I was impressed by that very eloquent passage from Santayana, a philosopher whom I never read during my graduate study of philosophy. It captures the essence of what Ayn Rand would later term "whim-worship." Can anyone provide a citation, so I can perhaps read it in context?
<<For the barbarian is the man who regards his passions as their own excuse for being; who does not domesticate them either by understanding their cause or by conceiving their ideal goal. He is the man who does not know his derivations nor perceive his tendencies, but who merely feels and acts, valuing in his life its force and its filling, but being careless of its purpose and its form. His delight is in abundance and vehemence; his art, like his life, shows an exclusive respect for quantity and splendour of materials. His scorn for what is poorer and weaker than himself is only surpassed by his ignorance of what is higher.>>
I groaned a little when I saw the notion of "domesticat[ing]" the passions, which is generally based on a Platonic view of the passions as irrational beasts (as in the charioteer metaphor from The Republic). But Santayana immediately followed up with an explanation of how one domesticates the passions: "either by understanding their cause or by conceiving their ideal goal." So the passions are not alien forces to be whipped into submission (the stereotypical Platonic view) or succumbed to (the emotionalist's view). It's not clear from this passage exactly what he thinks the passions are, but it is clear that they are subject to cause and effect, including teleological causation. Although this was an idea that had been percolating during Santayana's time, as psychology and therapy were in their youth, I hadn't before seen it so explicitly stated until significantly later.
I especially like the connection between the fundamental nature of a whim (which Ayn Rand defined as "a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause") and its destructive consequences. The person who has abandoned concern for the causes of his or her passions is left with "exclusive respect for quantity and splendor of materials" in the pursuit of personal values. (Although Santayana's passage applies specifically to art, I think the concept applies in one form or another to all values.)
And in the social realm, a life on the premise of unexamined emotions leads to social-hierarchical thinking, with its ultimate result being conflict and war. ("His scorn for what is poorer and weaker than himself is only surpassed by his ignorance of what is higher.")
This brief but insightful passage makes me want to read more by Santayana, a person I knew only by his reputation as an influential but not top-tier philosopher of the early 20th century. Thank you for introducing me to him!
I keep waiting for the tide of public sentiment to turn on Trump and his faction because his public is fickle and they tire of the same old same old. You can fool some of the people for some of the time but not for all of the time. Trump has a limited range.
Problem is, while I think Trump only has 30-35% public support, he has 80% of GOP who will vote GOP until he shoots them in the head and maybe even then. And it is the GOP that must be purged. And/or Electoral College eliminated. But I greatly fear this year is the last national election because of the blindness of some politicos and the raw self-interest of others.
That fear is what paralyzes this Administration. They need to get over it. Just as Putin is taking advantage of wishful thinking, so is TFG and his fellow-travelers. Biden wants to be a leader. LEAD!
Re Mike Lee, he's obviously a RINO because he still has enough of a sense of shame to kowtow to Trump in private, or what he believed would remain private. Seems he's foolish enough not to understand that most things become public eventually.
I suppose I must take whatever solace there may be in believing that Mike Lee will need to act shamelessly in public from here on out no matter how it may unsettle him to do so. He sure as Hell isn't going to act responsibly.
Agree with Don Gates. Better domestic violence we who value democracy can prepare for and win than to not indict fearing violence, which strengthens the authoritarians. That would be the absolute worst.
Now for something somewhat different: Anyone who incites revolt or violence against government, especially our federal government, commits sedition. To wit: Trump, Lee, Meadows, Powell, Wood, Flynn, Bannon, et al.
Further, "Every person owing allegiance to the United States, who [...] adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason." To wit: Brownshirts such as Marjorie Taylor Green, Boebert, Gaetz, Cawthorn, etc.
Yes, I know I'm not a lawyer. I'm an old Navy Chief, a qualified Submariner, armed (if you will) with a degree in History.
Fully understand this view of these people as it's pretty much my own. Here's the rub...
The Treason Clause of the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1) not only defines treason as you described, but it also lays out 2 essential elements of which one or the other must be met for conviction:
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
A very high bar, and rightfully so for a number of reasons. Doesn't make the fact that a prosecution against these various miscreants on a charge of treason would never be brought any more palatable, but meeting that bar would be impossible on one element (no attack of conscience would provoke a confession from someone when the element of witnesses can't be met), and nearly impossible on the other. Sedition and other lesser charges much easier to be proved.
Pesky thing sometimes, that darned Constitution. And frustrating, too. We know what these people are in the de facto sense. Proving they are that in a court of law is a whole 'nother thing. Odds of them ever legally being branded as traitors are about zero to none. But we know they are betrayers of this nation, and I truly hope and pray that one day they will get what's comin' to 'em for that.
BTW...I'm not a lawyer either. Had to use Google to look up the precise language. I'd really like to be wrong about this for obvious reasons, but on the other hand it's a good thing that such a stringent standard exists, lest a charge of treason become as common as any other political football.
I agree; stringency is, especially in this matter, good and necessary. Still, when clips of some U.S. citizens are broadcast on Russian media, known for its fair and balanced approach, to support its war of aggression and criminal acts...
Believe me, Don, I get it. I really do. And if the bona fides could be obtained and the requirements met, go for it, Baby! And if volunteers were needed to tie the hangman's knots, you'd have to fight me to be first in line.
I definitely should have been a little more precise in my metaphor for my disgust with and loathing for these people. I apologize. I'm not advocating for violence, or even for the death penalty. And it's unclear to me if that is even now an option for a conviction for treason, since a quick G search gives conflicting info from different sources, and I wanted to respond to this quickly, so haven't taken the time to sort it out.
Actually, I'm not in favor of capital punishment for anything for a number of reasons, but not because I'm some soft-on-crime bleeding heart do-gooder. In fact, my reasons can pretty much be boiled down to the opposite...capital punishment is letting the perpetrator of such heinous crimes that seem to warrant it off too easily. When the trap is sprung, or the switch thrown or the plunger depressed, the punishment is over. Much more appropriate to deprive the criminal of his most precious possession short of life itself - his freedom - for as long as possible, that being the rest of his life. And I'm not talkin' Club Fed here. I feel those convicted of something that instinctively or intuitively would seem to merit a death warrant should do the hardest time there is for the rest of their natural life, short only of the line of cruel and unusual.
So, let me offer a different metaphor: You'd have to fight me to be first in line to throw away the key. Sorry, just couldn't help myself.
Hope I've now made my position clear on this. Again, apologies for letting the strength of my feelings weaken my writing about this subject. I'm not happy with myself when I do that, and try to guard against it. Not always successful, so thanks for speaking up. I wouldn't want my mistake to reflect badly upon your own opinion of things in some guilt by association thing, since I was saying that we seemed to be in agreement on the nefarious and even heinous nature of these people's actions.
I assure you that I will adequately address these three issues immediately after I pass the Bar and am hired by DoJ, sworn in, and appointed to lead the effort.
I hope that a jury will be as biased as possible against sedition, seditious conspiracy, and treason. Would it be easy to find and empanel such a jury? Probably not. So what?
There are a lot of folks at the DOJ doing yeomen's work! It is the people at the top who are the problem imho. Always, it is those at the top, in charge.
Do I think jurors empaneled to try a murder case are biased against the concept of murder? I hope so. That's wildly different from bias against an individual indicted for murder prior to his, her, or their trial.
Yes, I did - and do. If or when individuals are charged with sedition or conspiracy or treason, those prosecuting will have to meet standards of proof, the judge or judges apply the law, and the jury or juries will have to rule.
If you ask me to recant, I must cite Martin Luther (1521) as precedent.
This is my first time posting here, anywhere actually, I am one of the old ones one of the posters talked about. I'm a fan of you Charlie and watch you on MSNBC every chance I get. I was born in MKE and lived in WI until I was 16 so WI politics is still of interest as I have relatives there still. What I want to say now is how irritated I am right now with our government. I had high hopes that the Muller Report would do something about that criminal in the White House, then when it didn't, I'd hoped the January 6th Commission would get on the ball and expose him, indite him, even jail his ass. I don't care if he was President. I'm disappointed the NY AG's office has failed to do anything in spite of all the evidence of his corruption. I'm disappointed the legislature acts so slowly or not at all in passing the needed laws covering voting, women's rights (abortion), letting the Republicans just run over them...seems like to me anyway. The dems need to get some spine and start acting like they have the power that they do have. Maybe it's the age thing and too many of them are behaving like it's 20 years ago. I look at the members of the Ukraine Parliament, all seem to be young, smart and not afraid to act. We need more of that. As for Ukraine, I am all for giving them everything they need to defeat Putin and giving it to them TODAY! Thanks for giving me a place to speak my mind. Wish it would do some good!
I laugh whenever a talking head says "but Democrats control the Govt." Dems control NOTHING (though Pelosi has a fair hand on her caucus)! Dems do need a spine. And I think they need former GOP strategists, if the Republic is to survive this November. I agree with you, urbangirl! Well said and thanks for saying it! (Maybe it IS partly the age thing; though the young progressives do not strike me as smart about politics, and passion alone won't cut it when the country needs a coalition of right, left and center to stop the Trump Party.
I'm with you. I don't get it. I think they're afraid of retaliation, but they're going to get it whether they do anything ir not. I'm furious that it's a forgone conclusion in the press that the Republicans are taking over and putting Trump back in charge in '24. That just can't happen. What are the good people in power doing to save our country? What morons think the Republicans should have any power. The Dems aren't great, but at least they don't live in crazy town.
Yes. this is another area that really makes me angry, assuming that the 2022 elections are going to be won by Republicans because past history says so. The press needs to stop pushing this. I love Steve Kornacki, but find some other stats that show dems can positively win given the Republican shenanigans over the past 6 years and pure criminal behavior. Need to do whatever it takes to not let this happen. Our democracy is in trouble now, if the GOP takes over in 2023, I'm afraid it's if not dead, it will be extremely weakened to the point it will take years to put it right again. Mind you, years at my age I don't have and I'd like to leave this earth knowing the US is still or if not still, on the way to regaining it's place in the free world.
I agree 100%. I wish some of the older Dems had retired and groomed some really smart replacements. I'm not enthused by the middle age group we have coming up. Harris is an opportunist, I don't care much for Buttigieg, Stacy Adam's is too far left. I think Kobechar would be good but for the far left, she's too moderate. They see the Republican far right pull the moderates onto the Crazy Train and think they should be able to do the same.
Well, I didn't realize my post was going to get so much attention. But since it has, I find I agree with some of the comments about it and some I don't necessarily disagree with but don't wholeheartedly agree with either. This may be a female/male difference of perspective...I don't know but could be. For instance, Kamala Harris may be an opportunist as you say, but being female she's needed to take advantage of every opportunity that came her way to succeed, all women do. I'm a bit worried that if she runs for president if Biden doesn't this next term, she won't get the votes because she's not taking advantage of opportunities that have come her way. For instance, wasn't she tasked with immigration which is still a mess and needs to be resolved. Why we still are doing things the way the Trump/Miller's immigration plan was implemented I don't understand. If it is a staff shortage, hire people! If it's a judge shortage, make more! We are short of workers in the good ole' USA, there they are! And for heavens sake, give the dreamers citizenship....NOW! And I don't see too far right or left in dems. Either they support programs I'm for or they don't. I do like Buttigieg, he's smart and I think he could get things done given free rein. And Stacy Adams knows what Georgia needs and I think she got cheated out of that last election. Go Stacy! I am a Klobechar fan. I would have voted for her for president if she had been a choice. As for the Republican's too far right...that's not a right thing, it's crazy ideas that seem to have caught the attention of the media anyway. Ignore them, don't give them air time, newsprint, or any recognition. I have a republican spouse who can't stand that thinking and doesn't know what to make of the party nowadays. I guess that's all. If this results in nasty responses, I won't be posting anymore.
Exactly! Of course, things going the way they are, so many heads in sand or mistaken self-interest alignments, among the many nations as well as ours, we'll be digging out of nuclear waste by 2024.
The loud, frequently pushed forward Saunders/AOC contingent gets tons of press. Since most of the country are more centrist, the far left crazy sound like the “Democratic Party.” When people want to live calmly, have protection from police, and be reassured that a majority basically share the same values, the far left ideas sound way too expensive and upsetting. Just as the Bulwark columns have been saying we need to help Joe Biden move to center. Maybe Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg can help.
I think Biden lives at center. I think his flaw is not understanding the time (and perhaps thinking he was hired for other purposes than to calm the waters and restore sanity and justice). I agree he is a disappointment. I do blame those closest to him as much as him. Also he's better at foreign than domestic policy. But he sure doesn't seem to get the existential threat in domestic policy ie voting rights.
I completely agree with you. We thought The Freedom to Vote Act written by Klobuchar & Manchin did a possible job of threading the waters between States Right and Federal Government. It seemed to me that the activists felt it didn’t go far enough. How would you thread this needle?
Somehow "activists" have never learned not to let their Perfect be the enemy of everyone's Good. I don't know the answer. I do not feel that our Republic can survive this. Assuming we survive Putin.
It strikes me that the current consternation regarding whether or not to prosecute TFG mirrors our over-cautious approach to Ukraine. If we truly believe that leaving Ukraine to the Russians is a threat to democracy, we should act like it. Go all in, because the alternative is an existential threat. Same goes for tacit encouragement of Trump and his MAGA crazies. This is not a time for timidity. The world's children deserve better.
Only NY's AG could politically get away with prosecuting Trump. Republicans in red states (and upstate NY) already believe NY is out to get Trump, so nothing new if they prosecute. In contrast, you haven't seen radicalization and poisonous partisan divide like you'd see if the federal government prosecuted Trump. SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade this June would motivate Democrats/the left more weakly than a federal indictment of Trump would motivate Republicans/the right.
There comes a time when one must do the right thing because it is the right thing despite the political expediency or other political factors. When you act out of politics, you are begging for ultimate defeat. Liz Cheney is the only example in politics of willingness to stand firm for the country and the Constitution over politics when push came to shove. Adam Kinsinger too I guess.
I recall during Katrina I thought "there is nobody in govt in either party who is going to save the American people in an emergency; there is only the people ourselves." Still true. And we need saving FROM the govt at this point I fear. Both parties, for different reasons. GOP are perfidious if that's a word. Dems are clueless and/or spineless.
Wow!!! These are ALL so good!!! Someone should summarize them for Merriam-Webster! Definition of a trump.... (Anyone else remember "The King of Hearts" with Alan Bates? ) (I do see so many similarities between Trump and Putin these days, though not in all of these categories since Putin has stolen more and been more effective up to now -- more in the theft/corruption/violence/selfish categories. But brutality and raw force are not "strength"; nor is scorched earth "winning" or "smart.") They are, however, very very dangerous.
Yes, though not as much as one might think, below appellate levels. But an old lawyer's adage is that "it matters less what law you know and more what judge you know." Cynical.
He has to be investigated first. There is no political downside to a full investigation. If there isn't enough evidence for a charge and confidence by prosecutors they can win all 12 jurors, then they say so at the end of the investigation with a declination statement. That is our system. He'll get away with it, but along with being the only president in our history to be impeached twice, he'll be the only one ever investigated by the DOJ.
What is worse...a justice system that actually tries to prosecute fragrant lawlessness and corruption and fails to win a conviction for whatever reason, or one which gives such behavior a pass for political considerations? And if the latter, how is that not as corrupt as the perpetrators themselves?
If the King needs dispatchin', one should clearly be certain of one's aim. But keep the safety on too long, and the best shot may become pointless.
1) Eric Fry makes some good points in that regard; and
2) Equally important: Trump may act like a mob boss and might want to be the equivalent of a mob boss, BUT he is a member of the club of very rich people who made their money "legally" and he is a famous public figure.
A lot of these people (politicians and other members of the club) will protect him, while (in the case of the Democrats) trying to pretend that they aren't. It is the Democrat version of performance art. That is why I will be surprised if Trump is ever charged/indicted--because that opens up room for these other people to be charged/indicted.
The only time we go after rich and political people is when they have angered richer and more powerful political people or when the mob demands their head--and not just the Dem or GoP mob, but the whole mob.
#2 sadly a pretty accurate take by my lights. Any idea on an answer to this problem? (See my reply to E.F. above for some of my sentiments, though those are not an answer in and of themselves to this.) Maybe a lot more of us every-day goombahs yelling for some particular heads? More? Here's my palm...got a knife handy?
The reality is that things have to get pretty bad before the revolution comes. Things aren't nearly that bad yet and the elites seem to be:
1) careful in providing or at least looking like they are providing help;
2) dividing the people and turning factions against each other (human nature helps in this);
3) reining in or hiding their worst actions and impulses for the most part.
Humans are inherently conservative in many regards. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Risk-takers are actually kind of rare and tend to be younger.
The inherent conservatism means that things actually have to get pretty bad and people have to get pretty angry before they will take the risk of trying to force change.
What we depend upon, largely, is the enlightened self-interest of those of wealth, power, and influence and their desire to self-police in order to avoid the revolution.
When you get a revolution all you REALLY end up doing (after it all shakes out) is replacing one set of "elites" with a different set.
The mobsters weren't leaders of a 75 million-strong cult backed by an entire industry of propaganda, great wealth, and power. And although they owned politicians, they weren't the politicians. And mob violence was mostly internecine and didn't much affect citizens, as police call normal people. And he's a Republican, backed by thousands of heavily armed militia members. And he's perfectly willing to burn Ametica to the ground .
It's true. And there is a reason why foreign owned Fox News and its commentators are all in with Putin. They're hoping for his help because the bottom line is, they are traitors to Democracy. Although the fact that Russia has shown how weak and dysfunctional it really is has maybe given them pause.
Point taken, it's a good and pertinent one, and this is not a criticism but a straightforward question and premise.
Are those here in society, me among them, and those within our government who are resolved to preserve the rule of law and therefore the existence of the U.S. as an actual democratic republic - however imperfect it may be - supposed to start using the same calculus about the enemies of our country within our borders as we do those on foreign soil, treating them as if they possess nuclear weapons and proceeding perhaps too timidly because of it?
Well-armed they are, but that must not be a deterrent, not here on our own soil, no matter what arms they bear or how many. Because this is the whole darned shootin' match right here. If we engage in any form of appeasement, if we allow ourselves to be dissuaded from our resolve by fear, if we shrink from our resolve for any reason, they win. And they won't have to fire a shot.
The above concerns are more than valid. But living in fear of what these people might do is a sure way to make sure they destroy what we should all be defending. No thanks. Not doin' it. It's possible to be concerned and resolved and, if necessary, brave, all at the same time.
Bravo, true in every part. My only addendum would be, ‘If you come for the king, you’d best be damned sure you kill the king’ and can get it upheld on appeal. Taking Trump to trial and have him get off would do more damage than not having tried him at all.
Tough call on this one for me for a few reasons. Lots of downside in either a swing-and-a-miss or getting caught looking and called out with the bat still behind our shoulder. My personal preference is if we're gonna' go down, let's go down swingin'. But I'll admit that's about equal parts reason and sentiment.
There's trying him and there's first investigating him. They MUST investigate, whether it results in an indictment or not. All the legal pundits I follow see no signs DOJ is investigating.
I have no doubt he is featuring in the DoJ investigations of 1/6 but they will not say that, nor should they just to appease the frustrations of the public. That’s where Comey went badly wrong, he had no need to say anything until he was sure there was new evidence against HRC but he gave in to fear of leaks and public pressure & announced the ‘re-opening’ of an investigation 10 days before an election. There are good reasons why DoJ should not discuss these things in public. But the evidence of a criminal offence will have to be well beyond a reasonable doubt for DoJ to indict Trump and again for good reason. The country is a tinder box, he must be held to account if the evidence is there but they can’t just take a flyer and hope they get a sympathetic jury.
Comey really, really screwed that whole thing up by opening his yap, whether that was well intended or not. And I get it about why DOJ may seem idle due to the relative silence. Hoping they just learned a lesson from Comey and are actually getting their ducks very quietly in a row. I'm with Sandy in that all I want, and have wanted, is a 1st rate legitimate investigation and let the chips fall where they may. But if they don't fall at all, I'm really going to be beyond pissed off!!
Of course they don't say anything about investigations, but, as legal pundits like Preet Bharara, Joyce Vance and Dan Goldman have pointed out, no one close to Trump is being subpoenaed. That would get out if it were happening.
I'm not looking for an indictment, just an investigation.
I was impressed by that very eloquent passage from Santayana, a philosopher whom I never read during my graduate study of philosophy. It captures the essence of what Ayn Rand would later term "whim-worship." Can anyone provide a citation, so I can perhaps read it in context?
<<For the barbarian is the man who regards his passions as their own excuse for being; who does not domesticate them either by understanding their cause or by conceiving their ideal goal. He is the man who does not know his derivations nor perceive his tendencies, but who merely feels and acts, valuing in his life its force and its filling, but being careless of its purpose and its form. His delight is in abundance and vehemence; his art, like his life, shows an exclusive respect for quantity and splendour of materials. His scorn for what is poorer and weaker than himself is only surpassed by his ignorance of what is higher.>>
I groaned a little when I saw the notion of "domesticat[ing]" the passions, which is generally based on a Platonic view of the passions as irrational beasts (as in the charioteer metaphor from The Republic). But Santayana immediately followed up with an explanation of how one domesticates the passions: "either by understanding their cause or by conceiving their ideal goal." So the passions are not alien forces to be whipped into submission (the stereotypical Platonic view) or succumbed to (the emotionalist's view). It's not clear from this passage exactly what he thinks the passions are, but it is clear that they are subject to cause and effect, including teleological causation. Although this was an idea that had been percolating during Santayana's time, as psychology and therapy were in their youth, I hadn't before seen it so explicitly stated until significantly later.
I especially like the connection between the fundamental nature of a whim (which Ayn Rand defined as "a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause") and its destructive consequences. The person who has abandoned concern for the causes of his or her passions is left with "exclusive respect for quantity and splendor of materials" in the pursuit of personal values. (Although Santayana's passage applies specifically to art, I think the concept applies in one form or another to all values.)
And in the social realm, a life on the premise of unexamined emotions leads to social-hierarchical thinking, with its ultimate result being conflict and war. ("His scorn for what is poorer and weaker than himself is only surpassed by his ignorance of what is higher.")
This brief but insightful passage makes me want to read more by Santayana, a person I knew only by his reputation as an influential but not top-tier philosopher of the early 20th century. Thank you for introducing me to him!
Hey, Charlie might be 67 but we're told by Tim Miller that he's spry! So there's that.
I keep waiting for the tide of public sentiment to turn on Trump and his faction because his public is fickle and they tire of the same old same old. You can fool some of the people for some of the time but not for all of the time. Trump has a limited range.
Problem is, while I think Trump only has 30-35% public support, he has 80% of GOP who will vote GOP until he shoots them in the head and maybe even then. And it is the GOP that must be purged. And/or Electoral College eliminated. But I greatly fear this year is the last national election because of the blindness of some politicos and the raw self-interest of others.
That fear is what paralyzes this Administration. They need to get over it. Just as Putin is taking advantage of wishful thinking, so is TFG and his fellow-travelers. Biden wants to be a leader. LEAD!
Re Mike Lee, he's obviously a RINO because he still has enough of a sense of shame to kowtow to Trump in private, or what he believed would remain private. Seems he's foolish enough not to understand that most things become public eventually.
I suppose I must take whatever solace there may be in believing that Mike Lee will need to act shamelessly in public from here on out no matter how it may unsettle him to do so. He sure as Hell isn't going to act responsibly.
Televised hearings by the 1/6 committee would be helpful. I'm hoping we will see those before too much longer.
Any thoughts on the Jennifer Rubin piece on Tom Nelson democratic candidate for the senate from Wisconsin. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/17/tom-nelson-wisconsin-senate-populist-that-democrat-need/)
Agree with Don Gates. Better domestic violence we who value democracy can prepare for and win than to not indict fearing violence, which strengthens the authoritarians. That would be the absolute worst.
Now for something somewhat different: Anyone who incites revolt or violence against government, especially our federal government, commits sedition. To wit: Trump, Lee, Meadows, Powell, Wood, Flynn, Bannon, et al.
Further, "Every person owing allegiance to the United States, who [...] adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason." To wit: Brownshirts such as Marjorie Taylor Green, Boebert, Gaetz, Cawthorn, etc.
Yes, I know I'm not a lawyer. I'm an old Navy Chief, a qualified Submariner, armed (if you will) with a degree in History.
Fully understand this view of these people as it's pretty much my own. Here's the rub...
The Treason Clause of the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1) not only defines treason as you described, but it also lays out 2 essential elements of which one or the other must be met for conviction:
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
A very high bar, and rightfully so for a number of reasons. Doesn't make the fact that a prosecution against these various miscreants on a charge of treason would never be brought any more palatable, but meeting that bar would be impossible on one element (no attack of conscience would provoke a confession from someone when the element of witnesses can't be met), and nearly impossible on the other. Sedition and other lesser charges much easier to be proved.
Pesky thing sometimes, that darned Constitution. And frustrating, too. We know what these people are in the de facto sense. Proving they are that in a court of law is a whole 'nother thing. Odds of them ever legally being branded as traitors are about zero to none. But we know they are betrayers of this nation, and I truly hope and pray that one day they will get what's comin' to 'em for that.
BTW...I'm not a lawyer either. Had to use Google to look up the precise language. I'd really like to be wrong about this for obvious reasons, but on the other hand it's a good thing that such a stringent standard exists, lest a charge of treason become as common as any other political football.
I agree; stringency is, especially in this matter, good and necessary. Still, when clips of some U.S. citizens are broadcast on Russian media, known for its fair and balanced approach, to support its war of aggression and criminal acts...
Believe me, Don, I get it. I really do. And if the bona fides could be obtained and the requirements met, go for it, Baby! And if volunteers were needed to tie the hangman's knots, you'd have to fight me to be first in line.
I don't wish for hangings, shipmate.
I definitely should have been a little more precise in my metaphor for my disgust with and loathing for these people. I apologize. I'm not advocating for violence, or even for the death penalty. And it's unclear to me if that is even now an option for a conviction for treason, since a quick G search gives conflicting info from different sources, and I wanted to respond to this quickly, so haven't taken the time to sort it out.
Actually, I'm not in favor of capital punishment for anything for a number of reasons, but not because I'm some soft-on-crime bleeding heart do-gooder. In fact, my reasons can pretty much be boiled down to the opposite...capital punishment is letting the perpetrator of such heinous crimes that seem to warrant it off too easily. When the trap is sprung, or the switch thrown or the plunger depressed, the punishment is over. Much more appropriate to deprive the criminal of his most precious possession short of life itself - his freedom - for as long as possible, that being the rest of his life. And I'm not talkin' Club Fed here. I feel those convicted of something that instinctively or intuitively would seem to merit a death warrant should do the hardest time there is for the rest of their natural life, short only of the line of cruel and unusual.
So, let me offer a different metaphor: You'd have to fight me to be first in line to throw away the key. Sorry, just couldn't help myself.
Hope I've now made my position clear on this. Again, apologies for letting the strength of my feelings weaken my writing about this subject. I'm not happy with myself when I do that, and try to guard against it. Not always successful, so thanks for speaking up. I wouldn't want my mistake to reflect badly upon your own opinion of things in some guilt by association thing, since I was saying that we seemed to be in agreement on the nefarious and even heinous nature of these people's actions.
Problem = None. I completely agree.
I assure you that I will adequately address these three issues immediately after I pass the Bar and am hired by DoJ, sworn in, and appointed to lead the effort.
I hope that a jury will be as biased as possible against sedition, seditious conspiracy, and treason. Would it be easy to find and empanel such a jury? Probably not. So what?
There are a lot of folks at the DOJ doing yeomen's work! It is the people at the top who are the problem imho. Always, it is those at the top, in charge.
Do I think jurors empaneled to try a murder case are biased against the concept of murder? I hope so. That's wildly different from bias against an individual indicted for murder prior to his, her, or their trial.
Yes, I did - and do. If or when individuals are charged with sedition or conspiracy or treason, those prosecuting will have to meet standards of proof, the judge or judges apply the law, and the jury or juries will have to rule.
If you ask me to recant, I must cite Martin Luther (1521) as precedent.
Just love the C. S. Lewis quote! Did he have anyone in mind when he wrote it?
This is my first time posting here, anywhere actually, I am one of the old ones one of the posters talked about. I'm a fan of you Charlie and watch you on MSNBC every chance I get. I was born in MKE and lived in WI until I was 16 so WI politics is still of interest as I have relatives there still. What I want to say now is how irritated I am right now with our government. I had high hopes that the Muller Report would do something about that criminal in the White House, then when it didn't, I'd hoped the January 6th Commission would get on the ball and expose him, indite him, even jail his ass. I don't care if he was President. I'm disappointed the NY AG's office has failed to do anything in spite of all the evidence of his corruption. I'm disappointed the legislature acts so slowly or not at all in passing the needed laws covering voting, women's rights (abortion), letting the Republicans just run over them...seems like to me anyway. The dems need to get some spine and start acting like they have the power that they do have. Maybe it's the age thing and too many of them are behaving like it's 20 years ago. I look at the members of the Ukraine Parliament, all seem to be young, smart and not afraid to act. We need more of that. As for Ukraine, I am all for giving them everything they need to defeat Putin and giving it to them TODAY! Thanks for giving me a place to speak my mind. Wish it would do some good!
I laugh whenever a talking head says "but Democrats control the Govt." Dems control NOTHING (though Pelosi has a fair hand on her caucus)! Dems do need a spine. And I think they need former GOP strategists, if the Republic is to survive this November. I agree with you, urbangirl! Well said and thanks for saying it! (Maybe it IS partly the age thing; though the young progressives do not strike me as smart about politics, and passion alone won't cut it when the country needs a coalition of right, left and center to stop the Trump Party.
I'm with you. I don't get it. I think they're afraid of retaliation, but they're going to get it whether they do anything ir not. I'm furious that it's a forgone conclusion in the press that the Republicans are taking over and putting Trump back in charge in '24. That just can't happen. What are the good people in power doing to save our country? What morons think the Republicans should have any power. The Dems aren't great, but at least they don't live in crazy town.
Yes. this is another area that really makes me angry, assuming that the 2022 elections are going to be won by Republicans because past history says so. The press needs to stop pushing this. I love Steve Kornacki, but find some other stats that show dems can positively win given the Republican shenanigans over the past 6 years and pure criminal behavior. Need to do whatever it takes to not let this happen. Our democracy is in trouble now, if the GOP takes over in 2023, I'm afraid it's if not dead, it will be extremely weakened to the point it will take years to put it right again. Mind you, years at my age I don't have and I'd like to leave this earth knowing the US is still or if not still, on the way to regaining it's place in the free world.
I agree 100%. I wish some of the older Dems had retired and groomed some really smart replacements. I'm not enthused by the middle age group we have coming up. Harris is an opportunist, I don't care much for Buttigieg, Stacy Adam's is too far left. I think Kobechar would be good but for the far left, she's too moderate. They see the Republican far right pull the moderates onto the Crazy Train and think they should be able to do the same.
Well, I didn't realize my post was going to get so much attention. But since it has, I find I agree with some of the comments about it and some I don't necessarily disagree with but don't wholeheartedly agree with either. This may be a female/male difference of perspective...I don't know but could be. For instance, Kamala Harris may be an opportunist as you say, but being female she's needed to take advantage of every opportunity that came her way to succeed, all women do. I'm a bit worried that if she runs for president if Biden doesn't this next term, she won't get the votes because she's not taking advantage of opportunities that have come her way. For instance, wasn't she tasked with immigration which is still a mess and needs to be resolved. Why we still are doing things the way the Trump/Miller's immigration plan was implemented I don't understand. If it is a staff shortage, hire people! If it's a judge shortage, make more! We are short of workers in the good ole' USA, there they are! And for heavens sake, give the dreamers citizenship....NOW! And I don't see too far right or left in dems. Either they support programs I'm for or they don't. I do like Buttigieg, he's smart and I think he could get things done given free rein. And Stacy Adams knows what Georgia needs and I think she got cheated out of that last election. Go Stacy! I am a Klobechar fan. I would have voted for her for president if she had been a choice. As for the Republican's too far right...that's not a right thing, it's crazy ideas that seem to have caught the attention of the media anyway. Ignore them, don't give them air time, newsprint, or any recognition. I have a republican spouse who can't stand that thinking and doesn't know what to make of the party nowadays. I guess that's all. If this results in nasty responses, I won't be posting anymore.
Exactly! Of course, things going the way they are, so many heads in sand or mistaken self-interest alignments, among the many nations as well as ours, we'll be digging out of nuclear waste by 2024.
The loud, frequently pushed forward Saunders/AOC contingent gets tons of press. Since most of the country are more centrist, the far left crazy sound like the “Democratic Party.” When people want to live calmly, have protection from police, and be reassured that a majority basically share the same values, the far left ideas sound way too expensive and upsetting. Just as the Bulwark columns have been saying we need to help Joe Biden move to center. Maybe Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg can help.
S.C. Jones
I think Biden lives at center. I think his flaw is not understanding the time (and perhaps thinking he was hired for other purposes than to calm the waters and restore sanity and justice). I agree he is a disappointment. I do blame those closest to him as much as him. Also he's better at foreign than domestic policy. But he sure doesn't seem to get the existential threat in domestic policy ie voting rights.
I completely agree with you. We thought The Freedom to Vote Act written by Klobuchar & Manchin did a possible job of threading the waters between States Right and Federal Government. It seemed to me that the activists felt it didn’t go far enough. How would you thread this needle?
Somehow "activists" have never learned not to let their Perfect be the enemy of everyone's Good. I don't know the answer. I do not feel that our Republic can survive this. Assuming we survive Putin.
We believe prayer helps.
But Biden has not pushed a left agenda. The BBBB didn't pass after Biden trimmed it from 6 trillion to 1.6 trillion. Then let Manchin shut it down.
"... start acting like they have the power they do have."
Bingo!
First time here, eh? Off to a pretty good start. Welcome to ya'.
It strikes me that the current consternation regarding whether or not to prosecute TFG mirrors our over-cautious approach to Ukraine. If we truly believe that leaving Ukraine to the Russians is a threat to democracy, we should act like it. Go all in, because the alternative is an existential threat. Same goes for tacit encouragement of Trump and his MAGA crazies. This is not a time for timidity. The world's children deserve better.
He either fears his fate too much, or his desserts are small; who dares not put it to the touch, to win or lose it all.
Montrose's Toast.
Only NY's AG could politically get away with prosecuting Trump. Republicans in red states (and upstate NY) already believe NY is out to get Trump, so nothing new if they prosecute. In contrast, you haven't seen radicalization and poisonous partisan divide like you'd see if the federal government prosecuted Trump. SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade this June would motivate Democrats/the left more weakly than a federal indictment of Trump would motivate Republicans/the right.
There comes a time when one must do the right thing because it is the right thing despite the political expediency or other political factors. When you act out of politics, you are begging for ultimate defeat. Liz Cheney is the only example in politics of willingness to stand firm for the country and the Constitution over politics when push came to shove. Adam Kinsinger too I guess.
I recall during Katrina I thought "there is nobody in govt in either party who is going to save the American people in an emergency; there is only the people ourselves." Still true. And we need saving FROM the govt at this point I fear. Both parties, for different reasons. GOP are perfidious if that's a word. Dems are clueless and/or spineless.
Lewis and Santayana are good, but George Will is best: "Trump is a weak man’s idea of a strong man."
Wow!!! These are ALL so good!!! Someone should summarize them for Merriam-Webster! Definition of a trump.... (Anyone else remember "The King of Hearts" with Alan Bates? ) (I do see so many similarities between Trump and Putin these days, though not in all of these categories since Putin has stolen more and been more effective up to now -- more in the theft/corruption/violence/selfish categories. But brutality and raw force are not "strength"; nor is scorched earth "winning" or "smart.") They are, however, very very dangerous.
He’s also an easy mark’s idea of a great businessman.
And poor man's idea of a rich man.
And a dumb man's idea of a smart man.
A loser's idea of a winner?
Gerontocracy - For those of us who survived the '60's - "Don't trust anyone over 30!"
Now It's don't trust anyone over 80.
If Trump is tried, the most likely result is a hung jury. Why is that helpful?
Depends on where he is tried. And whether jury is sequestered and protected. Bad times!
And who appointed the judge
Yes, though not as much as one might think, below appellate levels. But an old lawyer's adage is that "it matters less what law you know and more what judge you know." Cynical.
He has to be investigated first. There is no political downside to a full investigation. If there isn't enough evidence for a charge and confidence by prosecutors they can win all 12 jurors, then they say so at the end of the investigation with a declination statement. That is our system. He'll get away with it, but along with being the only president in our history to be impeached twice, he'll be the only one ever investigated by the DOJ.
That isn't enough, with the GOP willing to put him back in the WH.
What is worse...a justice system that actually tries to prosecute fragrant lawlessness and corruption and fails to win a conviction for whatever reason, or one which gives such behavior a pass for political considerations? And if the latter, how is that not as corrupt as the perpetrators themselves?
If the King needs dispatchin', one should clearly be certain of one's aim. But keep the safety on too long, and the best shot may become pointless.
Well said.
Could use Defense Production Act maybe?
I'm afraid that everything can be turned into a victory for Trump.
It always confuses me that it was right to go after mobsters despite the violence that could cause, but it's wrong to go after Trump
For the mob, the violence would come from the mob only. Go after Trump, and you, er, inspire 40-45% of the population to rebel in some fashion.
1) Eric Fry makes some good points in that regard; and
2) Equally important: Trump may act like a mob boss and might want to be the equivalent of a mob boss, BUT he is a member of the club of very rich people who made their money "legally" and he is a famous public figure.
A lot of these people (politicians and other members of the club) will protect him, while (in the case of the Democrats) trying to pretend that they aren't. It is the Democrat version of performance art. That is why I will be surprised if Trump is ever charged/indicted--because that opens up room for these other people to be charged/indicted.
The only time we go after rich and political people is when they have angered richer and more powerful political people or when the mob demands their head--and not just the Dem or GoP mob, but the whole mob.
#2 sadly a pretty accurate take by my lights. Any idea on an answer to this problem? (See my reply to E.F. above for some of my sentiments, though those are not an answer in and of themselves to this.) Maybe a lot more of us every-day goombahs yelling for some particular heads? More? Here's my palm...got a knife handy?
The reality is that things have to get pretty bad before the revolution comes. Things aren't nearly that bad yet and the elites seem to be:
1) careful in providing or at least looking like they are providing help;
2) dividing the people and turning factions against each other (human nature helps in this);
3) reining in or hiding their worst actions and impulses for the most part.
Humans are inherently conservative in many regards. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Risk-takers are actually kind of rare and tend to be younger.
The inherent conservatism means that things actually have to get pretty bad and people have to get pretty angry before they will take the risk of trying to force change.
What we depend upon, largely, is the enlightened self-interest of those of wealth, power, and influence and their desire to self-police in order to avoid the revolution.
When you get a revolution all you REALLY end up doing (after it all shakes out) is replacing one set of "elites" with a different set.
The mobsters weren't leaders of a 75 million-strong cult backed by an entire industry of propaganda, great wealth, and power. And although they owned politicians, they weren't the politicians. And mob violence was mostly internecine and didn't much affect citizens, as police call normal people. And he's a Republican, backed by thousands of heavily armed militia members. And he's perfectly willing to burn Ametica to the ground .
Yep.
It's true. And there is a reason why foreign owned Fox News and its commentators are all in with Putin. They're hoping for his help because the bottom line is, they are traitors to Democracy. Although the fact that Russia has shown how weak and dysfunctional it really is has maybe given them pause.
They still want someone who will punish their enemies the way Putin punishes his.
Point taken, it's a good and pertinent one, and this is not a criticism but a straightforward question and premise.
Are those here in society, me among them, and those within our government who are resolved to preserve the rule of law and therefore the existence of the U.S. as an actual democratic republic - however imperfect it may be - supposed to start using the same calculus about the enemies of our country within our borders as we do those on foreign soil, treating them as if they possess nuclear weapons and proceeding perhaps too timidly because of it?
Well-armed they are, but that must not be a deterrent, not here on our own soil, no matter what arms they bear or how many. Because this is the whole darned shootin' match right here. If we engage in any form of appeasement, if we allow ourselves to be dissuaded from our resolve by fear, if we shrink from our resolve for any reason, they win. And they won't have to fire a shot.
The above concerns are more than valid. But living in fear of what these people might do is a sure way to make sure they destroy what we should all be defending. No thanks. Not doin' it. It's possible to be concerned and resolved and, if necessary, brave, all at the same time.
Not just possible, essential.
Agree.
Bravo, true in every part. My only addendum would be, ‘If you come for the king, you’d best be damned sure you kill the king’ and can get it upheld on appeal. Taking Trump to trial and have him get off would do more damage than not having tried him at all.
Tough call on this one for me for a few reasons. Lots of downside in either a swing-and-a-miss or getting caught looking and called out with the bat still behind our shoulder. My personal preference is if we're gonna' go down, let's go down swingin'. But I'll admit that's about equal parts reason and sentiment.
Agree let's go down swingin'. What do we get if we don't?
When the stakes are this high, there's risk in every move, no matter what.
I'm game. Batter! Batter! Batter!
There's trying him and there's first investigating him. They MUST investigate, whether it results in an indictment or not. All the legal pundits I follow see no signs DOJ is investigating.
They make a few noises here and there, but they don't seem too serious about it, do they? At least not at this point. Hope I'm wrong.
I have no doubt he is featuring in the DoJ investigations of 1/6 but they will not say that, nor should they just to appease the frustrations of the public. That’s where Comey went badly wrong, he had no need to say anything until he was sure there was new evidence against HRC but he gave in to fear of leaks and public pressure & announced the ‘re-opening’ of an investigation 10 days before an election. There are good reasons why DoJ should not discuss these things in public. But the evidence of a criminal offence will have to be well beyond a reasonable doubt for DoJ to indict Trump and again for good reason. The country is a tinder box, he must be held to account if the evidence is there but they can’t just take a flyer and hope they get a sympathetic jury.
Comey really, really screwed that whole thing up by opening his yap, whether that was well intended or not. And I get it about why DOJ may seem idle due to the relative silence. Hoping they just learned a lesson from Comey and are actually getting their ducks very quietly in a row. I'm with Sandy in that all I want, and have wanted, is a 1st rate legitimate investigation and let the chips fall where they may. But if they don't fall at all, I'm really going to be beyond pissed off!!
Of course they don't say anything about investigations, but, as legal pundits like Preet Bharara, Joyce Vance and Dan Goldman have pointed out, no one close to Trump is being subpoenaed. That would get out if it were happening.
I'm not looking for an indictment, just an investigation.
They're supposed to be loyal Americans
Stop, you're killing me. The Republican Party is their country and their religion. They are loyal to that.
Well said.