"The wheels of justice turn slowly, but weak cases can do grave damage in the meantime."

"Look no further than the collapse on Tuesday of Michigan’s 'fake electors' prosecution against supporters of President Donald Trump for their actions after the 2020 election...."

So says The Editorial Board of The Washington Post, in "The collapse of Democratic lawfare in Michigan/Dismissal of 'fake electors' charges bodes ill for cases in Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin and Georgia."

The wheels of justice turn slowly? I've always heard Justice delayed is justice denied. Those "wheels" are not justice wheels if they turn that slowly. There's every reason to suspect that the slow turning of the wheel is intentional punishment. Torture wheels.

And what about the wheels of editorial opinion? Why has it taken The Washington Post so long to condemn the "fake electors" case? The last paragraph of the editorial gives away the game:

Democrats tried to use prosecutions as an adjunct to their political strategy in the run-up to the 2024 election. That has backfired spectacularly. There are growing signs that Republicans might be attempting the same destructive strategy by selectively pursuing criminal investigations against their opponents. They would deserve the same result.

And what if it hadn't backfired? What if it had worked spectacularly and the Democrats had won the 2024 election? Would The Washington Post be cheering the Democrats' staunch adherence to the "rule of law," it's tenacious pursuit of the principle that no one is above the law? 

"A Michigan judge dismissed criminal charges Tuesday against a group of people who were accused of attempting to falsely certifying President Donald Trump as the winner of the 2020 election..."

"... in the battleground state, a major blow to prosecutors as similar cases in four other states have been muddied with setbacks. District Court Judge Kristen D. Simmons... said she saw no intent to commit fraud in the defendants’ actions. Whether they were 'right, wrong or indifferent,' they 'seriously believed' there were problems with the election, the judge said. 'I believe they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress,' Simmons said."

AP reports.

"I think the NYT has framed men as a problem. They're not thriving, they're not aspiring. We need to figure out what's wrong with them..."

"... maybe even empathize with them, because, after all, we do need them to function."

So I said, in the previous post. And one reason I said it was because I'd already opened a tab for a second article on the home page of the NYT today: "Where Have All My Deep Male Friendships Gone? I have many guy friends. Why don’t we hang out more?"

This is a long piece in the NYT Magazine, by Sam Graham-Felsen, and like the article discussed in the previous post, it assures us that there's nothing gay going on here: "I never had sexual feelings for Rob, but there was an intensity to our connection that can only be described as love. I thought about him all the time, and cared, deeply, about what he thought of me. We got jealous and mad at each other, and often argued like a bitter married couple — but eventually, like a successful married couple, we’d always find a way to talk things out."

Graham-Felsen has had many other close male friends — "nearly a dozen other dudes — dudes I spent thousands of accumulated hours with; dudes I shared my most shame-inducing secrets with; dudes I built incredibly intricate, ever-evolving inside jokes with; dudes I loved and needed, and who loved and needed me...." 

But he doesn't have dudes like that anymore. Is that because he's older, and his contemporaries are absorbed in family and work, or is it because American men in general "are getting significantly worse at friendship"?

"It is often said that the fact that Trump was not seen to have won in 2020 was a blessing in disguise."

"Why? Because had he been allowed to take office in January 2021, he would have still been surrounded by swamp creatures. His great liability when he first took office was that he did not understand how Washington worked. ... how deeply embedded... the self-serving, globalist, neo-con mentality really was. It took his rustication in 2020 and the unhinged, unremitting tsunami of lawfare that washed over him for four years to school him in the ways of official Washington.... Impeachments, indictments, subpoenas, trials, convictions, and fines.... When none of that worked and he was on course to seal the GOP nomination, they tried to kill him—literally.... He learned how the octopus moved. He got to know what made the swamp habitable. He mastered its strategies, its tactics, and its weapons.... My main question at this point is when a large-scale Gestalt shift will take place.... I predict he will end his days as one of the most celebrated presidents in American history."

Writes Roger Kimball, in "Trump in Riyadh: A Rejection of the Globalist Gospel/Trump’s Riyadh speech rejected nation-building and globalist dogma, marking him as a bold champion of sovereignty over interventionism."

"James Comey purports not to have known that 86 means to get rid of (after he posted a picture of rocks in the form 8647 (47 being easily read as a reference to Trump)). Is Comey credible?"

For the annals of Things I Asked Grok.

Follow-up prompts: "Compare that to how Trump was treated for telling protesters on January 6th, 2021 to walk 'peacefully and patriotically' to the Capitol" and "I'm interested in the difference in seeing violence in words and consider that Comey, like Trump, has loyalists who might hear direction and take it." And: "Detail Comey's 'history of cryptic social media posts.'"

Grok's responses: here.

AND: Here's the article in WaPo: "Comey under investigation for ‘86 47’ social media post, Trump team says/The Trump administration accused the former FBI director of insinuating a call to violence in his Instagram post, which he denied" (free-access link).

"Look, it would be easy for me not to just respond, when you say that, and I could just let you go on. But I’m a very honest person."

Said Donald Trump when The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg asked him why he doesn't quit saying he won the 2020 election.

Trump continued: "I believe—I don’t believe; I know the election was rigged. Biden didn’t get 80 million votes. And he didn’t beat Barack Hussein Obama with the Black vote in the swing states—only in the swing states; it’s interesting. We have lots of other things. I mean, we have so much information, from the 51 agents—that was so crooked—to the laptop from hell, to all of these different things. So it would be easier as you say that to just let you go on. But I’m a very honest person —

Talk about Trump's third term goes on.

I'm seeing this at the moment:

Clicking around, I think what fired up this topic again was Trump's Michigan rally the other day. The crowd was chanting "Three!" Trump's response: "Well, we actually already served three, if you count. But remember, I like the victories, I like the three victories which we absolutely had. I just don't like the results of the middle term."

ADDED: There's also the Atlantic interview with Trump, which was published on the 28th and am just noticing now, even though I've been reading the news continuously:

"President Trump wrote on social media on Sunday night that he no longer considered valid the pardons his predecessor granted to members of the bipartisan House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol..."

"... and a range of other people whom Mr. Trump sees as his political enemies, because they were signed using an autopen device.... But Mr. Trump’s assertion, which embraced a baseless right-wing conspiracy theory about former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., was a new escalation of his antidemocratic rhetoric. Implicit in his post was Mr. Trump’s belief that the nation’s laws should be whatever he decrees them to be. And it was a jolting reminder that his appetite for revenge has not been sated."

The NYT reports.

The NYT writer — Shawn McCreesh — observes "There is no power in the Constitution or case law to undo a pardon, and there is no exception to pardons signed by autopen," but to say that is to look past the question whether there  was a pardon. Even if a pardon can't be undone, how do we know it was ever done? We have a piece of writing, signed by autopen, and maybe it can be shown to have originated within the White House. The power that is in the Constitution is given to "The President," so, interpreting that clause, one might question whether his hand must do the signing... and whether his mind comprehended what he was doing.

But I can't believe courts would entertain challenges like that. It's the ultimate can of worms. Consider the parallel problem in the exercise of power within the judicial branch. We assume that the judicial opinions that emerge from the usual channels are signed/"signed" by the judges whose names appear on them and that the judges minds made the decisions that appear in the words of the text. We may well suspect that law clerks wrote the some of the opinions and even that some of the judges don't understand "their" own opinions. But we accept that they are what they purport to be. Beyond that lies chaos.

ADDED: Here is Trump's post on Truth Social:

"Trump is returning as a colossus."

Writes Maureen Dowd, in "Trump Brings a Chill to Washington" (NYT).

He has brought Washington — Democrats and Republicans — to heel, teamed up with Elon Musk and slapped a gold “Trump” sign on Silicon Valley. The lords of the cloud helped fund the coronation, and they are making a pilgrimage here to bow to their new overlord. (This includes the C.E.O. of TikTok, who is surely hoping that his company’s sponsoring of an inauguration party and his online flattery about Trump’s 60 billion TikTok views will lead the new president to save the social media platform.) But not everyone is looking forward to what’s in store. It will be hard to forget Trump’s day of infamy, Jan. 6, as he gets sworn in at the Capitol, which was smeared with blood and feces by rioters recast by Trump and his acolytes as “hostages,” “patriots,” “tourists” and “grandmothers.”...

As for Biden:  

[H]e will be merely a footnote in the vertiginous saga of how Trump won the White House again.... [T]he chip on Biden’s shoulder devoured his judgment about what was good for him, for his party and for the country. His narcissism trumped his patriotism.... Many noticed that Biden was in a fog, or “dans les vapes,” as an aide to President Emmanuel Macron of France called it....

"[Jack Smith] may be right about obtaining a conviction before a D.C. jury and a highly motivated judge against Trump. However..."

"... he would not have been able to sustain any conviction — and this [new] report makes that abundantly clear. Smith repeats the same conclusory evidence, such as citing how Trump said 'fight' ten times in his January 6th speech. He minimized the immunity decision by removing some evidence but kept largely the original indictment. However, the treatment of the obstruction claims was the most telling and indicative of Smith, who has repeatedly lost cases due to overextending constitutional and statutory authority. The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases.... One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. It was not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith would yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence...."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "Jacksonian Obstruction: Smith Explains How He Was Planning to Circumvent the Decision in Fischer."

"I think it's very simple. Look, if you protested peacefully on January 6th, and you've had Merrick Garland's Department of Justice treat you like a gang member..."

"... you should be pardoned. If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn't be pardoned. And there's a little bit of a gray area there. We're very much committed to seeing the equal administration of law, and there are a lot of people, we think, in the wake of January 6th, who were prosecuted unfairly. We need to rectify that."

Said JD Vance.

On X, there are quite a few people objecting to this line-drawing and saying that every January 6th protester should be pardoned. 

"Here's the way I look at January 6th. Truly. Have you ever been at a party that's gotten out of hand?"

Says Tim Dillon, on the new episode of his podcast:

"That's kinda what happened.... It was a high school party.... It wasn't a civil war.... The kids from the other high school came. And they're a little wild. And things got a little out of hand. And then the really popular quarterback may or may not have egged it on without knowing.... He was like, we're having the best time of our lives tonight. We gotta go out there and have the most fun. No one can tell us how much fun we can have.... He's quarterback. And he was like, we're tonight's our night to make a mark and have the most fun we've ever had. And, and, and this is what happened.... We're all kind of having fun, And it's getting a little wild. It's getting wild. It's getting a little wild. Well, we've all been at those parties where we regret the next day. Everybody looks around and goes, that, that was really nuts.... I can't believe that happened.... It's a regrettable day. Yeah. It's a regrettable day...."

Is Donald Trump today the same guy that Clay Aiken knew in 2012?

Clay Aiken, the erstwhile "American Idol" and "Apprentice" contestant, is impressively articulate and diplomatic expounding on Trump's personality (on the Zach Sang Show):

 

"I do believe that the reason that he was unwilling to accept the results in 2020 are not really because he wanted to continue to be President but simply because he does not want to lose. He does not like to lose. He does not like it. He refuses to accept it. That's why he doesn't apologize for anything. He thinks it's weak...."

Tomorrow is January 6th, and we're seeing efforts to frame the occasion.

I'm seeing this at Politico: "Donald Trump’s quiet Jan. 6/Monday’s certification of Trump’s victory will be the antithesis of the carnage at the Capitol four years ago." Oh! The first part of the headline changed while I was in the middle of writing this post. It's now "Donald Trump is about to get the Jan. 6 that he denied Joe Biden." Excerpt:

It’s the utter antithesis of the carnage unleashed four years ago, under clear blue skies, by thousands of Trump supporters, goaded by lies about a stolen election. Hundreds of them bludgeoned police officers guarding the Capitol as the mob fought to stop Congress from counting the electoral votes that would make Joe Biden president.

I asked Grok if that last sentence was factually correct and it said that the "essence" is "supported by substantial evidence" but "the precise quantification of 'hundreds' as attackers specifically 'bludgeoning' officers might be an oversimplification or exaggeration of the exact actions...."

Over at The New York Times, there's: "'A Day of Love’: How Trump Inverted the Violent History of Jan. 6/The president-elect and his allies have spent four years reinventing the Capitol attack — spreading conspiracy theories and weaving a tale of martyrdom to their ultimate political gain." Excerpt:

"Former Representative Liz Cheney colluded with 'star witness' Cassidy Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge."

"Former Representative Liz Cheney should be investigated for potential criminal witness tampering based on the new information about her communication. Cassidy Hutchinson’s most outrageous claims lacked any evidence, and the Select Committee had knowledge that her claims were false when they publicly promoted her. President Trump did not attack his Secret Service Detail at any time on January 6. President Trump did not have intelligence indicating violence on the morning of January 6. Cassidy Hutchinson falsely claimed to have drafted a handwritten note for President Trump on January 6. Representative Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson baselessly attempted to disbar Hutchinson’s former attorney...."

From "Chairman Loudermilk Releases Second January 6, 2021 Report" released this morning.

Is it too soon to add my "Biden pardons" tag?

"The report... includes details that will almost certainly fuel the 'fedsurrection' narrative that has been growing on the right and amongst Donald Trump supporters..."

"... The false notion that the federal government was responsible for instigating the attack.While the review found 'no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6,' the inspector general's office said that there were 26 confidential human sources in Washington on Jan. 6. None of them were 'authorized by the FBI to enter the Capitol or a restricted area or to otherwise break the law on January 6, nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6,' the inspector general said. A total of four FBI confidential human sources entered the Capitol, according to the inspector general, including one who testified during the Proud Boys trial in which several members of the far-right group were found guilty of seditious conspiracy. A total of 13 confidential human sources entered the restricted area around the Capitol, the IG report said, while the remaining 9 never entered the Capitol or restricted area...."

From "FBI missed 'basic step' when gathering intel in the lead-up to Jan. 6, DOJ watchdog finds/Investigators found no evidence of undercover FBI employees at the Capitol, but the presence of FBI informants could further fuel right-wing 'fedsurrection' conspiracy theories" (NBC News).

ADDED:

For those keeping score at home, this was labeled a dangerous conspiracy theory months ago. https://t.co/gNJPUuRp5U

— JD Vance (@JDVance) December 12, 2024

About that dead horse.

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but can we go back to what happened here? pic.twitter.com/FkScNHivuU

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 6, 2024

"He should stand up and say: 'Hey, I’ve won this. And we have teams right now that are going to make sure that this thing is not going to be stolen.'"

Said Steve Bannon, quoted in "Trump, Preparing to Challenge the Results, Puts His 2020 Playbook Into Action/Step by step, Donald J. Trump and his allies are following the strategies that caused chaos four years ago. Election officials say they are ready this time" (NYT)(gift link, because there's a lot of procedural detail to see).

In recently filed court papers naming Mr. Bannon as a co-conspirator in Mr. Trump’s federal election interference case, the special counsel, Jack Smith, noted that Mr. Bannon had said the same thing four years ago. 

“What Trump’s going to do is just declare victory, right?” he said, according to the records, later adding, “That doesn’t mean he’s the winner, he’s just going to say he’s the winner.”

I presume that under at least some circumstances, Kamala Harris would also want to say "Hey, I’ve won this. And we have teams right now that are going to make sure that this thing is not going to be stolen." It's all about when you say that, and not that you'd never say that. If the win is narrow enough, there are challenges. There's litigation. There's such a strong need, for the Harris campaign, to portray Trump as demonic for going as far as he did in January 2021, but that can't mean that it plans to concede immediately if the initial announcement says Trump won.

Joe Rogan talks to Donald Trump for 3 hours.

I'm one hour into it, and the 2 men have great rapport.

The NYT headline is designed to make people think that nothing worthwhile happened and it's all a stupid distraction for young guys: "6 Takeaways From Donald Trump’s 3-Hour Podcast With Joe Rogan/The former president repeated his debunked claims of election fraud and speculated that there could be life on Mars in an interview aimed at young male voters."

He courted the show’s young male audience by floating the idea of eliminating the income tax, talking about mixed martial arts fighters, praising the military skills of Gen. Robert E. Lee and speculating that there was “no reason not to think” there could be life on Mars and other planets....

Why not say he "courted" the old women (like me) by talking about the length of the bed in the Lincoln bedroom and how badly depressed Mary Todd Lincoln was after her son Tad died?

Mr. Rogan seemed to back Mr. Trump’s questioning of election processes, at one point likening those who raised concerns over elections to those who questioned coronavirus vaccines.

“You get labeled an election denier,” Mr. Rogan said. “It’s like being labeled an anti-vaxxer if you question some of the health consequences that people have from the Covid-19 shots.”...

What I thought was so interesting was the first topic: how Trump felt when he found himself suddenly President. If that's not a topic for women, I don't know what is, especially when Trump centered the description on his interest in seeing the Lincoln bedroom and imagining the feelings of Abe and Mary. I loved Trump's (seeming) openness, as he repeatedly described his subjective experience as "surreal."

"I've answered this question directly a million times: NO. I think there were serious problems in 2020. So did Donald Trump lose the election? Not by the words that I would use. Okay?"

"So look... I really couldn't care less if you agree or disagree with me on this issue, and here's... the thing that I that I focus on — because what the media will do, they'll focus on the court cases, or they'll focus on some crazy conspiracy theory — what I know — what verifiably I know — happened is that in 2020 large technology companies censored Americans from talking about things like the Hunter Biden laptop story, and that had a major major consequence on the election. Now... take that as a baseline reality. Even the journalists who constantly fact check me admit that that's real. Well, okay, you could say, well, let's say your view is: That happened, and we still think Trump lost. Or: That happened, and we think that means Trump won. Who cares? It happened. Censorship is bad, and that's the substance of what we're focused on, and that's what we care the most about — and here's the final point that I'll make — is, you know, what I care a lot more about than what happened three and a half years ago is what Kamala Harris has done over the last three and a half years and what she's going to do if the American people give her four years in office. It's a disaster."

That's J.D. Vance answer this question from a reporter: "What message do you think it sends to independent voters when you do not directly answer the question: Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?" 

I agree with the reporter that Vance has been avoiding giving a direct answer, but he said he'd "answered this question directly a million times." This is the first clear "no" he's said.

Vance goes on to say what I've heard him say before, mostly, that it doesn't matter, but then also that censorship affected the election.