Wrong and Strong, Seemingly

Steve M in his No MoreN Mr. Nice Blog makes a very good point.

Remember the end of Donald Trump's 2024 campaign? The town hall that concluded with Trump dancing onstage for a half-hour? The anecdote about Arnold Palmer's penis? The Madison Square Garden rally -- in a state Trump had no chance of winning -- that turned into a racist, profane grievance-fest? The fry cook and garbageman cosplay?

We thought the wheels were coming off the bus. We thought the public would recognize Trump's obvious unfitness to serve. Instead, he won the election, won the popular vote for the first time, and received more votes and a greater percentage of the popular vote than he had in his first two elections.

So am I saying that the 2024 Trump campaign wasn't a shambolic mess? No. In many ways, it was a shambolic mess. But it appears to have been a shambolic mess in such an aggressive, in-your-face way that millions of voters responded positively to the preposterousness of it all. They liked Trump's arthritic dance moves and granddad music playlist. They decided, somehow, that the unapologetic way Trump would say any WTF thing he felt like saying meant he was just the crazy bastard America needed to take on the bad guys.....

It seems to me that voters don't care what Trump is doing -- they just like the fact that he's doing whatever he's doing vigorously and forcefully. Once again, it appears that a famous 2002 Bill Clinton remark was correct:

"When people are feeling insecure, they'd rather have someone who is strong and wrong rather than somebody who is weak and right"...

Trump is proving that there's apparently no limit to how wrong you can be and still get the benefit of seeming strong.

That is the only way- or at least the best way- to make sense of Trump bragging about this, and getting away with it.

 

2020 in his last year so gas, food, anything transported/trucked cost American people more for first couple yrs of Biden presidency until another failed trump deal expired. https://t.co/moqGFO1xyI

— Jumbo Elliott (@JumboElliott76) December 14, 2024

In the video, Trump comes off as a strong, first-class dealmaker, as he typically- successfully- tries to do. Though not the paragon of objectivity, Climate Power- in what has never been refuted- two months ago explained 

In April  2020, Donald Trump cut a deal with Vladimir Putin, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and OPEC to intentionally increase oil prices and bail out his biggest oil donors after a price war between Russia and the Saudis sent oil prices plunging.

Trump cut the deal after his biggest fossil fuel backers lost billions from their net worth in just weeks, including Trump’s most crucial oil donor, Harold Hamm, who convinced Trump to bail the oil industry out after he lost $3 billion in days. 

Hamm leveraged his years of support for Trump, convincing him to host a whole roomful of oil executives at the White House to hash out the deal. Attendees included Kelcy Warren, Jeff Hildebrand, Vicki Hollub, and, of course, Harold Hamm. 

If any of those names sound familiar, that’s because they all responded to Trump’s April request for $1 billion by cohosting multiple fundraisers for him over the past six months. That includes the CEO who told Trump that she was upset at the FTC for requesting her cell phone record while they were reportedly investigating her over allegations of potential collusion with OPEC to raise gas prices....

 A USA Today editorial asked, “Amid coronavirus pandemic, why is Donald Trump trying to push up fuel prices?”… The editorial board wrote that  “the most unambiguous winners of higher prices are countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia, not the United States, which is still a net importer. What’s more, his move attempts to help oil companies by imposing higher costs on U.S. consumers, workers and fuel-reliant businesses.”

Trump boasted "said we got to get it up a little. I called Russia and the King of Saudi Arabia. We had a three-way call and we cult back on the oilbecause it was so incredible- helped fill up the Strategic national reserve" (i.e., Strategic Petroleum Reserve).  

There was little or no downside for the President because he declared victory as Democrats chose not to highlight the issue. It was a twofer for Trump- pleasing both his energy donors and boosting the economy of one of his favorite countries, Russia. Six months later, Saudi Arabia threw $2 billion dollars to son-in-law Jared Kushne, thereby consummating what Trump might satisfyingly call a "three-way."

Share |

Not Enlightening

Smug meets smug. Audie Cornish and Scott Jennings are both wrong.

Jennings: Are you saying I'm not a Christian?

Cornish: It's a values based comment.

Jennings: Are you saying I don't have any values?

Cornish: He needs a clip for the internet. pic.twitter.com/et1yCs9IN4

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 11, 2024

As best as I can make out, the exchange went as follows:

Audie Cornish (to Jennings): You go after people all the time for a variety of things.

Scott Jennings (to Cornish); You keep referring to Neely as the victime. I think Penny is the victim in this case and I think people on that tain thing he's the victim.

A.C.: I call the people who die a victim. But we have different ideas bout that. Um, but to my mind someone who lost a child and I'm always going to feel for that person. That' just how I'm built. It's a Christian thing. But the reason I'm asking is-

S.J.: Are you saying that I'm not a Christian?

A.C. I'm not at all. I just want to make sure you uderstand it's a value-based comment, not a political one.

S.J. Are you saying I don't have any values about.... (not easily understood)?

(Someone off-camera): She's not saying that.

Of course, Cornish, of whom I'm a fan, was saying that. Or she was saying that Jennings is not a Christian. And it's more a human thing than a "christian" thing to sympathize with someone who lost a child.

Still, Cornish understood that Neely was the individual who was the object of an alleged crime. (His death may have been the first clue.)  If there were any doubt that Daniel Penny killed Jordan Neely, Penny would not have been charged. Perhaps Jennings meant that the ex-Marine was the victim because he was prosecuted- but he did not say that.

But more interesiting is Cornish's suggestion that the only legitimate Christian perspective is empathizing with Neely rather than Penny. This seemingly contrasts with the sentiment of a minister from St. Joseph, Missouri quoted by author and journalist Tim Alberta in The Kingdom, The Power, And The Glory (emphasis Alberta's). Of wrapping oneself in the politics of being Christian

There's this fale assumption of action we're called to take. The task of the Church is simply to be the Church. All of this high-blown rhetoric abouit changing the world- we don't need to change the world. We're not called to change the world. We're called to be the world already changed by Christ. That's how we're salt; that's how we're light.

I talk about Jesus in the context of His kingdom. The idea that Jesus is some mascot for the donkeys or the elephants- it's a catastrophe for the gospel.

For the Church, and for helpful political dialogue, which this was not.

Share |

Tulsi Gabbard's Identity

Besides possibly being a Russian assset, Tulsi Gabbard has at least one interesting acquaintance. "

Back in 2017 DNI pick Tulsi Gabbard visited Syria and met with brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad. Throughout the war she repeatedly voiced support for Assad's regime crushing the Syrian Revolution.

Now that he's fallen she can't even bring herself to say his name. pic.twitter.com/EVRw6mmpR0

— Thomas van Linge (@ThomasVLinge) December 10, 2024

Last month, Nikki Haley noted Gabbard had gone "to Syria in 2017 for a photo-op with Bashar al-Assad while he was massacring his own people. She said she was skeptical that he was behind the chemical weapons attack. Now, this to me is disgusting."

Haley's political star has plummeted and Assad has fled Syria for Russia but Gabbard may be on her way to being Director of National Intelligence. But aside from the major issues- Syria and Russia swirling around her, Gabbard is a flaming hypocrite.

Tulsi Gabbard was born in American Samoa and raised in Hawaii. She is a Hindu who married a Hindu, Abraham Williams, in Oahu in 2015 in what she dexribed as a "Hawaiian-style Hindu wedding" with Vedic customs. However, the Democrat turned Independent turned Republican in May stated

Many of those who are in great positions of poer in the Democratic Party, whether they admit it or not, or realize it or not, they see themselves as God. They appoint themselves as the authority. They view themselves as the ones who get to decide how we live our lives, what we're allowed to say, who we're allowed to hear from (and) how we get our information.

When Gabbard says "God," it is not clear to what or whom she is referring because

The majority of Hindus believe in one supreme God ((The Brahman). Everything is a part of and a manifestation of Brahman, the ultimate reality; however, Brahman's qualities and powers may be represented by a great diversity of gods/deities, all of which emanate from The Brahman. The concept of Brahman and the relationship of the Supreme Being with nature, indvidual souls, and TheBrahman's various manifestations are the subject of many different Hindu schools of philosophy/belief. 

The unvierse, Earth, and all creatures were created by Brahma, one of the many gds that emanated from The Brahman.

Thus, there is a monotheistic aspect of Hinduism.  Nonetheless, it is not considered among the three major monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and for good reason.

Tulsi Gabbard is is no position legitimately to lecture Democrats, the overwhelming majority of whom identify as Christians, Jews, or Muslims. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are monotheistic. Yet, Gabbard, who belongs- and identifies with- a religion which seemingly recognizes a few gods, claims Democrats see themselves as "God."

Nor does Gabbard herself appear to believe in God. Below is a video in which she and her husband are singing along to John Lennon's Imagine. The lyrics begin

Imagine there's no heaven. It's eay if you try. No hell below us. Above us, only sky....

Imagine there's no countries. It isn'thard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion, too.

"Imagine there's no heaven (and) no hell below us, "and no religion, too."  Fortunately, there is no religious test for public office in the USA. and there are more important reasons to reject Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. But it may be one more indication that the nominee, who has ducked questiosns about her relationship with Bashar Assad and is Russia-friendly, is not exactly whom she appears to be.

Share |

The Once, Still, and Future President

Shortly before the tweet below, NBC News noted

Foreign leaders have lined up to speak with him. He has rattled Mexico and Canada with threats of steep tariffs and warned there would be “hell to pay” for militants in Gaza unless they release the hostages by the time he’s sworn in.

That won't happen for another 45 days, but Donald Trump, the president-in-waiting, isn't shying away from acting like the president-in-reality.

Trump can't sign a bill or issue an executive order yet, but he is crowding out Joe Biden as the sitting president winds down his term and steadily recedes from public view. In two foreign trips since the election, Biden has answered all of two questions from reporters.

He has been left to kibitz about Trump’s pronouncements — “I hope he rethinks it,” he said of Trump’s plan to impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico — rather than drive an agenda of his own.

Why TF is Donald Trump in France for the reopening of Notre Dame and meeting with President Macron?

What a total disgrace. pic.twitter.com/2PbOe0POfC

— Art Candee 🍿🥤 (@ArtCandee) December 7, 2024

Throughout the campaign this summer and fall, Republicans routinely referred to their candidate as "President Trump" or "the President."  Many broadcast "journalists" did so also and only on rare occassions would the news host \offer the correction of "ex-President" or "former President."

If there was one essential prenuse if Trump's candidacy, it was that he has been "President Trump" all along. AP reported in March

Republican Donald Trump has launched his general election campaign not merely rewriting the history of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, but positioning the violent siege and its failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election as a cornerstone of his bid to return to the White House.

At a weekend rally in Ohio, his first as the presumed Republican Party presidential nominee, Trump stood onstage, his hand raised in salute to the brim of his red MAGA hat, as a recorded chorus of prisoners in jail for their roles in the Jan. 6 attack sang the national anthem.

An announcer asked the crowd to please rise “for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages.” And people did, and sang along.

“They were unbelievable patriots,” Trump said as the recording ended.

Having previously vowed to pardon the rioters, he promised to help them “the first day we get into office.”

In September, Trump admitted that he had lost the 2020 election "by a whisker." That was six months after falsely claiming "eighty-two percent of the country understands that it was a rigged election" and three months after whining that Biden "only attained the position of president by lies, fake news, and not leaving his basement."

It's who he is- or rather, whom he pretends he is. He always has to be the Big Man on Campus and wants to portray himself as having always been President. He's still the guy who brushed aside the prime minister of Montenegro at a NATO summit in Brussels in May, 2017. He always has to be the Big Man on Campus, who became the President, was cheated out of a second term, and will be President indefinitely.

        

Share |

Fine Supplicants

It's actually worse than this.

Joe and Mika are butthurt by the backlash from them going to Mar-a-Lardo to slurp on trump’s tiny 🍄. “We went there to get the read of the man.” 🙄 What’s to read? We already know he’s a racist, fascist, criminal piece of shit. They can go fuck themselves.pic.twitter.com/N2hvBeVxla

— 😱 Scary Larry 😱 🇺🇦✊🏻🇺🇸🗽 (@aintscarylarry) December 5, 2024

In a classic example of platforming a demagogue and totalitarian whom pre-election they had labeled a "fascist," Joe Scarborough on Thursday morning

defended a meeting that he and Brzezinski had earlier this month with Trump. Their revelation of the off-the-record visit to Mar-A-Lago drew a backlash, as they had previously warned of Trump’s authoritarianism and even compared him to a fascist.

He acknowledged that people were upset and that “maybe we should have given them more of a warning,” but “the main complaint was that we called Donald Trump’s rhetoric fascist during the campaign, and then we went down to have an off the record comment with him.” Brzezinski noted that other news outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post and even The Atlantic have done the same. 

When on November 18 the two revealed they had a chat with the President-elect

Scarborough said, “we didn’t see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues, and we told him so.” But “what we did agree on was to restart communications,” Brzezinski said, suggesting that their behavior should be a model for others..

Brzezinski said Trump was cheerful, upbeat and “seemed interested in finding common ground with Democrats on some of the most divisive issues.” She did not specify which ones.

In her explanation of the meeting, Brzezinski pointed to Trump’s election victory and said “Joe and I realized it’s time to do something different, and that starts with not only talking about Donald Trump, but talking with him.”.

Three+ weeks later

On Wednesday, during a segment on former Fox News host Pete Hegseth’s teetering nomination as Trump’s next secretary of defense, (Atlantic writer David) Frum quipped, “If you’re too drunk for Fox News, you’re very, very drunk indeed.” That was in response to an NBC News report that colleagues on Fox & Friends Weekend had concerns over Hegseth’s drinking.

With stick stuck squarely up her rear end

Brzezinski followed up the segment by telling viewers that Frum’s comment was “a little too flippant” and that “we have differences in coverage with Fox News, and that’s a good debate that we should have often, but right now I just want to say there’s a lot of good people who work at Fox News who care about Pete Hegseth, and we will want to leave it at that.

Frum responded

This morning, I had an unsettling experience.

I was invited onto MSNBC’s Morning Joe to talk from a studio in Washington, D.C., about an article I’d written on Trump’s approach to foreign policy. Before getting to the article, I was asked about the nomination of Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense—specifically about an NBC News report that his heavy drinking worried colleagues at Fox News and at the veterans organizations he’d headed. (A spokesman for the Trump transition told NBC, “These disgusting allegations are completely unfounded and false, and anyone peddling these defamatory lies to score political cheap shots is sickening.” )

I answered by reminding viewers of some history:

In 1989, President George H. W. Bush nominated John Tower, senator from Texas, for secretary of defense. Tower was a very considerable person, a real defense intellectual, someone who deeply understood defense, unlike the current nominee. It emerged that Tower had a drinking problem, and when he was drinking too much he would make himself a nuisance or worse to women around him. And for that reason, his nomination collapsed in 1989. You don’t want to think that our moral standards have declined so much that you can say: Let’s take all the drinking, all the sex-pesting, subtract any knowledge of defense, subtract any leadership, and there is your next secretary of defense for the 21st century.

I told this story in pungent terms. It’s cable TV, after all. And I introduced the discussion with a joke: “If you’re too drunk for Fox News, you’re very, very drunk indeed.”

At the next ad break, a producer spoke into my ear. He objected to my comments about Fox and warned me not to repeat them. I said something noncommittal and got another round of warning. After the break, I was asked a follow-up question on a different topic, about President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son. I did not revert to the earlier discussion, not because I had been warned, but because I had said my piece. I was then told that I was excused from the studio chair. Shortly afterward, co-host Mika Brzezinski read an apology for my remarks.

A little bit earlier in this block there was a comment made about Fox News, in our coverage about Pete Hegseth and the growing number of allegations about his behavior over the years and possible addiction to alcohol or issues with alcohol. The comment was a little too flippant for this moment that we’re in. We just want to make that comment as well. We want to make that clear. We have differences in coverage with Fox News, and that’s a good debate that we should have often, but right now I just want to say there’s a lot of good people who work at Fox News who care about Pete Hegseth, and we will want to leave it at that.

After the Wednesday incident and the responses to it, two additional things have become known while one thing remains unknown, despite speculation.

David Frum has never understood that the modern Republican Party, which he abhors, did not come out of thin air and had its antecedents at least as far back as the Reagan presidency. However, he obviously has a great deal of integrity, as his Hedgeseth remark, his willingness to move past it, and his written explanation evince.

We still cannot be confident of the reason for the visit by the Scarboroughs to Mar-a-Lago. It has seemed to me and to most observers that they were caving to Trump because they fear being among those who will be prosecuted and persecuted after January 20 for exercising their First Amendment rights. However, on Wednesday, Joe stated "Let me tell you something: You can talk to anybody that’s worked in the front office of NBC and MSNBC over the past 22 years, [they] will tell you I am not fearful. You talk to anybody who has served with me in Congress, they will tell you — not fearful of leadership.”

Times change, circumstances change, and people change and perhaps Joe and Mika- whatever Joe's past- are now scaredy cats, and justifiably so. Alternatively, they've read the tea leaves. Donald Trump is returning to the presidency, MSNBC is up for sale, and they may need an alternative in journalism or even a different career. 

Currying favor with such a man, access journalism run amok, would be worse than merely acting out of fear. Interviewing Donald Trump on the latter's own turf, doing so without video, and choosing not to report the details of the chat are very bad indeed, made even worse when Brzezinski did Trump's bidding by claiming he was "cheerful, upbeat" and was "interested in finding common ground." Ms. Brzezinski is a fine stenographer but leaves unclear whether the President-elect played them or they're trying to play their viewers.

Yet, if their motive is not completely certain, the content of their character is. It's bad enough to suck up to Donald J. Trump. However, they exacerbated the situation when a flunky (with or without their direction) tells Frum not to repeat the comment. As requested, Frum avoids the subject, then is kicked out. 

This is despicable behavior by the hosts and is making MSNBC look even worse than it has. And these days, that's difficult to do.

Share |

Far-Fetched Dream

The announcement on Sunday of the decision of President Joe Biden to pardon son Hunter Biden was met with swift criticism.

Several members of Congress were upset.

Senators Peter Welch of Vermont labeled it "unwise" and Gary Peters of Michigan termed it "wrong."  Representatives Gerry Connolly of Virginia admonished the President while,Jason Crow of Colorado said it was "a mistake," and Greg Stanton of Ohio remarked "... but I think he got this one wrong." Representative Greg Landsman of Arizon tweeted ".... but as someone who wants people to believe in public service again, it's a setback." Ro Khanna of California slammed it as a manifestation of "the archaic pardon power."

With, presumably, a straight face, centrist Marie Gluesenkamp of Washington State posted "no family should be above the law." (How is that two billion dollars Jared Kushner pocketed from the butchers of Riyadh figure in with that, Congresswoman?)

Michael Bennet of of Colorado contended the pardon puts "personal interest ahead of duty and further erodes Americans' faith that the justice system is fair and equal for all."

And these were Democrats. 

(Bennet's concern that Americans trust the justice system to be "fair and equal for all" is particularly amusing. In the summer of 2020, Bennet was a full-throated supporter of the black lives matter movement, which strenuously argued that treatment of blacks by the police and criminal justice system is, well, unfair and unequal compared to the treatment other people receive. Presumably, after the end of those protesst, Bennet decided, until Sunday, that the justice system actually is fair and equal for all.)

President Biden's action was condemned, as inevitable, by several Republicans. And the Hunter and Joe episode presents an opportunity for action in which Democrats concerned with gun safety and Republicans horrified by street crime can join together in an effective bipartisan manner.

Hunter Biden was convicted in June of three federal gun charges stemming from lying on an application for a gun license.  As noted here, he lied on a federal screening form about his drug use, lied to a gun dealer, and possessed a firearm despite restrictions for people addicted to drugs. In September, he pled guilty to three felonies and six misdemeanors for failing to pay $1.4 million in federalt axes from 2016 to 2019. He already had paid the money back, plus penalties bit was to be sentenced on both cases in a few weeks.

Question 11e on Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record of the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firears reads

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

As with virtually every other user or abuser of an illegal drug, Mr. Biden marked the "no" rather than the "yes" box.  (Presumably, anyone checking "yes" would be denied a firearms license on the grounds of stupidity.)  Drug addicts, and even users not addicted, are not partial to ratting themselves out to law enforcement authorities and have little incentive to be truthful because

The odds of being charged for lying on the form are virtually nonexistent. In the 2019 fiscal year, when Hunter Biden purchased his gun, federal prosecutors received 478 referrals for lying on Form 4473 — and filed just 298 cases. The numbers were roughly similar for fiscal 2020. At issue is when Biden answered “no” on the question that asks about unlawful drug use and addiction when purchasing a gun. Biden had been discharged five years earlier from the Navy Reserve for drug use and based on his 2021 memoir, he was actively using crack cocaine in the year he bought the gun. The data do not show how many people might have been prosecuted for falsely answering the question about active drug use. A 1990 Justice Department study noted how difficult it was to bring cases against people who falsely answer questions on the form, especially because there is no paper trail for drug abusers like there is for felons.

As Dan Abrams objectively explains in the transaction beginning at 10:38:

 

Nonetheless, lying on a form to obtain a firearm is a serious offense- or should be treated as such. Democrats could (would) call the GOP's bluff by proposing to congressional Republicans that prosecution be mandatory for lying on the ATF application for a gun license.  Democrats are serious about gun safety laws (when race is not a direct or indirect factor) and Republicans are troubled about Hunter Biden and (during an election campaign) crime. Democrats might even suggest that lying on the drug use question (11e) prompt mandatory jail/prison time.

It's great occasion for that kind of approach, not only because of Hunter Biden. James Carville, James Clyburn, and others have slammed fellow Democrats for allegedly supporting "defund the police."  Condemning the elder Biden, ihe leading Republican on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Mike Johnson, arged "real reform cannot begin soon enough."

So real reform might begin with an effort to keep firearms out of the hands of irresponsible or dangerous individuals. Just kidding! Johnson has no interest in gun safety, whatever it is he meant by "reform."  Democrats are adjusting to the reality of being steamrolled next year by the Party of Trump, and the mass incarceration (especially of blacks) encouraged by President Clinton's 1994 anti-crime legislation has made them gunshy about mandatory prosecution, let alone imprisonment. And so this Biden tempest in a teapot will go on or with any luck, will not.

Share |

The "No One Above the Law" That Never Was

There are many things which will determine President Biden's legacy, including probably being the last President of our democratic republic (representative democracy, if you wish). This is the least of them:

Biden's pardon of his son erodes the rule of law, shrinks the distance between the Dems and the GOP, and objectively aids whatever nonsense Trump is about to do.

In this last year, he torched what might have been a decent legacy.

— Joe Stieb (@joestieb) December 2, 2024

The distance between Democrats and Republicans on the rule of law now has shrunk by almost one millimeter.The distance remains as vast as the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, together. Nonetheless, as this is typed, the tweeter's notion is a popular one on Twitter. A political strategist and editor of The Bulwark a conservative, anti-Trump organ, takes the same position.when she tweets (quote marks hers)

“Pardoning Hunter, who has pleaded guilty, would persuade those who still believe in impartial justice that it’s all a pretense—that Democrats mouth the words about nobody being above the law but when it comes down to it, they don’t believe it and they don’t act on it.”

Longwell has been listening too much to the lawyers, many of them former federal prosecutors, on cable news who have assurred us for several years that "no one is above the law." On this, at least, most Americans have been well ahead of the legal geniuses who either believe this or have been blowing smoke up our posterior.

Left, right, or center, people without a law degree- without a stake in vouching for the credibility of the legal system- have recognized that some people are above the law. At the least, this always has applied to the wealthy. And then five months ago- that would be five months before President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter- the Supreme Court told us so when in Trump v. United States it ruled

that former President Trump is at least presumptively immune from criminal liability for his official acts, and is absolutely immune for some “core” of them — including his attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct the results of the election. With respect to Trump’s other actions, the court left to the lower courts much of the work required to determine which are immune and which are not. At bottom, though, the court’s 6-3 majority freed presidents to use their official powers to engage in criminal acts substantially free of accountability.

Six days ago, exasperated by the request by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith for Judge Chutkan to dismiss (without prejudice) the January 6 case against Donald Trump, Charlie Pierce wrote in part

Of course, Smith’s case against the two Mar-a-Lago orcs who did (literally) the heavy lifting in the Pool Shed Papers Case will go forward because, as we know, No Scrub Is Above the Law. Comin’ soon to the ID Network: Walt Nauta: Threat of Menace? This is nothing short of pathetic. In fact, it’s well past pathetic.

Oh, just shut up and go away, will you? Tell me no more lies about the rule of law and about how no man is above it....  Let the chroniclers write that the only people who did not lie to us about all that star-spangled folderol were local prosecutors in Manhattan and Atlanta, and a New York jury. In the name of God, go, all of you. Leave us to learn how to live under the crumb-scattering oligarchy that you have done so much to spawn. That will be the order of the American idea probably for the rest of my lifetime, and the only thing we can hope for is that it won’t always be run by a vengeful, lunatic crook. That seems to be the consensus of my fellow citizens, as expressed by the recent election results. The one thing that Trump voters and nonvoters alike have in common is that participatory democracy is just too...damn...hard. Here we are now, entertain us.

That rant applies also to the hand-wringing over the HB pardon. The idea that "no one is above the law" had been in hospice care for a very long time. Donald Trump put it onto life support and the United States Supreme Court killed it on July 1, 2024. President Joe Biden's decision about a family member will not change that.

             .

Share |