|
|
|
The Washington Post - Opinion: The Mar-a-Lago syndrome
today
There is, it turns out, a psychological force far more powerful than Stockholm syndrome, the tendency of hostages to identify with their captors.
It is the Mar-a-Lago syndrome, the powerful, inescapable hold that Donald Trump continues to exert over Republican lawmakers.
What must it have felt like for Republican senators, victims of the high crime with which Trump was charged, to sit in judgment over the former president in the very scene of the violence that he helped unleash against them? ...
It’s what passes for Republican bravery these days that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) delivered an unsparing account of Trump’s irresponsible behavior - after casting his not-guilty vote on the jurisdictional grounds.
Trump, he said, engaged in a “disgraceful dereliction of duty.” ...
This would be easier to praise if McConnell hadn’t stayed so silent for so long as Trump spouted his false statements about the election; if he hadn’t made it impossible to hold the trial while Trump was in office; if he had managed to state flatly that he would have voted to convict Trump absent the supposed constitutional bar; and if he endorsed some other measure, like censure, against Trump now.
McConnell’s colleagues know in their hearts that Trump’s behavior was as dangerous as their leader described. They know, in short, better than their votes suggested.
Mar-a-Lago syndrome does not mean they identify with their captor but that they cower in fear of him.
Out of office, even off Twitter, Trump retains the power to destroy careers. ...
Sideface
FineWine:Can he use electioneering funds to pay for non-electioneering court cases? If he can't and he does then surely he must be breaking a law somewhere.
Uhh... you are familiar with how Trump operates, right?
FineWine: As someone above just said, he has a habit of not paying. Any lawyer should be triple dotting the I's and crossing the T's and personally get him to sign any and all contracts
Wikipedia: Trump Jr. proposed to her with a $100,000 ring which he received as a gift from a jeweler in exchange for proposing to her in front of paparazzi outside of the jeweler's store in a New Jersey mall.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man
freitasm: Acquited 57 guilty, 43 not guilty.
Political show trial that was never going to succeed fails due to politics.
Man bites dog, more news at 11.
I'm going to predict now that Trump won't end up facing any criminal legal repercussions either. And he can probably continue to milk money from his supporters to keep up his lifestyle - even with the financial difficulties he is almost certainly facing.
The narrative for his supporters will now be "total vindication from two failed witch hunts".
The Washington Post - Opinion: This is how bad McConnell really is
today
We witnessed a historic confession of hypocrisy and deceit on Saturday when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went to the floor after voting to acquit Donald Trump in the former president’s Senate impeachment trial.
McConnell said, “Former President Trump’s actions [that] preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty.” He added, “Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.”
But McConnell said he couldn’t vote to convict because the trial had come too late, after Trump was out office - even though it was McConnell himself who had kept the Senate out for the remainder of Trump’s term.
McConnell suggested that a criminal prosecution of Trump could be in the cards, a stunning confession of how he regards the seriousness of the allegations and the extent of the evidence. ...
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was irate during the post-verdict news conference.
“It is so pathetic that Senator McConnell kept the Senate shut down so that the Senate could not receive the Article of Impeachment and has used that as his excuse for not voting to convict Donald Trump.”
Sideface
Rikkitic:I guess they can drop 'honourable' from senator titles now.

MADISON FEARS HE MADE CONSTITUTION’S IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE TOO HARD FOR IDIOTS TO GRASP
THE AFTERLIFE (The Borowitz Report)—The late James Madison, widely credited with drafting the United States Constitution, said on Saturday that he was concerned that he made the document’s impeachment clause too hard for idiots to grasp.
In his first-ever interview from beyond the grave, Madison said that, when he drafted the Constitution, he thought that he had made the section on impeachment “so clear that even a total numbskull could understand it.”
“I remember asking Alexander Hamilton if we should put something in there about convicting a President who attempts a violent overthrow of the government,” Madison said, “but he reckoned that was so obvious, we'd only be insulting people’s intelligence by spelling it out. He also said a President would have to be a complete and utter psycho to try that on, and the American people would never elect someone like that.”
Madison said that he heeded Hamilton’s advice, but now harbors regrets about doing so. “I know hindsight is 20/20, but if I had to write the impeachment part all over again, I’d really beef it up but also dumb it down,” he said.
Trump crowned? No faux King way!
SepticSceptic:
Rikkitic: I guess they can drop 'honourable' from senator titles now.
And now include "lickspittle". Can't find a more apt word ...
I suggest "minion".

Sideface
Sideface:I suggest "minion".
I think "lickspittle" is pretty hard to beat. I would have gone with "toady", but that doesn't come close to lickspittle.
The New York Times - Opinion - Why Are Republicans Still This Loyal to a Mar-a-Lago Exile?
today
So why did Republicans - with seven honorable exceptions - profess their loyalty to a sociopath who has been exiled to Mar-a-Lago?
Why do they continue to defend a man who lost the popular vote by more than seven million votes, whose recklessness after the election cost Republicans control of the Senate, and who is causing a flight from the Republican Party?
There are different, sometimes overlapping explanations.
For some, it’s a matter of cynical ambition. They want to win over the loyalty of Trump supporters, who comprise a huge part of the base of the Republican Party.
For others, it’s recognizing that standing up to Mr. Trump might make life quite unpleasant and even dangerous for them, exposing them to hazards that range from primary challenges to physical attack.
And for still others, it’s driven by such antipathy toward the left that they will not do anything Democrats ask them to do, even if doing so is the right thing to do. These Republicans would much rather “own the libs” than side with them against a corrupt, corrosive former president.
There’s also the natural human reluctance to take a stand that puts you in conflict with your own political tribe, your colleagues, your friends.
And there’s this: Over the course of the Trump presidency a lot of Republicans repeatedly quarantined their conscience in order to justify to others, and to themselves, their support for an unscrupulous man. ...
But over time, one step at a time, people condition themselves to make compromises. They twist themselves into moral knots as a way to justify their stance. They create a community to reinforce their rationalizations. And with each step down the moral staircase, it gets easier. ...
Trump’s team has only one member: Trump.
Whomever he does not dominate, he undermines or betrays; if Republicans do not disown him, he will continue to own them. ...
Sideface
|
|
|