A majority of the Republican Party is advocating for the overthrow of an American election

Republican leaders are expecting about 10 to 20 House Republicans to vote for impeachment but sources tell CNN there are many more members who "want to vote to impeach but they legitimately fear for their lives and their families’ lives," CNN's Jamie Gangal reports.
"Liz Cheney, these Republicans who have announced, they are showing courage at the same time as I have been told by Republican sources that members, Republican members, have said they are not going to vote for impeachment because they are still scared of Donald Trump," Gangal told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

"I was told that the White House is continuing to pressure these members, that Trump has not stopped and that members, quote, 'fear for their lives and for their families' lives,'" she continued. "After what we saw on January 6th, a week later, that says a lot that the White House is still pressuring people."
​

Click to expand...

One would think that feeling blackmailed by the president would be a bigger story, but in the Trump administration? Pssh.

In opposing the impeachment resolution, Texas Republican Rep. Lance Gooden said, “And I also want to thank my Democratic colleagues for finally joining Republicans in condemning mob violence after six months of refusing to acknowledge it.”

Click to expand...

"I won't condemn this violence but hey, about time you did"

Alpha Echo said:

Okay...maybe I can. I could on my phone but not my work laptop, which makes sense as I'm on a Federal laptop I guess.

Click to expand...

Not sure if it applies but sometimes I get that 'can't play this' message on a Youtube video but if I wait, for god-only-knows reason, the message goes away and it plays.

Lyv said:

As more information comes out about just what went on inside the Capitol, as well as before the attempted insurgency, it becomes more obvious that there were some in law enforcement and Congress who aided and abetted the terrorists, and just how close they came to killing members of Congress.

‘It was like looking at evil’: The Capitol attack through the eyes of the Massachusetts delegation

A ‘Stop the Steal’ organizer, now banned by Twitter, said three GOP lawmakers helped plan his D.C. rally

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn speaks on violence at the Capitol

AOC says she feared for her life during Capitol riot: 'I thought I was going to die'

Lawmakers gave groups ‘reconnaissance’ tours of the Capitol one day before riots, Democratic congresswoman says

Several Capitol police officers suspended, more than a dozen under investigation over actions related to rally, riot


Washington Post: Secret Service officer placed under investigation after accusing lawmakers of treason on social media

I've been posting on this theme since the riots began and there is much more information out there, and more to come, I believe. I agree with Congressman Clyburn that there must be a commission and accountability.

For now, I remain anxious about the inauguration and wish, since the attempted coup is ongoing and it appears that there are sympathizers and possible collaborators in law enforcement and Congress, that the event would happen inside, in an undisclosed location, with thoroughly vetted, hand-picked security.

Click to expand...

These images of National Guard Troops camped out en masse in the Capitol building might calm your nerves.

MaeZe said:

These images of National Guard Troops camped out en masse in the Capitol building might calm your nerves.

Click to expand...

Thank for trying to soothe my frayed, screeching nerves. I do appreciate it. But it doesn't reassure me a whit. There are QAnon true believer Congress members who gave insurgents tours of the Capitol a day before the riots (and I think gave them maps, but that's not proven yet), one of whom set off a metal detector last night, and was still allowed inside without her belongings being searched. One of the organizers has stated he coordinated with sitting Congress members, even after the talk turned especially incendiary. We have sympathizers among Capitol Police and the Secret Service. I have no reason to believe that not a single one of those National Guard members wouldn't martyr themselves to take down any of their main targets. And this is all for the vote today. The inauguration is a much different event and venue, one that is harder to secure and will require more security, which means more possible traitors among their ranks. I may sound paranoid or alarmist, but for well over a decade, I have sounded paranoid and alarmist about a lot of things we've all watched happen unchecked.

I've posted links to every claim I've made, most in the quoted post, but am happy to provide support any time.

It's occurred to me too, Lyv. I'm sure the overwhelming number of troops take their oath seriously, no matter whom they voted for, but all it potentially takes is one National Guard trooper (or whatever they are called) to be around the bend and fanatically loyal to the point of suicide. There are certainly police and members of congress who fit the bill already, and there has been concern about White Nationalist infiltration within the military.

I think chances are good the President Elect and other really high profile targets will be well protected, but there are going to be so many lesser targets there, what with members of Congress (and one guest each) still being invited, and of course members of the Press. The latter, and their offices in Washington, are another potential target.

Hopefully these crazies are also cowardly and easily frustrated and most will stay away when they realize the event security will be much more proactive this time.

Evidently, there have been a number of disruptive incidents on flights this past week or so--from people refusing to wear masks, to harassment of flight crews and passengers (including members of Congress on flights), to physical violence that required restraint.

Funny how this should become an issue right around now, eh?

So the FAA is (finally) going to crack down, not by actually passing a mask mandate on planes, but by imposing legal penalties on passengers to disobey airline policies.

FAA Administrator Stephen Dickson's order says the agency will no longer issue warnings to passengers refusing to wear masks or acting in a belligerent or threatening manner. Instead, the agency "will pursue legal enforcement action against any passenger who assaults, threatens, intimidates, or interferes with airline crew members." Penalties could include fines up to $35,000 and jail time.

Click to expand...

I applaud this development:

Pelosi taps post-Katrina commander Russell Honore to investigate Capitol security

A retired Louisiana U.S. Army General who was hand picked by the federal government to lead the post-Katrina recovery effort and stabilize the city in the chaotic days that followed the Hurricane in 2005 has now been tapped by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to investigate the security at the U.S. Capitol following the insurrection.

Click to expand...

One piece of "good" news is that most Americans do blame Trump for the violence at the Capitol, including an overwhelming percentage of Democrats and about 55% of independents. The bad news is that only about 17% of Republicans do. Americans are pretty evenly split on whether they think Congress should take action on Trump after he leaves office, with more independents thinking he shouldn't be held accountable.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/15/9568...americans-blame-trump-for-violence-at-capitol

I really don't understand this thinking. One of the most troubling revelations about the Trump Presidency is that the POTUS has almost unlimited power and almost zero accountability, unless both houses are held by the opposite party (and the Senate has enough of the opposite party to glean a 2/3 majority). This has been evident before, with various Presidential misdeeds going unpunished. But I don't think a POTUS has ever posed the same threat to national security as this POTUS has.

I'd be surprised if the Senate votes to convict. I read an article that up to 12 Republican senators have indicated they are considering voting to convict, but even if they all do, that's not enough for a 2/3 majority. And I suspect their political will is going to evaporate once he leaves office. Unless, of course, there is an even worse attack on the Capitol that costs even more lives. But I suspect Trump's apologists will allow him to wriggle out of that too and will argue that since he is cut off from Twitter since the last attack, he couldn't possibly be to blame this time.

I can only hope that when* he tries to peddle State secrets to a foreign power he is caught and held criminally liable, once it no longer has to go through Congress.

*I kinda think it will be a "when" and not an "if."

“Martial law if necessary” — MyPillow guy Mike Lindell’s notes for his White House meeting with Trump suggest these guys are still plotting to overthrow the election

Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1350194406234738691

So, I White House photographer got a shot of the My Pillow Guy's notes coming out of a meeting with the president, and they carry some pretty scary implications.

Diana Hignutt said:

So, I White House photographer got a shot of the My Pillow Guy's notes coming out of a meeting with the president, and they carry some pretty scary implications.

Click to expand...

As if Trump will declare martial law given there are 20K+ National Guard members standing near the capitol to protec .... oh shit...

-cb

cbenoi1 said:

As if Trump will declare martial law given there are 20K+ National Guard members standing near the capitol to protec .... oh shit...

-cb

Click to expand...

And, only Mike Pence can save us now.

I followed the dots on Lindell's tweet starting with Diana's link.

Twitter: “Martial law if necessary” — MyPillow guy Mike Lindell’s notes for his White House meeting with Trump suggest these guys are still plotting to overthrow the election. A WA Po photographer apparently caught the man today going into the West Wing.

A reader finds the source of Pillow Guy's notes.

this dude literally tweeted out a PDF from 8kun at 3:30am on Jan 5th titled, Reclaiming a Super Power, Americans Prepare for War
like...will someone please ******* report on that instead of this "suggested" violence
he's openly calling for it and did so before the Capitol riot

Click to expand...

Guess the Pillow guy forgot there might be cameras about. Apparently he's gone in to ask Trump why it didn't happen as planned. Or maybe he wants to discuss still carrying it out.

Further dots followed: If you're looking for his source material, you can find it in this PDF he tweeted at 3:30 am on Jan 5th.
"Reclaiming a Super Power, Amercian's Prepare for War" Image in the tweet.

I followed that to Lindell's link directly: Lindell's twitter feed, it's still up.Some of Lindell's twitter comments about that pdf are hilarious.


Edited to add: Maybe Lindell needs a pardon for drawing those plans up. There is more evidence of collusion coming out today.

Watch this space.

I find this rather disturbing: One in five defendants in the Capitol riot have served in the military.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/21/9589...-in-capitol-riot-cases-served-in-the-military

Now, I know that service people tend to be more conservative in general, and more come from "red" states too, but there's a difference between being Conservative, or even voting for Trump because you feel Republican administrations are "better" overall for service members, and violently breaking into our nation's capitol with the intent of disrupting the counting of electoral votes.

So is the military is actually radicalizing some of its members, or does military service render people disproportionately prone to radicalization after they leave, or is there a more of a correlation where people who are prone to this kind of radicalization to begin with are more likely to serve. Any of these options is disturbing.

Maybe the kind of people who like toting guns, or the idea of guns as a solution, are more likely to go where the guns are? That's the army. Second choices, the police or crime.

I think there's something to this, as most of the folks I've known who are police or in the military seem to be very fond of guns and marksmanship. Not all are raving idiots about them, though. There is a huge difference between someone who maintains and secures their guns very carefully and uses them for hunting or sports that involve marksmanship, and idiots who like to dress in fatigues and open-carry firearms with them in public (which, thankfully, is still illegal here in CA--the public carrying, not the fatigues, but we tend to see fewer of those too).

There does seem to be a culture of radicalization that can happen to people in the military and in the police, and it's not just about guns. There probably is a mindset that can easily develop if your profession requires you to see some of the worst humanity has to offer on a regular basis. I think there's a lot of fear in those jobs too, and constant fear seems to be correlated with conservatism, whether it be a more nebulous fear of unfamiliar people, terrorism, crime, socialism, change in general, or (in the case of police and military)a more realistic fear of being shot on the job. Though I don't know if anyone's ferreted out whether fearful people adopt conservative views, or whether conservative views make people more fearful.

Social workers tend to see the worst of humanity too, and I've known at least one (former) social worker who had severe compassion fatigue and became a Republican, because he finally decided that poor people were to blame for their own poverty. But he wasn't a gun fanatic back when I knew him, just a garden variety cynic who felt he was entitled to what he had "worked for" and didn't want to pay taxes to help poor people who lived in squalor but would "rather spend their entitlement checks on a nice entertainment center* than a good suit to go out and interview for jobs." For someone with training in mental health, he seemed unfamiliar with the effects poverty, depression, and despair can have on one's motivation and long-term planning.

It would be interesting to see where he is now, though. Because decades of thinking everyone is after what you have, and increasingly surrounding oneself with people who reinforce this, can possibly make one more and more prone to radicalization and a desire to defend one's "stuff" with violence.

*This was in the late 90s. Today's version of this rant involves people who spend their entitlement money on the newest iphone instead of whatever it is virtuous poor people spend their money on.

The "empathy fatigue" point you made is one of the most fascinating I've heard in a long time. I'd love to research that.

As for the fear point, there is empirical evidence supporting that; https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ps...y-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes?amp

For example, some conservatives fear Biden taking their guns away (I had an Uber driver rant at me about this, which was interesting to say the least). That's nothing short of pearl clutching paranoia. I like guns, quite a bit, but I can't imagine thinking some centrist Democrat will take away your guns. Even anti-gun activist David Hogg says his father owns a small handgun and he doesn't mind. It's not really about the guns for a certain type of person, it's about having literal military grade weapons, because when you see yourself at war with the world (terrorists, criminals, whoever), you need to be armed like a soldier.

I've seen people on alt right forums taking about how storming the Capitol is akin to crossing the Delaware river with Washington. If you view yourself as a hammer, you see every problem as a nail and all that.

Roxxsmom, re compassion fatigue—thanks for bringing up this term. This perfectly describes what’s happening with me toward my students. First week of the semester here; I started out feeling very optimistic, and by the end, their anxiety and neediness over every little thing has me annoyed and exhausted. Maybe I can try looking up some articles on the subject and try to get some ideas for coping. Otherwise, the student who snippily picks at some of the instructions? I might have to snap their head off if they insist on doing that every class.

The honeymoon is over. McConnell has gone back to his pigheaded position of getting to block the Democrats every move just like he's don't since he declared he would make Obama a one-term POTUS.

Yep, minority rules even after losing the election by an even greater amount.

We Democrats can't do **** because McConnell is still in charge.

I know, I know, the Democrats have the majority. Lot of good that's going to do when McConnell still has his god powers.

Time: Why Mitch McConnell Is Filibustering to Protect the Filibuster

We know why. The question is can we do anything?

Even though Republicans don’t have a majority in the Senate any longer, under the body’s rules, the GOP still chairs some committees, the three new Senators who took their oaths this week can’t be assigned committees and McConnell can still block progress going into this two-year congressional session. Until the two parties’ leaders — or all 100 Senators on a separate track — agree to how the Upper Chamber will work for the next two years, the old rules still hold. And central to those rules, set out in a document known as an organizing resolution, is whether a lone Senator in the minority can gum up the entire agenda via the filibuster.

Click to expand...

This is absurd. A few pieces of **** in Kentucky elected McConnell (or an outside hack of the computer voting system Kentucky and South Carolina use* [needs a new thread to properly address]). And yet since Obama was elected McConnell has essentially run the Congress. This is wrong and it needs to stop.

But I don't know how.

Maybe Schumer can enforce the actual filibuster which requires the member stay at the podium talking constantly in order to filibuster.

Indeed, any "magical moment" of unity is over, or in fact never was at all. If anyone thought the GOP would learn something from our near-brush with fascism, they are going to be disappointed.

The GOP in AZ is censuring party leaders who are (were) at odds with Trump. Far from being sadder but wiser after going "blue" in a general election for the first time in decades, they are doubling down.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/23/9599...cans-censure-party-leaders-at-odds-with-trump

House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump are already facing retribution from their constituents.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/politics/republican-who-wont-vote-to-impeach-trump.html

Oh, and the more extreme elements of the Roman Catholic Church (the US Bishops, whose position that abortion should be illegal for everyone--including those who don't share their faith--is actually at odds with most US Catholics) are debating whether they should refuse to give Biden, and any other pro-choice elected officials who are practicing Catholics, communion.

https://www.npr.org/sections/presid...ts-abortion-rights-heres-what-that-could-mean

Seriously, this latter thing is a very poor idea, because if it actually worked and brought Biden "to heel" on the issue, it would confirm the fear some have that a person of faith (or at least of a different faith than themselves) can't govern everyone fairly in a secular democracy. Imagine if Islamic leaders in the US were actively pressuring a Muslim POTUS to base their public policies on Shariah law, or if Mitt Romney had won and the Mormon leaders were pressuring him to adopt national prohibition laws.

And it's far from clear that the Senate Republicans won't simply filibuster any Democratic relief package.

The most reactionary elements in our society are in the process of doubling down.

MaeZe said:

Maybe Schumer can enforce the actual filibuster which requires the member stay at the podium talking constantly in order to filibuster.

Click to expand...

I was wondering when and why that rule about filibustering ended, where it was mainly a delay tactic or an opportunity to engage in prolonged debate or bargaining about a bill, or if it succeeded in blocking legislation, it was severely inconvenient to the blocking party.

I remember learning about filibusters in high school civics class, and they told us that was how it worked. But when I was talking with my spouse (who is three years younger than I am) about this today, he'd never heard of it ever being any way other than it is now--with the majority party actually needing 60 votes to pass anything if the minority gives it the thumbs down (which they will generally do). Looking it up, I am not misremembering what I learned so long ago, and it does appear that filibustering once involved a Senator holding the floor and speaking (not necessarily about anything germane) to delay or block a vote, but we never hear of it working this way nowadays. Now it's just an insta thumbs down.

Of course, the Democrats could vote to kill the filibuster entirely, which will surely come back to bite them on the rear later.

If the Dems don't kill the filibuster, and just vote straight majority, there will be no hope. Nothing will get done.

Diana Hignutt said:

If the Dems don't kill the filibuster, and just vote straight majority, there will be no hope. Nothing will get done.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I don't know what else they can do during a pandemic the other party still insists on politicizing to the point they are willing to hold even their own constituents hostage to the lie that Covid-19 is no big deal.

But it's going to be horrible down the line when the GOP has the Senate and the Presidency back and starts passing cruel and twisted legislation.

It seems to this outsider (not that we don't have slimy politicians up here, too) that 'unity' is only of interest to the GOP when they are planning to use it to demand that the opposition accede to their wishes and their plans.
This is not unity, it's puppetry. Or bullying.