Yeah:
Also, he also whined about being kept off the campaign trail. Yesterday, court was not in session. He could have gone somewhere to campaign. Guess what he did?
I’m feeling crazy today. How in the world is it even possible that this imbecile is possibly going to be exonerated for the crimes we’ve all seen with our own eyes, win the presidency again and be given carte blanche to abuse his power with total immunity.
Check out this BS:
He’s South Asian, by the way.
Today’s Supreme Court argument on presidential immunity was profoundly depressing. It really sounded like the majority is persuaded that they must protect criminal president Donald Trump (and any like him in the future) from any kind of accountability for his crimes. I don’t know if they will think better of it as they deliberate (probably over a period of many months) but it appears that this court has not been chastised at all by the country’s reaction to their radical actions in Dobbs or anything else.
So, if they do what it looks very likely they will do, which is to at least give Trump the delay he seeks and possibly upend the constitutional order at his behest, he could get off scott free whether he wins or loses.
But there are further ramifications that I don’t think any of us have contemplated in light of this case. Greg Sargent has and it’s chilling:
But there’s another way to understand Trump’s move: It’s about what comes next. If he wins on this front, he’d be largely unshackled in a second presidential term, free to pursue all manner of corrupt designs with little fear of legal consequences after leaving office again.
That Trump might attempt such moves is not idle speculation. He’s telling us so himself. He is openly threatening a range of second-term actions—such as prosecuting political enemies with zero basis in evidence—that would almost certainly strain the boundaries of the law in ugly new ways.
Now imagine him pursuing this project with a get-out-of-prosecution-free card in his pocket. “It really would permit him to be completely unconstrained if he were reelected,” Neil Eggleston, who served as White House counsel under President Barack Obama, told me.
To be sure, Trump has a weak case, as legal experts point out. The Justice Department has a long-standing policy against prosecuting sitting presidents, and the ex-president’s lawyers cite civil law precedent to claim that Trump’s acts were within the “outer perimeter” of presidential duties, and thus immune from criminal prosecution after he left office. If not, they suggest, future presidents will be constrained in office by fear of nakedly political prosecutions later.
But special counsel Jack Smith counters that presidents do not “operate in a realm without law,” that granting Trump’s request would “license presidents to commit crimes,” and that his criminal efforts to overthrow democracy don’t fall within the “outer perimeter of official presidential responsibilities” to begin with.
Greg wrote this before today’s frightening argument and assumed that the court would not entertain such a preposterous idea. Well they did and it certainly wasn’t at all clear that they didn’t think that was perfectly fine. We will have to see how far they are actually willing to go. But there’s more to it:
But a favorable decision could still unshackle Trump in a big way. Trevor Morrison, associate White House counsel under Obama, says the key is whether the courts rule that Trump has immunity on the theory that his alleged criminal conduct does fall in the outer perimeter of presidential duties—and how the courts define that perimeter. If they accept Trump’s broad version of immunity or something like it, he might argue that future potentially criminal acts also fall within that perimeter.
For instance, could a victorious President Trump urge the FBI to investigate Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, who has also criminally charged Trump, and order the seizure of documents related to those charges to sabotage her effort? That would be similar to Trump’s corrupt pressure on the Justice Department to fabricate a pretext for halting the January 6, 2021, electoral count.
Or in the 2026 battle over the Senate, could President Trump threaten elections officials with prosecution while pressuring them to “find” votes in a decisive contest? After all, he arguably did just this with the Georgia secretary of state.
Trump justified his pressure on Justice Department officials and Georgia’s secretary of state by claiming he was combating corruption. If Trump wins now, it might give him room to claim later that turning loose the FBI on Willis or pressuring elections officials in 2026 also constitute carrying out presidential duties to fight corruption, Morrison noted.
“If he is found immune from these charges, there is at least a great risk that the courts will have endorsed an immunity that could cover a number of otherwise criminal things the president might do in the future,” Morrison said. Similarly, Cardozo Law School professor Kate Shaw suggests a ruling for Trump could encourage him to abuse his powers to purge the civil service and invoke the Insurrection Act to target all manner of domestic enemies.
Kristy Parker, counsel at Protect Democracy who served as a lawyer in multiple administrations, notes that Trump has signaled clear intent to do exactly this sort of thing. He has attacked Willis’s prosecution of him as corrupt, hinted at full-scale persecution of “vermin” Americans who oppose him, and openly threatened to prosecute President Biden as retribution. “If I don’t get immunity, then Crooked Joe Biden doesn’t get immunity,” Trump recently raged.
In saying this, Trump essentially declared that if he is denied immunity, he will prosecute Biden on a fake finding of corruption, just as he invented corruption as a pretext for his alleged election crimes. What happens if those efforts to name and target fabricated corruption are in some sense deemed official acts?
“Trump has threatened to use the presidency to punish enemies, reward friends, and protect himself,” Parker told me. “If the courts recognize immunity for the broad array of official acts of the presidency, that will incentivize Trump to abuse those powers further.”
Parker doubts the courts will side with Trump. “But the very nature of his claim further underscores his extreme view of the presidency as being completely above the law,” Parker said.
There’s a strange tendency in our “LOL nothing matters” discourse to treat Trump as fearless and invulnerable in his corruption and (alleged) lawbreaking. In reality, Trump fears prosecution and accountability. As special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia scandal documented, he took extensive steps to ward off that possibility, bullying his attorney general, trying to get Mueller fired, and ordering an underling to deny that effort.
He was so eager to avoid legal consequences that he might have criminally obstructed justice to avoid it. These fears didn’t stop him from transforming his first term into an extraordinary spree of corruption, self-dealing, and likely criminality, including trying to destroy lawful constitutional democracy, but he and his allies have taken extensive steps to cover it all up throughout.
It’s sobering to imagine what Trump might be capable of during a second term—if it’s decisively confirmed to his satisfaction that the law will not apply to him after all.
If you think he and his henchmen won’t do it, think again. Trump is a narcissistic sociopathic criminal. He will gather power-mad zealots with an ax to grind all around him . Don’t kid yourself. He will have no limits.
Josh Marshall notes that 538 has finally put up their polling average and then takes a look at the state of the electoral college strategy:
The headline here is Trump and Biden tied at the national level and Trump holding what they call a “tenuous” lead in the swing states. But the breakdown of their averages shows something more specific. The two candidates also basically tied in the Blue Wall states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The precise averages are actually Trump +1.1 (Michigan), Biden +.1 (Wisconsin) and Trump +0.9 (Pennsylvania). But those datasets are still weighted toward GOP-leaning polls at the moment. In any case, those are basically ties and I’m fairly confident Biden wins those. It’s the Southern-tier states of Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina and Arizona which each have Trump leads of around 5 points, give or take.
Here’s the key. If Biden holds the Blue Wall states and wins that single electoral vote in Nebraska he gets to 270 votes. Literally the absolute minimum to win. That’s if he loses Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Nevada. So 270 to 268. If this seems odd to you it’s because those southern states have gained a few electoral votes at the expense of blue states in the northeast.
You can see why Republicans really, really want to switch the rules for electoral votes in Nebraska.
Now if Biden wins Nevada or Arizona suddenly he’s also 40 electoral points up. On the other hand, if they’re able to change the rules in Nebraska you actually have a real chance of a tie in which the House picks Trump as President. Note that even if Democrats take the House they are highly unlikely to control a majority of state delegations.
As we make clear about the national numbers and really all the polls, we’re six months out from the election. So we can’t put too much into these numbers. But they do tell us that there’s a good chance the election will be decided in Arizona or Nevada. Or at least that’s where Biden has a shot of putting it away.
A couple final points on FiveThirtyEight. What we’re discussing here isn’t a forecast. It’s a very sophisticated average or perhaps better to say composite of current polls. I assume they’ll release a forecast at some later point. But for now we have an average — not a prediction or predictive model. Also, you probably remember that FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver parted ways with FiveThirtyEight or year or so ago. His replacement is a guy named G. Elliot Morris. He’s good. I follow a lot of these guys — mostly guys who are kind of the new generation of political numbers crunchers. I have a feel for whose judgment and technical know-how I trust. And he’s good. As I said, technical sophistication and complexity mostly needs to be its own reward probably. But if you’re going to be nerding out about averages and models I think you’re in good hands with him.
What a screwed up system…
“There is no failsafe system of government, meaning, we have a judicial system that has layers and layers of protection for the accused in the hopes that the innocent will go free. We fail. Routinely. But we succeed more often than not. In the vast majority of cases, the innocent do go free. But we still fail. We’ve executed innocent people. Having said that, Alito went through a step by step of all the mechanisms that could potentially fail. In the end, if it fails completely, it’s because we’ve destroyed our democracy on our own.
The argument today was depressing. It seems clear that the cult of Unitary Executive is very intrigued by the idea of granting full immunity to a president. That cult is a majority of the court.
He seriously said that.
This was a terrifying Supreme Court argument. It’s clear that the majority actually favors Trump’s argument that a president must have immunity. Whether they are willing to go that far remains to be seen but it’s almost certain now that the J6 trial will likely not likely see the light of day before the election.
We are in big trouble, people. Big. Trouble.
Update:
Judge Michael Luttig wrote:
As with the three-hour argument in Trump v. Anderson, a disconcertingly precious little of the two-hour argument today was even devoted to the specific and only question presented for decision.
The Court and the parties discussed everything but the specific question presented.
That question is simply whether a former President of the United States may be prosecuted for attempting to remain in power notwithstanding the election of his successor by the American People.
thereby also depriving his lawfully elected successor of the powers of the presidency to which that successor became entitled upon his rightful election by the American People — and preventing the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history.
It is not even arguably a core power or function of the President of the United States to ensure the fairness, accuracy, and integrity of a presidential election.
Let alone is it a core power or function of the President of the United States to ensure the proper certification of the next president by the Congress of the United States. Neither of these is a power or function of the president at all.
In fact, the Framers of the Constitution well understood the enormous potential for self-interested conflict were the President to have a role in these fundamental constitutional functions.
Consequently, they purposely and pointedly withheld from the President any role in these fundamental constitutional functions.
To whatever extent the Framers implicitly provided in the Executive any role whatsoever in these fundamental constitutional functions, it was a limited role for the Executive Branch,
through the Department of Justice, to inquire into allegations of fraud in presidential elections and ensure that the election was free, fair, and accurate.
The former president’s Department of Justice did just that and found that there was no fraud sufficient to draw into question the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The former president of course has refused to this day to accept that finding by not only his own Department of Justice, but also countless others of his closest advisors.
Whether undertaken in his or her “official,” “candidate,” or “personal” capacity, a President of the United States has never been and can never be immune from prosecution (after leaving office),
for having attempted to remain in power notwithstanding the election of that President’s successor by the American People.
Consequently, there is no reason whatsoever for the Supreme Court to remand to the lower courts for a determination of which of the alleged criminal acts might have been personal and which might have been official.
Neither is a clear statement from Congress that a president is subject to prosecution under the statutes with which the former president has been charged necessary in this particular case.
As applied to the former president for the criminal conduct with which he has been charged, there can be no question but that Congress intended a President of the United States to come within the ambit of the statutory offenses with which he has been charged.
For the same reason, it would be ludicrous to contend that the former president was not on sufficient notice that if he committed the criminal acts charged, he would be subject to criminal prosecution by the United States of America.
To hold otherwise would make a mockery out of the “plain statement” rule.
I wouldn’t hold my breath.
This conversation was posted on January 17th 2020,It remains one of the best discussions I’ve come across on this subject:
After a harrowing discussion about humanity’s undeniable march towards a dystopian future, world-renowned thinker Noam Chomsky and Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer move on to other pressing topics related to current events. Beginning with the issue that inspired the two-part interview, Scheer explains that an episode of his podcast “Scheer Intelligence” which featured Susie Linfield discussing her book “The Lions’ Den: Zionism and the Left from Hannah Arendt to Noam Chomsky” led to an ongoing exchange with Chomsky. The linguist, who has been an outspoken critic of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, argues that “The Lion’s Den” and its chapter on Chomsky’s criticisms “is the most extraordinary collection of lies and deceit that I have ever seen.”
Admitting that before his interview with Linfield, Scheer had not paid close attention to the chapter in question, the Truthdig Editor in Chief goes on to say that upon re-reading it, he found it incredibly “unfair.”
“The people attacked in this book,” Scheer says, “are all attacked for daring to raise questions about the performance of [the Israeli state] and the Zionist experiment, particularly in its relation to the Palestinians and notions that many of us, myself included, who are Jewish had thought were built into a kind of universalism of the Jewish experience, and a concern for the other.”
To Chomsky, the dilemma Israel poses to Jewish intellectuals such as himself who are concerned with the state’s future, has always been clear: criticize the state’s actions or remain silent in the face of decisions that would endanger it. The thinker’s criticisms take root in the 1970s when Israel rejects viable two-state solutions more than once, an inconvenient historical reality he argues Linfield “lies about like a trooper.”
“If you care about Israel, what you tell them is you’re sacrificing security for expansion,” Chomsky argues. “And it’s going to have a consequence. It’s going to lead to moral deterioration internally, and decline in status internationally, which is exactly what happened. […] You go back to the 1970s, Israel was one of the most admired states in the world. […] Now it’s a pariah state.
Chomsky uses the example of how support for Israel within the U.S. had shifted from liberal Democrats to ultranationalists and evangelicals as an illustration of a dangerous shift in Israeli policies that led to the terrible suffering of Palestinians and a moral decline within the Middle Eastern nation. The linguist’s conclusion, based on the biblical story of Elijah, is one that can be applied across the board when thinking of constructing an effective approach to politics, not just in Israel, but around the world.
“You don’t love a state and follow its policies,” says Chomsky. “You criticize what’s wrong, try to change the policies, expose them; criticize it, change it.”
The discussion of Israel then leads to a broader conversation on the topic of “lesser evilism,” especially as applied to U.S. politics as voters face a presidential election in 2020 which could lead to President Donald Trump’s re-election.
“We’ve been living all these years,” Scheer argues, “with the illusion that there’s this lesser evil that somehow will make it better. […] I’m frightened out of my mind that it’s four more years of Trump; yes. However, do we really think that the Democrats are going to propose a serious alternative?”
“There’s another word for lesser evilism,” Chomsky replies. “It’s called rationality. Lesser evilism is not an illusion, it’s a rational position. But you don’t stop with lesser evilism. You begin with it, to prevent the worst, and then you go on to deal with the fundamental roots of what’s wrong, even with the lesser evils.”
That’s all there is to it, IMO. This idea that you will vote against Biden and enable Donald Trump is simply irrational.
While Scheer agrees with Chomsky about the imminent danger Trump poses not just to Americans, but humanity as a whole due to his suicidal approach to the climate crisis, the Truthdig editor in chief insists that it is precisely having read Chomsky’s works that instilled in him a profound fear “of what neoliberalism and what that opportunism breeds,” concluding that “it breeds a Trump.” Chomsky, on the other hand traces the hard-earned progress that has been made by organized movements throughout the history of the U.S., using the examples of Presidents Richard Nixon and Franklin D. Roosevelt as leaders who were forced to amend their policies and actions by political activists.
“So even if there’s core, deep problems with the institutions, there still are choices between alternatives, which matter a lot,” says the MIT professor. “Small differences in a system with enormous power translate into huge effects. Meanwhile, you don’t stop with a lesser evilism; you continue to try to organize and develop the mass popular movements, which will block the worst and change the institutions. All of these things can go on at once. But the simple question of what button do you push on a particular day? That is a decision, and that matters. It’s not the whole story, by any means. It’s a small part of the story, but it matters.”
When Scheer goes on to express his surprise to find in Chomsky a source of optimism, the latter gives him a list of reasons to remain hopeful, including the Green New Deal and the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign.
I guess you can call Chomsky a neoliberal stooge who “just doesn’t understand” (and he is very old which we know renders him completely irrelevant…) but that won’t make it so. He is right.
I think of this as a political Hippocratic oath: first, do no harm. If you really care about the Palestinian people, allowing Trump to win is the most harmful thing you can possibly do.
There is a reason Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu all-but-openly campaigned for Trump against Biden in 2020. American policy in the Trump administration was a laundry list of gifts to the Israeli right:
-Drafting a “peace plan” with zero Palestinian input that would have, if implemented, actually ended the possibility for a real Palestinian state.
–Cutting Palestinians out of the negotiations over the so-called Abraham Accords, realizing the longstanding Israeli goal of severing diplomatic progress with Arab states from progress towards a sovereign Palestine.
-Recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, disputed territory with Syria taken during the 1967 Six-Day War.
-Shutting off funding for the UN’s agency for Palestinian refugees (which Biden almost immediately restored and then temporarily suspended again amid a scandal about its employees participating in October 7).
-Abandoning the decades-old US position that West Bank settlements are a key barrier to a peace agreement and eliminating longstanding restrictions on spending US taxpayer dollars in them.
-Moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem while closing the US mission to Palestine in the same city.
Is it any wonder this sentiment prevails in Netanyahu’s right wing government?
Two things, both from The Atlantic.
If you are one of those people who cannot look at Stephen Miller without seeing him in a black uniform with a red armband, consider, he’ll have company if things ever come to that.
Adam Serwer on Wednesday pointedly called out wannabe goose-steppers in the U.S. Senate, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Josh Hawley of Missouri, both Republicans, of course.
“Tom Cotton has never seen a left-wing protest he didn’t want crushed at gunpoint,” Serwer begins:
On Monday, the Arkansas senator demanded that President Joe Biden send in the National Guard to clear out the student protests at Columbia University against the Israel-Hamas war, which he described as “the nascent pogroms at Columbia.” Last week, Cotton posted on X, “I encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic: take matters into your own hands. It’s time to put an end to this nonsense.” He later deleted the post and reworded it so that it did not sound quite so explicitly like a demand for aspiring vigilantes to lynch protesters.
But you know what he meant, just as the MAGA mob on Jan. 6 knew what Donald Trump meant by “fight like hell.”
The calls from Cotton and Hawley to deploy the National Guard are not about anyone’s safety—many of the pro-Palestinian protesters, against whom the might of the U.S. military would be aimed, are Jewish. As the historian Kevin Kruse notes, sending the National Guard to campuses facing Vietnam War protests led to students being killed, including some who had nothing to do with the protests, rather than to anyone being safer. The most likely outcome based on past precedent would be an escalation to serious violence. Which might be the idea.
See “But you know what he meant” above. When Trump began his presidency with his “American carnage” speech, he wasn’t describing reality but revealing his innermost desires.
Today at The Atlantic, George Packer laments what I’ve noticed for decades: a lack of learning curve on the protesty left. Commenting on those same student protesters, Packer writes:
In other ways, the current crisis brings a strong sense of déjà vu: the chants, the teach-ins, the nonnegotiable demands, the self-conscious building of separate communities, the revolutionary costumes, the embrace of oppressed identities by elite students, the tactic of escalating to incite a reaction that mobilizes a critical mass of students. It’s as if campus-protest politics has been stuck in an era of prolonged stagnation since the late 1960s. Why can’t students imagine doing it some other way?
I’ve wondered that since the 1970s. I wrote in a September 2005 column for the local paper:
Friends I describe as all-natural, vegetarian chain smokers have attended protest rallies since college. It’s a kind of hobby. They are probably in Washington right now, marching against the war in Iraq. Sometimes they would invite me along to protest [your favorite liberal cause here], promising it would be fun.
Sure. I can think of lots of things more fun than protesting foreign wars and abuses of power. Or listening to impassioned speeches with rhetoric so threadbare that you can close your eyes and imagine yourself at any street rally since 1966.
This weekend major U.S. cities will see protests against the conflict in Iraq. The usual cast of characters will be massing in Washington: squads of pall bearers with mock coffins, Grim Reapers, pets in drag, and clowns for peace.
Friends, would you please consider doing something effective for a change? If you like playing dress-up, there’s the Society for Creative Anachronism. For fun, rent a Jackie Chan film. We’ve watched you get arrested earning your merit badges in civil disobedience long enough to figure out that what’s really arrested is your political development.
It’s not that your issues aren’t worthwhile. Most are. And sure, protesting can be cathartic and promote a sense of solidarity with your tribe. You go home feeling better about the issues. But wouldn’t you rather go home having done something with half a chance of resolving them? If you want to effect change, you have to influence political leaders and win the hearts and minds of American voters.
Face it, America is not swayed by mass die-ins dramatizing the loss of life caused by war. Or by coeds dressed as “corporate whores” to satirize conglomerates prostituting after Defense Department dollars. Or by indoctrinating children through activist puppet dramas with all the subtlety of temperance plays.
How do I know? Because you’ve been staging these sideshows for decades and the red states keep getting redder. These are time-tested wastes of your energies and talents, public curiosities, local color on the news at six. I’d rather go bowling.
Packer chalks up the calcified format of these protests to the evolution of the post-liberal university since the 1960s.
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) is still investigating the 2020 fake electors scheme “to keep Unindicted Coconspirator 1 in office.” But as of Wednesday, she’s charged 18 people associated with the plot with felony counts of conspiracy, fraud and forgery. The indictment caps off a year-long investigation into the fraudulent slate of Donald Trump electors sent to Congress after Joe Biden won Arizona by 10,457 votes. Similar schemes played out in Michigan, Georgia and Nevada.
Redacted in the indictment are seven names of individuals living outside Arizona. The Washington Post, however, identifies them as some of Trump’s closest allies and advisers:
Those indicted include former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman and Christina Bobb, top campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn and former campaign aide Mike Roman. They are accused of allegedly aiding an unsuccessful strategy to award the state’s electoral votes to Trump instead of Biden after the 2020 election. Also charged are the Republicans who signed paperwork on Dec. 14, 2020, that falsely purported Trump was the rightful winner, including former state party chair Kelli Ward, state Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, and Tyler Bowyer, a GOP national committeeman and chief operating officer of Turning Point Action, the campaign arm of the pro-Trump conservative group Turning Point USA.
Trump himself remains unindicted in Arizona for now.
The effort was aided by Trump, the indictment said, who “himself was unwilling to accept that he had lost the election.” While the charges focus on the elector strategy, the indictment spells out various ways that Trump and his allies sought to pressure state and local officials to “encourage them to change” the election results. Trump allies initially put pressure on members of the Phoenix-area Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, the indictment said. When it became clear that the GOP-led board would not alter the results, pressure was placed on members of the state legislature — namely then-House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R) — who heard from Trump and other allies.
When that effort failed, Trump sought to appeal to then-Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R), who ignored a call from Trump while certifying the state’s election results. That day, the indictment notes, Trump berated Ducey on social media for certifying the results.
The Post notes that this is the second round of charges so far for “Meadows, Giuliani, Ellis, Eastman and Roman, who were all indicted alongside Trump in Georgia last year. Ellis pleaded guilty in October to illegally conspiring to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss in Georgia and has been cooperating with prosecutors.”
Notable omissions include Kenneth Chesebro, one of the progenitors of the elector strategy with Eastman. In October, he pleaded guilty in Georgia to one felony count of “conspiracy to commit filing false documents.” Also missing from the indictment is lawyer Sidney Powell. She pleaded guilty in Georgia to “six misdemeanors accusing her of conspiring to intentionally interfere with the performance of election duties.” One may surmise that Chesebro’s and Powell’s cooperation in the Arizona investigation kept them out of Wednesday’s indictment.
Trump is a Republican candidate for president again in 2024, even while on trial in New York and with criminal trials pending in three other jurisdictions. He is not running for president. He is running to keep from spending the rest of his life on trial or in jail. Trump is betting on the presidency empowering him to shut down federal investigations into himself and to exact revenge on his enemies. (Republicans like their twofers.)
This morning, Trump’s attorneys will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court that the president is and must be immune from prosecution for his actions in office. They do not expect to win. Their goal is to keep Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case from going to trial before the November election. Trump is charged with “conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.”
“We already pulled off the heist,” a source close to Trump told Rolling Stone. They were “literally popping champagne” when the court agreed to take the case in February and delayed hearing it until today. Do not expect a ruling from the conservative court until late June/early July. Beginning a trial before November is unlikely but not impossible.
The addition of charges in Arizona for which Trump, if elected, cannot issue pardons, will increase pressure on the newly indicted and re-indicted to cooperate with authorities in return for reduced charges. Trump’s deodorant will need to file for overtime. For which, by the way, millions of workers will soon be eligible thanks to a new rule issued by Biden’s Department of Labor on Tuesday.
Also Tuesday, Republican voters in Pennsylvania’s closed primary signaled their exhaustion with Trump by handing 16.6% of their votes to Nikki Haley who suspended her race after Super Tuesday (March 5). Trump sits in a New York courtroom while President Biden campaigns there and racks up union endorsements.
It’s going to be a long, hot summer for Team MAGA while Dark Brandon keeps cool in his aviators.
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.
He actually doubled down on his stupidity.
The Trumpers have already “won” the immunity case:
Donald Trump‘s inner circle doesn’t expect the Supreme Court to go along with his extreme arguments about executive power in the immunity case before the justices. But what the high court does now is almost beside the point: Trump already won.
Three people with direct knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone that many of the former president’s lawyers and political advisers have already accepted that the justices will likely rule against him, and reject his claims to expansive presidential immunity in perpetuity. Bringing the case before the court — after a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., shut down their arguments on executive power — was a delaying tactic designed to push Trump’s criminal election subversion trial past Election Day this fall. The strategy paid off so much more than MAGAworld anticipated.
“We already pulled off the heist,” says a source close to Trump, noting it doesn’t matter to them what the Supreme Court decides now.
Trump’s lawyers and other confidants had widely expected — and had told the former president as much — that the court maneuver would delay the election subversion trial, but perhaps only to around the summer. For months, Trump attorneys were actively preparing themselves and their client to face a trial, over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the violent Jan. 6 assault at the U.S. Capitol, right around the time of the Republican Party’s nominating convention, the sources add.
If the federal trial were to proceed during this election year, much of Team Trump had predicted it would be significantly more damaging politically to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee than, for instance, his ongoing criminal hush-money trial in Manhattan.
“We planned for that exhausting schedule and split screen,” says a person involved with the planning.
But the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, which Trump built as president, came through for him in a way that many Trump advisers didn’t believe was probable. When news broke in late February that the court would take up Trump’s claims of vast immunity, Trumpland was so elated that a lawyer close to Trump told Rolling Stone they were “literally popping champagne.”
They are banking everything on his winning in November. I hate to tell them but if this unfolds the way they think, if he loses this case will go forward and he is going to be tried. They won’t be popping champagne when that happens.
It’s going to be up to the American people to beat him at the polls to hold him accountable. After that, the legal system should carry on and hold him accountable for his crimes.
Philip Bump did a nice rundown of the “tortured” right wing rationalizations over Trumps criminal behavior. (gift link)If you don’t watch Fox you will be surprised at just how stupid it really is:
If last week is any guide, somewhere north of 2 million people tuned in to Jesse Watters’s prime-time show on Fox News on Monday night to hear him moan that Donald Trump was being tortured. That the treatment the former president was experiencing during his criminal trial in New York was equivalent to — or perhaps worse than? — that experienced by at Guantánamo Bay.
“Donald Trump, been on the move his whole life,” Watters told viewers after describing the purported leniency Democrats had offered those detainees. “Golf. Rallies. Movement. Action. Sunlight. Fresh air. Freedom. This isn’t lawfare. It’s torture.”
He played a clip of a podcast hosted by Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen — expected to testify against Trump in the Manhattan hush money case — and whimpered about how unfair it was.
“The star witness, who went to prison for lying,” Watters said, “is torturing Trump and bossing the judge around.”
Both of those things are, in fact, happening in equal measure when Cohen says things on his podcast. Which is to say that neither is happening at all, for obvious reasons.
But Watters was simply building to his central point: that the Manhattan case was simply a function of a personal vendetta against Trump and not, per his own interpretation of state statutes, a violation of the law.
“There’s nothing wrong with the nondisclosure agreement,” Watters told the camera. Then: “Can you believe the Democrats still can’t get over the 2016 election? It’s now a crime to beat Hillary.”
That was the text on the lower third of the screen, too: “IT’S NOW A CRIME TO BEAT HILLARY.”
There’s more, much more, and you should click over to read the whole thing.
A few hours before Watters’s show, “Fox & Friends” host Ainsley Earhardt dug a little deeper on this idea.
“Does this set a precedent for other people who want to run for president?” she fretted. “What if they’ve done something like this in the past?” She offered a slippery-slope example: If someone “paid off a girl when they were 30 years old, then that was election interference.”
The short answer is no, of course: If you’re not actively a candidate, you’re not subject to campaign finance rules. But also, is Earhardt — who positions her Christian faith as a central element of her identity — really worried that guys who tried to cover up allegations of extramarital affairs with porn stars might be dissuaded from running for president? That’s the concern? That this unacceptably narrows the field of possible leaders of the country?
Trump has long benefited from his allies excusing or downplaying his behavior and comments. Tuesday is the fourth anniversary of his wondering during a news conference whether we couldn’t inject light or disinfectant into people to combat the coronavirus — comments incorrectly distilled as his saying that people should inject bleach but fairly dismissed as unworkable and bizarre. Watters, like many others, has waved those comments away not by defending them but by criticizing the exaggerated criticisms of it.
For nearly nine years now, Trump has been the driving figure on the political right. Over that time, he and his allies have developed robust tactics for dismissing or sidelining criticism. We see them now deployed in a much more challenging context: against a criminal justice system that is predicated on distilling truth from fiction.
The cult will buy anything, obviously. But he’s in court now, with all kinds of rules (which he whines daily are unfaaaaaair!) that apply to all of us. The right wing caterwauling isn’t going to help him there.