US Politics: Cancelling Democracy

[Martell Spy]

29 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I want to see this chode perp walked as much as anyone, but idk if this is the crime that makes the most sense to get him on.  My understanding is that the criminal threshold for incitement is extremely high.  And maybe it should remain pretty high.  I think the hearings are right move, but I'm not sure they necessarily need to lead to criminal charges against him to be effective in cutting his power/ influence.  Also, there's still a ton of financial crimes he's guilty of that might be less dicey to charge him with.

 

 

I think the frustration is that it appears he will walk away from all of it, everything. At the state level included. Also it appears Congress is investigating Trump far harder than the DOJ. You could call that efficient I guess, but DOJ has better powers to investigate than anyone.

Exhaustive as the House is being, it's possible they'll miss something that DOJ might not have. Maybe Trump did worse, hard as that is to imagine.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I want to see this chode perp walked as much as anyone, but idk if this is the crime that makes the most sense to get him on.  My understanding is that the criminal threshold for incitement is extremely high.  And maybe it should remain pretty high.  I think the hearings are right move, but I'm not sure they necessarily need to lead to criminal charges against him to be effective in cutting his power/ influence.  Also, there's still a ton of financial crimes he's guilty of that might be less dicey to charge him with.

 

 

No. What’s the point of having laws if what Trump did is not a crime?

[butterbumps!]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No. What’s the point of having laws if what Trump did is not a crime?

Because when our side says to get confrontational and that “we’ll fight them in the streets,” they shouldn’t be charged with incitement too?   

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Well, seeing as how the Condescending Asshole cup is up for grabs:

 

This was so absurdly not condescending asshole - you've got to try harder man

[DMC]

On the disappointment of not prosecuting Trump, there was an interesting interview with Andrew Weissmann yesterday, one of the lead prosecutors of the Mueller team (granted, it's a bit ironic that a lead prosecutor of that investigation is speaking out against the DOJ's failure to prosecute Trump).  He made the obvious point that the DOJ was never interested from the get-go in going after Trump just by the nature of how they conducted the investigation:

Quote

Khardori: The notion of a “bottom-up” investigation based on the actual riot at the Capitol — one that would also reasonably address all of the concerns about conduct by Trump and others in the White House as we knew it early last year — never made a whole lot of sense to me.

Weissmann: Yeah, I don’t think that was the goal. I think the problem is that I don’t think that there was any interest to have that be the goal. I think the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office, with assistance from Main Justice, was tasked with looking at the riot and prosecuting the people who participated in it.

And yes, the Attorney General said, “we’ll follow where it goes,” which of course you’re going to say. And it’s true. I don’t doubt that. But that’s one type of investigation. That is not an investigation into “Was there anyone in the White House, up to and including the former president, who was orchestrating a plan to undermine the democratic vote in the last election?” Which would have multiple prongs to it.

It’s not like the department didn’t know that. There were various aspects that they eventually got involved in, such as the fake electors. But there was so much that was left aside, so I don’t think that the goal was, “Oh, have D.C do this bottom-up, and eventually it’ll sort of blossom into this longer thing.” I think that wasn’t part of the plan.

On where this belief comes from, a lot of it has to do with recent history - namely starting with Nixon.  Ever since then conservatives have advanced the "unitary executive theory."  This informs the two memos published by the OLC in 1973 and 2000 concluding the president cannot be prosecuted.  And, yes, this has to do with this country's mythologizing the Founders/Framers, but this is a tool rather than the cause.  E.G. (from the 2000 memo):

Quote

To the extent that the convention did debate the timing of impeachment relative to indictment, the brief explained, the convention records “ show that the Framers contemplated that this sequence should be mandatory only as to the President.” Id. Moreover, the remarks contained in those records “ strongly suggest an understanding that the President, as Chief Executive, would not be subject to the ordinary criminal process.” Id. The Framers’ “ assumption that the President would not be subject to criminal process” did not, however, rest on a general principle applicable to all civil officers. Id. Instead, the assumption was “ based upon the crucial nature of his executive powers.” Id. As the brief stated:

The President’s immunity rests not only upon the matters just discussed but also upon his unique constitutional position and powers .... There are substantial reasons, embedded not only in the constitutional framework but in the exigencies of government, for distinguishing in this regard between the President and all lesser officers including the Vice President. (233)

Of course, this is all total bullshit, as detailed here:

Quote

Perhaps the most important point that emerges from a review of all the opinions is this: only once has the United States addressed the question of whether a president can be an unindicted co-conspirator. The conclusion was an unequivocal yes. Richard Nixon was so named in the Watergate indictment, and that inclusion was sustained by Judge John Sirica and defended by the United States in United States v. Nixon. (The Supreme Court did not resolve the question.) No department opinion or filing has ever contradicted that position. The fact that it is permissible to name a sitting president as unindicted co-conspirator, moreover, tends significantly to undermine the only argument against indicting a sitting president.

Anyway, such bullshit is not where Garland/Biden's reticence is coming from - albeit they are certainly aware it's where this SC will land if they ever did try to prosecute Trump (which presents a further obstacle).  Their reticence is simply the concern of your standard institutionalist that would always be worried about the instability (not to mention political capital costs) that often comes with a current regime prosecuting its predecessor.  That's not a uniquely American worry.  And again, while I think they're wrong in this case, this was all pretty clear when Biden nominated Garland. 

[Kalbear]

Awesome, guy who claimed BLM set fire to his house and milked people for donations shockingly lied and set fire to their own house:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/07/13/trump-supporter-arson-charges-molla/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_source=twitter

 

[James Arryn]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The mythological status with which Americans hold the Founding Fathers is absolutely problematic.  You short essay here is very well stated… may I share it?

Sorry, fell asleep…down with some bug. Anyways, feel free and thanks for the kind words.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

32 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Sorry, fell asleep…down with some bug. Anyways, feel free and thanks for the kind words.

You’re welcome.  Feel better.

[Martell Spy]

Trump discussing 2024 plans at secret donor dinners
The former president recently gathered big donors for small off-the-record discussions in three cities in recent weeks.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/13/trump-2024-secret-donor-dinners-00045665
 

Quote

 

Donald Trump has quietly convened some of his wealthiest and highest-profile supporters for intimate dinners in recent weeks, where the groups have talked about the former president’s 2024 election plans — and debated when he should make his expected comeback bid official.

The gatherings have taken place in Houston, Nashville and, last Friday evening, in Las Vegas, where billionaire casino mogul and longtime Trump friend Phil Ruffin implored the ex-president to launch another run for the White House soon. The consensus has been that Trump should run again — the only question being when he should announce, with most echoing Ruffin’s view but others saying Trump would be better served by waiting until after the midterm elections.

 

 

[ThinkerX]

8 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump discussing 2024 plans at secret donor dinners
The former president recently gathered big donors for small off-the-record discussions in three cities in recent weeks.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/13/trump-2024-secret-donor-dinners-00045665
 

 

Somehow, I can imagine Trump announcing he is going to run, holding a few rallies, collecting lots of big bucks...and then going 'Nah, changed my mind, thanks for the money'

[IheartIheartTesla]

Trump is the only candidate who Biden might actually beat. Granted, thats a big risk, someone should do a game theoretic analysis of possible outcomes against possible risks.

I read somewhere (might by NYT/Siena poll) that the House race showed remarkable signs of tightness, but I dont buy it. The fundamentals havent changed since Dobbs, and it didnt seem to shift the polls much past the noise (although 538 said it was too soon to tell).

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

I think the frustration is that it appears he will walk away from all of it, everything. At the state level included.

Speaking of this - not to mention conservatives completely making up utter bullshit arguments - Graham seeks to quash grand jury subpoena in Trump Georgia probe.

Quote

Graham intends to ask a federal judge to quash the subpoena on the grounds that he cannot be compelled to testify because his conversations with state officials were part of his official conduct as a legislator, according to copies of the filings provided to The Hill by Graham’s lawyers.

“Senator Graham’s contact with Georgia officials referenced in the Certificate falls within the ‘legislative sphere’ because it was to gather information relevant to his oversight responsibilities as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and given his obligations under the Electoral Count Act of 1887,” the filing reads. [...]

But the South Carolina Republican is arguing the Constitution prohibits state judicial proceedings from compelling the testimony of a federal legislator if it relates to his official conduct.

.....Uh, what?  You can't testify because you were doing your "official duties" as an elected official?  That premise is even more absurd than their use of the unitary executive theory.

[Jace, Extat]

7 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I want to see this chode perp walked as much as anyone, but idk if this is the crime that makes the most sense to get him on.  My understanding is that the criminal threshold for incitement is extremely high.  And maybe it should remain pretty high.  I think the hearings are right move, but I'm not sure they necessarily need to lead to criminal charges against him to be effective in cutting his power/ influence.  Also, there's still a ton of financial crimes he's guilty of that might be less dicey to charge him with.

 

 

Ah, the old "it's too dangerous to charge him for treason, maybe we can get him for tax fraud" stage of the democratic grief process. 

Depression is right around the corner, and that'll be hard. But by November we will all have transferred gracefully to Acceptance. 

I wonder if Trump will promise to pardon all the traitors before or after the midterms. Y'know, when he announces he's winning in 2024.

[RaymondD]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Speaking of this - not to mention conservatives completely making up utter bullshit arguments - Graham seeks to quash grand jury subpoena in Trump Georgia probe.

.....Uh, what?  You can't testify because you were doing your "official duties" as an elected official?  That premise is even more absurd than their use of the unitary executive theory.

It's plausible to me that the execution of governmental duties should be shielded somewhat from harassing claims, but that can't be permitted to prevent the effective prosecution of criminal activity. I'm not a legal type person by any means, but isn't this the kind of thing that a judge can hear in camera?

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, RaymondD said:

It's plausible to me that the execution of governmental duties should be shielded somewhat from harassing claims

In certain cases, sure.  Definitely not when it comes to his duties related to certifying the presidential election.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Because when our side says to get confrontational and that “we’ll fight them in the streets,” they shouldn’t be charged with incitement too?   

I just don't think that's a strong comparison. And Trump could be arrested for a number of things. That phone call with the GA SoS alone should have landed his ass in jail.

 

[butterbumps!]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

On the disappointment of not prosecuting Trump, there was an interesting interview with Andrew Weissmann yesterday, one of the lead prosecutors of the Mueller team (granted, it's a bit ironic that a lead prosecutor of that investigation is speaking out against the DOJ's failure to prosecute Trump).  He made the obvious point that the DOJ was never interested from the get-go in going after Trump just by the nature of how they conducted the investigation:

On where this belief comes from, a lot of it has to do with recent history - namely starting with Nixon.  Ever since then conservatives have advanced the "unitary executive theory."  This informs the two memos published by the OLC in 1973 and 2000 concluding the president cannot be prosecuted.  And, yes, this has to do with this country's mythologizing the Founders/Framers, but this is a tool rather than the cause.  E.G. (from the 2000 memo):

Of course, this is all total bullshit, as detailed here:

Anyway, such bullshit is not where Garland/Biden's reticence is coming from - albeit they are certainly aware it's where this SC will land if they ever did try to prosecute Trump (which presents a further obstacle).  Their reticence is simply the concern of your standard institutionalist that would always be worried about the instability (not to mention political capital costs) that often comes with a current regime prosecuting its predecessor.  That's not a uniquely American worry.  And again, while I think they're wrong in this case, this was all pretty clear when Biden nominated Garland. 

Is the reticence about prosecuting him for any crime or specifically the subject of the hearings?  

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I just don't think that's a strong comparison. And Trump could be arrested for a number of things. That phone call with the GA SoS alone should have landed his ass in jail.

In the trial of public opinion, yea he's guilty as sin and that's a smoking gun, but I really think that convicting someone for "inciting a riot" (or tampering the votes with that phone call) is almost impossible.  My understanding is that the crimes that are the subject of the hearing have an insanely high bar, so I'm not super worked up about not going after him for incitement.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

Is the reticence about prosecuting him for any crime or specifically the subject of the hearings?  

Much more the former, within reason.  It's the same rationale Obama used when he made it clear upon entering office he was not going to pursue prosecution of the Bush administration.  Now, I thought that was a mistake in terms of not going after certain other officials within Dubya's administration, but I did agree at the time with Obama's determination to put the kibosh on prosecuting Dubya himself pretty much immediately (or IIRC before he even took office).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

In the trial of public opinion, yea he's guilty as sin and that's a smoking gun, but I really think that convicting someone for "inciting a riot" is almost impossible.  My understanding is that the crimes that are the subject of the hearing have an insanely high bar, so I'm not super worked up about not going after him for incitement.

At this point the J6C has established that those around Trump were aware that there was a premeditated plan to send the crowd to the Capitol, and that the goal was to in someway disrupt the certification process. And then that happened exactly as planned. The crowd would not have done so without Trump egging them on. If that's not incitement then word then had no meaning. 

The problem is as was laid out above, there's no intent to actually go after Trump. They simply lack the guts and will to do so. Another wonderful example of Democratic leaders not recognizing they're in a fight and are totally unprepared. Wunderbar... 

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

At this point the J6C has established that those around Trump were aware that there was a premeditated plan to send the crowd to the Capitol, and that the goal was to in someway disrupt the certification process. And then that happened exactly as planned. The crowd would not have done so without Trump egging them on. If that's not incitement then word then had no meaning. 

The problem is as was laid out above, there's no intent to actually go after Trump. They simply lack the guts and will to do so. Another wonderful example of Democratic leaders not recognizing they're in a fight and are totally unprepared. Wunderbar... 

You people still don't understand what you're fighting against. 

Police, corporations, politicians, and now the very 'justice' department itself implicitly (at LEAST) condone the use of political violence towards objectives explicitly subversive to the concept of shared democratic institutions and traditions. They will not be punished for this. 

They support such practices towards the purpose of removing individual autonomy and diluting the capacity for popular will to be enacted through peaceful means. 

You're in a war and you're losing so badly that you still think you're in one country.