The AM piece reminds me of a great song I heard first on AM, back when we all listened to the Top 40 on WLS-AM or WCFL-AM. "FM (No Static at All)" by Steely Dan.
Two things: 1 - The scary thing is not just Trump himself. The really scary thing is the gigantic number of his supporters who would be happy to abandon democracy and make him the supreme dictator of this country. 2 - Re: the documents Trump hoarded – what were they doing at the White House in the first place? Shouldn’t they have been kept at the Pentagon?
In some cases classified documents are brought to the White House with the expectation that after briefing POTUS they would be returned. DT sometimes would ask to keep them. When told he couldn’t he sometimes kept them anyway and a staffer would be reluctant to tell him to give them back.
Agree with KB. The documents are also supposed to be properly stored, access restricted, and returned when the president leaves office. The fact that staffers apparently scooped up classified materials that were scattered willy-nilly in the WH demonstrates that they were not following even the most basic security procedures.
The New York charges are not going to involve any jail time; if the case against him in Georgia goes forward it will be a state charge, as I understand it, but it's been months since Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis described her charging decision as "imminent." And of course Georgia Gov. Kemp can and likely would pardon Trump there anyway.
Willis announced weeks ago the remaining timetable, with charges (whatever er they may be) in August. She faces the complication that the Georgia legislature passed a bill allowing it to replace a district attorney before the end of that official's term. Replacing her with a Republican who would swiftly drop the charges was probably one of the principal reasons for that move. How she can navigate that minefield--if it's as I understand it, a big caveat--isn't at all clear. I appreciate that she's trying to do what's possible in the face of that reality. I'd love to learn that there's a feasible course.
The Georgia case is a total loser, in my view -- the worst case of the bunch. I listened to the whole call. The gist is, "I'm hearing that there all these problems with the vote. I think I won when you correct for that. I'm only behind by a little bit, all I need is a little bit to change the outcome. I've got that, I've got more than that, as you'll discover when you look into this, as you really should, because I'm getting screwed here."
Under any impartial view of that call in its whole context, I think, he was not actually asking Raffensperger to somehow fabricate vote totals, nor even really implying that he should do that or else. Think of it this way: a candidate who was *actually being screwed* might have fairly said just what he said on that call. I think the law will easily allow Trump his delusions for purposes of the call. After all, I'm sure he really was hearing that he was getting screwed, and I have every confidence he's brilliant at believing what he wants to hear.
It seems you think that Trump is popular in Georgia - see last few Georgia Senate races. If Gov. Kemp will pardon Trump - why not announce it now for maximum impact?
I think as a politician he will wait to see if that will be a good move - certainly not a done deal as you seem to think. And yes there needs to be a trial and conviction first.
I agree the New York case does not involve jail time but it already has limited the Trump business organization from grifting profits. Trump is hurting for cash and is using the charges against him to drum up needed money for his defense. I wonder how much money if any is going to his election campaign. As his court time goes up so does hourly lawyer bills.
I think the race is on, Donald Trump is a coward and can not handle ANY jail time (month…2 months) and will run to Saudi Arabia if that situation happens.
Right now I think things are up for grabs and there is not a clear outcome of Trump getting pardoned everywhere.
I also wondered if the Feds would argue that Trump was a flight risk and as for no bail. But that also made me wonder what the duty of his Secret Service detail was regarding preventing him from illicit travel or in ensuring his appearance at trial. Maybe the judge can task the SS with the responsibility to deliver Trump with confinement at Mar-a-Lago during the trial.
Love the additional visual tweet-esp a ghostly Jack Smith in the rear view--saw you posted the BB and B on FB last week. I'd say there's some pretty interesting reading material in that bathroom!
The ability to pardon should probably be eliminated. I wonder how many pardons have been other than politically motivated. But I expect legislation on pardons about the same time as we get legislation to ban gerrymandering. I also think that the tide has turned on Trump and his political support. He called for huge protests at his arraignment and got a few hundred supporters, which is the same as the New York case. I expect that even the weaseliest GOP supporters of Trump will start to see the shift. Maybe Trump will get the full 75 year jail sentence which can then be commuted to 30 years. The faster the trial proceeds the better.
I heartily agree with outlawing partisan gerrymandering across the board -- excellent candidate for a constitutional amendment -- but I think we need to retain a pardon power. It's a backstop against miscarriages of justice and excessive punishments. Obama issued I think about 2,000 pardons and commutations in total, mostly involving excessive sentences under since-softened drug laws, some 500 of which were for life. The mere existence of the power furnishes some hope to victims of an inarguably imperfect criminal justice system.
The idea of an ultimate appeal to the conscience of the sovereign is very old and, I think, very wise. It certainly predates our Enlightenment-inspired system of checks and balances and its fundamental distrust of power, but, like our similarly ancient idea of trial by jury, it is well justified by those same concerns.
I'm open to reform suggestions -- I like the idea of instituting at least some sort of formal process and formal justification -- but, as Zorn concedes, it's difficult to craft any reform with real teeth that would keep all the babies while throwing away all the bathwater. After all, even a presidential donor or buddy might have gotten a raw deal. I do doubt, however, that a president actually has the power to pardon himself. It's another old rule, probably also in Blackstone somewhere, fairly implicit in the pardon power itself: nobody may be the judge in his own case.
Re Trump pardoning himself, you say “I want this topic to come up at every debate, at every press gaggle, so that voters truly consider the insult a Trump reelection would be to the rule of law that the Republican party ostensibly embraces.”
The number of voters who want Trump re-elected but DON’T want him to pardon himself is zero. That’s what they’re voting FOR.
I also think that it is far better for the media and primary opponents to focus on the specifics of the charges. Shrug off the what-aboutism and political spin and make any defender explain why it was ok for Trump to mishandle national security documents, refuse to return them, and obstruct justice. Ask the elected officials and candidates if they would do the same things as Trump. Do you take national security documents home? Do you show them off to guests? Would you keep documents that the appropriate agency asked to have returned? Would you lie about having them, hide them, destroy them? Make the Pence/Biden diversion irrelevant. And on the debate stage and interviews, keep asking Trump why he thinks it was ok for him to do those things. And ask him why he kept the documents. Did he have nefarious plans or was he just handling national security like a personal trophy to show off at parties?
The idea of government mandating a convenience feature in all cars is so foreign to me that I need to do some work to get into the headspace of anyone favoring it. Can someone explain why the peculiar charms of A.M. MUST be preserved in our cars by law?
There should be a law that no president who fails to peacefully hand over the reins of office - after many reports from reasonable official agencies that the election has, indeed, been certified - shall be allowed to run, again, for office.
While things could change, it looks now like there will not be a real contest for the Democratic primary while there is one in the Republican party. So if you want to do all you can to keep Trump out of the white house then you should vote in the Republican primary even voting for the candidate that has the best chance if Trump is excluded.
Picking up on the Jack Smith in the rearview mirror tweet, that photo that's everywhere certainly makes Smith look tough and mean, but I was really underwhelmed by his on-camera announcement of the indictment, seen here:
Gosh, I was expecting something much, much stronger. I wanted him to hit the high points of the allegations, differentiate Trump from other cases, show why a criminal indictment was merited, acknowledge the gravity of charging a former president and potential future Biden opponent but forcefully explain that the choice was entirely his and his team's and the grand jury's and that Trump's conduct left him and them no choice under both the letter of the law and all norms of prosecutorial discretion.
I wanted him to say that *not* bringing charges under these circumstances would have amounted to special favors. I wanted him to say that Trump's crime is not mistakenly or carelessly retaining government secrets, nor even showing them off to "randos" at Mar-a-Lago (to quote Erick Erickson's tweet), but in his persistence in knowingly and intentionally holding himself above the law.
As Al Franken aptly put it on his podcast, Trump's crime is no mere slight variation on that committed by Biden, Pence, or Hillary Clinton -- it's more like the opposite. It's the difference between, on the one hand, walking out of the store forgetting you're still wearing the hat you tried on -- and then, mortified, returning it -- and, on the other, organizing one of those shoplifting rings and ludicrously claiming the loot is yours.
Also, in the little bit Smith did say, he seemed a little nervous and sounded like a kid, but I guess that's neither here nor there.
I dunno, why wasn't there any stagecraft in presenting this to the American people? It's a big deal and seemed to warrant it.
The AM piece reminds me of a great song I heard first on AM, back when we all listened to the Top 40 on WLS-AM or WCFL-AM. "FM (No Static at All)" by Steely Dan.
Two things: 1 - The scary thing is not just Trump himself. The really scary thing is the gigantic number of his supporters who would be happy to abandon democracy and make him the supreme dictator of this country. 2 - Re: the documents Trump hoarded – what were they doing at the White House in the first place? Shouldn’t they have been kept at the Pentagon?
In some cases classified documents are brought to the White House with the expectation that after briefing POTUS they would be returned. DT sometimes would ask to keep them. When told he couldn’t he sometimes kept them anyway and a staffer would be reluctant to tell him to give them back.
Agree with KB. The documents are also supposed to be properly stored, access restricted, and returned when the president leaves office. The fact that staffers apparently scooped up classified materials that were scattered willy-nilly in the WH demonstrates that they were not following even the most basic security procedures.
I agree that the presidential power to pardon needs to be restricted. But wouldn’t Trump still have a problem if he had a state criminal conviction?
I don’t think he can pardon himself if convicted in the Georgia criminal case (if that happens).
I expect Trump will avoid jail by fleeing to Saudi Arabia which has no extradition treaty with the US.
That seems more likely as I do not think he will win a second term - possible but improbable.
The New York charges are not going to involve any jail time; if the case against him in Georgia goes forward it will be a state charge, as I understand it, but it's been months since Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis described her charging decision as "imminent." And of course Georgia Gov. Kemp can and likely would pardon Trump there anyway.
I am not so certain that Kemp would pardon Trump
Willis announced weeks ago the remaining timetable, with charges (whatever er they may be) in August. She faces the complication that the Georgia legislature passed a bill allowing it to replace a district attorney before the end of that official's term. Replacing her with a Republican who would swiftly drop the charges was probably one of the principal reasons for that move. How she can navigate that minefield--if it's as I understand it, a big caveat--isn't at all clear. I appreciate that she's trying to do what's possible in the face of that reality. I'd love to learn that there's a feasible course.
The Georgia case is a total loser, in my view -- the worst case of the bunch. I listened to the whole call. The gist is, "I'm hearing that there all these problems with the vote. I think I won when you correct for that. I'm only behind by a little bit, all I need is a little bit to change the outcome. I've got that, I've got more than that, as you'll discover when you look into this, as you really should, because I'm getting screwed here."
Under any impartial view of that call in its whole context, I think, he was not actually asking Raffensperger to somehow fabricate vote totals, nor even really implying that he should do that or else. Think of it this way: a candidate who was *actually being screwed* might have fairly said just what he said on that call. I think the law will easily allow Trump his delusions for purposes of the call. After all, I'm sure he really was hearing that he was getting screwed, and I have every confidence he's brilliant at believing what he wants to hear.
It seems you think that Trump is popular in Georgia - see last few Georgia Senate races. If Gov. Kemp will pardon Trump - why not announce it now for maximum impact?
I think as a politician he will wait to see if that will be a good move - certainly not a done deal as you seem to think. And yes there needs to be a trial and conviction first.
I agree the New York case does not involve jail time but it already has limited the Trump business organization from grifting profits. Trump is hurting for cash and is using the charges against him to drum up needed money for his defense. I wonder how much money if any is going to his election campaign. As his court time goes up so does hourly lawyer bills.
I think the race is on, Donald Trump is a coward and can not handle ANY jail time (month…2 months) and will run to Saudi Arabia if that situation happens.
Right now I think things are up for grabs and there is not a clear outcome of Trump getting pardoned everywhere.
I also wondered if the Feds would argue that Trump was a flight risk and as for no bail. But that also made me wonder what the duty of his Secret Service detail was regarding preventing him from illicit travel or in ensuring his appearance at trial. Maybe the judge can task the SS with the responsibility to deliver Trump with confinement at Mar-a-Lago during the trial.
Love the additional visual tweet-esp a ghostly Jack Smith in the rear view--saw you posted the BB and B on FB last week. I'd say there's some pretty interesting reading material in that bathroom!
I didn't recognize the face as being Jack Smith. Now it is pretty funny and not just sort of creepy.
The ability to pardon should probably be eliminated. I wonder how many pardons have been other than politically motivated. But I expect legislation on pardons about the same time as we get legislation to ban gerrymandering. I also think that the tide has turned on Trump and his political support. He called for huge protests at his arraignment and got a few hundred supporters, which is the same as the New York case. I expect that even the weaseliest GOP supporters of Trump will start to see the shift. Maybe Trump will get the full 75 year jail sentence which can then be commuted to 30 years. The faster the trial proceeds the better.
I heartily agree with outlawing partisan gerrymandering across the board -- excellent candidate for a constitutional amendment -- but I think we need to retain a pardon power. It's a backstop against miscarriages of justice and excessive punishments. Obama issued I think about 2,000 pardons and commutations in total, mostly involving excessive sentences under since-softened drug laws, some 500 of which were for life. The mere existence of the power furnishes some hope to victims of an inarguably imperfect criminal justice system.
The idea of an ultimate appeal to the conscience of the sovereign is very old and, I think, very wise. It certainly predates our Enlightenment-inspired system of checks and balances and its fundamental distrust of power, but, like our similarly ancient idea of trial by jury, it is well justified by those same concerns.
I'm open to reform suggestions -- I like the idea of instituting at least some sort of formal process and formal justification -- but, as Zorn concedes, it's difficult to craft any reform with real teeth that would keep all the babies while throwing away all the bathwater. After all, even a presidential donor or buddy might have gotten a raw deal. I do doubt, however, that a president actually has the power to pardon himself. It's another old rule, probably also in Blackstone somewhere, fairly implicit in the pardon power itself: nobody may be the judge in his own case.
Re Trump pardoning himself, you say “I want this topic to come up at every debate, at every press gaggle, so that voters truly consider the insult a Trump reelection would be to the rule of law that the Republican party ostensibly embraces.”
The number of voters who want Trump re-elected but DON’T want him to pardon himself is zero. That’s what they’re voting FOR.
I also think that it is far better for the media and primary opponents to focus on the specifics of the charges. Shrug off the what-aboutism and political spin and make any defender explain why it was ok for Trump to mishandle national security documents, refuse to return them, and obstruct justice. Ask the elected officials and candidates if they would do the same things as Trump. Do you take national security documents home? Do you show them off to guests? Would you keep documents that the appropriate agency asked to have returned? Would you lie about having them, hide them, destroy them? Make the Pence/Biden diversion irrelevant. And on the debate stage and interviews, keep asking Trump why he thinks it was ok for him to do those things. And ask him why he kept the documents. Did he have nefarious plans or was he just handling national security like a personal trophy to show off at parties?
The idea of government mandating a convenience feature in all cars is so foreign to me that I need to do some work to get into the headspace of anyone favoring it. Can someone explain why the peculiar charms of A.M. MUST be preserved in our cars by law?
I'm a lifelong fan of AM radio, but I have yet to hear a persuasive argument for the government to require it in all new cars.
There should be a law that no president who fails to peacefully hand over the reins of office - after many reports from reasonable official agencies that the election has, indeed, been certified - shall be allowed to run, again, for office.
Pretty easy to make the case that Trump is a flight risk: He has a 757 with his name on it.
Why are they called tension rods? They work only if they are in compression.
Kevin McCarthy says that bathroom doors have locks. But I have never seen one that you can lock while you are not in it.
Interesting. Thanks. I can't imagine that Trump actually would read any documents himself.
Re: Republican Primary
While things could change, it looks now like there will not be a real contest for the Democratic primary while there is one in the Republican party. So if you want to do all you can to keep Trump out of the white house then you should vote in the Republican primary even voting for the candidate that has the best chance if Trump is excluded.
Picking up on the Jack Smith in the rearview mirror tweet, that photo that's everywhere certainly makes Smith look tough and mean, but I was really underwhelmed by his on-camera announcement of the indictment, seen here:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?528657-1/special-counsel-jack-smith-delivers-statement-indictment-president-trump
Gosh, I was expecting something much, much stronger. I wanted him to hit the high points of the allegations, differentiate Trump from other cases, show why a criminal indictment was merited, acknowledge the gravity of charging a former president and potential future Biden opponent but forcefully explain that the choice was entirely his and his team's and the grand jury's and that Trump's conduct left him and them no choice under both the letter of the law and all norms of prosecutorial discretion.
I wanted him to say that *not* bringing charges under these circumstances would have amounted to special favors. I wanted him to say that Trump's crime is not mistakenly or carelessly retaining government secrets, nor even showing them off to "randos" at Mar-a-Lago (to quote Erick Erickson's tweet), but in his persistence in knowingly and intentionally holding himself above the law.
As Al Franken aptly put it on his podcast, Trump's crime is no mere slight variation on that committed by Biden, Pence, or Hillary Clinton -- it's more like the opposite. It's the difference between, on the one hand, walking out of the store forgetting you're still wearing the hat you tried on -- and then, mortified, returning it -- and, on the other, organizing one of those shoplifting rings and ludicrously claiming the loot is yours.
Also, in the little bit Smith did say, he seemed a little nervous and sounded like a kid, but I guess that's neither here nor there.
I dunno, why wasn't there any stagecraft in presenting this to the American people? It's a big deal and seemed to warrant it.
Trump has a cavalier attitude toward most rules and regulations and his staff are afraid to question anything he does.