"Our party egged people on to storm the Capitol, murder a police officer, and appear to have ensured that the Capitol was under-protected in an effort to overturn a legitimate election.
You've... pointed that out. And demanded accountability.
This would be pathetic, if it weren't such clear evidence that the GOP not only have learned nothing from this, but is doubling down on its culture of right-wing victimhood.
It's just going to keep getting worse.
But seriously: this is disgusting and pathetic--and dangerous.
And again: I don't want to hear any GOPers talk about the need to "take personal responsibility" ever again.
Having stoked an insurrection, they now equate demands for accountability with "playing politics."
Such bald (and yes, unsurprising) hypocrisy.
And yeah, this is stunning. Also stunning is that I've seen this formulation so many times already that I sort of mentally glossed over it this time until it was made so obvious here:
Every time I argue that less-harsh sentences are the better ones that all should receive, I hear this: "leniency for all requires severity for all first."
This strikes me as a complete miscomprehension of the politics of punishment.
Once you pass a harsh law, it's really hard to be That Guy who repeals it.
It's also why I think we should emphasize leniency when DAs set plea deals over expanding parole.* It's easier to set a shorter sentence up front than shorten a long one.
When Obama commuted Chelsea Mannings sentence, there was a lot of outrage.
But it was fascinating outrage. No one that I saw said "7 years is too short." Everyone said "1/3 of her 21 years is too short."
If the orig sentence had been 8 yrs, bet far far less outrage.
So this disability q is fantastic. The 25A and the Presidential Succession Act do not define "disability" and provide no method for automatically removing authority from an unwilling President.
We should stop calling it "Court Packing" and instead call it the "Court Modernization Act."
Which, to be fair, it is. Does it make sense to keep running SCOTUS the exact same way we did before penicillin, the car, the computer, pretty much all of modern life?
Which reminds me: I had a judge email me the afternoon (!!) of 9/11/01 to say he was grounded in Chicago and could just interview me then. And I said yes, bc... young, and you “don’t say no”! And so I sat in a hotel bar, watching the towers fall on repeat and just... it went bad.
With hindsight, I mean... who emails a law student to conduct an interview bc he might as well, given he’s grounded due to a national catastrophe we are STILL working thru.
He looked out the hotel window. I looked at the bar, and thus at the TVs. It was surreal. And wrong.
Um, wow. KY’s AG had said that Breonna’s boyfriend, Walker, had to be the one who hit the officer, bc the bullet was 9mm and officers only had .40 cal.
Turns out Harkinson, the only officer charged, had been issued a 9mm as well. Bullet could be his.
Also, AG said he didn’t charge officers bc they had right to defend themselves.
One fired 16 bullets. And it took me 5 minutes of looking at KY law to see that acting “wontonly” (recklessly) negates self defense claims for wonton crimes: like wonton or reckless homicide.
Now, to be clear, I’m not a KY lawyer. Maybe there are judicial holdings around this wanton-negation that make it inapplicable here.
But for a grand jury proceeding—where the standard isn’t “reasonable doubt” but “sufficient evidence”—seems like enough to go forward.