@melmystery that sounds fair. How can anyone protest so much if you don’t have skin in the game. I also agree that they cherry pick what they want. It’s exhausting. Trying to stay positive but it’s very hard.
@melmystery What a fantastic idea! How do we get that ‘out there’ to the powers that be?
@maggieci I was wondering why NRA is so powerful until I saw how much money those senators received from NRA. Until Mitt Romney returns his pot of NRA contribution -- $13M, nothing will change. On his website, there is not single word about the recent gun violence incidence. His silence speaks loudly.
@drolma Yes, the silence speaks volumes of where these lawmakers' priorities are. I seems inhuman to value gobs of money over lives, peace, and democracy, but that's what they do. I will start a prayer for all Congresspersons (and the judiciary) to not only enact laws in the best interests of all lives, but to be welcomed back to the loving fold, since we are all one interconnected creation.
The Jan. 6th Commission last night made a compelling case against Trump and his hoodlums. I hope all implicated in the insurrection reap the consequences for their treasonous actions and that justice is served. Healing prayers for the Capital Police.
Anyone have a feeling how these hearings will turn out? What will happen to Trump?
@gerald-paciello Not a particularly psychic post here, but I'll give you my thoughts. :-)
The evidence from the hearings will likely be handed over to the DOJ, which has been operating its own criminal investigation(s) into Jan 6. That should give those investigations a good boost, but we probably won't know anything about what the DOJ itself has or what it will do with it for at least another several months. There may be some charges brought against sitting members of Congress, but even if that happens, I'm not expecting much to happen with regard to those for the rest of this year.
Unfortunately, most of those in the House who will be shown to have been involved have extremely strong support from and are very much entrenched in their districts. There will be a lot of "sound and fury", but most of those members will likely be re-elected - probable exceptions are Boebert and Taylor-Greene in addition to Cawthorne, who has already been primaried out. Gaetz has his own issues to deal with which may force him to resign, and we should be seeing more about that before the end of the year, if not before the elections.
If Ginny Thomas is brought up in the hearings, that may spur calls for Clarence to resign, but I'm not sanguine about that actually happening. Impeachment of a SCOTUS justice is an option, but not one that will likely happen right now given the current composition of the Senate. If they refused to convict TFG, they're not going to convict a SCOTUS justice either unless the D's can hold onto the House and pull at least 2-3 more Senate seats. The information that comes out in these hearings and the fallout therefrom may seal the deal on that for the D's, especially in the House. In addition, the multiple mass shootings in the last month have already highlighted the lack of action - and in fact, open opposition to any action - on the part of R's in the Senate. That could well hurt them, but only if the D's press those issues hard between now and the election. There's also the issue of the impending Roe v. Wade decision being released next month, and I can almost guarantee that will have a major impact on some Senate races because the R's in the Senate refused to even allow discussion on a bill codifying Roe v Wade into law.
As for The Orange One, don't expect anything to happen on that front for at least several months, well after the election and likely into spring and summer of next year, assuming he lives that long. The DOJ will not even try to indict him for anything unless they have what they believe to be an absolutely ironclad case. Since the DOJ is only just now beginning to "openly" investigate those closest to TFG - because they have now had people from the middle rungs of the ladder plead guilty and turn on the ones above them (this has been the DOJ strategy all along, and it's working) - it will still take some time to put everything together in a way that will 1) get a valid indictment, and 2) stand up in court. As Teri Kanefield has said in the last few days, we may all "know he did it", but that's not admissible as evidence in court.
Overall, yes, this is very important, and yes it will have significant impacts going forward, but as with everything else in government and politics, I must counsel patience. We may not see any immediate effects, but things are very definitely moving under the surface. Remember that the election is only 5 months away, and this will all still be relatively fresh in the minds of voters.
This is one of the things I was talking about when I said that there are things moving under the surface (things we don't usually see or that don't get a lot of media attention):
The 1/6 Hearings....First I think the committee is doing a great job of laying out "the case" so far....but....
Will it matter if the most culpable actors have a pardon? Could that be why Garland "seems" so hesitant...because he's not sure IF TFG (and those closest to him) CAN be held accountable? Kusher said he was busy working on pardons and couldn't be bothered to hear the concerns of the legal team. Since it's never happened before it will most likely have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
If anyone else is watching the hearings I'd love to know your impressions.
@pegesus I mean no offense, but what in the world are you talking about? TFG didn't pardon those people when he was still in office; if he had, believe me, that would have been front page news two years ago. He is now no longer the President and therefore has no power to issue pardons to anyone for any reason.
Also, Garland is not "hesitant"; the DOJ is still investigating what is likely one of the most complex and far-reaching cases of collusion and conspiracy to stage a coup through attempting to commit election fraud, interfering in the official functions of government, inciting an attack on federal property, and threatening and endangering the lives of government officials among other things. This case involves dozens, if not hundreds, of people at all levels of the federal government, many of whom have already pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and/or are now actively assisting the DOJ investigators by turning on the higher echelons of the conspirators.
Even with the addition of the evidence the Jan 6 Committee will turn over to the DOJ at the conclusion of the hearings, it may well take at least several more months to compile, analyze, and process everything to distill it down to proper charges for an indictment. They're only going to get one shot at this, and they know it, so it has to be as perfect and ironclad as it can possibly be. Keep in mind the federal prosecutors have a 95%+ conviction rate, and you don't get that by acting prematurely or capriciously.
@tgraf66 Correct tgraf66… the DOJ never ever publicly admits investigations (with one devastating exception that I’m aware of) the DOJ is comprised of lawyers not politicians. Accountability is coming… but it takes time... Of course, TFG may play sick (or actually be sick) by the time Federal indictments and trials begin…
I think you are on the right track. When I watch the 1/6 hearing, I think it is less about convincing the American people (everyone is more or less pro or anti Trump at this point.) I think it is more a "trial balloon." Basically, release the majority of the evidence in the hearings and listen to what the Republicans say. Republicans will use the usual excuses ("the January 6 event wasn't a big deal," "the officers waved people in and the event was not violent," "the election was stolen and they had a right to protest," "blah, blah, blah, witch hunt, blah, blah!")
Basically, this is the opportunity to see what the Republican defenses are going to be, so that if and when the DOJ does decide to prosecute Trump, the DOJ will also be able to address the Republican defenses before trial (AKA-prove the event was a terroristic event, that Trump knew the election was not stolen, that officers didn't "wave people in", etc.)
Also, I think this might be a way to desensitive the American people. Remember, Trump used this method for years. Now, no matter what he does or says, the majority of people just kind of shrug their shoulders and think, "That's Trump." Now, I am not saying that people have accepted the behavior as normal and accept it. For those who hate Trump, they no longer get as shocked as they once have. As far as they (and I) are concerned, Trump is a crazy individual and nothing he says or does will distract us from the fact that he must never hold office ever again. To those who love him or tolerate him, they expect this behavior.
Now, for years Trump has screamed "witch hunt" and has said everyone is out to get him (the New York DAs, Georgia DA, the Democrats in general, the DOJ for Russia and everything else, etc.) He is like the boy who has cried wolf for so long that many people either (1) believes Trump deserves to be prosecuted or (2) loves Trump and believes that his enemies will prosecute him no matter what.
I hope and pray that someone, ANYONE, will charge Trump for something. And I think the DOJ is trying to get people used to the idea that Trump may very well be charged with something. In many ways, this is like the leak of the Roe v. Wade memorandum. Whoever leaked it early has caused a slow build-up of emotions in the American people. Women are preparing themselves for living in the hell that is red states. Marches and protests are being planned. Meanwhile, light workers are coming up with ways to help the women affected (arrange transportation to other states, companies coming out in support of women, etc.).
Now, the shock and anger of people when Roe v. Wade is overturned would be greater than if the leak had not occurred, but then people would have little time to adequately prepare for the onslaught. So when the event occurs, people will be angry but will have plans on how to fight back, versus the unorganized anger of a crazed mob.
By getting people used to the idea that Trump could be charged now, they are lessening the outrage for if and when it ultimately happens. So if indictments against Trump is announced, the DOJ and others will have plans to protect themselves. Also, with the January 6 prosecutions still going on, we can get some of the more dangerous people in jail so that when the indictment comes out, they can't help Trump again.
I hope and pray that someone does something and shows once and for all that no one is above the law. We know what Trump did. Now is the time for him to be held accountable.
I hope and pray that someone does something and shows once and for all that no one is above the law. We know what Trump did. Now is the time for him to be held accountable.
Yes, we do know what he did. Unfortunately - as I mentioned above - knowing it and proving it in court are two vastly different things.
@tgraf66 @freya @allyn @Pegesus. Since I'm old, I can speak from a past consequential hearing called Watergate. The hearings were much more laborious and drawn out, but, nevertheless, compelling. They were watched and by the time Nixon resigned, his approval polls had dropped below 30%. These hearings are "better television" and better organized. I think they will have an effect. They won't convince the Trumpiest of authoritarians, but more moderate Republicans and even more moderate Fox viewers may be moved. Neal Katyal, former Solicitor General of the U.S. who has argued cases before the Supreme Court and is now a regular contributor to MSNBC, said yesterday, "I am 100% convinced that the DOJ will indict. The evidence is simply too compelling for them to ignore it." Frankly, I'm hanging onto that.
@tgraf66 No offense taken and I appreciate the feedback.
It was my understanding that the pardon list is not public knowledge.(Although I am sure the committee knows who got pardons and hopefully will start naming names.) And...that that the receiver of the pardon can wait until they are charged with a federal crime to use it and has no expiration date.
People have been speculating as to why Mark Meadows seems to be getting away with not complying with the committee....and my own personal "guess" was that maybe he IS co-operating. But after hearing Kushner say how busy he was working on pardons...I thought maybe he's not worried because he has a "pocket pardon" and most likely Trump and family does too. It's not known if a president can pardon himself because it's never been tried before.
I also read that a federal pardon has no weight if one is charged with a state crime. Maybe that's why some people have their eye on Georgia?
@Allyn....did I misunderstand how pardons work?
Since I'm old, I can speak from a past consequential hearing called Watergate. The hearings were much more laborious and drawn out, but, nevertheless, compelling. They were watched and by the time Nixon resigned, his approval polls had dropped below 30%. These hearings are "better television" and better organized. I think they will have an effect. They won't convince the Trumpiest of authoritarians, but more moderate Republicans and even more moderate Fox viewers may be moved.
I was a kid during Watergate. My dad was 100% behind Nixon up until near the end of the hearings-- then he was convinced. My dad was very stubborn and it took a lot to reverse his opinions.
An observation and a question:
The J6 hearings are doing a great -- if imperfect -- job thus far. (I know Cheney has said that they are only presenting SOME of their evidence, but my point remains for the question I pose at the end of this post.)
It seems as though much of the plan to call the election rigged is being blamed on a drunken Rudy Giuliani -- never mind that Trump had started talking about election fraud months prior to November.
Roger Stone's involvement -- he of course figured prominently in other scandals over the years, going all the way back to Nixon's time in office -- is curiously absent. Haven't heard much mention of Mike Flynn, either (at least thus far). Bill Barr is working his redemption tour, and Jared and Ivanka have distanced themselves fully, much like Homer Simpson retreating into the bushes. And of course we haven't heard a peep about those current members of congress who aided and abetted the plan, ie Lindsey Graham. Very curious when compared to what we all saw and heard when it was happening in real time -- but people's memories are short.
And while I know we aren't being told EVERYTHING in these hearings, my point is, it seems to me that some people are being set up to take the fall while others are being protected.
The patsies? Trump, of course; also Rudy Giuliani and, it seems, Navarro. Mark Meadows, perhaps -- unsure about him. As foot soldiers, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers appear to be completely disposable.
My question is, what do these scapegoats do when they realize they are being made to take the fall while others walk away unscathed? Do they just sit there and take it? Or do they try to burn it all down?
@unk-p The movies is titled “2000 Mules” and is a supposed documentary on the 2000 people involved in the supposed massive voter fraud of the 2020 election. It is a right wing propaganda movie supposedly supporting the conspiracy theories around the election. IQ45 used the movie in his 12 page rant (which I did not and would not read ) about the J6 committee’s showing yesterday.
Here's what the Jan. 6 panel's references to '2,000 Mules' is about : NPR
And...that that the receiver of the pardon can wait until they are charged with a federal crime to use it and has no expiration date.
I looked this up just now, and while it is conceivable, there is some considerable question as to whether it would be legal and/or constitutional. Although there is no constitutional requirement for pardons to be made public, the entire point of a pardon is to publicly show clemency and mercy. Several of the articles I read referenced the fact that at least a few state governors who have attempted this have been rebuffed due to the difficulty of proving when the pardon was actually issued (i.e., whether the person was still in office at the time they were issued and still had the power to use them). It would certainly be in character for him to try to do it, but I don't actually believe he did, and I think even the so-called originalists now on the bench at SCOTUS would be hard pressed to find justification within both the language of the Constitution and its traditional application to support the practice.
People have been speculating as to why Mark Meadows seems to be getting away with not complying with the committee....and my own personal "guess" was that maybe he IS co-operating. But after hearing Kushner say how busy he was working on pardons...I thought maybe he's not worried because he has a "pocket pardon" and most likely Trump and family does too. It's not known if a president can pardon himself because it's never been tried before.
More intelligent and connected people than I am have suggested that yes, Meadows is cooperating with both the committee and the DOJ, and I am heavily inclined to agree. In fact, most of those who were at one point questioning why an indictment had not yet been forthcoming for him have fallen silent, which suggests to me that they somehow have knowledge that he *is* cooperating.
Regarding a self-pardon, no it hasn't been tried before, but the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel issued a statement against the use of self-pardons in 1974, with Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary C. Lawton stating that "Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself."
I also read that a federal pardon has no weight if one is charged with a state crime. Maybe that's why some people have their eye on Georgia?
This is true. Presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes.
While it is possible for Trump to have given so-called "pocket pardons" to his family, I doubt very much he would have done so, and for one very important reason.
If someone is "pardoned," then they aren't allowed to use the 5th Amendment if they are called upon to testify about the crime. Basically, the 5th Amendment protects someone from having to testify against himself in a civil or criminal proceeding. However, if someone is granted a pardon, then the courts have ruled that the 5th Amendment no longer applies because that person is shielded from prosecution and therefore can't avoid testifying (although said person can be held in contempt by the court for refusing to testify).
I doubt a pardon by Trump to his family or himself will be considered legal. It has never been tried. Having said that, I doubt Trump is the type to wait until the last moment and then bring out a secret pardon. I doubt he has the patience to do so, much less the intelligence. But if he does, then that opens a whole can of worms for the GOP. If Trump did pardon himself or his family, then they must go against him or give Biden an open door to pardon his own son for whatever imaginary crimes he may have committed. So it is a two-way street.
You are right about Georgia. The law only allows the President to pardon someone for federal crimes, not state crimes. So if Georgia somehow indicts, tries, and convicts Trump, then there is nothing the Republicans can do about it. In other words, a new Republican President can't issue a pardon and get him out. The Georgia governor can, however, so here is hoping that Stacey Adams pulls an upset and wins the state.