Daily Archives: February 18, 2021

The Republicans who defied him are already suffering a backlash

WASHINGTON, DC

MITCH MCCONNELLS denunciation of Donald Trump on February 13th was as withering as it was unexpected. Despite having just voted with 42 of his Republican colleagues to acquit Mr Trump of inciting an insurrection on January 6th, the Republican Senate leader suggested he was guilty as charged. President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. Headline writers promptly fell over themselves to label this the start of a Republican civil war. But if Mr McConnell and the conservative mainstream are really in that fight, they are very much at a pre-Valley-Forge stage, shivering over their wounds, as winter closes in.

Your browser does not support the

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Mr Trumps acquittal was a more accurate measure of his command of the Republican field. The case brought against him by House Democratsimpressively led by Representative Jamie Raskin of Marylandwas devastating. The video footage they played, depicting the presidents demagoguery and the violence it provoked, was so horrifying it reduced some Republicans to tears. The fact that only seven then mustered the courage to join the entire Democratic caucus in voting against Mr Trump suggests that the impeachment power is now in effect defunct.

Those honourable seven, it must be added, were all to some degree shielded from Mr Trumps wrath. Bill Cassidy and Ben Sasse were newly re-elected; Richard Burr and Pat Toomey are retiring; Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney (of Maine, Alaska and Utah) have home-state appeal that makes them unusually resistant to Mr Trumps bullying.

The 43 Republicans who voted to give Mr Trump the insurrection mulligan that Mike Lee of Utah had claimed he deserved mostly did so on a technicality. They claimed a former president could not be impeached, a view contradicted by most legal advice, as well as the precedent established by an earlier Senate vote.

Notably, this quavering Republican majority included almost every conservative with presidential ambitions, including Marco Rubio and Tim Scott, as well as dedicated Trump stooges such as Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley. It would seem none is planning to run against Trumpism: they are banking on being post-Trump, not anti-Trump. Polling of Republican voters supports their calculation. Over 80% still back Mr Trump; more than half say he did everything he could to stop the insurrection. Meanwhile, the backlash against the seven Republicans who voted against Mr Trump has been vicious.

Messrs Burr, Cassidy and Sasse have all been censured by their state parties. Im getting a lot of feedback from people saying the only reason they supported Senator Cassidy is because President Trump supported him, said Blake Miguez, a Republican leader in Louisianas state legislature. I predict that his next five years will be some of the most miserable a senator from Louisiana has ever experienced. Mr Cassidy, a doctor and faithful Christian, has sought to mollify his constituents by explaining that, contrary to what they may have heard, Mr Trump was guilty as charged. No cigar, it would seem.

Mr McConnell, though tempted to vote against Mr Trump, appears to have concluded that this would have doomed his chances of returning as Majority Leader in 2023. His criticism of the president looks like he is trying to have it both ways. It also seems to have backfired. On February 16th Mr Trump released a statement attacking Mr McConnell as a dour, sullen and unsmiling political hack and threatening to unseat him as Senate leader. It could have been even worse for the veteran Kentuckian. Mr Trump reportedly cut some additional insults at the urging of his aides, including a contention that Mr McConnell had too many chins.

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "Marred but at largio"

Continue reading here:

Donald Trump lives to fight and incite another day - The Economist

On Feb. 10, Fox News was in lockstep with other cable news channels and major broadcast networks in presenting more than four hours of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

But at 5 p.m. Eastern, Fox News pulled away from the most graphic video evidence of violence during the insurrection by pro-Trump rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and switched to its popular daily roundtable show The Five.

Most of the panelists dismissed the Democratic impeachment managers presentation, defended the former president and moved on to other topics including the viral Zoom cat lawyer video despite the historic nature of the events in Washington. Viewers who wanted Fox News journalists take on the proceedings had to wait until anchor Bret Baier showed up at the top of the 6 p.m. hour.

The editorial judgment to cut away was met with derision on social media, where the conservative-leaning news network is often hammered by critics. On screen, Juan Williams, the lone liberal on The Five, angrily chastised his co-hosts for ignoring the evidence presented.

What played out that day demonstrates the pressure Fox News is under, as the network faces growing scrutiny over its role in supporting Trump and his disinformation claims that many believe helped to fuel the deadly insurrection attempt in the Capitol.

The profit engine of Rupert Murdochs Fox Corp. presents itself as a news network, but its often defined by its opinion hosts, such as Sean Hannity, who pay fealty to Trump and the former presidents devoted followers.

Those followers now have multiple options to feed their fix for right-wing opinions some of them far more extreme than what is delivered on Fox News. Satisfying those viewers while also reporting information that does not fit their worldview has become a challenge for an organization that faces vocal detractors on the political center and left, a potentially expensive lawsuit from one of Trumps baseless voter fraud targets and an increasingly outsize role in the parent companys financial performance.

I have friends who dont watch Fox anymore because they see it as untethered from reality, said Richard Goodstein, a Washington attorney who has appeared on the channel as a liberal guest. The question for Fox is balancing losing viewers like that to losing viewers who switch channels rather than watching someone like me who forcefully brings facts and opinions that they cannot tolerate.

Chris Stirewalt, the former political editor for Fox News, said in an op-ed column for The Times that he faced anger from the Trump multitudes after defending the networks election night call of the once reliably red Arizona for Joe Biden.

When I defended the call for Biden in the Arizona election, I became a target of murderous rage from consumers who were furious at not having their views confirmed, he wrote.

Giving the benefit of the doubt and often full-throated support to a president whose lies led to an attempt to overturn an election in turn led to voting software maker Smartmatics $2.7-billion defamation lawsuit against the network and three of its hosts.

The suit filed Feb. 4 alleges that Fox News and its hosts Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs and Jeanine Pirro damaged Smartmatics reputation and business by spreading Trumps conspiracy theories about the election being rigged to elect President Biden. (Fox News and the hosts have filed motions to dismiss the suit, saying the Trumps claims were newsworthy, even if they were false.)

A more immediate question hanging over Fox News is the same one the Republican party is grappling with: What is the next move for Trump? Just as Republican legislators fear Trump will support primary challengers back home if they take him to task, Fox News has to determine how to navigate his expected re-emergence following his acquittal in the second impeachment trial.

Joe Walsh, a former tea party movement congressman from Illinois and conservative radio host, said the right-wing audience remains enthralled with Trump.

Thats the only thing thats going to satiate the folks who turn on Fox, Walsh said. Right now they are going on about big tech censorship and immigration. Thats not going to be enough.

The challenges come as Fox News has emerged as the most significant piece of Fox Corp., which slimmed down after selling most of its entertainment assets to the Walt Disney Co. for $71 billion. During the current fiscal year, Fox News is expected to contribute 80% or more than $2 billion to Fox Corp.'s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, an industry-wide measurement of profitability.

Fox News has been the most-watched cable news channel for 19 consecutive years, thanks to its effective positioning as a right-leaning alternative to other TV news outlets. As the rest of the traditional TV business declined in 2020, the channels audience grew. Fox News became the most-watched network in all of cable TV, according to Nielsen.

The network expected an audience falloff once Trump lost the White House, as it had seen viewers tune out after Barack Obama, a Democrat, defeated his Republican opponents in 2008 and 2012.

But Trump remained the main story in the weeks after the 2020 election with his unfounded charges of voter fraud, leading to the insurrection at the Capitol by pro-Trump rioters that killed five people, followed by the second impeachment trial. Depressed Trump supporters tuned out of Fox News during coverage of those events, while the ratings for MSNBC and CNN surged as viewers who dont habitually watch cable news were tuning in.

Fox News has managed to ride out ratings fluctuations in the past, but it took longer this time. The network has ranked first in viewers since Bidens inauguration, although it still trails CNN in the 25 to 54 age group important to advertisers.

The dip was significant enough for Fox Corp. Chief Executive Lachlan Murdoch to calm the waters. On Feb. 9, Murdoch told financial analysts that the company extended the employment contract of Fox News Media Chief Executive Suzanne Scott and praised her performance.

Arnon Mishkin, director of the Fox News decision desk, explains his call of Arizona for former vice president Joe Biden.

Scott took over the operation in 2018 after it had been rocked by sexual harassment scandals and racial discrimination lawsuits related to the reign of the networks founding chief executive, Roger Ailes. After maintaining the networks ratings leadership for two years, she is now jiggering the networks lineup and will add at least two more hours of right-leaning opinion programs, which have always been the most reliable ratings performers.

Murdoch also tried to counter the notion that Fox News has veered too far to one end of the political spectrum.

We dont need to go further right, Murdoch said. Well stick where we are, and we think thats exactly right and thats the best thing for the business and for our viewers.

Despite the younger Murdochs assurances, there is a sense among some politicos and people inside Fox News that the network has already moved further right to stave off the insurgence of new outlets that are courting their audience. Even veterans of past Republican administrations, such as Matthew Dowd, who worked for George W. Bush, believe there has been a shift.

We saw them as conservative and more likely to be more friendly than others, but we never saw them as like, Oh, lets do Fox because theyre basically a propaganda arm, Dowd said. You always thought of it as a conservative outlet, but it was rational conservative.

A Fox News insider not authorized to speak publicly on the matter said the conservative bent of the network is reflective of where the Republican Party has gone under Trump.

This past year, Fox News saw the rise of a pesky new rival in Newsmax, which kept up a steadfast defense of Trumps voter fraud claims through President Bidens inauguration. Last fall, the Boca Raton, Fla.-based channel averaged as many as 1 million viewers at 7 p.m. Eastern on some days with host Greg Kelly, who on Trumps last day in office said, I miss him already.

Newsmaxs ratings have faded in recent weeks. Since the inauguration it has averaged 226,000 viewers compared with 2.5 million for Fox News.

The other right-wing Fox wannabe is the more strident San Diego-based One America News Network, which does not have enough distribution in cable and satellite homes to be measured by Nielsen.

But the new breed of conservative outlets know how to attract attention. After Fox News Media canceled Dobbs Fox Business Network program where many of Trumps election fraud falsehoods were promoted OAN founder Robert Herring asked in a tweet for the host to give him a call. We may have a position available for you in which you wouldnt be censored for speaking the truth! Herring wrote.

Dobbs remains under contract to Fox News and still gets an annual salary in the seven figures.

Neither of the upstart channels has the financial resources or infrastructure to knock Fox News off its perch. Nevertheless, Fox News is entering an era where a multitude of new contenders will try to nibble away at the conservative audience it once had to itself.

Theyve gone from having zero wing-nut competition to aggressive wing-nut competition, said Mike Murphy, a former Republican consultant and current political analyst for NBC News.

In addition to watching on cable, viewers can stream Newsmax and OAN without a pay TV subscription. There are also more digital conservative channels such as the First, which carries a nightly show from former Fox News host Bill OReilly, and Glenn Becks Blaze Live. Both are available on free ad-supported streaming services such as Pluto.

Social media has provided new outlets for right-leaning voices as well. The Facebook page of Fox News contributor Dan Bongino, a former cop and Secret Service agent turned pugnacious Trump-defending pundit, has more monthly engagements than any major mainstream news organization on the platform.

Jon Klein, a digital media entrepreneur and former CNN president, said audience fragmentation is inevitable now that streaming has reached critical mass.

Ten years ago conservative audiences were not that digitally savvy, Klein said. The early adopters of digital media were younger, more liberal, educated, et cetera. None of this digital technology is a mystery anymore to the older white males who watch Fox News and certainly not a mystery to the alt-right young men they want.

Fox News does have an internal image problem resulting from the Arizona election call, which it stood by, despite an angry response from the Trump campaign and his supporters.

Stirewalt was fired from Fox News in a company restructuring on Jan. 19. Bill Sammon, the longtime executive in charge of the Washington bureau, which has long fought to remain independent from the networks opinion side, announced his retirement a day earlier.

Both moves were seen as responses to their roles on election night, leaving some of the journalists at the company stunned and concerned that the network is lessening its commitment to straight news.

Rupert Murdoch recently told the Washington Post that Stirewalts exit was not related to the Arizona call. It was known among Fox News executives that Murdoch was not a fan of Stirewalt, who declined comment.

Even the perception that Fox News ousted journalists over reporting an election result that was ultimately accurate could damage one of the foundational constructs of the channel. The integrity of the Fox News polling unit and the precision accuracy of its election decision desk has helped define the divide between news and opinion.

But keeping the core conservative Fox News viewer happy is the companys primary goal. Rupert Murdochs U.S. newspapers the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post have been highly critical of Trumps actions on their editorial pages since he lost the election. Any personal political convictions he has on the matter are not worth alienating fickle TV viewers who could ultimately have an impact on the companys balance sheet.

They are not sentimental about their programming decisions, Klein said of the Murdochs. They do what they need to do to get an audience.

Excerpt from:

Fox News tries to satisfy Trump fans, but at what cost? - Los Angeles Times

SALT LAKE CITY Slightly more than half of Utahns agree with the majority of Senate Republicans who found former President Donald Trump not guilty of inciting an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

A new Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll shows 51% of voters in the state say the Senate should not have convicted Trump, while 43% say he should have been convicted. The remaining 7% were not sure.

The Senate voted 57-43 to acquit the former president last Saturday after a five-day trial. Seven Republicans, including Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, crossed party lines to vote with all 50 Senate Democrats. Conviction in an impeachment trial requires a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen said the survey results about Trump reflect broad partisan perspectives.

In the poll, 74% of those who identified themselves as Republicans opposed conviction, while 13% favored it. Among Democrats, 92% favored conviction and only 4% believe the Senate should have acquitted Trump.

Rasmussen surveyed 1,000 Utah registered voters from Feb. 10-16, during and after the Senate trial. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

The wording of the question about whether the Senate should convict Trump was changed after the trial to reflect his acquittal. Rasmussen said there was no discernible difference in the response patterns between those who took the survey before or after the verdict.

Because Trump had already left the White House, removing him from office upon a conviction was out of play. The Senate, however, could have prevented Trump from holding federal office again.

Utahns are split over whether Trump should be barred from holding a future federal office. The poll found that 48% of Utahns believe he should not be barred, but 46% say he should be barred. The remaining 6% were not sure.

But nearly one-quarter of Republicans agree that Trump should not be allowed to hold federal office again, along with 92% of Democrats.

The opposing votes that Utahs two Republican senators cast in the Senate impeachment trial of Trump had no noticeable impact on what voters think about their overall job performance, according to the poll that was conducted during and after the trial.

Romney voted to convict Trump, while Sen. Mike Lee voted to acquit him.

It is fair to say that the trial had little impact on Lee and Romney. Thats partly because the trial was pretty unsurprising and partly because the senators did nothing out of character with their earlier comments, Rasmussen said.

Both senators signaled how they would vote after the House impeached Trump in early January. Romney and Lee came to opposite conclusions about the constitutionality of holding an impeachment trial for a former president and on the verdict.

According to the poll, Romney still rates considerably higher among Democrats than Republicans.

The poll shows 61% of Republicans in the state disapprove of Romneys job performance, including more than half who strongly disapprove.

The first-term senators 50% approval rating among Utah voters is only slightly lower than where it has been the past year and the same as it was last month. His disapproval rating in the latest survey is 45%.

Lee continues to have a lower approval rating among all voters in the state but remains strong in the Republican Party.

The survey found 45% of Utahns approve of Lees performance, while 41% disapprove. Two-thirds of Republicans like the way the two-term senator is doing his job. Those numbers havent changed much in the past year.

Romney and Lee have received criticism and praise for their votes on Trump.

Some conservative Republicans signed a petition to censure Romney, while another group launched a change.org petition thanking him.

Lee, 49, faces reelection in 2022. He has sent out a flurry of fundraising emails the past few weeks jabbing Democrats and the media. He called last week in Washington nasty and said Democrats illegitimate, vindictive push to convict Trump shows again how divisive and angry they can be.

The left is going after red states including Utah like never before. Theyre preparing to dump MILLIONS into seeing me lose. I know that money doesnt buy votes, but we need to get our message out and I cant do it alone, reads one email.

The left-leaning Alliance for Better Utah launched a campaign this week called Humans Against Mike Lee. Its stated purpose is to educate the public about the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad reign of Mike Lee.

If you watched any of the impeachment trial last week or if youve paid attention to the news at all over the past 10 years you know that Sen. Mike Lee is the worst, according to Better Utah political director Kathryn Calderon. Hes an extremist who enjoys debating semantics and picking culture war fights instead of getting things done to help Utahns.

Romney, 73, has not said whether he will seek a second term in 2024.

Link:

Should Senate have convicted Trump? Utahns voice opinion in new poll - Deseret News

House Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) the chair of the Committee on Homeland Security filed a lawsuit on Tuesday accusing former President Donald Trump of conspiring to incite the deadly attack on Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol.

The filing marks the latest in a slew of lawsuits and probes that center on a range of allegations, including efforts to influence election officials in Georgia, defame women who accused him of sexual assault, and manipulate the value of his assets for tax and loan purposes.

In a new interview, Laurence Tribe one of the nation's top constitutional law scholars, who briefly served at the Justice Department during the Obama administration told Yahoo Finance that Trump faces a "a huge number of lawsuits" that will occupy his attention for the remainder of his life.

It remains unclear whether Trump will end up serving time in prison, Tribe says, predicting that no matter the outcome of litigation Trump will "gradually fade away," in part due to the grueling demands of his legal defense.

"He is fully subject to civil and criminal lawsuits both state and federal across the land," says Tribe, a professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard University Law School who taught there for more than 50 years.

"It's a panoply of charges," he adds. "So [Trump] is going to be busy defending himself from now until the end of his life."

The Senate on Saturday acquitted Trump of an impeachment charge that alleged he had incited the Jan. 6 attack, falling 10 votes short of the 67-vote threshold necessary for a conviction. But many of the Republican Senators who voted to acquit, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), said Trump could face charges in the criminal justice system for his actions.

The lawsuit filed by Thompson on Tuesday follows a criminal probe opened by prosecutors in Georgia last week over Trump's attempt to overturn the outcome of the election. Trump also faces defamation lawsuits filed by former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll and former "Apprentice" contestant Summer Zervos, who allege Trump wrongfully described their sexual assault claims against him as false.

Story continues

Plus, Trump faces separate probes from New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance over alleged financial impropriety tied to his corporate and personal conduct. The investigation from James, which is civil and not criminal, focuses on whether Trump improperly inflated the values of his properties.

Meanwhile, Vance is pursuing a criminal probe into possible insurance, tax, and bank-related fraud into Trump's business dealings, The New York Times reported in December. Progressives have also been urging Joe Biden's Justice Department to investigate Trump, as well though the current president has expressed reluctance to prosecute his predecessor.

Still, Trump no longer enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution that may have been afforded to him while in office, Tribe said.

"The only immunity that a former president has is for actions that are within the outer perimeter of his official power," Tribe says, suggesting that such protection likely does not apply to any of the lawsuits or probes he currently faces.

Tribe spoke to Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer in an episode of Influencers with Andy Serwer, a weekly interview series with leaders in business, politics, and entertainment.

Over his career, Tribe argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court and wrote a number of books, most recently "To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment," which he co-authored with Georgetown University Law Professor Joshua Matz.

Tribe's list of former students includes top figures on both sides of the aisle: former President Barack Obama, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and House Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the lead House impeachment manager who made the case against Trump.

Speaking to Yahoo Finance, Tribe expressed uncertainty about whether Trump would ultimately face conviction or liability in any of the current or prospective lawsuits. But Tribe predicted that the series of legal actions would diminish Trump's prominence.

"There may be political decisions by the Justice Department to turn the page," Tribe says. "I do think in the court of history, he will be convicted."

"He himself will gradually fade away, whether in an orange jumpsuit or not," he adds.

Read more:

See the original post:

Trump will be 'busy' with lawsuits for the rest of his life: Laurence Tribe - Yahoo Finance

To the Editor:

Re Senate Acquits Trump in Capitol Riot; 7 Republicans Join in Vote to Convict (front page, Feb. 14):

Forty-three Republican senators put their political party and their careers ahead of the nation and voted to acquit former President Donald J. Trump in his second impeachment trial. These senators have given a green light to future presidents to say and do whatever they wish on their way out the door, including trying to overturn an election through violence.

Although the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, gave an impassioned speech after the vote decrying Mr. Trumps actions, his assertion that he couldnt vote to convict Mr. Trump because he is out of office will give a get out of jail free card to future presidents.

This vote should haunt the Republican Party for a long time, and history will not treat it kindly. Lets hope that our democratic institutions survive this disgraceful acquittal.

Edwin AndrewsMalden, Mass.

To the Editor:

If Republican senators chose to acquit former President Donald Trump because they needed to save their political careers, even though they believed he was guilty as charged, that makes me very sad. However, if they voted to acquit because they did not believe he was guilty, that totally terrifies me. God save our democracy, for these senators most certainly will not.

Janice LillyBloomington, Ind.

To the Editor:

Question for senators voting to acquit former President Donald Trump: What would Mr. Trump have to have done for you to vote to convict him?

Richard RosenthalNew York

To the Editor:

For Mitch McConnell to publicly profess Donald Trumps guilt, while hiding behind his claim of the unconstitutionality of the impeachment trial, is hypocrisy par excellence from the master of hypocrisy. Mr. McConnell himself refused to call back the Senate to receive the article of impeachment while Mr. Trump was in office, thereby creating the very impediment to conviction he cites.

Given that the House voted to impeach on Jan. 13, and this trial took five days, there would have been time for the trial to reach its conclusion before the change of administration on Jan. 20.

Anne-Marie CornerPhiladelphia

To the Editor:

As I closely followed the impeachment trial of the former president, I was horrified watching an angry mobs brutality inflicted upon the Capitol Police. I was left wondering how these 43 Republicans who voted to acquit Donald Trump can walk through the doors of the Capitol, the scene of the crime, and look into the eyes of the Capitol Police and not feel ashamed. Ashamed that they valued Mr. Trumps base and lies above the lives of their protectors.

Susan FerioliMahwah, N.J.

To the Editor:

Donald Trump has gotten away with it, again.

How many more times will this man do something nefarious and walk away as though hes done nothing wrong? He has stiffed people on their fees, groped women, interfered with elections. Worst of all, he incited a rebellion against the United States. Every time, he walks away.

It is said that Mr. Trump may face legal actions from New York and other states for various other questionable actions. Will he walk away from those, too?

Marshall H. CossmanGrand Blanc, Mich.

To the Editor:

Republicans have cast their lot and made a statement that will haunt them forever. They have shown America that for them, party is more powerful than country, and they let a tyrant get off scot-free. They have learned nothing these last few weeks. A sad, sad day for democracy.

Peter SamtonNew York

To the Editor:

Like millions of other Republican voters, Im committing to vote out every elected G.O.P. official who in any way contributed to Donald Trumps two acquittals. He remains guilty. The evidence horrifically proved it. They knew it, yet they drank more Trump Kool-Aid; thus, they empower him still. God and the watching world forgive us!

We voters will unite to end his tyranny ourselves and throw out all these unconscionable enabling bums in every election hereafter!

A.M. ReedLawrence, Kan.

To the Editor:

I think the House impeachment managers made a mistake in not calling witnesses. Their closing arguments, like their arguments over all, were brilliant. But they had them on the run and they let them go. Im angry and frustrated, but Im also very proud of the impeachment managers and their noble fight (thats right, fight) against such overwhelming odds.

Jefferson ParsonAshland, Ore.

To the Editor:

There was only one question for senators to ask themselves when voting whether to convict: Would the mob have attacked the Capitol with the Congress sitting in session but for Donald Trumps lies that the election was stolen and his direction that they march on the Capitol?

Representative Liz Cheney answered that question in a statement last month: The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of their attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the president. The president could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not.

Mr. Trumps actions in the weeks following the election and on Jan. 6 were an abuse of power unlike anything we have ever seen. It was craven cowardice for Republicans to put Mr. Trump before country.

Mary Ann LynchCape Elizabeth, Maine

To the Editor:

As the Capitol was under attack, did Donald Trump say he loved our Capitol, our senators, our police force, our democracy, our Constitution and our Republic? Or did he say he loved those who beat our police with hockey sticks and flags and fire extinguishers? And loved those who shattered our Capitol windows, doors and monuments with ladders and shields and makeshift ramming devices?

And loved those who ransacked Senate desks and offices? And loved those who pledged, in service of Mr. Trump, to kill our vice president?

Remind me again exactly whom Mr. Trump said he loved.

Erin ScottBarnegat Light, N.J.

To the Editor:

On this Presidents Day weekend, how do we explain the outcome of the impeachment trial to our children and grandchildren. They and the whole world have been watching.

Judith Van HoornEl Cerrito, Calif.

Continued here:

Opinion | The Disgraceful Acquittal of Donald Trump - The New York Times

President Joe Biden has raised a few smiles everywhere for a remark he made about former US President Donald Trump during a recent town hall event.

The 46th President gave the biggest sign that he is done with his predecessor when he took to the stage on Tuesday night (16th February) in Milwaukee.

He said, "Im tired of talking aboutDonald Trump I dont want to talk about him anymore." And he was so tired, that he felt the need to stress it twice in the hope of changing the subject once and for all.

But it's his unwillingness to even give Trump a bit of publicity by creating a new name for the ex-President that has sent fans wild on social media.

More from woman&home:

(Image credit: ALEX EDELMAN / Contributor Getty)

Last month Joe Biden became Americas 46th president, whilst Kamala Harris made history as the first female, first Black American, and first Asian American to become Vice President of the United States.

The President made it clear he has more burning topics than being asked for his views about Trumps second impeachment acquittal.

Look, for four years all thats been in the news is Trump, Biden explained. The next four years I want to make sure all the news is the American people.

True to that sentiment, Biden then went on to refer to Trump only as the former guy at another point - completely choosing not to even mention his name. Ouch!

It comes a month after the Queen's private message to President Joe Biden was revealed.

And fans have been going wild on social media for the move, which appears to be to the delight of most.

One tweeted a response that read, 'So say 81,283,097 other Americans as well.' Another put, 'President Biden is all of us'. And a third made reference to the new name for Trump, it read, 'Biden just called Trump the former guy and I think weve got ourselves a new title for the ex-president.'

Go here to read the rest:

Joe Biden brilliantly sums up everyone's thoughts on Donald Trump - woman&home

A few hours into the presentation of the House managers case against Donald Trump, for inciting the mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6th, Representative Eric Swalwell, of California, played senators an extraordinary new clip of themselves on that awful day. The previously undisclosed security-camera footage was short. There was no sound. It simply showed senators running down a long corridor, to escape from the mob. This was no calm, orderly evacuation. These were members of Congress running for their lives. Swalwell said that he went back and checked to see how close the rioters had come to the senators. The answer was fifty-eight steps. We all know that awful day could have been so much worse, he said.

A few minutes later, Swalwellthe son and brother of cops, he notedplayed a series of increasingly frantic radio transmissions by members of the D.C. Metropolitan Police, as they tried and failed to contain the riot that ultimately injured dozens of officers. We lost the line. Weve lost the line, an officer shouts. All M.P.D., pull back, he screams. Pull back.

This was the horrible moment when the Capitol was breached. But it was so much more than that, tooa before-and-after moment in our democracy, when Trumps months-long campaign to undermine the legitimacy of an American election culminated in a deadly but failed attempt to stop Congress from certifying the results. Had Trump finally gone too far, even for his Republican Party to follow? Had he gone too far for the members of the U.S. Senate who were themselves targets of the mob? This weeks impeachment trial will answer those questions, and in so doing offer one last clarifying, horrifying coda to the Trump Presidency.

So, no, we are not moving on. Not yet. Joe Biden has been the President for three weeks now, but the profane spectre of Trump, his unprecedented attack on the election, and the violence that he helped unleash in furtherance of that attack remain the unfinished business of his disastrous Presidency.

The exercise of this weeks Senate impeachment trial might well be the last time that the Trump era is so evocatively re-created: the blustering President and his toxic tweets and rallies, the rampaging thugs whom he urged to march to the Capitol and fight like hell, the Republican senators forced to dodge endless shouted questions about Trump and his false claims. At the heart of it is this painful mystery: Did Trump believe the stolen-election lies that he used to call forth the mob? What did he expect would happen when he told them to walk to Congress and stop the certification of the Electoral College results that would put an end to his Presidency?

Im not sure what, exactly, to call what we have been watching this week: part trial, part documentary film, part constitutional-law seminar, part Facebook video shared by your politics-obsessed cousin. Its too soon for history, and there are still so many questions unanswered; if there is to be a full investigation of this tragedy, it hasnt happened yet. Where the House Democratic managers succeeded most brilliantly was in evoking that days feeling of violation and betrayaland in linking the violence back to Trumps cynical and premeditated provoking of an insurrection in the heart of Washington. Trump was the inciter-in-chief, not the commander-in-chief, the Democrats lead manager, Representative Jamie Raskin, of Maryland, said. He was a fire chief who set a fire in a crowded theatre and then watched it burn. Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities, Raskin said, of Trump, channelling Voltaire. This is the third Presidential impeachment trial of my lifetime. I have watched close to every minute of all three. Never have I seen anything as riveting as the dramatization of the Capitol violenceand Trumps role in itthat the House managers put on this week.

I cannot imagine how any senator can vote against removal, Adam Kinzinger, of Illinois, one of just ten House Republicans to vote for Trumps impeachment, tweeted, during the showing of the videos on Wednesday. On Thursday, many of the strongest denunciations of Trumps actions in the House managers case came from elected Republican officials and Trump Administration advisers, who were shown calling the former Presidents actions disgraceful, shameful, wrong, and one of the darkest chapters in United States history. After listening to all this, Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, one of the few Senate Republicans who categorically spoke out against Trump on that day, told reporters during one of the trial breaks, I dont see how Donald Trump could be relected to the Presidency again. That is up to her colleagues, but all too many of them have already signalled where they stand.

And that, as always in the Trump era, is what it comes back to: Trump alone never could have wreaked such mayhem on our democracy, on our Capitol. His mob is not just the thugs who attacked cops with flagpoles on January 6th; it also includes some of the elected officials inside the besieged building, the ones in suits who advanced and promoted Trumps election lies, just as they had advanced and promoted so many of his other lies for the previous four years. Of course, they are standing by him now.

After watching the managers presentation, Senator Ted Cruzthe Texas Republican whose objection to Arizonas electoral count was being debated when rioters forced the senators to fleetold reporters that, no matter how horrific the video is, the managers had proved nothing of Trumps guilt. I think the end result of this impeachment trial is crystal clear to everybody, which is that Donald Trump will be acquitted, he said. Senator Roy Blunt, of Missouri, asked if he had changed his mind, changed the subject, telling reporters that congressional Democrats had supported riots in Seattle, Portland, and other places. CNNs Manu Raju reported that, although several Republican senators were shaken by the footage, they were not inclined to waver from their votes to acquit. (Apparently shaken, but not stirred, the Democrat Doug Jones, who lost his Alabama Senate seat in November, said.) On Wednesday evening, Trumps chief Senate defender, Lindsey Graham, as if seeking to erase his brief apostasy in voting against Trumps election lie on the night of the riot, called the managers case against Trump offensive and absurd. David Schoen, Trumps combative new lawyer, liked that line so much that he used it himself. The accusations against Trump, he told reporters on Thursday, were not just unproven; they were offensive.

Next, it will be Schoens turn to present a case. Im sure he and Trumps other lawyers will dismiss all that we have seen from the managers about the events of January 6, 2021, as sensationalistic rehashing of the days violence, inflammatory, and beside the point. They will portray Trump as a paragon of First Amendment-protected free speech. They will portray Democrats as hypocrites, perfectly willing to unleash a mob when it suits them. The reason I know that they will say this is because they already have. All indicators suggest that this is just the defense that many Republican senators are looking for.

In the five weeks since the attack on the Capitol, those who unleashed and enabled the rioters had every chance to apologize, to pull back, to offer regrets and make amends. They did not. Trump did not, and neither, its sad to say, did almost any of his fellow-Republicans. Many, like Graham, have gone in the other direction. The security-camera footage from the Capitol shows us that these senators ran for their lives. But they did not, and still do not, have the will or the courage to run from Trump and from the lies with which he has enveloped them and their Party.

The unprecedented second impeachment trial of Donald Trump is not yet over, though it soon will be, and the outcome is, once again, not much in doubt. A year ago, when Trump faced his first trial, Mitt Romney was the only Senate Republican to vote for his conviction. This time, despite the trial taking place at the actual scene of the crime, Romney was joined by only five other Republicans in voting to allow the trial to proceed. Whether or not those six ultimately vote to convict, the final number of Republicans is sure to be well below the two-thirds majority required for conviction. We lost the line. We lost the line, indeed.

See more here:

We Lost the Line: Donald Trump Is on the Brink of Yet Another Senate Acquittal - The New Yorker

Steve Bannon, the former strategist of former President Donald Trump who was indicted for allegedly defrauding hundreds of thousands of supporters as part of a purported fundraising campaign for a southern border wall, is pitching local Republicans on another ambitious project.

According to the Boston Herald, Bannon told the West Roxbury Ward 20 Republican Committee during a video speech over the weekend that his new strategy is for Trump to run for Congress in 2022, get elected, and then become House speaker assuming that Republicans also retake majority control of the House of Representatives and then rally behind Trump over the current congressman in line for the position.

Then, as House speaker, Trump would move to impeach President Joe Biden over the still-unfounded andrepeatedlydebunked allegations of widespread voter fraud tipping the 2020 presidential election, Bannon reportedly said.

We totally get rid of Nancy Pelosi, and the first act of President Trump as speaker will be to impeach Joe Biden for his illegitimate activities of stealing the presidency, Bannon said during the speech Saturday, earning applause and hollers from the local GOP group, known for its pro-Trump bent, according to the Herald.

The long-shot idea would make Trump just the second U.S. president to serve in Congressafterleaving the White House, following Quincy native John Quincy Adams, who served nine post-presidential terms as U.S. representative from Massachusetts. (Like Trump, Adams also boycotted his successors inauguration after losing his re-election bid; unlike Trump, he did not encourage supporters to march on the Capitol building after his loss.)

Its not clear where or if Trump would run for Congress. After living in New York for most of his life, the 74-year-old recently declared residence at his resort in Palm Beach, Florida. His congressional district is currently represented by Democratic Rep. Lois Frankel, who has recent experience defeating a right-wing conspiracy theorist.

Additionally, the Constitution does not specifically say the speaker must be a member of the House, though historically theyve always been an elected member.

Either way, according to Bannon, the plan is not for Trump to stay in Congress for long. Rather, from his perch as House speaker, the ex-president would take a third shot at the White House in 2024.

Trump is a disruptor, but he has a long-term vision because I absolutely believe in the marrow of my bones that he will be our nominee in 2024, Bannon said, according to the Herald.

Hell come back to us. Well have a sweeping victory in 2022, and hell lead us in 2024, he added.

Bannon, who reportedly has begun advising Trump again, was pardoned by the president just before he left office last month. Before the pardon, Bannon had still been awaiting trial for allegedly using $1 million from a private fundraising effort that was said to be intended for new sections of a border wall for personal expenses. He still faces a state investigation in New York.

Enable breaking news notifications straight to your internet browser.

Great, youre signed up!

Continued here:

Steve Bannon pitches Boston Republicans on plan to make Donald Trump the House speaker - Boston.com

A notable difference between Trump and Berlusconi is that the latter has lost elections without incident. Still, there are elements of Berlusconis long tenure that Trump could seek to emulate, not least his ability to stage multiple political comebacks (his latest, as a lawmaker in the European Parliament).

But perhaps Berlusconis greatest success has been in his ability to retain his base of loyal supportersa personality cult that continues to see him as akin to a god. This is one outcome Trump can likely rely on: Even in the aftermath of last months deadly insurrection on Capitol Hill, Republican voters still approve of the former president in overwhelming numbers, as do many of the Republican state parties across the country.

David Frum: Itll do

To understand the importance that a loyal base can play, look no further than Peronism. The populist movement, which dates back to the rise of former Argentine President Juan Pern in the 1940s, continues to be the preeminent political force in the country, more than four decades after its namesakes death. This has to do largely with how Pern came to power and, crucially, how he lost it.

Like most populist figures, Pern cast himself as an advocate of ordinary citizens, and, in many ways, he was: In addition to advancing workers rights, he oversaw the enfranchisement of women in Argentina. But, like other populists, Pern became more and more authoritarian over the course of his rule, jailing his political opponents, vilifying the media, and restricting constitutional rights. By 1955, after nearly a decade in power, Pern was deposed in a coup and sent into exile in Spain; his party was banned.

His supporters continued to be extremely loyal to him, thoughso much so that by the time Argentinas constitutional democracy was restored nearly two decades later, Pern won reelection by a landslide.

Part of Perns enduring appeal had to do with the circumstances under which he lost power: His forced exile created a narrative of victimization, which can really actually help to solidify political identities, James Loxton, an expert in authoritarian regimes, democratization, and political parties in Latin America, told me. A similar sense of grievance seems to be taking over Trump supporters. An overwhelming majority of Republicans have subscribed to the former presidents unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Early polls show him to be the favorite of the 2024 Republican contenders. This idea that he didnt really lose and that everybody is out to get him, Loxton said, add[s] up to this actually quite compelling martyrdom story.

Irrespective of whether Trump runs again, Trumpism as a movement is all but certain to be on the ballot. Indeed, a number of Trump acolytesamong them Republican Senator Josh Hawley, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeoare already jockeying to succeed the former president. Should they be recognized as the Trumpist candidates, the movement could take on a Pernist quality: one that is highly mobilizing, highly polarizing, and highly durable.

Read more from the original source:

What History Tells Us Will Happen to Trumpism - The Atlantic

DURING HIS first campaign for the American presidency in 2016, Donald Trump said he wanted to open up our libel laws to make suing news outlets easier. Those plans did not materialise. But in the aftermath of Mr Trumps extraordinary challenges to his re-election loss and amid his second impeachment trial, defamation law is back in the headlines.

Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, both voting-technology companies, have sued or are gearing up to sue three right-wing cable news networks, some of their hosts and two of Mr Trumps lawyers for claiming their devices were used to steal the election for Joe Biden. Such claims are a central element of the false voter-fraud theory that fuelled the storming of the Capitol on January 6th, resulting in the deaths of five people. Dominion has launched a pair of $1.3bn lawsuits against Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, Mr Trumps legal adviserswith more to come. On February 4th Smartmatic filed its own 276-page suit against Fox and three of its commentators (Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs and Jeanine Pirro), as well as Mr Giuliani and Ms Powell, for $2.7bn.

Whether potentially defamatory statements are written (libel) or spoken (slander), the aggrieved party has to clear a high bar in America, where the constitutions First Amendment protects free speech and freedom of the press. In Britain defendants must usually show their utterances were true or amounted to fair comment. In America it is plaintiffs who have the burden of proof; they lose unless they can prove the defendants statements were false but presented as claims of fact. Establishing defamation also means showing the speaker was negligent and damaged the plaintiffs reputation.

Many defamation cases founder because the statements concerned turn out to be protected expressions of opinion or hyperbole rather than factual claims. Others fail because of uncertainty about the truth of the disputed statements. A prominent First Amendment lawyer who says he has a natural antipathy towards libel suits nevertheless thinks Dominion and Smartmatic have very strong cases because the claims in question are so clearly presented as factualand so clearly false.

The Smartmatic lawsuit cites dozens of allegedly defamatory statements. On November 13th Mr Giuliani said on Fox Business that Smartmatic was founded as a company to fix elections with technology that is extremely hackable. Two days later Ms Powell told Ms Bartiromo on Fox that her client won by not just hundreds of thousands...but by millions of votes that had been shifted to Mr Bidens column by Dominions and Smartmatics software which, she asserted, was designed to rig elections. She also suggested that Dominion had ties to Hugo Chvez, a Venezuelan dictator who died in 2013. On November 21st Mr Dobbs, host of the top-rated Fox Business show that was cancelled a day after Smartmatic filed its suit, said the companies had waged a cyber-attack on our election.

None of these allegations has been corroborated. But Dominion and Smartmatic say that, however baseless, the charges have severely damaged their reputations and are costing them business worldwide. Dominion says that Ms Powells claims are demonstrably false. The company was not created in Venezuela to rig elections for a now-deceased Venezuelan dictator but founded in Toronto for the purpose of creating a fully auditable paper-based vote system that would empower people with disabilities to vote independently on verifiable paper ballots.

The grandiose accusations against Smartmatic are particularly curious, because the company had no role in Americas recent election other than to assist with voting technology in Los Angeles Countywhere vote totals were never in dispute. The earth is round, Smartmatics complaint begins. The election was not stolen, rigged or fixed. These are facts. They are demonstrable and irrefutable.

Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer representing E. Jean Carroll in a defamation case against the 45th president, believes the lawsuits are likely to overcome the usual hurdles. She thinks Smartmatics claims may be harder to pin on Ms Pirro and Ms Bartriromo, though, because they largely handed the microphone to guests who made the outlandish claims and were careful not to voice the accusations themselves. Mr Dobbs was less circumspect, so he and therefore Fox may be, in Ms Kaplans eyes, on the hook, along with Mr Giuliani and Ms Powell.

On February 8th Foxs lawyer, Paul Clement, who was solicitor-general under George W. Bush, filed a motion to dismiss Smartmatics suit. (Similar filings on behalf of the hosts came on February 12th.) The network and its hosts, Mr Clement argued, were simply covering a major news event. An attempt by a sitting president to challenge the result of an election, he wrote, is objectively newsworthy. If hosts merely allow guests to state claims, without amplifying the ideas in their own words, that is a powerful defence against defamation. But Mr Clements motion did not attempt to refute each allegation in Smartmatics complaint, perhaps because some statements can easily be defended while others cannotand Fox has legal exposure if any of its employees comments prove defamatory.

Another point of contention is whether the voting companies are public figures, about whom American defamation law enforces a more rigorous standard that would make their claims harder to sustain. If so judged, the companies must prove that Foxs hosts and Mr Trumps lawyers acted with what the law terms actual malice, meaning that they either knew the statements were false or the speakers showed reckless disregard for the truth, as opposed to simply negligence. Mr Clement argues Smartmatic is clearly a public figure and should have to clear the higher bar. Ms Kaplan disagrees: dragging an otherwise obscure company into a cable-news controversy does not transform it into even a limited-purpose public figure, she says, especially since it had such a minor role in the 2020 election. The Supreme Court has held that only individuals who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies count as limited-purpose public figures.

But even if a judge sees Smartmatic as a public figure, the company may have enough evidence to proceed against Fox. And it may have the strongest case against Mr Giuliani and Ms Powell, as Mr Clements motion seems to acknowledge: If those surrogates fabricated evidence or told lies with actual malice, then a defamation action may lie against them.

Mr Trumps lawyers may face the most legal jeopardy, but the networks seem aware of their own vulnerability, too. After Dominion and Smartmatic warned Newsmax they might sue, its anchors read canned disclaimers on air and cut off Mike Lindell, a prominent businessman who advised Mr Trump late in his presidency, as he repeated claims of election theft. We dont want to relitigate the allegations that youre making, Mike, said Bob Sellers, the anchor, during the chaotic exchange, before walking off the set in mid-interview.

OANN has been alternately confrontational and conciliatory as lawsuits develop. In December it responded to Dominions request to preserve documents for a possible legal action by demanding that Dominion preserve documents, too, so OANN could attempt to prove the company engaged in election fraud. But when the network aired a film by Mr Lindell repeating his allegations, it prefaced the broadcast with a lengthy disclaimer.

The First Amendment grants plenty of room for robust debate; plaintiffs seeking damages for defamatory statements face an appropriately steep climb. On the rare occasions when libel or slander claims stick, the defamed entity is typically the only compensated party. These voting-technology suits may offer a wider public benefit: curbing the spread of disinformation that destabilises democracy itself.

See the original post here:

Lawsuits arrive for networks and lawyers who backed Donald Trump - The Economist