And we all know what rats do on a sinking ship!
Seditious conspiracy, inciting a riot, nixing magnetometer weapons check to loosen security on his goons, assaulting your Secret Service/driver for stopping you from leading the Capitol coup against a peaceful transfer of power, witness tampering / threats. And on and on.
The Know Nothing about anything gang. Or as Hogans Heroes’ Sargeant Schultz said: “I know nothing.” What coup?
Please share widely!
The scum who run today’s GOP are eager for somebody else to remove Donald Trump from the picture.
Now that Mr. Trump has normalized contempt of Congress, contempt of the law, flagrant corruption, sedition, and insurrection the leadership of the GOP is eager to put these new weapons to good use.
I suggest that the clear and present threat to America is the criminal conspiracy that now controls the GOP.
Donald Trump belongs in jail. Putting him there will not solve the problem.
You call them scum. I call them PUKES. Welcome to the DWAD Club! (Distinction Without A Difference)
For your lifetime of service to Truth, Justice and Democracy, I proudly induct you as an Honorary Lifetime Member of DWAD club. (Distinction Without a Difference) 🙂
Heh.
I’m merely observing that after Donald Trump and his spawn are safely locked away, the cancer will continue to spread.
Mike Pence, Lindsay Graham, Ted Cruz, etc. are perhaps even more dangerous than Mr. Trump. They are just as vicious, brutal, and unprincipled.
They are smarter, more competent, and less driven by personal psychosis than Mr. Trump.
I do not fear any of the three lapdogs you mentioned. All had their lives threatened by Trump or his supporters at one point or another, especially Mike Pence, and yet they still tip toe around the Dear Leader for fear of causing offense.
The one to watch for is Ron DeSantis. He is emphasizing the kind of culture war issues that still can command a majority, even in blue states. Issues like schooling, parents rights, and holding woke capital accountable play to his base and attract swing voters. They can be quite potent in bluer states as Glenn Youngkin proved.
His economic message is also tailor made for these times and his youth contrasts with Biden while his self made story contrasts with Trump. I am absolutely fearful of democratic backsliding continuing under his rule, but he is a likely frontrunner. Tom Cotton, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, and Kristi Noem are others who could pull off the same feat as DeSantis.
I don’t understand the DeSantis as a better version of Trump mentality. The more I hear about the stunts he’s pulling the more I think if he’s the nominee our side should ask do you really all want to live in what he’s turned Florida into? He’s picked a fight with Mickey Mouse for crying out loud – how much more unamerican can you get?! He strikes me as just about the last person who can attract swing voters. He seems to be all base, all the time.
I completely agree, but we are both voting for whichever Democrat (presumably Biden) who runs against him. Jonathan Chait has a good series on why he is dangerous and why he appeals to swing voters without alienating the ones Trump did. It is sort of an incoherent folksy libertarianism that is also what a lot of frustrated voters are attracted to. Someone to own the libs while also managing a good economy and keeping schools open where a lot of states closed them. It is not an attractive package to me, but if you’re someone who voted for Trump in 2016, Biden in 2020, and you’re angry about inflation, schools, and whatever else he might be your guy. A similar dynamic got Youngkin elected, although he is now underwater in polling.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ron-desantis-and-the-rise-of-incoherent-folk-libertarianism
I understand Youngkin a lot more than DeSantis. Again, it seems the latter has done absolutely nothing but go all in on the base. If the FL economy is that good I guess I missed the memo.
Today’s GOP is a petri dish growing toxic candidates.
In the same way that continuous exposure to antibiotics results in bacteria that are resistant to those antibiotics, today’s GOP breeds men and women who are resistant to truth, facts, logic, and basic humanity.
That’s why DoJ must dissolve today’s GOP as a criminal enterprise. It is criminal enterprise committing massive interstate wire fraud as well as ongoing sedition, insurrection, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, election tampering, and all the other crimes that we already KNOW these thugs are STILL committing.
This is also hopefully another opportunity for the Democrats to embrace the big center on the abortion and other privacy rights questions and turn the tables on the censorious and morally dictating right. Cancel culture, vaccine and mask mandates, and language policing are unpopular among the broader public even if they have become facts of life for the left.
This is an opportunity for the left and center to flip the script and get back on the side of personal freedom and individual liberty against an out of control Supreme Court, state governments, and eventually an out of control federal government if we face another Republican trifecta. Not only abortion but the right to privacy itself and even the first amendment is under attack by these extremist laws. We have to band together to stop them.
I’m not sure Justice can or should try to outright dissolve a political party. That has free association problems written all over it.
I think they should probably investigative collusion with the RNC and Trumps legal team when it comes to obstructing Justice during Jan 6. Supposedly Roona Romney McDaniels is threatening to cut Trump off if he announces before 2023.
A criminal enterprise is a criminal enterprise and is no more protected by “free association” rights than any other target of RICO prosecution.
But this is a political party! Do you really want to go down the road of starting to ban and break up those? That is what dictators whether communist or fascist have done. There is plenty of enforcement that can be done without going to that extreme, and I’m only humoring your argument that RICO even applies since I’m not completely convinced anyway.
Where in the law is there or should there be any special treatment of a criminal organization that claims it is a political party?
The same argument — “But this is a CHURCH” — was used to protest the prosecution of Jim Bakker and other tele-evangelists for fraud and other offenses. The republic did not fall. Freedom of religion was not compromised.
We already know that official GOP organizations in multiple states collaborated in the criminal conspiracy to send fraudulent slates of electors to Washington in a clearly and knowingly criminal plot to prevent the certification of the electoral vote.
We already know that the national GOP has been using clearly and knowingly false “stop the steal” lies to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds. We already know that the lines that separate the Donald Trump fund-raising operations, the national GOP, and multiple non-existent funds are at best fluid.
Intentionally using knowingly false statements to raise money across state lines — interstate wire fraud — has been a felony for decades.
Is there ANY threshold of evidence that would persuade you that these organizations are criminal?
It sounds as if you are asserting a blanket protection of the GOP — asserting that the GOP is above the law.
Is that really what you intend?
I say you prosecute campaign finance and other specific transgressions you cite, preferably the specific individuals involved. It sounded like you want something more extreme which again reminds me of dictatorships.
The pattern of offenses precisely fits the purpose of the RICO statutes (https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-109-rico-charges) — are you familiar with RICO prosecutions?
The 1970 RICO statutes were enacted because the focus on individual crimes made it impossible to effectively prosecute organized crime.
From the above link (emphasis mine):
I’m advocate prosecution that is strictly within the envelope of RICO prosecutions that have been ongoing for more than 50 years.
You seem to be inventing special status for a political party. I think that’s a mistake.
Given that persecuting, disbanding, and prohibiting membership in opposition political parties have historically been a key step toward consolidating power, yes, I am much more sensitive to treating a party the way you suggest than I probably would be any other type of entity. However, I really don’t think our choices are all or nothing when it comes to upholding the law.
Similar concerns were raised when Jim Bakker et al were successfully prosecuted for fraud.
Interestingly, the only stumble that I recall is that the judge who sentenced Mr. Bakker made inappropriate references to religious belief in his sentencing hearing.
Here is what the judge said (from the bench) that caused Mr. Bakker’s sentence to be overturned (emphasis mine, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1991/02/13/jim-bakkers-sentence-overturned/d781a5fe-9d1b-40fc-96d3-b184199690e2/):
Mr. Baker’s conviction was sustained, but his sentencing was overturned because of the above statement from the judge.
At the resulting hearing, Mr. Bakker’s sentence was reduced from 45 to 8 years. Mr. Bakker was released in 1994.
I feel strongly that when a political party has become a criminal enterprise — as has clearly happened to today’s GOP — then that entity must be prosecuted just like any other criminal enterprise.
In my view, being a political party should imply NO special status before the law.
I don’t see the comparison at all. Bakker had a personal enterprise based (loosely I would argue) on religion. I don’t recall a denomination being at risk of being dissolved, and we still aren’t talking about a political party. Again, I am not saying don’t prosecute specific fraud, conspiracy, etc., but your call to break up a party is just plain scary to my historian side.
The supporters of Mr. Bakker loudly attacked the prosecution as an attack on the free exercise of religion.
Your proposed exclusion for a political party (or any other entity comprised of wealthy and powerful people) is just plain scary to my American side.
I’m obviously not making myself clear. Your responses to me in this exchange suggest you think I advocate not holding anyone accountable. Nothing can be further from the truth. The supporters of Bakker were just plain wrong in their assessment too.
I wrote:
You responded:
I read your response as asserting that a political party should not be subject to the RICO regulations that were created precisely to address the kinds of organizational crimes that today’s GOP is perpetrating.
Am I misunderstanding you?
You seem to think the choices are RICO or nothing. Keeping in mind that IANAL and I’m going by what you say about both that and the Bakker case, I remain uncomfortable with going full RICO on a political party. Maybe a case could technically be made, but I’m sure Putin could technically make cases against his opposition within Russian legal framework too. It is just too dangerous to my historian and yes, MY American side. Again I am not saying don’t prosecute the specific crimes.
The problem with limiting a prosecution to specific crimes is that when those crimes are ordered and paid for by a criminal enterprise, such prosecutions leave the criminal enterprise untouched.
RICO was created (in 1970) because the several organized crime “families” were left untouched by prosecuting the individual killers and racketeers hired by those families.
I’m not talking about a “technical” case. We already have compelling evidence that the national GOP has itself become a “criminal enterprise” as defined by the RICO statues.
Prosecuting state-level GOP operatives for their flagrantly illegal strategy of sending fraudulent electors leaves the parent organization that created that strategy untouched.
It is illegal to use lies about a “stolen” election to solicit contributions across state lines — that is interstate wire fraud. Yet that is precisely what today’s GOP is STILL doing.
These are just two examples of a long and growing list of crimes still being perpetrated by today’s GOP.
In my view, the existential risk to America of not prosecuting today’s GOP dwarfs the risks you cite. The RICO statutes have been rigorously defined and limited, and Merrick Garland’s DoJ is scrupulous in its adherence to those constraints.
It is ironic that you cite Vladimir Putin’s abuse of the Russian legal system as a reason to avoid prosecuting the criminal enterprise that he has successfully bought in the US.
Today’s GOP is promoting an armed insurrection against the rule of law in America. Our federal government, at least at the moment, has the tools needed to put down that armed insurrection.
We must use ALL of them.
Enterprises are ultimately made of people, so if people ordered the commission of crimes they are on the hook as well, right? If a hitman is hired to commit a murder don’t we go after both the hitman himself and the one who hired him? I’m not saying don’t do that here. I’m also not negating any possible charges of fraud or conspiracy. I’m glad you brought up DOJ constraints and maybe I inferred more hyperbole than you intended at first, but it absolutely must remain legal for those who hold beliefs in opposition to the government to organize around those beliefs and nominate candidates to public office who would attempt to channel those beliefs into policy if elected.
I passionately agree with this — I’ve held beliefs in opposition to government nearly all my life.
By 1970, organized crime families were very skilled at ensuring that those who ordered the illegal activity were insulated from those who carried out that activity. That’s why RICO exists. The infamous Roy Cohn of McCarthy-era notoriety was instrumental in shaping those practices of organized crime.
It is not coincidental that Mr. Cohn was a key mentor and lawyer for Donald Trump until Mr. Cohn’s death in 1986. Mr. Cohn was THE go-to guy for organized crime figures after his disastrous McCarthy behavior. NOBODY else would hire him!
Roy Cohn joins Donald Trump and GOP to twenty years of organized crime and its practices. Donald Trump learned at the feet of Roy Cohn. It is no accident that Mr. Trump was able to make over the GOP once Mr. Trump was elected (and with substantial assistance from Vladimir Putin, Russian organized crime, and hundreds of millions of dollars of dirty Russian money).
The DoJ has fifty years of experience in conducting RICO investigations and prosecutions in ways that protect the constitutional rights of every potential target.
I’ve never suggested that anyone be prosecuted for beliefs.
The fact that Rick Perry and others explicitly sought preemptive pardons IN WRITING, together with the reams of evidence showing that an army of lawyers told them that what they were doing was illegal surely means that they were conspiring to illegally overthrow the government.
The GOP leadership did not just happen to simultaneously commit all these crimes. The GOP itself became a “Criminal Enterprise”.
A RICO prosecution is the mature and well-established way that DoJ holds that — or any other criminal enterprise — responsible.
Trump has behaved like mob boss, so if we want to go after his campaign and organization on RICO I’m on board. Your above comment is the best explanation of this exchange – thank you.
I’m glad that we seem to have landed on the same page.
One wonders where the “liberal media” is in this affair? Has anyone from local news asked prominent Massachusetts Republicans about their view of what we are learning?
We can be grateful that these modern day Know Nothings aren’t beating up Catholics and burning nunneries and churches; but we should be angry that the Know Nothing Catholics on the Supreme Court are burning up the Constitution, individual civil rights, and, soon, all of the environment.
Fascist Know Nothings: “OBEY ME OR BURN IN HELL.”
The GOP: Taliban rule in America, but “in a good way.” The Lincoln Project
I find the references to Taliban and Sharia law playing to prejudice against Muslims.
I prefer “American Apartheid”, although even that misses the fraudulent attempt to pander to superstition masked as religion and fascism masked as patriotism.
In fact, Nazi and Fascist (the Mussolini version) are, from my perspective, more accurate.
You’ve previously made references to the American Taliban. Have you changed your mind on the propriety of that term?
Yes.
In fact, I think you were one of the contributors who swayed me by persuasively noting its anti-Muslim assumption.
“Republicans cannot be loyal to both Donald Trump and the Constitution.” Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) speaking at the Reagan Library to a standing ovation
I sure wish Charlie Baker would speak up on this matter on behalf of the citizens of Massachusetts and perhaps, the state Republican Party. Charlie is rumored to be 6’6″…..one wonders how big his backbone is, or has he misplaced it?
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” HANNAH ARENDT
Baker’s anti-Trump credentials are well-established. I don’t think we need to nag him for comment on everything Trump.
I’m more concerned about Geoff Diehl than Charlie Baker.
Charlie Baker is a lame duck who is not on the ballot in 2022. There is little or or nothing Mr. Baker can do between now and January of 2023 that will make any difference at all.
Mr. Diehl, on the other hand, is the GOP nominee for Governor. I think we should be forcing Mr. Diehl to put his Trumpism front and center.
Sure, I’ll go for that. Baker’s “anti-Trump” credentials are news to me.
I’ve never viewed Mr. Baker as anything more than a charlatan like each of his GOP predecessors.
I think it’s more important that we talk about the people on the ballot in 2022.
Then you have really not been paying attention. He has criticized Trump multiple times and I believe has said he did not vote for him in either 2016 or 2020.
“I blanked it,” Baker responded when asked at a news conference if he cast his vote for former Vice President Joe Biden
So, Baker admitted the same non- support for Biden and Trump, equating the two as the same.
No, he is a Republican rejecting Trump, that’s what counts. If he were a Democrat then rejecting Biden would be the bigger story.
PUKE theocratic Know Nothings see the Constitution as a mere codicil to the bible.