Not to continue this hijack, but,
Yes, JohnT nails it,
Yeah, the whole enterprise never got a catchy name.
Mores the pity because it leads to folks that don’t know how deep the whole thing went to think that the only thing Nixon (very, very, Et al.!) did was break into the DNC HQ and place some bugs . . . and then get caught. If they hadn’t been so sloppy they would have gotten away with all of it.
As I’ve said elsewhere when this came up, I wouldn’t. Integrity absolutely counts for something. But she’s an arch-conservative and I’m not. It would be too much of a compromise for me to vote for someone that opposite of me politically.
One candidate supports things politically that you disagree with. Another candidate supports things you disagree with and also supports burning down American democracy. One of these two candidates will be in Congress at this time next year. The choice seems easy enough to me.
The third candidate may support things you agree with but has no chance in hell of winning. You may as well write in Porky Pig. He seems a decent enough chap.
Just wondering aloud how much Garland’s chances for success will be diminished if the DOJ doesn’t bring forward an indictment until after the mid-terms.
At times, I’m like - oh for FFS, just stick the Orange Bastard with the Raffensberger call and be done with all the rest of this horseshit.
Normally I’d agree with you - I don’t vote for third parties. And one could make the argument, I suppose, that Democrats are functionally third party candidates in Wyoming. And I would compromise myself, I suppose, if she was running against a David Duke-type. Or, y’know, the actual Trump.
So maybe you’re right. Maybe I would if her opposite was that bad. But it would take swallowing a LOT of bile. Voting for a safe moderate over a progressive is one thing. Voting for someone that far right is a BIG ask.
I’m not sure that anyone is saying you should vote for her in the general, absolutely not.
But in the primary, helping to keep the crazy whacko out, I would.
Fair point. I was conflating the two, but you are correct.
The message of Trump’s impeachment acquittals was that the President is, in practicality, allowed to attempt overthrow of American democracy when a large minority of the country sides with that tribe.
The message of Trump’s hung jury trial would be the same.
Indicting when there is no probability of conviction is a terrible idea with ordinary crime, and here as well.
There are two necessities if Trump is to be stopped from gaining a second term:
Electoral Count Act reform. This needs to be the highest administration priority, other than foreign policy questions where there is nuclear war risk. Whatever compromises need to be made should be made to outlaw state legislatures from changing the rules for electoral college member selection after Election Day.
A Democratic presidential ticket victory in November 2024.
Arresting Trump does nothing to achieve these.
I don’t know. And it’s possible Garland will bring the indictment before the mid-terms, if he’s worried that doing it after will create more conflict. This is a massive consideration for DOJ, and a very tough choice.
I do think DOJ is much further along in its investigations than is presently known. This is how things are supposed to be.
The Committee has said they will issue their final report sometime in September, I think. I would expect DOJ to bring some indictments shortly after the report is issued. The “too close to the election” thing only applies to individuals who are actually running for election, so this is not a consideration for conspirators such as Giuliani, Stone, Flynn, Bannon, Powell, etc. They could be indicted at any time after the Committee concludes their business.
Trump can be scooped up even after he declares his candidacy, but more Republicans will have rallied around him by that point and they are sure to paint the indictment as a purely political action even harder than they already are.
The real question is, are some citizens still open to the idea that a DOJ can pursue prosecutions because individuals committed illegal acts? Or will most Republicans continue to view everything through a partisan lens, as they have been trained to do by their so-called “news” outlets?
Who is this referring to? I gots ta know.
Here’s where we disagree. Remember Paul Manafort? There were MAGA members of that jury who very much wanted to acquit him. But the overwhelming state of the evidence against him caused those jury members to do their duty and the vote was unanimous to convict.
I’ll add that as a former judge’s assistant, I have seen this many times up close and personal. It’s easy to talk tough about what you would do as a juror – until you’re an actual juror, trying an actual case with an actual judge giving you actual instructions about what your duty is.
Jared Kushner
A case against Trump has less jury appeal because a conviction means stopping ten of millions of voters from voting for their favored candidate. All the jury instructions in the world won’t stop jurors from considering this.
Logically, this next shouldn’t count. But if you could find a good op ed from someone who was against impeachment, on grounds of no conviction probability, but is now in favor of Trump being indicted, that might open my mind a bit.
I’ll say it again: We can’t avoid doing the right thing just because it’s going to be very, very hard. Or even if it might fail. If that’s the criteria, we may as well just step aside and hand engraved invitations to every corrupt asshole in politics right now. (As we basically have up to the present moment.)
And I sure don’t blame Garland for taking his time to get every last skerrick of evidence he possibly can before bringing such an indictment.
There’s another major pitfall coming soon from the Committee’s proceedings, IMHO: Cheney made reference to it in her opening statements. There are a number of Republicans in Congress who sought pardons for their part in the conspiracy. It appears the Committee is prepared to Go There, actually naming Rep. Scott Perry – which they would not do unless they have strong proof.
There’s no reason to seek a pardon except if you are worried you may have done something illegal. That puts the DOJ in the horrible spot of having to decide if they will indict active members of Congress for any part they played. So… Rep. Josh Hawley? Senator Mike Lee? Senator Tommy Tuberville? Think those guys and their supporters are going to go quietly into the night?
It’s a massive clusterfuck, and I am grateful to Merrick Garland for taking it on. I sure don’t envy him.
Pretty good analysis here from NBC News about the possibility of indicting Trump. The bottom line is what one would expect – that the evidence of criminal intent needs to be overwhelming (and we’re pretty much there) and that the consequences would be so unprecedented and far-reaching that Garland would have to weigh whether proceeding with an indictment or not proceeding would do more damage to the national interest. Which is worse – creating widespread unrest in an intractably divided nation, or letting an obvious criminal off without consequences, and maybe allowing him to become president again in 2024? It seems the die was cast in 2016 when the orange shit-stain was elected, and now there are no good options.
^ actually a quote from NBC. Not attributed to Wolfpup
When there are no good options, you do the right thing.
The right thing would be to throw his ass in prison and deal with it. Yes, even if it means Civil War.
Because I lived in Wyoming so long (26 years), left just before the 2016 election, and still have many friends there who keep me informed, I thought I’d share a few observations.:
About Liz Cheney: while some WY conservatives approve of her, most of them refer to her as “The Traitor.” Her approval rating is very low. Someone here suggested Wyoming Democrats would register GOP to vote for her. I assure you, this would not be nearly enough. She’s all but assured defeat.
As for Trump’s appeal–and WY had the highest % of Trump voters in 2016 and 2020–the explanation is simple. Literally. These are people who distrust anything complicated. Years before Trump ran, locals insisted, “Build a wall! That’ll fix the illegal immigrants!” He thinks like his supporters do. That’s the key. And in their eyes, he’s been fabulously successful. Deeply distrustful of the federal government–that can’t be over-emphasized–they gloat about him avoiding paying taxes. They see him as brilliant because his ideas mirror their own. Finally, someone who tells it like it is!
Trump does not have a genius for manipulating people. Over the years, he picked up some knowledge of showmanship, but a lot of it is simply Trump doing the stuff Trump finds impressive, e.g., riding down a golden escalator. The mirror-think of his worshipful base means they eat it up, too.
TL;DR: He’s them, only better. That’s the appeal.
This is another miserable aspect to all this.
Think about the implications of having to indict a sitting SCOTUS justice’s wife for her criminal contributions to the conspiracy. I mean… fuck me. Given Garland’s prior situation with SCOTUS as engineered by McConnell, I suspect Mrs. Thomas is going to get a pass for this.
Maybe Arizona AG Mark Brnovich will do the right thing. (Ok; I can’t say that with a straight face.)
Thanks for the inside info, helpful to know.
They could say they did nothing wrong but were worried about a ‘Democrat witch hunt’ or some such bullshit.