[y66]

Bill Kristol at The Bulwark said:

FWIW
Reading a couple of tea leaves, adding rounded teaspoon of wishful thinking:
Likely guilty votes: Romney, Sasse, Toomey, Collins, Murkowski, Cassidy
Could vote guilty: McConnell, Shelby, Burr, Inhofe, Capito, Grassley, Portman, Cornyn, Tillis, Sullivan, Barasso, Hoeven
68-32

[y66]

Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg said:

As the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump winds down …

Don’t despair. As Trump appears almost certain to avoid conviction and disqualification, I’ve seen several liberals returning to the “nothing matters” fatalism that we’ve seen on and off over the last five years, with frequent mentions and updates of his boast that he could kill someone on Fifth Avenue without any consequences.

C’mon. Trump, first of all, lost the election. By a fairly large margin, all things considered. Yes, if he had a relatively small number of votes in exactly the correct places, he could have pulled off a narrow electoral college win while losing the popular vote badly, but that’s actually something of an illusion — as it was, Trump got a lot of Electoral College bang for his vote-total buck, and getting even more would have required either doing much better overall or really incredible luck.

He also was (and still is) the only president of the polling era to spend his entire presidency with more people disapproving than approving of his job performance. He’s the only president to be impeached twice. He’s the only president to have a senator from his own party vote to convict him, and most likely he’ll have another four to eight Republicans voting to convict this time. Yes, he’s still popular within his party, but we’ve yet to see how much clout he’ll have in the 2022 midterms, let alone the 2024 election. And he still has a ton of legal trouble he may or may not avoid. There are lots of reasons to be worried about the anti-democratic leanings of the Republican Party, but it’s simply not true that Trump avoids consequences of his actions.

Where are the witnesses? I thought the House managers and the Senate Democratic majority were making a big mistake by failing to take the time to gather testimony from witnesses before the trial — either in a special committee, or just by taking videotaped depositions as was done during Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.

As it turned out, for the most part the evidence the managers presented was vivid and persuasive in most places. But there was one big exception: Trump’s actions during the insurrection. For that, the managers had to rely on news sources that were neither convincing nor comprehensive. Did Trump really revel in the riot? To what extent was he involved in efforts to secure the Capitol? Did people have to work around him? I don’t know if definitive answers to those questions would change anything, but in my view we don’t have full answers to any of them. It’s a real failure of what was otherwise a very good job by the House managers.

That said: No senator has voted yet. Witnesses could still come forward on their own and provide news interviews, or even just on-the-record statements, of what they know. It sure seems to me that anyone with direct evidence, whether it helps or harms Trump, should spill the beans now.

Those House Democrats. All of them have done well, with the three standouts being the lead manager, Maryland’s Jamie Raskin; Colorado’s Joe Neguse; and, from the Virgin Islands, Stacey Plaskett. As was the case in the first impeachment trial, the relatively recent additions to the Democratic caucus impressed. Neguse is in his second term, Raskin in his third, and Plaskett goes all the way back to 2015, so she’s in her fourth term.

The class of 2019, in particular, seems to be an impressive source of talent for the Democrats. Of course Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got all the attention at first, but Neguse is only one of a number of others who are off to good starts.

Unfortunately, the still-ossified leadership and the centralization of authority within the House in the speaker’s office give all these folks relatively little to do. The House really does need to revive their committees, and especially the subcommittees, to allow junior members a chance to do real legislating and oversight. If AOC is looking for a cause to champion for internal House reform, that would be a very good one. After all, they can’t all count on presidential impeachments to get a little spotlight on them.

[Winstonm]

 akwoo, on 2021-February-12, 00:40, said:

Evidentiary belief formation requires the ability to link evidence to conclusions. It requires the ability to think "A is sufficient evidence for B. A happened. Therefore, B must be true." That requires keeping three ideas in one's head at the same time. All my experience teaching mathematics tells me that a majority of adults do not have the ability to keep three ideas in their head at a time, at least when the ideas are not ideas they think about all the time.

I don't think Americans are that much stupider or poorly educated than anyone else. Sure there might be a few percent difference here or there, which is something, but I don't think you find someplace where 70 or 80% of adults can manage evidentiary belief formation across a wide variety of domains.

So it just becomes a matter of whether people are regarding as prophets people you agree with or people you don't agree with.

I don't know what to make of my conclusion here. Mostly I just think we're doomed.

I know I've reached a point in my life where if someone ends a discussion with, well, that\s your opinion, making the unspoken rebuttal that reality is a belief-based system I shut down - I want nothing else to do with such a person and I certainly no longer care what they think about anything.

[y66]

From Political Violence, Plausible Deniability, and Trump’s Second Impeachment by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub at NYT

Quote

The big news in Washington this week is former President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment trial.

Most of the facts aren’t in doubt. Mr. Trump’s statements to the crowd at the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6 were public, so we know that he told the crowd that the election had been stolen, that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the ability to change the outcome, and that the crowd should go to the Capitol.

The video Mr. Trump released during the attack itself, in which he told the rioters, “Go home. We love you. You’re very special,” is likewise public record. And the rioters’ own footage of the attack on the Capitol, combined with analytical work by journalists and others, has made chillingly clear how violent the assault was and how close it came to being far worse.

The bulk of the impeachment managers’ arguments therefore focus on whether Mr. Trump’s statements constituted “incitement of insurrection,” the sole charge in the trial.

That is, of course, important for the impeachment trial. But it also connects to an even bigger question: When are politicians’ words likely to provoke others into violence? And, perhaps most crucially, who is responsible for preventing that from happening?

The first step in answering these questions is to look not at political rhetoric itself, but at the role of violent groups in politics. Study violence in divided societies, and you will quickly see a pattern emerge: Violent militias and paramilitary groups form from the ground up, capitalizing on anger and fear within a group. They are not part of mainstream politics — at least at first. But when politicians seek to tap into their power, public provocations and rallies provide a politically useful means to do so.

In Northern Ireland, for example, politicians wanting the territory to remain part of the United Kingdom were careful to distance themselves from paramilitary groups aligned with their cause.

“That was not what upstanding citizens do. It was the rabble of the lower classes,” said Jonathan S. Blake, a political scientist at the Berggruen Institute who wrote a book about the sectarian parades in Northern Ireland that often set off violence during the period known as the Troubles.

In the United States, white supremacist militias have followed a similar path. The modern militia movement has roots in disaffected white veterans of the Vietnam War, the University of Chicago historian Kathleen Belew documented in her book “Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America.”

Inspired by extremist political tracts and books like the fictional Turner Diaries, modern paramilitary militias organized into armed cells, recruited new members and prepared for revolution. Sometimes they made headlines through violent tragedies like the confrontation at Ruby Ridge or deadly terrorist attacks like the Oklahoma City bombing.

These groups were able to draw on the long history of white-supremacist violence perpetrated by groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and white militias that acted as an arm of law enforcement in the post-Reconstruction South.

“It was established for a lot of Southern governments after Reconstruction to use white militias to ensure that Black people knew who was in charge,” said Megan Ming Francis, a University of Washington political scientist who studies the role of white supremacist violence in American politics.

“We want to think of militias as a kind of aberration,” she said. “But they have existed. And we’re realizing now that not only have they persisted, they have thrived.”

For decades, they were fringe groups with little connection to mainstream politics. But then, in recent years, that began to change.

Conspiracy theories about government illegitimacy, such as the “birther” theory that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and wild myths that the Democratic Party was run by a cabal of pedophiles, took hold online. That created a political ecosystem that connected the worldview of far-right antigovernment militias to those of ordinary citizens who bought into myths like “birtherism.”

And a new group of Republican politicians, including Mr. Trump, found that tapping into that ecosystem could be a way to win office.

But politicians sought to capitalize on that anger and fear while maintaining respectable distance. Public provocations were the perfect opportunity: whip up violent elements, and signal alignment with their ideas while maintaining plausible deniability.

“Today, plenty of people within the Republican Party don’t support militias but do support other similar nonviolent actions,” Dr. Blake said. For example, politicians at rallies glorify the role of gun owners in American society, refer to opposition supporters or minority groups in dehumanizing language, or praise or validate the actions of violent groups.

Mr. Trump, for instance, refused to disavow the neo-fascist Proud Boys militia when asked to do so in a debate, instead telling them to “stand back and stand by” — a message that members of the group took as a signal of support.

“These kinds of provocations are universal in divided societies because they offer elites an opportunity to do things that are otherwise completely unacceptable,” Dr. Blake said. “You see something similar in India with Hindus marching through Muslim neighborhoods, and in Israel in parades of right-wing, often settler, often religious youth marching around Jerusalem often in Palestinian neighborhoods.”

Such provocations have often led to riots or other violence. But they offer something crucial: plausible deniability. People can claim they were just there to peacefully demonstrate for their heritage, and disclaim responsibility for the violence that followed.

“The masses look at this and say, ‘This is our tradition — we love it,’ and for a lot of people who would be uncomfortable supporting actual violent politics, they are very happy to spend a lot of time on this,” Dr. Blake said. Likewise, “they’re useful for the elites who want to drive a wedge while saying, ‘It’s just a parade. This is our tradition.’”

He sees clear parallels with the United States today, particularly the rallies around symbols like the Confederate battle flag and Confederate monuments.

“These things are useful ways to hide the politics — to make political claims, and contentious political claims, in more respectable ways than with the Klan,” he said.

This suggests a way that the connections between mainstream politics and political violence might start to break. If political norms change so that there is no longer plausible deniability for politicians who provoke violence without participating in it, or citizens who support provocations right up to the moment they turn violent, then armed groups will once again be relegated to the fringes. They may still be dangerous, but they will be far less powerful.

Yet it is not clear whether the divided Republican Party has the strength or will to support such norms. The impeachment trial may prove an important test of where it stands.

[y66]

Peggy Noonan at WSJ said:

I do not see how Republican senators could hear and fairly judge the accumulated evidence and vote to acquit the former president. If we want to keep it from happening again, all involved must pay the stiffest possible price. That would include banning Mr. Trump from future office.

Everyone has a moment that most upset them in the videos of the rioters milling around, unstopped and unresisted, on the floors of both houses. Mine is when the vandals strolled through the abandoned Senate chamber and rifled through the desks of senators. Those are literally, the desks of Mike Mansfield, Robert M. La Follette, Arthur Vandenberg, John F. Kennedy and Barry Goldwater. They each had, in accordance with tradition, carved or otherwise inscribed their names in them. It looked to me like history itself being violated. It isn’t “loving government” to feel protective of that place; it is loving history and those who’ve distinguished themselves within it.

History will see 1/6 for what it was. Those who acquit are voting for a lie. Conviction would be an act of self-respect and of reverence for the place where fortune has placed them.

[PassedOut]

Republicans who vote to convict Trump know that the Trump thugs will target them and their families. That will take courage that seems missing. And some of the senators -- Cruz & Hawley, for example -- hope to enlist the Trump thugs for themselves in the future. That is a tough coalition to break up.

I do blame all of the voters who brought the Trump shame upon our nation. Some have come to their senses and more will. Some are lost forever and will always be a threat. Lots of work remains to repair the damage caused by the Trump voters.

[kenberg]

 kenberg, on 2021-February-11, 16:20, said:

I don't know how I could be more clear about the fact that I favor helping people in need and I recognize that the need right now is far greater, both in the number of people in need and the depth of their need, than it was before the pandemic.

As to how we get it to the right people, that has always been important and always been difficult. But we have had a year to think about it.

I will make some suggestions, I can't right now, but I do not believe I have all the answers. I do think we could do better.

Ok, time to give it a try.

From the beginning, I have thought kids deserved better. It should be reasonably easy to see who has kids. There are custody issues and such, but still, I think it can be done, I would help those with kids by giving them X dollars if they have one kid, then perhaps 1.2 dollars if they have two, and so on. That way X could be bigger for any set total amount to be spent. Yes, having two kids is more demanding than having one, but the real divide is having some or having none. And I get tired of the debate over opening schools. It should go "Of course we want to open schools, now how do we do it?" I imagine money helps. Time limits on unemployment should be dropped for now. These are local laws but I expect that can be handled. If someone gets a low paying job he should still get some help. The idea would be that a person working at a low paying job will be better off with his extra help than a person with no job.
For the ban on evictions, I think some deal could be made with the landlord. As it stands now, I would expect that when the ban is lifted many of the tenants will not have any way of paying the back rent. The people will be evicted and the landlord gets nothing. The deal could be that the gov will pay maybe 75% and the landlord agrees to write-off the rest as a loss. Not great, but everyone gets something and there is no ideal solution.

Mostly, I think more thought should have been given to it all. It is no longer reasonable to say "Gee, we are really surprised by this problem".

[kenberg]

I thought of an argument for conviction that the Dems might have used. In 2016, on the many occasions when DT said something bizarre or stupid, his supporters would say "We take him seriously, not literally" Right. Literally, he never said "Go shoot Pence". But if we take him seriously rather than literally it's clear that's what he had in mind.

[y66]

Nikki Haley’s Time for Choosing by Tim Alberta at Politico. Haley's life story is fascinating. It will be interesting to see if she's on Sasse's ticket in 2024 or if he's on hers.

[johnu]

 kenberg, on 2021-February-12, 11:51, said:

I thought of an argument for conviction that the Dems might have used. In 2016, on the many occasions when DT said something bizarre or stupid, his supporters would say "We take him seriously, not literally" Right. Literally, he never said "Go shoot Pence". But if we take him seriously rather than literally it's clear that's what he had in mind.

There is only one serious argument in the impeachment trial and that's by the Manchurian President. His "argument" is if they (re: GOP senators) vote to convict, they will be primaried in their next election, and if they win the primary, he will actively campaign against them. So far that "argument" has worked with 90% of the GOP in Congress.

[pilowsky]

The problem is not what DJT says or thinks. To the extent that he 'thinks' at all.

But there is a darker side.
Trump and the people that 'like' him are simply 'asserting their brand'.

They do not care about you or me except to the extent that it improves their own well-being.
This 'individualism' is the cornerstone of American society.
It is the reason there is no universal health care, education or welfare in America.

In Australia, the burden of educating, providing health care and a living wage is distributed throughout society.
Even then it is understood that even though some might take advantage of the largesse, it is essential for the whole that every part is cared for.
As an Australian society we are only as good as the care we take of those least able AND the extent that we nurture everyone to be the most capable that they can be.
Between these two pillars lies a healthy society.

Actual altruism is coupled with sacrifice for it to be meaningful. Otherwise, it's just 'branding'.

When Trump said that he gave up a lot of money to become President, millions believed him. But that is not WHY he was tapped to become President.

Trump became President because he was a brand that some people thought the could manipulate for their own purposes.

Now the Golem is raised, the Golem wants what the Golem wants. They even look a bit orange.

[y66]

Matt Yglesias said:

It seems like Trump knew exactly who he was talking to.

Jamie Gangel, Kevin Liptak, Michael Warren and Marshall Cohen at CNN said:

In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.

McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.

Trump's comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, "Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?" according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.

[Zelandakh]

It seems to me the simplest solution is to have a pack of angry black men turn up at the Capitol in 4 years' time. That might just get the attention of GOP Senators. After a short Civil War, with Russia providing support to the South and Europe trying to balance that up for the North, everyone can know precisely where America will stand in the future and adjust accordingly. Easy.

[shyams]

There is a tiny chance that the GOP Senators will confab and conspire over the weekend to gather the numbers to convict.

Fingers crossed!! Hoping that the equation proposed by Bill Kristol of Bulwark works!

[y66]

WSJ said:

The Senate voted to call witnesses in former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, ending expectations that the proceedings could end today.

https://www.wsj.com/...od=hp_lead_pos1

Quote

The Republicans who voted in favor of witnesses were Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah and Ben Sasse of Nebraska. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a close ally of Mr. Trump, changed his no vote to yes at the end of the roll call.

Right before Mr. Graham changed his vote, Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) went over to talk to him, leaning over Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas. It is not known what he said.

At one point before the vote closed, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R., Alaska) asked for a point of order to clarify what the senators were voting on, but Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), who is presiding as president pro tem, said it is not allowed under the rules of the Senate to make a point of order while a vote is under way.

Republican senators appeared more confused after that, all talking to one another and with aides in an attempt to figure out what was happening.

When a visibly frustrated attorney for Donald Trump, Michael van der Veen, said he would call many witnesses to his law office in Philadelphia in response to Democrats’ calling their witness, the room broke into laughter. Mr. van der Veen went back to his desk but kept his mask off, looking over at Republican senators.

After Mr. Romney cast his vote, Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) turned to the Utah senator and pointed at him, visibly upset. Reporters in the press gallery heard Mr. Johnson, tell Mr. Romney he blamed him.

"This is beyond unfortunate. This is just inflaming a situation that we're in. We're trying to put the fire out," said Mr. Johnson. "And these guys are lighting the fire. ... You're talking about incitement. The incitement's been going on for four years."

You hate to see it.

[Winstonm]

There will be at least one witness called. There should be many called. Not that it will make a difference to most Republican senators but the actions and inaction of the ex-president needs to be forever recorded in the Congressional records from the words of people who were directly involved - and by doing so history's checkmark will be placed beside the names of all who vote for acquittal.

[shyams]

I have a theory that a tipping point suddenly appears even as most TV pundits & media commentators believe no such event is on the horizon. I would be guessing too if I said that the Sen. McCarthy call has become that event which swings the pendulum in the "convict" direction.

I am hoping something like that occurs.

It would become more likely if Trump makes some rash comments to the press denouncing the GOP Senators or sends some inflammatory messages to them. I just hope he can find it in himself to do something rash over the weekend.

[y66]

Matt Yglesias said:

Republicans say that witnesses would only serve to delay their efforts to not do anything on Covid relief.

[y66]

Will Biden's pandemic relief plan lead to inflation?

A conversation with Paul Krugman and Larry Summers

Edit: To the extent that this was a debate, I had Summers ahead on style, clarity, coherence and persuasiveness that $1.9 trillion is too much for the stated goals although not too much if half of it were allocated to other investments we need to make. As for the inflation question, I scored it a draw.

[Winstonm]

Sad end because of cowards in the Senate. Now we get to hear Trump crow that he won by a score of 43-57. At least Bill Barr is no longer around to claim complete vindication.

It struck me during this impeachment of how flawed this Constitutional process is - in order to engage in corruption to the level of impeachable offenses requires a cabal that then can protect from consequences. This flaw will cause the demise of this form of government. The crooks have learned two invaluable lessons: how to steal from the treasury and how to protect themselves from consequences. They are now on to the third principle they need: how to steal elections.