent attempted overthrow of the US government, I wondered if all revolutions are as dumb as that. The above quote by Marx is well known, but it’s context is often forgotten. The key role of idiots as the revolutionary class is sometimes overlooked in Marxist theory, despite there being discussion of it Marx’s works…

Here is an obvious suggestion, but since I am not a lawyer someone else would need to flash out the details.

We should prosecute Trump, Pompeo and probably others for complicity in war crimes. Suppose some country X gave arms and logistical support to country Y as they engaged in a bombing campaign against civilian American targets. I am sure that if we could capture the leader of country X we would find some law we could use to prosecute him. Human rights organizations have lawyers on staff, so they can probably dig up the appropriate statute.

I think it would be interesting to see what would happen. I think people in DC would immediately reject it, knowing that it would set a precedent they would not like. All the more reason to do it.

I shouldn’t need to point out that steps 1-4 were just another way to point out the moral insanity of our culture.

You introduced them as your response to notgoodenough’s request for a statement of your plan. You didn’t introduce them as your response to notgoodenough’s request for another way to point out the moral insanity of your culture, presumably because notgoodenough made no such request. Was it my mistake to suppose that what you wrote was what you meant?

Donald

Originally I considered a longer response, but to try something more targeted to your inclinations (I hope less than 500 words is sufficiently brief for you) I will hit some points quickly:

1) @ 59, again you make a lot of assumptions with your various “we are supposed” statements. None of those are true for me, nor are they – as far as I am aware – true to any great extent for the majority of CT bloggers. Your remarks seem to be, to try to put it mildly, rather poorly directed.

2) I don’t care if your plans satisfy me or not (I am hardly of any great significance). What would matter is if they are likely to achieve the intended goals. You may wish to consider, for example, the numerous attempts to hold the architects of the “war on terror” accountable – to the best of my knowledge, few (if any) of these people have faced any noticeable consequences. This would seem to suggest that while “we should hold the powerful accountable” is a worthy sentiment, the trick is finding a way to actually do so. Given this has been an ongoing project for numerous organisations and people for many, many years, I don’t believe the lack of success has been from lack of trying.

3) “But it would be better if people started noticing that we treat foreign lives that we snuff out as though they didn’t really matter that much.”

Many people (myself included) have already noticed this (for, you know, several decades). Indeed, much electronic ink on CT has been spilled on this subject already, covering a wide range of different angles (not only the effects of various “wars”, but also climate change, hostile immigration policies, political targeting of vulnerable minorities, etc. etc. etc.). This is particularly true in the case of the CT Contributors – many of whom regularly address these topics (sometimes directly, sometimes tangentially).

If you wish to spend time making people notice this issue, I am unconvinced that the best approach is to target an audience which has already noticed – particularly one which includes many people already fighting against the problems you are trying to raise awareness of. The phrase “preaching to the choir” springs to mind – which, while not necessarily a bad thing in itself, can be derailing (particularly when promulgated as an alternative discussion which should take priority – rather my initial point).

Final remarks

You are welcome to do as you wish (within the framework of CT’s fairly relaxed commenting rules). Certainly I wish you good luck in your attempt to address this important topic (to be clear, as you seem to have problems making this distinction, this isn’t snark – I genuinely hope you achieve something positive).

But since further discussion seems unlikely to be fruitful I see little reason for me to continue – particularly, as previously noted, given your habit of presupposing people’s positions (something which I personally have never found conducive to achieving anything substantial).

CHETAN R MURTHY@45:
For a long time I thought Hidari was just a serious “class-not-race” leftist. It was only recently that he came out so …. openly as a Trumpist.

I missed this comment, but it feels worth circling back to. As both you and I have pointed out, Hidari is conducting themself in sterling bad faith in this thread, but I can’t see this as Trumpism. It’s a particular sort of “anti-anti-Trumpism” as some call it. It’s the brain worm infecting the generally-intelligent and thoughtful frontpagers at Naked Capitalism, for instance, orthe very-deep-down-this-rabbit-hole Glen Greenwald. It’s “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” as a lifestyle brand. I tend to shorthand it as “neo-tankie”, not least since it typically includes a blind eye (or even open praise) of the likes of Putin and Assad, up to and including aggressive and blatantly false apologetics for war crimes.

If the neo-liberal establishment – particularly the center-right portion of it embodied in the Democratic Party, who is already the Near Enemy in domestic politics – is against someone, they can’t be all bad – and the more vitriolically the centrist establishment that supports the (admittedly unjust and often murderous) “polite” international political order is opposed to someone, the more worthy of consideration that hated figure must be. Trump has been a lightning rod for 4y, and centrist liberal opinion of him managed to eclipse even his actual horrific record. It’s entirely unsurprising that people with a Manichean view of politics like these neo-tankies will end up defending Trump – he opposes and outrages their enemies, and while they don’t agree with his worldviews, he appeared on the political stage after they had divided the world into good and evil, and was opposed by the groups they had deemed evil. Ergo, you see them repeating thought terminating cliches like the tedious “orange man bad” to keep themself and people around them from looking too closely at what he’s actually doing.

Writing the above makes me feel like it’s high time I re-read my Debord.

Orange Watch @ 88:

It’s entirely unsurprising that people with a Manichean view of politics like these neo-tankies will end up defending Trump – he opposes and outrages their enemies

I’m not a political scientist, but I’ve read about this thing called Duverger’s Law, and it’s quite convincing. It sure seems that “Manichaean view” is a highfalutin’ way of saying “infantile”. To wit: Saying “I will support the enemy of my enemy” seems to imply that one believes in “heighten the contradictions”. That seems to have worked out really well [narrator: actually, it hasn’t]. Heh. I read once that the point at which revolutions happen is not when the people are most downtrodden, b/c at that point, they’re just trying to survive; rather, it’s when they’re starting to recover, b/c they they have hope.

What a buncha dopes.

CM@89:

Motivations DO matter, though. Useful idiots are not as dangerous as true believers – they support and amplify the actions of bad actors, but they don’t actively promote the same values. If the bad actor can be marginalized, they’ll cease to encourage the bad actor’s agenda. The bad actor and their true believers, OTOH, will continue to promote those values and seek to bring them back into prominence. In a moment of crisis or when the bad actor is at the height of power, one type of supporter will generally be as bad as another – a boot on your neck is a boot on your neck regardless of the motivations of the person putting it there – but there is value in making a distinction between fellow travelers and mere useful idiots. One is a lot more redeemable than the other.