The Republican ostrich effect

21 comments on “The Republican ostrich effect ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Gosman 1

   11 January 2021 at 9:11 am

   "Apart from putting an emphatic underline on the failure of the Trump presidency, any successful impeachment process would mean that Donald Trump wouldn’t be able to stand for president in 2024."

   This is not correct. This can happen but only if it is added as part of the process. It is not inherent part of the outcome of a conviction.
   • Gosman 1.1

     11 January 2021 at 9:43 am

     Perversely adding the exclusion clause to the articles of impeachment would mean it is less likely he would be convicted by the Senate as getting the 2/3rds majority with cross party support becomes more difficult to achieve.
     • lprent 1.1.1

       11 January 2021 at 11:45 am

       Sure – depends what the Dems want to achieve really – doesn’t it.

       Personally if I was involved in US democrat politics and wanting to push the lesson of the last 4 years home… I’d be all for pushing a second impeachment on Trump and identifying anyone who supported him explicitly or implicitly in the process. But also would like to fail to convict him.

       That would exactly follow the line of partisan politics that the republicans have followed for the last few decades in the house and later in the senate. Maximum damage to the process chasing partisan advantage and ignoring consequences.

       Failing to convict would leave a wounded and aggravated Trump available to have another run at the presidency and against the other republican pretenders to his throne.

       Lots of entertainment in that for the likes of Fox. Not sure what it would do to the republican party or for that matter to the stability of US politics.

       However it would provide a valuable lesson for those republican fuckwits who thought that they could control and use a narcissistic populist back in 2015/6.
     • Forget now 1.1.2

       11 January 2021 at 11:57 am

       Gosman

       My mind is a bit of a blur from days of scrolling, but I think that; while impeachment does have to be followed up by appending disqualification from office conditions, rather than happening automatically; a 50%+1 senate majority would be sufficient in achieving this. I do remember a bit about higher thresholds being involved in determining Presidential fitness for office under the 25th amendment, maybe the two got confused for you? I watched this the other day which is probably why it stuck, unlike much text.
       • lprent 1.1.2.1

         11 January 2021 at 1:16 pm

         I believe that the house is a simple majority. But the senate requirement is two thirds, ie it would require 17 republicans. At this point it sounds like that is possible as there quite a lot of senators including republicans who would seem to want provide a finality to the Trump experience,

         Yep – nice and clear – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Procedure

         At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.[20]

         First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

         Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been “impeached”.

         Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate’s usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate, who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires the concurrence of a two-thirds supermajority of those present. The result of conviction is removal from office.[21]
         • Forget now 1.1.2.1.1

           11 January 2021 at 1:31 pm

           Thanks lprent – I should have thought of wikipedia myself. The initial impeachment is a senate supermajority vote, it is the extension to disqualification (which is taken after a successful impeachment, not bundled together as Gosman was saying) that has the lesser vote threshold:

           Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him or her from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. As the threshold for disqualification is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Senate has taken the position that disqualification votes only require a simple majority rather than a two-thirds supermajority.
2. Sabine 2

   11 January 2021 at 9:45 am

   Well consider that it appears that the Republicans were very much part of this coup they might have no interest in impeachment with witnesses, the calling of cell phone records and so on and so forth. And they also would then be on record for not convicting, or if they are on record for convicting they would then be on the kill list of the Trumpists.

   Sucks if you are a party that adheres to the lowest common denominator and you then realize that the People like you as little as they like your opponents.

   Die Geister die ich rief werd ich nun nicht mehr loss. Goethe The sorceres apprentice.

   The Ghost that i have called i can't rid my self of anymore.
   • lprent 2.1

     11 January 2021 at 11:33 am

     they might have no interest in impeachment with witnesses, the calling of cell phone records and so on and so forth

     One of the effects of pushing the senate impeachment to the 117th session is that the new democratic senators will be seated and a new democratic senate leader will be elected. As Mitch McConnell has so amply demonstrated, that is a position of great effect in running the business of the senate.

     Even if the republican senators didn’t wish to look at the evidence, I suspect they’d be hard put to not have it exposed in public.
   • Grafton Gully 2.2

     11 January 2021 at 11:36 am

     The spirits I summoned I now can't get rid of ! They are at work among us and another magician will have to put them back in the bottle, or teach me the right spell.
3. Sabine 3

   11 January 2021 at 11:34 am

   Want to know why they need to impeach the fucker? And not only that, but essentially strip him of everything has going for him, and anyone who support him. And for that matter anyone who still makes excuses.

   This is what these guy are watching, and its well done, its done with money, and it surely is done with the fuckers full support. It is very slick.

   https://video.parler.com/D2/fo/D2fovQB1v4M2_small.mp4?fbclid=IwAR1ji3mpLeDLDSr3weEmlF_sDUBocE4sQYw6g10cTVli8GOjyskP9fVBiHE

   and yeah, goodwin.

   https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/1348249481284874240
   • Sacha 3.1

     11 January 2021 at 6:52 pm

     Please do not link to garbage sites like Parler.
     • Sabine 3.1.1

       11 January 2021 at 10:00 pm

       you do not have to click on this link if you don't want to.

       The clip i link to is a very sleek production to incite people. Its well done, with a considerable amount of money, spliced together from all the speeches of d. trump – whom have all been televised i might add.

       The snippets taken from the speeches are what in my opinion are the snippets Trumpists took from these rallys. I think is is actually important to see how this propaganda is made, presented and what it looks like.

       This is not something you – or i or anyone on the left is to see. This was a production aimed at the trumpists. You should watch it. It is very illuminating.

       But you do not have to click on any link i pose. But this video production is not something you will find on TV or anywhere else. And i suggest that people click the link that leads directly to the video. Go watch it.
       • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.1.1.1

         12 January 2021 at 8:51 am

         I thought both links were interesting and useful, thanks. Didn't watch all the Parler one, but got the drift!
4. Treetop 4

   11 January 2021 at 12:23 pm

   For Trump to not acknowledge that 5 people died would be for legal reasons.

   Did the Commander in Chief interfere in or delay the securing of Capitol Hill on 6 January 2021?
5. Stuart Munro 5

   11 January 2021 at 2:20 pm

   My feeling is that impeachment is playing Trump's game. Prosecute him under the ordinary laws about sedition and inciting riots, and hit him with exemplary damages for the people hurt or killed and property destroyed. Truth is a defence against seditious utterances, but truth is not on Trump's side.
6. Peter Don Wilson 6

   11 January 2021 at 4:28 pm

   Can we drop all this trump shit and theorising?

   We have more important matters desperately needing attention in Aotearoa.

   I have no time for trump and his ilk, but its a US problem. Let us focus on those aspe ts of our own society wbere we are dismally failing
   • Sacha 6.1

     11 January 2021 at 6:58 pm

     How about colonialism and racism?
     • RosieLee 6.1.1

       11 January 2021 at 7:36 pm

       Number 1 = how about state housing, public health and infrastructure as the bottom line?
   • Treetop 6.2

     11 January 2021 at 8:17 pm

     Trump just keeps giving and giving until the end of his term. Phew for the end being in sight.
7. NZJester 7

   11 January 2021 at 10:03 pm

   A New Zealander (Does not deserve to be called a Kiwi ) Chris Liddell at the heart of Trupdom is trying to salvage his reputation here before he returns.
   This guy should be very carefully watched if he does return here as it sounds like he was fully involved in the attempt to overturn American democracy.
   I would hate to see him try more of that here.

   'Disgraced himself and his country': Pundits doubtful Chris Liddell's apparent bid to salvage reputation in NZ will work

   by Lana Andelane

   https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/disgraced-himself-and-his-country-pundits-doubtful-chris-liddells-apparent-bid-to-salvage-reputation-in-nz-will-work/ar-BB1cDoCe?li=BBqdg4K
8. Sabine 8

   12 January 2021 at 9:17 am

   this is a good write up by Masha Gessen,

   https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-capitol-invaders-enjoyed-the-privilege-of-not-being-taken-seriously

   It was an attack without precedent but with many reference points. During the Black Lives Matter protests this past spring, National Guard troops in combat gear stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial three lines deep. Around the same time, U.S. Park Police tear-gassed nonviolent protesters in Lafayette Square, in Washington, D.C. The Capitol Police made more arrests on each of the first three days of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in September, 2018, than they did Wednesday. The protesters at those hearings—most of them women, many self-identified survivors of sexual assault—were arrested for transgressions such as shouting out from the gallery, “Kavanaugh can’t be trusted!” On Wednesday, the writer Sarah Schulman posted a picture on Facebook with the caption “In 1982 I disrupted Congress to protest an anti-abortion bill, was arrested on the spot with five other women, taken to jail and had an 11 day jury trial.”……….

   Black Lives Matter protesters are other to the Capitol Police. So are survivors of sexual assault or women who protest for the right to choose. But an armed mob storming the Capitol, and their Instigator-in-Chief, are, apparently, familiar enough to be dismissed as clowns. (Some of them, in their face paint and strange headgear, even seemed to embrace their identification as clowns.) The invaders may be full of contempt for a system that they think doesn’t represent them, but on Wednesday they managed to prove that it does. The system, which shrugged off their violence like it had been a toddler’s tantrum, represents them. It’s the rest of us it’s failing to protect.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS