Of course, Dumb Donald knows nothing about burner phones…
The Trump White House haunted by the ghost of Rosemary Woods.
As the columnist who calls himself “Aldous J. Pennyfarthing” pointed out on the Daily Kos site pointed out, we know this isn’t true. Not only because John Bolton said that Trump repeatedly talked about “burner phones”, but because if he had REALLY just learned about them, he’d be saying “Nobody ever heard of burner phones before.” As with anything else he just learned about, he just wouldn’t be able to shut up about them, and would act as if it was something newly discovered.
About those “burner phones” he never heard of…
As someone caught up in the Watergate investigation once said, I never lie because my memory isn’t good enough.
What.
The Actual.
Fuck.
What.
The Actual.
[Expletive Deleted]
It was also reported that Donald tweeted six times during the call log blackout. Priorities, man.
Fuck.
[Additional F word for good measure.]
According to this article in The Guardian, based on logs they’ve been able to review, one call in that period came from an official white house number, and should have appeared on the White House log, even if Trump otherwise borrowed phones.
The call in question was Trump mistakenly calling Senator Mike Lee(R) thinking he was calling Tuberville as revealed in much earlier reports.
I’m as frustrated as anyone over the lack of indictments coming out of DOJ. But I can think of plausible scenarios why they’re holding off. Here’s one.
Suppose you’re Merrick Garland, and you’ve learned through various sources that Trump did indeed issue pocket pardons for himself and others, such as his spawn, before he exited the White House. As free as Trump was with pardons, it almost defies believe that he would omit to issue them for himself and at the least, family members.
This would explain why Jared and Ivanka feel comfortable to appear before the January 6th Committee. They know they have nothing to fear from criminal prosecution even if it would have otherwise been justified. But they run the risk of committing new offenses outside the scope of the pardons if they fail to appear.
Garland understands that even if he can build a bullet-proof case against these people, Trump in particular, the issue of whether a president can issue a self-pardon is going to be litigated for years, all the way to the Supreme Court. It’s an issue for which we never thought we’d never need a SCOTUS ruling. But since our citizens are willing to elect corrupt clowns to the highest office in the land, I guess we do.
So if you (Garland) know that you are not going to be able to file charges that stick in the near term, then you’re left with filing charges to establish a precedent to establish whether a president can pardon him or herself from criminal conduct committed while in office. And for that, you will make sure you have every fact and every criminal violation at your disposal before you publicly bring your indictments to reveal the full scope of the corruption the president pardoned himself from.
It also means you’re not in a hurry. What’s the rush? Once you file indictments against a former president, you pretty much lose control over the whole steaming mess, and you’ve ignited an inevitable shit storm. It’s now in the hands of the media, the lawyers, the judges and the politicians. Just as Trump’s power appears to be waning (finally!!!), you breathe new life into his supporters’ fervor by bringing charges.
Moreover, you’ve provided the long-awaited opportunity for Republicans to shed themselves of Trump once and for all. Now they can move on to regrouping around other candidates. How much time should you give them to do that?
While we might see indictments filed against less important members of Trump’s administration before the mid-terms (better start packing your toothbrush, Dan Scavino, Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, etc.), I would be amazed to see charges filed against Trump any sooner than early 2023.
Anyway. It’s not satisfying, but it might explain what we’re seeing – and what we’re not.
I reject categorically that Garland is a “Federalist Society” judge. It’s a ludicrous assertion that Obama would have nominated such a one. Just because Garland has acted as a moderator for Federalist Society functions does not make him a product of that environment. In keeping with his reputation as a creature of moderate views and equity, I am not surprised he would agree to moderate various legal forums, irrespective of what organization requested his assistance.
I looked for a connection between Garland and the Federalist Society. I was unable to find anything, nor have I ever seen a single cite here or anywhere else that indicates otherwise, despite much maligning of his reputation. If there isn’t proof of it, to say so simply contributes to a bad narrative benefiting Republicans in tearing down Biden’s AG.
What troubles me more is Garland’s tardy response to the criminal contempt referral for Mark Meadows. That said, Meadows’ referral is stickier than Bannon’s, due to his position in Trump’s administration. I’ll be watching closely to see what Garland does with Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro. Those are not problematic referrals, so far as I can tell.
But, but, but,… As Sherrerd, whom you quoted, said, not only is there no indictment, but not even any public indication of an investigation happening. And, as tight a ship as Garland runs, there would surely be leaks about it by witnesses that Garland doesn’t control.
Tangential remark:
Interview with Aldous J. Pennyfarthing, using his real name, by Tony Palmeri of Media Rants blog. Upon quickly skimming this, I think it looks like an entertaining read:
Tony Palmeri’s intro:
The implication of this: The Committee had been pondering whether Trump had been using borrowed phones or burner phones or other backchannels to communicate during this gap.
The evidence that at least one call was made on a White House phone yet does not appear in the logs, raises the apparent concern that the logs were falsified, or perhaps tampered with after-the-fact.
This would put Trump (or someone?) in direct violation of the Presidential Records Act (for the umpteenth time, including all those documents he tore up).
This puts Trump right into Rosemary Woods territory, of the 18½-minute gap fame.
There are so many of these loopholes and so much wiggle room we’ve discovered. I’d love a time machine and a checklist to go back and patch them up. Get all the Founding Fathers in a room and really nail down these gaps.
I’ve long thought that the best outcome of the Trump debacle would be a slew of new constitutional amendments, like what happened in the wake of the Civil War. Define “emoluments” and “high crimes and misdemeanors”, nail down the electoral vote counting process, proscribe the pardon power, define what the executive can and can’t do with regard to spending congressionally appropriated funds, etc.
Agreed. But during and after the Civil War, most of the people who might have objected to those amendments had either seceded from the union or been effectively banished from the lawmaking process. To make anything like this happen, we’d have to banish the states and lawmakers who approve of what Trump did. Fine with me, FWIW, but not likely to happen.
That’s kind of my theory as to why Europe was able to turn towards social democracy after World War II: they effectively had 2 full generations of their most assholish of men get killed. In short, by 1945 there was an abnormally low # of true psychopaths in power.
The US was able to do the same, on a more minor scale, true, post-1865.
So… war is like a forest fire that clears out all the old obstructive brush, making way for fresh clean growth? And without a fire, the forest chokes itself and dies? Hmm.
“It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I’m no fortunate son.”
Wars in the last century kill off the wrong portion of society. The assholes are the rich people who start the wars, and do none of the fighting and dying and all of the profit-making.