Slog PM: Tim Eyman's Big-Ass Fine, Stacey Plaskett's Unseen Footage, and Two Masks Are Better Than One

Comments

1

"Today Public Health Seattle and King County again acknowledged the iniquities"
Of course, the Democrats are in charge.
On a side note I predict snow!

2

Donald Trump shouldn't be convicted for "inciting an insurrection" because, under American law and precedent, he's not guilty of doing that. Of course impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. But in this case, there is a direct criminal analogue. You or I could be charged with inciting an insurrection. And, given the same set of facts that apply to the Trump case (including the death and destruction), we would be found not guilty. The shit that he pulled in Georgia probably would rise to the level of a misdemeanor.

Political speech, regardless of how crazy it may be, is given substantial protection in the courts. And for damn good reason. We even allow wild-eyed, seditious Socialists to spew their nonsense into the public arena. May it always be so.

3

With respect to Tim Eyman, "demon" is a euphemism.

4

Oh no, Timmie eyesore is getting the book thrown at him. Poor little Tim, Tim ... wonder how many stupid fuckups like @1 and @2 will give pity on poor little Timmie and part ways with $ to keep poor little Timmie propped up.. BTW: Timmie: steeling office chairs is a hard way to make a living. Typically not following the bootstraps narrative.

5

Poor disgraced, treasonous, twice impeached Trump and his supporters. Such big time losers. Sad!

6

@2: Sure, you always go through such logic contortions and reason stretching to hang your argument on the free speech hook. Surprised you didn't embellish your argument reminding us Trump included the word "peacefully" in his Jan 6 speech.

Is your stance motivated by a conviction of some sort or did you really want Donald Trump to remain in power?

7

@duce -- tl;dr but
wild-eyed, seditious Socialists
did catch my leettle eye 'cause yeah
they're EVERY WHERE and so Generous
of you to Put Up with Us but we're not President
so a crime against the USOFA is not Impeachable
so we can all stop looking out for the Democrats or
something.

8

It's time to stick a fork in the entire GOP's fat, white, corrupt ass and call it DONE.

9

@6 Free speech purist. But what are these contortions of which you speak? Seems like a straight forward argument to me.

10

@2. "Under American law and precedent, he's not guilty of doing that." What law? That's just your opinion. If you watched the house proceedings today, there's a shitload of evidence to the contrary. You can choose to believe otherwise by putting your head in the sand and being an apologist for treason, downplaying from the moment it happened until now, but that doesn't make it right or okay to dismiss. There must be consequences and accountability, and you are sitting on your hands and saying whatever, big whoop. Such feckless cowardice and complacency.

You and I are not the commander and chief of the country. The president is not a private citizen. With great power comes great responsibility, and he used none of his power to defend a coequal branch of government. His actions pose the greatest threat to democracy and the integrity of the rule of law in the history of our nation. You can't spout nonsense about the power of the law to hold him accountable when you can't even do that yourself or take seriously those who are are order with clear constitutional precedent. Get real.

11

Senate proceedings**

12

@9 There's lots of precedents. The most often cited is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
The Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected speech advocating violence at a Ku Klux Klan rally because the speech did not call for immediate lawless action. There are three specific standards that must be met to convict someone (anyone) of inciting a riot (much less an insurrection). It is intentionally a high bar. Yes, apparently Trump sat on his hands (a few witnesses to support that allegation would have been nice - all we have are news reports from unnamed sources) while the shit was going down. But that doesn't change the argument.

Most of the precedents protect lefties that scream stuff like "No justice, no Peace." Then the shit goes south - glass breaks, buildings burn and people bleed. Those speakers will not be convicted of inciting a riot, much less an insurrection. And that is a good thing. But the same logic and precedent applies here as well.

As a side note, "the greatest threat to democracy and the integrity of the rule of law in the history of our nation" was probably the Civil War.

13

@10

14

@12: You're being quite gracious with the Donald, so of course you'd feel your arguments are straightforward.

15

@14 The last four years was like having Tony Soprano be President of the United States. If my arguments are convoluted, please identify the kinks.

16

@12 The structural remedies for the Civil War -- the reconstruction amendments -- are precisely what Trump urged his followers to reject, for weeks before and specifically on the occasion of the attack on the capitol.

Court precedent, as you noted and then apparently forgot, does not apply to impeachment. The only legal obligation the Senate has is to vote on whether Trump should be barred from office for his attempt to negate the votes of Americans via months of pernicious lies and calls to mob action to illegitimately preserve his rule. They don't even have to hear evidence if they don't feel like it, as you may remember from Trump's first impeachment.

This is the greatest threat to American democracy in the sense that it is part of the long (and all too often successful) organized effort to subvert the 14th and 15th amendments, going all the way back to 1868. In that sense, this IS the Civil war-- we can view it as an episode in the typical fitful guerilla insurgency that follows formal hostilities in any major war, nursed along for generations by the resentments of the defeated.

17

@15: Sure, but please complete your response to Garb (which you were going to do in 13).

18

@12 -- "Most of the precedents protect lefties that scream stuff like "No justice, no Peace." Then the shit goes south - glass breaks, buildings burn and people bleed. Those speakers will not be convicted of inciting a riot, much less an insurrection. And that is a good thing. But the same logic and precedent applies here as well."

Nonsense. from Live Comment on the nyt:

Impeachable offenses are political acts that
are an attack on society and democracy.

“Whether President Trump’s conduct violated the criminal law is a question for prosecutors and courts; ‘offenses against the Constitution are different than offenses against the criminal code.’”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/09/us/politics/live-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

your standards do Not apply here, OWG.

19

@18 You don't have to cite a NYT letter to the editor when you can just cite the constitution:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Article 1, Section 3)

This explicitly says the courts, not the Senate impeachment proceeding, shall consider matters of Law.

20

@19 -- thank you
but where, exactly?

21

@20 Jurisdiction is a whole 'nother question, but that's for the courts too, not congress.

22

@19 - I think that the "at Law" in the last sentence means that if someone is tried by the courts, he shall be punished according to what the law prescribes for whatever his crimes were.

I would not interpret that to mean that the Senate is not to consider the law in an impeachment trial; recall that they are impeaching someone for "high crimes and misdemeanors" which implies they are considering a violation of law.

As for jurisdiction, probably Federal courts although if the crime in question is a violation of state law, the relevant state would have jurisdiction. I'm curious to see what Georgia does in a few weeks or months, or what New York is working up. And I will not be surprised if Justice is looking at a Federal prosecution as well.

23

@22 I'm not aware of any credible constitutional scholarship that interprets "high crimes and misdemeanors" as a reference to law as established in the courts. The phrase at the time referred more generally to any behavior unbecoming of a man of public standing, and that's historically how it's been used in practice.

The sentence you mention (that does not contain the clause "at Law") is saying "even though the Senate can't do anything more than what we just said up there, the guy still has to answer to the courts for anything illegal he's done" -- it's a reiteration that Presidents are not Kings, that American office holders are not above the law -- but also says that the Senate doesn't get to take the law into its own hands (that's reserved for the courts).

Basically there was a faction at the convention that wanted congress to be able to toss a guy out of office for acting like an embarassing jackass. But they didn't want legislators to be able to hang the guy on a political vote, either, so they explicitly bar the impeachment proceeding from delivering Judgement on any matter other than stripping the guy of office, while also saying "but of course the courts can still string him up if he's gone and murdered someone or something"

24

From the initial post: "Of course impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. But in this case, there is a direct criminal analogue."

The main charge against Trump is "Incitement of insurrection." Most likely, he would be found not guilty of that in a common court of law. Sure, you can impeach a President for almost anything you want - Obama for drones, Bush for Iraq, Clinton for lying under oath.

In this impeachment effort, the factual case is weak and thus the political case is weak.

25

@17 Good morning. My post @12 was an effort to respond to Garb's comments. But I misdirected the response by saying "@9." Sorry for the confusion.

25

speaking of Weak Defenses:
even more, from nyt:

So, why didn’t Trump tweet to his followers to stop immediately, as soon as the police called for help?

His crowd was following his tweets in real time.

Why did Trump use his tweets to goad on the rioters to do more damage, rather than stop?

Why did Trump just watch the chaos on television from the White House, rather than pick up the phone and send in troops, Black Hawk helicopters, to quell the riots?

Why did he wait hours before telling his mob to go home, hours, not minutes, and then say to them, knowing all the damage and killing they had done, “we love you”?

What was he waiting to see happen during those hours?

Did he know his Proud Boys were
searching for Pelosi and would
have likely killed her if
they found her?

Toms Quill; Monticello

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/us/politics/trump-senate-impeachment-trial.html#commentsContainer&permid=111518794:111519638

26

"Jurisdiction is a whole 'nother question,
but that's for the courts too, not congress." --@21

well, Impeachment and Trial are
Constitutionally Mandated to
be Determined By Congress

unless I'm missing something?

27

Good morning, Kris. Yes, Trump should have responded more quickly and more forcefully to the violence. The House managers could have made that argument even more compelling by calling witnesses from Trump's inner circle to document his behavior and state of mind during those hours. But that process would have taken weeks. For obvious political reasons, the Democrats don't want to drag this out. There is work to be done.

28

"... they didn't want legislators to be able to hang the guy on a political vote, either, so they explicitly bar the impeachment proceeding from delivering Judgement on any matter other than stripping the guy of office." --@rbs

the Senate can also determine Lack of Fitness (IF found guilty of an Impeachable Offense) for holding Any future political office in the USOFA.

29

Impeachment Trial May Hinge on Meaning of ‘Incitement’

The Supreme Court has placed strict First Amendment limits on incitement charges in court.

But many legal scholars say they do not apply in impeachment trials.

Democrats say that argument misses two key points. An impeachment trial, they contend, is concerned with abuses of official power, meaning that statements that may be legally defensible when uttered by a private individual can nonetheless be grounds for impeachment.

Equally important, they say that Mr. Trump’s statements on Jan. 6 should not be considered in isolation but as the final effort of a calculated, monthslong campaign to violate his oath of office in an effort to retain power.

By Adam Liptak; Feb. 10, 2021

more at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/us/incitement-court-senators-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

30

@29 Of course that's all true but the case would be stronger if Trump actually did what he is being accused of. This is just political theater that will be over and done with by this time next week. Biden ignores the spectacle and continues to work on infrastructure legislation.

31

"... the case would be stronger
if Trump actually did what
he is being accused of."

good one.

32

It’s a forgone conclusion the republicans will not vote to convict but that’s not the point. Voters have already removed him from office so the only leverage we have is to convict him in the court of history. The facts speak for themselves and the disgraced former president and his enablers in congress committing their fealty to him to the congressional record will be forever remembered for their failure to defend democracy.

33

@32: well put

37

@34 If Trump's lies were impeachable offenses, I am surprised that the House didn't file charges much earlier. The impeachment process was begun as a response to the specific events of January 6th. He was charged with "inciting an insurrection." He won't be convicted of that in the Senate and he wouldn't be convicted of that in a court of law.

Obviously, the President can say pretty much anything he wants to say. To support that opinion, I offer the four years of the Trump administration as evidence.

38

anyone who is self-aware enough to call himself oldwhiteguy while dropping the most hackneyed reactionary takes imaginable has to be a parody, at least that's always been my assumption

40

Tim Eyman, our longtime liar, thief and grifter, has finally gotten some of what he deserved. No more kickbacks! As AG Ferguson implicitly snarked, without ability to grift and steal, Tim won't bother with corrupting our Initiative process any longer. Let the whining from our chronically overprivileged white guy and his supporters commence, and I shall enjoy it like the fine symphony it will be to my ears.

@36: I was also disappointed our AG did not initially file in criminal court, but litigation answers to a lower standard of proof. Like you, I hope Tim goes to jail for his grifting and theft. Let's hope there was enough evidence so our great AG can now file for indictment(s).

41

"but with Republicans gumming up the works in Congress"

This is going through the reconciliation process and requires zero GOP input. All failures in this bill can be attributed solely, 100% to Democrats.

43

@2: "Donald Trump shouldn't be convicted for "inciting an insurrection" because, under American law and precedent, he's not guilty of doing that.'

You're right. He should be tried, in a criminal court, on charges of Seditious Conspiracy, 18 U.S. Code § 2384:

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

"...by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States," was exactly what that crowd did, when they forcibly entered our Capitol to delay our Congress from counting the Electoral Votes. Trump asked the "Stop the Steal!" crowd to prevent Congress from counting the Electoral Votes, as several members of that crowd have since stated publicly. They are all therefore guilty of Seditious Conspiracy, and each should serve twenty years in federal prison for it.

44

@32 - certain Repub Senators (especially Lindsey Graham) are going to have some big fat asterixes by their names in every history book from now on. I hope that whatever Trump blackmailed them on was worth it.