And even if they could, they’ve all turned down Trump.
Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m convinced.
I’d say it is at the 1 on the naivete scale. The authors aren’t naive at all, they know what they’re saying.
Of course, they are associated with a right wing think tank. So, yes, pardoning Trump doesn’t seem like a far-fetched suggestion from such an organization. Dick Cheney and Harlan Crow are on their board of trustees. And the main author of that piece used to be a speechwriter for George W. Bush.
Experts, you say? Top. Men.
Just two days ago:
Yesterday:
" Following arraignment, Trump narrowing list of potential attorneys to join his legal team"
It’s good to know there is some action Biden might take that would make him a Master Statesman in the eyes of such distinguished rapporteurs.
Here’s an interesting article from the Washington Post - gift link…
It’s difficult to compare Trump to other politicians that committed crimes, like Nixon and Agnew.
Because, when push came to shove, Nixon and Agnew were willing to cut deals to stay out of prison, something Trump steadfastly refuses to do.
Trump gets himself into trouble just so he can publicly avoid consequences, because this is what winning means to him. When he was impeached for the first time, one thing that always struck me was how easily Trump could have avoided the situation if he wanted to. After the funds were released to Ukraine, he could have made a speech that went something like this
I’m a businessman, not a professional politician. In business we play by different rules and sometimes my instincts take over. I have released the funds to Ukraine and I would like to offer my apologies to President Zelensky and Joe Biden.
Now, I know Trump would never do this, but any other politician, any other President, would’ve, whether they meant it or not.
This is why Trump is twice impeached and twice indicted……not because everyone is out to get him,
When I suggest naïvété I am not referring to the crafting of such a message, but to its likely effect.
I thought this was an interesting article. I didn’t know much about the co-accused.
Sadly paywalled.
The naive might be swayed by it, and that is who it is targeted to, yes. If that is what you are asking.
I’ll note that the think tank is not far right, I don’t see MAGA folks. There are a lot of people from Bush the Younger’s administration involved in it, both today and in the past. But it’s clearly a plea for appeasement, and it’s a cop out.
Well, did he hire the bus lawyer, or could (gasp!) The Guardian be wrong and Vanity Fair be guilty of writing a satirical headline?
By all accounts, Christopher Kise is a pretty good lawyer, but (see WaPo article above), when your client does not follow your best advice, it does not really matter how good a lawyer you are…
Fair enough.
The Washington Post has a lot of columnists, and one or two are Trump supporters. While over a dozen are Trump-critical.
And if you look at the use of the word baseless in the hard news pages, maybe you can find a rare instance where it’s tied to something Biden said. But I subscribe to the Post (and New York Times) and don’t ever remember seeing it. Because it is rare. The great majority of the stories about lies, that use such labeling, are about Republican lies.
Of course, the reason is that the Republicans make a whole lot more baseless statement. But there seems an impression by some in his thread that mainstream media engineer the news so the number of Democrats-positive and Republicans-positive stories is equal. And that’s not what I see. The coverage of the indictments is not evenhanded in terms of giving both sides the same credence.
Now, I don’t watch TV. Do ABC, NBC and CBS not use the word baseless the same way?
I got as far down as seeing that the author was Marc A. Thiessen and stopped.
He’s a rabid right-winger, probably the farthest right person that gets published as the “opposition” in major newspapers.
Get used to a barrage of this garbage disguised as “thoughtful” commentary.
A short excerpt from the Atlantic article.
Nauta fascinates because he is such a cipher—neither a political true believer like some of Trump’s confidants nor an obvious opportunistic grifter like most of the rest—and because of the impossible dilemma he faces. Like so many other Trump aides and advisers, as well as the Republican Party and the nation as a whole, he finds himself caught in a bind by Trump’s behavior.
Nauta seems screwed no matter what he does. If he sticks with Trump, he faces the prospect of years in jail on felony charges for a scheme in which he had no real stake and little to gain. Federal prosecutors apparently tried to squeeze him into flipping on Trump but were unsuccessful, and no wonder: His attorney is being paid by Trump’s political-action committee. If he cooperates against Trump, he might avoid prison, but he stands to lose his legal representation, his livelihood, and his chance at a pardon if Trump is reelected.
[Yesterday’s arraignment] put the absurdity of Nauta’s situation on full display. He is both a co-defendant with and servant to the former president. He went along to a federal courthouse in Miami with his boss. Although Trump had to scramble to find lawyers to represent him in the brief hearing, he did manage to do so, and he pleaded not guilty. Nauta, however, had his arraignment postponed without a plea because he had no local attorney, as the court’s rules require. Trump’s PAC may be paying for Nauta’s representation, but that doesn’t mean he’s getting the best help.
From the courthouse, Trump traveled to Versailles, a landmark Cuban restaurant in Miami’s Little Havana. Here, the former president was in his element—prayed over by a priest and a rabbi, adored by fans, soaking in the attention. Those looking closely could spot Nauta too: He hovered as unobtrusively as possible in the background, helping direct traffic, keeping Trump’s clothes neat, managing the situation. In court, both men had stood equal as citizens and defendants in a criminal scheme. At the restaurant, the huge gap between their statuses snapped back into view.
The problem is, it takes mere moments to spew a falsehood and a great deal of effort to refute it. See: Gish Gallop as one example.
Indeed, one characteristic of most conservatives is a complete lack of interest in trying to understand complex problems. They want a bite-sized, low-brow, low-effort soundbite that tells them the problem, any problem, is due to the libs.
If so, that was, in my I’m sure unpopular view, morally wrong of them.
What about the Secret Service? If they were actively protecting Trump while they could see him committing a felony, isn’t that act of protection, at a minimum, Misprision of Felony?
Yes, I know, they already flipped.
In my view it really defends on what is meant by “squeeze him.” If they simply offered him a deal in exchange for coopration, that’s fine.
I was wondering about this. Sounds like Nauta is already being screwed over by Trump. Trump seemed to manage to get his attorneys recognized by the court. But for the little guy? To hell with him, I guess.
Nauta will be looking forward to being the fall guy, I am assuming. It was all his fault. He did it all.
On the other hand, maybe they sent Pearl in there to make him sweat.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BronzeIdealButterfly-size_restricted.gif