23
votes
Daily thread - United States 2021 transition of power - January 11
This thread is posted daily - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.
This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.
Armed protests being planned at all 50 state capitols, FBI bulletin says
Not surprising, par for the course at this point I guess.
Semi-related, the House is meeting this morning and are expected to introduce a resolution calling for Mike Pence to invoke the 25th.
It is a unanimous consent decree (which I expect will fail), and if it does not get unanimous consent, the House will most likely debate/vote on the resolution tomorrow.
The House resolution to call on Pence to invoke the 25th was objected to and the House was adjourned.
https://youtu.be/i35nRKxOtVQ (skip to 11min)
Direct link: https://youtu.be/i35nRKxOtVQ?t=11m
I don't know why they're bothering to ask Pence to invoke the 25th. It's immensely dubious as to whether or not the current cabinet technically can invoke it, because the constitution specifies "officers which Congress may provide", but actually almost all of the cabinet members are acting heads, not Congressionally appointed heads, because Jesus our executive branch is a mess.
Additionally, the 25th allows a president to contest a VP who invokes it - and if they don't resolve who is President then Congress needs a supermajority in both chambers to keep the 25th invoke. So, actually harder than impeachment and conviction.
The 25th won't be invoked unless Trump does loco again (then, the fact he is immediately deprived of presidential powers temporarily is useful), he will be impeached again most likely, the trial for that will likely be after the 20th. It is highly unlikely he is removed before then.
This was originally my thought too, but the process can be drawn out long enough for these matters to be moot.
Edit: also regarding this:
There's an OLC memo that suggests otherwise (of course, OLC memos are not legally binding, so take from that what you will). But on its face, it seems reasonable that acting heads would be able to invoke the 25th amendment; otherwise the President could just remove half the members of their Cabinet to inoculate themselves against removal via the 25th.
It gives Republicans a chance to show where they stand. Will they support ousting a president that whipped up a mob to attack them, even though he's (theoretically) part of their party?
Surely a resolution on impeachment would also do that. And tbh we already know the answer in the house: absolutely, yes, they will stand behind the president. Unlike the senate, house Republicans are 100% drinking the Trump kool-aid. Over 50% of House Republicans voted to reject certification of AZ and Penn.
Someone ran Shapely-Kubrick power shares on the House caucus and Trumpist have 80% control over House republican votes.
Although it may have absolutely no practical consequences, formally following this procedure is important for the history books. Both in 2 years and 4 years, but also in 20 and 50 years' time.
Just like it'd be equally important to formally start another impeachment process just to show how completely unacceptable post-election Trump has been.
This is true, however I think it really shows the true colors of the people in power.
Nothing of substance was done until right-wing nutjobs stormed the building.
Maybe the left needs to do the same. Course, that'll probably mean immediate deployment of national guard and teargas.
Well it does check out with the code of conduct /s
'Jokes' aside, how would this result in something good for the left, rather than just substantial? I'm assuming you think Democratic congresspeople would pass lots of welfare legislation to "placate" whoever did such a thing?
Nah, I suspect you're very right that (as I kinda laid out) wouldn't be a net good.
But I think, what I may have intended to hint, is that pacifism on its own is insufficient for change. There must, at the least, a stance that you will respond to violence in the face of violence to get progress. Martin Luther King would not have had nearly the same level of influence if not for the Black Panthers.
Earlier this year, there were numerous protests about police brutality met with even more police brutality and national guard deployed immediately. How many people lost their lives over that? And in the end there were largely token gestures of support while nothing fundamentally changed.
Trump's violations went almost completely unchecked for 4 years. Only at the absolute last minute have Republicans jumped ship, when Trump's supporters finally took it too far. While their charge is creating the opposite affect they might have hoped for, that's because their goal was likely "completely subvert democracy" and they had virtually 0 public support.
Nonviolence not working doesn't imply that violence would work. Maybe nothing would work? But actually, Democrats taking the House did a lot to derail the Republican agenda and it looks like this election will end Trumpism, so although not very timely, it seems like new elections did some work?
We are talking about history very crudely, but to be slightly more detailed, one reason that the Civil Rights movement was effective is that it put pressure on LBJ to do civil rights legislation before the other things he wanted to do. It probably wouldn't have worked against a President Goldwater, or if there weren't still a lot liberal Republicans back then that were gettable with pressure from northern religious leaders.
Addressing this seperatly, We are a bit, but I dug through the Wikipedia article as a refresher. Non-violent protest certainly laid a foundation. But change did not get enacted until violent actions started backing up that foundation.
JFK had introduced the civil rights bill to congress in June of 1963. It was still languishing in congress as of March 1964, which is when Malcom X broke ties with Nation of Islam and began to lend support to any movement that supported black nationalism and self-defense.
LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on July 2nd, over a year later, after the following events occurred (copied and paraphrased from WP):
The teachings of the Civil Rights Act in US schools immensely downplays the roles violence played in bookending the actual progression of the movements. If not for the violence taken in 1963-1968, we would still be fighting these issues today. In fact, the Black Panthers were the target of much counter-intelligence and suppression, and their 10-point program was:
How many of those bullet points have been accomplished since, despite the continuing call for it?
Yes, there was a lot of violence. Blacks in the South sometimes armed themselves, despite being discouraged from that by King.
But, with all the stuff going on, it’s not clear which events resulted in votes?
Cause and effect can be difficult to establish. I think we would need to go a lot deeper into the history.
I think that, when advocating some particular strategy, there should be a theory of how it’s supposed to work. Having a righteous cause doesn’t do that.
I think you're right about cause and affect, they're all deeply intertwined.
However, in my opinion, the votes from the citizens didn't matter quite so much as the votes from the representatives on legislation that had already been introduced. To me it is quite clear representatives are happy to do nothing until violence escalates.
And to that end, I think a very valid strategy is: Come up with a non-violent plan. When you are ignored and/or suppressed, escalate. When you are met with violence, respond with violence. For these purposes, I also consider arresting for non-violent involvement as violence.
When you say "it is quite clear representatives are happy to do nothing until violence escalates," I agree that the past week alone shows that violence gets attention. But, often it's negative attention.
Back in the civil rights era, an essential part of King's strategy was to get in the news being attacked by segregationists. He was using the violence of the racists to turn public opinion against them.
These days this strategy is well known. To the extent that the anti-police protests worked for changing public opinion, it seems it was by provoking the police to do bad things on camera? Certainly the people sharing those photos and videos all over Twitter thought so.
It seems like when the protestors are themselves doing bad stuff on camera, that might have the opposite effect when those photos are published by their enemies? It's kind of a bold strategy to assume you can hit people and look sympathetic.
All of this assumes that publicity has some purpose, and if that purpose is to affect what legislators do, we could look at what they did and try to figure out why.
There's a common theory that Malcolm X made King look good in comparison, but I haven't seen compelling evidence that it changed any votes in Congress. (This is what I meant by votes.) A historian of the civil rights era could look at each member of Congress and see what might have influenced them and make a judgement call. Like, was it LBJ, pressure from constituents, or maybe they were affected by what they saw in the news? There are a lot of theories but what's the evidence for each of them?
I read a very long biography of King and it seems like his influence is pretty easy to trace since sometimes he was directly negotiating with the Johnson administration. Everything in the news affected things too, but exactly how might be harder to find evidence for. (I don't remember all the other stuff going on and huge books like that are hard to wade through on Kindle. I probably should have taken notes.)
So, my recommendation would be to try to get publicity however you can, but escalating is a dangerous game that could blow up in your face. (As it did for the Trumpists.) Maybe try something else?
Bringing weapons is crossing a line. Bringing guns is crossing another. And, if you don't know what's going on, make sure you're not joining a lynch mob. Is anyone else bringing weapons? How about rope?
Also, it would be a very bad idea for any leftist protestors to trespass on federal property right now. Why take the spotlight off the Capitol riots?
I seriously doubt this. The conditions that brought about "Trumpism" still exist. Trump's agenda largely fell in line with the broader Republican agenda. The Republicans had a chance to oust Trump and replace with Pence and they did not take it.
They will use "Trump was the bad guy" rhetoric as the shield for their broader agenda, while simultaneously fighting against undoing any of the changes Trump made.
Trump is not an anomaly, he is the byproduct of 36+ years of Republican agenda and the propaganda networks to build support for that agenda.
Well, his first impeachment was what...2 years too late?
The last 20 years have really highlighted how badly we need reform of the federal government.
Well, that was a waste of time. Debate/vote should have begun immediately, especially the person objecting.
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf resigns after Trump supporters’ riot on Capitol Hill
I do question if the word 'huge' actually appears in this bulletin, but at least the FBI is paying attention.
...
Let's take care of our staffing issues at government halls, yeah? Just in case.
A bunch of random ones from today, roughly grouped by subject matter.
Law:
New York State Bar Association Launches Historic Inquiry Into Removing Trump Attorney Rudy Giuliani From Its Membership
Nearly 6,000 lawyers and law students call for disbarment proceedings against Cruz and Hawley
Prosecutors weigh ‘heavy hammer’ — felony murder — for rioters in Capitol officer’s death
Could the Capitol Rioters Really Be Charged with Felony Murder for Death of Ashli Babbitt?
Beyond Impeachment, a Push for Ethics Laws That Do Not Depend on Shame
Media & Social Media:
Twitter has suspended 70,000 QAnon accounts since U.S. Capitol riot
Parler sues Amazon for pulling plug on social network
Talk-radio owner orders conservative hosts to temper election fraud rhetoric
Military & Law Enforcement:
National veterans groups plan to purge members found guilty in Capitol attack
Army probing officer Emily Rainey who led group to deadly DC riots
National Guard backup was denied by House and Senate security officials, Capitol Police chief says
Seattle mayor demands that police union head 'apologize or resign' after US Capitol riot comments
National Guard deploying 10,000 troops to DC
Misc:
Washington Monument temporarily shutting down due to ‘credible threat’ following Capitol mayhem
Trump gives Medal of Freedom to Jim Jordan who voted against accepting election results after deadly riot
Dow Chemical won't donate to politicians who opposed election results
Only one person showed up to the pro-Trump protest outside Twitter's San Francisco HQ
If twenty people had shown up I'd have been worried someone would drive a car through that crowd. Gatherings of Trump protesters have a non-zero probability of being targeted by pissed off Americans, especially if they are small.
This is weird
Donald J. Trump's term ended on 2021-01-11 19:40:41.Screenshot if it changes
Yes that is a time stamp in the futureEdit: Can someone tag this as noise, I don't think it means anything we want it to mean
Pence's page says his term ends today too. Different time.
I don't see entries for other Presidents, so I'm not sure what to make of this.
agreed
The page doesn't look like its working now, but Pence's is still up
Apparently was an employee at the State Department
$5 says it's a wordpress site with a shared password
That really is weird. Did something happen we don't know about?
Pompeo Speaking Live at Voice of America in Washington DC [1]
edit:
Other than Pompeo sounding stilted nothing has come up