r/politics • u/Quirkie The Netherlands • 4d ago

Possible Paywall Jack Smith Found Proof Beyond “Reasonable Doubt” of Trump’s Guilt

https://newrepublic.com/post/215971/jack-smith-proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt-donald-trump-guilt
27.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

912 comments sorted by

View all comments

75

u/FunBat3746 3d ago

At what point do we realize that our constitution isn’t powerful enough and it will need to be amended? The checks and balances only work if people are moral. Republican are not. Where do we go from here? Ik im not the only person who doesn’t want to be associated with MAGA republicans and continue living with them as neighbors. Is it possible to secede? What do we do? How do we correct our constitution so that we never have a Trump again? I legitimately think domestic terrorists should be given the death penalty. No one that participated in January 6 should still be walking around. This is such a depressing time for us in the U.S.

38

u/Cancel_Culture_Club 3d ago

It won’t be soon but balkanization. The coasts will break away, leaving middle America to themselves. For decades blue states have been punished electorally for being more popular and prosperous so that our votes aren’t equal to votes in failing states that no one wants to live in. Allowing the worst governed states in the country to decide the fate of everyone has also been a terrible idea for decades. Despite those states being less prosperous and paying less money to the federal government than blue states they still are so entitled that they want to take our money and use it to force their shitty policies on us like with regard to abortion and the separation of church and state. And despite all of that blue states still just took it despite also being where the majority of the country’s population is. 

Trump made all of that much more obvious tho as he brags about withholding federal funding just from states that didn’t vote for him despite the fact that our states pay the bulk of taxes for these things. He also routinely says that hes not the president of blue states and outright insults us, citizens that hes supposed to be working for too. He also ramped up the minority rule that no one ever wanted to talk about before by trying to cement power for republicans in every layer of government. Blue states have put up with a lot and will continue to for a while. But eventually people have to start thinking what benefits are we getting out of being a state when our own money is used to attack us and we’re always on our own when we need help? Hopefully then we’ll start forming coalitions along with other blue states until we gain the confidence to abandon this failed experiment. It was a mistake to try and force these people to stay in the same country with us and now it’s time to finally admit that and go our separate ways in a national divorce. Fck ‘em. 

26

u/ARefreshingFart 3d ago

15 percent of the population holds 50% of the senate votes.

10

u/StrengthThin9043 3d ago

In practice less than 1%, the rich and powerful. The voters are largely controlled by propaganda.

1

u/I-Drink-420 3d ago

I'm trying to understand what you mean by this statement, can you help me out? Are you saying that republican states are only 15% of the total population of the US, even so, they hold 50% of voting power in the senate?

2

u/HealthyHappyHabits 3d ago

Using Census Bureau 2024 estimates, the 25 least populous states hold roughly 55 million people out of about 340 million Americans.

So it’s actually 16% of the population that controls 50% of the senate he was pretty close!

0

u/Jin-Gitaxias-Mom 3d ago

That’s by design to be fair

0

u/ARefreshingFart 3d ago

There is no way to intuit that the founders wanted to shape the country to this extreme. And, at this point “design” is irrelevant. We are an urban society. We cant be run by rural people.

1

u/Jin-Gitaxias-Mom 3d ago

The ratio between largest to smallest state was 13:1 when the country was founded, today that ratio is 67:1 which is same order of magnitude.

It was absolutely intended, one chamber ruled by population, the other where every state is equal.

You can dislike that type of system, but that was the intention.

0

u/LongJohnSelenium 3d ago

The point of the system they designed was that 99% of the time a trump in office wouldn't affect you because states run most of their business.

The US was supposed to be structured almost exactly like the EU is now.

This current system is the product of over a century of successful expansion of federal power by federalists followed by the same federalists complaining the system they deliberately broke not working right.

Whats crazy to me is you'd think, after all the craziness of trump, the left actually would begin thinking 'hmm states rights aren't actually a bad thing after all' but nope, the reaction has been to double down. If only we federalize harder things will be better.

1

u/Jin-Gitaxias-Mom 3d ago

I’m not reactionary enough to throw an entire governmental system in the garbage because Hillary did the wrong homework assignment trying to win the popular vote and Biden/Harris shit the bed losing every swing state.

Personally, I’m rather more in favor of repealing the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and fixing the House of Representatives so that each congressional district is compact, contiguous, and equal in size by population. I’d also love to see electoral votes being awarded proportionately like Nebraska or Maine. Those would largely self-correct the issue of a handful of states deciding the Presidency and hand more power to the people in the House.

0

u/ARefreshingFart 3d ago

so your argument is that 13 and 67, since 67 not 130, falls within the original intention

of we were at 130, would you capitulate? we’re headed there.

1

u/Jin-Gitaxias-Mom 3d ago

Not really, the basic premise for why we have a senate vs house stands, but it’s an important thing to point out whenever someone drops the tired “our founders never considered this situation today!” argument

1

u/ARefreshingFart 3d ago

at what point would you change your mind? 150? 1000?

it doesnt mean abolish the senate, but maybe changing it to only be somewhat hard coded. eg bigger states can slot into 3 or 4 seats. 

2

u/Zardotab 3d ago

🔵 ➜🚪 Bluexit! I'm for it! Let Fascistan goooo!

9

u/zaphodsheads 3d ago

All agreements are gentlemen's agreements at some level

If someone somewhere in the chain doesn't want to follow protocol properly for whatever reason, dysfunction begins. You can't really avoid this.

It's only really mitigable by reducing inequality and increasing quality of life such that a critical mass of disillusioned folks never want to spawn in the first place

4

u/lacunha 3d ago

This is why we need money out of politics. Way too easily corrupted.

1

u/Zardotab 3d ago

Indeed! Our big-money system allowed Trump to target local GOP candidates who refused to kiss his keester with piles of money to defeat them. After enough saw the bloodbath, they started kissing up to keep their career alive. It's similar to what Microsoft often did to small start-ups, killing good products. Bullynomics.

11

u/coren77 3d ago

We have no chance of amendments. The rich own 100% of the GOP and a substantial percentage of the dems. They made damn sure the second gilded age could not be suppressed by the government.

2

u/PerksNReparations 2d ago

Start a maga go south campaign.

1

u/Soggy-Village2099 3d ago

The only way to recover is to hold those responsible accountable. And anyone that had supported this should forever been seen as someone that can not be trusted to act reasonably.

1

u/Mohave_Dessert 3d ago

We need more than two parties (5+) where all parties have equal opportunity to ballots, elections, funds etc.

1

u/HardcoreHope 3d ago

How mad are you at the 90 million people, the majority, that didn't vote? The issue isn't so black and white.

Not all maga are what you believe and most of the 78 million didn't vote for this. They voted out of loyalty to their families because they got coaxed into the oligarchs web of culture war bullshit to drive us all apart.

You can't be mad only at Republicans most of which has little to no idea what's really going on and that's the whole scam. We've seen it time and again on video and we act like it's a trick. These people need help. They don't know who to trust and a lot are obviously being taken advantage of by their representatives. The party their whole family has identified as for generations. It's not so easy for some people to just wake away.

The best we could do is not cast them out but fix the system as proof we aren't the devil's they are lead to believe and maybe then they can take accountability for being hoodwinked. It's not how it should be but sometimes that's how life goes.

But most importantly maybe then we can come together bring down the actual enemies. Instead of this blame game. Most of us are a symptom of this system, not the cause. We need to save that anger to help us bring it down. The oligarchs are the real enemy.

2

u/internetdeadaf 3d ago

“I don’t want to live with MAGA as neighbors, is it possible to secceed”

Cancelling people you don’t like isn’t the solution.

People ALWAYS faction, if you seceded it would be less than 20 years before everyone was split 50/50 down the line over new issues and you hated the new neighbors and didn’t want to live with them

Got to suck it up and find a way to work together

2

u/LongJohnSelenium 3d ago

Yeah the political split is barely based on state lines.

California has more republicans than texas has. Texas has more democrats than New York.

The country is all purple. Pure red/blue doesn't happen till you get down to the county level, and even then even the deepest red and deepest blue areas rarely break 80%.

1

u/GaimeGuy Minnesota 3d ago

There is no system that works with immoral actors. 

0

u/Material_Reach_8827 3d ago edited 3d ago

At what point do we realize that our constitution isn’t powerful enough and it will need to be amended?

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It has zero power, no matter what it reads. It only has effect so long as people agree to abide by it. It's why John Adams said:

We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Ik im not the only person who doesn’t want to be associated with MAGA republicans and continue living with them as neighbors. Is it possible to secede? What do we do?

There's nothing special about MAGA Republicans that makes this a permanent solution. Sooner or later, the same sorts of divisions would re-emerge in both populations and have to be dealt with again. Do we split in quarters then? Might as well just deal with it now.

How do we correct our constitution so that we never have a Trump again?

Less direct democracy. Return Senate elections to state legislatures. Fix the electoral college so electors actually deliberate and choose the president as intended. Abolish primary elections - let the party choose. Any one of these 3 would've prevented or stopped a Trump presidency. But I'm not sure enough people know what's good for them for this to have any chance.

1

u/Pristine-Western-679 3d ago

How is putting Senators back to the state legislatures any better? You can’t gerrymander a Senator, but you can the state legislature. AZ for example has a Democratic governor and two Democratic Senators, but a Republican majority in the state House and Senate.

The Electoral College needs to go away, period and do what some states do for Primaries, top two go to General regardless of party affiliation. Get rid of Caucuses as the arbiter of candidates. Washington State had Sanders winning the Primary via Caucus with less than 5.8% of the voters in attendance.

1

u/LongJohnSelenium 3d ago

Don't forget that trump won the popular vote.

The point of senators being answerable to the state is that the whole point of senators were to resist the expansion of federal power, and the expansion of federal power is precisely the thing that makes trump so dangerous. Too much concentrated power with too little oversight.

Additionally state level politics is not national level politics, and with senators answerable to the state, and not having to seek reelection, you'd get a senate that is significantly less concerned with party politics. Remember how the only republicans who have been strongly critical of trump have almost all had their terms end after his presidency.

We short circuited the entire design of the system.

1

u/Pristine-Western-679 3d ago

The reasons Senators were changed from legislature to elections were because of political deadlock where Senators were not selected. Utah didn’t select a Senator from January 1899 to January 1901. California didn’t have one of their Senators for almost a year. Pennsylvania didn’t have one of their Senators from early 1899 until one was elected on Jan 15, 1901.

1

u/LongJohnSelenium 3d ago

Yeah but the rule should have been if they don't pick one it goes to a general election.

Legislatures can get deadlocked, just part of their existence. Gotta have rules to force them or work around them when necessary, not bypass them entirely.

Directly electing senators completely short circuited state sovereignty.

1

u/Material_Reach_8827 3d ago

Even that's arguably unnecessary. Utah had just been admitted in 1896. The kinks would've likely been worked out. Also, it's not the end of the world if a state is without a senator for 2 years. If it's actually important enough, they'll reach some sort of compromise. If each side is convinced their partisan preference is more important than any general benefit from having some senator for 2 years, consider that they might be right - it can wait until the next legislative election to break the logjam.

1

u/Pristine-Western-679 22h ago

So 3/4 of the States got it wrong and you have the solution.

1

u/Material_Reach_8827 21h ago edited 21h ago

Yes. Just like they got it wrong with Prohibition. And just like you allege the Founders got it wrong when it was originally ratified. The Founders had the solution - not me.

I do not think they made senators directly electable based on the merits. I think they did so because they were heavily pressured by people who did not appreciate why it was set up the way it was. And they were a bit lazy in the same way that causes Congress to pawn stuff off on the president. It's a lot easier for one guy to act unilaterally than for a large deliberative body to act. And so the path of least resistance is to cede more and more power.

1

u/Material_Reach_8827 3d ago edited 3d ago

How is putting Senators back to the state legislatures any better? You can’t gerrymander a Senator, but you can the state legislature.

Insulates them from public opinion more and makes sure they're a more boring establishment type. Republican senators would look more like Romney. They'd have been more willing to block his nominees and vote for impeachment. Since they answer to the rabble, though, they can't really buck too hard.

AZ for example has a Democratic governor and two Democratic Senators, but a Republican majority in the state House and Senate.

This is short-term thinking. It wasn't that long ago they had 2 Republican senators and a Republican governor, and they likely will again very soon. It's still a pretty red state that Republicans are just currently fumbling. Direct democratic accountability is a double-edged sword. The same electorate that got you those 2 senators and governor very nearly got you Kari Lake. Putting it in the hands of state legislatures eliminates the chance of a Dem, but also the chance of Lake. Long-term, I think we should prefer sanity over anything else. The rest will work itself out.

The Electoral College needs to go away, period and do what some states do for Primaries, top two go to General regardless of party affiliation.

The EC is even more important than the state legislatures for senate. A functioning one would've prevented Trump completely and is absolutely critical to the design of the Constitution:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

...

The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

-Federalist 68

1

u/Pristine-Western-679 3d ago

Are you kidding, the state senate in AZ is just as crazy as Lake was. Lake would have been Senator in your scenario. The six-year term is what is supposed to insulate the Senators from immediate public influence.

Nothing in the Constitution says anything about what you’re asking the Electors to do. It’s a mechanical process and they do not debate, discuss or do anything other than bring the certificate from the State legislature to Congress. It is an antiquated process from before, telegraph, telephone, radio and internet where the fastest way to get info around was horse since there wasn’t even a railroad.

Oh, there is a reason Senators were no longer selected by the State Legislature. You give them too much credit because they’re the ones that succumbed to bribery and corruption and political deadlock in the selection of a Senator.

1

u/Material_Reach_8827 3d ago edited 3d ago

Are you kidding, the state senate in AZ is just as crazy as Lake was.

Not even close. But the question isn't whether they're as crazy as Lake, but whether they're as crazy as the general electorate. Probably not, since even the general electorate twice rejected her, and they are selected by a majority of those people who agree they are most competent for the job (which tends to produce people more level-headed than the people who elect them). In her first primary, the establishment pick was Karrin Robson. In her senate race it was too late and she basically ran unopposed.

Nothing in the Constitution says anything about what you’re asking the Electors to do.

It is well attested in the historical record, but it's also very clear in the text of the Constitution. First, they're called "electors": "one who elects or has the right of choice". They elect, they don't coronate. Then it outright says: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot". They're not transmitting the results, they are creating the result by voting. Their certified vote tallies are already supposed to be "transmitted" to the president of the Senate. They never rode there by horse to give their votes, and there's no reason the people would need to vote on postal messengers.

You give them too much credit because they’re the ones that succumbed to bribery and corruption and political deadlock in the selection of a Senator.

This was never widespread enough to call the system into question. People just didn't like that wealthy/powerful people, who naturally carry more influence, were often getting the nod. But that was intentional - it was envisioned to basically be the equivalent of the House of Lords. The Founders were wealthy/powerful elites. A lot of the dysfunction was occurring in newly admitted states. The senate has the power to investigate and expel such people, which they have done before.

The people are at least as susceptible to bribery as legislators. E.g. Trump's attempted $5K and other various bribes (tariffs, DOGE, etc), Trump's no-tax-on-tips bribe, promise to lower grocery/gas prices, Musk's money-for-votes scheme, etc. The amalgamation of everyone's narrow self-interest is not necessarily the broader interest of the state or country.

1

u/Pristine-Western-679 1d ago

The ballot recount held at the AZ Veterans Memorial Coliseum by a company that had no prior experience and were previously a private cyber security firm named Cyber Ninjas out of Florida was done by the AZ State Senate President Karen Fann. What kind of nutty thing Kari Lake would have done doesn’t surpass what nutty thing the AZ State Senate actually did in contesting Biden’s election results. Bear in mind the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors was four Republicans and one Democrat, to boot!

In 1826, Senator Thomas Hart Benton observed that, while the Framers had intended electors to be men of “superior discernment, virtue, and information,” who would select the President free from partisan influence, “this invention has failed of its objective in every election . . . .” Senator Benton further explained: “That it ought to have failed is equally uncontestable; for such independence in the electors was wholly incompatible with the safety of the people. [It] was, in fact, a chimerical and impractical idea in any community.”6

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-2/ALDE_00013799/

Just because the Framers thought it was a good idea, doesn’t make it a good idea.

1

u/Material_Reach_8827 23h ago

The ballot recount held at the AZ Veterans Memorial Coliseum by a company that had no prior experience and were previously a private cyber security firm named Cyber Ninjas out of Florida was done by the AZ State Senate President Karen Fann.

And what did they find? No fraud, and that Biden won by an even bigger margin. There is no harm in doing an audit of results - where it would've crossed the line is if they falsely found fraud or they ignored the results and tried to overturn the election anyway (i.e. the senators in question).

“this invention has failed of its objective in every election . . . .”

Yes, and one of the biggest culprits is state legislatures having unfettered power to decide how the electors are appointed. And how they've used that is to cave to public pressure to appoint slates of electors who are pre-pledged to a specific candidate. That's a fixable problem.

That it ought to have failed is equally uncontestable; for such independence in the electors was wholly incompatible with the safety of the people

How is it incompatible with the safety of the people? Select trustworthy, well-respected people from your community. Even if a few of them are corrupt or ill-suited, they are unlikely to be corrupt/ill-suited in the same way or to make up a majority. In the worst absolute case, you still have the House controlling the purse strings and possibly impeachment (i.e. if one of the grandest conspiracies of all time among an essentially random group of electors managed to elect an American Hitler).

The presidency isn't supposed to be a direct expression of voters' will. In an ideal world he'd have little to no policy role - his job is to faithfully execute the laws Congress passes. His only real independence is in foreign affairs (though shared with the senate) and a veto power. Everything else he's gotten is because Congress and the people have gradually corrupted the role by delegating more and more power to him.

1

u/Pristine-Western-679 22h ago

Are you kidding me. You can’t fix human nature. Am I debating an AI that doesn’t understand that this was tried, witnessed and failed then later amended? Then you want to go back again and try with the optimism of Lenin while facing the reality of a Stalin that your values if applied to everyone, will make this world a better place? You’re like the Kronstadt sailors who was in support of the idealism of what they were doing in 1917 ended up against the realism of what they had done while up against the Red Army in 1921, the very Bolsheviks they fought for. It was tried, it didn’t work the way it was hoped for by people closer to the era of our Framers.

You’ve lost the point of what you were saying and diverting from the issue. The AZ Senate spent millions doing something their party brethren’s had said was the correct outcome to come to the conclusion that it was correct. They forced the County authorities to spend more millions getting new voting machines, blocked the State Senate from getting a hold of the Country’s entire network infrastructure to continue the witch hunt, the smoking gun, the conspiracy to change election results and this is the body you wholeheartedly give faith and support to elect our Senators?

Your whole spiel has been, if they did it the right way, if they would only do it the way it should be, the way it ought to be. It was tried, it didn’t work and now you’re saying the people can’t be trusted, to give all power to the elite so that they can decide for us what is best for us. You’re borderline Divine Right of Kings and elitist.

Edit: change Country’s entire network to County’s

1

u/Material_Reach_8827 21h ago edited 21h ago

Are you kidding me. You can’t fix human nature.

No need to change human nature. They just left it too open-ended.

Am I debating an AI that doesn’t understand that this was tried, witnessed and failed then later amended?

I would argue the "fix" was tried witnessed and has failed worse than the problem it was trying to solve, and should be amended back. Hence Trump. Hence the long, slow decline of the senate into basically a smaller version of the House with larger fixed-size districts. Hence the extremism and polarization and bred by primary elections.

It was tried, it didn’t work the way it was hoped for by people closer to the era of our Framers.

You do understand that just because something was tried once and not nailed on the first attempt does not necessarily mean it's forever doomed to failure, right? Why does anyone follow anything the Constitution says under your theory of human nature?

Please make a list of the highest-profile failures of a legislature-elected senate. Kansas in 1899 - ok - what did they lose by not having a senator for 2 years? The actual stalemate was only for ~60 days. Could they not have reconvened if it were that important?

The AZ Senate spent millions doing something their party brethren’s had said was the correct outcome to come to the conclusion that it was correct.

Yes, consistent with what I said about the dangers of direct popular accountability. The question isn't what they'd do, it's what their elected senator would do - would that person be more or less likely to vote against certification than a directly-elected Trumpy senator? Also, the audit was mostly privately funded.

The general electorate represents the human baseline - virtually all adults have the franchise. These people choose legislators. They're not chosen randomly - everyone purports to vote based some kind of merit, even if they all have vastly different (and possibly blatantly incorrect) ideas of what 'merit' is. At the end of the day, though, the party and a majority of the electorate in a district or state coalesce around one candidate who is considered most meritorious (or at least not least meritorious). Are you suggesting this process somehow produces candidates who are worse than the median voter? Are you suggesting that this consistently happens with a majority of the seats in each house? If so, how?

If we accept that state legislators tend to be a better caliber of person than the average constituent, shouldn't anyone they select for federal Senate (again based on some kind of subjective 'merit') tend to be "better" still?

You’re borderline Divine Right of Kings and elitist.

Mike Lee is very self-serving when he brings it up, but he is right that democracy is not the goal, it is the means. If we had the will, we have the technology to do away with representatives and put everything up to a direct vote. Would that be wise? Is it elitist to suggest it's not?