This is what he wants to do.

No matter how this trial plays out, the US will remain divided between those who choose truth, Democracy, and rule of law and the millions who reject these things.

1/

The question is how to move forward.

My mantra is that there are no magic bullets and these people will always be with us.

Except for state legislatures, they have less power now than they have for a while.

2/
The only real and lasting solutions are political ones. Get Democrats into local offices. Get people who want democracy to survive to the polls at every election, at every level.

It’s a constant battle.

3/
Maybe I should tell you all about Thurgood Marshall’s life to illustrate how hard the task is and how there will be backlash after each step of progress.

4/
Precisely. That's why Thurgood Marshall's life came to mind.

We are still riding the backlash that started after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

That's why I keep saying there are no easy fixes.
https://t.co/qEXUc6wHx5

5/
Later today or tomorrow: What I learned from writing the biographies of Susan B. Anthony and Thurgood Marshall.

We spend out lives trying to push forward.
They spend theirs trying to us push backward.

6/

https://t.co/sL1kj5tHFB
My view: Doomsayers who think that the US is in the grip of something new that we've never seen before are a bit out of touch with US history.

For a great many Americans, the past five decades are a vast improvement over previous ones.

7/
From the political psychologists I've learned that there are no magic bullets.

For example, Richard Hofstadter explains that what he calls the dangerous and politically paranoid have been with us since the founding of the nation.

8/
People without a grounding in history and political psychology are vulnerable to two things: Hope porn ("Y" will solve our political problems) and doomsaying (If "X" happens, all hope is gone.)

Democracy was dead in 1850 for a lot of Americans.
It was reborn.

9/
Hope didn't exist for a lot of Americans during the Great Depression. There was no social security, no 40 hour workweek, no minimum wage, no GI Bill.

Kids had to go to work and had no hope of finishing high school.

College was for the wealthy.

10/
For most Americans, there was no hope of social advancement.

Then along came FDR and the New Deal.

Hope was reborn (and a middle class was born).

How did he do it?
He did it with a large electoral majority.

11/
Part of how he got his electoral majority, unfortunately, was that he had the support of the South because Blacks were not included.

If you want me to end this on a positive note, millions of people voted in 2020 in Georgia who would not have dared try to vote 70 years ago.

12/

More from Teri Kanefield

January 6th will be a freak show. Biden will become president because the only way to stop it would be for the House to agree, and that won't happen.

Going forward, the GOP becomes even more dangerous and radicalized.


A few hopeful points:

The GOP could very well lose control of the Senate.

Because these GOP Senators will force a vote, the GOP may fracture, with moderates forced out. While this radicalizes the party, they lose


A few reasons. As @ProfBrianKalt points out, refusing to seat them because they say the election wasn't valid gives credence to the lie that the election wasn't valid.

Moreover, there's no authority to refuse to seat an elected rep for telling lies. .


. . . which is what refusing to seat them would amount to.

The Democrats say, "You are doing really bad things so we won't seat you."

See the problem with that?

(1) It's illegal. The House doesn't get to decide who is seated. The states send their own reps.

moreover . . .

(2) If you say, "The House gets to refuse to seat a person who tells a lie about the election," where does that lead?

If things continue this direction, the political divide will not longer be liberal v. conservative.

The divide will be pro- democracy v. anti-democracy. . .
Reading recommendation: Rand Corp, "The Russian Firehose of Falsehoods Propaganda Model," includes advice on how to counter a rapid and continuous stream of lies.
https://t.co/1Jg5CvgrJC

1/

The liar has a “shameless willingness” to tell outrageous lies that lots of people know are lies.

The liar doesn’t care about consistency.
He doesn’t care if it’s obvious he’s lying.
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT
In fact, that's the whole point.

Putin perfected the method.

2/

It seems to come naturally to Trump.

@TimothyDSnyder tells how reporters were often so astonished by Putin's outrageous lies, that they focused on the lies instead of Putin's latest atrocities.

The lies became the news.
The actual news gets pushed off the stage.

3/

The goal is the “disruption of truthful reporting and messaging.”
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT

That's why Trump really wants an actual trial, and why he was so annoyed with the Supreme Court (and other courts) refusing to hear the case.

He wants a stage for the lies.

4/

From the Rand study: The Firehose of Falsehood technique “entertains, confuses and overwhelms the audience.”

I think the "entertainment" part applies to the GOP leadership who know Trump is lying but cheer the lies because they are so destructive.

5/
KM asks why the GOP leadership is terrified of losing.

(Both Lindsay Graham and Matt Gaetz said if the GOP loses this election, they'll never win again.)

GOP is a minority party. If they lose power, they lose the ability to manipulate systems to keep minority control.

1/


The fear is also explained by Richard Hofstader, who wrote the classic work⤵️

Hofstadter reviewed American politics from before the founding of the nation through McCarthyism. He noticed a pattern among an impassioned minority on the fringes of the political spectrum.

2/


He called their behavior the “paranoid style” in politics.

Those embracing the paranoid style of politics believe that unseen satanic forces are trying to destroy something larger in which they belong.

3/

According to Hofstadter, the “something larger” to which they belong is generally phrased as “the American way of life.”

They “feel dispossessed” and that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind.”

4/

They therefore adopt extreme measures. They will stop at nothing to prevent what they see as an impending calamity.

Remember, Hofstadter published this in the early 1960s.

5/

More from Law

1/ After a good night's sleep, I have a few thoughts on the impending Ripple lawsuit.

Less schadenfreude, more "what now?" https://t.co/a0oTwblBHB


2/ First of all, the USG is going to lose.

I don't even need to read the complaint. They might force a settlement, but they're outclassed on legal.

Remember Ripple engaged former SEC Chair Mary Jo White in a civil matter in 2018. A hint of their

3/ Second, the USG should lose.

The SEC restrictions on non-accredited investors; the ridiculous Howey test; 80 year old securities law like the "40 Act" all need to die in fire. They are un-American and completely outdated.

I hope Ripple wins. (WUT?)

4/ Third, it's incumbent upon industry to self-police and hold the moral high ground.

I give certain individuals A's and others F's, but as a whole, the most powerful people and companies generally take a Swiss neutrality stance on assets.

So we're effectively in this together.

5/ We're "in this together" to draw lines of regulatory demarcation.

XRP as a "security" further hurts the U.S. businesses while global comps will continue to make these markets.

XRP as a security also means other assets will meet the same fate. At least Ripple has $ to fight.
Hot take: Courts might be able to review the legality of this impeachment, even under current political-question doctrine. Here’s why and how the issue might arise:


Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.

Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:

According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.

The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).

You May Also Like