The 2020 USA POTUS election politics, the civil war, and the world war (Part 1)

8234

You think CJ Roberts will preside at the trial? Do not be too certain:

One unusual wrinkle in the second Trump trial may be the identity of the presiding officer, according to Politico’s Playbook:

> Multiple Republican and Democratic sources close to the impeachment trial negotiations tell us that Supreme Court Chief Justice JOHN ROBERTS is looking to avoid presiding over impeachment proceedings.

> We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. “He wants no further part of this,” one of our Hill sources says.

John Roberts’s “out” would be the constitutional language that specifies a presiding role for the chief justice only in trials of sitting presidents, as SCOTUSblog noted just before the first Trump trial:

> It is crucial to note why the chief justice appears only in presidential impeachment proceedings. The simple answer has to do with the often-forgotten constitutional power of the vice president to serve as president — meaning presiding officer — of the Senate. In any impeachment case other than that of the president, the vice president can preside, as Thomas Jefferson did in the very first impeachment, that of Senator William Blount in 1799, and as Aaron Burr later did in the 1805 trial of Justice Samuel Chase. However, the Framers recognized that it would be unseemly at best for the person who would assume the presidency in the event of conviction by the Senate to preside over the president’s trial. To prevent that obvious conflict of interest, they specified the chief justice as a stand-in presiding officer in presidential impeachment trials.

With Trump out of office, Harris isn’t going to inherit the top office upon a conviction, so there’s no reason for the chief justice to step in. But given Harris’s history as a senator who voted to remove Trump from office at the end of his first trial, compounded by the exceptional nastiness he has exhibited toward her (calling her a “monster” and a “communist” the day after her debate with Mike Pence last October), she may choose to step aside as well, which would devolve the presiding-officer role to incoming Senate president pro tem Pat Leahy, a veteran lawmaker (he’s been a senator since 1975) with a reputation for fairness and gravitas.

Democratic management of the trial notwithstanding, Senate Republicans hold Trump’s fate in their hands, with at least 17 defections being necessary to secure his conviction. While the near solidarity they achieved in Trump’s defense during the first trial is unlikely, they will have the same dodge available that Roberts is using to take a pass on holding the 45th president accountable for his misconduct: that the system was designed for sitting, not former, presidents. While Democrats will argue that the constitutionally sanctioned ban on future office-holding is the legitimate object of a trial, you can expect many Republicans to counter that the ban was intended to be a supplement, not an alternative, to removal from office. This question, having never been adjudicated in the courts, will hang over the proceedings from the get-go.

2 Likes
8235

President Trump has left office with a 51% approval rating from likely voters, according to Rasmussen. 48% of likely voters disapprove of Trump.

The above are Trump’s final numbers. The Rasmussen numbers for Biden will not appear until Friday.

8236

Another scream from the liberals… Why is Garth Brooks on the musical part of the inauguration?
I wondered about that also. He was the top performer today. IMO.

I read where Garth Brooks commented that he might be the only Republican at the affair.

His rendition of “Amazing Grace” was perfect…

8237

I get to speak for what those movements mean for me. And, I think that would fall under my statement after “or”: “that black people are not disproportionately harmed by society compared to white people.”

Or if you’re saying that the all lives matter movement isn’t an anti-BLM movement, I think for many that would actually be the case, but it’s just not the way it comes off, especially as it was started in response to BLM and all lives matter protesters were counter-protesting BLM.

The all lives matter movement started before this summer though. The movement itself, or at least its origins, is not a response to this summer.

8238

I think we all know he wants nothing to do with these impeachments, but I wasn’t aware there was this “out” so very interesting. I also never even really thought about why the Chief Justice presides, but that definitely makes sense.

I still think he will defer to the Senate as to whether he has to preside. It’s an interesting question though - what if he said no? Would/could he/the Court be sued? Who would even be the opposing party? And where would they sue? SCOTUS seems like it’d obviously be rife with conflict of interest problems.

8239

Is Trump headed for jail?

The second impeachment of President Donald Trump has concluded, not with a bang, but with a whimper. Whether it results in a Senate conviction or not, impeachment amounts to a feeble punishment for a man who will have left office anyway.

While the forces of decency, democracy and good government prevailed in this impeachment vote, we should ask what gain this battle has brought. A Senate debate will distract that body at a time when a new president critically needs it to confirm his Cabinet, and to approve a funding package to accelerate vaccinations and Covid-19 relief. Impeachment likely persuaded nobody; on all things Trumpian, it seems, virtually no American appears persuadable.

What is needed, rather, is criminal prosecution.

To deter the next unhinged narcissist from using the presidency to undermine the electoral process, a jury must convict Trump of his crimes. Trump previously suffered impeachment for deploying unlawful means to remain in power — using his office to leverage Ukraine to investigate then-Democratic opponent Joe Biden’s family. That impeachment did not deter Trump from abusing his power again, nor should we believe that this one will deter anyone else. A criminal conviction will.

By imposing a personal and direct punishment upon Trump, criminal prosecution will force future leaders to think twice about threatening that essential precondition of any functional republic: the peaceful transfer of power.

It will unequivocally repudiate, once and for all, the Nixonian doctrine that “when the president does it … that means it’s not illegal.” If democracy depends on the “consent of the losers,” as some have put it, then the loser’s consent must be mandatory, and enforced by a punitive sanction.

We cannot satisfy ourselves with the prosecution of the pelt-wearing members of the mob. Prosecuting only the puppets gives license to future puppet masters.

To be clear, Trump himself committed criminal acts. As suggested by the article of impeachment, he violated provisions of the federal criminal code that make it a crime to “incite, assist or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or give aid or comfort thereto.” Insurrection carries a statutory maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and permanent barring from public office. Alternatively or additionally, prosecutors might consider charges for seditious conspiracy, incitement of a riot or violent solicitation.

How could a jury conclude that Trump incited this insurrection? Because the events of Jan. 6 were as predictable as they were horrifying. After Trump failed at the polls, in the Electoral College, in 62 separate lawsuits, in three separate recounts, on two trips to the U.S. Supreme Court and in one menacing phone call to the Georgia secretary of state, the president urged thousands of “patriots” to come to Washington to both protest this “stolen” election and to pressure Congress to disregard the 12th Amendment, which mandates the implementation of the will of the electors.

He repeatedly attempted to boost the size of the crowd by tweeting or retweeting the invitation 20 times since Dec. 30, assuring supporters that it was going to “be wild.” In the hours before the attack, Trump told the crowd that “you’ll never take back our country with weakness,” urging them to “fight much harder” and to “show strength.” His henchman, Rudy Giuliani, urged the crowd, “Let’s have trial by combat.” After that, astoundingly, Trump declined requests from congressional leaders and aides to quell the mob invading the Capitol, during which five lives were lost, until several hours had passed.

It was all foreseeable, preventable and, most importantly, orchestrated. In the words of the head of the House Republican Conference, Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Trump “summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.”

Could Trump avoid prosecution? It seems unlikely that he can rely upon presidential immunity to prevent indictment after he has left office. In the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, five of the justices concluded that presidential immunity from civil suit does not shield a sitting president from criminal prosecution or for “acts outside official duties.” Legal authorities may disagree as to whether those opinions settle the argument as to sitting presidents, but there exists no legal basis for exempting a former president from criminal prosecution.

Experts appear more divided about whether a president could use the clemency power of Article II of the Constitution to pardon himself in anticipation of prosecution. On its face, nothing in the Constitution precludes a self-pardon.

A 1974 internal U.S. Department of Justice memorandum raises doubts, however, invoking “the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case,” and has the concurrence of such constitutional experts as Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe. Only the Supreme Court can finally resolve the issue, but we must call the question; otherwise, the door will remain open to those who might seek to exploit this uncertainty for tyrannical ends.

To be sure, we should hesitate before creating any appearance of criminalizing political differences. Doing so could launch an ever-escalating cycle of retribution of opposing parties incarcerating a succession of ex-leaders, as we see in too many failed democracies. Such concerns should inform whatever sentence that the Justice Department ultimately recommends to the judge — but they should not prevent Trump from serving a prison term.

Doing nothing merely raises a greater, countervailing risk: emboldening ambitious demagogues. Within our constitutional system of checks and balances, we can find a measured, sensible approach. We must do so, both to achieve justice for the victims of these attacks, and to renew our collective commitment to the rule of law.

– Sam Liccardo

8240

the daily schedule produced by his communications team spells out bluntly what he’s up to: “President Biden will work from early in the morning until late in the evening. He will make many calls and have many meetings.”

2 Likes
8241

Before:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ed3aYi-XsAAFQSm?format=jpg&name=large

Already tearing down the walls

1 Like
8242

First day actions already pushing for “racial equity” instead of equality.

The incoming Biden administration has announced a series of executive actions that open the door for instituting the quasi-Marxist critical theory across the federal government. President Joe Biden would sign documents to “launch a whole-of-government initiative to advance racial equity,” his transition team said in a Jan. 20 release.

Equity means equality of outcome, a concept tied to the critical theories that slice up society into identity groups based on race, gender, sexual proclivities, and others, while positing which groups are oppressed and which are the oppressors, similarly to how Marxism labels people as oppressors or the oppressed based on class.

“The president-elect will sign an Executive Order beginning the work of embedding equity across federal policymaking and rooting out systemic racism and other barriers to opportunity from federal programs and institutions,” the release said.

“The Executive Order will define equity as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities, such as Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and other persons of color; LGBTQ+ persons; people with disabilities; religious minorities, persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

Biden will direct all federal agencies “to undertake a baseline review of the state of equity within their agency and deliver an action plan within 200 days to address unequal barriers to opportunity in agency policies and programs.”

The Office of Management and Budget will be tasked with “working to more equitably allocate federal resources to empower and invest in communities of color and other underserved communities.”
The administration wants to look into new ways to check whether its policies “advance equity.”

Biden will also reverse the September executive order of then-President Donald Trump that banned federal agencies, contractors, subcontractors, and grantees from instructing their employees to follow the tenets of the critical theories.

The theories produced an industry of consultants and speakers who get hired by corporations and government agencies to train their employees on themes such as “implicit bias” and “white privilege.”

Trump’s order said the concepts of the theory are “divisive” and lead to “race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating.” Biden’s release said such trainings are “important and needed.”

So we can look forward to racial quotas or favoritism in government employee and promotions, plus he’s bringing back the stereotyping, anti-white “diversity” training that was banned towards the end of last year by Trump. Legal challenges to the new Biden policies are already planned.

1 Like
8243

Do any of you (I’m sure some) remember the '70’s, when schools needed to be properly mixed by race. (for the betterment of our children) So (still in my small rural area) CA schools made the mix. Mostly poor black areas of students, were bused to the other side of town & vis versa.
You know the results.

It didn’t work out as proposed. Lasted about 5 years. The good schools went down the drain, & the poorer schools stayed about the same.

The change came about when parents became outraged & insisted “return back to neighborhood schools”. Many parents that could afford to send their children to private schools did.

So this is Bidens brand new concept. Doesn’t work!!

2 Likes
8244

Nothing in the facts of what you posted (aside from the viewpoints about what you think the effects may be) are concerning to me. He’s directing his departments to look at systemic racial injustices.

Also, LOL at legal challenges are already planned. “Grave threat to American way of life.” Reminds me of shareholder derivative suits. “Management lied to shareholders and the stock is going to crash to 0 if we allow this to continue!” Followed by thirty law firms filing the same lawsuit.

First, yes, for many that is true. If you’ve been successful in a system partly because the system gives you advantages that it doesn’t give to others, then once others are given those advantages, then yes, that is a threat to your way of life. Certainly doesn’t make it wrong. Getting rid of slavery was a grave threat to the way of life for many.

Second, Trump just issued the EO in September 2020, and rescinding that EO all of a sudden means the end of America as we know it? That doesn’t even make sense.

6 Likes
8245

What are the chances we see either Republicans or Democrats (or Biden) try to push for limitations on presidential powers?

Many people were unhappy with the realization of the powers that a president wields and general lack of accountability, but it seems that every president that takes office pushes their authority a bit more (or a lot more) than the last one, and Congress in the past has either explicitly or through lack of action, delegated their authority and duties to the Executive.

Since there is such concern, legitimately, about a president’s authority, is now the opportunity to make those changes, while Democrats still have Trump on the top of their mind and Republicans are looking at a possible internal struggle that could keep them out of the Oval Office for a while?

1 Like
8246

You are naive if you think they’re going to be looking for actual discrimination and removing it ala slavery - it’ll be “disparate impact” all over again and the word will go out that the Biden admin is going to be hiring or promoting underqualified favored minorities over other more qualified candidates.

We can already see that in his choice of senior officials - is there any plausible argument that all these historic “firsts”, taken together, were each the single most qualified candidates to help lead and govern the United States?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bidens-cabinet-of-diversity-11608161027
Backup link

Joe Biden’s public commitment to filling his cabinet on the basis of diversity… began as he might have hoped, with the press appending “first” before the names of early appointees—the first Hispanic head of homeland security, the first woman as Treasury secretary, the first African-American defense chief, the first Hispanic health secretary, the first openly gay cabinet secretary, the first woman of color to run the Office of Management and Budget, the first woman as director of national intelligence.

Despite the nominal idealism of multiculturalism, this looks like a diversity spoils system, whose proliferating claimants will become impossible to satisfy.

The academics displaced the goal of incorporation with the idea of “differences.” Rather than a pathway to deepening social integration, diversity was redefined as an instrument of political struggle. Since late May, Black Lives Matter has become a proxy for diversity.

The question now is whether he or any American president should be able to assemble a government whose goal is to give the country the best possible execution of policy, or whether the presidency should be first of all a vessel through which competing factions receive appointment based on who or what they are.

A less benign view is that diversity has become most of all a weapon to silence opposition and suppress dissent… Allowable criticism exists only inside the movement.

The American ideal of equality is gone and equal opportunity is gone. This is just pandering to his minority oriented voter base and the far left progressives for whom power and their anti-white, anti-equality agenda is more important than the welfare of the country or its governance. And of course it has made “racists” out of every white person in the country to hear the “diversity training” grifters tell it. Unity indeed.

2 Likes
8247

I believe systemic racism exists. I’m also a white male and I have no concern that white people in the US are somehow going to be relegated to second class citizens because of the fact that we’re trying to bring others up to first class citizens.

You are falling for this illogical alarmist rhetoric if you think that the “American ideal of equality is gone and equal opportunity is gone.”

6 Likes
8248

Is that an evidence-based view or a faith-based one? You said not too long ago

And in our society, white people are already granted significant privileges, so while it is still a question of race and may be subject to the same scrutiny from a constitutional law perspective, from a society perspective, there’s not nearly as much need to protect white people, because the system is already designed for that. You know black people are at a disadvantage in our society, and you know this from the results. White people are in power. Unless your argument is that white people are inherently smarter, better, whatever, then it’s clear that black people are at a disadvantage.

which struck me as making a division between white and black where there probably wasn’t one, or rather inferring a causal link when the likely cause lay elsewhere. It seemed to be the classic example of what we were talking about before, ie observing a racial “disparate impact” (as measured by income, wealth, career success or similar), and assuming that the origin of that difference must be due to the racial factor and by extension some sort of discrimination that perpetuates this condition, rather than some other confounding factor. A classic question of correlation vs causality, and if we’re going to make government policy to address an apparent “problem”, we better be very sure we understand the cause instead of trying to treat some symptom that will accomplish nothing or worse.

For example, if you told me that large income / wealth / life success outcomes were highly correlated with

  • growing up in a two parent household
  • not having children before marriage
  • valuing education / finishing school / grades
  • avoiding drugs and crime

I’d be willing to bet all of these are a lot more likely to be causal factors that resulted in the difference between a poor white city kid and a poor black city kid’s eventual life outcomes than their skin color. Is there some racial component as well, separate from these and other “voluntary” factors? Probably, but if it’s a small residual on top of much larger cultural issues (that are correlated with race), then you should be aiming to address these rather than branding everyone a presumed racist. There are after all nearly twice as many poor white people in the US as poor black ones, which of course is a “disparity” if you thought all else was equal, but sure doesn’t suggest their “white privilege” is some magic ticket to wealth and power.

Are we such a white supremacist nation that

  • we elected a black man to the highest office of the land, twice
  • there are over 50 ethnic groups in the US with higher median income than white Americans, including everyone from Nigerians to Lebanese to Indians
  • asian students earn 3/4 of the spots in the best high schools in the country (ie Thomas Jefferson VA, Stuyvesant in NYC), while being a tiny minority of the student population

This feels to me like a very weird type of systemic racism, that presumably the “whites in power” as you say would choose to implement. Lots of other racial groups are doing better, and not just a little bit better (Indian average income is double that of whites, Asian SAT scores are a full 100 points higher than whites). Why isn’t systemic racism holding these groups back as well?

I’m also a white male and I have no concern that white people in the US are somehow going to be relegated to second class citizens because of the fact that we’re trying to bring others up to first class citizens.

America has been so successful by welcoming many different peoples from around the world and affording them the opportunity to succeed. However, taking opportunity away in order to artificially engineer demographic outcomes is a big divergence from that historically successful approach. Among other things, quotas or affirmative action style interventions engender stereotyping (the average affirmative action hire is less qualified than the average non-affirmative action one), racial divisiveness, envy and resentment when otherwise fair and open minded people see the best opportunities and benefits going to people not for their merit but for their skin color, sex, confused gender/sexual orientation, or whatever else is fashionable for perceived victimhood.

To the extent that there still is racial discrimination in the US, put me firmly in the Justice Roberts / Parents Involved camp of “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

You are falling for this illogical alarmist rhetoric if you think that the “American ideal of equality is gone and equal opportunity is gone.”

Ok, well I’m exaggerating a bit but maybe it is gone now under Biden and we just don’t know it yet. Equality has been rapidly going down hill and policies that favor “equity” are only making things worse.

1 Like
8249

???

About half of the listed “white” ancestry groups are above the median white income and the other half below? What are you intending to imply is strange about that?

The relevant comparison is median white to median American household, which it shows 5% higher. Which is ~10% higher (converting those groups to exclusive datasets)

1 Like
8250

Biden’s loud, open message: "UNITY"

Biden’s party’s message, strictly on the qt:

Try, and disqualify if at all possible, Biden’s likely 2024 opponent.

8251

Should Biden pardon Trump? Such pardon would surely put Trump on the hot seat. I hope it does not happen. Still:

The Hill: Why Joe Biden should pardon Donald Trump

8252
3 Likes
8253

Kamala’s likely 2024 opponent :wink:

1 Like