That's my answer to the question asked in the headline of this WaPo column: "Trump ups the ante on going after judges and witnesses. Where’s the line?"
My answer isn't so much a joke as it is my expression of exasperation. Maybe there's good material in this column, but I won't be reading it. There's so much anti-Trump material. Some people like it.
पोस्ट्स
६० टिप्पण्या:
"my expression of exasperation"
Right. I appreciate that. But progs want it--the process as punishment, the hair-tearing by reasonable people, the continual onslaught, the mobilization of the system against the opposition. Your exasperation is their joy. A bonus.
It gets views. Views generate revenue.
pointing out their own sordid record of malfeasance, is a crime, well in the land of the blind,
On Monday The Crack Emcee said "The idea they've created a folk hero seems to have escaped the Democrats"
The future is establishment vs. anti-establishment, and the future is now. It hasn't sunk in yet for the establishment, that what's brewing won't end with Trump. There damnatio memoriae won't work.
They've created a folk hero. He might fall but someone will rise to take his place. The distrust and frustration are moving beyond partisanship. Rich men North of Richmond might be rich, but they've always been super slow on the uptake. It takes a while for the noise of those that eat cake to climb the ivory tower.
so we pretend judge didn't cover for chadoury, (part of mark rich's gang) and the awan bros, and smith has been a horror on the institution of jurisprudence,
These rabid anti-Trump practices will continue until they suddenly fail. Many minds snapped in 2016 and the hardcore will die trying to undo the 2016 election -- even for the next 50 years. They'll never succeed, but descend deeper and deeper into madness and a stale fixation on receding history.
This era ends only when the sane left regains it fortitude and puts its lefty lunatics on leashes or in prison. The Republicans and Trump are not relevant. Trump has fully transcended into being an abstract evil phantom, demon, or demigod in their minds.
Trump lives rent-free in 10,000,000 lefty brains, so their "vision for the future" is to look in the rear-view mirror rather than confront his populist appeal and other current global realities.
Being 'anti-Trump' solves all your problems.
You do not have to think critically about anything.
But DeSantis is worse! (or so I hear…)
At this point the lawlessness of those enforcing "the law" has to be challenged. Trump has about 35 million GOP primary voters that aren't moving. He will, and should, challenge a corrupt and biased judicial system. It would even benefit those that hate him.
Let's quit pretending Prosecutors and Judges are above the law.
We are doing that in Wisconsin currently with our new liberal Karen Supreme Court Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz who campaigned stating Wisconsin's congressional maps are "rigged". Clear, publicly stated bias and a pre-determined outcome. WI law says she is required to recuse herself.
Trump or bust baby. I'm willing to accept the bust. We've already busted. What is left to lose?
"The irony of watching Rachel Maddow and Hillary Clinton scold people for spreading conspiracy theories about stolen elections when they were the biggest Trump-Russian collusion hoaxers after the 2016 election."
https://twitter.com/KevinTober94/status/1691264994996895744?s=20
Some people like it.
Some people use it to validate their choices, as in, "My choice must be right -- look who has been indicted!! "
I'm not a huge fan of Trump because I've never like blowhard Yankees. As I've said before, in this and other forums, he's just the same smart, slick New York industrialist we've seen portrayed on TV since there has been TV. That's why he doesn't offend, he's a character, but one who has transcended and is very ingratiating to the little people.
Anyway, I'd just like to break the crazy state centered in DC. I'd really like to see Kennedy run against Biden. He's getting a room in the deep state's head right next to Trump.
David Weiss: The Man with Two Black Hats.
Where's the line? You may well ask.
Trump was indicted on 38 counts in New York, but only 18 counts last night, so in some sense his behavior is becoming progressively less criminal. ��
Remember - only the government can poison the jury pool, never the defendant (and particularly not Trump).
One attraction of Trump is that he has exactly the right enemies.
This is probably how it ends.
Tragic hero.
We're in uncharted territory now. The Left has gone full French Revolution. Robespierre is in full charge ... for now.
Progs= can't get fair trial in Mar A logo (Cannon) Repubs= cant get a fair trial in DC NY=where trump lived unfair Georgia=right wing state governor etc=unfair Stormy=unfair Jean Carroll =unfair...see the pattern they scream for special counsel get it =Counsel appointed by trump, under Bill (the former presidents' personal lawyer) now no good because they got what they asked for. Its head spinning but DRAMA IS WHAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO LIKE. You got it!
Gusty Winds said...
At this point the lawlessness of those enforcing "the law" has to be challenged. Trump has about 35 million GOP primary voters that aren't moving. He will, and should, challenge a corrupt and biased judicial system. It would even benefit those that hate him.
Let's quit pretending Prosecutors and Judges are above the law.
We are doing that in Wisconsin currently with our new liberal Karen Supreme Court Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz who campaigned stating Wisconsin's congressional maps are "rigged". Clear, publicly stated bias and a pre-determined outcome. WI law says she is required to recuse herself.
Trump or bust baby. I'm willing to accept the bust. We've already busted. What is left to lose?
8/15/23, 9:23 AM
+1 million.
My thoughts exactly.
Trust WaPo to ask the wrong question. Trump has reportedly spent $40 million on legal fees to defend himself from Democrats and their arguably corrupt legal system. The correct question is, "When does it end?"
The answer, of course, is that it won't as long as there are Democrats.
The collective corruption-excusing collective hivemind left - jerk off continually with their obsessive hatred of Trump.
Trump steps on his dick and says stupid stuff. The left are using it against him. This is all about Free speech. The left's corrupt actions are Soviet.
Here -
watch the Fulton county vote-counter shove the same ballots thru the machine over and over.
Now do you believe that there is a plan, a conspiracy, to saddle the NWO onto the world so that the self-chosen elite will rule forever and remain wealthy ever more?
As the poster says, they're after us, Trump's just in the way (and they're moving him way outta the way).
I have started using your ‘some people like it.’ It can be a relief in these times.
The column by Aaron Blake (a very good, fact-oriented and determinedly neutral columnist) was a very good one. Valuable, for non-lawyers, to understand how courts might handle litigants and particularly criminal defendants who run into court rules and standard pre-trial orders which are designed to protect witnesses, jurors and judges.
Too bad that Althouse seems to have decided to not read the column. Too bad, also, that it seems like none of the commenters above chose to discuss the details. I know that I'm not the only lawyer who reads and comments. I'd much rather read the lawyers and learn about the technical issues, than read one hot take after another from the Althouse commentariat.
If Aaron Blake actually got any particular thing wrong in the linked column, I'd be interested in reading about that. I'm not seeing that here.
"My answer isn't so much a joke as it is my expression of exasperation."
Why exasperation? They've been telling you this was coming. Did you think they were just kidding?
The left: We have to prevent the people from reelecting Trump to save democracy.
Blogger narciso said...
and smith has been a horror on the institution of jurisprudence,
But he runs triathelons!
And he once ran a triathelon less than 30 days after he had been run down by a car.
So there is that.
Why would a person need any legal qualifications when they have this?
John Henry
"Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen". ~ Donald Trump
Nothing sums up the rotten core of the current GOP ecosystem better than this statement.
I am Spartacus >>>> I am Trump
is that the historical parellel with Rome? Empire!
Maybe they should ask Chuck Schumer.
"Some people like it."
nostalgically lmmfao!
Rich said...
"Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen". ~ Donald Trump
Nothing sums up the rotten core of the current GOP ecosystem better than this statement.
That is, quite simply, Trump Modus Operandi Number One. It's the Business Plan, the Mission Statement of Defendant Donald John Trump.
It was what he was telling President Zelensky of Ukraine; "Just announce an investigation, and leave the rest to us."
It was what he wanted fellow Defendant Jeffrey Clark to do at the Department of Justice. Simply announce an investigation, some alleged irregularities, and then let Trump shape the message with his favored media. (Let shit happen, maybe invoke the Insurrection Act, try to throw the electoral count into the House of Representatives. Create chaos, and then use it to advantage.)
Few things make me happier than the thought of Trump facing a series of courtroom trials over the exacting details of what Trump had, and what he wanted.
Some people love it. Some people live for it.
Damn it, I keep saying I don't even like Trump as a person, but I really, really don't like this "anyone who supports Trump in the slightest, including just pointing out how ridiculous the depth of feeling against him is, is an evil cretin" thing.
Chuck, you seem to imagine that Trump is widely beloved. It's really more the case that we just fucking HATE people like you, so we're stuck with him for the moment.
Isn't it cute?? Chucky replying to himself disguised as Rich. He's warped no matter who he pretends to be.
Except there is plenty of evidence coming out that the election in GA was corrupted, and the judge at the time rejected that evidence for "lack of standing," as if the voters of Georgia lacked standing when an election was stolen from them.
https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1691490787404525574
But my favorite part was indicting Trump for floating the idea that they subsidize an investigation. When does Zuckerberg go to prison for buying into the election machine in Wisconsin, getting his employees read/write access to official voter records, and paying money to local election officials to boost turnout, but only in Republican districts?
I think it would be great to put Zuckerberg in jail for actually doing what Trump only suggested doing on a much smaller scale. Let's go.
Well, first it was for "insinuating" in the last indictment, but wait until you read what "Act 22" of this criminal conspiracy was! Send the man to jail already. It's over.
GRW3 said...
I'm not a huge fan of Trump because I've never like blowhard Yankees
Sorry- but Trump's family hasn't been here long enough to qualify as Yankee's. They arrived long after the Great Unpleasantness from 1860-65.
Blowhard New Yorker? Well, he was born and grew up there, so that would be a valid criticism if you didn't like blowhard New Yorkers.
And in an amusing turn- if you're amused by such things, some of his biggest supporters think that unless all of someone's ancestors for 3 generations past haven't been born and bred in the USA that they shouldn't be eligible for any federal office. Which, of course, would also have disqualified Obama.
Ups the ante? Perhaps the nets will be closing in on him, soon. Or the noose tightening. Or the bad moon rising, or he'll pull ahead going into the third corner, or have a Hail Mary play, or some other inane cliche.
Whatever happened to the who, what, when, where, why of actual reporting, instead of starting off with a narrative and bending everything around that preconceived notion, just to achieve activism?
The column by Aaron Blake (a very good, fact-oriented and determinedly neutral columnist) was a very good one. Valuable, for non-lawyers, to understand how courts might handle litigants and particularly criminal defendants who run into court rules and standard pre-trial orders which are designed to protect witnesses, jurors and judges.
Too bad that Althouse seems to have decided to not read the column. Too bad, also, that it seems like none of the commenters above chose to discuss the details.
Maybe Althouse commenters' lack of attention (and possibly even that of Althouse herself - who can say?) to the question of "how courts might handle litigants and particularly criminal defendants" arises from our complete distrust that these "criminal indictments" actually arise from criminal activity, where the criminal element was present in law before it was Trump doing the thing. Maybe we base this distrust on the fact that the institution responsible for the indictments has repeatedly shown its nakedly partisan and craven colors since Trump (horrifyingly) won the 2016 election, and - according to the Twitter and Facebook files - its umbrella organization, the US government bureaucratic state, possessed those colors and acted in support of them even before that election, in its own attempt at election tampering. Remember the "shadowy cabal"?
Maybe a "determinedly neutral" discussion of how a criminal defendant ought to respond to "standard pre-trial orders," when there is every appearance of a show trial going on, is lipstick on a pig.
But do go on crossing those t's and dotting those i's. A good, solid process will remove all question about its starting point, hmm?
"There's so much anti-Trump material. Some people like it."
And there are even more wild-ass tales about the wonders of Trump published here which I occasionally respond to but obviously, few commenters actually read or research anything anti-trump here - so the truth is inconsequential.
And Truth or Consequences is only in New Mexico now that the TV game show is buried.
It looks like Joe Biden has discovered State's Rights. He's sicced State law on his opponent for a change.
But forget Georgia for a minute. Is there any precedent in American history (I mean the history of the United States of America) for a President using criminal proceedings to hamper his likely opponent's campaign? I guess you could say Nixon and Watergate, but that was supposed to be secret. What Biden is doing is right out in the open, like the robberies of retail stores we're seeing all over "Joe's America".
I'm going to take a guess that many of the same people outraged by Donald Trump and hanging on every anti-Trump article and column did the same when George W. Bush was predident and when Sarah Palin was on the scene.
The object changes but the obsession and rage remains the same.
Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's House Divided speech delivered in 1858 —
In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed —
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing, or all the other.”
Comment: The Republican party for a long time has been using polarization to divide the electorate to construct a narrow grievance-obsessed majority (using small state advantage and gerrymandered districting) powered by unending streams of plutocratic money. The logical consequence is a highly divisive and discrediting national leader basing his appeal upon grievance-based persecution, which has been the Republicans' calling card for a long time.
Next year's election is going to be a reckoning and the American people are going to decide the issue of whether the United States is going to be "all one thing, or all the other." There's no compromise here. A time for decision is approaching. Judges, juries, and voters are all going to understand the all or nothing stakes of their decisions.
Trump and the Republicans are going to get what they have long asked for. They are lining up behind their Confederate battle flags and they are going to test the democracy.
Several years ago my wife and I attended a Garrison Keillor show in Orange County's Segerstrom Theater (CA) and he ended the show in a darkened hall in a "candel-lit" (everyone used their smartpone flashlights) group singing of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," It was very moving. It's a reminder of what we are all fighting for in the upcoming juridical and political battles. These are issues from the American Civil War.
I don't think the Trump people know what's coming at them.
wendybar said...
"Isn't it cute?? Chucky replying to himself disguised as Rich. He's warped no matter who he pretends to be."
Hey Wendybar why don't you link to an article from a couple of years ago, which says the exact opposite of the point that you are trying to make.
Personally - I think Trump was much better than our usual politician presidents. He actually wanted to solve a lot of the things that our traditional Presidents use as election fodder.
This got him hated by the establishment - how DARE he actually SOLVE the things they'd been campaigning on for decades! It destabilized everything they ever stood for (or against)(or whatever)! He had to be destroyed!
Funny how the same-old same-old was more important than the good of the country, wasn't it?
Someone today mentioned that Jack Smith was reversed 9-0 by the Supremes in the McDonnell case. I will add Andrew Weissmann who was also reversed 9-0 in the Enron case. What a coincidence !
Quote from the McDonnell case.
The Supreme Court unanimously overturned former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell's public-corruption conviction Monday and imposed higher standards for federal prosecutors who charge public officials with wrongdoing."
"The object changes but the obsession and rage remains the same."
This is what's so puzzling about the all-too-common idea that, if we can just get rid of Trump, we can be free of all the drama.
It is not illegal to rob a bank if I claim to believe the money in the bank is mine. ~ The Trump strategy
Will this fly? Hopefully not.
The mental incompetence required to believe that Trump is POTUS material never ceases to amaze me. He wouldn’t have lasted two weeks anywhere I worked.
Who needs a guy who doesn’t know anything, can’t do anything, lies constantly, claims credit for other people’s work and blames everyone else for his screw-ups?
The Republican party for a long time has been using polarization to divide the electorate...
Good lord. What freakin' planet are you on?
I don't think the Trump people know what's coming at them.
Bring it.
"The mental incompetence required to believe that Trump is POTUS material never ceases to amaze me."
Seeing as how you are comparing questioning the outcome of an election with robbing a bank, you're probably amazed a lot.
The persecution of Trump is creating a bunch of future Timothy McVeighs. And when the fertilizer bombs are exploding on Capitol Hill some of us will be cheering like the Muslims on 9/11.
A second American revolution doesn't sound so bad.
" Blogger Rich said...
Who needs a guy who doesn’t know anything, can’t do anything, lies constantly, claims credit for other people’s work and blames everyone else for his screw-ups?"
You write this, and yet by any measure you might use to gauge national well being, the country was far better off during Trump's presidency. Well, not if you use the comfort level of the Washington bureaucracy and legislature, that was not enhanced. But for the actual citizens of the country, despite monolithic opposition from both parties (well, from EVERYWHERE really), Trump's policies made life better, safer, and more prosperous for both Americans at home and others around the world in measurable, concrete ways.
So I guess your counter argument would be that we just imagined those benefits? No they could be easily quantified. Perhaps it was just happenstance? Is that it?
For all the talk of him insurrectionist crimes, no one ever had to lift a finger to him. That is because he had run out of legal avenues, and so departed the office peacefully. I say all of this as someone who was appalled by the prospect of Trump as president the first time he ran. I also wish we had a better option this time. I'm not sure that we do.
"Who needs a guy who doesn’t know anything, can’t do anything, lies constantly, claims credit for other people’s work and blames everyone else for his screw-ups?"
You just described Biden.
Limited blogger said...
"Being 'anti-Trump' solves all your problems.
You do not have to think critically about anything."
Precisely
Michael K said...
Someone today mentioned that Jack Smith was reversed 9-0 by the Supremes in the McDonnell case. I will add Andrew Weissmann who was also reversed 9-0 in the Enron case. What a coincidence !
Quote from the McDonnell case.
The Supreme Court unanimously overturned former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell's public-corruption conviction Monday and imposed higher standards for federal prosecutors who charge public officials with wrongdoing."
The DoJ team led in part by Andrew Weismann won dozens of convictions and guilty pleas in the Enron case. The Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict of guilty against Arthur Andersen in one of the many Enron trials based on the trial court's issuance of one jury instruction that SCOTUS believed was an overstep.
Weismann had a generally spectacular record as prosecutor.
Similarly, in the Governor Bob McDonnell case (wherein it was undisputed that McDonnell accepted a Rolex watch and hundreds of thousands in gifts from a Virginia businessman seeking to expand his business in the state. McDonnell apologized for the embarrassment that he caused the state, and returned $120,000. A jury convicted McDonnell of official misuse of office, and the 4th Circuit upheld the conviction. SCOTUS reversed that conviction, holding that the trial court's definition of (and jury instruction on) the phrase "official act" in the operative statute. In the court's opinion, Chief Justice Roberts stated that McDonnell could be retried if the prosecution wished to do so. They decided not to. McDonnell's term was over and he wasn't running for anything else.
Your "quote from the McDonnell case" was not from any of the three courts that heard the criminal case. The quote was from a Washington Post article about the case. Not a quote from the case at all. It's not much of a big deal, but since you are the retired doctor who is a wannabe lawyer, I thought I would just mention that.
Tommy wrote: “Remember - only the government can poison the jury pool, never the defendant (and particularly not Trump).”
Trump and Trump's lawyers are conducting a legal defense in the court of public opinion, possibly at risk to the legal defense to be mounted in the courtroom. Trump seems to be undermining his own fair trial.
Are Trump's arguments being made in the court of public opinion designed to influence the presidential election or the legal proceedings inside the courtroom?
Can the moods created in the court of public opinion affect in any decisive way the legal proceeding conducted in the courtroom? American courtrooms are designed to insulate process and judgments from external influences. Will this hold?
Can the federal judge supervising the trial constrain the defendant sufficiently to protect the objectivity of the legal proceeding in the courtroom while allowing him enough freedom of speech to run for president? Even when Trump's oratorical pyrotechnics are designed to undermine the proceeding in the courtroom? Will the appeals court and the Supreme Court support the trial judge in conducting a fair trial or must the coming trial be a trial by combat and not a trial by law?
From where is the next one coming? Surely there will be another. This is all coordinated election interference. Period. Think the folks perpetrating this stuff even if they defeat Trump aren’t gonna like what happens down the road. Pay back is a BITCH and it will come.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा