People have been saying that at least since Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq. Actually, people have been saying that when Ross Perot ran in, what was it - 1992?
Hmm, apparently Karma does eventually smack people upside the head! Here’s to the Republicans who are currently reaping the crop they expressly sowed, because they believed it would “own the libs”” looks to me like they ended up owning themselves!
I'm not so sure it was all about "owning the libs," I believe a LOT of these folks saw the potential to enhance their own bank accounts, name recognition, and personal "glory." IOW, they'd be "celebrities" like TFG, recognized on the street, schmoozing with a Kardashian or two (or an ex of one of them), has beens like Ted Nugent . . . from their small corner of the universe (I'm looking at you, Large Marge) the hint of the 15 minutes (well, now years) of fame was too much to resist.
You know that is Trump's drive. He loves him some dictators and Oligarchs because they found a way to take the wealth of a nation and make it theirs, and he wants nothing more to become one...
That's actually a bit fuzzy. As a rule of thumb, we do refer to people by the highest office they ever reached, even after leaving office. For instance, we are still using Mayor Guiliani or Senator Boxer. Similarly, President Obama.
Although I hope in Trump's case, we can soon change the rule to the lowest title he earned, inmate 1234567 (assuming, of course, that guilt can be proven in a court of law - even he is entitled to due process).
You're right, Kevin, and if Pence had said "President Trump" it would have been correct (although I certainly grit my teeth when that title is used for a man so unworthy of it). But what Pence said was "the President," and that terminology should be reserved for the person presently holding the office. It's a quibble, I know, but an example of the constant petty disrespect shown by Republicans to President Biden.
I cringe when I hear Mike Flynn being referred to as GENERAL. If ever there was anyone unworthy of that title, it is that traitor. That man does NOT deserve the honor bestowed upon a man who should be called General. He should've been stripped of his pension, his retirement, and especially his title. Makes me all kinda stabby when they call him General Michael Flynn. grrrrrrr....
I agree wholeheartedly regarding Flynn. Should have been dishonorably discharged and lost any privileges connected to his "service".
As for the more common "ex" President/Senator/Governor/General, being referred to by their full title as if they still had it after they DON'T is just a feed to their ego. Their accomplishment in reaching some position is adequately recognized by referring to them as "former" or, as I often do see for military folks, "Admiral So-and-so, retired". Not as good as putting the "former" up front, but at least it notes they no longer hold the title.
"Nikki Haley, whose views on everything seem to change as soon as a light red breeze blows, signaled a shift in tone over her old boss" .... well put! She is one of the biggest flip floppers I have ever seen. She changes her tune literally within minutes when it's politically expedient.
She wants to be President SO BADLY she will say or do anything (or anybody) she thinks will get her there. Naked ambition on display, and I cannot wait to see the claws come out when she, MTG, and Bobo get eye to eye as they are just as ambitious and unscrupulous as she is.
Very helpful summary; thank you. I especially enjoyed Christie’s summary. On a lexical note, I do hope that we as a nation can eradicate the misogynist phrase “witch hunt” from our vocabulary.
I would call it the opposite of misogynistic. Using this term in this context is an admission of historically having wronged a minority. The term implies that the (mostly) females involved were innocent and the ones perpetrating the hunt were the evil ones.
That's more than true for most people and I very much appreciate that viewpoint, Kevin. However, knowing Trump and his ilk, they probably interpret 'witch hunt' to mean Trump is being hunted by witches. So, yes, backwards but still misogynistic.
My concern goes much further than this context. I see the expression as misogynistic because of the characterization of strong women as fair game to be “hunted,” as historically we were/are. In this context, the indicted man is paradoxically portraying himself as a victim (a “hunted witch,” if you will) which also rubs me the wrong way that he would align himself with such wise women.
I don't really see any use of this phrase that could be interpreted as women being "fair game for a hunt" because that would imply that witch hunts were justified. But as usual, reasonable people can disagree, and thanks for educating me on that different viewpoint.
I think we are witnessing the death throes of the GOP, a death caused, like those during Covid, by TFG. No one with any modicum of common sense or credibility can view the nature of those documents that man so cavalierly handled against any need to have him anywhere near our national security again. I am also somewhat shocked that it was only Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski who had the cujones to say the obvious when the indictment was first unsealed. Just as they did when voting to impeach. That shows integrity and value for our country, Constitution, and democracy.
The other GOP clown need to grow a set and speak up, not argue about it behind closed doors. Ultimately, the truth will out, and the sad personalities of the Freedom Caucus will slither home and probably die of alcoholism.
The other GOP clowns did speak out after Jan 6. Didn't work out very well for them, and within a week, they changed their tune and fell back in line behind Trump.
It's quite satisfying to watch the GQP's circular firing squad. As long as they continue bickering among themselves, they shouldn't be able to do much damage to the country, and hopefully, at least a few of the folks that voted for these whack-jobs will start to experience voter's remorse . . .
If the Problem Solvers caucus really wants to solve a problem like McCarthy, they should switch parties and give Democrats control of the House. Unlikely, but it will get everyone's attention and stuff would actually get done.
Surely, someone here is creative enough to set a lyric to Rogers & Hammerstein's "How do you solve a problem like Maria?" We could use it as an anthem. Or do we have to forward to Randy Rainbow. Either way works for me.
Factor in that Faux News dictates the thoughts of a fair portion of the country's population, and their headlines are calling Biden a "dictator wannabe" who is trying to lock up his political opponent. There really should be constitutional laws that forbid media or corporations or government officials from pushing seditious propaganda to the public. That is illegal for our state department, but apparently it doesn't apply to congress or POTUS.
My larger concern is talk radio, particularly Spanish language talk radio. It’s free and absolutely unchecked at this point, thanks to the fairness doctrine’s demise many years ago. The dems and others really need to come up with something to counterbalance that message.
The progressive side tried that, but it didn't go all that well. Remember the short-lived Air America? The problem probably is that talk radio is primarily something you listen to on long drives, which means truck drivers. That's an audience that heavily skews to the right (it's correlated with rural residents, older, people who eschew the structure of an office job).
It doesn’t mean we should cede it to them, and there are syndicated shows and podcasts now that could be cheap, effective programming. There are no easy answers but this is a major issue and will only get worse.
It's really a marketing question: how do you get the people you want to reach to listen to your shows instead of the other ones? Simply putting a show out there is not enough, as Air America demonstrated.
I don't see a path to get there from here; MAGA (really, most people; it's human nature) prefer to stay within their own bubble.
Agreed—I’m thinking more of having another option for undecided/naive voters to find before they are exposed to that drivel. At least if there is some other programming available there is something else that can be accessed easily and provide a different perspective. I’ve given up totally on MEGA MAGAs!
The answer can't be for the dems to take on alternate realities and grievance politics and to have state propaganda media outlets to keep the people constantly addicted to fear and hatred. It has to be durable laws to shut down those who are using those tools.
Well, there's this little thing called "The First Amendment" - I don't propose to give it up because some yahoos choose to abuse it. I prefer to trust that the so-called republicans who are causing the majority of the trouble will reach full schism following the internecine squabbling we can already see forming. And all the fringies and cultists will crawl back into their bunkers while we get back to an actual conservative party (and hopefully the Dems will finally remember that they are the LABOR party) and we can have some sane government for a bit.
That would be wonderful, and yes should be the ultimate goal, however there are no avenues to create or enforce these laws with the congress we currently have. And just shutting them down won’t solve it anyway, we need to answer these ridiculous conspiracies and whatever other accusations, like Biden being called a ped0file (literally happened yesterday) they are coming up with. It started with pizza gate and just continues to get worse.
One would think, one with a brain anyway, that Nikki Haley, whose husband served in Afghanistan, would be just a tad more concerned with how our military intelligence is being handled in this country! As a former military spouse, I can’t phantom the gravity of this situation. Knowing that our former commander in chief, in title only as far as I’m concerned, was so reckless with the safety of our troops, is sickening on a visceral level to me!
They’d sell their own children to make a buck or gain power…we keep seeing how absolutely devoid of morals these people are, but it continues to surprise people for some reason!
Suggestion: anyone frivolously and erroneously using the term "witch hunt" to refer to following legal procedure to address a potential crime should get some exposure to the real thing. To combine education with entertainment, borrow the wheel from Wheel of Fortune, spin it, and use it to pick the page number from "The Witches' Hammer", upon which the demonstration of a real witch hunt is to be based.
On a more serious note, the fact that a man who is very clearly a flight risk and a danger to national security was let go and allowed to move freely about the country emphasizes how far we are from the reality of Jack Smith's statement that we have "one set of laws for everyone". Obviously not.
Agree. It's very much a double standard that Jack Teixeira was arrested and confined because he represented an ongoing danger to national security and Trump was arrested and not confined, yet he still very much represents a danger to national security. There are apparently still classified documents that are unaccounted for and I would imagine some of that information is lodged in Trump's tiny brain which he is free to share with any of the international 'guests' at Mar a Lago. If he hasn't already.
Someone, maybe on MSNBC last night, pointed out that he's unlikely to flee given that he's under the watchful eye of the Secret Service 24/7. On the other hand, he clearly belongs in jail given the seriousness of the charges and the damage he does to America while roaming free.
That’s the same Secret Service who allowed him to hide and move large boxes of classified documents. Can we rely on them to put the US Government’s interests above Trump’s? Why aren’t these agents required to testify? Why didn’t they report Trump to our DOJ? The Secret Service is tasked with the physical protection of the former President. Not to be complicit in his crimes, by ignoring criminal activity. ALL Secret Service Agents involved with Trump should be required to testify under oath. From what I’ve seen during the J6 investigations, they are more loyal to Trump, than to our country.
How would the agents know of the contents of the boxes? They're there to protect tfg's body, not to monitor what 'personal' papers he had in the boxes.
As for agents testifying under oath, it's my understanding that has already been done by the Grand Jury hearing witnesses re J6.
He is not a flight risk. His narcissism will not permit him to run away. He really does believe he is fully entitled to do anything he wants. He is also convinced he will not be convicted, and that he will be re-elected - by hook or by crook.
From what I’ve read, Jack Smith doesn’t want to impair Trumps freedom of movement and speech, showing that the indictment is not political or personal - just criminal. Also, when he loses the election, he can’t (but will) say it was because he was censored, hindered, and impeded from running his campaign. Smith can point out that in fact he wasn’t any of those things - just a loser in his own right.
In our criminal system, releasing somebody until conviction is the default (unfortunately, that often doesn't apply to black defendants, but that's a separate issue), as it should be. I agree with the judge that Trump isn't a flight risk - where would he go? Russia?
There is another reason he could end up in pretrial detention, though: witness tampering. Violating a gag order. The judge may have allowed him to go free in part to give him more rope to hang himself with, too.
If all suspects were universally released until conviction, our bail system wouldn't exist. But it does and it is a blossoming industry. For crime categories admitted to bail, there is a price to awaiting your hearings and trial at home - those who can pay it, are released, those who cannot.... well.... we all know what happens. And this doesn't just apply to black defendants (although yes, the bias is undeniable, and that IS a separate issue).
Considering the magnitude of the crime, plus the already existing and well-documented incidents of obstruction of justice and witness tampering, he should not be walking free and flying all over the country. And, in addition to Russia, I am sure he has friends in the Middle East in China. Now.... whether or not they would consider it prudent to shelter him is a different question. But that is not to say he might not try.
You are right, and bail is frequently misused/overused. Which is why some cities and states are moving away from cash bail in the first place.
But there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The magnitude of the crime is irrelevant, because you can't punish somebody until he has been convicted of said crime (of course, a high expected sentence can increase the flight risk).
Pretrial detention is only intended to ensure that the defendant appears for the trial.
Trump doesn't have friends. He uses the word for people who are useful to him, but throws them under the bus when it's expedient for him. The same goes the opposite. None of his "friends" anywhere in the world will help him unless it benefits them. And they know that Trump wouldn't honor if they tried to call in a favor later, so they'd only shelter him if it was immediately useful for them. But who in the world would want to be seen as helping Trump? That leaves Putin, basically. But Trump is only useful to Putin if he's in the White House.
Plus, fleeing like that would undermine his ability to campaign, and his ability to pressure people in the Republican party.
All in all, I don't think he's a flight risk. He burned too many bridges to do that. As much as I want to see him in prison, I want to see him sentenced (and sentenced for something he actually has been proven to commit of course) first.
I am from Nebraska , which is mostly red. Therefore , I was pleasantly surprised and gratified when Don Bacon , R. US Representative , 2ond district NE spoke out against DJT.
Lots of interesting things going on with Republicans at the moment. Seems like they're all demanding to take control, but none of them have a clue on what to do. One more thought: tRump will absolutely NOT participate in any debates. Republican or otherwise. He's too afraid of being placed on the defensive because anybody debating him possessing two sparking braincells will DEFINITELY challenge him regarding his legal issues.
This was an extremely well-written, informative piece, and gives great insight into the shambles that is the hardcore "Freedumb Kookus" Republican party... or what's left of it. I'm sure that there will be some drastic changes in the near future. Either they will succumb to the moderates, or rise like a Phoenix, and I would suggest the latter is unlikely, but still very possible. Either way, we're looking at a very bumpy road ahead, and frankly, I'm a little worried. Okay. A lot worried.
(God, per usual allowing humankind to make its own horrific mistakes, failed to strike them down with lightning.) - loved this
God must be staying out of it and leaving it to the Democrats to do the “rescuing.”
Hopefully, there will be enough of a democracy left to rescue.
See above about "tot he rescue"
Damn it, I said, for once the crack of the heavens should have rained down to scare the living daylights out of the "christian" nationalists.
I did, too!!
“... the GOP faces the prospect of electoral annihilation in 2024 unless it can pull itself together.”
Sounds good to me.
People have been saying that at least since Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq. Actually, people have been saying that when Ross Perot ran in, what was it - 1992?
That doesn’t mean that GOP annihilation doesn’t sound good to me.
Hmm, apparently Karma does eventually smack people upside the head! Here’s to the Republicans who are currently reaping the crop they expressly sowed, because they believed it would “own the libs”” looks to me like they ended up owning themselves!
I'm not so sure it was all about "owning the libs," I believe a LOT of these folks saw the potential to enhance their own bank accounts, name recognition, and personal "glory." IOW, they'd be "celebrities" like TFG, recognized on the street, schmoozing with a Kardashian or two (or an ex of one of them), has beens like Ted Nugent . . . from their small corner of the universe (I'm looking at you, Large Marge) the hint of the 15 minutes (well, now years) of fame was too much to resist.
You know that is Trump's drive. He loves him some dictators and Oligarchs because they found a way to take the wealth of a nation and make it theirs, and he wants nothing more to become one...
Agreed that is his delusion.
Memo to Mike Pence: Trump is not "the President."
That's actually a bit fuzzy. As a rule of thumb, we do refer to people by the highest office they ever reached, even after leaving office. For instance, we are still using Mayor Guiliani or Senator Boxer. Similarly, President Obama.
Although I hope in Trump's case, we can soon change the rule to the lowest title he earned, inmate 1234567 (assuming, of course, that guilt can be proven in a court of law - even he is entitled to due process).
You're right, Kevin, and if Pence had said "President Trump" it would have been correct (although I certainly grit my teeth when that title is used for a man so unworthy of it). But what Pence said was "the President," and that terminology should be reserved for the person presently holding the office. It's a quibble, I know, but an example of the constant petty disrespect shown by Republicans to President Biden.
“As a rule of thumb, we do refer to people by the highest office they ever reached, even after leaving office.”
A practice I find abhorrent.
I’ve no objection to “ex-President” or “Former General”. But to call someone by a title that they no longer actually hold is wrong.
I cringe when I hear Mike Flynn being referred to as GENERAL. If ever there was anyone unworthy of that title, it is that traitor. That man does NOT deserve the honor bestowed upon a man who should be called General. He should've been stripped of his pension, his retirement, and especially his title. Makes me all kinda stabby when they call him General Michael Flynn. grrrrrrr....
I agree wholeheartedly regarding Flynn. Should have been dishonorably discharged and lost any privileges connected to his "service".
As for the more common "ex" President/Senator/Governor/General, being referred to by their full title as if they still had it after they DON'T is just a feed to their ego. Their accomplishment in reaching some position is adequately recognized by referring to them as "former" or, as I often do see for military folks, "Admiral So-and-so, retired". Not as good as putting the "former" up front, but at least it notes they no longer hold the title.
"Nikki Haley, whose views on everything seem to change as soon as a light red breeze blows, signaled a shift in tone over her old boss" .... well put! She is one of the biggest flip floppers I have ever seen. She changes her tune literally within minutes when it's politically expedient.
She wants to be President SO BADLY she will say or do anything (or anybody) she thinks will get her there. Naked ambition on display, and I cannot wait to see the claws come out when she, MTG, and Bobo get eye to eye as they are just as ambitious and unscrupulous as she is.
Very helpful summary; thank you. I especially enjoyed Christie’s summary. On a lexical note, I do hope that we as a nation can eradicate the misogynist phrase “witch hunt” from our vocabulary.
I would call it the opposite of misogynistic. Using this term in this context is an admission of historically having wronged a minority. The term implies that the (mostly) females involved were innocent and the ones perpetrating the hunt were the evil ones.
That's more than true for most people and I very much appreciate that viewpoint, Kevin. However, knowing Trump and his ilk, they probably interpret 'witch hunt' to mean Trump is being hunted by witches. So, yes, backwards but still misogynistic.
My concern goes much further than this context. I see the expression as misogynistic because of the characterization of strong women as fair game to be “hunted,” as historically we were/are. In this context, the indicted man is paradoxically portraying himself as a victim (a “hunted witch,” if you will) which also rubs me the wrong way that he would align himself with such wise women.
Would love to see someone confront TFG with this interpretation. "Mr tRump, are you saying you're a 'hunted witch'?" I want to know what he'd say!
Well we know he weighs more than a duck, so logically of course he's a witch!
Brilliant
I don't really see any use of this phrase that could be interpreted as women being "fair game for a hunt" because that would imply that witch hunts were justified. But as usual, reasonable people can disagree, and thanks for educating me on that different viewpoint.
I think we are witnessing the death throes of the GOP, a death caused, like those during Covid, by TFG. No one with any modicum of common sense or credibility can view the nature of those documents that man so cavalierly handled against any need to have him anywhere near our national security again. I am also somewhat shocked that it was only Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski who had the cujones to say the obvious when the indictment was first unsealed. Just as they did when voting to impeach. That shows integrity and value for our country, Constitution, and democracy.
The other GOP clown need to grow a set and speak up, not argue about it behind closed doors. Ultimately, the truth will out, and the sad personalities of the Freedom Caucus will slither home and probably die of alcoholism.
The other GOP clowns did speak out after Jan 6. Didn't work out very well for them, and within a week, they changed their tune and fell back in line behind Trump.
Thank you. Love the lightning comment!
It's quite satisfying to watch the GQP's circular firing squad. As long as they continue bickering among themselves, they shouldn't be able to do much damage to the country, and hopefully, at least a few of the folks that voted for these whack-jobs will start to experience voter's remorse . . .
If the Problem Solvers caucus really wants to solve a problem like McCarthy, they should switch parties and give Democrats control of the House. Unlikely, but it will get everyone's attention and stuff would actually get done.
Surely, someone here is creative enough to set a lyric to Rogers & Hammerstein's "How do you solve a problem like Maria?" We could use it as an anthem. Or do we have to forward to Randy Rainbow. Either way works for me.
I'm sure Jay could come up with something. If not him, certainly Randy Rainbow could.
You and I seem to be on the same wavelength today, Christina 😘
Ok now it’s in my head... “How do you solve a problem like McCarthy!” 🎶🎶🎶
One of your more stellar efforts, Jay (and there are many). Smooth. Thanks.
Factor in that Faux News dictates the thoughts of a fair portion of the country's population, and their headlines are calling Biden a "dictator wannabe" who is trying to lock up his political opponent. There really should be constitutional laws that forbid media or corporations or government officials from pushing seditious propaganda to the public. That is illegal for our state department, but apparently it doesn't apply to congress or POTUS.
My larger concern is talk radio, particularly Spanish language talk radio. It’s free and absolutely unchecked at this point, thanks to the fairness doctrine’s demise many years ago. The dems and others really need to come up with something to counterbalance that message.
The progressive side tried that, but it didn't go all that well. Remember the short-lived Air America? The problem probably is that talk radio is primarily something you listen to on long drives, which means truck drivers. That's an audience that heavily skews to the right (it's correlated with rural residents, older, people who eschew the structure of an office job).
It doesn’t mean we should cede it to them, and there are syndicated shows and podcasts now that could be cheap, effective programming. There are no easy answers but this is a major issue and will only get worse.
It's really a marketing question: how do you get the people you want to reach to listen to your shows instead of the other ones? Simply putting a show out there is not enough, as Air America demonstrated.
I don't see a path to get there from here; MAGA (really, most people; it's human nature) prefer to stay within their own bubble.
Agreed—I’m thinking more of having another option for undecided/naive voters to find before they are exposed to that drivel. At least if there is some other programming available there is something else that can be accessed easily and provide a different perspective. I’ve given up totally on MEGA MAGAs!
The answer can't be for the dems to take on alternate realities and grievance politics and to have state propaganda media outlets to keep the people constantly addicted to fear and hatred. It has to be durable laws to shut down those who are using those tools.
Well, there's this little thing called "The First Amendment" - I don't propose to give it up because some yahoos choose to abuse it. I prefer to trust that the so-called republicans who are causing the majority of the trouble will reach full schism following the internecine squabbling we can already see forming. And all the fringies and cultists will crawl back into their bunkers while we get back to an actual conservative party (and hopefully the Dems will finally remember that they are the LABOR party) and we can have some sane government for a bit.
That would be wonderful, and yes should be the ultimate goal, however there are no avenues to create or enforce these laws with the congress we currently have. And just shutting them down won’t solve it anyway, we need to answer these ridiculous conspiracies and whatever other accusations, like Biden being called a ped0file (literally happened yesterday) they are coming up with. It started with pizza gate and just continues to get worse.
"May you live in interesting times."
And those times have become more...interesting for the right-wingers as time passes.
I always thought that was a curse!
It is!
It is. And the right-wingers are learning the hard way that it's a powerful curse.
One would think, one with a brain anyway, that Nikki Haley, whose husband served in Afghanistan, would be just a tad more concerned with how our military intelligence is being handled in this country! As a former military spouse, I can’t phantom the gravity of this situation. Knowing that our former commander in chief, in title only as far as I’m concerned, was so reckless with the safety of our troops, is sickening on a visceral level to me!
They’d sell their own children to make a buck or gain power…we keep seeing how absolutely devoid of morals these people are, but it continues to surprise people for some reason!
Nikki Haley cares about one thing, and one thing only: "I WANNA BE PRESIDENT!!" That's it.
Suggestion: anyone frivolously and erroneously using the term "witch hunt" to refer to following legal procedure to address a potential crime should get some exposure to the real thing. To combine education with entertainment, borrow the wheel from Wheel of Fortune, spin it, and use it to pick the page number from "The Witches' Hammer", upon which the demonstration of a real witch hunt is to be based.
On a more serious note, the fact that a man who is very clearly a flight risk and a danger to national security was let go and allowed to move freely about the country emphasizes how far we are from the reality of Jack Smith's statement that we have "one set of laws for everyone". Obviously not.
Agree. It's very much a double standard that Jack Teixeira was arrested and confined because he represented an ongoing danger to national security and Trump was arrested and not confined, yet he still very much represents a danger to national security. There are apparently still classified documents that are unaccounted for and I would imagine some of that information is lodged in Trump's tiny brain which he is free to share with any of the international 'guests' at Mar a Lago. If he hasn't already.
Someone, maybe on MSNBC last night, pointed out that he's unlikely to flee given that he's under the watchful eye of the Secret Service 24/7. On the other hand, he clearly belongs in jail given the seriousness of the charges and the damage he does to America while roaming free.
That’s the same Secret Service who allowed him to hide and move large boxes of classified documents. Can we rely on them to put the US Government’s interests above Trump’s? Why aren’t these agents required to testify? Why didn’t they report Trump to our DOJ? The Secret Service is tasked with the physical protection of the former President. Not to be complicit in his crimes, by ignoring criminal activity. ALL Secret Service Agents involved with Trump should be required to testify under oath. From what I’ve seen during the J6 investigations, they are more loyal to Trump, than to our country.
How would the agents know of the contents of the boxes? They're there to protect tfg's body, not to monitor what 'personal' papers he had in the boxes.
As for agents testifying under oath, it's my understanding that has already been done by the Grand Jury hearing witnesses re J6.
He is not a flight risk. His narcissism will not permit him to run away. He really does believe he is fully entitled to do anything he wants. He is also convinced he will not be convicted, and that he will be re-elected - by hook or by crook.
From what I’ve read, Jack Smith doesn’t want to impair Trumps freedom of movement and speech, showing that the indictment is not political or personal - just criminal. Also, when he loses the election, he can’t (but will) say it was because he was censored, hindered, and impeded from running his campaign. Smith can point out that in fact he wasn’t any of those things - just a loser in his own right.
Sensible - and I'd expect no less from Mr. Smith.
In our criminal system, releasing somebody until conviction is the default (unfortunately, that often doesn't apply to black defendants, but that's a separate issue), as it should be. I agree with the judge that Trump isn't a flight risk - where would he go? Russia?
There is another reason he could end up in pretrial detention, though: witness tampering. Violating a gag order. The judge may have allowed him to go free in part to give him more rope to hang himself with, too.
If all suspects were universally released until conviction, our bail system wouldn't exist. But it does and it is a blossoming industry. For crime categories admitted to bail, there is a price to awaiting your hearings and trial at home - those who can pay it, are released, those who cannot.... well.... we all know what happens. And this doesn't just apply to black defendants (although yes, the bias is undeniable, and that IS a separate issue).
Considering the magnitude of the crime, plus the already existing and well-documented incidents of obstruction of justice and witness tampering, he should not be walking free and flying all over the country. And, in addition to Russia, I am sure he has friends in the Middle East in China. Now.... whether or not they would consider it prudent to shelter him is a different question. But that is not to say he might not try.
You are right, and bail is frequently misused/overused. Which is why some cities and states are moving away from cash bail in the first place.
But there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The magnitude of the crime is irrelevant, because you can't punish somebody until he has been convicted of said crime (of course, a high expected sentence can increase the flight risk).
Pretrial detention is only intended to ensure that the defendant appears for the trial.
Trump doesn't have friends. He uses the word for people who are useful to him, but throws them under the bus when it's expedient for him. The same goes the opposite. None of his "friends" anywhere in the world will help him unless it benefits them. And they know that Trump wouldn't honor if they tried to call in a favor later, so they'd only shelter him if it was immediately useful for them. But who in the world would want to be seen as helping Trump? That leaves Putin, basically. But Trump is only useful to Putin if he's in the White House.
Plus, fleeing like that would undermine his ability to campaign, and his ability to pressure people in the Republican party.
All in all, I don't think he's a flight risk. He burned too many bridges to do that. As much as I want to see him in prison, I want to see him sentenced (and sentenced for something he actually has been proven to commit of course) first.
I am from Nebraska , which is mostly red. Therefore , I was pleasantly surprised and gratified when Don Bacon , R. US Representative , 2ond district NE spoke out against DJT.
Lots of interesting things going on with Republicans at the moment. Seems like they're all demanding to take control, but none of them have a clue on what to do. One more thought: tRump will absolutely NOT participate in any debates. Republican or otherwise. He's too afraid of being placed on the defensive because anybody debating him possessing two sparking braincells will DEFINITELY challenge him regarding his legal issues.
This was an extremely well-written, informative piece, and gives great insight into the shambles that is the hardcore "Freedumb Kookus" Republican party... or what's left of it. I'm sure that there will be some drastic changes in the near future. Either they will succumb to the moderates, or rise like a Phoenix, and I would suggest the latter is unlikely, but still very possible. Either way, we're looking at a very bumpy road ahead, and frankly, I'm a little worried. Okay. A lot worried.