Well I guess the murder of the son of a 'lesser' judge doesn't really warrant panic, does it? No good will come from advocating political violence, but given the actual severity of this threat from a mentally ill man, maybe the offering of the always impactful thoughts and prayers given to the most recent group of slaughtered school children would be adequate.
On Biden not commenting, I can't help but wonder if calling more attention to the concept of assassinating supreme court justices might not be counterproductive.
It shouldn't be minimized, but imagine how many on the right would view things if Biden made a big deal about this. I don't think Biden would ever do a, "Nice Conservative Majority you have here, be a real shame if something happened to it." But I am sure that plenty on the right would spin it that way if he commented on this, given how unserious the 'attempt' appears to have been.
I don’t think NYT didn’t cover it front page for some nefarious reason. I do think if it were Justice Kagan they would have found reason to investigate it as part of a larger story of threats against government officials. This is the story they should do. Put it in context of the times we are living in so people see it’s not just about Kavanaugh. It’s about people giving up on the democratic levers and resorting to violence. Yes, Biden should have made a speech specifically about this.
I think the ship for bipartisan goodwill sailed after trump, J6, and the continued BS from the GOP. Trump himself recently talking about civil war. That is a direct threat to half the country. Last week, some lunatic pretend preacher for sone phony church calling for gay executions. That is extreme. The R Supreme Court is extreme. That is why we are here and for no other reason. I would be pissed if Biden spent time trying to put out an olive branch to those who have refused in any way to take it.
Many at the Bulwark fail to understand how demoralizing it is to constantly hear about how Democrats are supposed to follow one set of rules while Republicans have none. Please spare me whatever obscure thing Biden once said taken out of context, or Bork getting voted down because Republicans voted against him too. Dems would never have refused a vote, and the media would have been foaming at the mouth if they tried. Let's stop sugarcoating what happened. They stole two Supreme Court seats. Obama went out of his way to appeal to moderates by nominating Garland. Yet Trump, who lost the popular vote, doesn't try to unite the country with a consensus pick. No, only Dems are required to do that. Then, while people were voting, they rushed through Barrett after insisting a President can't fill a seat in an election year. It's gaslighting on steroids. Let's be clear this is not a legitimate Supreme Court, and we should not accept it as one. By doing so, we're legitimizing the GOP's anti-democratic tactics.
I respectfully disagree that it is not a “legitimate Supreme Court.” What McConnell did was terrible and shows his all or nothing view of our system. But he did it within the rules and procedures of the court. We may not like that it was possible but the rules permitted it. If we don’t like it we need to change the rules. It’s the same when people say Hillary won the election in 2016. No, she didn’t. Our president wins by the electoral college count, not popular vote. It’s a stupid system but Trump won. We have to accept reality if we are to know how to change it.
I understand your point. I should have said norms instead of rules because our system depends on standards and leaders of virtue who are willing to follow those norms. It's like when Trump refused to release his tax returns. There wasn't a law to force him to comply. But I think it's untenable to continue on a path where we require Democratic supporters to abide by standards and norms (i.e., not using words like illegitimate) as if keeping the status quo will prevent things from worsening. We're supposed to believe the Supreme Court is apolitical when Republicans for years have told us why capturing the courts is of utmost importance. We're supposed to accept its legitimacy when several members lied under oath about the precedent they were appointed to overturn. It's time for us to recognize the fight we are in, not the one we wish we were having.
Well, technically speaking, it's not against the "rules" to increase the size of the Supreme Court; certainly nothing in the Constitution. The Democrats merely need to get enough presumably Democratic senators to vote to do so.
Absolutely. Democrats could totally expand the court, make DC and PR a state, etc with 60 solid votes. Whether they can elect 60 Dems and whether all of them would pass such legislation is another matter.
I hear you, but the problem with that logic is that it is simply going with anything the rules technically allow.
If I'm not mistaken, we are 6 pardoned assassinations away from having a 9-0 liberal supreme court. Then, with house, senate, and whitehouse, all manner of various laws, extra states, and other changes could likely install a permanent democratic majority through technically allowed methods.
That's absurd of course, but my point is to show the problem with casting aside social mores of avoiding rank hypocrisy and using every technicality to turn an advantage. Our society functions on more than just the letter of the law, and the more we strip away what I'll call good sportsmanship, the closer we get to where we can't live together successfully.
Chuck Schumer pointed out the 2 Supremes who said in their confirmation hearing that Roe v Wade was settled law. I understood that. I wonder why no one else did??....
No less a conservative than Sarah Isgur, over at "The Competition" noted during their amazing "Advisory Opinions" podcast that Mitch McConnell's machinations, holding a seat open, and then ramming Coney Barrett through at the last minute, made Democrats think they won't get a turn. She is a former SC clerk-her insight was that the left assesses that the right is going to game the system to block their nominees, so why not leak opinions and otherwise screw around with the institution?
I'm not doing justice to her argument, and it was on a podcast so hard to reconstruct, but I thought she did a great job of explaining how, when one side perceives that the cards are marked and the dice are loaded, resorts to bad behavior as well because why not.
Another riveting read, Cathy. 👍🏽 Thanks for saying "no, Ruth did not send you", it has been driving me crazy.
Yes, it would be swell if President Biden said something about not harassing the Justices. But the poor schlub who just wanted mental health treatment, well, maybe that doesn't quite rise to an occasion for presidential condemnation. It would make it worse for the "perp" and since there turned out to be "no there there", it would look silly for Biden to cite it as an example. Kinda playing into the hands of "it's not the guns, it's only mental illness" jerks.
As for this court's legitimacy, I think it's fair to question it, especially since the bad-faith crookedness of the MCConnelites vis a vis Garland. Plus we know the final three were appointed by another mentally ill sociopath, (and criminal!)
There was nothing remotely just about the catastrophic collapse of our system for judicial nominees. And because it was a serious breach of decent norms, it does call into question the legitimacy of this court, and the manner in which it was formed.
Of course that doesn't mean harassing the Justices at their homes is okay. However, trying to get their attention through protests is almost an obligation for a functioning Republic.
Question: do the authors here select the illustrations? Because whoever picked the two pointing Spidermen made me laugh. My thanks for that.
Cathy, Cathy, Cathy... The problem isn't media bias. It's that we are living in a hyper-partisan and increasingly violent world, fueled by a party led by a man who called for attacks against protesters at his rallies and whose incendiary language led to the attack on the Capitol, and who packed the Supreme Court with partisan Justices, aided and abetted by the chicanery of a Senate majority leader.
That's not the fault of the MSM or Joe Biden. They aren't the problem.
Feb 20, 2011, twelve thousand angry Democrats and leftists marched to protest their anger at Wisconsin legislation confirming the right to work. They violently stormed the state capitol and occupied it for weeks. Today many of the same Democrats claiming Jan-6 was a threat to democracy and an insurrection (without ever having to define the use of those terms) were lauding the Wisconsin spectacle as just freedom of speech with some civil disobedience.
In general whataboutism is how we identify the hypocrites in our midst.
The Wisconsin protesters gathered outside the Capitol or in public areas of the building while the legislature was able to carry on with business (though there were some incidents of violent and/or threatening behavior).
Since when did "legislature was able to carry on its business" be the criteria by which we consider a protest by the people with civil disobedience to occupy a government building that is owned by the people to be right or wrong? Isn't this just creative excuse-making for politics sake?
I did not support the Wisconsin protests and occupation and I did not support the Jan-6 protests and occupation. I am consistent there. What I oppose is the attempting to turn the Jan-6 protest into something it was not and to see a perpetual political circus be made from it. Especially considering the other splitting hairs about the previous 18 months of violent BLM and Antifa riots. Now THOSE would be good to have a commission to investigate. Maybe we can get around to it starting in Jan 2023.
If you were brave enough to forsake FOX and watch the actual hearing on Thursday, and read this preview: https://www.brookings.edu/research/trump-on-trial/ Then you know any seditious president of whatever party merits full investigation. No patriots supports such a person. The protest was one prong of attack on our democracy that day. Your trivialization of the event tells us all we need to know. No hair splitting necessary.
Trump thought at that point, and many other people did too, that there were election shenanigans and that the Democrats cheated and that he had won the election legally. It was not an election without those controversies. Without the pandemic-justified mail in ballots, the likelihood is that Trump would still be President and the Senate would be in GOP hands and old Nancy would have fewer congressional lackeys to boss around. It was NOT a free and fair election, it was a manipulated ballot harvested election. Trump's goal was to uncover the shenanigans and prove that he was still President. It did not work out that way as the political establishment was too strong and thwarted his attempts.
Now we have the 2000 Mules documentary and other facts that do in fact prove that the Democrats did significant dirty cheating in the swing states.
But your attempt to rewrite what actually happened to fit your political mythology is patently infantile and there is not a single mind being changed by it... except more moderates jumping ship from the Democrat insanity. Liz Cheney is already dead politically.
The most patriotic thing to do is to reject the irrational rants of those so afflicted with media-made Trump derangement syndrome. The 2022 and 2024 elections are not going to make you happy. Voter ID will prevent the same shenanigans.
Chris Krebs, Republican head of CISA said no rigged election, adding 2020 was the most secure election in US history.
The Election Officials in 50 states said no rigged election.
Numerous Audits said no rigged election.
GA Sec’y of State and Republican Raffensperger said no rigged election.
GA Gov. and Republican Kemp said no rigged election.
Trump's Fixer Attorney AG Barr said no rigged election.
Trump's acting Attorney General Jeffery Rosen said no rigged election.
60+ court petitions and appeals said no rigged election.
80+ judges, many Trump appointees, said no rigged election.
The Supreme Court said no rigged election.
Trump’s Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett unanimously said no rigged election.
👉 Cyber Ninjas said no rigged election. 👈
“No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” Powell's attorneys said in a court filing [...] www.nbcnews.com — Mar 23, 2021
Trump admitted in interviews that he legitimately lost the election, regardless of what he says at his stupid rallies.
2000 Mules has been well and truly debunked.
Of the very few 2020 election fraud cases, the big majority of perps were Republicans.
You are the only one here so afflicted with TDS that you cannot let go of your political mythology.
But you are right about one thing. It may well be that there are enough voters who have thrown in with seditionists in key states that your longed-for authoritarian gets elected via the electoral college while losing the popular vote. And I and the actual majority of Americans will be unhappy. You may rejoice, but inevitably your authoritarian will make you unhappy as well.
No, none of those were Trump's. But he did learn his lesson and there will be doing house cleaning in 2024. Or DeSantis will. All GOP candidates learned that the swamp is Democrat and will be hostile. So firing is going to happen.
This continued fantasy on the right is puzzling. Specifically, this idea that protests about the treatment of minorities by police is equivalent to protests to try to overthrow the gov't. It's bizarre. What makes it even stranger is that of all people, one would think traditional conservatives would get it. They would understand threats to our system of gov't are far more serious than policy protests.
One can only assume it's motivated reasoning at work. Grasping at any rationalization no matter how ridiculous to avoid facing the damning reality that one has thrown in with seditionists.
Violently? Please, elaborate. Are you referring to the 6 people arrested for disorderly conduct? Or the GOP operative cited for theft?
In any event, let's go ahead and stipulate that was a Bad Thing. So, if protesting a law in a state - with a handful of arrests - is bad, what does that make trying to overthrow a national election, an event that was unequivocally violent with hundreds of arrests?
You may be right about whataboutism as a marker for hypocrites. "Both sides" is a marker for bad faith.
BTW, "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government". This really isn't that difficult. Although trying to excuse it must be exhausting.
Heh, well, I guess you'll have to write to Merriam-Webster and let them know they have it wrong. Dare I ask: is there some other definition you like better? Hopefully you won't try to pull the current standard right-wing deflection using legal pedantry.
Also, I note that you ducked all the salient issues.
The Democrat-controlled search engines of course have done some good scrubbing to keep the sheeple in line. However, the definition of insurrection has always been: "a usually violent attempt to take control of a government."
So say Trump won and was still in office and then parts or all of the US military leadership, the Justice Department, national law enforcement... they all colluded with other private actors... say the billionaire tech oligarchs and the DNC.. to overthrow the Trump government and take control.
Or say senior people in Justice and the FBI colluded with politicians and other private parties to make up a fake dossier and then lie to the FISA court to illegally spy on the campaign of the opposition party to dig up dirt on that candidate... and then violently with guns drawn go pull the candidates supporters out of their beds at night and lock them away... and then after that candidate was elected President, continue to push the fake narrative in the media and then attempt to impeach him twice based on the lies based on the fake dossier. Now THERE is a real insurrection attempt.
These are real insurrection scenarios. Not the protests of few hundred unorganized bearded blue collar workers that your ilk seem intent to keep punching down. It is really quite hilarious to keep hearing "insurrection" related to Jan-6... as it immediately brands the spewer as non-serious.
Sigh. Here I go through the looking glass again...
"The Democrat-controlled search engines of course have done some good scrubbing to keep the sheeple in line." - I see. Sheeple...nice. And, has the DNC infiltrated Merriam-Webster, as well? More on this grand conspiracy concept below. Meantime, your definition isn't substantially different than the one I used ("revolt" means in this context to rebel and replace an authority), so let's press on.
"So say Trump won and was still in office...to overthrow the Trump government and take control." - assuming, in such a hypothetical scenario, that illegal and anti-Constitutional means were used to remove Trump, that would likely be an insurrection. And, if it succeeded, a coup. Your wording suggests this a hypothetical and that you don't believe Trump is currently president, correct? Just need to make sure. So, it's an interesting story, but seems to have nothing to do with anything that happened in the real world.
"...to make up a fake dossier..." - ah, so now we're in 2016 and, supposedly, not hypothetical. Let's cut to the chase: the Steele dossier is a, what's the word Trumpists use...nothingburger. It had little to no influence on any investigation. Moreover, the right has pinned their hopes on a series of efforts to try to give the hoax counter-narrative a dash of credibility. Alas, Horowitz and now Durham failed. And, despite the latter's hyperbolic and very partisan efforts, he pretty much belly-flopped. (BTW, can you remind me: how many times did Biden threaten Durham and/or his investigation?)
To be clear, I don't like oppo research. I don't like bad actors in gov't of any stripe. I'm actually glad that Durham found a couple of mice nuts. If Dem-friendly folks perpetrated fraud on Steele, throw the book at 'em I say. However, to suggest that the minor malfeasance of a handful of low-level nobodies amounts to insurrection is absurd.
"It is really quite hilarious to keep hearing "insurrection" related to Jan-6" - odd that it's funny. It's the very definition of it, even using your preferred definition. Sure, it was poorly planned and executed, but don't kid yourself about what is was, especially the intent.
Sure, let's not punch down. Nor be disingenuous. We both know that the bigger issue here is what incited these poor bearded fools to assault the Capitol. As we learn more every day, the thousands of deluded idiots of J6 were only a small piece of the puzzle. No need to go fabricating baby-blood drinking conspiracies when you have the Trump coup attempt staring you in the face, eh?
Finally, regarding your apparent conspiratorial nature, do the probabilities ever bother you? Which seems more non-serious to you. Thousands of gov't (mostly Republican, btw) actors and private sector folks secretly conspiring to remove Trump, and successfully lying about it to a person. Or, that a single well-known habitual liar is lying to you?
Cathy Young, you wonder whether an aborted plan to assassinate Sonia Sotomayor would have been covered as quietly by news publications such as the New York Times. I think it would have been. At least, I hope it would have been.
When there's no other parties involved in the planning, when the final attack is not undertaken, and especially when it might reasonably be feared that prominent coverage would inspire imitators or be otherwise harmful to a secure and civil environment for courts, it is good ethics to present the facts without blaring headlines.
Yeah the Right Wing Media pays little to no attention on these type of events when Democrats are targeted. I don't think Fox, WSJ, National Review, etc. covered for more than a short bit about the Nancy Pelosi would-be assassin and they tried to play down the threat to Democrats when mail bombs in 2018 were sent to Geogre Soros, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Maxine Waters, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, John Brennan (package at CNN also containing white powder), and other prominent Democrats/Anti-Trump individuals.
Never mind Gretchen Whitmer who the former president singled out and intimidated on social media many times prior to the plot being uncovered for her kidnapping and assassination.
I'm all for protecting Supreme Court Justices and think anyone that protests outside of anyone's private residence should take a hard look in the mirror and realize that they are part of the overall problem. But the fake whataboutism with no context of magnitude is stupid. We are always going to have individual nuts that are politically motivated and dangerous. And we are always going to have aggressive protestors that generally are over the top and lack in any sort of wisdom. What didn't need to happen was an attack on the capital based off a lie. 99% of people never heard of the official vote counting day in Congress before 2020. So protect the Supremem Court justices, state officials, etc. but don't lump that in the same stratosphere as January 6th or even all the efforts to pressure local officials prior to that where mobs of Trump supporters intimidated local and state election officials at their houses.
Maybe you should set your hair on fire since the President and I didn't. Read with understanding instead of looking for fault.
I am surprised that Republicans would use this event to politicize gun freedom. /s
Well I guess the murder of the son of a 'lesser' judge doesn't really warrant panic, does it? No good will come from advocating political violence, but given the actual severity of this threat from a mentally ill man, maybe the offering of the always impactful thoughts and prayers given to the most recent group of slaughtered school children would be adequate.
On Biden not commenting, I can't help but wonder if calling more attention to the concept of assassinating supreme court justices might not be counterproductive.
It shouldn't be minimized, but imagine how many on the right would view things if Biden made a big deal about this. I don't think Biden would ever do a, "Nice Conservative Majority you have here, be a real shame if something happened to it." But I am sure that plenty on the right would spin it that way if he commented on this, given how unserious the 'attempt' appears to have been.
I don’t think NYT didn’t cover it front page for some nefarious reason. I do think if it were Justice Kagan they would have found reason to investigate it as part of a larger story of threats against government officials. This is the story they should do. Put it in context of the times we are living in so people see it’s not just about Kavanaugh. It’s about people giving up on the democratic levers and resorting to violence. Yes, Biden should have made a speech specifically about this.
I think the ship for bipartisan goodwill sailed after trump, J6, and the continued BS from the GOP. Trump himself recently talking about civil war. That is a direct threat to half the country. Last week, some lunatic pretend preacher for sone phony church calling for gay executions. That is extreme. The R Supreme Court is extreme. That is why we are here and for no other reason. I would be pissed if Biden spent time trying to put out an olive branch to those who have refused in any way to take it.
Many at the Bulwark fail to understand how demoralizing it is to constantly hear about how Democrats are supposed to follow one set of rules while Republicans have none. Please spare me whatever obscure thing Biden once said taken out of context, or Bork getting voted down because Republicans voted against him too. Dems would never have refused a vote, and the media would have been foaming at the mouth if they tried. Let's stop sugarcoating what happened. They stole two Supreme Court seats. Obama went out of his way to appeal to moderates by nominating Garland. Yet Trump, who lost the popular vote, doesn't try to unite the country with a consensus pick. No, only Dems are required to do that. Then, while people were voting, they rushed through Barrett after insisting a President can't fill a seat in an election year. It's gaslighting on steroids. Let's be clear this is not a legitimate Supreme Court, and we should not accept it as one. By doing so, we're legitimizing the GOP's anti-democratic tactics.
I respectfully disagree that it is not a “legitimate Supreme Court.” What McConnell did was terrible and shows his all or nothing view of our system. But he did it within the rules and procedures of the court. We may not like that it was possible but the rules permitted it. If we don’t like it we need to change the rules. It’s the same when people say Hillary won the election in 2016. No, she didn’t. Our president wins by the electoral college count, not popular vote. It’s a stupid system but Trump won. We have to accept reality if we are to know how to change it.
I understand your point. I should have said norms instead of rules because our system depends on standards and leaders of virtue who are willing to follow those norms. It's like when Trump refused to release his tax returns. There wasn't a law to force him to comply. But I think it's untenable to continue on a path where we require Democratic supporters to abide by standards and norms (i.e., not using words like illegitimate) as if keeping the status quo will prevent things from worsening. We're supposed to believe the Supreme Court is apolitical when Republicans for years have told us why capturing the courts is of utmost importance. We're supposed to accept its legitimacy when several members lied under oath about the precedent they were appointed to overturn. It's time for us to recognize the fight we are in, not the one we wish we were having.
Well, technically speaking, it's not against the "rules" to increase the size of the Supreme Court; certainly nothing in the Constitution. The Democrats merely need to get enough presumably Democratic senators to vote to do so.
Absolutely. Democrats could totally expand the court, make DC and PR a state, etc with 60 solid votes. Whether they can elect 60 Dems and whether all of them would pass such legislation is another matter.
I hear you, but the problem with that logic is that it is simply going with anything the rules technically allow.
If I'm not mistaken, we are 6 pardoned assassinations away from having a 9-0 liberal supreme court. Then, with house, senate, and whitehouse, all manner of various laws, extra states, and other changes could likely install a permanent democratic majority through technically allowed methods.
That's absurd of course, but my point is to show the problem with casting aside social mores of avoiding rank hypocrisy and using every technicality to turn an advantage. Our society functions on more than just the letter of the law, and the more we strip away what I'll call good sportsmanship, the closer we get to where we can't live together successfully.
Chuck Schumer pointed out the 2 Supremes who said in their confirmation hearing that Roe v Wade was settled law. I understood that. I wonder why no one else did??....
No less a conservative than Sarah Isgur, over at "The Competition" noted during their amazing "Advisory Opinions" podcast that Mitch McConnell's machinations, holding a seat open, and then ramming Coney Barrett through at the last minute, made Democrats think they won't get a turn. She is a former SC clerk-her insight was that the left assesses that the right is going to game the system to block their nominees, so why not leak opinions and otherwise screw around with the institution?
I'm not doing justice to her argument, and it was on a podcast so hard to reconstruct, but I thought she did a great job of explaining how, when one side perceives that the cards are marked and the dice are loaded, resorts to bad behavior as well because why not.
I think the president is correct not to comment on this assassination attempt. Giving attention to such actions seems to make them more likely.
Another riveting read, Cathy. 👍🏽 Thanks for saying "no, Ruth did not send you", it has been driving me crazy.
Yes, it would be swell if President Biden said something about not harassing the Justices. But the poor schlub who just wanted mental health treatment, well, maybe that doesn't quite rise to an occasion for presidential condemnation. It would make it worse for the "perp" and since there turned out to be "no there there", it would look silly for Biden to cite it as an example. Kinda playing into the hands of "it's not the guns, it's only mental illness" jerks.
As for this court's legitimacy, I think it's fair to question it, especially since the bad-faith crookedness of the MCConnelites vis a vis Garland. Plus we know the final three were appointed by another mentally ill sociopath, (and criminal!)
There was nothing remotely just about the catastrophic collapse of our system for judicial nominees. And because it was a serious breach of decent norms, it does call into question the legitimacy of this court, and the manner in which it was formed.
Of course that doesn't mean harassing the Justices at their homes is okay. However, trying to get their attention through protests is almost an obligation for a functioning Republic.
Question: do the authors here select the illustrations? Because whoever picked the two pointing Spidermen made me laugh. My thanks for that.
Re: the Kavanaugh incident
Cathy, Cathy, Cathy... The problem isn't media bias. It's that we are living in a hyper-partisan and increasingly violent world, fueled by a party led by a man who called for attacks against protesters at his rallies and whose incendiary language led to the attack on the Capitol, and who packed the Supreme Court with partisan Justices, aided and abetted by the chicanery of a Senate majority leader.
That's not the fault of the MSM or Joe Biden. They aren't the problem.
As a lifelong Democrat I can say that Schumer is an idiot --and, worse, incompetent.
Feb 20, 2011, twelve thousand angry Democrats and leftists marched to protest their anger at Wisconsin legislation confirming the right to work. They violently stormed the state capitol and occupied it for weeks. Today many of the same Democrats claiming Jan-6 was a threat to democracy and an insurrection (without ever having to define the use of those terms) were lauding the Wisconsin spectacle as just freedom of speech with some civil disobedience.
In general whataboutism is how we identify the hypocrites in our midst.
The Wisconsin protesters gathered outside the Capitol or in public areas of the building while the legislature was able to carry on with business (though there were some incidents of violent and/or threatening behavior).
Thank you for the response.
Since when did "legislature was able to carry on its business" be the criteria by which we consider a protest by the people with civil disobedience to occupy a government building that is owned by the people to be right or wrong? Isn't this just creative excuse-making for politics sake?
I did not support the Wisconsin protests and occupation and I did not support the Jan-6 protests and occupation. I am consistent there. What I oppose is the attempting to turn the Jan-6 protest into something it was not and to see a perpetual political circus be made from it. Especially considering the other splitting hairs about the previous 18 months of violent BLM and Antifa riots. Now THOSE would be good to have a commission to investigate. Maybe we can get around to it starting in Jan 2023.
You are not the first to push that false equivalency. Jan 8, 2021: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/01/08/wisconsin-act-10-protests-vs-capitol-riot-breach-4-key-differences-violence-arrests-deaths-damage/6584619002/ What is odd is that you are still pushing the debunked false equivalency a year and a half later. As Liz Cheney said, "Donald Trump's goal on Jan 6 was to remain president despite the outcome of the free and fair election."
If you were brave enough to forsake FOX and watch the actual hearing on Thursday, and read this preview: https://www.brookings.edu/research/trump-on-trial/ Then you know any seditious president of whatever party merits full investigation. No patriots supports such a person. The protest was one prong of attack on our democracy that day. Your trivialization of the event tells us all we need to know. No hair splitting necessary.
Trump thought at that point, and many other people did too, that there were election shenanigans and that the Democrats cheated and that he had won the election legally. It was not an election without those controversies. Without the pandemic-justified mail in ballots, the likelihood is that Trump would still be President and the Senate would be in GOP hands and old Nancy would have fewer congressional lackeys to boss around. It was NOT a free and fair election, it was a manipulated ballot harvested election. Trump's goal was to uncover the shenanigans and prove that he was still President. It did not work out that way as the political establishment was too strong and thwarted his attempts.
Now we have the 2000 Mules documentary and other facts that do in fact prove that the Democrats did significant dirty cheating in the swing states.
But your attempt to rewrite what actually happened to fit your political mythology is patently infantile and there is not a single mind being changed by it... except more moderates jumping ship from the Democrat insanity. Liz Cheney is already dead politically.
The most patriotic thing to do is to reject the irrational rants of those so afflicted with media-made Trump derangement syndrome. The 2022 and 2024 elections are not going to make you happy. Voter ID will prevent the same shenanigans.
Once again:
Trump’s CIA said no rigged election.
Trump’s FBI said no rigged election.
Trump’s NSA said no rigged election.
Trump’s DHS said no rigged election.
Chris Krebs, Republican head of CISA said no rigged election, adding 2020 was the most secure election in US history.
The Election Officials in 50 states said no rigged election.
Numerous Audits said no rigged election.
GA Sec’y of State and Republican Raffensperger said no rigged election.
GA Gov. and Republican Kemp said no rigged election.
Trump's Fixer Attorney AG Barr said no rigged election.
Trump's acting Attorney General Jeffery Rosen said no rigged election.
60+ court petitions and appeals said no rigged election.
80+ judges, many Trump appointees, said no rigged election.
The Supreme Court said no rigged election.
Trump’s Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett unanimously said no rigged election.
👉 Cyber Ninjas said no rigged election. 👈
“No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” Powell's attorneys said in a court filing [...] www.nbcnews.com — Mar 23, 2021
Trump admitted in interviews that he legitimately lost the election, regardless of what he says at his stupid rallies.
2000 Mules has been well and truly debunked.
Of the very few 2020 election fraud cases, the big majority of perps were Republicans.
You are the only one here so afflicted with TDS that you cannot let go of your political mythology.
But you are right about one thing. It may well be that there are enough voters who have thrown in with seditionists in key states that your longed-for authoritarian gets elected via the electoral college while losing the popular vote. And I and the actual majority of Americans will be unhappy. You may rejoice, but inevitably your authoritarian will make you unhappy as well.
"Trump's _ _ _"
No, none of those were Trump's. But he did learn his lesson and there will be doing house cleaning in 2024. Or DeSantis will. All GOP candidates learned that the swamp is Democrat and will be hostile. So firing is going to happen.
What is "rigged" election? Is that a legal term?
And no, 2000 Mules has not been debunked. Not at all. People that watch it... even 75% of Democrats... are convinced that some cheating happened after watching it. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/2000_mules_documentary_s_message_resonates_with_voters
This continued fantasy on the right is puzzling. Specifically, this idea that protests about the treatment of minorities by police is equivalent to protests to try to overthrow the gov't. It's bizarre. What makes it even stranger is that of all people, one would think traditional conservatives would get it. They would understand threats to our system of gov't are far more serious than policy protests.
One can only assume it's motivated reasoning at work. Grasping at any rationalization no matter how ridiculous to avoid facing the damning reality that one has thrown in with seditionists.
"protests about the treatment of minorities by police" Yeah, that is what that was. More mythology.
I'm intrigued. So protests about Floyd's murder were really protests about...? Please, do tell.
And, once again, you avoid the elephant in the room.
Violently? Please, elaborate. Are you referring to the 6 people arrested for disorderly conduct? Or the GOP operative cited for theft?
In any event, let's go ahead and stipulate that was a Bad Thing. So, if protesting a law in a state - with a handful of arrests - is bad, what does that make trying to overthrow a national election, an event that was unequivocally violent with hundreds of arrests?
You may be right about whataboutism as a marker for hypocrites. "Both sides" is a marker for bad faith.
BTW, "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government". This really isn't that difficult. Although trying to excuse it must be exhausting.
That is NOT the definition of insurrection. Otherwise the political left is guilty of perpetual insurrection. Please try again.
Heh, well, I guess you'll have to write to Merriam-Webster and let them know they have it wrong. Dare I ask: is there some other definition you like better? Hopefully you won't try to pull the current standard right-wing deflection using legal pedantry.
Also, I note that you ducked all the salient issues.
The Democrat-controlled search engines of course have done some good scrubbing to keep the sheeple in line. However, the definition of insurrection has always been: "a usually violent attempt to take control of a government."
So say Trump won and was still in office and then parts or all of the US military leadership, the Justice Department, national law enforcement... they all colluded with other private actors... say the billionaire tech oligarchs and the DNC.. to overthrow the Trump government and take control.
Or say senior people in Justice and the FBI colluded with politicians and other private parties to make up a fake dossier and then lie to the FISA court to illegally spy on the campaign of the opposition party to dig up dirt on that candidate... and then violently with guns drawn go pull the candidates supporters out of their beds at night and lock them away... and then after that candidate was elected President, continue to push the fake narrative in the media and then attempt to impeach him twice based on the lies based on the fake dossier. Now THERE is a real insurrection attempt.
These are real insurrection scenarios. Not the protests of few hundred unorganized bearded blue collar workers that your ilk seem intent to keep punching down. It is really quite hilarious to keep hearing "insurrection" related to Jan-6... as it immediately brands the spewer as non-serious.
Sigh. Here I go through the looking glass again...
"The Democrat-controlled search engines of course have done some good scrubbing to keep the sheeple in line." - I see. Sheeple...nice. And, has the DNC infiltrated Merriam-Webster, as well? More on this grand conspiracy concept below. Meantime, your definition isn't substantially different than the one I used ("revolt" means in this context to rebel and replace an authority), so let's press on.
"So say Trump won and was still in office...to overthrow the Trump government and take control." - assuming, in such a hypothetical scenario, that illegal and anti-Constitutional means were used to remove Trump, that would likely be an insurrection. And, if it succeeded, a coup. Your wording suggests this a hypothetical and that you don't believe Trump is currently president, correct? Just need to make sure. So, it's an interesting story, but seems to have nothing to do with anything that happened in the real world.
"...to make up a fake dossier..." - ah, so now we're in 2016 and, supposedly, not hypothetical. Let's cut to the chase: the Steele dossier is a, what's the word Trumpists use...nothingburger. It had little to no influence on any investigation. Moreover, the right has pinned their hopes on a series of efforts to try to give the hoax counter-narrative a dash of credibility. Alas, Horowitz and now Durham failed. And, despite the latter's hyperbolic and very partisan efforts, he pretty much belly-flopped. (BTW, can you remind me: how many times did Biden threaten Durham and/or his investigation?)
To be clear, I don't like oppo research. I don't like bad actors in gov't of any stripe. I'm actually glad that Durham found a couple of mice nuts. If Dem-friendly folks perpetrated fraud on Steele, throw the book at 'em I say. However, to suggest that the minor malfeasance of a handful of low-level nobodies amounts to insurrection is absurd.
"It is really quite hilarious to keep hearing "insurrection" related to Jan-6" - odd that it's funny. It's the very definition of it, even using your preferred definition. Sure, it was poorly planned and executed, but don't kid yourself about what is was, especially the intent.
Sure, let's not punch down. Nor be disingenuous. We both know that the bigger issue here is what incited these poor bearded fools to assault the Capitol. As we learn more every day, the thousands of deluded idiots of J6 were only a small piece of the puzzle. No need to go fabricating baby-blood drinking conspiracies when you have the Trump coup attempt staring you in the face, eh?
Finally, regarding your apparent conspiratorial nature, do the probabilities ever bother you? Which seems more non-serious to you. Thousands of gov't (mostly Republican, btw) actors and private sector folks secretly conspiring to remove Trump, and successfully lying about it to a person. Or, that a single well-known habitual liar is lying to you?
He's an outlier here. You could keep debunking his myths for the next week and he won't stop. May as well save your energy.
Cathy Young, you wonder whether an aborted plan to assassinate Sonia Sotomayor would have been covered as quietly by news publications such as the New York Times. I think it would have been. At least, I hope it would have been.
When there's no other parties involved in the planning, when the final attack is not undertaken, and especially when it might reasonably be feared that prominent coverage would inspire imitators or be otherwise harmful to a secure and civil environment for courts, it is good ethics to present the facts without blaring headlines.
Yeah the Right Wing Media pays little to no attention on these type of events when Democrats are targeted. I don't think Fox, WSJ, National Review, etc. covered for more than a short bit about the Nancy Pelosi would-be assassin and they tried to play down the threat to Democrats when mail bombs in 2018 were sent to Geogre Soros, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Maxine Waters, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, John Brennan (package at CNN also containing white powder), and other prominent Democrats/Anti-Trump individuals.
Never mind Gretchen Whitmer who the former president singled out and intimidated on social media many times prior to the plot being uncovered for her kidnapping and assassination.
I'm all for protecting Supreme Court Justices and think anyone that protests outside of anyone's private residence should take a hard look in the mirror and realize that they are part of the overall problem. But the fake whataboutism with no context of magnitude is stupid. We are always going to have individual nuts that are politically motivated and dangerous. And we are always going to have aggressive protestors that generally are over the top and lack in any sort of wisdom. What didn't need to happen was an attack on the capital based off a lie. 99% of people never heard of the official vote counting day in Congress before 2020. So protect the Supremem Court justices, state officials, etc. but don't lump that in the same stratosphere as January 6th or even all the efforts to pressure local officials prior to that where mobs of Trump supporters intimidated local and state election officials at their houses.