Glenn, please invite Matt Taibbi back onto your show. These "it was an insurrection" folks are delusional. Matt posted an article on January 26 titled 'Is The Electoral Fix Already In' which illuminates a sinister plot by unelected bureaucrats to undermine democracy and elections. Their plans and discussions are much more shocking and egregious than anything I have ever heard come out of Trump's mouth. Those espousing they have to "save democracy" do not give a damn about democracy! They want a planned and controlled world where one speaking their mind and voting with their conscience is derided as populism!
Kaiser's comment in reference to Trump that "I think what he wanted..." is just a crazy statement. To say it wasn't peaceful while disregarding the many months of destruction in American cities under the title "mostly peaceful" he is completely wrong here. Trump (like him or loathe him) said "go peacefully and patriotically and make your voices heard", did he use the word "fight"? if he did I would ask how often have we heard the word "fight; Stacy Abrams, Hilary Clinton , Al Gore.... Trumps demand of Pence was met with a simple; "No" This was not insurrection. If it was, then so was EVERY riot dubbed "uprisings" for the last 60 years including the armed take over of the Sacramento capitol by black panthers in 1968.
I’d never heard of David Kaiser but I wish he wouldn’t be so willing to express his dislike of Trump. For the record I am very solidly in RFK jr. Camp in terms of the 2024 election but over & over guys like this one show that they are not fully understanding why the populace has lost faith in our government. We are looking to someone who will stand up for average everyday peeps. I love Glen...I felt like he didn’t agree with Kaiser on several points but was willing to let him have his say. He broached a few questions regarding January 6 to his credit. As long as we have a MSM that will not tell us both sides of an event like January 6, we are gonna to be polarized. So sad.
Good questions. What evidence do you have that they prevented the peaceful transfer of power?
If the new rules are, if you do not like the results, you stage a coup, for real or for optics., okay. Then we will all play by those rules. The founders are crying.
RE: Claudine Gay should say: "When someone actually says 'Death to Jews', we'll take action."
Sure. Now do 'Death to trans people', or 'Death to black people', etc..
The problem with Harvard etal. is the glaring hypocrisy and double-standard. They have highly restrictive de-facto policies on speech, then ignored those policies when it comes to the Jews.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." -- Saul Alinsky.
Regarding Trump. He admits that it's not clear whether Trump engages in an insurrection. He then points to the 2nd impeachment, and in a startling lack of trust in the institutions, declares that Trump should have been found guilty and it's only Mitch McConnell's dereliction of duty that cleared Trump
So... the argument is this:
1) Historically, local officials got to remove people from ballots. But in those cases, there was a clear prima-facie case for insurrection.
2) Trump wouldn't have a prima-facie case, except he was impeached. And he *should* have been found guilty.
3) Therefore, Trump *is* guilty and should be disqualified. A trial with a finding of "not guilty" provides the prima-facie evidence of guilt???
I was glad to hear him being up Neil Howe. He could make a great guest to talk about historical and generational cycles. I read his latest book “The Fourth Turning is Here,” and it’s great. Lots of good historical insights.
The part towards the end, about Reagan's influence on successors, and Obama's response the the financial crisis in comparison with FDR, was completely fascinating. Lots to think about, including alternative paths that we could have followed.
Should Stacy Abrams who still says she won her election be made to face consequences? What about Hillary Clinton, election denier big time? And President Houseplant who just claimed Terry McAuliffe is the real governor of Virginia?
It may be none of my business but, the swooshing sound that occurs when pictures are brought up and taken down is really distracting and unnecessary. Is that new? Can pictures be shown without sound effects?
Glenn, terrorist appeasement is the reason why the Middle East is largely run by terrorist organizations today. The citizens and the governments are willing to grudgingly kowtow to terrorist demands because they don't want trouble; shit blown up, families threatened, governments overthrown. As a result, the ME is a shithole of terrorism that many don't like but they agree to live with them for the peace.
Now look, you conservatives didn't want to reign in your crazies. You wanted to arm them, let them have whatever the hell they wanted, and now *you're afraid of them*. You're willing to appease them (like Europe appeased Hitler until it was obvious that wasn't going to work) hoping for peace and to avoid civil war. As David points out, if Trump's activity doesn't constitute insurrection, what does? If you let him get away with it, you send a message to BOTH SIDES--not just the right!--that it's okay to try to take by violence what a democratic election can't give you. And I repeat: *Your side didn't want to talk about gun restrictions*. The conservative side has always been that guns are a God-given right and any idiot, domestic abuser, or violent criminal who wanted one should be able to get one. You all armed these people, so *you deal with it*! Send a strong message to the *entire country* that no, you CAN'T stage an insurrection against a government outcome you don't like and get away with it, just because your side is fractious and violent. Simply be prepared to put more Americans in jail when they react violently. Deal with the civil war you've wrought. Don't let America turn into a terrorist haven like the Middle East. *They chose to*. We don't have to.
“If Trump’s activity doesn’t constitute insurrection, what does?” That’s a question that should be posed to Jack Smith, the special counsel, who is decidedly looking for reasons, but hasn’t come up with any.
I don't know what the strict legal definition of insurrection is, as applied to Trump, and I'll bet neither do you. It's clear that he supported the insurrection and did nothing to stop it for several hours, despite people including his fantasy sex toy Ivanka. Be honest: If Joe Biden had pulled this off, or if antifa actually had (NO evidence for that), you'd be screaming for their executions. We need to send a strong message to both sides of the partisan divide that insurrection will not be tolerated and the 14th amendment stands. I'm not sure how that will play out in the Supremes; they may be conservative, but they don't always rule Trump's way. If there must be civil war, let there be; conservatives will be asking for it and as I understand it, liberals are gunning up. You never know which are armed and shoot back, do you....
Do you really want to live in a system that an accusation by the media (or by partisans like you or me) can determine guilt? For example, do you think my accusation that Peter Strozk committed insurrection against Trump should be considered even though Durham did not charge him? I could make just as good a case against him as you did against Trump?
No, I *don't* think people like you and me can ultimately determine guilt - we have our opinions. That's why I said I leave it to Jack Smith & the Supremes. Trump is accused of many crimes (91 I think?) and some of them are on tape, like the Georgia 11,000 votes, and some are confessed ("Yeah, I had all those top secret docs. I was entitled to them.") I think he's pretty damn close to insurrection but if Jack Smith can't nail him...that's fine. I didn't like Mueller's findings either but I accepted it. Trump's guilt, in my mind, is knowing what was going down on Jan 6 and doing nothing to stop it. Throwing Mike Pence to the wolves. (I never thought I'd be legitimately worried about Mike Pence's life but I sincerely hoped he'd escape Washington). Being begged by everyone around him to put a stop to it and he didn't, for hours. He's culpable, in my mind, but I'm not, lucky for you, on the Supreme Court. It's the closest I've ever seen a President in my lifetime get to insurrection, and I'm 60 years old. So I don't remember Fort Sumter, sorry!
At first you claim not to know whether an insurrection occurred, then you refer to the “insurrection” as if one occurred. Clearly, there has been no insurrection. If there were even the possibility of one having occurred, he’d have been charged already (by Jack Smith). I thought the Dems figured this out after the BS accusation, and subsequent Mueller appointment, that Trump was a Russian asset. This really needs to stop, and the people need to be able to choose who they want as their President.
"Clearly, there has been no insurrection. If there were even the possibility of one having occurred, he’d have been charged already (by Jack Smith). "
Not necessarily. Charging decisions can be made for strategic reasons. I think the alleged conduct would seem to meet the elements required for a prosecution for insurrection (as defined in the federal code). But there are other factors that go into the selection of charges.
I don't particularly know, but every specific crime has multiple elements whuch must be proven. For, say, a murder, one must prove that the victim died, as a result of actions by the accused, with some specific degree of intentionality that depends on the statute. Whatever those elements are, all must be met to establish guilt.
A prosecutor must consider:
1. Which charges might apply to a situation?
2. Of all of those, for which can a) an indictment be obtained, b) be proven in court, c) be sustained on appeal?\
3. Which defenses is the defednant likely to use and how strong are they?
It's been speculated that Smith chose not to indict for insurrection because he thought Trump might have a credible first amendment defense (his Capitol speech does not meet the Brandenberg standard) and also that he was concerned that because Trump was impeached for insurrection he might raise a double jeopardy defense.
We simply don't know.
Looking at the facts as spelled out in the indictment, I personally think he could have gotten an insurrection indictment had he wanted to. I would guess that something about the need to prosecute the case through trial and appeal dissuaded him from that charge but not ones he did bring.
They're not the gold standard. It remains to be seen whether he will be found to have engaged in activity that qualifies. AFAIK, Jack Smith can't nail him precisely on that but I suspect it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide.
Well, according to David Kaiser this is going to give Supreme Court 'originalists' a problem. So, he must mean that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment intended it to apply to later insurrections. Seems logical that Trump's actions then would have to be similar to those of people who served the Confederacy, to be covered by this constitutional amendment.
What difference does it make for you? If he fired on Fort Sumter, would you support kicking him off the ballot? Betting you can't say yes. You people will defend him no matter *what* he does, or has done. Trump is merely a symbol of how utterly morally corrupt the right has become.
Great discussion. Regarding the generational dynasty of parties, perhaps one can make the argument that, unlike FDR, Reagan had to sell cutbacks rather than handouts. Therefore, perhaps the best Reagan could do was begin to reverse the Democrats' 50-year dominance of the White House, Senate and House that Democrats had largely maintained since 1933. As for Obama and his inability to establish the same dominance after 2009, one might note several things: Keynesian economics had been discredited by inflation, the Reagan recovery of the 1980s and the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union. Massive government handout programs, especially on the mass scale of the New Deal Era that may have ensured Dem dominance for half-a-century, could not be resurrected by Obama, or more recently by Biden, and therefore would not have the same lasting impact as FDR's New Deal . (Note: the term "handout" is not used pejoratively but simply as a term that tries to illustrate the relative impact of the New Deal.)
Question: What can guarantee one party or the other generational dominance in today's world?
I think the "generational dynasty of parties" may be a bit overstated. The origins of today's Democratic Party go back to Jefferson, and the GOP goes back to Lincoln, but today's versions of those parties are nothing like their predecessors.
If we got rid of our first past the post electoral system it would create space for other parties to emerge.
It's difficult to say and I'd be the first to argue it is perhaps overstated as well. But based on three periods from 1800-1980, I wouldn't discount that parties are able to capitalize on events and dominate a half-century or more. Jeffersonian Dems were 180 degrees different than FDR Dems -- but it didn't stop the New Dealers from their dynasty.
Is this the result of first-past-the-post? Possibly. But one could also argue Parliamentary elections have given Conservatives about twice the time as ruling party compared to Labour in the 20th century.
Mr. Kaiser referenced ethnic cleansing. Is the mass Armenian exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh several weeks before Oct 7 a variable that should also be discussed in the context of Oct 7?
Glenn, you had a brief comment about baseball analytics at the beginning. Anyone interested in this should read work by Bill James, who is the father of sabermetrics (this applies econometric type analyses to the study of baseball). James has written dozens of books on this. His Historical Baseball Abstract is also very good in both editions. He was also hired as a consultant by the Red Sox from about 2002 - 2019. The Red Sox had not won a World Series since 1918, but they won the World Series four times while Bill James was advising them. Bill was also an important mentor to Nate Silver.
Glenn, please invite Matt Taibbi back onto your show. These "it was an insurrection" folks are delusional. Matt posted an article on January 26 titled 'Is The Electoral Fix Already In' which illuminates a sinister plot by unelected bureaucrats to undermine democracy and elections. Their plans and discussions are much more shocking and egregious than anything I have ever heard come out of Trump's mouth. Those espousing they have to "save democracy" do not give a damn about democracy! They want a planned and controlled world where one speaking their mind and voting with their conscience is derided as populism!
Kaiser's comment in reference to Trump that "I think what he wanted..." is just a crazy statement. To say it wasn't peaceful while disregarding the many months of destruction in American cities under the title "mostly peaceful" he is completely wrong here. Trump (like him or loathe him) said "go peacefully and patriotically and make your voices heard", did he use the word "fight"? if he did I would ask how often have we heard the word "fight; Stacy Abrams, Hilary Clinton , Al Gore.... Trumps demand of Pence was met with a simple; "No" This was not insurrection. If it was, then so was EVERY riot dubbed "uprisings" for the last 60 years including the armed take over of the Sacramento capitol by black panthers in 1968.
I’d never heard of David Kaiser but I wish he wouldn’t be so willing to express his dislike of Trump. For the record I am very solidly in RFK jr. Camp in terms of the 2024 election but over & over guys like this one show that they are not fully understanding why the populace has lost faith in our government. We are looking to someone who will stand up for average everyday peeps. I love Glen...I felt like he didn’t agree with Kaiser on several points but was willing to let him have his say. He broached a few questions regarding January 6 to his credit. As long as we have a MSM that will not tell us both sides of an event like January 6, we are gonna to be polarized. So sad.
Good questions. What evidence do you have that they prevented the peaceful transfer of power?
If the new rules are, if you do not like the results, you stage a coup, for real or for optics., okay. Then we will all play by those rules. The founders are crying.
RE: Claudine Gay should say: "When someone actually says 'Death to Jews', we'll take action."
Sure. Now do 'Death to trans people', or 'Death to black people', etc..
The problem with Harvard etal. is the glaring hypocrisy and double-standard. They have highly restrictive de-facto policies on speech, then ignored those policies when it comes to the Jews.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." -- Saul Alinsky.
Regarding Trump. He admits that it's not clear whether Trump engages in an insurrection. He then points to the 2nd impeachment, and in a startling lack of trust in the institutions, declares that Trump should have been found guilty and it's only Mitch McConnell's dereliction of duty that cleared Trump
So... the argument is this:
1) Historically, local officials got to remove people from ballots. But in those cases, there was a clear prima-facie case for insurrection.
2) Trump wouldn't have a prima-facie case, except he was impeached. And he *should* have been found guilty.
3) Therefore, Trump *is* guilty and should be disqualified. A trial with a finding of "not guilty" provides the prima-facie evidence of guilt???
I was glad to hear him being up Neil Howe. He could make a great guest to talk about historical and generational cycles. I read his latest book “The Fourth Turning is Here,” and it’s great. Lots of good historical insights.
The part towards the end, about Reagan's influence on successors, and Obama's response the the financial crisis in comparison with FDR, was completely fascinating. Lots to think about, including alternative paths that we could have followed.
An interesting conversation but Trump derangement syndrome on full display
Um, yes?
Did an armed mob storm the White House making Elise Stafanik and Josh Hawley run and hide for their personal safety from peaceful protestors? Um, no.
Al Gore conceded. John Kerry conceded. Hillary Clinton conceded.
In fact, I wish Al Gore would have gone further in his contesting.
Thus, none eligible for arrest.
As the USA, we should fully support vetting of fair elections.
If Al Gore had acted like Trump, and brought in his administration, never left White House offices, yes, he would EXPECT to face consequences.
Problem with Trump, he does not care about the Constitution, only himself. And yes, has that right.
Should Stacy Abrams who still says she won her election be made to face consequences? What about Hillary Clinton, election denier big time? And President Houseplant who just claimed Terry McAuliffe is the real governor of Virginia?
It may be none of my business but, the swooshing sound that occurs when pictures are brought up and taken down is really distracting and unnecessary. Is that new? Can pictures be shown without sound effects?
Glenn, terrorist appeasement is the reason why the Middle East is largely run by terrorist organizations today. The citizens and the governments are willing to grudgingly kowtow to terrorist demands because they don't want trouble; shit blown up, families threatened, governments overthrown. As a result, the ME is a shithole of terrorism that many don't like but they agree to live with them for the peace.
Now look, you conservatives didn't want to reign in your crazies. You wanted to arm them, let them have whatever the hell they wanted, and now *you're afraid of them*. You're willing to appease them (like Europe appeased Hitler until it was obvious that wasn't going to work) hoping for peace and to avoid civil war. As David points out, if Trump's activity doesn't constitute insurrection, what does? If you let him get away with it, you send a message to BOTH SIDES--not just the right!--that it's okay to try to take by violence what a democratic election can't give you. And I repeat: *Your side didn't want to talk about gun restrictions*. The conservative side has always been that guns are a God-given right and any idiot, domestic abuser, or violent criminal who wanted one should be able to get one. You all armed these people, so *you deal with it*! Send a strong message to the *entire country* that no, you CAN'T stage an insurrection against a government outcome you don't like and get away with it, just because your side is fractious and violent. Simply be prepared to put more Americans in jail when they react violently. Deal with the civil war you've wrought. Don't let America turn into a terrorist haven like the Middle East. *They chose to*. We don't have to.
“If Trump’s activity doesn’t constitute insurrection, what does?” That’s a question that should be posed to Jack Smith, the special counsel, who is decidedly looking for reasons, but hasn’t come up with any.
I don't know what the strict legal definition of insurrection is, as applied to Trump, and I'll bet neither do you. It's clear that he supported the insurrection and did nothing to stop it for several hours, despite people including his fantasy sex toy Ivanka. Be honest: If Joe Biden had pulled this off, or if antifa actually had (NO evidence for that), you'd be screaming for their executions. We need to send a strong message to both sides of the partisan divide that insurrection will not be tolerated and the 14th amendment stands. I'm not sure how that will play out in the Supremes; they may be conservative, but they don't always rule Trump's way. If there must be civil war, let there be; conservatives will be asking for it and as I understand it, liberals are gunning up. You never know which are armed and shoot back, do you....
Do you really want to live in a system that an accusation by the media (or by partisans like you or me) can determine guilt? For example, do you think my accusation that Peter Strozk committed insurrection against Trump should be considered even though Durham did not charge him? I could make just as good a case against him as you did against Trump?
No, I *don't* think people like you and me can ultimately determine guilt - we have our opinions. That's why I said I leave it to Jack Smith & the Supremes. Trump is accused of many crimes (91 I think?) and some of them are on tape, like the Georgia 11,000 votes, and some are confessed ("Yeah, I had all those top secret docs. I was entitled to them.") I think he's pretty damn close to insurrection but if Jack Smith can't nail him...that's fine. I didn't like Mueller's findings either but I accepted it. Trump's guilt, in my mind, is knowing what was going down on Jan 6 and doing nothing to stop it. Throwing Mike Pence to the wolves. (I never thought I'd be legitimately worried about Mike Pence's life but I sincerely hoped he'd escape Washington). Being begged by everyone around him to put a stop to it and he didn't, for hours. He's culpable, in my mind, but I'm not, lucky for you, on the Supreme Court. It's the closest I've ever seen a President in my lifetime get to insurrection, and I'm 60 years old. So I don't remember Fort Sumter, sorry!
At first you claim not to know whether an insurrection occurred, then you refer to the “insurrection” as if one occurred. Clearly, there has been no insurrection. If there were even the possibility of one having occurred, he’d have been charged already (by Jack Smith). I thought the Dems figured this out after the BS accusation, and subsequent Mueller appointment, that Trump was a Russian asset. This really needs to stop, and the people need to be able to choose who they want as their President.
"Clearly, there has been no insurrection. If there were even the possibility of one having occurred, he’d have been charged already (by Jack Smith). "
Not necessarily. Charging decisions can be made for strategic reasons. I think the alleged conduct would seem to meet the elements required for a prosecution for insurrection (as defined in the federal code). But there are other factors that go into the selection of charges.
And those mysterious “other factors” are...?
I don't particularly know, but every specific crime has multiple elements whuch must be proven. For, say, a murder, one must prove that the victim died, as a result of actions by the accused, with some specific degree of intentionality that depends on the statute. Whatever those elements are, all must be met to establish guilt.
A prosecutor must consider:
1. Which charges might apply to a situation?
2. Of all of those, for which can a) an indictment be obtained, b) be proven in court, c) be sustained on appeal?\
3. Which defenses is the defednant likely to use and how strong are they?
It's been speculated that Smith chose not to indict for insurrection because he thought Trump might have a credible first amendment defense (his Capitol speech does not meet the Brandenberg standard) and also that he was concerned that because Trump was impeached for insurrection he might raise a double jeopardy defense.
We simply don't know.
Looking at the facts as spelled out in the indictment, I personally think he could have gotten an insurrection indictment had he wanted to. I would guess that something about the need to prosecute the case through trial and appeal dissuaded him from that charge but not ones he did bring.
"...if Trump's activity doesn't constitute insurrection, what does?"
Well, gee, firing on Ft. Sumter? Putting uniforms on an army and fighting battles at Antietam, Shiloh, Gettysburg? Just a guess.
Well........uh.....I meant.....*this* century.
Are all those guys running for office too? :)
So what did Trump do that is similar to the things done in the 19th century that triggered writing the 14th Amendment's concept of insurrection?
They're not the gold standard. It remains to be seen whether he will be found to have engaged in activity that qualifies. AFAIK, Jack Smith can't nail him precisely on that but I suspect it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide.
Well, according to David Kaiser this is going to give Supreme Court 'originalists' a problem. So, he must mean that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment intended it to apply to later insurrections. Seems logical that Trump's actions then would have to be similar to those of people who served the Confederacy, to be covered by this constitutional amendment.
Would you say that if it had been Joe Biden who'd tried to overthrow the election? Are you only a Civil War purist when it's *your* boy at stake?
What difference does it make for you? If he fired on Fort Sumter, would you support kicking him off the ballot? Betting you can't say yes. You people will defend him no matter *what* he does, or has done. Trump is merely a symbol of how utterly morally corrupt the right has become.
Great discussion. Regarding the generational dynasty of parties, perhaps one can make the argument that, unlike FDR, Reagan had to sell cutbacks rather than handouts. Therefore, perhaps the best Reagan could do was begin to reverse the Democrats' 50-year dominance of the White House, Senate and House that Democrats had largely maintained since 1933. As for Obama and his inability to establish the same dominance after 2009, one might note several things: Keynesian economics had been discredited by inflation, the Reagan recovery of the 1980s and the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union. Massive government handout programs, especially on the mass scale of the New Deal Era that may have ensured Dem dominance for half-a-century, could not be resurrected by Obama, or more recently by Biden, and therefore would not have the same lasting impact as FDR's New Deal . (Note: the term "handout" is not used pejoratively but simply as a term that tries to illustrate the relative impact of the New Deal.)
Question: What can guarantee one party or the other generational dominance in today's world?
I think the "generational dynasty of parties" may be a bit overstated. The origins of today's Democratic Party go back to Jefferson, and the GOP goes back to Lincoln, but today's versions of those parties are nothing like their predecessors.
If we got rid of our first past the post electoral system it would create space for other parties to emerge.
It's difficult to say and I'd be the first to argue it is perhaps overstated as well. But based on three periods from 1800-1980, I wouldn't discount that parties are able to capitalize on events and dominate a half-century or more. Jeffersonian Dems were 180 degrees different than FDR Dems -- but it didn't stop the New Dealers from their dynasty.
Is this the result of first-past-the-post? Possibly. But one could also argue Parliamentary elections have given Conservatives about twice the time as ruling party compared to Labour in the 20th century.
Oh, I certainly think parties have long dominant periods.
Mr. Kaiser referenced ethnic cleansing. Is the mass Armenian exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh several weeks before Oct 7 a variable that should also be discussed in the context of Oct 7?
Glenn, you had a brief comment about baseball analytics at the beginning. Anyone interested in this should read work by Bill James, who is the father of sabermetrics (this applies econometric type analyses to the study of baseball). James has written dozens of books on this. His Historical Baseball Abstract is also very good in both editions. He was also hired as a consultant by the Red Sox from about 2002 - 2019. The Red Sox had not won a World Series since 1918, but they won the World Series four times while Bill James was advising them. Bill was also an important mentor to Nate Silver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_James
https://www.billjamesonline.com/