So, can an obstruction of official proceeding become treason when the entire reason for obstruction would be to overturn our government? Trump is guilty of treason in most reasonable people’s opinion, but how do we get satisfaction if the charge is not commensurate with the crime?
Treason is an entirely different beast legally, and we should pretty much set it aside as part of any consideration here. Trump is not guilty of treason, because it requires us to be at war with a foreign enemy and for the accused to have acted to betray the nation at such time. But seditious conspiracy is on the table, for sure.
Keeping my fingers crossed for seditious conspiracy. And I wanna re-post the Doonesbury Mark Slackmeyer cartoon when it happens! (Y'all know the one... 😁)
Of course, the REALLY big question is - how much can be done before the 2024 election? Yes, this is a long, slow, painful (SO PAINFUL!) process, but I think that is the concern on everyone's mind (well, everyone who cares anyway). Can we keep Trump off the ballot?
There is nothing that can be done to keep Trump off the ballot via the courts. Republicans in Congress had that opportunity through the impeachment process and were never going to do it. Voters need to show up in greater numbers than they have shown in the past to guarantee he (and his fascist brethren) never gets close to power again
Oh, I agree! I honestly don't understand how people just.... don't vote. I went through fourteen years of immigration hell to gain the right to vote in this country. The first two things I dropped in the mail after coming home from being sworn in as a U. S. Citizen were my passport application and voter registration card. I remember talking to someone about it shortly after, and she said, "You registered to vote? Why? Isn't that how they know you are available for jury duty?" I wanted to shake her.
Here, unfortunately, a huge percentage of the eligible voting population doesn't recognize it. Too many leave it for someone else, not realizing that "someone else" isn't going to protect your interests. A large number also point fingers at gerrymandering and imperfect candidates. They certainly are a part of the problem, but the single biggest one (that people MOSTLY don't like to hear) is voter apathy and voter laziness. It goes back many decades. When 24 to 26% of eligible voters, depending on whose numbers you look at, put Trump in the White House, that should have been a massive wake-up call. Too many people are still asleep
Depending upon where you live, potential jury members are selected from either the voter registration rolls or from the DMV registrations (drivers license registrations, specifically).
Any time someone tells me they want out of jury duty, they get a very large ration from me. How someone cannot understand the concept of "duty" is beyond me.
I agree. Right now I think keeping him off the ballot is what sane people want. It's obvious to anyone with a logical brain that what he did was wrong and what he did should disqualify him from running. My biggest fear is that this case doesn't move fast enough to get him off the ballot, he somehow wins the election (heaven forbid) and we can't prosecute him because he is once again a sitting president. I mean honestly the fact that he is already campaigning is concerning enough. I also believe that even amongst those who voted for him in 2020 he lost enough sane people to not win but you also can't count on that. There are still the never Dems out there that "don't want to vote for him" but will because "he is the Republican candidate"
"Many believe that Pence would lie to protect Trump, but it’s not clear to me that he would."
Mike Pence will bend the truth, but he won't lie before God and the Bible. And he BENEFITS from roasting Trump on a pit. Remember, they ARE competitors to the 2024 candidacy. And since grand jury testimony is secret, nobody will know Pence sold out Trump, until it's much too late.
If they are pursuing the Insurrection charge, those convicted of it can never hold federal office. I hope that is what they do. Short of that, Trump and his allies can simply continue to ignore the toothless laws that prevent a president from acting corruptly and unethically, just like some justices ignore long held yet toothless rules that require them to act ethically and impartially.
Thank you for this detailed narrative- would love to understand the intersection point of judicial proceedings and ineligibility for dogcatcher, much less President.
However, given Trump's aversion to animals (likely because they cannot abide him and instinctively wish to bite him), an apt sentence should involve pet-sitting, although that is quite unfair to the pets.
Don't be surprised if Smith declines to indict DESPITE enough evidence to do so. It's got a lot to do with politics and "the OJ/celebrity factor." Smith isn't going to risk being the guy who indicts an ex-President for trying to overthrow the government unless he's POSITIVE he is going to win. That means not having even ONE juror who is going to ignore a mountain of evidence and refuse to convict. We know from history that it's very hard to convict a celebrity for a crime. Jurors bend over backwards to justify a doubt, even if it's unreasonable. Just look at OJ or Robert Blake. Smith is going to want more than a smoking gun - he'll want a gun that's on fire.
Smith prosecuted sex crimes as a Manhattan ADA, as an EDNY AUSA he prosecuted the police officers who sodomized Abner Louima, an incredibly high profile case case in NYC, he obtained a death penalty verdict against someone who killed two NYPD members, he worked in the Office of the Prosecutor in the International Criminal Court in the Hague overseeing war crimes and genocide cases, he ran the US DOJ Public Integrity Section where he prosecuted the Virginia Governor, he prosecuted NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a very powerful figure in NY politics, he was the Chief Prosecutor investigating war crimes committed during the Kosovo War, and he now successfully secured, over numerous legal objections, the testimony of a former Vice President, Pence, against Trump, whom he served under. I don't think this is someone who is going to shy away from pushing for an indictment of Trump if the evidence warrants it. And without the need for a gun on fire.
I find it very hard to believe that Smith wouldn't indict Trump because he's a "celebrity". This is far different from OJ because they have Trump's recorded speeches and phone calls.
You are saying that as a rational intelligent person. My point is that famous people often benefit from not so rational not so intelligent people giving them more than the benefit of the doubt.
For those of you that may feel all this is like watching paint dry.....We can all take solace in the fact that Trump's lawyer, Joseph Tacopina is NOT a Gisèle Halimi.
Far from it and in fact Tacopina is hastening the wind with questions like " why didn't you scream or seek help " when - my bit here - a 6'3", 244 pound man raped you.
Admirable speed indeed. With luck, several indictments from different courts may be in the offing before fall. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 I want to see him held accountable for something here, because as Commander In Chief, he IS responsible for what happens under his watch. Under the Military Code of Conduct there is no wiggle room there. But as a TV star and media whore who can out raise anyone in the Party? Remains to be seen.
at this point, a) I think Smith will indict and b) my fingers are crossed for a rational jury. Query whether trump could argue to the supremes that a rational jury isn't a jury of his "peers," however.
So, can an obstruction of official proceeding become treason when the entire reason for obstruction would be to overturn our government? Trump is guilty of treason in most reasonable people’s opinion, but how do we get satisfaction if the charge is not commensurate with the crime?
Treason is an entirely different beast legally, and we should pretty much set it aside as part of any consideration here. Trump is not guilty of treason, because it requires us to be at war with a foreign enemy and for the accused to have acted to betray the nation at such time. But seditious conspiracy is on the table, for sure.
Keeping my fingers crossed for seditious conspiracy. And I wanna re-post the Doonesbury Mark Slackmeyer cartoon when it happens! (Y'all know the one... 😁)
It might fall under seditious conspiracy. Treason requires a foreign actor.
Of course, the REALLY big question is - how much can be done before the 2024 election? Yes, this is a long, slow, painful (SO PAINFUL!) process, but I think that is the concern on everyone's mind (well, everyone who cares anyway). Can we keep Trump off the ballot?
There is nothing that can be done to keep Trump off the ballot via the courts. Republicans in Congress had that opportunity through the impeachment process and were never going to do it. Voters need to show up in greater numbers than they have shown in the past to guarantee he (and his fascist brethren) never gets close to power again
Oh, I agree! I honestly don't understand how people just.... don't vote. I went through fourteen years of immigration hell to gain the right to vote in this country. The first two things I dropped in the mail after coming home from being sworn in as a U. S. Citizen were my passport application and voter registration card. I remember talking to someone about it shortly after, and she said, "You registered to vote? Why? Isn't that how they know you are available for jury duty?" I wanted to shake her.
Here, unfortunately, a huge percentage of the eligible voting population doesn't recognize it. Too many leave it for someone else, not realizing that "someone else" isn't going to protect your interests. A large number also point fingers at gerrymandering and imperfect candidates. They certainly are a part of the problem, but the single biggest one (that people MOSTLY don't like to hear) is voter apathy and voter laziness. It goes back many decades. When 24 to 26% of eligible voters, depending on whose numbers you look at, put Trump in the White House, that should have been a massive wake-up call. Too many people are still asleep
Jury duty isn't so bad, and can be quite interesting.
Depending upon where you live, potential jury members are selected from either the voter registration rolls or from the DMV registrations (drivers license registrations, specifically).
Any time someone tells me they want out of jury duty, they get a very large ration from me. How someone cannot understand the concept of "duty" is beyond me.
I agree. Right now I think keeping him off the ballot is what sane people want. It's obvious to anyone with a logical brain that what he did was wrong and what he did should disqualify him from running. My biggest fear is that this case doesn't move fast enough to get him off the ballot, he somehow wins the election (heaven forbid) and we can't prosecute him because he is once again a sitting president. I mean honestly the fact that he is already campaigning is concerning enough. I also believe that even amongst those who voted for him in 2020 he lost enough sane people to not win but you also can't count on that. There are still the never Dems out there that "don't want to vote for him" but will because "he is the Republican candidate"
Unless he’s convicted of treason, he can still be President. See this piece in The Atlantic by law professor Kimberly Wehle: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/if-convicted-could-trump-still-be-president/673708/
"Many believe that Pence would lie to protect Trump, but it’s not clear to me that he would."
Mike Pence will bend the truth, but he won't lie before God and the Bible. And he BENEFITS from roasting Trump on a pit. Remember, they ARE competitors to the 2024 candidacy. And since grand jury testimony is secret, nobody will know Pence sold out Trump, until it's much too late.
If they are pursuing the Insurrection charge, those convicted of it can never hold federal office. I hope that is what they do. Short of that, Trump and his allies can simply continue to ignore the toothless laws that prevent a president from acting corruptly and unethically, just like some justices ignore long held yet toothless rules that require them to act ethically and impartially.
I don’t think Mark Meadows has testified before the grand jury. He would be essential to the DOJ’s case. Can anyone confirm that he has testified?
NBC reported that he has actually testified in Georgia, but It looks like he has only been ordered to testify in DC and may not have yet. See final para: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/ex-trump-aides-meadows-must-testify-jan-6-grand-jury-judge-rules-rcna76587#
Mark Meadows has been ordered to testify by a federal judge: https://abcnews.go.com/US/meadows-top-trump-aides-ordered-testify-jan-6/story?id=98101813
And here's the appeal denied, Meadows testimony affirmed:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-mark-meadows-special-counsel-appeal-rejected/
I don't see how Smith goes on to indict Trump, without nailing Meadows' tesimony down, one way or another.
He'd be a wildcard that Trump could then call to testify in his defense.
My question exactly.
I’ve corrected this, thanks. He has been ordered to testify but there’s no reporting that he has done so anywhere but Georgia.
"But it’s actually a very big deal. Yuge, in fact." YES!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you Jay!!!!!!!
Thanks Sheila. I realize he has been ordered to testify, I just don’t know if he has done so yet.
Thank you for this detailed narrative- would love to understand the intersection point of judicial proceedings and ineligibility for dogcatcher, much less President.
However, given Trump's aversion to animals (likely because they cannot abide him and instinctively wish to bite him), an apt sentence should involve pet-sitting, although that is quite unfair to the pets.
I wouldn't let that man pet sit a goldfish, much less my dogs!
Don't be surprised if Smith declines to indict DESPITE enough evidence to do so. It's got a lot to do with politics and "the OJ/celebrity factor." Smith isn't going to risk being the guy who indicts an ex-President for trying to overthrow the government unless he's POSITIVE he is going to win. That means not having even ONE juror who is going to ignore a mountain of evidence and refuse to convict. We know from history that it's very hard to convict a celebrity for a crime. Jurors bend over backwards to justify a doubt, even if it's unreasonable. Just look at OJ or Robert Blake. Smith is going to want more than a smoking gun - he'll want a gun that's on fire.
Smith prosecuted sex crimes as a Manhattan ADA, as an EDNY AUSA he prosecuted the police officers who sodomized Abner Louima, an incredibly high profile case case in NYC, he obtained a death penalty verdict against someone who killed two NYPD members, he worked in the Office of the Prosecutor in the International Criminal Court in the Hague overseeing war crimes and genocide cases, he ran the US DOJ Public Integrity Section where he prosecuted the Virginia Governor, he prosecuted NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a very powerful figure in NY politics, he was the Chief Prosecutor investigating war crimes committed during the Kosovo War, and he now successfully secured, over numerous legal objections, the testimony of a former Vice President, Pence, against Trump, whom he served under. I don't think this is someone who is going to shy away from pushing for an indictment of Trump if the evidence warrants it. And without the need for a gun on fire.
I find it very hard to believe that Smith wouldn't indict Trump because he's a "celebrity". This is far different from OJ because they have Trump's recorded speeches and phone calls.
You are saying that as a rational intelligent person. My point is that famous people often benefit from not so rational not so intelligent people giving them more than the benefit of the doubt.
I get the impression that Jack Smith doesn't pander to celebrity or political status.
You said Jack Smith wouldn't indict Trump because he's a "celebrity" and I find Jack Smith to be completely rational.
For those of you that may feel all this is like watching paint dry.....We can all take solace in the fact that Trump's lawyer, Joseph Tacopina is NOT a Gisèle Halimi.
Far from it and in fact Tacopina is hastening the wind with questions like " why didn't you scream or seek help " when - my bit here - a 6'3", 244 pound man raped you.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42843654
And he isn’t 6’3”
He is a thug.
Admirable speed indeed. With luck, several indictments from different courts may be in the offing before fall. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 I want to see him held accountable for something here, because as Commander In Chief, he IS responsible for what happens under his watch. Under the Military Code of Conduct there is no wiggle room there. But as a TV star and media whore who can out raise anyone in the Party? Remains to be seen.
Excellent summary and assessment, Jay.
at this point, a) I think Smith will indict and b) my fingers are crossed for a rational jury. Query whether trump could argue to the supremes that a rational jury isn't a jury of his "peers," however.
What sort of questions can Pence avoid being asked due to his ceremonial role in the senate?
Mark, not Mike, Meadows…
Around paragraph 17
Concise and conveying hope--I'll take it!