He still has the protection and the income of every other past President on top of his very substantial (and half-hidden) personal wealth. He still speaks at rallies. He still commands the adoration of millions of poor deluded souls. The way the Democrats are going, bickering amongst themselves rather than standing firmly behind the President (as the Republican party seems to be standing firmly behind you-know-who), I shudder to think what's going to happen in another three years.
A couple of modifications to your post.
[Hosting]
I appreciate that this is a rather delayed response. We’ve been discussing the issue backstage. The line between OK-ish alteration of another’s post, and being snarky to the person quoted can be a very fine one indeed* which makes Hosting very challenging. Also the alteration can become very confusing if the altered post and/or the original gets posted further down the thread. If people want to do something along these lines we suggest that you post the amended quote unattributed with a comment along the lines of ‘@BroJames your post could/should/might have read…’. (We still won’t tolerate snark amounting to personal attack by this means.)
(*For the avoidance of doubt, we are quite clear that no snark towards another poster was intended here.)
BroJames, Purgatory Host
[/Hosting]
Correction to my comment. The Trump Tax Returns are in the hands of the New York District Attorney, not the State Attorney.
District Attorney and State Attorney (as opposed to state Attorney General) are basically two terms for the same thing. To be specific, it is the Manhattan District Attorney’s office that has the records now.
I'm not familiar with the term State Attorney, although I'll own as to how it may be in common usage in places I don't know.
[pedant alert] The District Attorney is the chief prosecutor for a county. The District Attorney may also supervise several Assistant District Attorneys, commonly referred to as ADAs.
Thus, the Manhattan District Attorney is the chief prosecutor for New York County.
The five boroughs of New York City, each a county in and of itself, are commonly referred to as Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island, although their county names are New York, Bronx, Queens, Kings and Richmond, respectively. [/pedant alert]
I detected no snarkiness, and I really didn't mind having my observations modified.
Except . . . whether or not you-know-who commands great personal wealth, hidden or otherwise, or delusionary, has no bearing on the fact that he receives Secret Service protection, a rather hefty pension, and numerous miscellaneous perks -- none of which he would have received if Congress had done its job and found him guilty of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors" that he clearly committed.
A bit of more general help please. Firstly, is it still possible for Congress to impeach him along the lines you suggest? Secondly, is it possible for proceedings to be taken against him for normal criminal offences but based on those facts, or given his status at the time is impeachment the only path?
I'm not familiar with the term State Attorney, although I'll own as to how it may be in common usage in places I don't know.
[pedant alert] The District Attorney is the chief prosecutor for a county. The District Attorney may also supervise several Assistant District Attorneys, commonly referred to as ADAs.
Sorry for starting the pedantry, but just to continue a little: As with so many things in the US, the title and other specifics of the local official charged with prosecuting crimes, including the district for which they are responsible (in my state, the district often includes multiple counties), varies. District attorney is the most common name, but in some places that official is called the state attorney, the state’s attorney, the commonwealth attorney or the circuit attorney. In my state, that office used to be called the state solicitor until we changed it to district attorney.
Firstly, is it still possible for Congress to impeach him along the lines you suggest? Secondly, is it possible for proceedings to be taken against him for normal criminal offences but based on those facts, or given his status at the time is impeachment the only path?
I don't know. But I daresay if he does regain the White House (likely, I hate to say), and if Congress retains a democratic majority (unlikely, I'm afraid), you can be sure that another impeachment would not be long in coming.
And my understanding is that the Mueller report, as flash-in-the-pan as it turned out to be, documented in great detail his many crimes with the express purpose of providing grounds for criminal prosecution once he left office. As if that will happen.
There's also the house of cards/chain reaction of dominos thing. You can get away with a rotten foundation for your apparent wealth for quite a long time, if you keep moving. Steal from Peter to pay Paul, that sort of thing. Slow down and they'll catch up with you.
Trump has a lengthy history of strategically using bankruptcy and lawsuits to leave other people holding the bag for his various debts and business failures. So far this strategy has always worked for him. Naturally he seems to be deploying the same strategy towards the federal inquiry into the January 6 coup attempt.
A federal appeals court on Thursday agreed to temporarily bar the National Archives from releasing some of former President Trump's records to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Why it matters: The National Archives was expected to turn over White House call logs, draft speeches and other related documents on Friday. Trump has repeatedly tried to block the release by pursuing a legal challenge that invokes executive privilege.
The latest: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit set oral arguments in the case for Nov. 30.
While the federal government isn't going to go away, my guess is the delay tactics are being deployed in the hope that the Republicans take control of the House in the 2022 mid-terms and then kill the January 6 Select Committee sometime in early 2023. The key is to avoid giving the Committee anything until then. Given the gerrymandering shenanigans going on in various Republican-controlled states this may not be a bad bet.
It seems that Steve Bannon has now been indicted [PDF] on one count of Contempt of Congress (papers) and one count of Contempt of Congress (testimony). We'll see if this motivates future cooperation with the January 6 Committee by others.
Here's a news account for those who prefer journalism over nine page legal documents.
I don't know. But I daresay if he does regain the White House (likely, I hate to say), and if Congress retains a democratic majority (unlikely, I'm afraid), you can be sure that another impeachment would not be long in coming.
And my understanding is that the Mueller report, as flash-in-the-pan as it turned out to be, documented in great detail his many crimes with the express purpose of providing grounds for criminal prosecution once he left office. As if that will happen.
Unfortunate, disastrous, outcomes to each of your predictions.
It seems that Steve Bannon has now been indicted [PDF] on one count of Contempt of Congress (papers) and one count of Contempt of Congress (testimony). We'll see if this motivates future cooperation with the January 6 Committee by others.
The only thing that will motivate them is jail time. How long, O God, how long?
It seems that Steve Bannon has now been indicted [PDF] on one count of Contempt of Congress (papers) and one count of Contempt of Congress (testimony). We'll see if this motivates future cooperation with the January 6 Committee by others.
The only thing that will motivate them is jail time. How long, O God, how long?
1 to 12 months, apparently (and/or a fine of $100 to $100 000).
Firstly, is it still possible for Congress to impeach him along the lines you suggest? Secondly, is it possible for proceedings to be taken against him for normal criminal offences but based on those facts, or given his status at the time is impeachment the only path?
I don't know. But I daresay if he does regain the White House (likely, I hate to say), and if Congress retains a democratic majority (unlikely, I'm afraid), you can be sure that another impeachment would not be long in coming.
And my understanding is that the Mueller report, as flash-in-the-pan as it turned out to be, documented in great detail his many crimes with the express purpose of providing grounds for criminal prosecution once he left office. As if that will happen.
Is that right? Is the Mueller Report dead and buried? There was plenty of stuff there showing Trump's misfeasance.
I understand Congress has a dungeon of sorts down in the basement for the purpose of jailing those found to be in contempt.
If I've understood it correctly that would be if they used their inherent power to hold people in contempt (under which they can do pretty much whatever they want, short of cruel and unusual punishment, as I understand it) but that power has largely been superseded by federal criminal statute, and it is under this that Bannon has been charged. Presumably therefore any sentence would be served in federal prison. Whether that means supermax, "Club Fed" or something in between depends on whether you consider him a white-collar non-violent criminal or a dangerous leader of an armed insurrectionist movement.
I understand Congress has a dungeon of sorts down in the basement for the purpose of jailing those found to be in contempt.
It used to. Since Congress hasn't imprisoned anyone itself since the nineteenth century I believe it was converted into storage space. It may be time to re-assess that decision and the inherent contempt power.
Obviously, the question of whether the former president can still claim executive privilege will be going to the Supreme Court. The sooner the better, IMHO.
However, I am not going to assume the former president will regain the office. There are many cracks in the Republican party right now. Trump is putting out his endorsements for congressional offices and state governors. I want to see just how many of those endorsements will bear fruit in the midterm elections.
The midterms will be... interesting? Not sure that's the right word. It doesn't convey the sense of dread I feel about a Republican controlled Congress. I don't mean I necessarily feel that's going to happen. If it were less important I might indeed just be interested.
Obviously, the question of whether the former president can still claim executive privilege will be going to the Supreme Court. The sooner the better, IMHO.
We have two claims along those lines. (Well, a lot more because Trump is claiming executive* privilege on everything he ever did but there are only two claims currently being contested.) The first is Steve Bannon's testimony and documents. This is an incredibly weak claim since Bannon hasn't been employed by the executive branch since August 2017. I suppose the claim "every conversation a president has with anyone is privileged in perpetuity" is one that could be argued. I just don't see it being one that requires the Supreme Court to untangle.
The other matter is the request for documents from the National Archives. If anything, this case is even weaker than the Bannon case. These are government documents generated by government employees going about their business on behalf of the U.S. government. One branch of the federal government (Congress) has asked to review these government documents and the other elected branch (the President) has agreed to let it. As a private citizen Donald Trump has no more standing to assert privilege over these documents than I do.
So in normal times I'd expect the Supreme Court to deny certiorari (assuming the appeals court makes the incredibly obvious correct decision) and that would be that, but these aren't normal times so we'll have to see what the Furious Five (Thomas, Alito, not!Garland, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) decide to do. Maybe Article XII of the super-secret Federalist Society version of the U.S. Constitution allows former executive privilege on anything a former president* wants to keep hidden, but only for Republicans.
The January 6 Committee voted to hold Jeffrey Clark, Assistant Attorney General under Donald Trump, in Contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the January 6 Committee. The next step is for the House as a whole to vote on the recommendation, but Clark has now said he'll appear before the Committee this weekend, with an interesting caveat:
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack on Wednesday unanimously recommended contempt charges against former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, even as panel leaders agreed to give him an opportunity to comply with their subpoena this weekend.
The last-minute development will delay a House floor vote to hold Clark in contempt of Congress and refer the matter to the Justice Department before Saturday, when he is expected on Capitol Hill to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege before the committee in person.
"This is, in my view, a last-ditch attempt to delay the Select Committee’s proceedings. However, a Fifth Amendment privilege assertion is a weighty one," Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said Wednesday night, before the full committee vote.
"I have informed Mr. Clark’s attorney that I am willing to convene another deposition at which Mr. Clark can assert that privilege on a question-by-question basis, which is what the law requires of someone who asserts the privilege against self-incrimination. Mr. Clark has agreed to do so," Thompson said.
I think this is the first time anyone from the Trump administration* has plead the Fifth in relation to their official actions. It implies that there were crimes, though not necessarily that Clark committed them.
The January 6 Committee voted to hold Jeffrey Clark, Assistant Attorney General under Donald Trump, in Contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the January 6 Committee. The next step is for the House as a whole to vote on the recommendation, but Clark has now said he'll appear before the Committee this weekend, with an interesting caveat:
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack on Wednesday unanimously recommended contempt charges against former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, even as panel leaders agreed to give him an opportunity to comply with their subpoena this weekend.
The last-minute development will delay a House floor vote to hold Clark in contempt of Congress and refer the matter to the Justice Department before Saturday, when he is expected on Capitol Hill to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege before the committee in person.
"This is, in my view, a last-ditch attempt to delay the Select Committee’s proceedings. However, a Fifth Amendment privilege assertion is a weighty one," Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said Wednesday night, before the full committee vote.
"I have informed Mr. Clark’s attorney that I am willing to convene another deposition at which Mr. Clark can assert that privilege on a question-by-question basis, which is what the law requires of someone who asserts the privilege against self-incrimination. Mr. Clark has agreed to do so," Thompson said.
I think this is the first time anyone from the Trump administration* has plead the Fifth in relation to their official actions. It implies that there were crimes, though not necessarily that Clark committed them.
Is my TV-informed recollection correct that were Clark to be pardoned or otherwise accept immunity from prosecution he could then be compelled to testify without the protection of the 5th?
I think this is the first time anyone from the Trump administration* has plead the Fifth in relation to their official actions. It implies that there were crimes, though not necessarily that Clark committed them.
Is my TV-informed recollection correct that were Clark to be pardoned or otherwise accept immunity from prosecution he could then be compelled to testify without the protection of the 5th?[/quote]
That is correct. If you don't face criminal penalties for your past actions because you've been pardoned or granted immunity you cannot refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. You have to be very careful with grants of immunity though, because they often only cover specific things so you're not immune if asked about some criminal matter not covered in the grant (and can thus plead the Fifth about that specific thing). Same with pardons.
Now, this is getting a little strange. A few years ago, while president, Trump was accused by a woman, E Jean Carroll, of raping her some 20 years before. He denied it and said she was making the accusation just to sell books; and, besides, she was not his type. Carroll then filed a defamation suit against Trump. However, since Trump was president, the DOJ is saying the defamation laws do not apply. Did I mention this is the Biden DOJ? Story Here.
My personal opinion: if it is true Trump raped this woman, why should American tax dollars be used to defend Trump? Let him fight his own civil battles.
The Congressional Select Committee had subpoenaed the National Archives for any Trump papers related to the 6 January incident. Trump sued to block the release claiming those papers fall under the executive privilege umbrella. A federal judge dismissed the suit pointing out Trump was no longer president and therefore could not claim executive president. Well, Trump appealed that decision. Now, a three judge panel from Washington DC Court of Appeals has denied him, saying he did not present a compelling case to consider. (The three judges, btw, were Obama appointees). They ordered the National Archives to release the documents in two weeks or until after the Supreme Court rules on Trump's final appeal, whichever is the later.
Now, the question will be will the conservative leaning SCOTUS rule in favor of Trump or not.
Taking odds.
My bet is it will be five to four one way or the other.
Hard to see how the court could rule for Trump without an argument something like "what's the good of granting immunity if it ends after the presidency ends?" which isn't very originalist. Not that these guys have any problem with hypocrisy.
I would think the purpose of immunity is to prevent issues from distracting the president or interfering with his work. It surely shouldn't be a "get out of jail free - forever" card.
I would think the purpose of immunity is to prevent issues from distracting the president or interfering with his work. It surely shouldn't be a "get out of jail free - forever" card.
What’s at issue is privilege, which relates to whether certain communications are protected from disclosure, not immunity.
The concept of executive privilege, as it’s usually explained, is that it permits a president to get frank and honest counsel from his advisors. Even so, there is the expectation that ultimately anything written down will eventually end up in the National Archives for the edification of future generations.
The House of Representatives has voted to hold Mark Meadows, Trump's last White House Chief of Staff, in contempt of Congress and refer the matter to the Justice Department. For reference it took 764 days from the Watergate break-in until Nixon's Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, was indicted. Today is less than half that amount of time (343 days) since the attempted coup of January 6.
Of note was the document dump Meadows gave the House Select Committee. Among them a PowerPoint listing things Trump could do to continue in power, like declaring all electronic voting null and void or declaring a national emergency. Then there were the texts between Meadows and FOX newspaper telling him he had to get the president to stop the riot because it would ruin his legacy. And then there was a note from Meadows, I think that, said the National Guard would be there to protect the rioters. This all sounds like an attempted coup.
"sounds like" don't cut it at a treason trial, unless its run by the GOP or Fox News. On Fox News, the words "reports say" and "may have" are sufficient for one of their daily exercises in cancel culture.
The Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has now come out saying he is watching, with interest, what the House Select Committee on the January 6 Insurrection is finding.
“I think the fact-finding is interesting. We’re all going to be watching it,” the Kentucky lawmaker told Spectrum News. “It was a horrendous event, and I think what they’re seeking to find out is something the public needs to know.”
Personally, I think McConnell is hoping the Select Committee with drive a wooden stake through the hope that Trump can regain the presidency.
Meanwhile, of note, is that many of the candidates Trump has endorsed for the next round of elections (2022) have either dropped out of their races or are so far behind in the polling, there is little chance of them winning.
Personally, I think McConnell is hoping the Select Committee with drive a wooden stake through the hope that Trump can regain the presidency.
He had his chance to do that during the impeachment trial. He could have rallied his caucus to vote for conviction, but he didn't. I have no love for him.
It's LONG past time to Ditch the Mitch. How has he managed to remain in office this long? Why on earth do people vote for him? I haven't seen a single peep from him about the tornado devastation recently wrought in the state he allegedly represents in the Senate.
Personally, I think McConnell is hoping the Select Committee with drive a wooden stake through the hope that Trump can regain the presidency.
He had his chance to do that during the impeachment trial. He could have rallied his caucus to vote for conviction, but he didn't. I have no love for him.
I'm kinda doubting @Gramps49 has much love for him either. I took his comments as strictly describing the political strategy employed by McConnell. To wit...
McConnell doesn't want Trump to run again. However, given T's popularity with the Republican base, McConnell couldn't come right out and say that Trump shoulda been convicted, not without jeopardizing his own position. So instead, he'll pursue a death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy, supporting an investigation that he assumes will damage Trump, without actually stating that that's what he wants to happen.
It's LONG past time to Ditch the Mitch. How has he managed to remain in office this long? Why on earth do people vote for him? I haven't seen a single peep from him about the tornado devastation recently wrought in the state he allegedly represents in the Senate.
I am not a McConnell fan by a long shot, but McConnell and the rest of the Kentucky Congressional Delegation has come out in support of the Democratic Governor's Request for assistance, and Biden has gone a long way to providing federal assistance regardless of party differences.
This is much unlike Trump. During the his administration, Trump would not allow federal assistance go to states he did not like. Here in Washington State we had two small villages burn completely to the ground during a wildfire. Trump simply ignored the requests for disaster relief even when they were coming from one of his strongest Congressional supporters mainly because he did not get along with Gov. Inslee. Biden finally accepted the disaster declaration a month after he took over the office--though there will still complications to get through from FEMA--another long story.
In other news, here is a report from Newsweek that outlines one of the most bizarre Trump meetings in the White House concerning the 2020 elections.
It is outrageous that disaster relief is a political question, but to use the signature saying of the 20's, "It is what it is."
To me, Mitch McConnell is like a champion player for another team. He just sits there, the Geoff Boycott of the Senate, playing the game slowly and steadily until he triumphs. That he has always had loose control over his caucus at best makes his achievements all the greater. I mean, if a Democratic senator executed a strategy to bring about a progressive majority on the Supreme Court including pulling a stunt like McConnell pulled with Garland, I would have a small house god altar set up for her.
I agree with Stetson. McConnell wants Trump's head, but he wants it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack. He wants to be able to cry over Trump's corpse, to lead his funeral procession, perhaps even to execute Trump's executioners himself. He does not want to wear the blame.
It is outrageous that disaster relief is a political question, but to use the signature saying of the 20's, "It is what it is."
To me, Mitch McConnell is like a champion player for another team. He just sits there, the Geoff Boycott of the Senate, playing the game slowly and steadily until he triumphs. That he has always had loose control over his caucus at best makes his achievements all the greater. I mean, if a Democratic senator executed a strategy to bring about a progressive majority on the Supreme Court including pulling a stunt like McConnell pulled with Garland, I would have a small house god altar set up for her.
I agree with Stetson. McConnell wants Trump's head, but he wants it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack. He wants to be able to cry over Trump's corpse, to lead his funeral procession, perhaps even to execute Trump's executioners himself. He does not want to wear the blame.
As in Shakespeare's Mark Anthony's speech, "I have come to bury Caesar, not praise him"?
I agree with Stetson. McConnell wants Trump's head, but he wants it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack. He wants to be able to cry over Trump's corpse, to lead his funeral procession, perhaps even to execute Trump's executioners himself. He does not want to wear the blame.
Did you mean to write "...he doesn't want it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack"? Because that would seem to fit your metaphorical segue better: usually, when the head is thrown at somebody's feet, it signifies clearly that that guy is the one who ordered the death. Whereas we're both arguing that McConnell would try to avoid being seen as responsible for Trump's downfall.
It is outrageous that disaster relief is a political question, but to use the signature saying of the 20's, "It is what it is."
To me, Mitch McConnell is like a champion player for another team. He just sits there, the Geoff Boycott of the Senate, playing the game slowly and steadily until he triumphs. That he has always had loose control over his caucus at best makes his achievements all the greater. I mean, if a Democratic senator executed a strategy to bring about a progressive majority on the Supreme Court including pulling a stunt like McConnell pulled with Garland, I would have a small house god altar set up for her.
I agree with Stetson. McConnell wants Trump's head, but he wants it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack. He wants to be able to cry over Trump's corpse, to lead his funeral procession, perhaps even to execute Trump's executioners himself. He does not want to wear the blame.
As in Shakespeare's Mark Anthony's speech, "I have come to bury Caesar, not praise him"?
Well, sort of the reverse, I think. Shakespeare seems to imply that Marc Antony opposed the ousting of Caeser, but wanted the public to think he did support it("Well, who am I to argue with a good guy like Brutus?").
But as Simon is saying, McConnell likely supports knifing Trump in the back, but wants the public to think he opposes it. So if Trump is Caeser, than McConnell would say to the public that he wants to praise Caeser, not bury him.
(It's bern decades since I skimmed through that play, so if I've misremembered anything about it, I'm open to correction.)
It is outrageous that disaster relief is a political question, but to use the signature saying of the 20's, "It is what it is."
To me, Mitch McConnell is like a champion player for another team. He just sits there, the Geoff Boycott of the Senate, playing the game slowly and steadily until he triumphs. That he has always had loose control over his caucus at best makes his achievements all the greater. I mean, if a Democratic senator executed a strategy to bring about a progressive majority on the Supreme Court including pulling a stunt like McConnell pulled with Garland, I would have a small house god altar set up for her.
I agree with Stetson. McConnell wants Trump's head, but he wants it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack. He wants to be able to cry over Trump's corpse, to lead his funeral procession, perhaps even to execute Trump's executioners himself. He does not want to wear the blame.
As in Shakespeare's Mark Anthony's speech, "I have come to bury Caesar, not praise him"?
Well, sort of the reverse, I think. Shakespeare seems to imply that Marc Antony opposed the ousting of Caeser, but wanted the public to think he did support it("Well, who am I to argue with a good guy like Brutus?").
But as Simon is saying, McConnell likely supports knifing Trump in the back, but wants the public to think he opposes it. So if Trump is Caeser, than McConnell would say to the public that he wants to praise Caeser, not bury him.
(It's bern decades since I skimmed through that play, so if I've misremembered anything about it, I'm open to correction.)
I reread Marc's speech. It does seem Anthony was taking a backhanded swipe at Brutus. But I do not think any one at least on the left would deny Trump has been an ambitious--read power-loving--man.
In other news, three retired generals have now expressed concern about the possible results of the 2024 election should it be as contested as the 2020 election and certain units pledge allegiance to a "Trumpian Loser." Civil War? https://news.yahoo.com/retired-us-army-generals-warn-111254086.html
There is so, so, so much damage that has been done, and has yet to happen, as a result of you-know-who not having been convicted of impeachable offenses and banned forever from holding public office.
It is outrageous that disaster relief is a political question, but to use the signature saying of the 20's, "It is what it is."
To me, Mitch McConnell is like a champion player for another team. He just sits there, the Geoff Boycott of the Senate, playing the game slowly and steadily until he triumphs. That he has always had loose control over his caucus at best makes his achievements all the greater. I mean, if a Democratic senator executed a strategy to bring about a progressive majority on the Supreme Court including pulling a stunt like McConnell pulled with Garland, I would have a small house god altar set up for her.
I agree with Stetson. McConnell wants Trump's head, but he wants it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack. He wants to be able to cry over Trump's corpse, to lead his funeral procession, perhaps even to execute Trump's executioners himself. He does not want to wear the blame.
As in Shakespeare's Mark Anthony's speech, "I have come to bury Caesar, not praise him"?
Well, sort of the reverse, I think. Shakespeare seems to imply that Marc Antony opposed the ousting of Caeser, but wanted the public to think he did support it("Well, who am I to argue with a good guy like Brutus?").
I’d say the speech is very much designed to condemn Brutus, but to do so in a way in which Marc Antony can say “Where? Where did I say anything against Brutus? I praised Brutus.”
But I think by the last time Marc Antony says “and Brutus is an honorable man,” the audience—both those on stage and those watching the stage—are supposed to be questioning just how honorable Brutus really is.
It is outrageous that disaster relief is a political question, but to use the signature saying of the 20's, "It is what it is."
To me, Mitch McConnell is like a champion player for another team. He just sits there, the Geoff Boycott of the Senate, playing the game slowly and steadily until he triumphs. That he has always had loose control over his caucus at best makes his achievements all the greater. I mean, if a Democratic senator executed a strategy to bring about a progressive majority on the Supreme Court including pulling a stunt like McConnell pulled with Garland, I would have a small house god altar set up for her.
I agree with Stetson. McConnell wants Trump's head, but he wants it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack. He wants to be able to cry over Trump's corpse, to lead his funeral procession, perhaps even to execute Trump's executioners himself. He does not want to wear the blame.
As in Shakespeare's Mark Anthony's speech, "I have come to bury Caesar, not praise him"?
Well, sort of the reverse, I think. Shakespeare seems to imply that Marc Antony opposed the ousting of Caeser, but wanted the public to think he did support it("Well, who am I to argue with a good guy like Brutus?").
I’d say the speech is very much designed to condemn Brutus, but to do so in a way in which Marc Antony can say “Where? Where did I say anything against Brutus? I praised Brutus.”
But I think by the last time Marc Antony says “and Brutus is an honorable man,” the audience—both those on stage and those watching the stage—are supposed to be questioning just how honorable Brutus really is.
Right. That was sort of my revised opinion after I(along with Gramps, apparently) re-read the speech earlier: he WANTS the crowd to know he liked Caeser and dislikes Brutus, while giving himself what we now call "plausible deniability".
It is outrageous that disaster relief is a political question, but to use the signature saying of the 20's, "It is what it is."
To me, Mitch McConnell is like a champion player for another team. He just sits there, the Geoff Boycott of the Senate, playing the game slowly and steadily until he triumphs. That he has always had loose control over his caucus at best makes his achievements all the greater. I mean, if a Democratic senator executed a strategy to bring about a progressive majority on the Supreme Court including pulling a stunt like McConnell pulled with Garland, I would have a small house god altar set up for her.
I agree with Stetson. McConnell wants Trump's head, but he wants it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack. He wants to be able to cry over Trump's corpse, to lead his funeral procession, perhaps even to execute Trump's executioners himself. He does not want to wear the blame.
As in Shakespeare's Mark Anthony's speech, "I have come to bury Caesar, not praise him"?
Well, sort of the reverse, I think. Shakespeare seems to imply that Marc Antony opposed the ousting of Caeser, but wanted the public to think he did support it("Well, who am I to argue with a good guy like Brutus?").
I’d say the speech is very much designed to condemn Brutus, but to do so in a way in which Marc Antony can say “Where? Where did I say anything against Brutus? I praised Brutus.”
But I think by the last time Marc Antony says “and Brutus is an honorable man,” the audience—both those on stage and those watching the stage—are supposed to be questioning just how honorable Brutus really is.
Right. That was sort of my revised opinion after I(along with Gramps, apparently) re-read the speech earlier: he WANTS the crowd to know he liked Caeser and dislikes Brutus, while giving himself what we now call "plausible deniability".
Comments
I appreciate that this is a rather delayed response. We’ve been discussing the issue backstage. The line between OK-ish alteration of another’s post, and being snarky to the person quoted can be a very fine one indeed* which makes Hosting very challenging. Also the alteration can become very confusing if the altered post and/or the original gets posted further down the thread. If people want to do something along these lines we suggest that you post the amended quote unattributed with a comment along the lines of ‘@BroJames your post could/should/might have read…’. (We still won’t tolerate snark amounting to personal attack by this means.)
(*For the avoidance of doubt, we are quite clear that no snark towards another poster was intended here.)
BroJames, Purgatory Host
[/Hosting]
[pedant alert] The District Attorney is the chief prosecutor for a county. The District Attorney may also supervise several Assistant District Attorneys, commonly referred to as ADAs.
Thus, the Manhattan District Attorney is the chief prosecutor for New York County.
The five boroughs of New York City, each a county in and of itself, are commonly referred to as Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island, although their county names are New York, Bronx, Queens, Kings and Richmond, respectively. [/pedant alert]
Except . . . whether or not you-know-who commands great personal wealth, hidden or otherwise, or delusionary, has no bearing on the fact that he receives Secret Service protection, a rather hefty pension, and numerous miscellaneous perks -- none of which he would have received if Congress had done its job and found him guilty of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors" that he clearly committed.
A bit of more general help please. Firstly, is it still possible for Congress to impeach him along the lines you suggest? Secondly, is it possible for proceedings to be taken against him for normal criminal offences but based on those facts, or given his status at the time is impeachment the only path?
And my understanding is that the Mueller report, as flash-in-the-pan as it turned out to be, documented in great detail his many crimes with the express purpose of providing grounds for criminal prosecution once he left office. As if that will happen.
Trump has a lengthy history of strategically using bankruptcy and lawsuits to leave other people holding the bag for his various debts and business failures. So far this strategy has always worked for him. Naturally he seems to be deploying the same strategy towards the federal inquiry into the January 6 coup attempt.
While the federal government isn't going to go away, my guess is the delay tactics are being deployed in the hope that the Republicans take control of the House in the 2022 mid-terms and then kill the January 6 Select Committee sometime in early 2023. The key is to avoid giving the Committee anything until then. Given the gerrymandering shenanigans going on in various Republican-controlled states this may not be a bad bet.
Here's a news account for those who prefer journalism over nine page legal documents.
Unfortunate, disastrous, outcomes to each of your predictions.
1 to 12 months, apparently (and/or a fine of $100 to $100 000).
I'm hoping for the higher end of that, myself.
Is that right? Is the Mueller Report dead and buried? There was plenty of stuff there showing Trump's misfeasance.
If I've understood it correctly that would be if they used their inherent power to hold people in contempt (under which they can do pretty much whatever they want, short of cruel and unusual punishment, as I understand it) but that power has largely been superseded by federal criminal statute, and it is under this that Bannon has been charged. Presumably therefore any sentence would be served in federal prison. Whether that means supermax, "Club Fed" or something in between depends on whether you consider him a white-collar non-violent criminal or a dangerous leader of an armed insurrectionist movement.
It used to. Since Congress hasn't imprisoned anyone itself since the nineteenth century I believe it was converted into storage space. It may be time to re-assess that decision and the inherent contempt power.
However, I am not going to assume the former president will regain the office. There are many cracks in the Republican party right now. Trump is putting out his endorsements for congressional offices and state governors. I want to see just how many of those endorsements will bear fruit in the midterm elections.
I hate Ted Cruz.
We have two claims along those lines. (Well, a lot more because Trump is claiming executive* privilege on everything he ever did but there are only two claims currently being contested.) The first is Steve Bannon's testimony and documents. This is an incredibly weak claim since Bannon hasn't been employed by the executive branch since August 2017. I suppose the claim "every conversation a president has with anyone is privileged in perpetuity" is one that could be argued. I just don't see it being one that requires the Supreme Court to untangle.
The other matter is the request for documents from the National Archives. If anything, this case is even weaker than the Bannon case. These are government documents generated by government employees going about their business on behalf of the U.S. government. One branch of the federal government (Congress) has asked to review these government documents and the other elected branch (the President) has agreed to let it. As a private citizen Donald Trump has no more standing to assert privilege over these documents than I do.
So in normal times I'd expect the Supreme Court to deny certiorari (assuming the appeals court makes the incredibly obvious correct decision) and that would be that, but these aren't normal times so we'll have to see what the Furious Five (Thomas, Alito, not!Garland, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) decide to do. Maybe Article XII of the super-secret Federalist Society version of the U.S. Constitution allows former executive privilege on anything a former president* wants to keep hidden, but only for Republicans.
I think this is the first time anyone from the Trump administration* has plead the Fifth in relation to their official actions. It implies that there were crimes, though not necessarily that Clark committed them.
Is my TV-informed recollection correct that were Clark to be pardoned or otherwise accept immunity from prosecution he could then be compelled to testify without the protection of the 5th?
That is correct. If you don't face criminal penalties for your past actions because you've been pardoned or granted immunity you cannot refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. You have to be very careful with grants of immunity though, because they often only cover specific things so you're not immune if asked about some criminal matter not covered in the grant (and can thus plead the Fifth about that specific thing). Same with pardons.
My personal opinion: if it is true Trump raped this woman, why should American tax dollars be used to defend Trump? Let him fight his own civil battles.
The Congressional Select Committee had subpoenaed the National Archives for any Trump papers related to the 6 January incident. Trump sued to block the release claiming those papers fall under the executive privilege umbrella. A federal judge dismissed the suit pointing out Trump was no longer president and therefore could not claim executive president. Well, Trump appealed that decision. Now, a three judge panel from Washington DC Court of Appeals has denied him, saying he did not present a compelling case to consider. (The three judges, btw, were Obama appointees). They ordered the National Archives to release the documents in two weeks or until after the Supreme Court rules on Trump's final appeal, whichever is the later.
Now, the question will be will the conservative leaning SCOTUS rule in favor of Trump or not.
Taking odds.
My bet is it will be five to four one way or the other.
Story Here
Personally, I think McConnell is hoping the Select Committee with drive a wooden stake through the hope that Trump can regain the presidency.
Meanwhile, of note, is that many of the candidates Trump has endorsed for the next round of elections (2022) have either dropped out of their races or are so far behind in the polling, there is little chance of them winning.
I'm kinda doubting @Gramps49 has much love for him either. I took his comments as strictly describing the political strategy employed by McConnell. To wit...
McConnell doesn't want Trump to run again. However, given T's popularity with the Republican base, McConnell couldn't come right out and say that Trump shoulda been convicted, not without jeopardizing his own position. So instead, he'll pursue a death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy, supporting an investigation that he assumes will damage Trump, without actually stating that that's what he wants to happen.
I am not a McConnell fan by a long shot, but McConnell and the rest of the Kentucky Congressional Delegation has come out in support of the Democratic Governor's Request for assistance, and Biden has gone a long way to providing federal assistance regardless of party differences.
This is much unlike Trump. During the his administration, Trump would not allow federal assistance go to states he did not like. Here in Washington State we had two small villages burn completely to the ground during a wildfire. Trump simply ignored the requests for disaster relief even when they were coming from one of his strongest Congressional supporters mainly because he did not get along with Gov. Inslee. Biden finally accepted the disaster declaration a month after he took over the office--though there will still complications to get through from FEMA--another long story.
In other news, here is a report from Newsweek that outlines one of the most bizarre Trump meetings in the White House concerning the 2020 elections.
To me, Mitch McConnell is like a champion player for another team. He just sits there, the Geoff Boycott of the Senate, playing the game slowly and steadily until he triumphs. That he has always had loose control over his caucus at best makes his achievements all the greater. I mean, if a Democratic senator executed a strategy to bring about a progressive majority on the Supreme Court including pulling a stunt like McConnell pulled with Garland, I would have a small house god altar set up for her.
I agree with Stetson. McConnell wants Trump's head, but he wants it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack. He wants to be able to cry over Trump's corpse, to lead his funeral procession, perhaps even to execute Trump's executioners himself. He does not want to wear the blame.
As in Shakespeare's Mark Anthony's speech, "I have come to bury Caesar, not praise him"?
I get exactly what you're saying, but just to clarify...
Did you mean to write "...he doesn't want it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack"? Because that would seem to fit your metaphorical segue better: usually, when the head is thrown at somebody's feet, it signifies clearly that that guy is the one who ordered the death. Whereas we're both arguing that McConnell would try to avoid being seen as responsible for Trump's downfall.
Well, sort of the reverse, I think. Shakespeare seems to imply that Marc Antony opposed the ousting of Caeser, but wanted the public to think he did support it("Well, who am I to argue with a good guy like Brutus?").
But as Simon is saying, McConnell likely supports knifing Trump in the back, but wants the public to think he opposes it. So if Trump is Caeser, than McConnell would say to the public that he wants to praise Caeser, not bury him.
(It's bern decades since I skimmed through that play, so if I've misremembered anything about it, I'm open to correction.)
I reread Marc's speech. It does seem Anthony was taking a backhanded swipe at Brutus. But I do not think any one at least on the left would deny Trump has been an ambitious--read power-loving--man.
In other news, three retired generals have now expressed concern about the possible results of the 2024 election should it be as contested as the 2020 election and certain units pledge allegiance to a "Trumpian Loser." Civil War? https://news.yahoo.com/retired-us-army-generals-warn-111254086.html
But I think by the last time Marc Antony says “and Brutus is an honorable man,” the audience—both those on stage and those watching the stage—are supposed to be questioning just how honorable Brutus really is.
Right. That was sort of my revised opinion after I(along with Gramps, apparently) re-read the speech earlier: he WANTS the crowd to know he liked Caeser and dislikes Brutus, while giving himself what we now call "plausible deniability".
Ya, I re-read it.
Plausible Deniability--a good description.