Impeachment Thread: Round 2

[72gmc]

BBB, I think impeachment only works if everyone involved shares some level of respect for the institution of government and its ideals. If enough people don't care, then there is no such thing as an impeachable offense.

[jclay]

I can't find a whole lot wrong with this analysis; oh, a little hyperbolic here and there, maybe (and history will have the final word on it), but the author pretty much nails the essence of our situation: https://eand.co/america-is-now-a-cou...m-e758e9b5a598

[bironi]

I think this was a very concise summary of the impeachment trial.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...ault-on-reason

[bigbill]

I saw one video within hours or days of the incident that wasn't entirely clear, but appeared to show police actively removing barriers from the invaders' way. I didn't look for corroborating sources, though, so for all I know it was a trick of camera angle or even manufactured footage.

Regardless (and maybe I've missed this discussed on Vsalon already), anybody have insight on comparing Jan. 6th Capitol security presence with presence during time of other Capitol protests, such as during BLM protests, for instance? What little I've seen suggests a deliberately weak security force that day, though I don't recall what I've read of who was responsible for that.

Not sure what you're actually asking. For the barriers, I don't blame police for moving them. Those barriers are like velvet ropes in a movie theater, meant to keep peaceful folks from entering an area, but not really a physical barrier. If a group of protestors rushed a portable barrier that was in place, folks would get trampled. The police outside were being public safety officers, they were never meant to stop a mob. Whether intentional or not, the question would revolve around escalation. Do you want police defending barriers with deadly force or do you want them to ensure the safety of the public?

[colker]

Not sure what you're actually asking. For the barriers, I don't blame police for moving them. Those barriers are like velvet ropes in a movie theater, meant to keep peaceful folks from entering an area, but not really a physical barrier. If a group of protestors rushed a portable barrier that was in place, folks would get trampled. The police outside were being public safety officers, they were never meant to stop a mob. Whether intentional or not, the question would revolve around escalation. Do you want police defending barriers with deadly force or do you want them to ensure the safety of the public?

.. they were also defending the integrity of Capitol space but then there should be something stronger than those barriers; if everyone should believe the POTUS was inciting the invasion of the place (and he did so)

[davids]

And this is probably the first time the following comments have been aired on the MSM networks

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/sta...09680204046340

I just keep coming back to this post, to the video and to bdaghisallo's comment.

If you haven't seen the whole clip, of the former President saying there were very fine people on both sides of the Charlottesville riots, go ahead and watch it. Yes you will see that after the President of the United States drew a moral equivalence between the marchers who chanted "Jews will not replace us" and the counter-protesters, he did push on down the slippery slope, asking if once we get rid of statues of General Lee we will also get rid of statues of Presidents Washington and Jefferson, who owned slaves.

There are many things I could point out about this particular 'whataboutism' argument. Let me just highlight a handful:

• Robert E. Lee was not only a slaveholder. He was a traitor to the United States who lead an actual army of insurrection against the United States.
• Robert E. Lee was seized upon as a hero and exemplar by the reactionary White racists who pushed back against the Reconstruction era attempts to integrate Black Americans into the USA's political and economic society. If you don't know by now, the statues of these Confederate leaders (again, traitors who waged a war against the United States) were placed around our country in the early 1900s. They are signifiers of White Supremacy, placed in prominent public places by White Supremacists to send a clear message.
• The Daughters of the Confederacy were not placing statues of Washington and Jefferson around the South.
• The Charlottesville marchers were racist White Supremacists. And also antisemites. The "Jews will not replace us" chant refers to a particular lie, that states we're engineering the social changes that are resulting in "interbreeding" and miscegenation. And that we are using these "lower races" for our own ends. It is utterly wacko bullshit. President Trump, any comments on this slander of your favorite daughter and her husband? No?
• Finally there's bdaghisallo's own comment: Trump's longer answer never aired through mainstream media outlets? Uh no. A superficially casual comment, but behind it is (1) a suggestion that some cabal is out for the President, misrepresenting his position, and (2) a lie. I have seen the whole answer, and I promise you that my only sources for news are mainstream.

I wish we shared the same set of facts. I wish we could see that there are people who love their country and express that love in a willingness - even an enthusiasm! - to look at where we've failed. I am a patriot. I want the courage and clarity to face my preconceptions and biases, to look at history clearly, and to listen to those who this great nation has failed. I want the United States to become a more perfect union damn it.



Then there's the impeachment. I think it's important to remember that this was not a court case, and the standards of our justice system don't apply. It is this strange half-legal, half-political thing. So while I am disappointed that so many Republicans are still in fear and/or thrall to the former President, I am not surprised. The case presented by the House managers was compelling and, from my perspective, totally obvious. It may or may not have been sufficient for a conviction in a court of law. Similarly, the argument that the Senate couldn't impeach a former official made no sense to me from a legal perspective. So what this guy said:

you lot are awfully optimistic. This IS political theater, non in the sense that it isn't deserved and necessary, because it clearly is, but I think we all know the outcome. The votes have already been cast and he'll be acquitted again. There is no amount of evidence that will convince enough republicans to convict because they don't serve justice, the people or even the law. We saw that the first time around.

I pray that, over time, the former President's actions - through much of 2020 - will be recognized as the long-term attempt to subvert a free & fair election and seize power as an unelected autocrat. I hope that his enablers will lose at the ballot box, and soon. But given the anti-democratic efforts already underway (hello Pennsylvania!) this is clearly not going to happen on its own.

[bigbill]

[*]Robert E. Lee was seized upon as a hero and exemplar by the reactionary White racists who pushed back against the Reconstruction era attempts to integrate Black Americans into the USA's political and economic society. If you don't know by now, the statues of these Confederate leaders (again, traitors who waged a war against the United States) were placed around our country in the early 1900s. They are signifiers of White Supremacy, placed in prominent public places by White Supremacists to send a clear message.[*]The Daughters of the Confederacy were not placing statues of Washington and Jefferson around the South.[*]The Charlottesville marchers were racist White Supremacists. And also antisemites. The "Jews will not replace us" chant refers to a particular lie, that states we're engineering the social changes that are resulting in "interbreeding" and miscegenation. And that we are using these "lower races" for our own ends. It is utterly wacko bullshit. President Trump, any comments on this slander of your favorite daughter and her husband? No?

I'm doing my edits so I can submit my thesis this weekend. I wrote this last night, "The symbols of the Confederacy, represented by statues of Lee, Davis, and Jackson; the symbols of African-Americans in the Jim Crow era, picture postcards depicting lynching."

[BBB]

BBB, I think impeachment only works if everyone involved shares some level of respect for the institution of government and its ideals. If enough people don't care, then there is no such thing as an impeachable offense.

Indeed. A point the Republicans proved nicely (save for the seven who voted to impeach).

[GrantM]

.. they were also defending the integrity of Capitol space but then there should be something stronger than those barriers; if everyone should believe the POTUS was inciting the invasion of the place (and he did so)

I think the whole problem was that no law enforcement operation understood that a mob was going to storm the capitol.

If they did, it wouldn't have been that hard to prevent it. Kind of like closing the cockpit doors on 9/11. But they there were open
because it wasn't perceived as a security issue before it happened. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

-g

[GrantM]

I think this was a very concise summary of the impeachment trial.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...ault-on-reason

Here's an even shorter version, looking in from the outside:
American President lies about national election results for 2 months for personal and Republican party benefit,
causing incalculable damage to the trust in election integrity and international reputation.
43 Senators are fine with that.

-g

[Saab2000]

I think the whole problem was that no law enforcement operation understood that a mob was going to storm the capitol.

If they did, it wouldn't have been that hard to prevent it. Kind of like closing the cockpit doors on 9/11. But they there were open
because it wasn't perceived as a security issue before it happened. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

-g

Indeed. Until relatively recently, as in within the lifetime of most people here, literally almost anyone could walk right into the US Capitol building, see the sights, sit in the gallery of the House of Representatives or the Senate. Today it is far more restrictive and that’s unfortunate because it is supposed to be a government of, by and for the people.

I guess we can’t have nice things anymore.

[takashi]

seems pertinent

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/16/u...sultPosition=4

"Concerns about extremism in police ranks have long existed, but after Sept. 11 chasing jihadists took priority over chasing domestic threats, senior police officials and law enforcement experts said."

also pertinent

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...nt/ar-BB18ICsb

[Caleb Evenson]

Not sure what you're actually asking. For the barriers, I don't blame police for moving them. Those barriers are like velvet ropes in a movie theater, meant to keep peaceful folks from entering an area, but not really a physical barrier. If a group of protestors rushed a portable barrier that was in place, folks would get trampled. The police outside were being public safety officers, they were never meant to stop a mob. Whether intentional or not, the question would revolve around escalation. Do you want police defending barriers with deadly force or do you want them to ensure the safety of the public?

If we're going to have police, I'd prefer police always ensuring public safety. I can get behind the idea of them removing barriers, knowing those barriers are ineffective, to prevent unwitting mob violence.

However, sorry I didn't ask such a pointed question. I will now: compared to images I've seen of Capitol police presence prepared for protests of different varieties, why was the police presence on Jan. 6th so anemic, despite the FBI warning throughout previous years that white supremacy groups were the greatest domestic threat to the US, and specifically that the Boogaloo movement last year had been plotting for civil race war, including a demonstration on all capitols weeks before Jan. 6th? To be more precise in my question, why was security so weak on Jan. 6th despite the many warnings for months prior that something like that could happen?

From there, circling back to the barriers...why even put them in place if you know they're ineffective and likely to cause public harm? Maybe the answer to that gets to whatever may answer my question above.

takashi's comment seems pertinent to my question, so thanks, takashi.

Edit: The reason my previous comment's question may not have been so clear is that I wasn't exactly asking this comment's questions, but instead was asking for other opinions on that comparison in an effort to challenge my own perspective.

[thollandpe]

I think the whole problem was that no law enforcement operation understood that a mob was going to storm the capitol.

If they did, it wouldn't have been that hard to prevent it. Kind of like closing the cockpit doors on 9/11. But they there were open
because it wasn't perceived as a security issue before it happened. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

Indeed. Until relatively recently, as in within the lifetime of most people here, literally almost anyone could walk right into the US Capitol building, see the sights, sit in the gallery of the House of Representatives or the Senate. Today it is far more restrictive and that’s unfortunate because it is supposed to be a government of, by and for the people.

I don't think that Black Lives Matter protesters could have simply walked into the Capitol on May 29, 2020. Remember how somebody was in the bunker? I think it's too early to make the call that they didn't perceive the threat. A key question is the one that Caleb asked:

Regardless (and maybe I've missed this discussed on Vsalon already), anybody have insight on comparing Jan. 6th Capitol security presence with presence during time of other Capitol protests, such as during BLM protests, for instance?

From the ProPublica article, "The interviews also revealed officers' concerns about disparities in the way the force prepared for Black Lives Matter demonstrations versus the pro-Trump protests on Jan. 6. Officers said the Capitol Police force usually plans intensively for protests, even if they are deemed unlikely to grow violent. Officers said they spent weeks working 12- or 16-hour days, poised to fight off a riot, after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police — even though intelligence suggested there was not much danger from protesters." Their intel said they had nothing to worry about, but their response was that they didn't trust the intel.

One of the Capitol Police officers, now retired, talking on the record about the insurrection on Jan. 6, "We normally have pretty good information regarding where these people are and how far they are from the Capitol. We heard nothing that day."

Another officer, a 15-year veteran of the force, said "It was business as usual. The main thing we were told was to be on the lookout for counterdemonstrators." That's not just bad intel, it's disinformation.

There was all sorts of chatter leading up to this siege. People were coming from all over, renting rooms. Designing and printing commemorative tee shirts.

Again, from the ProPublica article, "At 7 a.m. on Jan. 6, an officer on the department’s midnight shift finished work and got into his car near the Capitol. Already, swarms of people were walking past, waving Trump flags. He sat in the driver's seat for a minute, watching. He called up an old colleague and marveled at the crowd.

The officer was surprised his superiors were letting him off duty. During the Black Lives Matter protests last summer, the night shift had often been held over to help. But he hadn't heard anything from his bosses, so he drove home to the Maryland suburbs and went to sleep. When he woke up, he saw on television what was happening and sped back, following an unmarked police car that had its lights flashing."

There's a lot more to this. I'm guessing there's a reason why there was not only a much stronger presence for the Black Lives Matter protests, but also for the climate strike protests on Dec. 20, 2019. After all, these goons look a lot more threatening than Jane Fonda:

I for one hope they conduct, and publicly release, a detailed investigation. I hope there are additional videos from different angles for those videos that have already been released on media outlets. I saw some new footage and info on the attack while watching the impeachment proceedings, and it will be interesting to see more of the radio and dispatch/command orders too.

It's not clear to me now why some officers were fighting tooth and nail, and others let them past barricades. The Capitol Police aren't simply civilians who might decide, ah, we are outnumbered, let's let them go. That should take an order. It isn't the military, but it has to have similar standing orders for sentry and crown control. Their whole purpose is to protect the Capitol and the Congress.

I'd say it is too early to have anything definitive other than some basic timelines. I'm sure more will come out on any pre-planning, how attackers were transported, where they stayed, and how or who helped them know where to go once inside; not to mention the sharing of intelligence before, and communications before and during the attack, both intra-dept and inter-dept on the police side.

Jim gets it.

[BBB]

seems pertinent

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/16/u...sultPosition=4

"Concerns about extremism in police ranks have long existed, but after Sept. 11 chasing jihadists took priority over chasing domestic threats, senior police officials and law enforcement experts said."

The Sheriff in the first Rambo movie (Brian Dennehy)...he would have been marching for sure. Long hair offended this dude...imagine what a bunch of socialists trying to steal the election would have caused him to do? Make America Great and all that...

[Saab2000]

I don't think that Black Lives Matter protesters could have simply walked into the Capitol on May 29, 2020. Remember how somebody was in the bunker? I think it's too early to make the call that they didn't perceive the threat. A key question is the one that Caleb asked:

I’m mostly talking pre-9/11.

Things are different now obviously.

But as recently as my 20s I’ve walked into the Capitol building as a tourist to do the things I described. That’s no longer possible even pre-1/6/21.

[Corso]

43 Senators are fine with that.

-g

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...f_Bill_Clinton

Scroll to the bottom to see how the vote went along with each party's line.

You shouldn't be surprised when each group supports it's own. I can't see this changing for anyone anytime in the near future.

So by your logic, hundreds of elected Democrats were "ok" with Bill having an affair in the Whitehouse and lying about it?

Of course not. So try not to simplify the vote the Republicans made by saying they were "fine" with that.

[theflashunc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...f_Bill_Clinton

Scroll to the bottom to see how the vote went along with each party's line.

You shouldn't be surprised when each group supports it's own. I can't see this changing for anyone anytime in the near future.

So by your logic, hundreds of elected Democrats were "ok" with Bill having an affair in the Whitehouse and lying about it?

Of course not. So try not to simplify the vote the Republicans made by saying they were "fine" with that.

Context matters. The Clinton impeachment was the only thing Starr managed to find after his multi-year fishing expedition into Whitewater, but clearly didn't rise to the level of being worthy of removal from office.

Intern affair =\= fomenting insurrection. If this were Obama or Biden, guaranteed they'd be convicted.

[BBB]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...f_Bill_Clinton

Scroll to the bottom to see how the vote went along with each party's line.

You shouldn't be surprised when each group supports it's own. I can't see this changing for anyone anytime in the near future.

So by your logic, hundreds of elected Democrats were "ok" with Bill having an affair in the Whitehouse and lying about it?

Of course not. So try not to simplify the vote the Republicans made by saying they were "fine" with that.

No one died as a result of the "sexual relations" or the lie. And a democratic process was not on the line either.

[Corso]

No one died as a result of the "sexual relations" or the lie. And a democratic process was not on the line either.

That's not the point. Right or wrong, both sides stick by their side. It sucks, but that's how it is.