Wrote the Editorial Board of the NYT in "Donald Trump Is Not Above the Law," which went up last Friday. I didn't read it at the time because the headline is so banal, but I looked back at it because someone told me that the NYT editors were calling for the indictment of Trump.
That's not the case. They're only saying that "If Attorney General Merrick Garland and his staff conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt on a serious charge in a court of law, then they must seek an indictment too." That is, the editors reject the idea that there's room for discretion, for consideration of when and whether to prosecute a former President.
But I ran into that quote I put in the post title — it's in the first paragraph — and I've been thinking about the contradiction inherent in claiming to be protecting "democracy" and acting to deprive the people of the opportunity to vote for a particular political candidate.
The urgency to stop Trump feels like a mistrust of the people. The deplorable subsection of America shouldn't have elected him the first time — so goes the elite opinion — and we can't let those people have another chance to give this man power. That's anti-democratic, and yet isn't it why the oligarchy presents itself as serving democracy?
That's my question. Is it one of the NYT editors' "profound questions about American democracy"? I doubt it, but I will finally read this thing and let you know if — by off chance — the elite editors of the NYT notice the contradiction:
Mr. Trump’s unprecedented assault on the integrity of American democracy requires a criminal investigation....
Trump is framed as the attacker of democracy, rather than as a candidate in a forthcoming democratic election. He's going to wreck elections, not participate in them.
[D]oing nothing to hold him accountable for his actions in the months leading up to Jan. 6 could set an irresistible precedent for future presidents. Why not attempt to stay in power by any means necessary or use the power of the office to enrich oneself or punish one’s enemies, knowing that the law does not apply to presidents in or out of office?...
Trump pursued available remedies and didn't get very far, then participated in a big demonstration, but do you want to criminalize seeking court remedies and delivering momentous speeches? That doesn't approach "by any means necessary." And it's odd to include on that list "us[ing] the power of the office to... punish one’s enemies," because that sounds like what is being done to Trump.
A week after the attack, the House impeached Mr. Trump for the second time. This editorial board supported his impeachment and removal from office; we also suggested that the former president and lawmakers who participated in the Jan. 6 plot could be permanently barred from holding office under a provision of the 14th Amendment that applies to any official who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to those who have done so....
Now, that would get into "by any means necessary" territory, stretching the legal text in an effort to prevent Trump from running for office again. Why can't you let the people vote for whomever we want? In the name of democracy, you mistrust democracy.
[T]he threat that Mr. Trump and his most ardent supporters pose to American democracy has metastasized.
Again, Trump is portrayed as the enemy of democracy.
Even now, the former president continues to spread lies about the 2020 election and denounce his vice president, Mike Pence, for not breaking the law on his behalf....
Part of democracy is critiquing democracy. Both sides do it, and both sides lie. The "Russia collusion" hoax dogged Trump throughout his presidency. We need to be able to debate about defects in the voting and vote counting process, even as we also need to be able to declare a winner within a practical timeframe. Would the NYT denounce things like "Not My President Day" or all the people who think Al Gore won in 2000?
No, there won't be any principled demand to suppress lies — and spin and exaggeration and strained legal arguments — about elections, and if there were, it would be a despicable attack on freedom of speech. The remedy for what they see as lies about the election is simply more speech. I understand their frustration: Why do people keep believing what the NYT believes it knows to be lies? But that's always the problem with freedom of speech. People tell and believe a lot of lies. If you want democracy, you can't let that flip you out into hysteria. Concentrate on the next election and defeat your opponent at the polls.
If your response is, no, because my opponent might win and we can't take that risk, then you don't believe in democracy.
Posts
123 comments:
The NYT is a business with a specific audience. They write for that audience. Believing doesn't come into it so much as cynical business sense on the part of the editors and entertainment genre choice on the part of the NYT's audience. That's also why more speech doesn't have too much effect if it's in terms of political science instead of narrative entertainment choices.
To wit, in this case, soap opera.
If presidents were not above the law, Biden would be in prison, and Hunter would be attending parole hearings for multiple offenses. For that matter, my over/under for the number of persons in Congress that should be in prison is 200. I recommend the over.
This is the New York Times, so the ignorance is expected. It is cute when truly stupid people try to sound intelligent.
Trump's enemies have twisted themselves into so many knots with their convoluted arguments that the only response they have left is to persecute and dispose of him.
It is pretty simple: They don't believe in democracy.
That is, the editors reject the idea that there's room for discretion, for consideration of when and whether to prosecute a former President.
what's ever happened to: "No Reasonable Prosecutor.." ???
or was that only for democrats?
@Althouse wrote: "Why do people keep believing what the NYT believes it knows to be lies? But that's always the problem with freedom of speech. People tell and believe a lot of lies."
Honestly, because people continue to read and cite the NYT. Lies generate reliable income. Those who grew up decades ago still imagine the NYT is the paper of record. That ended with Trumpmania. People with long memories also believe that CNN is a "news" source rather than an opinion source.
You are here contributing to the problem. Stop watching propaganda. Stop reading propaganda. Stop discussing propaganda. Force the propagandists to spend ever more money to reach ever smaller audiences. Bleed them dry. Hunger leads to reformation.
Read about propaganda from third-party aggregators who slog through the mud for all of us. Samples:
https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
https://ground.news/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Fine analysis, Althouse!
Are Secretary of State's above the law? Bueller? Bueller?
(crickets)
The entire reason Joe Biden ran for President is so he couldn't be indicted. Same reason Hillary ran. Only reason they run. They don't give two shits about the country. Just want to stay out of Epstein's cell.
JFC, not a democracy.
Not a democracy. How many f**king times does this need to be repated?
I know, I know...but still. Gah.
A constitutional republic.
"If Attorney General Merrick Garland and his staff conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt on a serious charge in a court of law, then they must seek an indictment too.""
I could get behind them on this IF they also said,
"If the AG and his staff conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish Mrs. Clinton's guilt on a serious charge [mishandling classified information-related] in a court of law, then they must seek an indictment too.""
But the unequal treatment of the law belies the failed thinking of a intellectually dishonest publication trading on glory long ago abandoned in pursuit of ideology.
Reminiscent of Sam Harris.
These kinds of editorials serve a purpose: To convince people, falsely, that Democracy still exists in the United States.
It does not. The people cannot elect the President they wish to lead them. Not in the United States.
The Democrat Party can hold actual fire-breathing, arson-having protests and are routinely invited into the Capital to hold Republicans hostage in elevators whenever their chosen people aren't elevated.
But Republicans cannot do that. Show trials. Imprisonment without trial. FBI raids that do nothing but give that corrupt agency the opportunity to plant evidence. FBI agents deciding who will and who will not be investigated depending on his own personal political preferences.
That's the United States. It used to be a Democracy. It's a fucking banana republic joke now. It's over. There is no shining city on a hill. It's a fucking tire fire. Somebody might want to let the NY Times in on it since they apparently don't get out of the office much.
"If Attorney General Merrick Garland and his staff conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt on a serious charge in a court of law, then they must seek an indictment too."
Okay.
Now comes the why:
Mr. Trump’s unprecedented assault on the integrity of American democracy requires a criminal investigation....[D]oing nothing to hold him accountable for his actions in the months leading up to Jan. 6 could set an irresistible precedent for future presidents.
But that isn't what AG Garland is investigating Trump for. That isn't what he'd be indicting Trump for.
So are they saying Trump must be indicted for one thing to punish him for something else, thereby making an example of him? Find any serious charge and indict him? To save democracy?
It's not democracy they're trying to save, it's bacon.
If a conservative president is ever allowed to be elected again, he/she needs to go scorched earth on the deep state.
That includes firing thousands of government employees, shutting down entire departments, and prosecuting every Dem (Hillary, Hunter, et al) that still have time left on the statute of limitations.
Maybe then we'll get back to something resembling normalcy.
But I want revenge first.
There's no need for all of this crrupt bullshit the Democrats are pulling.
For the sake of argument, assume Trump is a threat to the republic and an immoral man. The Founding Fathers foresaw such a person and designed a way to deal with such a threat: the Electoral College. Let the people vote for whomever they wish, the educated elite who represent them can veto a bad choice by not voting for them in the Electoral College. It's literally the purpose it was created for. Instead of trying to abolish the Electoral College, the Democrats should be trying to influence Electors to refuse to vote for Trump.
AA appears not to have followed the news on Trump's conduct in the run up to and following the 2020 election.
They seem to be saying, normally we wouldn't call for a former President to be indicted over something like this documents business, but Trump is different.
The NYT has been telling us the normal rules don't apply when it comes to Trump since he declared his candidacy for 2016. It has nothing to do with Jan 6th.
If no one is above the law, then Hillary, Barack, Hunter, and Joe need to go to jail.
As does every single FBI agent part of Crossfire Hurricane
Do let us know when that's happened
Fifty or so national security experts signed a document strongly implying that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian disinformation campaign. These people, along with the Russian collusion hoaxsters, need to be held accountable for their subversion of the electoral politics.
We wouldn't be quite so worried about "our democracy" had our five-fathers ( a generation or so after the four-fathers ) not ratified the 17th amendment.
Whatever happened to Article IV, Section 4? Why is nobody worried about dangers of "domestic violence" against "a Republican Form of Government"?
Who is the man (or person) in the street who can clearly articulate the distinction between a democracy and a republic?
If he'd followed through on his campaign promise to lock her up, he'd be in a real pickle right now.
As it stands he just has to continue asserting that he declassified tons of stuff just because he was too lazy/angry/senile to give it back.
Can all the extreme, lefty TDS be traced back to Trump's investigation of Obama's birth certificate?
And ironically, Trump probably did that because he was friends with the Clintons.
Democracy?? Like this??
Razor
@hale_razor
·
Follow
Guy who breaks student loan contracts, has high-profile federal raids/arrests of political opponents, sicced his DOJ on parents at school board meetings, and hired 87,000 IRS agents is all set to take over prime-time TV to give a speech against the threat of fascism.
9:27 AM · Aug 30, 2022
To the left- Democracy = voting for democrats. Total loyalty. It also means destroying the other party and creating one-party rule.
Then - calling THAT one-party rule- democracy. It's all laughable and frightening.
Someone (Ace of Spades?) described it as "the MacGuffinization of politics" where politics becomes a vehicle for the more important story: the political activist's personal journey.
They hate Trump so much because he can't simply be someone whose views differ from theirs. No, the personal heroic journey requires a villain against which they can test themselves.
Okay maybe it's anti-democratic like the electoral college that helped that vile piece of shit win. But we also live in a constitutional republic in which no man is above the law, not even above a law that he signed. I'm still praying for special circumstances. I bet he doesn't go to The gallows as well as Saddam Hussein did hahaha
Democratic Secretaries of State? Not so much, but yes imprison troublesome Republicans on the slimmest pretext.
Readering said...
AA appears not to have followed the news on Trump's conduct in the run up to and following the 2020 election.
Thanks for proving Ms Althouse's point. What was Trump guilty of before 3 November 2022? Felony campaigning?
TaeJohnDo said...
It is pretty simple: They don't believe in democracy.
Like All Regimes democracy is a train to them.
In 2020 they decided it was time to get off the train.
Thanks to Althouse for the reaonable response to this NYT editorial.
But...
The NYT is America's version of Joe Stalin's Pravda. Everything they say is based on helping the liberal/left establishment (and the Democrat party) gain and retain power. Of course, the NYT's op-ed writers want to prosecute Trump because "no one's above the law". So where's the Op-ed saying Hillary Clinton wasn't "above the law" and calling on DOJ to prosecute her? WHere's the Op-ed saying Hunter Biden and Joe Biden "aren't above the law" and DOJ should investigate and prosecute?
Its all fakery and nonsense. The babble about "no one is above the law" only applies to Republicans. When its Democrats, "Well, that's different". As for this endless, constant, propaganda barrage about "Trump is the enemy of democracy" this is no more supported or makes more sense than Pravda calling the Kulaks "Wreckers" and "Counter-revolutionaires" in the 1930s. Same mentality. Different language.
Readering: "AA appears not to have followed the news on Trump's conduct in the run up to and following the 2020 election."
Readering and all other New Soviet Democraticals remain very very very bitter that Trump did not willingly participate in the conspiracies to frame him and remove him from office and did not happily go along with the "fortification" of the 2020 election.
"If the AG and his staff conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish Mrs. Clinton's guilt on a serious charge [mishandling classified information-related] in a court of law, then they must seek an indictment too.""
Almost never mentioned then, and apparently forgotten now, is that Comey had no authority to make the call to not prosecute.
He was not a prosecutor.
When Rice recused herself because of the shady Bill Clinton airport meeting (talk about corruption), she should have delegated the authority to someone in the DoJ who was an actual prosecutor.
The FBI investigates potential crimes and turns it over to the DoJ who then make the call to either prosecute or not.
Comey did not have that authority...
"I want revenge first."
The next Republican president of the United States needs to appoint me to be the Attorney General. I'll have Hillary Clinton in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba being waterboarded by the end of Day 1.
Then by executive order, eliminate all Farm Bureau debt and raise taxes on Ivy League college stock holdings to pay for it.
I'm sure the NYT is saying exactly what Joe Biden and Garland want to hear. The goal has always been "Destroy Trump by any means neccessary". Already their RINO establishment allies are either giving silent approval, or writing columns about "We have to move on from Trump".
when will they indict Trump on a bogus made up charge? I say, right before the midterms.
Readering said...
AA appears not to have followed the news on Trump's conduct in the run up to and following the 2020 election.
No, she followed it.
She has just noticed that you are all a bunch of liars and you live in a fantasy world where Trump is the enemy of Democracy.
You are the enemy of Democracy Readering.
You are persecuting and jailing political opponents. You are burning down cities. You are assaulting opposing legislators. You are calling for censorship.
You are a fascist.
We have all noticed.
I haven’t seen sufficient evidence of a crime. I did see the FBI sent out photos of classification cover sheets they scattered across the floor to take a picture, but I’ve seen similar cover sheets at the Bush Library in College Station. If coversheets are sensitive documents then why is the FBI circulating the photos to media? Oh yeah, so NYT can note the spectacle.
Holy crap Althouse! That is a complete Fisking of the First Order. Nice. Ima take a smoke break now! Whew.
Althouse wrote: The urgency to stop Trump feels like a mistrust of the people. The deplorable subsection of America shouldn't have elected him in the first time — so goes the elite opinion — and we can't let those people have another chance to give this man power. That's anti-democratic, and yet isn't it why the oligarchy presents itself as serving democracy?
You hit the nail on the head professor. Only a few short months ago you blogged that you hoped the J6 committee could eliminate Trump, or do enough damage to prevent him from running. That was also and anti-democratic effort. They are all in on the corrupt scam you described above. This is quite a turnaround. You've come a long way. Perhaps deserving of a Virginia Slim.
But it's not only a mistrust of the people, it's a hatred and disdain for "the people" [the deplorables]. I like it on the deplorable side of the fence. We still own our own souls.
We also know that there are plenty of Americans that are above the law. You see it every day. What bullshit.
When our media doesn't report on REAL corruption, and you have to read about it in Foreign papers, it sucks. Nasty Nancy has the FBI in her back pocket. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11160727/Paul-Pelosi-hired-private-investigator-try-retrieve-DUI-crash-report-cops.html
He'd be in a real pickle if he'd live up to that campaign promise to lock her up.
Now he just has to keep claiming that he was too lazy/angry/senile or whatever to give these documents back as he was leaving the White House, and thus declassified them at the last second.
So many people running with that defense wonder why we think he's really terrible for our country. It's a mystery!
When it comes to classified documents the President is not above the law, he is the law. Adjudicated by Amy Berman Jackson in 2012 regarding a dispute between the National Archives and former President Clinton, whom the judge said was "the sole arbiter of what was personal and what belongs in the Archive and has SOLE DISCRETION over classification of documents he retained."
No one else has the authority over papers Trump declassified, just like Clinton's prerogative over papers in 2012. Even if Slow Joe retroactively re-classified the Crossfire Hurricane docs, it does not magically create an ex post facto "crime." You fascists are treading an awfully long way from "rule of law equally applied" just to prove Orange Man Bad, but this is the very definition of Bills of Atainder, one of the triggers that set our own Declaration of Independence in motion.
Now they are claiming that they didn’t request “classified documents” but documents “marked as classified,” so they have him now!
I hope they throw him in jail over that, the worse the better.
"Our Democracy" means rule by unelected bureaucrats, a Deep State if you will. For example, see the recent headlines about how California "voted" to ban gas cars. California voted for no such thing. A small group of unelected people did. There was no referendum, no legislation. Trump and his supporters are a threat to that kind of democracy. Unfortunately, they didn't get very far while in office.
They aren’t going to indict Trump, because they aren’t going to get convictions - and it would be very inconvenient to have the charges dismissed on preliminary pleadings:
- They cannot prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the documents they seized were actually still classified. Trump has a signed Presidential order, issued by him, his last day in office, declassifying all of the RussiaGate documents. Did Biden reclassify them? That would look really bad - for Biden. Those documents very likely are still marked as classified, despite having been formally declassified by the person with plenary declassification authority. They are going to look awfully silly trying to claim that he took anything that was still classified, esp since his mere taking the documents out of the WH can be taken as declassified them. So, no presumption that documents marked classified in his control are still actually classified. Without that presumption, how can they prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that the documents were still classified. They can’t (and Intent is a requirement for Espionage Act violations).
- they seem to be using the same egregious LawFare misinterpretation of the Obstruction statute that they used against Trump’s supporters in their Mueller witch-hunt. It was rejected by AG Barr and OLC, because it essentially read both intent and materiality out of the statutory requirements for the crime, by putting disparate phrases together and violating multiple statutory interpretation norms. It has never, ever, been accepted by any federal court.
- Finally, they can’t win on the Presidential Records Act. If he violated it, it wasn’t criminal, and was far less egregious than what was done by former Presidents Clinton and Obama.
Oh, and note - the only nexus with DC is that DOJ and FBI Headquarters are there. The case was started in FL, and that is where it is going to stay. That’s where the disputed documents were stored, then seized. That’s where Trump officially lives. If the DOJ files suit in DC, it will just be shipped back to DC, post haste.
Bob Boyd has hit 90% of this, but if President X took a bunch of documents he wasn’t supposed to and didn’t give them back when asked nicely, that wouldn’t raise any questions about “Our Democracy”. “Our National Security System”, maybe.
So the Times’sters are either talking about using the document issue as a pretext to justify a political prosecution — which is the opposite of treating someone as above the law — or talking about prosecution based on some set of alternative facts.
They're only saying that "If Attorney General Merrick Garland and his staff conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt on a serious charge in a court of law, then they must seek an indictment too."
But they go on to say "Mr. Trump’s unprecedented assault on the integrity of American democracy requires a criminal investigation.... [D]oing nothing to hold him accountable for his actions in the months leading up to Jan. 6 could set an irresistible precedent for future presidents."
In other words, the MYT Editorial Board has already determined his guilt, so Garland must seek an indictment.
'Okay maybe it's anti-democratic like the electoral college...'
What is it with moron libs blathering on and on about 'democracy' these days?
If it was up to them, the Southern States would have voted 99% to keep their slaves and scream 'Democracy'!
Fortunately for blacks (and unfortunately for the democrats who owned them), we don't live in a democracy...
Readering: "AA appears not to have followed the news on Trump's conduct in the run up to and following the 2020 election."
Christopher B: "Thanks for proving Ms Althouse's point. What was Trump guilty of before 3 November 2022? Felony campaigning?"
Not just felony campaigning, but felony Defeating Hillary in 2016 and felony Putting America First and felony Not Going Along With The DC Grift and felony Calling Out DC Corruption and felony Pushing Back On The ChiComs and felony Demanding NATO Pay Its Share Of Dues and about a thousand more "felonies" just like those.
I agree with your analysis.
I come from Illinois, where the traditional retirement plan for governors is to send them to state prison. I don't want that for former presidents.
Let's say a Republican wins the presidency in 2024 and orders the FBI to investigate whether Joe Biden took rake-offs from his influence-peddling son and brother. I believe they'd find evidence he was the "Big Guy." Would the NYT want to prosecute? I would not.
If they look for using the power of the office to go after political enemies . . .
Also, let's all remember that the DoJ did not subpoena Hillary's private email server (you know, the one that at least 6 or 7 foreign powers hacked into).
She was allowed to choose which emails to hand over and which to delete after she wiped it clean.
A congressional committee had suboena'd the server, but again, everything was gone.
Really?
It's been downhill ever since...
Remember the similar, sternly worded editorial these high-minded mediaswine wrote at the time of Hillary's email scandal?
Me neither.
Sadly, NYT readers are the chumps these amoral hypocrites think they are.
Democracy ended in 2020 with the successful, targeted voter fraud in WI, PA, MI, GA, and AZ that installed the current administration and President. It was backed and blessed by both the Democrat and Republican establishment. It's why they now lie, and hypocritically claim they are "protecting democracy".
The fact of the matter is 2016 is the last REAL election you will see in your lifetime. It surprised the establishment. They were not prepared for it. These are high stakes games. COVID was used as the backdrop for all the absentee fraud, and ignoring of election integrity laws. Makes you wonder if it was released on purpose.
Oh, the Editorial Board of the NYT has issued a statement? How nice. Maybe their Moms can put it up on the bulletin board in the kitchen, next to all those lovely finger-paintings they did in school.
Projection.
The best way to understand contemporary propaganda is to assume the media is "protesting" against the very things their compatriots are doing or planning do.
Crimes are 'trumped up' against republicans, ignored when committed by democrats. Got it.
Of course, Trump isn't above the law. He's a Republican and only Democrats are above the law.
Naturally, the NYT gives the game away. It's not just Trump that's a criminal, but half the country who voted for him is also. It's pretty easy to win power when you censor opinions you don't like, criminalize politics, and then put your adversaries in jail. According to Joe Biden, of course, Republicans are the real fascists.
“ There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI," jury forewoman declared after verdict. ”
https://mobile.twitter.com/mirandadevine/status/1531985185050353664
What are the chances a non Democrat gets the same treatment by a DC jury.
It’s possible that Trump’s office has been caught in a perjury trap and the raid was about denying him a chance to make it right.
I am not kidding, I hope they throw him in jail, right after Biden’s spokesperson just called every person who voted for Trump “a threat to democracy.”
If memory serves, the NYT ed bd had no such enthusiasm for indicting Hillary Clinton even after Comey told the country how many violations she'd committed but dismissed on his own because he believed the offenses wouldn't be prosecuted by a reasonable US attorney. Which was of course poppycock. He was making a political decision, which was probably right, because if she had been indicted there would've been blood in the streets.
For all their bluster about the right's threat to "our democracy," the ed bd apparently believes, probably for good reason, that people on the right have no appetite for political violence; not en masse.
Democracy requires adherence to the rules of the contest. In other words, accepting the verdict of the people and their courts. Trump has yet to do so. In my mind, that's disqualifying.
Buckwheathikes said...These kinds of editorials serve a purpose: To convince people, falsely, that Democracy still exists in the United States...It does not. The people cannot elect the President they wish to lead them. Not in the United States....It used to be a Democracy. It's a fucking banana republic joke now. It's over. There is no shining city on a hill. It's a fucking tire fire. Somebody might want to let the NY Times in on it since they apparently don't get out of the office much.
You're absolutely right. It's over. If you were paying attention in 2020 you watched it happen in real time, and recognize COVID and the BLM riots of 2020 were all part of the effort.
Now, it's just a matter of what stage of grief you are in. I'm at stage five, acceptance. Much of America are still at stage one, denial. I'm a big fan of Achilles here in the Althouse comments and I compliment him for hanging on to the anger stage for so long. We need fighters like him.
It has been interesting watching Althouse evolve toward acceptance. In 2020 she blogged that she wanted the Supreme Court to reject the Texas vs Pennsylvania lawsuit which was probably the best chance to address the 2020 fraud nationally. Perhaps exhaustion or fear made Althouse and others just want to move on. Now it's too late.
In reality the J6 protestors were the people trying to save democracy and prevent a successful coup. So many leaders failed us. Mike Pence #1. He could have kicked those fraudulent electors back to the five corrupt states. But he was either corrupt, or a coward.
Today, the White House Press Secretary labeled tens of millions of hard working, tax paying Americans a "threat to Democracy" because they will not bow to nor vote for the regime. Last week Biden labeled deplorables "fascists", when in fact it is the current establishment that has coordinated its totalitarianism through corporations (Big Tech, MSM, Education Establishment, Medical Establishment etc...). This is the prefect fulfillment of what Mussolini referred to as "Corporatism".
That's real fascism. It's here in America. It ain't goin' away.
The unpersoning of everyone connected to the Republican Party continues unabated in the country as monopoly power Google has removed Trump's "Truth Social" app from its store. You can now no longer download this app.
You people will become Democrats and from there on to Communists. Or you will be un-personed. Pretty soon, they'll just kill you. And it'll be all legal like.
do you want to criminalize seeking court remedies and delivering momentous speeches?
If it's the "wrong" people doing it, then sure.
What was Trump guilty of before 3 November 2022? Felony campaigning?
Campaigning while Republican is a serious offense in many parts of the country.
Campaigning while disparaging some Republicans (as well as Democrats) will eventually result in Trump being charged with a felony.
Howard said...
Okay maybe it's anti-democratic like the electoral college that helped that vile piece of shit win. But we also live in a constitutional republic in which no man is above the law, not even above a law that he signed. I'm still praying for special circumstances. I bet he doesn't go to The gallows as well as Saddam Hussein did hahaha
**********
You keep alluding to---but not naming---a law Trump signed
You do know, don't you, that the POTUS can sign a law that doesn't apply to him, right?
Oh wait.....you don't.
And btw: the entire Constitution is not "democratic", reflecting the fact that sets up a republic. If the electoral college were based on the popular vote, the Big States would control every election.
How about wrapping your last gangly neurons around the idea that two Senators per state isn't "democratic" either.
Witness said...
If he'd followed through on his campaign promise to lock her up, he'd be in a real pickle right now.
As it stands he just has to continue asserting that he declassified tons of stuff just because he was too lazy/angry/senile to give it back.
*********
Point us to evidence that Trump made that "assertion."
or STFU.
Let me see if I have this straight. Congress, the representatives of the people, pass criminal laws and there is sufficient evidence to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump violated at least one such law. But un-elected prosecutors should decide not to prosecute Trump because there is another law passed by Congress, the representatives of the people, that says that people convicted of a felony can't run for office. Any other result is undemocratic. Got it.
If the standard whether to prosecute Trump is not to be based on the evidence, what should it be based on?
Let me see if I have this straight. Congress, the representatives of the people, pass criminal laws and there is sufficient evidence to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump violated at least one such law. But un-elected prosecutors should decide not to prosecute Trump because there is another law passed by Congress, the representatives of the people, that says that people convicted of a felony can't run for office. Any other result is undemocratic. Got it.
If the standard whether to prosecute Trump is not to be based on the evidence, what should it be based on?
The rhetorical push, the current thing, is that Republicans are "undemocratic". I am getting it in fundraising emails, its everywhere in the news. The strategy is to bring out the base, report skewed polls, accuse Republicans of being "undemocratic", get within the margin of theft, steal it, call Republicans crazy for saying that Democrats undermined voting (are undemocratic). The usual.
When I taught Jr. High, it was a common tactic. Cindy hits Bobby, then Cindy immediately tattles on Bobby for hitting her. Bobby protests "No I didn't...she hit ME!". Sure, sure Bobby, whatever you say. Tell it to the principal.
I swear, the leftists on this board get more and more stupid with each passing day.
They fantasize for a specific outcome and will sling as much shit onto the wall - whether it makes sense or not - in the hopes of getting it.
It's a waste of time trying to explain to them - over and over and over - the actual facts of this case, because they'll ignore them and continue with their preferred outcome. Facts be damned.
Idiots. Drooling idiots.
what do you all think of this?
Howard said...
Okay maybe it's anti-democratic like the electoral college that helped that vile piece of shit win.
Poor Howard. Nothing can ever be the fault of his side.
Trump ran an election campaign in 2016 that was designed to win under the rules as they were set up.
People voted, or didn't vote, based on the rules as they were set up.
But Howard wants to live in the counter-factual universe where all the election rules are changed, but no one changes their behavior because of that.
It's a psychotically stupid position. but when you're the Left, I guess that's all you've got
jim5301 said...
Let me see if I have this straight. Congress, the representatives of the people, pass criminal laws and there is sufficient evidence to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump violated at least one such law
No, you don't have that straight
There is not the slightest shred of evidence that Trump violated any of those laws.
He was President of the US, he had plenary authority to declassify anything, and he says he declassified those documents
That's it, we're done. No crime
A criminal prosecution requires the following: arrest, indictment, discovery through pretrial motions, hearings and the trial itself. This is going to be hilarious.
‘Congress, the representatives of the people, pass criminal laws and there is sufficient evidence to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump violated at least one such law.’
That’s new to me! You’d better call Gruppenführer Garland with the details…
And it’s prove, not proof. You’re welcome.
What happens if the government seizes the Trump Super PAC's assets and freezes its accounts under our anti-terror laws? What's stopping Biden from doing this?
jim5301: "Let me see if I have this straight."
LOL
The next time you "get something straight"...will be the first time you "get something straight".
Well stated, Althouse.
That the NYT could write such a thing, while completely missing the obviously profound questions that the actions of the Department of Justice and the FBI relating to President Trump do indeed raise about American democracy, is stunning, even to me, who never (except very briefly back in my late teens) had any illusions about the NYT's probity, decency, or credibility.
Howard: "Okay maybe it's anti-democratic like the electoral college that helped that vile piece of shit win"
What a blithering idiot you are.
The electoral college "helped" every elected President in our history in precisely the same way.
Seriously, how do you even dress yourself each day?
So, let me get this right, if someone is running for office (maybe a school board), and they are suspected of a crime (maybe even shooting someone in the middle of 5th Avenue), then they should not be investigated or indicted because doing so would deprive "the people of the opportunity to vote for a particular political candidate".
And you were an attorney and taught at a fairly good law school for how many years? Disgusting!
Bill Harshaw: "Democracy requires adherence to the rules of the contest."
You mean the "rules" that were arbitrarily and unconstitutionally changed in the run up to the 2020 "election" which was "fortified" with all sorts of novel changes and no ability to audit any results?
Pull the other one.
What happens if the government seizes the Trump Super PAC's assets and freezes its accounts under our anti-terror laws? What's stopping Biden from doing this?
.
Trump has probably already moved all the assets offshore.
Trump pursued available remedies and didn't get very far, then participated in a big demonstration, but do you want to criminalize seeking court remedies and delivering momentous speeches? - Althouse
Slates of fake electors is not an available remedy, it's fraud of epic proportions.
The specific crimes the Justice Department could consider would likely involve Mr. Trump’s fraudulent efforts to get election officials in Georgia, Arizona and elsewhere to declare him the winner even though he lost their states; to get Mr. Pence, at the Jan. 6 congressional certification of the election, to throw out slates of electors from states he lost and replace them with electors loyal to Mr. Trump; and to enlist officials from the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense to persuade officials in certain states to swing the election to him and ultimately stir up a mob that attacked the Capitol. - The NYT editorial
For what it's worth, and it's really worth nothing but my time and yours. I just saw a video of Joe Biden's speech in Wilkes-Barre, PA from last night. The video panned back so you could see a wider angle of the room and the crowd- or lack of it- to see the President.
Again I am struck with the certain knowledge that there is no way 81 million people voted for this guy. He had zero attraction going into the election, was kept in his basement for most of that year, sounded insane when let out, and yet they tell us that he received more votes than any President in history.
What's going on with Trump right now should never have even occurred.
Blogger Spiros said...What happens if the government seizes the Trump Super PAC's assets and freezes its accounts under our anti-terror laws? What's stopping Biden from doing this?
Peter Strzok couldn't have said it better. Thread winner.
Spiros said...
What happens if the government seizes the Trump Super PAC's assets and freezes its accounts under our anti-terror laws? What's stopping Biden from doing this?
***********
Seizing your election opponent's PAC assets by simply declaring the PAC is a terrorist organization?
Good fucking LUCK making that stick!!!
And let me further clarify. Currently, Trump is not a candidate for anything, not even the Palm Beach County School Board. You, apparently, would extend your non-prosecution rule to anyone who might potentially run for office.
JFK's sex life.
"Thanks to Althouse for the reasonable response to this NYT editorial."
No, this is part of the problem. And I see it not only with Professor Althouse, but also with Professors Jacobson at LI and Reynolds at Instapundit.
The Rule of Law is being gang raped on their watch, and they are being"reasonable" about it.
This is why Western Civilization will fall. The barbarians are willing to kill and die for their cause. We can't even muster outraged profanity over ours.
He was President of the US, he had plenary authority to declassify anything, and he says he declassified those documents
Has he actually claimed that? There are a lot of anonymous statements floating around that policy was, if he took a classified document to the residence, it magically became declassified, but where is the documentation of the policy (oh and btw, others who worked in the White House, like John Bolton, admittedly an asshole but I don't see him as a liar, said they never heard of such a ridiculous policy)?
It has become rather evident that the spoils system is vastly superior to the current civil service we have. The president is the executive branch and he or she should be able to fire at will any non appointed civil servant. That way the dregs and hacks as defined by each party can be removed as as each president deems necessary to further promote the policies and agendas he or she campaigned on.
I just hope Trump runs again and wins and fully revenges himself on the evil cabal that is the current Democrat-Communist Party.
It has become rather evident that the spoils system is vastly superior to the current civil service we have. The president is the executive branch and he or she should be able to fire at will any non appointed civil servant. That way the dregs and hacks as defined by each party can be removed as as each president deems necessary to further promote the policies and agendas he or she campaigned on.
I just hope Trump runs again and wins and fully revenges himself on the evil cabal that is the current Democrat-Communist Party.
I will put the issue differently :
is the President |under the law| and are his pro/er/secutors similarly required to be constrained by law
if he is not and they are not then nobody is safe
jim5301 said...
Let me see if I have this straight. Congress, the representatives of the people, pass criminal laws and there is sufficient evidence to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump violated at least one such law"
There are a shit-ton of Democrats that are demonstrably evident that clearly criminal and should be prosecuted and failing to do so the powers that be should themselves be prosecuted. Lock them up!
Greg, yeah you missed the point. The point was the ironical flop flipped democracy -republic constitutional positions of the Dims on the left and the Trumpsters on the Planet Claire when it suits the debating idiologues.
Another example of this ironical flop flipping is the defund the police on the left and defund the FBI on the right. The holy cow was gored by an ox.
It's not your fault that it's over your head. It's your fault that you operate with a hair trigger half cocked flash in the pan shot your wad. Better luck next time Maynard
So was it the Steele Dossier that was the classified HUMINT in the released photo? Inquiring minds want to know.
Hey Howard. Who wanted to pack the Supreme Court? Who got rid of the filibuster? Who said nothing when cities were burning because a drug dealer got killed?
You equate Defund the police (the only reason want that is to be more violent and commit crime), to Defund the FBI, an organization which has proved time and time again, theyre not only biased, but evil. Youre stupid.
With all that though, You convinced me. Im now a democrat.
The Pedo thing kind of bugs me (joe did it again, 9 years old BABY), so Ill just give that a nod and a wink like you. To prove my cred with your democratic party I will support abortion up to 100 weeks after conception. Nice round number.
We good?
Someone else has probably asked this but what is the crime for which our President Emeritus is to be indicted? What crime does the NYT think he has committed that he should be indicted for?
We have some pretty stupid commenters here who have repeatedly stated that he should be tried and convicted even though they cannot say what crime he has, supposedly, committed. I expect it from them. I don't really expect it from the NYT.
John "Stop fascism-vote republican" Henry
“If your response is, no, because my opponent might win and we can't take that risk, then you don't believe in democracy.”
In 2020, Trump was an electoral college loser who lost the popular vote by over 7 million votes. The “available remedies” he “pursued” as Althouse so euphemistically describes his attempted coup, was to replace the will of voters with the will of partisan state legislators and fake electors. If you’re willing to look past that, then you shouldn’t be lecturing other people on whether they believe in democracy.
Democracy requires adherence to the rules of the contest. In other words, accepting the verdict of the people and their courts. Trump has yet to do so. In my mind, that's disqualifying.
Well then, it's sure a good thing H. Clinton hasn't thrown her hat into the ring, since she is guilty of the only thing that you're accusing Trump of here: not accepting the verdict of the people and their courts.
A. Gore too.
Trump doesn't "accept" (despite not calling on his drooling minions constantly to picket the White House and engage in Monkey Wrench Gang Dirty Tricks to try to undermine the current administration) that he lost under drastically and precipitously changed election rules, and not coincidentally thanks to a media/tech fully publicly owned "conspiracy" to keep him from reelection - yes, definitely disqualify that guy.
If the DOJ can indict Trump and try him in a DC court with a DC jury, I think they will do it.
It's Trump or them. Who is going to stop them?
Will it work out the way they think it will? It never does.
The USA is a constitutional republic. There is a national republic and several constituent state republics -a federal republic. At the state and national level there is a broad franchise. This makes the USA a "democratic republic". The electoral college manages the election of the chief executive of the nation so that the constituent states all have a say because we are federal.
Democracy is a core of our system, but it is a republican system meshing the two together. Saying democracy or republic is a matter of "yes but no".
Got pedantic there, but I think "multi-level representative democracy" is a bit cumbersome to say but is how we are.
Has he actually claimed that? There are a lot of anonymous statements floating around that policy was,
Field Marshall Freder has deigned to share some more of his brilliance with us. "Anonymous statements" is what keeps you lefties agitated all the time. Normals tend to require evidence, of which there is none.
Freder Frederson said...
And let me further clarify. Currently, Trump is not a candidate for anything, not even the Palm Beach County School Board. You, apparently, would extend your non-prosecution rule to anyone who might potentially run for office.
No you fucking idiot.
We extend our non-prosecution to anyone who has not committed a crime.
It is obvious to anyone with more than a room temperature IQ that Trump didn't commit a crime.
All Trump had to do was say "These documents are unclassified."
You assholes pretending he can be prosecuted because he might not have uttered those 4 words are just being stupid fascist shitheads.
How long before they start in on DeSantis? Get a warrant for something in order to find anything they can use against him.
And, why stop there? Go for Alito and Thomas
So I started into Freder's 6:06 comment, and think, wait, is he talking about the Bidens and Burisma?
But no. Sigh.
Blindness, or projection?
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
“He was President of the US, he had plenary authority to declassify anything, and he says he declassified those documents”
“Has he actually claimed that? There are a lot of anonymous statements floating around that policy was, if he took a classified document to the residence, it magically became declassified, but where is the documentation of the policy (oh and btw, others who worked in the White House, like John Bolton, admittedly an asshole but I don't see him as a liar, said they never heard of such a ridiculous policy)?”
And how is the DOJ going to prove that he didn’t declassify the documents? He could just have waived his hands, and declassify any documents he wanted. All that they need to do is find one RussiaGate document in among the documents seized by the FBI, and any presumption of documents being classified just because they are marked classified, is out the window, because he formally ordered, on Presidential letterhead, that those RussiaGate documents were declassified, on his last full day in office. Pretending that his failure to obey the declassification formalities is not going to fly in court. The problem for the prosecution is that, because he had plenary declassification authority, they would have to prove a negative, that he didn’t declassify the documents, that his ordering the documents taken to his MAL home didn’t declassify them, and with that that he knew (required intent element) that they were classified when he removed them (and didn’t declassify them).
Well, darling, why do we believe anymore we'll get to vote (at any level) for the candidate of our choice? Before we ponder whether we've lost democracy, we might consider whether it's already gone.
This game Garland's pretty boys are playing isn't necessarily to win in the old-fashioned meaning of a legal "win." They're already down to the (projectionist) obstruction argument. The game is to play keep-away. Keep away Trump's legitimacy and keep-away the scurrilous documents Trump declassified and would publish before the next elections. Keep Trump away from the freedom of running a campaign unencumbered by investigation, discovery and legal proceedings. Keep Trump away from once again assuming control of our intelligence community.
Haven't all of us noticed the ratcheting-up of the left's rhetoric? Clearly, the enemy isn't overseas, but rather right here in good 'ole USA. The game is to cancel elections in red states chock full of clear sedition tendencies.
Oh they are using discretion. You better believe it. This is absolutely timed to maximize political benefit in the midterms by making it all about Trump. Its partisan discretion up and down the line at the FBI.
In the 70's I was a liberal who hated Nixon with a passion. But I was actually glad when Ford pardoned him. I didn't want to see a former president in jail. I understood "no one is above the law" - of course. But in the United States, we don't jail political opponents. I give Trump credit. For all the "lock her up" rhetoric, there was not prosecution of a very guilty Hillary Clinton. Trump's actions have always been smarter than his rhetoric. For the sake of the country, I hope cooler heads prevail and there is no prosecution of a perhaps guilty Trump either. But I think the left has gone semi-insane and cares little for the country and more about their fever passions.
LATE TO THE PARTY... i STOPPED AT jOE sMITH.
jOE sMITH SAID IT WELL.
The democratic/dictatorial duality. NYeT. Never.
People seem to forget that in the fall of 1973 the sitting vp and, with term limits, presumptive GOP 1976 presidential candidate, pleaded nolo to federal tax evasion, and reigned, was fined, and was
placed on probation.
I viewed this post as about possible attempted election steal prosecution, but NY Post has persuasive McCarthy piece on likelihood of obstruction prosecution relating to MAL documents in wake of filings on special master.
Just remember Howard et al. Trump was the candidate YOU gave us. You made damn sure the other candidates weren't fit to run. by hook or by crook.
Vile? At least with Trump you know who he is. He tells you. You lot are just self important slime. You couldn't be honest if your life depended on it.
Alexisa said : The Rule of Law is being gang raped on their watch, and they are being"reasonable" about it.
This is why Western Civilization will fall. The barbarians are willing to kill and die for their cause. We can't even muster outraged profanity over ours.
8/31/22, 7:15 PM
THIS^^^ We are watching the end of America. Pedo Joe and his gang of America hating Progressives are calling the rest of us Terrorists, FASCISTS, enemies ect. WHAT do YOU think is going to happen to us?? They will put us all in Gitmo next....because the DC gulag is filled with people who trespassed in the Capitol because of a stolen election.
All Trump had to do was say "These documents are unclassified."
Even if he did this, and he can just declassify documents without any kind of process, or even without telling anyone, the documents still belong to the U.S. government, not Donald Trump.
I go back to the Nixon standard: a President can be indicted if you have smoking-gun proof of a serious crime. In Nixon’s case, it was evidence that he obstructed justice by erasing or ordering his secretary to erase 18 minutes of the White House tapes. That was clear evidence of obstruction of justice. Did Trump do something like that? Did he order his minions to hide documents that had been subpoenaed by the grand jury? I don’t know, but if there were clear proof of such action, then he should be indicted.
He was president, not secretary, not administrator. There may be basis for a civil, but not criminal suit, perhaps against the FBI, DNC, NYeT, WaPoo, the archivist (a la SWATting), etc.
What happens if the government seizes the Trump Super PAC's assets and freezes its accounts under our anti-terror laws? What's stopping Biden from doing this?
The new PAC would get a bunch of new money by people outraged?
Honest question to everyone. Does the NYT think indicting Trump will make him go away? Do they think he can't campaign while under indictment? Do they think he can't win while under indictment? It will make him more popular!
Freder Frederson said...
He was President of the US, he had plenary authority to declassify anything, and he says he declassified those documents
Has he actually claimed that?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-allies-say-declassified-mar-lago-documents-experts-say-unclear-w-rcna42311
Trump says he declassified Mar-a-Lago documents. Experts say it's unclear whether that will hold up.
Legal experts say presidents have absolute authority to declassify documents, but it's not clear whether Trump ever took action to do so.
The weaseling is BS, but hey, it's NBC
Yes, Trump himself has claimed that he declassified the documents. SO unless you can prove otherwise, you can not possibly convict honestly
I didn't have time to go through all the comments and the subsequent posts on this but wanted to add: "I think you have nailed it, Ann." That the whole premise of the never Trumpers and Democratic Party elites' strategy is that they have to destroy democracy in order to save it. How much of that is born of sincere love of country or base self serving corruption, I can't say. But the people know things beyond what they are told by the NY Times and other elites and they see this and imo that's why Trump has so much power with the populace.
Post a Comment