Election 2020 John Nichols

Impeach Trump Immediately

The president incited his supporters to invade the Capitol and disrupt the certification of the 2020 election. That is too high a crime to ignore.
Supporters of President Donald Trump climb the west wall of the the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

By John Nichols / Reposted with permission from The Nation

When the violent chaos that has been unleashed on the United States Capitol by supporters of President Donald Trump is brought under control, the House should immediately impeach Trump for inciting insurrection and the Senate should act just as quickly to remove the defeated president from office.

Trump has to be held to account, not merely because of what has happened but also because of what might happen in the final two weeks of his dangerous presidency. This is no longer an option for the Congress. This is a constitutional duty, as several members of the House recognized Wednesday afternoon.

Newly elected Representative Mondaire Jones got it right when he declared, “Donald Trump has incited violence against the legislative branch of the United States Government and must be impeached again.” So, too, did Representative Ilhan Omar, who announced: “I am drawing up Articles of Impeachment. Donald J. Trump should be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the United States Senate. We can’t allow him to remain in office, it’s a matter of preserving our Republic and we need to fulfill our oath.”

Jones and Omar are defending the rule of law. Their colleagues have a responsibility to join them in doing so. To think otherwise is to deny the reality of what Trump has unleashed on the United States. With his lies about an election he lost and with his incitement of supporters to come to Washington to challenge Electoral College results that the Congress was to certify on Wednesday, the defeated president created the crisis that resulted in an invasion of the Capitol that saw physical violence, looting, and destruction of public property, disrupting the governing of the nation. As night fell, the Associated Press confirmed that at least one woman had died in the violence.

The New York Times headline shouted: “Pro-Trump Mob Storms Capitol, Incited by Trump Speech.”

“Around 2:15 p.m., as the House and Senate debated a move by a faction of Republicans to overturn the election results, the proceedings ground to a halt as security rushed Vice President Mike Pence out of the Senate chamber and the Capitol building was placed on lockdown, with senators and members of the House locked inside their respective chambers,” reported the Times. “Shortly afterward, the police escorted senators and members of House from the building to others nearby, as the protesters swarmed the hallways just steps from where lawmakers were meeting, carrying pro-Trump paraphernalia.”

People shelter in the House gallery as protesters try to break into the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

In an uncertain, uncontrolled moment, Democratic members of the House were calling on their Republican colleagues to act. “Right now, Republicans have to be patriots and stand up to Donald Trump,” Representative Mark Pocan said shortly after the invasion of the Capitol.

That was a necessary demand, as Trump had just hours earlier appeared at a midday rally with the very people who — when the president finished speaking — marched on the Capitol. At that rally, Trump cheered on challenges to the results of an election in which he was unquestionably defeated. He attacked Republicans, including Vice President Mike Pence, whom he portrayed as insufficiently supportive of his demands, and claimed that Republicans have “the absolute right to” reject election results. He called those who did not align with him “corrupt” and declared, “We will never concede!

When the invasion of the Capitol occurred, Trump was initially quiet and then tweeted, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order — respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”

Lawmakers evacuate the floor as protesters try to break into the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

But Trump, who spent much of the morning inciting the crowd, in person and on social media, did not immediately tell his followers to leave the Capitol. He only did so after President-elect Joe Biden, who characterized the invasion of the Capitol as “an insurrection” that “borders on sedition,” delivered an impassioned address to the nation in which he called on Trump to “go on national television now to fulfill his oath and defend the Constitution and demand an end to this siege.”

Even when Trump did finally tell his supporters to “go home now,” he ranted and raved about “a fraudulent election” — and told the invaders of the Capitol, “We love you. You’re very special.”

The harm that this president has done cannot be forgiven or forgotten. And the threat that he will do additional harm cannot be neglected.

The Constitution of the United States is clear. It says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Inciting insurrection is a high crime. No honest observer can deny the truth of former secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson’s statement to MSNBC that Donald Trump “lit the match.” No member of Congress can argue with Utah Senator Mitt Romney’s assertion, “What happened here today was an insurrection, incited by the President of the United States.”

Stephen Vladeck, the University of Texas School of Law professor who is the Supreme Court Fellow at the Constitution Project and serves on the Board of Academic Advisors of the American Constitution Society, said Wednesday: “When Congress reassembles: 1. Republicans should immediately withdraw their remaining objections and allow for expeditious certification of Biden’s victory. 2. The House should immediately proceed to vote on Articles of Impeachment against President Trump.”

That’s a plan. The articles of impeachment should be introduced. Now. The House should act immediately. The articles should be sent to the Senate and the trial must commence.

John Nichols
John Nichols

John NicholsJohn Nichols is a national affairs correspondent for The Nation and the author of the new book The Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party: The Enduring Legacy of Henry Wallace’s Anti-Fascist, Anti-Racist Politics (Verso). He’s also the author of Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America, from Nation Books, and co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy.


  1. I guess John didn’t listen to Biden’s platitude-filled sophomoric “impassioned” speech, which I would have found embarrassing coming from a C minus 5th grader’s mouth. There was no call byBiden to arrest Trump, merely a plea for Trump to go on tv and ask his supporters to stop. It should be fun to see Mama Bear twist herself into knots (again) to avoid impeaching our deranged, criminal President.

  2. Assuming he expects to escape liability for the deaths of protestors at the Capitol, if President Trump can nevertheless be made to pay for damage to the building itself after his incitement to sedition and insurrection, this alone might bring home to him what he has done, if we consider that only things which impact his sense of prestige or his wallet actually register as important in his own mind. This to run concurrently with the long overdue second impeachment.

  3. ABSOLUTEMENTE! Anything less, anything of the slick and glib “ we must come together” “we must move on” “ we must reconcile and become one with our Republican colleagues” “ we must pardon the insurrectionist goons incited by Agent Chaos in order to bring peace and healing”, any spineless, cowardice soaked packed excuses that “impeachment would take too much time” “it’s too late” – as if the nation hadn’t witnessed hours of this traitorous numbskull thuggery and brutishness and criminality and the evidence recorded in how many photos, Twitter observations and Facebook posts – would do as much to rot the Constitution and our nation as the cumulative incompetence and criminality of Mr Trump himself. and those who have chosen him over our Constitution . How do you imagine Eisenhower, FDR or Lincoln would respond to this collection of traitors – including those Republican Senators and Representatives who poured their own murderous sentiments into overturning the will of the people?

    1. Listen, I strongly dislike Donald Trump and agree that what happened at the capital yesterday was vile and an embarrassment to our country. The people who rioted and broke into the capital should be punished according to whatever laws apply. But all this talk about ‘insurrection’ and ‘threat to democracy’ is a bunch of histrionic demagoguery that sounds just like the kind of over-wrought, incendiary drivel we’ve heard from the right for decades. And given that a pillar of the argument is that Trump is guilty of incendiary demagoguery… well, that’s the exact kind of hypocrisy no intellectually honest person who is trying to do the right thing should allow themselves. You know as well as I do that this was a shameful tantrum, not an organized insurrection. Was there even a small chance it would do more than delay the certification, that it would result in the craven, bumbling Trump being installed as king? If we want to have any hope of solving the myriad existential crises we face as a species, we have to step outside all the counterproductive partisan framing, double standards, dehumanizing rhetoric, and push for authoritarianism. Period. You’re an intelligent person — wake up and behave like an adult.

      1. Comment is useful, but not sure why you need the insult at the end?

        Pretty clear the left side of the spectrum is quickly framing this along the bifurcation that already is its hallmark — those that believe the “show” is real and those those that don’t.

        But isn’t there a possibility that this, like pretty much everything else, is a paradox? I.e., the riot of racists and the mentally ill was never going to overthrow the government, and can be seen as a (deadly) farce like Charlottesville, etc., but that the larger dialectical proccess of ideological/cultural bubbling, creation of martyrs and heroic narratives, moving frames and so on all DO matter to the trajectory of our history?

        Certainly, the images alone matter enormously for most of the world! They will not have your nuanced view.

        Also, for the most … observant? smug? cynical? educated? … this all may be described as a complex theater performance, yet history tells us that the reality behind the scenes is never so neat. Jan 6 can be mocked now because no martial law was declared, but if you don’t think there are other generals as insane as Flynn, then who is being childish now?

        The assumption that Dick Cheney, et al, were not actually concerned enough about the threat Trump poses to write that letter, or that somebody will stop Trump from inciting something in the Persian Gulf by re-ordering provocations seems “adult” until it isn’t. When Nixon was wandering the White House drunk and insane in his final days in the White House, did this pose zero threat to humanity? Were the elites in actual control of the situation during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

        For those who argue we don’t have a democracy, than saying “threat to democracy” will always ring false. For those who still believe there are threads to salvage, it is hard to imagine why they should be sanguine about a country where the president can tell a crowd to storm Congress, five people die, and he faces zero accountability.

      2. Eric –
        “A shameful tantrum” “not organized” – so you have some inside information as to the veracity, particularly in reference to the latter. By a fluke they just happened to be in DC and just ran into each other?000Did these wall climbers just by accident happen to find themselves on the wall? Just by accident happen to just meet on the same wall? Would their chronological ages qualify them as adolescents or children? “shameful tantrum” is a characteristic of a child? adolescent? adult? Or an adolescent in an adult’s body? If the latter, are they to be regarded legally as an adolescent or an adult? Were their behaviors threatening? aggressive? mild? innocuous? Were their trips to the Capitol self-funded? Please cite sources so we can look them up. It’s highly likely a good share of them will end up for varying amounts of time in the clink. Where I get disturbed and have been so for quite a long time (I’m an old person) is the absence of accountability -we as a nation tolerate – of our Presidents, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General and other high level officials and Wall Street Hedge Fund managers and Bankers and CEO’s of Corporations – commonly sharing an “elite” education, are white most often men, and well-connected who have harmed millions of Americans through dubious predatory financial transactions or bear ultimate responsibility for the thousands of innocents killed by drones and warfare including invasions of countries based on lies or backing coups of other countries’ legitimately elected presidents – and just as horribly viciously raped the earth for personal gain, and consciously knowing the harm they were doing and lied about that awareness. All “these” characters never have to suffer the dire consequences of their cold maliciousness. The louts, the wall climbers – they’ll be routed out to face a judge. But those sanctioning the poisoning of the earth, killing, invading, coup perpetrating, torturing, imprisoning whistle blowers, crashing the market etc….the obscenities go on – no, no judge for them! These men in high positions by their fat money backing legislators (and courts?) have constructed a legal free zone tailored just for themselves to avoid legal (and societal) come-uppance for their crimes against humanity and earth. Two systems: “justice” for blacks and capitol wall climbers and window smashers; legal immunity for the wealthied often sociopathic mis-“leaders.” To wit: “a powerful healthcare industry group suddenly poured more than $1m into a Democratic committee backing his [Governor Cuomo’s] campaign.Less than two years after that flood of cash from the Greater NY Hospital Association (GNYHA), Cuomo signed legislation last month quietly shielding hospital and nursing home executives from the threat of lawsuits stemming from the coronavirus outbreak.” Stark! Think about that. Is that called “just”?

      3. I have to agree with you, Eric. Indeed this was a tantrum IMO. Because some in the media interviewed a few Trumpers on the grounds there and asked them why they’re there. Their answer: to overturn the election. It wasn’t about the lack of stimulus money or economic hardship as some left commentators have clearly said. It certainly wasn’t non-partisan; if it was, there would have been some Republican lawmakers’ offices that were ransacked. But there weren’t. I saw an interview with conservative thinker Emily Jashinsky, who said she was there and asked people their feelings and such. She said it was because they were furious with the Republicans. Really? Then why weren’t any GOP offices vandalized?

        These people, as Glenn Greenwald said about them during the George Floyd protests, are frauds. They preach anti-government tyranny but when another group of people protest over a very legitimate issue (police brutality), who do these so-called patriots side with? The police, the very arm of the tyrannical government they claim to oppose.

        Indeed this was only about the election. Their guy lost and they threw a fit. It’s ironic because their guy got elected by Constitutional cheating to begin with, as the Electoral College handed Trump the presidency despite the fact Clinton (who I do not like in the least) won the popular vote by almost 3 million. But no, the only cheating that ever happened was in November 2020. Garbage.

      4. Well said, except for the penultimate sentence which sounded at first read like a plea for “authoritarianism.” The fact that I took that meaning is a sign of the times.

  4. Give me a break. The young men pictured playing on the makeshift climbing wall, while obviously not the brightest lights on the planet, didn’t appear to be especially threatening. And the only reason Trump is able to make a convincing case to his rally goers is that he HAS been the target of a hatchet job. The idiots at the Nation, MSNBC, NYT, NPR, WaPo and elsewhere have been beating their dead horse Russia-gate impeachment drum throughout Trump’s entire term in office.

    Trump, obviously, is a piece of work, a sleazeball salesman, relentlessly trying to seal the deal, comically calling the Georgia Secretary of State to “find” votes, but PLEASE, can we just stick John Nichols and his friends at the NYT and MSNBC on a Nation cruise ship until at least January 20 so we can get through this national embarrassment without another bogus Congressional hearing.

    1. The wall climbers “didn’t appear to be especially threatening”. I can tell, Sheldon, you are a man. 4 PBS/NPR women journalists – of whom 3 were inside and 1 at the White House had experiences that flatly contradict your perception. I lived in Africa for some time in a country with an authoritarian/dictator. He was handsome, well mannered, almost courtly. He didn’t look threatening at all. To you Sheldon, the President is just a stupid sleaze ball con man suffering in a completely unwarranted way because of what the observers you’ve referenced have written from what they’ve witnessed. Nazis and white supremists are “good” people, apparently, in your book.
      And Acts/policies -destructive of the planet- probably too
      are perceived by you to be simply part of the “hatchet” job.

      1. What exactly are you claiming the young men, pictured playing on the makeshift climbing wall, did to the “4 PBS/NPR women journalists – of whom 3 were inside and 1 at the White House”?

      2. Sheldon, I understand your point of view. Yes, it does seem amazing to you that the three women inside the chambers felt threatened by loud and (some of whom were) unfamiliar big men trashing the place considered by many Americans to hold a special if not almost sacred meaning. Big men barreling down corridors. Protective guards not standing where they are customarily stationed. Feeling vulnerable. The women trying to figure out how to stay safe in the chaos while also reporting. I think some men but certainly not all have a feeling of what that must have felt like to a woman. I sense from you that what qualifies as scary and potentially life threatening -for you- is confined to rape and/or physical molestation. You’ve never been a short petite female person in a suddenly chaotic, uncontrolled milling of people who don’t belong there. But then again, I get the sense you’d never be intimidated by much of anything. Or think that of yourself. So it seems unbelievable to you. It all depends, doesn’t it,
        on what you think you are, your scope of perception, and the kind of consciousness from which you are perceiving.

      3. Kind of interesting that you are even being forced to make the case that a violent, armed mob that actually beat or otherwise injured a police officer until he was dead could be intimidating…

      4. Some NPR/PBS “journalist”, who “belongs” in the US Capitol Building, and who was likely spat out of some exclusive private school and then “selected” for an unpaid, full-time internship at some radio/TV station or some newspaper/magazine, and who then, after a lengthy period of unpaid, full-time employment, brown-nosed her way to a paid position, was intimidated by some dumb kids playing on a makeshift climbing wall. Boo-whew.

      5. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/capitol-mob-violence-police.html

        Yeah, dumb kids. How could anybody be intimidated? From the last one:

        “Grabbing my press pass, they saw that my ID said The New York Times and became really angry,” Schaff wrote on Thursday. “They threw me to the floor, trying to take my cameras. I started screaming for help as loudly as I could. No one came. People just watched. At this point, I thought I could be killed and no one would stop them.”

        Schaff made it out safely, but only after police officers trained their guns on her until other journalists stepped in to vouch for her as a member of the press.

        “This will be the start of a civil war revolution,” Schaff said one of the rioters told her.

        Revolution was a common refrain. Some of the rioters appeared to genuinely believe their actions could trigger a political shift leading to a second term of Trump’s presidency ― and it is not clear how far they were willing to go.

        At one point during the insurrection, video captured dozens of Trump supporters repeatedly shouting, “Hang Mike Pence!”

        Jim Bourg, a Reuters photographer, said that he heard “at least” three different rioters say they wanted to find the vice president and execute him as a traitor by hanging him from a Capitol Hill tree.

        Your hate and denial is embarrassing, Sheldon. I am going to guess that you forgive Chris Hedges for starting out in mainstream media, going to elite schools and winning a Pulitizer? For the record, I’m a public school kid from beginning to end, but wondering if you are this consistent in your dismissiveness of young journalists.

      6. My comments refer to John Nichols’ piece in the Nation, regurgitated here, calling for a ridiculous, counter-productive, and absurd impeachment of a very soon to be former President, and the accompanying photo showing a group of young men playing on a makeshift climbing wall. While it’s unfortunate that some NYT reporter draped in her expensive camera gear got mugged by some thugs while she was probably trying to get up in their faces to get “the shot”, if that’s the greatest tragedy you can come up with, you haven’t come up with much.

        Yes, some very bad things happened, but I think it’s remarkable that the scene wasn’t much, much worse. Would you have preferred that the National Guard gunned down the climbers before they reached the wall, so some NYT reporter wouldn’t have had the shit scared out of her?

        I think former Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, who is no fan of Donald Trump, makes a much better case for no 2nd impeachment, than the fear-mongering John Nichols and his like-minded friends, who apparently got their feathers ruffled by the mob, make for a 2nd, ridiculous and doomed for failure impeachment. As Flake stated on NPR:
        “(The impeachment) is not going to happen. And so I fear that the president would treat a second impeachment as a badge of honor, much like he did the first one. And I just don’t think that that is a fitting punishment. I think to just see him go away (laughter) is the best we can do.”


  5. Oh boy, it’s wonderful how perfectly the essays and images on Scheerpost’s front page today work together to tell the bigger story of our exceptional American penchant for waxing selective in our reactions to criminals and entire gangs thereof in high places.

    On the same page where Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges and Jake Johnson cover (or uncover) the ongoing fallout from Assange’s assault on the free world’s freedom to pick and choose which instances of awful state-sponsored lawbreaking will not be stood for, there’s John Nichols (who’s even at times gone to bat for Assange) arguing that Don Trump’s inciting a MAGA mob to break windows and other stuff in our sacred place of lawmaking when they weren’t busy putting their dirty feet on our leading leaders’ desks is too high a crime to sweep under the rug with stuff like war crimes and torture and a serial spree of grander and grander state-sponsored larceny.

    Speaking of which, there next to the title of Nick Turse’s wonderings about when the twenty so profitable years’ worth of atrocities we’ve piled up in a certain endless binge of international and domestic lawbreaking calling itself basically a war on bad guys who hate us for our freedoms, there’s the picture of a certain never once much less twice impeached presidential super spreader of terrorism who’s also recently come sternly out against Donald’s high crime of letting high crimes reach the public eye so selective indignation’s out of the question.

    And then there’s Mr. Fish’s image of the also never-impeached Average Joe as in the former senator from Master Card who’s had one front-row seat or another for decades in this game of picking and choosing what will and what won’t be a matter of going too far when it comes to flaunting the rule of law.

    Maybe before the righteously indignant apply Amendment number 25 to him, Donald ought to be given one last pat on the back for the part he played in gifting us and our posterity with the image of our fearless leaders on both sides of the aisle being whisked to a place that’s safer for them than the scene of all their state-sponsored crimes against so many people at home and abroad.

      1. I’m not sure what it is in my comment that suggests I missed Mr. Fish’s point that Average Joe’s not the guy this historical moment’s calling for.

    1. That first impeachment really popped the Trump popularity balloon, didn’t it? Let’s do that again!

  6. Another botched impeachment…?

    Invoke the 25th amendment and remove him from power.

  7. Why waste time impeaching him when he’s literally getting fired in 12 days?… Stop focusing on this dumb c*nt. Hopefully he drops dead afterwards and we can move on.

    1. The main arguments I think would be: Precedent, forcing Republicans to defend him (again) on the record, and, most importantly, to block him from running again in 4 years.

      1. If that’s your best case for the ridiculous prospect of another impeachment hearing, I’d hate the hear what your lesser arguments are. After just going through hours and hours of Ted Cruz and Matt Gaetz and the like grandstanding over alleged election fraud, do you really want to listen to more Cruz and Gaetz, pandering to the audience that kept The Apprentice on prime time TV for 15 years?

        The only thing that could possibly get Trump elected again is the same thing that got him elected the first time – the idiotic Democrats, who apparently can’t stop giving him the spotlight.

        He made his concession speech. He’s leaving office. Let him leave, without the absurdity of an attempt to impeach a former president.

      2. Impeaching him, even if the Senate were to convict, which they will not, would not prevent him from running for President. It would POSSIBLY prevent him from running for some other offices BUT it would not prevent him from running for President.
        The ONLY reason the Dems are doing this is for theatre. They won’t vote on M4A, Infrastructure, Jobs, ending the wars, ending mass surveillance, etc. BUT they will find time to have meaningless votes on an issue that will resolve itself in a matter of days!
        IF you got the 2/3rd of the Senate to vote for it AND if you were to then get a majority to vote for banning him from office THAT still MAY NOT be enough to prevent him from running again if he so chooses! Not only would that have to be decided by the courts it may not even matter. IF Trump were to run again, unlikely, and if he was to win the nomination, also unlikely, it would be nearly impossible Constitutionally for the Courts to get involved and say that after the voters selected him that he cannot run or hold office if elected. AND more importantly what do you think is going to happen in 2 to 6 years when the Reps are back in the majority? What if in two years the Reps pick up enough seats to take back the House? The first thing they would/will do is impeach Biden AND Harris! Stop this insanity now or it will get much worse.

  8. John has sold us out. OR he has had a stroke and forgotten that words like “incite” have a legal definition. Trump’s statements DO NOT RISE TO THAT DEFINITION. Furthermore, those of us on the Left should acknowledge that the BLM protests and THIS protest have a lot in common! Two groups, both of which tried to get public attention, court attention, etc. in order to have their grievances heard and addressed were told to “beat sand” by the media, by the public at large, and in the courts. People who feel that their complaints are not being heard have the right to rebel and have the right to, if they can, overthrow an unresponsive government for one that will be! I fully support the BLM protests and I fully support the Trump protestors. BOTH sets of riots/protests would have been avoided if these groups repeated requests for attention, discussion, and resolution had been addressed fairly. NEITHER were and BOTH acted APPROPRIATELY!

    1. Personally, I agree that the Left, particularly anybody with sympathies to the black block/antifa or other rioters, would be quite hypocritical if we denounce right-wing protests, even aggressive ones. For those Trumpites who were there and did not try to injure, maim or kill people, all power to their embrace of the right to assembly, if not the ability to understand how elections work.

      However, this article was about the president and whether he should be impeached a not. You say Trump’s endless claims that dark forces stole the election and that his supporters should come and block the peaceful transfer of power does not rise to incitement, yet you can’t claim a jury would see things your way on the “legal definition.”

      And you completely lose me when you say: “BOTH sets of riots/protests would have been avoided if these groups repeated requests for attention, discussion, and resolution had been addressed fairly.” Because their beef is that Trump should be president regardless of the vote; if you are implying that they are really there to fight for economic relief or the elimination of the oligarchy, then you are presuming to speak for them or make them your avatar, which is condescending, at the least.

      1. If you are not open minded enough to have listened to Black Box Voting for the PAST TWENTY YEARS or heard the complaints from LEFTISTS about electronic voting then I don’t think you have the moral authority to even suggest I might be wrong. There is more than enough statistical evidence, eyewitness evidence, and video that SUGGESTS something MAY BE WRONG that more than rises to the investigatory level. You are either ignoring or lying by omission Trump’s own statements both before and after the election that he would accept the results if they were fair. I support BOTH the BLM riots and the Trump-voter riot! Not only that but your later response where you claim that the “Russia” claim was “quickly retreated from” is bullshit. Perhaps you never watched Maddow or MSNBC for years? Or listened to Adam Schiff imply like Hell that the “Russians” rigged the election? You USED to have enough honesty and integrity to be fair and now you not only are not fair but are dishonest.

      2. Your bluster is not convincing me. A few things:

        — I am not sure who you think you are arguing with. I am not Robert Scheer, if that is the implication. Just an anonymous volunteer moderating comments, among other things around here, and putting in my two cents to the debate, for fun.

        – I have listened to “black box voting” claims for many years, perhaps 20, and have seen little that is convincing on a major scale. Elections can get dirty on a micro level, but it is clear that the number one method of manipulating elections in the US is WAY before election day by finding ways to suppress turnout, strike folks from the rolls, use fear and lies, etc. I have no idea what this perspective has to do with moral authority? Guess what: I also don’t believe the moon landing was faked, vaccines cause autism, or that Donald Trump poses a remotely “populist” threat to the capitalist status quo. Do I lose more moral authority?

        – Trump said even in 2016 debates he would not commit to accepting vote results, much less the many, many times in 2020 before and after electin day where he denied he needed to accept vote results. The fact that he daily contradicts himself whenever it is convenient means I don’t have to take anything he says seriously, but what his followers do based on these words (i.e., his whole party, white supremacists, people who fear Black people, etc.) ends up mattering, and they heard him say loud and clear that it was impossible for him to lose if there was a fair vote.

        – I don’t watch Rachel Maddow, MSNBC or any cable channel. Do I have to? I get it, they went nuts on Russiagate, I heard. So did the Democrats. Do you know only 1 percent of America watches MSNBC regularly?

        – In terms of retreating from the Russia claim, I was specifically talking about the claim that Russia actually manipulated votes via hacking. That was clearly a stretch, and those that pushed that line should always be called out.

        – There is ample evidence that whether or not they had a major effect, the Russian intelligence agencies did quite a bit of work to try and tip things Trump’s way. Of course, the US has been doing the same meddling in half the nations of the world for a century, so I am hardly clutching my pearls over it. Point being, though, for the Dems there is at least a kernal of truth under their hype — whereas the case that Trump was robbed has basically ZERO basis in fact.

        Finally, if you support the Jan. 6 riot (rather than the right of the protesters to protest) then you are supporting the notion that Trump actually won the election. And if you believe that, then I think this conversation is a waste of time.

  9. On another note…

    Our fearless leaders, who jump at the chance to send our troops out to kill and cripple foreign citizens, were cowering in those bench seats. Their feelings of terror pales in comparison to the terror they have wrought on others (with zero remorse). Hoping this will make them think and reflect????

    Calling this a coup/insurrection means you are unaware of the actual ones the USA has committed/attempted, no comparison and not by definition accurate to begin with.

    Anyone calling for red team resignations/impeachments who is not simultaneously calling for the resignations/impeachments of the blue team members who have been shouting lies about election rigging the last four years has zero credibility. They are a just a partisan hack getting their news from corporate media.

    Many impeachments to go around but somehow the Orange Baboon is the only deserving one??? We need to remove many blues and reds, if not all, and start over with a new independent party…

    1. I gotta call out this narrative that Russiagate is the same as what Trump/GOP have been doing in this election. While some Dems certainly made noises about the possibility that voting was actually tampered with, this was quickly retreated from and is not a mainstream narrative. Rather, the argument was that Russians used disinformation, bots, Wikileaks, etc. to supposedly cleverly shove the election to Trump.

      Furthermore, while Russiagate was the obsession of MSNBC, etc., nobody in Congress tried to block the electoral college vote, filed lawsuits to overturn vote counting based on implications of Russia, etc.

      So, who exactly would you be impeaching from the Dems for 2016?

  10. Dear “Editor”
    Perhaps you should have a different word attached to your comments since you are NOT the editor? Volunteer or Moderator would suffice but to attach a title that you have not earned and that is not yours is a lie. But after reading your response the best title for you would be Liar.
    Not only that but your juvenile attempt to link my claims to anti-vaxxers is bullshit and makes you look foolish. Either discuss my points or don’t, respond or don’t, but for you to try to link my argument to a completely unrelated issue that has nothing to do with me OR the topic being discussed only shows either your ignorance or desperation.
    YOU claim that “you have seen little evidence” of computer fraud in our elections? Then you either haven’t been paying attention or lying. Every single election cycle they have contests shown online where hackers show how quickly they can hack an election machine. And my posts have pointed out the POSSIBLITY that there was fraud and that there should be a full examination, audit, whatever to PROVE the results. The fact that you, and those like you, refuse to support that idea shows that you are either AFRAID of what the result may be OR that you don’t care because “orange man bad.”
    You then mention Trump’s followers and PRETEND they are all white, Christian, heterosexuals. Once again, are you lying or just ignorant?
    What I believe is that you have willful blindness. I don’t know if Trump won the election or not. I believe there is ample statistical evidence that there was something wrong with this election. And I have had statistics classes, political science classes, history classes, and graduate level classes that make me qualified to make the claim that this election needs to be investigated.
    This conversation is over, not because I think Trump won the election but because your mind is so closed that you will only accept the narrative you are told to accept.

    1. I am “an” editor, not “the” editor. You can disagree with me without calling me a liar. Although, I guess I could just jump in the Jello pit with you and note that you constantly distort my position, which is a form of lying. For example, only an idiot would not know that SOME of Trump’s support comes from people who do not identify as “white, Christian, heterosexual” but it would be another kind of doofusy distortion to deny that the vast bulk of his support (and those who were at the 1/6/21 rally and mock invasion) were such.

      Similarly, one could admit that votes CAN be hacked while also understanding that every locality has built in and very basic checks-and-balances of various levels to catch such hacking after the fact, and that no reliable evidence has been produced by credible sources that it is happening on any scale. Or maybe you could cite a single source for your claims? See, I get to disagree with you, that doesn’t make me a liar, although, as you point out, you have taken even GRADUATE LEVEL CLASSES which make you makes you an expert, apparently, not only which elections are most questionable, but also what narratives I am accepting.

      And yeah, orange men are bad. That fake tanner has to be pretty toxic, I imagine.

      1. hilarious ignorance
        no civilized nation permits legal corruption–vote by mail
        “US voting laws are only found in dictatorships like Azerbaijan”. Seth Ackerman

      2. Optional voting by mail is a perfectly safe way to run an election and much fairer to those who subject to voter suppression through long lines, commutes to voting places, limited voting hours (on work days, no less), disability, childcare, and so on.

        Yuri, you make things up when it is convenient to fit your narrative.

  11. This ex reality show /real estate con man has simulated [stimulated?] the collective American lizard brain like no one else in recent American history. He has the ability to turn normally intelligent adults on both sides of the argument instantly into grade school name callers.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: