Since his election, I have striven (strived?) to hold on to a glimmer of hope that conservatives of good conscience and strong patriotism would stand up and speak truth and good sense, followed by honest voting. I look to writers like Jay, Simon Rosenberg, Joyce Vance and the other sisters in law, Dan Rather and a few others to help me maintain an even keel. The degree of philosophical turmoil in the body politic is stunning but not as much as the overt antagonism toward fellow citizens stemming from disinformation and misinformation. What I had thought unequivocal is the notion that no one is above the law. I don’t believe it’s true in practice. I thought the Nixon era had brought common understanding of the red lines around the actions of a president. I’ve held onto the belief that basic education in civics and law would further open the eyes of the conservatives who saw the dangers ahead of electing a narcissistic ego maniac and bring them to vote against him.
I’m ashamed of my naïveté. It saddens me that my expectations and hopes for restorative outcomes of the trials ongoing and pending is so weak. But I’m grateful to you, Jay, and to the members of this community who continue to bring out and collectively consider the truth of our current situation.
Trump gets way too much credit for his Court picks. He was presented with a list of Federalist Society approved nominees and told to pick one. Every single one of the options Trump had to pick from was vetted for their willingness to overturn Roe. If he'd tried to pick a different nominee McConnell would never have allowed them to be confirmed.
Both Bushes are just as much to blame as Trump. Sure, Trump had three picks, but that was purely McConnell's doing. Overturning Roe was a team effort by the Republicans. McConnell deserves MVP. Trump deserves a participation trophy; he just supplied the nominees a Republican President was supposed to.
"Amy Coney Barrett, who voted with the conservative supermajority to strike down Roe, is now witnessing many of the real-life consequences of that decision, and she appears distressed by them."
I have no patience for this. She seems reasonably intelligent. This was predicted by people with a lot fewer legal chops than she has.
And the immunity hearing has me wanting to bang my head against the wall. I would do that, but this country is making me feel so dumb that I can't afford to knock loose what little brain matter I have left.
"Few observers believe the Court will rule Trump’s way. After all, if Trump is right, then it opens our nation up to rule by a dictator, unrestrained by anything but the power of the Senate to remove him from office, which requires a nearly insurmountable two-thirds vote. Most are predicting a 7-2 or 8-1 decision against him. (And the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas has not recused himself, given his own wife’s involvement in January 6, should be much bigger headlines.)"
Well it looks like the Few observers were right, at least based on the reporting on the hearing today. It is truly terrifying, my head is spinning.
John Sauer, representing trump, was obviously so happy with the direction of the hearing he declined to offer a rebuttal.
Jammed write-up today, Jay, and let me mention the just-concluded arguments at the Supreme Court in re: tRump immunity and the DC indictment. A perhaps not-surprising lot of sympathy for tRump's position by the right-wingers on the Court, who apparently hold that the president-as-king notion has some purchase, at least as far as "official acts" go. And what constitute "official acts" may likely be punted back on remand to Judge Chutkan's trial, where she will be charged with those determinations, and whose determinations OF COURSE will be subject to further appeals.
SC Smith may be placed in the position of dropping a couple of counts that arguably- or tendentiously - embrace "official acts", in the necessity of getting the trial back to some semblance of schedule without any chance of delay-by-appeal. So, upshot is, *some* immunity for tRump, a partial loss to accountability and the democratic order, and perhaps a trial restart, depending how long the Justices want to spin out a final decision. Won't be soon, by any reckoning.
And as an aside, Justice Coney Barrett made a point about "state and local" prosecution of a former president as perhaps *more* deserving of an immunity claim as opposed to a federal indictment, and that notion may have been anticipated by prosecutors in AZ and MI excluding tRump from their respective fake electors indictments. Which suggests that tRump's GA indictment *may* be on shakier grounds than previously imagined...a lot of pieces still in play, so stay tuned.
BTW, some excellent live-blogging by Kate Riga at TPM, and her reporting is well worth reading here:
The 23 point perception gap is quite interesting; the difference in perception is that these men also think that they respect women (and are mistaken in both).
Should Biden win in the fall, I would hope that any pending prosecutions of DJT would continue and not be dropped in the interest of "National Reconciliation," ala Nixon's post Watergate pardon.
“Although the court appears likely to reject Trump’s expansive claim of absolute immunity, it could remand the case for further proceedings, further delaying the chance of a trial taking place before the election” The court’s concern looks like they think the ruling could be over broad. What would prevent a future president from pressing charges against a former one? Wouldn’t the severity of the crime be a good indicator? Plotting the overthrow of the constitutionally elected government might be a good benchmark.
It would be nice if the rats started fleeing the sinking MAGA ship, but most are far too cowardly to do anything other than continue their sycophantic devotion to the bloviating orange snowflake. I can't understand how anyone can listen to his constant whining and think he's anything other than a sad, angry dufus. . . .
I'm glad to see Arizona indicting more of the GQP scum. I agree with the point that running up the legal fees will hopefully take resources away from the GQP's typical propaganda efforts leading up to the election.
The Roberts' Kangaroo court is proving themselves to be not only deeply corrupt and incompetent out-of-touch partisan hacks in case after case. Roberts in particular is showing himself to be an insensitive, evil, asshat in the Oregon Homeless case and the Idaho Abortion case.
And a weakened Trump, with his party in disarray, opens the door just a tad wider, perhaps enough to allow for greater courage from a few Republicans willing to buck the extremists, whether in the U.S. or the Arizona House.
I think that the calculus of Speaker Johnson on Ukraine aid is that maga is on the way out and he's no longer in fear of being primaried by someone more in trumps favor. (I almost wrote someone farther to his right but Attila the Hun isn't eligible. )
On the immunity case, I totally agree on immunity for "official acts". Elections are not official acts of the president which I thought was already established? And I would have to assume acts of trying to stay in power after losing said election is definitely not considered an "official" act. I can see how they may strip down some of the charges but come on, nothing he did was in the course or interest of actually running the country. It's scary to think that they could come down on the side of "absolute immunity" to protect him for what he did. And honestly I don't see the concern that if they don't side with trump that it would truly affect the official jobs of future presidents. You only have to worry about illegal acts if you are commiting illegal acts right?
If SCOTUS rules president has immunity, can Joe Biden order seal team six to eliminate a corrupt political rival?
Since his election, I have striven (strived?) to hold on to a glimmer of hope that conservatives of good conscience and strong patriotism would stand up and speak truth and good sense, followed by honest voting. I look to writers like Jay, Simon Rosenberg, Joyce Vance and the other sisters in law, Dan Rather and a few others to help me maintain an even keel. The degree of philosophical turmoil in the body politic is stunning but not as much as the overt antagonism toward fellow citizens stemming from disinformation and misinformation. What I had thought unequivocal is the notion that no one is above the law. I don’t believe it’s true in practice. I thought the Nixon era had brought common understanding of the red lines around the actions of a president. I’ve held onto the belief that basic education in civics and law would further open the eyes of the conservatives who saw the dangers ahead of electing a narcissistic ego maniac and bring them to vote against him.
I’m ashamed of my naïveté. It saddens me that my expectations and hopes for restorative outcomes of the trials ongoing and pending is so weak. But I’m grateful to you, Jay, and to the members of this community who continue to bring out and collectively consider the truth of our current situation.
Trump gets way too much credit for his Court picks. He was presented with a list of Federalist Society approved nominees and told to pick one. Every single one of the options Trump had to pick from was vetted for their willingness to overturn Roe. If he'd tried to pick a different nominee McConnell would never have allowed them to be confirmed.
Both Bushes are just as much to blame as Trump. Sure, Trump had three picks, but that was purely McConnell's doing. Overturning Roe was a team effort by the Republicans. McConnell deserves MVP. Trump deserves a participation trophy; he just supplied the nominees a Republican President was supposed to.
"Amy Coney Barrett, who voted with the conservative supermajority to strike down Roe, is now witnessing many of the real-life consequences of that decision, and she appears distressed by them."
I have no patience for this. She seems reasonably intelligent. This was predicted by people with a lot fewer legal chops than she has.
And the immunity hearing has me wanting to bang my head against the wall. I would do that, but this country is making me feel so dumb that I can't afford to knock loose what little brain matter I have left.
"Few observers believe the Court will rule Trump’s way. After all, if Trump is right, then it opens our nation up to rule by a dictator, unrestrained by anything but the power of the Senate to remove him from office, which requires a nearly insurmountable two-thirds vote. Most are predicting a 7-2 or 8-1 decision against him. (And the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas has not recused himself, given his own wife’s involvement in January 6, should be much bigger headlines.)"
Well it looks like the Few observers were right, at least based on the reporting on the hearing today. It is truly terrifying, my head is spinning.
John Sauer, representing trump, was obviously so happy with the direction of the hearing he declined to offer a rebuttal.
Jammed write-up today, Jay, and let me mention the just-concluded arguments at the Supreme Court in re: tRump immunity and the DC indictment. A perhaps not-surprising lot of sympathy for tRump's position by the right-wingers on the Court, who apparently hold that the president-as-king notion has some purchase, at least as far as "official acts" go. And what constitute "official acts" may likely be punted back on remand to Judge Chutkan's trial, where she will be charged with those determinations, and whose determinations OF COURSE will be subject to further appeals.
SC Smith may be placed in the position of dropping a couple of counts that arguably- or tendentiously - embrace "official acts", in the necessity of getting the trial back to some semblance of schedule without any chance of delay-by-appeal. So, upshot is, *some* immunity for tRump, a partial loss to accountability and the democratic order, and perhaps a trial restart, depending how long the Justices want to spin out a final decision. Won't be soon, by any reckoning.
And as an aside, Justice Coney Barrett made a point about "state and local" prosecution of a former president as perhaps *more* deserving of an immunity claim as opposed to a federal indictment, and that notion may have been anticipated by prosecutors in AZ and MI excluding tRump from their respective fake electors indictments. Which suggests that tRump's GA indictment *may* be on shakier grounds than previously imagined...a lot of pieces still in play, so stay tuned.
BTW, some excellent live-blogging by Kate Riga at TPM, and her reporting is well worth reading here:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/live-blog/trump-immunity-supreme-court
The 23 point perception gap is quite interesting; the difference in perception is that these men also think that they respect women (and are mistaken in both).
Should Biden win in the fall, I would hope that any pending prosecutions of DJT would continue and not be dropped in the interest of "National Reconciliation," ala Nixon's post Watergate pardon.
Listening to SCOTUS CONSERVATIVES in immunity hearing, what popped into my mind:
Oh what a tangled web we weave
Listening to spiders
Spew specious sophistry
Most men never give women the respect they deserve.
Know how I know this?
I hear of very few matriarchies.
“Although the court appears likely to reject Trump’s expansive claim of absolute immunity, it could remand the case for further proceedings, further delaying the chance of a trial taking place before the election” The court’s concern looks like they think the ruling could be over broad. What would prevent a future president from pressing charges against a former one? Wouldn’t the severity of the crime be a good indicator? Plotting the overthrow of the constitutionally elected government might be a good benchmark.
Thanks Jay.
It would be nice if the rats started fleeing the sinking MAGA ship, but most are far too cowardly to do anything other than continue their sycophantic devotion to the bloviating orange snowflake. I can't understand how anyone can listen to his constant whining and think he's anything other than a sad, angry dufus. . . .
I'm glad to see Arizona indicting more of the GQP scum. I agree with the point that running up the legal fees will hopefully take resources away from the GQP's typical propaganda efforts leading up to the election.
The Roberts' Kangaroo court is proving themselves to be not only deeply corrupt and incompetent out-of-touch partisan hacks in case after case. Roberts in particular is showing himself to be an insensitive, evil, asshat in the Oregon Homeless case and the Idaho Abortion case.
I can’t help but believe that jack smith has all possible outcomes covered and is ready to go immediately.
And a weakened Trump, with his party in disarray, opens the door just a tad wider, perhaps enough to allow for greater courage from a few Republicans willing to buck the extremists, whether in the U.S. or the Arizona House.
I think that the calculus of Speaker Johnson on Ukraine aid is that maga is on the way out and he's no longer in fear of being primaried by someone more in trumps favor. (I almost wrote someone farther to his right but Attila the Hun isn't eligible. )
A massive rejection of the GOP? Lordy I hope you are right. Those elections in Az have been way closer than they ever should’ve been.
We will see if the outrageous abortion laws will bring out voters. It did here in Ohio so I am hopeful. Not optimistic but hopeful.
On the immunity case, I totally agree on immunity for "official acts". Elections are not official acts of the president which I thought was already established? And I would have to assume acts of trying to stay in power after losing said election is definitely not considered an "official" act. I can see how they may strip down some of the charges but come on, nothing he did was in the course or interest of actually running the country. It's scary to think that they could come down on the side of "absolute immunity" to protect him for what he did. And honestly I don't see the concern that if they don't side with trump that it would truly affect the official jobs of future presidents. You only have to worry about illegal acts if you are commiting illegal acts right?