By random good luck, my ticket number was called and I got to ask a question.
You say you support Donald Trump. He actively tried to get governors, election officials, legislatures in Michigan and Wisconsin, and the Vice President to reverse the election results. What does a person have to do to subvert the Constitution and try to overthrow the government to stay in power more than what President Trump did, before you will say 'we can do better than Donald Trump'?
The question got applause from part of the audience; restless boos from others.
U.S. Rep Bentz responded:
As I indicated, uh, the, uh, President Trump's approach to, uh, [interruptions from the crowd shouting "Former! Former president] to approach to things, uh, when it comes to, uh, things is, uh, when it comes to things we talk about, uh, is not necessarily the way I do it. I think he's--his policies are excellent, uh, I'll mention a few. Operation Warp Speed, and regulations [inaudible because of applause] try to make the ESA [Endangered Species Act] work better, try to protect water for farmers, try to stop the tsunami of immigration coming across our border right now, [inaudible because of applause] lower the cost of energy. He lowered taxes. He attracted hundreds of billions of dollars with his tax policies, people forget about all the big corporations that were sheltering all of their money offshore and under the new tax plan, uh, that money comes back here, drove down unemployment for the minorities to the lowest in 50 years, and tried to move jobs to the United States.
Now, is his approach on--uh--how he talks about elections--my own approach? Let me, uh, let me
[shout from the audience: "Is that a hard question?"]
[Inaudible for a few seconds] . . .on January 6, I was actually in my office in, uh, Washington D.C. we were asked to stay there because Nancy Pelosi didn't want people on the floor given the COVID situation, an argument or something going on, so I was on the floor when folks broke into the Capitol, and uh, we watched as that was going on, and, uh, it was one of the saddest things I've seen, and so, after that happened, we went on the floor and we voted on the various states, and we voted on the various states, uh, the way Vice President Pence [inaudible] in order. That's what our Constitution says we do, yeah, we go through that certification process, and we have each state come in and say how it voted. We [inaudible] the people. Our job is basically to listen, and because states are supposed to take care of that [inaudible] by voting. Now the one exception to that, at least in my mind. If those states violate the Constitution, then we have a problem. That's why I voted against Pennsylvania. I voted for certification of Arizona. Why? I didn't see they having violated the Constitution.
Now, I'm calling out what I do, and so what I would suggest right now is that everybody that is talking about January 6 and President Trump is probably more excited about talking about him than they are in talking about President Biden [inaudible]
[call from audience: "Would you say "ex-President Trump]
so it's not to ignore what's going on. I can't think of anything more important right now than convincing people that they should vote, I want them to understand that their vote will be counted. Correctly. How do we get back to that? Because there are a lot of people who don't believe in our systems now.
There's another opportunity in this county just a couple of weeks ago, I'm talking to Charlie about this, he's in charge of taking care of this space, and his idea was, we can have people go in and watch as votes are tabulated, but how do we convince anybody to believe it? So I would challenge everybody here, to your question, how are we going to convince people that our system works?
I returned to the microphone:
The, the one thing we might do is agree that there are some things, like trying to overthrow the government, that is actually, that's too much. [crowd noise, applause]. 'Other than that one little incident, Mrs. Lincoln, how do you feel about the play?' President Trump--I totally get it that you agree with lots of things that President Trump did-- but at some point trying to overthrow the government is too much.
[Crowd noise. Applause. Restless noise. A shout: "Sit down." Scattered voices of disapproval. Some applause.]
A staff person takes charge by stepping to the microphone and firmly calling out "8553," the next number to be drawn at random allowing someone else to ask a question. They were done with me.
Trump enabler. Bentz defines Trump's attempt to overturn the election as unfortunate, but not dispositive. He avoids direct acknowledgment of what Trump did and is continuing to do, and promptly changes the subject to the many things he likes about Trump. That play Mrs. Lincoln saw---Our American Cousin--was excellent, a lighthearted satire. It made a fine evening.
33 comments:
Peter, thank you for your service. Incredibly, there are people who say we should just move on from Trump’s attempted coup, as if it weren’t a direct attack on the foundation of our democracy - never mind that he remains the leader of the GOP. They also say we should quit abusing his cult followers.
Those who have eyes to see, let them see: It’s Trump and his MAGA hatters who attacked our Capitol. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear: It’s Trump and his chumps that are hurling the abuse. Let’s not make the mistake of trying to play nice with these people. They need to be held accountable.
It's his opinion and a Republican baseless accusation that any election was compromised. No court has agreed. In response election officials are receiving death threats. These are the people this person encourages with his statements.
As to the former's presidents "achievements", that list was specious at best and at worst disingenuous. Most of it was due to a continuation of previous policies. The immigration statement was particularly galling, given the family separation debacle.
My sense is that this guy is just as self-serving as the last one, and is looking beyond holding office to some future payday.
There is part of this “overthrow the government“ narrative that is just plain wrong. The Constitution describes procedures regarding the Electoral College, including giving states discretion over how their electors will be chosen. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 gives Congress, under certain circumstances, discretion over whether or not to accept those electors.
If The Constitution and that 1887 law were followed, resulting in some change to an election result, it would be incorrect to call that change “overthrowing the government.” You might not like those rules, and you might not like whatever the change was, but the existing rules were followed.
The Founders were rightly concerned about unlimited rule by the majority, aka “mob rule.” They put many safeguards into effect to limit what majorities could do. They created many layers to shield against mob tyranny. Among those structures is the Electoral College.
To the extent that strict majority rule is followed, it often happens that urban areas dominate state politics. We see this very clearly here in Oregon, where the concerns of rural areas consistently get rolled over and crushed. But it’s not just Oregon; it happens nationwide. This is a huge part of the current political polarization.
Should the president be elected by strict majority rule? For obvious reasons, Democrats want this to be the case. The Founders had a different opinion. Republicans certainly do.
And let’s remember that the Democrats, up on a high moral horse about majority rule, have had no compunction about advocating statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, a “principled” stance designed to give them control of the Senate. The Republicans are just as entitled to their own different set of principles and different self-interest.
And in the meantime food assistance in snap district 8, where you live, is up 20% since 2017 so none of this really matters if you can’t eat and/or w the amount of federal exposure in D2 it means your new congressmen is doing about as much fine work as the last one. Better you wasting your time there than me.
Mike Trigoboff provides some useful balance and perspective in these comments.
On his comment above, I disagree. Trump's relentless assertion that the election was stolen--in the face of denials of that by his own election security people, his AG, Republican officeholders, judges at every level--is not consistent with the tradition of peaceful transfer of power. Yes, he has the free speech right to assert his position, and yes the Constitutional process played out and put in place people in positions to deny him, including his VP, and the system did in fact deny him. So the system worked, right?
No.
He worked assiduously to subvert that electoral college system, not to follow it. It was an attempted coup, which does not lessen the vileness of his action, only that the result was less damaging. He wanted Georgia's Raffensberger to find votes. He wanted Arizona's Ducey and its legislature to refuse to certify the election. He wanted people in ministerial roles including the bipartisan election certifier in Michigan to refuse to do it. He wanted legislatures to invent or at least claim potential fraud in order to overturn the states' own process.
He was not using the electoral vote system, a system that is intentionally non-majoritarian. He was attempting to corrupt that system through ruses and false claims. US states were not required to write laws that call for a popular vote in the state, but every state has done so. The legislatures made a deal with their own people on how the electors would be chosen. Trump urged on a half dozen states that they find a ruse for betraying their own voters.
If Trump were conscientious and Constitutional in the way Trigaboff suggests legislatures had the opportunity well before the election, to say that the election was going to be cancelled and the legislatures would be making the choice. They then would have faced the opinion of the voters. In fact, though, each state had a system both for voting and a court system to evaluate whether changes were permissible. Each state had a system in place prior to the election, reviewed by that states' own courts.
Deciding after the fact that an election was lost and therefore should be overruled is a coup d'etat. The fact that Trump persists in it means that Representatives like Bentz cannot just say "move on." Trump is keeping it alive.
Peter Sage
Michael T:
Even John Eastman, the whacko lawyer who contrived the idea of overturning the election, now admits it was not a "viable" option and was a "crazy' idea. You must not have gotten the memo.
Let me get this out of the way: Trump was wrong, and I disagree with his continued voicing that the election was stolen. I am thankful for many of his accomplishments and policies. I am quite disappointed with his continued stance on the 2020 election.
No president is 100% liked.
There were other wrongs by a few states: some states changed how their election and voting were done; but by edict rather than the required legislative action.
In past elections, even some Democrats disagreed with the election outcome, and continue that disagreement today; see Stacey Abrams in Georgia.
as for the other comment wanting Peter to write ex-President Trump, rather than President Trump, there is a long tradition of referring to past Presidents, Senators, and Governors without the "ex-" prefix.
Did anyone ask him about how we could have a government of laws if people were allowed to ignore subpoenas? What kind of a system did he envision when he voted against citing Bannon for contempt when he voted against the effort to enforce the House subpoena?
If Romney was elected the GOP would have had the same results without the crazy.
Bentz needs to go.
I don’t think that everything Trump did was all right. I am not a supporter of the disorganized mob of idiots who invaded The Capitol on January 6. I am not a supporter of anything Trump did on January 6.
I was making a narrower point that following the rules cannot be construed as “overthrowing the government.” This has nothing to do with Trump.
The rules don’t say that the president should be chosen on the basis of a majority vote of the entire country. Many people want that to be the rule, but that doesn’t alter the fact that it actually isn’t.
If Trump were conscientious and Constitutional in the way Trigaboff suggests…
I did not suggest that. The point I was trying to make was that following the rules, even in a creative and unusual way, cannot accurately be described as “overthrowing the government.”
First off, as a Republican I am not pleased with Rep. Bentz’s mealy-mouthed response to Mr. Sage’s perfectly valid request that Bentz fish or fit bait on Trump and his tactics. That said, I respectfully disagree with Sage and agree with Trigoboff that attempted “ coup”, “insurrection” or government “overthrow” are hyperbole.
Those important words require a sudden violent effort to illegally topple a government. It’s not there. Not even close.
Take Trump. His attempt via Eastman was to twist the law like a pretzel, not to abrogate the law. Pence wisely demurred, despite the attempt via the rioters to intimidate and coerce him. Even had Pence acquiesced, the Supreme Court would have dispensed with the gimmick in a day or two.
Take the 1/6 rioters. To compare these yahoos to e.g. mercenaries in Haiti or military men in Burma is just plain silly. They left their firearms at home and even the dumbest, even the craziest, could have had no illusions about holding the Capitol indefinitely until they took over. It was a one-off stunt.
Take Democratic Attorney General Merrick Garland. Despite immediate, vigorous FBI investigation and voluminous arrests, there has not even been and at this point almost certainly will not be a single charge, not one, alleging an intended attempt at insurrection, however implausible the attempt.
Deferring to Judge Arnold, case law is about predicting whether an untested set of facts is nonetheless governed by precedent or is truly new, warranting new or modified law. SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter. Trump took his predictive chance, as does Joe Biden today by urging compliance with his “unlawful”—per a federal appeals court—workplace vaccine mandates.
It’s a measure of how crazy our times have become that among today’s so-called conservatives are some who argue in all seriousness that it would be constitutional to overturn a free and fair election.
Keep muckraking, Peter. In the mind of the mob, January 6 was just a dress rehearsal.
Unknown @ 4:21:
May I invite you you consider careful reading, and an open mind to nuance?
Your comment begs the question because its premise assumes the conclusion you argue for. No conservatives here urge that the law be ignored. Trump made a fanciful argument within the law, and was duly thwarted. Had he succeeded at the Pence level, the SCOTUS rebuke was close behind. That’s a far cry (thank goodness) from e,g., Hitler simply suspending the German constitution and ruling under martial law.
Once again, purportedly new fact scenarios invite change or modification of existing precedent. That’s how common law works. It doesn’t mean the entire superstructure of law is rejected thereby. Universities routinely alter a few labels in order to skirt existing court dictates against affirmative action. They expect to be vindicated the next time. This is not an overthrow of the rule of law. SCOTUS still decides.
Who also deserves blame for what happened on January 6 is the those responsible for the physical protection of The Capitol. if sufficient police and/or National Guard had been there to predict the building, the disorganized mob of idiots would never have been able to enter.
Bureaucratic incompetence is a plague upon the land.
I saw a really funny cartoon the other day. I can't post the image here, but the captions read:
Aliens: We have killed your leaders, and are here to take over your government.
Us: Oh, thank God.
Aliens: Huh?
I totally agree with Low Dudgeon. Calling the clusterfuck that happened on January 6 a serious attempt at a coup or insurrection dishonors those concepts. Watch the old movie Seven Days In May if you want to see what a real attempt at a coup might have looked like.
Some people around here read what I said and think they saw me supporting a coup attempt by Trump to "overthrow the government." That's not what I said. For the record, and I am amazed that it seems necessary for me to say this, I do not support the overthrow of the government by Trump or anyone else.
I wish people would read what I say carefully and not jump to far-fetched conclusions about what they think I meant. It looks like to me they are adding 2 and 2 and somehow coming up with 4,000,000.
As Peter made clear, Trump attempted a coup. It sounds like Michael T. & Low Dudgeon are saying that since it failed it doesn't matter, never mind that he's still the leader of the Republican Party. I call B.S. No matter what he's head of, he needs to be held accountable.
Mike,
That's not what I said. I wasn't talking about anything Trump did or did not do.
Go back and read what I actually said. Did I mention Trump?
I am happy to take responsibility for anything I said. I bear no responsibility for what you think you heard me say that I didn't actually say.
You can "call BS" all you want. I guess my response would be to "call poor reading comprehension."
Mike—
What is a “coup”? Don”t beg the question too, and assume that the callow use of the word is sufficient. A coup is a military junta or at least an armed attempted takeover. An attempted coup is to attempt THAT, even if it fails. Be serious with yourself about s serious topic. Leftists are also as jejune or undisciplined about the ready use of “fascist”, “Nazi” and “authoritarian”, terms with which few in the West have any meaningful lived experience, not adequate education about.
Peter, thank you for the written transcript.
Perhaps you actually have an audio or video recording with audio. It might have better impact if you were to post that media.
Michael and LD:
A coup is defined in the dictionary. It doesn't necessarily have to be violent or carried out by the military.
On Dec. 14, 2020, the electoral college made Joe Biden our president-elect. Trump resorted to means both legal and illegal to try and overthrow our duly elected president. Your ignorance of the definition makes it no less a coup attempt. Its failure makes it no less significant.
Good job ,Peter. This vacant man is only capable of pandering by spouting headlines. I doubt he could ever write legislation or ever will. He is testament to the booming economy of Eastern Oregon in the desert of bandwidth.
Oxford Dictionary definition of “coup”: “A sudden, violent and illegal seizure of power from a government”.
An “attempt” under law requires the conscious objective to achieve a given end. No dice, as already established, above.
noun, plural coups d'é·tat [koo dey-tahz; French koo dey-ta].
a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.
Note that it says illegally OR by force. It wouldn't surprise me if you're unaware, but some of what Trump attempted was illegal. Ergo, an attempted coup.
Sorry, still no. Not even close. It does surprise me, though perhaps less each time, how little you were able to grok of my discussion of the law and legal process, above (assuming you read it). Convincing Pence to do what they wanted would not have constituted a coup, nor a meaningful attempt. Trump and Pence would have had to defend their stance as if legal in court. Trump and Eastman indulged the predictive fantasy the SCOTUS would back them...legally...because of supposed irregularities in state vote counts.
May I invite you you consider careful reading, and an open mind to nuance?
Your comment begs the question because its premise assumes the conclusion you argue for.
In closing: One of history's most famous coups was a bloodless coup by Napoleon Bonaparte. Touche. Case closed.
Sigh. Yes, sometimes the guns and guillotines don’t actually have to be used.
Sigh. Yes, I know it's hard for Republicans to admit because the perpetrator is the head of your party, but just because Trump's coup was as dismal a failure as his term in office doesn't mean we should just ignore it and move on.
The January 6 rioters were a bunch of sore losers. They are losers in general.
Post a Comment