The Jan 6 Commission

[msquared]

Wasn't it Nixon who said he had the approval of the Silent Majority? Sounds like the same thing but in reverse. As long as Trump did not tell them to leave, he wanted them there.  I mean that is what most of those who are being convicted are saying. They believe that they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.

[Grant]

A federal judge on Monday forced lawyers for former President Donald Trump to reckon with his hours of silence during the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, asking in court whether the president's initial inaction could be considered a tacit endorsement of the day's violence.

US District Judge Amit Mehta also rejected one lawyer's claim that Trump urged his supporters to be peaceful on that day, telling the attorney to "stick with the facts."

During a court hearing Monday, Mehta said that for a "two-hour period" on the day of the siege, Trump did not "take to Twitter or to any other type of communication and say, 'Stop. Get out of the Capitol. What you are doing is not what I wanted you to do.'"

Hmmm.  I see where a bunch of this is going, and it's being brought up in the commission's line of questioning too, and I honestly am unsure if it will end up going anywhere other than as political capital.  I think you have to weigh the possibility that Lord L'Orange was basically stunned, then afraid of repercussions, all while all of his media advisors and even family are trying to get him to do something.  He probably felt that telling the mob to stop would be seen as admitting that they were his mob.  It's quite possible that the man froze up and was simply incompetent for two hours. 

Then again, you accusations that he told McCarthy that the mob cared more about the election than he did.  Proving that Babyhands willfully and knowingly did nothing and was in dereliction of his duty as POTUS would be difficult but not impossible given the lengths the commission is going to to find dirt.  I still don't know what the end game is though.  Not sure if they could impeach him again or if they just want it as political capital.  Either way, it's probably best that the information comes out.  I don't pretend to believe that many Democrats have altruistic motives here, but here is another case where motives do not change the inherent rightness or value of an action. 

[msquared]

It's quite possible that the man froze up and was simply incompetent for two hours.

Most like for much more than 2 hours.  I think it was more along the line of 4 years.

[Grant]

Most like for much more than 2 hours.  I think it was more along the line of 4 years.

This would mean that he would not be responsible for not doing something to stop the mob from assaulting the capitol, any more than a one-year-old would be responsible for not buckling themselves into a baby chair in a car correctly. 

[alai]

Hmmm.  I see where a bunch of this is going, and it's being brought up in the commission's line of questioning too, and I honestly am unsure if it will end up going anywhere other than as political capital.

I can see why you'd say that about the commission, by why's it coming up in this case?  From the little context we have, it's in relation to a point made by TFG's lawyers, but we'd need a lot more than that.  (Like starting with, which case!)

I think you have to weigh the possibility that Lord L'Orange was basically stunned, then afraid of repercussions, all while all of his media advisors and even family are trying to get him to do something.  He probably felt that telling the mob to stop would be seen as admitting that they were his mob.  It's quite possible that the man froze up and was simply incompetent for two hours. 

It's not the account we'd had to date, but who knows.  Maybe he felt he'd deliveroo'd an "out of concern they might breach a fence!" mob, and didn't know what to do with an "inside the building and homicidal" one.

Not sure if they could impeach him again or if they just want it as political capital.

Unsettled, so the only people not unsure on this are Trump and Matt Gaetz -- certain Obama could have been impeached...  in 2020 (wut? he's kinda term-barred already), other such barrack-room idiots (on either side of the aisle or the issue), or supreme court justices if they've already counted the votes on this.

[Wayward Son]

He's in more serious trouble than you think, Grant.

For one thing, this is a civil case where he is being sued for his negligence.  That means it has a lower standards and threshold for conviction.

For another, he is being sued (in no less than 9 suits) under the Ku Klux Klan Act, a fascinating piece of legislation intended to prevent officials from aiding and abetting violent terrorists, through benign neglect.  In other words, by turning a blind eye to their activities or intended activities.

Section 1985(1) covers conspiracies to violently prevent a public official from taking office or to "molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede" the discharge of official duties, among other acts. ... In a reference to the Klan's practice of wearing face-covering hoods, Section 1985(3) prohibits two or more people from traveling in disguise or otherwise conspiring to deprive a person or class of people of equal protection of the law or other legal rights.[30] In addition, Section 1985(3) contains the "support-or-advocacy clauses", which cover conspiracies to harm citizens because of their support or advocacy for a federal candidate for public office.

More to the point is Section 1986:

Section 6 of the Act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and known as "Section 1986", imposes civil liability upon persons who know of a violation of Section 1985 or a planned violation of Section 1985, and who are in a position to prevent it, but who fail to prevent it, fail to attempt to prevent it, or fail to assist in its prevention.[32] While the other sections create a remedy against conspirators who deprived people of their rights, Section 1986 creates a remedy against persons whose acquiescence make such conspiracies possible. Legislators recognized that the Klan's political violence could not continue without tacit approval from local community leaders, and sought to stop the Klan by making community leaders financially responsible for terrorist acts they knowingly fail to prevent.

Section 1986 reads:

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased.

The third thing is that hotel room where Trump's minions were trying to find a way to stop the transfer of power.  That alone shows that Trump was interested in stopping the process.  And who knows by what means they were considering...

This is what Mehta was addressing when she questioned the lawyers.

You have an almost two-hour window where the President does not say, 'Stop, get out of the Capitol. This is not what I wanted you to do.' What do I do about the fact the President didn't denounce the conduct immediately ... and sent a tweet that arguably exacerbated things? Isn't that, from a plausibility standpoint, that the President plausibly agreed with the conduct of the people inside the Capitol that day?

Of course, this is only an preliminary hearing for three of the suits.  But if Mehta allows it to go forward, the next phase would be discovery.  Which means the lawyers will want all the transcripts, phone records, and such from President Trump on that day, and everything from that hotel room for as many days as they were there. Which means, if they can get them, they are going to find out just how far Trump was willing to go to stop the transfer of power, over many weeks.

Potentially, everything could be laid out for all to see.  And I'm pretty sure Trump won't come out of that looking good at all.  And doubtlessly quite a bit poorer, to boot.

[msquared]

Well the first sedition conspiracy charge has been brought against the head of the Oathkeepers.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/founder-oath-keepers-charged-seditious-184710688.html

[Grant]

Well the first sedition conspiracy charge has been brought against the head of the Oathkeepers.

18 U.S.C. § 2384:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

[TheDrake]

That statute certainly seems to apply. Possibly people at the University of Alabama might have been arrested and charged with sedition, but Wallace for all his flaws warned people they would get arrested if they showed up.

Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard under the insurrection act. See, an insurrection doesn't have to be aimed at overthrowing the government. In order to use that Act, a President must issue a proclamation to disperse - another thing Trump didn't do.

[alai]

See, an insurrection doesn't have to be aimed at overthrowing the government.

Though given that a number of them explicitly said they were...  Of course they said this rhetorically/hyperbolically/metaphorically/etc, so we should take that claim at face value, and not in any way examine any resemblance between that and their subsequent actions.

[TheDrake]

See, an insurrection doesn't have to be aimed at overthrowing the government.

Though given that a number of them explicitly said they were...  Of course they said this rhetorically/hyperbolically/metaphorically/etc, so we should take that claim at face value, and not in any way examine any resemblance between that and their subsequent actions.

Well, be careful about saying explicitly. Explicitly would say "we are overthrowing the government". I don't think any of them had dissolving Congress in mind and taking control of the military. Or gain control of any specific territory. Nor do I think they expressed that hyperbolically or otherwise.

[alai]

Well, be careful about saying explicitly. Explicitly would say "we are overthrowing the government". I don't think any of them had dissolving Congress in mind and taking control of the military. Or gain control of any specific territory. Nor do I think they expressed that hyperbolically or otherwise.

Well, that'd be "verbatim".  I'd say statements like "this is a revolution" and "hang Mike Pence" are pretty explicit.  As to how thought-through any such intent might be, considerably harder to say.  And likewise the distinction between "overthrow" and "terrorise into compliance".

[TheDeamon]

Well, be careful about saying explicitly. Explicitly would say "we are overthrowing the government". I don't think any of them had dissolving Congress in mind and taking control of the military. Or gain control of any specific territory. Nor do I think they expressed that hyperbolically or otherwise.

Well, that'd be "verbatim".  I'd say statements like "this is a revolution" and "hang Mike Pence" are pretty explicit.  As to how thought-through any such intent might be, considerably harder to say.  And likewise the distinction between "overthrow" and "terrorise into compliance".

The problem with the "revolution" term is it has meanings besides violent overthrow AKA insurrection

[alai]

The problem with the "revolution" term is it has meanings besides violent overthrow AKA insurrection

Sure, the legal problems abound if you were to try to charge on the basis of such statements, as I think I alluded to in first inst.  Especially by the US standard.  But I think it's pretty clear that "this is 1776!" talk -- very patriotic-sounding, of course, but kinda also violent-ish and overthrowy -- serves to shift the mood of the room in the pro-violence direction, by contextually normalising it.  Overton Windowing trying to beat some Redcoats to death, as it were.

[TheDeamon]

Stumbled across this, and realized most of us probably memory holed it.

Storming Congress to try to change or obstruct Congress from carrying out a task wasn't that new in 2020.

It happened in 2018 after all.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/28/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-protesters-christine-blasey-ford/1453524002/

Or how about attacking the Supreme Court building?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/protests-build-capitol-hill-ahead-brett-kavanaugh-vote-n917351

[alai]

Or were less seized by its false-equivalence potential, perhaps?

[Wayward Son]

Where's the reports of smashed windows, battered policemen, dead people? 

Where's the reports of offices broken into and items taken?

Where's the feces-smeared messages???

You should find better sources for your reports, Deamon.  Those seem to be missing something.

[NobleHunter]

I like how ensuring the orderly transfer of power is reduced simply to "carrying out a task." As if solving the succession problem isn't the single greatest achievement of modern democracy.

[TheDeamon]

I like how ensuring the orderly transfer of power is reduced simply to "carrying out a task." As if solving the succession problem isn't the single greatest achievement of modern democracy.

Nothing mandated Congress had to resolve the issue on that date. There were still two weeks before the transition could legally in any case.

Nothing about what happened on January 6th did anything to meaningfully change when the formal transition of power was going to happen.

[msquared]

It does not matter because it failed? Is that the excuse?

[alai]

Nothing mandated Congress had to resolve the issue on that date. There were still two weeks before the transition could legally in any case.

Oh, silly me.  So evidently perfectly fine to have a successful Jan 6, Jan 7, etc.  Only if they obstruct the "carrying out a task" until the 19th does it become even slightly coup-adjacent.

[TheDrake]

As long as you eventually release the hostages, its not really kidnapping. Every minute that passed made it less certain that the transfer of power would happen on time, or even at all.

[msquared]

I think the counting and recording of the votes is needed to swear in the President, right?  Or are you saying that they votes could have been counted any time up to Jan 19, the day before the swearing in?

I think there is a law that requires them to meet on that day.

Lets see.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

Yeah I think there was something that required them to count the votes on that day.

[alai]

I assume if "it's 1776 baby!" succeeds for the entire length of that day, but is quelled subsequently, the argument would be that congress would go ahead and meet to certify late, and argue contingent necessity.  Or if thought needed, isn't a a shame we can't change the law, oh wait we're congress yes we can.

Of course, if Aaron Sorkin or the producers of Homeland are writing the script, we can add additional plot twists...

• Stacked Supreme Court rules that the congress snoozed and loozed!
• Crooked president refuses to sign the emergency ratification bill!
• Hard loyalists block a veto override!
• Clock runs on the constitutional deadline!
• Line of succession shenanigans, unelected president sworn in!

At least, I think that's all in the realm of overwrought political thrillers.  Status of any of it on Republican and "Proud Boys" spreadsheets and future current events unknown.

[TheDeamon]

Lets see.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

Yeah I think there was something that required them to count the votes on that day.

unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

Yes, the law says they're supposed to meet on the designated date to count the electoral votes. But the law also includes a process for disputed electoral ballots, and it does seem with the whole "No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of" clause that there is provision for delay of the final ratification of the vote until disputes have been resolved. And as per the Constitution, which is the final arbiter on that matter, they'd have until 11:59AM on January 20th to accomplish that. In all reality, as per the Constitution, they could probably go beyond that if they felt warranted, although it creates a weird constitutional situation as that means the Speaker of the House becomes "acting President" until the situation is resolved.

That weird situation possibly gets even worse as I think it'd be pretty unclear on if a Speaker of the House holding such a position in such a circumstance would even be able to be impeached, it becomes a question of if they're still considered to be Speaker of the House while serving as Acting President. But as the Speaker requires majority support to be Speaker, and would require majority support to create such a scenario, you're talking about an unimpeachable "Acting PotUS" in any case.

[msquared]

But we are talking about the insurrectionist, not the members of the House and Senate.  While I think the Republicans who objected to the electoral votes from certain states were just grandstanding, they were well with in their rights to do what they did.

But you are now moving the goal posts.

You said nothing mandated the Congress to resolve the issue on that date.  Well the law says that date is the day they have to resolve the issue.

Congress had most of the day left to get through the counting. The rioters purpose was to keep that from happening. They were trying to stop the Congress from doing their duty.

[TheDeamon]

You said nothing mandated the Congress to resolve the issue on that date.  Well the law says that date is the day they have to resolve the issue.

No. The law says January 6th is when they're supposed to examine the issue, and take actions from there. Nothing in that law stipulates the process must complete on that day. Just that it begin on that day.

Congress had most of the day left to get through the counting. The rioters purpose was to keep that from happening. They were trying to stop the Congress from doing their duty.

Most of the rioters were likely to be largely clueless. A few dozen of them likely had more specific objectives in mind, but they were a small minority. The prosecutions reflect this.

[msquared]

How many leaders does it take to start a mob on a riot? What would have happened if they had found Pelosi or Pence and killed one of them? Like the rioters were talking about doing?

So since there is no end date listed, they should just leave it open? Why hold off? There was no evidence of fraud.

[alai]

Most of the rioters were likely to be largely clueless. A few dozen of them likely had more specific objectives in mind, but they were a small minority. The prosecutions reflect this.

The prosecutions, necessarily and as always, reflect what the state thinks it'll be able to prove.  Not being able to meet "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very different standard from "likely to be largely clueless".

[msquared]

SC decides against Trump.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-declines-trumps-request-to-block-records-from-jan-6-panel-003933108.html

I guess he is not still the President and so does not get to wield presidential powers.

[msquared]

Well I guess Bannon take his contempt charge to court but my guess is Meadows will now testify.

[msquared]

Donald Trump is not happy the Jan 6 committee and the NY AG is going after his children.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-blasts-vicious-jan-105739392.html

How disingenuous can you get?  I mean first, they are his children but they are not children. They are in their 40's. They are grown adults who are able to make their own choices and face the consequences of those choices.

Second, who put them in this position?  They did not have to work for dad. Is the Jan 6  Com. and the NY AG going after Tiffany or Baron?  Hell no, because they are not involved with their dad's work. Don Jr, Ivanka and Eric are. They are high level executives within the Trump Org. What did he think was going to happen?

The only real question is will Donald take responsibility for what he told/asked them to do? Or will he hang them out to dry?

[Mynnion]

There are almost certainly other Trump's out there who milk the system, walking the line between legal and illegal activity.  Previously they have either been able to steer under the radar or bribe there way out of trouble.  When they chose to move in to the public eye they painted a targets on their backs.  Of course the Commission and AG  are acting based on politics.  That does not mean they should be exempt from the law and the associated consequences.  I'd be thrilled if the Justice Dept. and the IRS did a better job at looking at the books of the rich and actually hold them accountable for fraud or near fraud.

[alai]

There are almost certainly other Trump's out there who milk the system, walking the line between legal and illegal activity.

I suspect he's more accurately walking the line between "reasonable doubt" and "been able to get away with all sorts of crap for decades, so now feels nothing but entitled to".

Of course the Commission and AG  are acting based on politics.

It's long looked very weird to how just how brazenly politicised the US justice system is.  But given developments elsewhere, you're maybe just, as is often the case, early adopters.  The UK AG's long been an elected MP, but the long tradition was they were also senior barristers (unsurprisingly, there as elsewhere lots of politicians are or were practising lawyers), and that they exercise their duties much more as jurists than as politician -- what a concept.  But the incumbent is an out-and-out hack that was only promoted to the inner bar after appointment.  And has indulged in nonsense like referring BLM-protest jury acquittals -- which can't conceivably actually be reversed -- to appeal, purely as red meat to the base.

[alai]

How disingenuous can you get?  I mean first, they are his children but they are not children. They are in their 40's. They are grown adults who are able to make their own choices and face the consequences of those choices.

To be fair, whenever I see Junior or Junior Minor, I do tend to think "... what a child".  But not in a "and thus should not be held responsible for any criminality on their part" sort of way.

It's hard to say whether this is actually disingenuousness on TFG's part, mind you.  Suppose you hooked him up to a polygraph, MRI'd his brain, etc, while he describes others as "vicious", and boasts about the supposed high moral probity of his own actions.  Objectively exactly the reverse may -- well, I say may! -- be true, but I suspect you might discover that there's every chance he's fully convinced that somehow different standards apply to him.

[msquared]

So with Trump loosing his Executive Privilege case, more and more of his aids and staff are turning over their info that they are being asked for.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ex-white-house-press-secretary-090300360.html

Also it look like Trumps admin handed over a bunch of documents that had been shredded and then taped back together. Even though the law is clear that they are to be kept and turned over when the Admin is done. I wonder what evidence they were trying to destroy?

[msquared]

Trump trying to hide evidence

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-records-were-torn-former-135600323.html

[TheDrake]

"Shredding" would be calling it a little more than it was. It conjures images of staffers feeding documents into a crosscut machine. Possibly a long standing habit to destroy evidence, or maybe he has pervasive developmental disorder and this constitutes self-soothing behavior.

Lartey said the papers he received included newspaper clips on which Trump had scribbled notes, or circled words; invitations; and letters from constituents or lawmakers on the Hill, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

“I had a letter from Schumer — he tore it up,” he said. “It was the craziest thing ever. He ripped papers into tiny pieces.”

Lartey did not work alone. He said his entire department was dedicated to the task of taping paper back together in the opening months of the Trump administration.

One of his colleagues, Reginald Young Jr., who worked as a senior records management analyst, said that during over two decades of government service, he had never been asked to do such a thing.

“We had to endure this under the Trump administration,” Young said. “I’m looking at my director, and saying, ‘Are you guys serious?’ We’re making more than $60,000 a year, we need to be doing far more important things than this. It felt like the lowest form of work you can take on without having to empty the trash cans.”

[Wayward Son]

Hey, that's what you get when you work for a stable genius. 

[msquared]

Trump discussed pardoning all of the people involved with the riots/insurrection. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-considered-blanket-pardons-jan-184702834.html

[TheDrake]

Former President Donald Trump spent his time as the Capitol riot unfolded last year watching footage of his supporters battling with law enforcement and storming the building with enthusiasm as he cheered on the people “fighting for” him, according to a top aide.

Stephanie Grisham told The Associated Press that Mr Trump spent much of the time on 6 January 2021 watching cable news footage and rewinding it to see parts that he wanted to see multiple times: “Trump’s attention was so rapt that he hit rewind and watched certain moments again,” according to Ms Grisham, a former White House press secretary

At one moment he even turned to Ms Grisham, among those shocked aides who would resign in protest after the attack, and said with admiration: “Look at all of the people fighting for me.”

During that time the president also showed confusion as to why Ms Grisham and other aides were not as enthused by the horrifying, violent scene taking place at the Capitol building as he himself was.

[msquared]

Ok so a member of the Oathkeepers has plead guilty to seditious conspiracy.   Many of those defending the protesters have claimed they were just acting to defend the country. Does this put an end to that thought?  There is now evidence that the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys were in direct contact with the Trump people.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/oath-keepers-prepared-bloody-battle-013548439.html

Most of the people at the rally and outside the Capitol were useful idiots, used as cover for the real insurrection that Trump and his people were trying to get started.  They should get a slap on the wrist.  But these others.  If only we were as tough on them at Trump wants us to be on his enemies.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/02/1084098799/trump-select-committee-capitol-insurrection-conspiracy

The Democratic-led House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol says the evidence it has leads to the conclusion that then-President Donald Trump broke the law in his effort to overturn the 2020 election.

The revelation was detailed in a court filing Wednesday evening. The filing was part of a court case tied to lawyer John Eastman, who has been fighting a subpoena issued by the panel to share additional documents.
...
The filing details:

"The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, Plaintiff, and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort."
...

How long until they submit a report to the justice department for a criminal investigation?

[LetterRip]

One relative who gets his news exclusively from Fox and OANN still believes it was BLM and Democrats.

[yossarian22c]

One relative who gets his news exclusively from Fox and OANN still believes it was BLM and Democrats.

This narrative surprises always surprised me. If you believe Trump and his cronies its not a completely shocking reaction to your election and country is being stolen.

[msquared]

Well the first rioter to actually go to trial is found guilty.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/guy-reffitt-first-capitol-rioter-185742956.html

[TheDrake]

The defense called no witnesses

Sounds like somebody's lawyer couldn't convince his client to take the obvious guilty plea and had nothing else.

Defense attorney William Welch, suggested in his closing arguments that the government’s photographic evidence was possibly fake, BuzzFeed News reported Monday. Clearly, the jurors didn’t buy it.

But no witnesses to describe how it could be faked, or how such things can be detected. Just toss it out there in closing arguments and see if it distracts one of the jurors.

[msquared]

The Trump defense.

[TheDrake]

Breaking down the law on each point, Carter, who sits on the Central District of California and was nominated by President Bill Clinton, writes it is “more likely than not” that Trump and Eastman conspired to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes on Jan. 6 — which would be a crime under federal statutes.

“Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” the judge concludes. “Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.”

[msquared]

Liberal activist extremist judge bought and paid for by Gates and Soros, working for the Clinton Crime family.  He should be impeached.

Sarcasm filter turned off now.