Every so often I see a political ad that really catches my eye. Even rarer are those that bowl me over for being particularly effective or powerful. But the rarest of all is seeing an ad that makes me want to move to that state just so I could vote for the guy. Today was one of those days.

Most long-time readers already know that while this is not quite a "one-issue-voter" issue for me, it is one I have strongly advocated for and celebrated the progress of over the past few decades -- progress that, to me (when I first started blogging), was beyond my wildest dreams. So it's entirely in character that the issue being addressed by Gary Chambers, a candidate for the United States Senate in Louisiana, is marijuana law reform. But I have never seen the issue championed quite so forcefully.

Continue Reading »

Today, on the federal holiday celebrating the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, his son Martin Luther King III travelled to Arizona to express his displeasure with Senator Kyrsten Sinema after she crushed the hopes of all those wishing to see modern voting rights legislation pass into law. "History will remember Sen. Sinema, I believe unkindly, for her position on the filibuster," said King's eldest son and namesake, and he pointed out in an interview: "Our daughter has less rights around voting than she had when she was born. I can’t imagine what my mother and father would say about that. I'm sure they’re turning over and over in their graves about this."

Those are some pretty strong words, but Sinema has earned such condemnation. Together with Joe Manchin of West Virginia, they have stood firmly for the rights of a minority of senators to prevent a majority from enacting federal voting rights laws -- which would stop or overturn the voter suppression measures that have passed on party-line votes in legislatures all over the country. Sinema sanctimoniously tried to take the high road and paint her stance as one for "bipartisanship," but by doing so she completely ignores the fact that we are in this situation precisely because of partisanship at the state level and partisanship in the Senate. She is unilaterally disarming the Democrats in the face of such partisanship, seeking a bipartisanship which simply does not exist anymore in the United States Senate. She stood up for parliamentary procedure (that is included nowhere in the U.S. Constitution) over basic constitutional rights. King is right -- history will not remember her actions kindly.

Continue Reading »

We're not quite sure exactly what to call what we witnessed this week in Washington. We know it's not "regicide," since we don't have kings here. So what, exactly? Execucide? Presidenticide? Legicide? Particide? Whatever neologism you prefer, however (and feel free to suggest your own in the comments...), what we saw this week was the strangulation of Joe Biden's presidency and the Democratic Party's political agenda. It happened mostly in public, as two supposedly-Democratic senators killed all hope of anything important getting done for the entire rest of the year (if not for the rest of Biden's term). This will likely doom Democrats' chances in the midterms and will likely also cement the legacy (whether justified or not) of Biden's term in office as a president who was weak, ineffective, and a massive disappointment to most of the Democratic Party.

Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema personally strangled Biden's hopes for accomplishing much of anything more than he already has, and by doing so they did more political damage to Biden's presidency and their own party than Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Kevin McCarthy could have managed combined. That's how disappointing the entire tragedy truly was, for millions of Democratic voters.

Midterm congressional elections depend on turnout of the base. But why should any Black southern voter even bother to brave the hours-long lines when their own party and their own preferred presidential candidate have proven to be so ineffective in delivering for them? Why should any parent get excited about voting for a Democrat when the party couldn't even manage to continue the Child Tax Credit payments for another year? Why should anyone who cares about justice and democracy make the effort to vote when their elected officials quite obviously care about arcane parliamentary procedure far more than securing their right to vote?

It's been that kind of week, sadly.

Continue Reading »

For the first time, the Justice Department has brought charges of sedition against those who allegedly plotted to stop the constitutional process of Congress counting the Electoral College votes to officially determine who will be the next president. Eleven members of the Oath Keepers were charged with seditious conspiracy today, which seems entirely fitting for what took place at the United States Capitol on January 6th last year. In fact, many have been wondering what took the Department of Justice so long to bring such charges.

This was rather obviously sedition, and hopefully it will be pretty easy to prove that in a courtroom. Especially when you consider the actual text of how federal law defines seditious conspiracy:

Continue Reading »

An interesting idea is being floated these days about one particular clause in a constitutional amendment. What it boils down to is the question of whether Democrats (or anyone else) should make a concerted effort to bar from ever seeking office those Republicans who in some way participated in the January 6th insurrection attempt. On the face of it, this seems a rational thing to contemplate -- no one who has tried to overthrow the government should be allowed to participate in that government in the future. The Constitution should not become a suicide pact, in other words. But actually applying it in this particular case will almost certainly set us all on an even slipperier slope than we're already on, in terms of partisan warfare in Congress.

Here's the relevant text, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

That's the whole section. Again, on first reading it, it's understandable the impetus toward barring certain Republicans from seeking office or getting re-elected. But a larger context might be necessary.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified during the post-Civil War period. At the time, many who had served in either the Confederate army or government wanted to run for office in the newly-readmitted southern states. This was an explicit way to bar them from doing so. But later during the Reconstruction Era the text of this law was drastically narrowed, by the passage of the Amnesty Act of 1872. This limited who could be barred from office, and it allowed most Confederate rank-and-file soldiers to run for office and serve from that point on. This was part of a general easing of retribution, as President Ulysses S. Grant then went on to pardon all but 500 former top Confederate officials. So back then, the foot soldiers were not held as accountable as the leaders and were allowed to serve in Congress or any other office they could get elected to.

Now, please remember, the Confederate States of America was unquestionably either an insurrection or rebellion (take your pick). It's beyond debate. But it had a structure -- a government, an army, a navy, and all the minor trappings of government below them. They issued their own currency and stamps, for example. Though never recognized diplomatically on the world stage, they did have a functioning governmental structure. There was no question about who had served in this government or armed forces -- it was all public knowledge.

So let's go back to the text of that amendment. The first part of the clause is pretty clear-cut -- you can't serve in any government office, period, whether state or national. The second part, however, already limits who this would apply to in today's situation: "...who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States...."

This would seem to mean sitting or former political officeholders and those who had ever been a commissioned officer in the United States military (I leave it for those more well-versed in legalisms to determine whether "an officer of the United States" would apply to the rank-and-file members of the military, who also have to swear an oath of service). But this would indeed include anyone serving in the current Congress (and not just "any previous Congress") because of the timing of the insurrection attempt. The new Congress officially convenes on January 3rd. Three days later, the insurrection attempt happened. So all sitting members would be covered, as well as those (like Devin Nunes, for instance) who were sitting members of the current Congress but have since quit. It would also cover any other politician who had sworn an oath to defend the Constitution previous to that date (up to and including President Donald Trump).

But then there's the third clause: "...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Republicans are already arguing that what took place doesn't qualify as an "insurrection or rebellion." And what definition should be used for "engaged in" or "given aid and comfort to"? That's a much more nebulous question than: "Did you serve in the Confederate government or armed forces?" And remember that it wouldn't even cover those who did actively participate but had not previously sworn any oath to defend the Constitution. There are dozens of people who were part of the mob who stormed the U.S. Capitol who are now running for office nationwide. Those who had never previously sworn such an oath are still perfectly free to do so, even under the most Draconian reading of the amendment's language.

Let's say for the sake of argument that a Draconian reading is what is necessary here. There is certainly a strong moral argument to make that those who swore to defend the Constitution but then turned around and attacked it should be barred forever from serving in any office, but again this was not the Civil War. So there are no paymasters' lists of who participated and who didn't. So how many should it be applied to? The people who directly participated in storming and ransacking the seat of democracy in America? Well, they'd be the most obvious, of course. Members of Congress who were in contact with the leaders of the insurrectionist groups? Those who egged them on at Trump's pre-attack rally, including Trump himself? Well, you could certainly make a strong "given aid and comfort" argument for all of them. But how about those Republicans who voted against certifying the results from all the states, even after the insurrection attempt had happened? Does that qualify as "aid and comfort" or "insurrection or rebellion"? That's a harder case to make, obviously, since no matter how much you disagree with them you have to admit they were following the correct constitutional procedure and not rampaging through the halls chanting: "Hang Mike Pence!" So where does the line get drawn?

Up until now, the Justice Department hasn't even charged any of the defendants from January 6th with sedition or domestic terrorism, much less insurrection or treason. There is no requirement in the Fourteenth Amendment clause for a conviction of such crimes, but it would certainly be a lot easier for Congress to bar someone from office who had already been proven in court to have attacked the government. But it's pretty farfetched to imagine that the Justice Department would ever (at least not without overwhelming proof of guilt being uncovered by the Select Committee) charge sitting members of Congress with such high crimes. So while it would indeed be convenient to just see who the courts decide is guilty of such crimes, that's almost certainly not going to happen any time soon.

There is no real mechanism in the Fourteenth Amendment for enforcement, either. Does Congress merely vote (with a simple majority in both chambers) on whether to bar some particular person or entire class of persons from ever holding office? The only procedure outlined is the one to waive the law, not to enforce it, which is a problem for those who want to now invoke it. No matter what route is chosen in any attempt to utilize this provision, it is likely it will end up in the courts, meaning the heavily-conservative Supreme Court would have the final say on the matter.

There is one larger thing to consider as well. Those now arguing for invoking the clause and using it on as many Republicans as possible should really take a deep breath and ask themselves if this is really what we should be doing in America. Because it would almost certainly prove to be a very slippery slope. After all, we scoff at countries who summarily bar people from ever running for office -- as happens regularly in places like Russia and Iran and China -- for being nothing more than "fake democracies." There is no real democracy if the people in power get to decide who can challenge them in the next election, after all. And that is exactly what going after those Republicans who did nothing more than voting against certifying the Electoral College results would indeed look like: political retribution, plain and simple.

If that's not enough to give pause, consider what would happen going forward. Say Democrats enforce the provision to the hilt. Even attempting to bar sitting Republicans from ever running for Congress again would absolutely enrage the entire party, from Trump on down. Attempting to bar Trump himself from office would be even worse, because then he'd be personally involved. Say such an attempt largely failed (one way or another, perhaps at the Supreme Court). Think for a minute what Republicans would do, once they regained power in either chamber of Congress or the White House. They would then seek to turn this effort around and use it against any Democrat they didn't like, for any reason under the sun. They'd call "supporting Black Lives Matter" aiding and abetting an enemy of the government. They'd widen the definition to include as many Democrats as possible -- they are already getting ready to essentially run their entire 2022 campaign on the sole issue of "Vengeance!" so adding this in would be a piece of cake for them.

Personally, I can certainly understand the temptation to use this obscure part of a constitutional amendment to bar the most unrepentant Republicans from ever seeking or holding office again. It would be fitting indeed. But other than individual groups at the local level suing in a pre-emptive move to keep certain candidates off the ballot, I don't really think Democrats as a whole should give in to the urge to try this route. Again, if the Select Committee provides solid evidence of involvement or if anyone who actually participated in the violence of that day is convicted in court of sedition or domestic terrorism, then I would agree that this should be a clear disqualification and Democrats should indeed act. But without such a smoking gun, I think any wider application would wind up coming back to bite Democrats in the end.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

[Program Note: Due to external events I was busy today and hadn't even intended to write a column. This is going to be an abbreviated one (more like an extended comment), just to warn everyone.]

While I was busy with some other important things today, I managed to catch President Joe Biden's speech on voting rights from Atlanta, Georgia. To make a long story short: I was glad I did.

This makes twice since the dawn of the new year that Biden has made very effective use of the presidential bully pulpit, in fact. His speech on last year's insurrection was downright astonishing, and today's was even better.

I don't have the time right now to give my full reactions to the speech, but if you haven't seen it, take a half an hour and watch it -- and I bet you'll be glad you did, too.

Biden was, in a word, historic today. Civil rights and voting rights are weighty subjects indeed, especially in Atlanta. Biden issued a clear challenge not just to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, but to every serving senator: history will judge you for this vote. Biden also (for the first time) clearly and directly took a stance that voting rights bills should not be blocked by arcane Senate rules -- and if the rules needed changing, then that was what had to happen. This represents a huge change for Biden, who is an institutionalist when it comes to the chamber he served in for so long.

Continue Reading »

A new year has dawned and Congress is finally getting back to work. In the Senate, this means (as it has for the entire past year) trying to figure out what Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin will accept. So far, the answers seem to be the usual "not much of anything," but perhaps they'll surprise us and actually get something done in the next few weeks.

Right now there are two big pressing issues in the Senate: Joe Biden's Build Back Better plan and passing some sort of voting rights bill or bills. The news on Build Back Better is pretty dispiriting, as the Washington Post is reporting that Manchin no longer supports the version of the plan he himself offered to the White House, just before the holidays. That's right -- he no longer supports his own proposal:

Continue Reading »

Without actually saying his name, President Joe Biden delivered a speech on the anniversary of the failed January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol which directly laid the blame for the atrocity that happened one year ago at Donald Trump's feet. Uncharacteristically (for him), Biden did not pull any punches, did not mince any words, and did not couch his terms in diplomatic language to soften any of the blows. Instead he told the bald truth -- that Trump was responsible for the Big Lie, that the Big Lie was what incited the mob, and that the Big Lie was downright un-American and reprehensible. Biden used one particularly notable phrase multiple times, when he called the violence of January 6th a "dagger at the throat of America" or a "dagger at the throat of our democracy" -- which will probably be the most-remembered line from the whole speech.

It was the strongest speech we have ever heard from Joe Biden, period. The speech took less than half an hour, and Biden was animated and forceful the entire time. Biden may not be the world's best political orator in general, but yesterday he certainly delivered. Maybe it was the heartfelt and honest moral outrage he was so obviously feeling, but whatever the reason, Biden's speech was certainly notable for rising to the occasion.

Continue Reading »

Instead of commenting on today's anniversary of the worst attack on the United States Capitol since 1814 (and the only one ever launched by American citizens) or how Congress is marking the occasion or President Joe Biden's rather forceful speech this morning, instead I am going to run the two columns from last year that expressed my own reactions to the outrage.

And I have only two words to add to all of it:

Never forget.

I'm Speechless

Originally published January 6, 2021

For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.
--Hosea, 8:7

All I can say is: I don't want to hear any Republican who is not condemning and denouncing what is currently happening right now get sanctimonious about "law and order" EVER again.

A Day Of Infamy

Originally published January 8, 2021

[Program Note: -- Due to the seriousness of events this week, we are pre-empting our usual Friday Talking Points format to instead bring you a free-form rant. Because if ever there were a week where a rant was needed, it was indeed this one.]

The sixth of January, 2021, has already gone down in American history as a day of infamy. This is, of course, the same phrase Franklin Roosevelt used to describe the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and it certainly seems appropriate right now.

For the first time since August of 1814, the United States Capitol was attacked. Back then, it was British troops who were at war with America doing the attacking (and burning the building down on their way out). This week, it was a violent anarchist mob encouraged, aided, abetted, and incited by the sitting president of the United States. Five people have died as a direct result of this attack on democracy, one of them a police officer.

This is more than just another protest, folks. In all of the District of Columbia's history -- including during the Civil War -- the Capitol has never been besieged and invaded in such a fashion by Americans. There have been large groups of protesters on the Mall before -- up to a million of them at a time, for some causes -- but they've never violently occupied the legislative seat of out government before, no matter what they were protesting and no matter how angry they were. But this time -- even though the agitators were openly publishing their calls to arms and their intent to disrupt Congress in the Capitol -- neither the F.B.I. nor the Department of Homeland Security even bothered to do a threat assessment beforehand.

Up until this week, the Capitol Hill police were generally regarded as the nation's experts in crowd control and protest security. They should be; they probably provide security for 300 protests or more each and every year. Some would say they were even too heavy-handed in their policing methods, but none of that was on display this Wednesday. There simply was no overwhelming force deployed, the officers who were there were overwhelmed within about a half an hour, and there was no counteroffensive for three whole hours, during which time the cops pretty much just melted away. PBS reporter Lisa Desjardins (who pretty much deserves a Pulitzer for her reporting from inside the Capitol all day) witnessed a mob breaking into the front doors of the Capitol, and she gave an eyewitness account that there was not a single cop to be seen anywhere while this happened.

Where the cops were seen, sometimes they appeared to be genuinely helpful to the rioters. Barricades were opened up for them, and at least one cop posed for a selfie with a rioter. Another was seen gingerly leading a woman down some stairs and supportively holding her hand.

As many very quickly pointed out, the difference in response from federal officers and agents was markedly different than how Black Lives Matter protests were handled, all throughout last summer. One particularly poignant photo of an overwhelming line of riot-gear-clad officers guarding the Lincoln Memorial during a B.L.M. protest starkly showed how differently demonstrations are handled when the participants are Black and White. Donald Trump's photo opportunity with a borrowed Bible in front of a church that didn't invite him (and whose minister later denounced him) was brought up as well, since peaceful protesters were cleared with maximum federal force in order to allow Trump's propaganda photo to be taken.

To put it all another way, if these had been Black people attempting to storm the Capitol, there would be dozens of bodies on the ground and rivers of blood running down the steps before a single one of them got inside the building. Live ammunition would have been deployed at will. The clouds of tear gas would have been so thick it would have been impossible for the news organizations to even see the building. There would have been thousands of arrests, not fewer than 20. And they would simply not have been allowed to leave the building and just stroll back to their hotel -- they'd be on dozens of buses heading to jail, instead. This is White privilege, folks, right in front of everyone's eyes.

Within approximately 24 hours, the sergeants-at-arms of both the House and Senate had resigned, as well as the chief of the Capitol Hill police. That's a good start, but nowhere near sufficient.

Five people died in the United States Capitol, one of them a police officer who was savagely beaten with a fire extinguisher. He is now a martyr to democracy. Four people died in Benghazi, Libya, and Congress spent approximately the next two years launching investigation after investigation into the circumstances. Investigations into the police planning and response to Wednesday should begin immediately after Joe Biden is sworn into office and Chuck Schumer takes control of the Senate. Hard questions need to be asked, including why the Pentagon was refusing both the mayor and the governor of Maryland's request to send in some National Guard troops to retake the Capitol. Both requests were reportedly turned down. The D.C. National Guard is not under control of the mayor, it is under control of the president.

There is no better argument for why D.C. deserves statehood than that. In fact, it should be one of the first orders of business for the new Congress to tackle.

But let's not lose focus on why the phrase "a day of infamy" is so justified. Donald Trump committed an act of sedition against the United States government and our Constitution. The same Constitution he swore an oath to uphold and defend "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." He fomented an insurrection against Congress doing its constitutional duty by ending the process of a presidential election. His goal was to halt the process so Joe Biden wouldn't be officially declared the winner of an election he plainly and clearly won. Trump did all of this by flat-out lying to the public, ever since Election Day. And then he raised a mob and told them exactly what to do -- which they then did. They attacked the Capitol and Congress. Some might quibble over what exactly to call this (was it a coup attempt or treason?), but no matter what term you favor, everyone can agree that this was monstrously un-American.

Vice President Mike Pence is reportedly refusing to do his clear constitutional duty in supporting the movement to use the 25th Amendment to remove Donald Trump from office for being unfit for service. This leaves impeachment as the only route to get rid of him before Joe Biden is sworn in on the 20th. "But doesn't impeachment take weeks and weeks, and is therefore pointless since he'll be gone anyway?" The answer to that is: "Who cares?"

It is the sworn duty of the House of Representatives to impeach Donald Trump as soon as is possible (Monday morning, one would hope). There is no reason to hold any committee hearings at all. A first-year law student could present the case, because it is so damning and so self-explanatory. I have no legal training, and yet I bet I could do a decent job of presenting the case:

Exhibit A -- the audio of Trump's call to the Georgia secretary of state, where Trump tells him "I need 11,780 votes."

Exhibit B -- Trump's tweets and utterances encouraging everyone to come to D.C. on the sixth, including his promise that "It's going to be wild."

Exhibit C -- The entire video history of the rally held on the Ellipse on the morning of the sixth. This would include video of Rudy Giuliani calling for "trial by combat," Donald Trump Junior's promise: "we will never, ever, ever stop fighting," Lara Trump's statement that: "The fight has only just begun. Our family didn't get in this fight for just four years. We're in this fight to the bitter end."

This would also include Trump's speech, where he said things like:

"They rigged an election, they rigged it like they've never rigged an election before.... We won it by a landslide. This was not a close election."

"We will never concede."

"We got to get rid of the weak congresspeople."

"Walk down Pennsylvania Avenue" and "take back our country."

"Walk down to the Capitol."

"Fight much harder."

"You'll never take back our country with weakness."

Exhibit D -- A sampling of news media video and social media video (posted by participants in the riot) which show the U.S. Capitol being besieged and overtaken by a violent riot.

Exhibit E -- the medical records of the police officer who died.

Exhibit F -- Trump's first video message (which was eventually taken down from Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram) to the rioters and anarchists, which includes the lines: "remember this day forever," and: "We love you. You're very special."

Exhibit G -- Pentagon memos and affidavits showing both the D.C. mayor and the governor of Maryland asked to send in the National Guard -- a decision only Donald Trump could approve -- and were repeatedly refused any help, while the Capitol had already been invaded and occupied.

I rest my case.

Donald Trump incited and abetted this riot, before, during, and after the fact. Ivanka Trump tweeted her approval of the "American patriots" -- while the rioters were inside the Capitol. This is both disgusting and very, very dangerous. Which is why Donald Trump needs to be impeached for a second time.

So what if he'd already be out of office by the time it finished? Impeachment has one other important function as well as removal from office, because Congress has the power to bar someone from ever holding federal office again. This would kill any hopes Trump has of running again in 2024 -- which would actually be a giant relief to most Republicans in Congress, truth be told. So it is not impossible that such an impeachment would succeed. The Senate is not scheduled to return to its session until the 19th of the month, one day before Biden will be sworn in. Which means that any Senate trial would take place under the control of Chuck Schumer, not Mitch McConnell.

The best insider account of how Donald Trump spent his day this Wednesday comes from the Washington Post. The whole article is just breathtaking. Here are a few key excerpts:

One administration official described Trump's behavior as that of "a total monster." Another said the situation was "insane" and "beyond the pale."

"He is alone. He is mad King George," said a Republican in frequent touch with the White House. "Trump believes that he has these people so intimidated they wouldn't dare mess with him. I think Trump doesn't understand how precarious his situation is right now."

. . .

As for Trump, one of the people said, "he was completely, totally out of it." This person added, "He made no attempt to reach out to them."

Instead of exercising his commander-in-chief duties to help protect the Capitol from an attempted insurrection, Trump watched the attack play out on television. Though not necessarily enjoying himself, he was "bemused" by the spectacle because he thought his supporters were literally fighting for him, according to a close adviser. But, this person said, he was turned off by what he considered the "low-class" spectacle of people in ragtag costumes rummaging through the Capitol.

. . .

"He kept saying: 'The vast majority of them are peaceful. What about the riots this summer? What about the other side? No one cared when they were rioting. My people are peaceful. My people aren't thugs,' " an administration official said. "He didn't want to condemn his people."

"He was a total monster today," this official added, describing the president's handling of Wednesday's coup attempt as less defensible than his equivocal response to the deadly white-supremacist rally in 2017 in Charlottesville.

. . .

White House aides tried to get Trump to call in to Fox News Channel, but he refused. He at first did not want to say anything but was persuaded to send tweets. Then they scripted a video message for him to record, which he agreed to distribute on Twitter. But the president ad-libbed by including references to false voter fraud claims that they had asked him not to include, the administration official said.

. . .

A former senior administration official briefed on the president's private conversations said: "The thing he was most upset about and couldn't get over all day was the Pence betrayal.... All day, it was a theme of, 'I made this guy, I saved him from a political death, and here he stabbed me in the back?' "

So the president of the United States was "bemused" by what he saw on television. But he was annoyed that they were "low-class," and not dressed properly. You just can't make this stuff up, folks.

Every living ex-president denounced Trump's actions. Three out of four of these (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama) are Democrats. But even Republican George W. Bush was pretty forceful in condemning what had just happened:

Laura and I are watching the scenes of mayhem unfolding at the seat of our Nation's government in disbelief and dismay. It is a sickening and heartbreaking sight. This is how election results are disputed in a banana republic -- not our democratic republic. I am appalled by the reckless behavior of some political leaders since the election and by the lack of respect shown today for our institutions, our traditions, and our law enforcement. The violent assault on the Capitol -- and disruption of a Constitutionally-mandated meeting of Congress -- was undertaken by people whose passions have been inflamed by falsehoods and false hopes. Insurrection could do grave damage to our Nation and reputation. In the United States of America, it is the fundamental responsibility of every patriotic citizen to support the rule of law. To those who are disappointed in the results of the election: Our country is more important than the politics of the moment. Let the officials elected by the people fulfill their duties and represent our voices in peace and safety. May God continue to bless the United States of America.

He wasn't the only Republican denouncing Trump. In fact, several people who worked directly for Trump did so as well. Mitt Romney did so during the debates (which finally were allowed to take place, after the building had been cleared of insurrectionists), and he minced no words:

We gather today due to a selfish man's injured pride and the outrage of his supporters who he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months and stirred to action this very morning. What happened here today was an insurrection, incited by the president of the United States.

. . .

No congressional audit is ever going to convince these voters, particularly when the president will continue to say the election was stolen. The best way we can show respect for the voters who are upset is by telling them the truth!

He got a big round of applause for that line. Romney also put out a statement:

Today, the United States Capitol -- the world's greatest symbol of self-government -- was ransacked while the leader of the free world cowered behind his keyboard -- tweeting against his Vice President for fulfilling the duties of his oath to the Constitution.

Lies have consequences. This violence was the inevitable and ugly outcome of the President's addiction to constantly stoking division.

Even Lindsey Graham denounced the efforts to overturn the election from the Senate floor (although many pointed out that Lindsey looked and sounded like he had had quite a few drinks before his speech), concluding with: "Count me out. Enough is enough."

Here is Jim Mattis, Trump's first secretary of Defense:

Today's tyranny, an effort to subjugate America's democracy by mob rule, was fomented and directed by Mr. Trump. His effort to destroy trust in our election and to poison our respect for fellow citizens has been enabled by pseudo political leaders whose names will live in infamy as profiles in cowardice.

William Barr, who was Trump's lickspittle attorney general before he left (right before Christmas), also had some strong language to denounce what happened. He called Trump's actions "a betrayal of his office and supporters," and stated further: "orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress is inexcusable."

Mick Mulvaney, who used to be Trump's chief of staff, resigned his special envoy post, saying: "We didn't sign up for what you saw last night. We signed up for making America great again. We signed up for lower taxes and less regulation. The president has a long list of successes that we can be proud of. But all of that went away yesterday."

John Kelly, also a former Trump chief of staff, was even more blunt, saying the violence "was a direct result of [Donald Trump] poisoning the minds of people with the lies and the fraud."

Retired four-star general Barry McCaffrey was even clearer: "This is an overt coup attempt against the Constitution and to take over the government of the United States. This wasn't a momentary, impulsive crowd. This was deliberately structured by Trump, almost all out in the open."

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial calling on Trump to resign.

In other words, the dam has finally broken. Trump went too far, even for those who have been riding on his coattails for four years now. Even Republicans are now denouncing him.

Of course, those of us on the other side of the political aisle have been warning that something like this could happen for four long years now. What happened Wednesday was shocking, but it should have come as a surprise to precisely no one.

Donald Trump has been a blight on American democracy from his initial entry into the presidential race. He has destroyed so many norms of behavior it is impossible to count them all. He will exit office having told in the neighborhood of 30,000 lies to the American public while he was president. He got more and more dangerous as the election approached, right out in the open for all to see. Once the election did happen, he retreated into a fantasyland where he had clearly won (because everyone around him had assured him that it simply was not possible for him to lose). And he started amplifying his delusions and spiraling down further into madness.

Wednesday was just the final result, but it didn't happen in a vacuum. Ever since the election, Trump has been aided and abetted by every single Republican who had not congratulated Joe Biden on his victory (and there were precious few of those). They enabled Trump's delusion. They fed it. They defended in on television, in the hopes that Trump would see and maybe praise them on Twitter.

In the end, Trump proved himself to be exactly what we've been saying he is all along: a bully, a thug, and a man-baby who operates by tantrum alone. That is who has been leading our country for the past four years. So please, spare me the surprise, Republicans. If you had eyes to see, you could have figured it out long ago, so don't even try to say how shocked you are now when you've been enabling his worst impulses all along.

All along, Republicans have excused Trump's infantile and vicious behavior. They've pooh-poohed it as just "Trump being Trump," as if the words of the president just somehow did not matter to them. "Oh, he's only kidding," or "he's just being sarcastic," and a few dozen other similar bromides were the stock in trade of Trump's minions and apologists. They could always rationalize and justify what Trump had said, somehow. And, sadly, for the most part the news media just took everything at face value and refused to say things like: "The president lied to the public today about a very dangerous issue." It wasn't until the Capitol was under assault that these reporters finally snapped out of their own delusion and started reporting what was before their very eyes in plain language.

We now have a delusional president who cannot face reality and has retreated into a fantasyland inside his own head. And he still has the nuclear codes. Mike Pence is the ultimate coward in all of this, because a clearer case for invoking the 25th Amendment is indeed hard to imagine.

In the most literal way possible, Trump lied and people died. That alone is sufficient reason to expel him from office.

[BREAKING NEWS: Twitter has just "permanently suspended" Donald Trump's Twitter account. If they can do it, so can Congress....]

In fact, that seems like a great place to end this. A truly fitting end, in fact.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Attorney General Merrick Garland gave a speech today to his fellow employees at the Department of Justice. The occasion was to mark tomorrow's anniversary of the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and on American democracy. In essence, it was a progress report from the attorney general, and a defense of his own department's actions since. The speech broke no real news, but then it wasn't really designed to. Whether it will change any minds is doubtful, although it might at least give Garland the benefit of the doubt for another few months.

Garland has been criticized by many, mostly those on the left. The Justice Department is moving too slowly, his critics charge, and has only managed to get a handful of very minor sentences so far from the courts. No higher-ups have been tried, and no instigators or masterminds have been charged with anything at all. This is all admittedly very disappointing, a full year after the incident.

Continue Reading »