The Trump J6 indictment: dark days for the republic
It used to be that people on both sides of US politics understood that the bar should be very very very high for the indictment of a major candidate for president or an ex-president, particularly any prosecution for matters that have to do with political acts or actions. This – and I suppose, some sort of integrity – led both sides to hold off. Impeachment/conviction was a substitute, a political process that could serve to remove a president, although it had never actually happened that a president was removed that way, despite attempts, because the Founders had purposely made the bar quite high for conviction in the Senate.
And this was the case even if only because each party thought such an act of prosecution might come back to bite them if the other party ever came to power.
But the Democrats are acting like they have nothing of that sort to fear anymore. And maybe they don’t, whether by hook or by crook. It’s ironic that this indictment stems from the fact that although Trump was claiming that the 2020 election was won by Biden through fraud, he actually knew that of course there was no fraud at all. And yet the indictment serves to indicate to the American people just the opposite – that the Democrats may indeed have committed fraud because this weakly-drawn and apparently politically-motivated indictment makes it clear the Democrats will stop at nothing in their quest for power. So, why not fraud, too?
Today Ann Althouse has a post in which she discusses this article written by Richard L. Hansen that appeared in Slate. Both Althouse and Hansen are (in Althouse’s case retired) law professors, she at the University of Wisconsin and he at UCLA. Here’s an excerpt from Hansen’s piece, which is entitled “U.S. v. Trump Will Be the Most Important Case in Our Nation’s History”:
After nearly a decade of Trump convincing many in the public that all charges against him are politically motivated, he’s virtually inoculated himself himself against political repercussions for deadly serious criminal counts. He’s miraculously seen a boost in support and fundraising after each indictment … One should not underestimate the chances that Donald Trump could be elected president in 2024 against Joe Biden—especially if Biden suffers any kind of health setback in the period up to the election—even if Trump is put on trial and convicted of crimes.
A trial is the best chance to educate the American public, as the January 6 House committee hearings did to some extent, about the actions Trump allegedly took to undermine American democracy and the rule of law. Constant publicity from the trial would give the American people in the middle of the election season a close look at the actions Trump took for his own personal benefit while putting lives and the country at risk. It, of course, also serves the goals of justice and of deterring Trump, or any future like-minded would-be authoritarian, from attempting any similar attack on American democracy ever again.
The whole thing is worth reading in order to get a sense of the mindset of a law professor such as Hasen, who is the head of something called the Safeguarding Democracy Project. The project was officially launched a year ago, and here is part of a description of Hasen and its mission:
… [Hasen is] a prominent election law professor who has criticized voter identification laws and accused Republicans of using the COVID-19 pandemic to keep Democratic voters from voting. In its mission statement, the project claims that Republicans who questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 election were acting in bad faith and that election integrity laws passed after the 2020 election “make it harder for some eligible voters to register and to vote,” threatening “the cornerstone of American democracy.”
I wonder whether Hasen believes what he says or whether he’s just using rhetoric to further his own political ends. I’m not sure which possibility would be worse; they’re both bad enough.
In her blog post, Althouse writes this about Hasen’s Slate article:
It is an egregious abuse of power to criminally prosecute someone for the purpose of educating the public and generating publicity for your political position.
And yet that is what Hasen is advocating, although he also at least seems to think that Trump is actually guilty of the crimes for which he is being indicted, and that they are in fact crimes and not just free speech and following constitutional rules for challenging an election.
One could rephrase that excerpt from Hasen’s piece this way: The American people are just too stupid to reject Trump, so we who know better must educate them. We’ve tried and tried already, including hearings in Congress directed by the Democrats and a few handpicked Trump-hating Republicans, but apparently that didn’t work and the voting public might just elect him again. So in order to re-educate those stupid stubborn voters, we must stage a show trial in order to ram the truth – our truth – down their resistant throats.
Hasen’s essay concludes with this penultimate statement:
But as I wrote last year in the New York Times, the risks to our system of government of not prosecuting Donald Trump are greater than the risks of prosecuting him.
Depends what you mean by “risks” and “system,” Professor Hasen. If you mean risks of incredible disruption and strife, in which at least half of US voters feel disenfranchised and perceive that their favorite candidate was railroaded by his political opponents for naked political reasons, I’d say the risk of prosecution is higher. But if you mean – and this is what I suspect you mean – that the risks are to “our democracy” (“democracy” being what we elite Democrats say it is, which is to keep us in power and get the booboisie to do our bidding, for their own good of course) – then I suppose that you had better prosecute Trump.
Althouse also writes:
I’m not a Trump supporter. I’m a believer in freedom of speech and the rule of law. I deplore the criminalization of politics.
As all Americans – and especially law professors – should. But fewer and fewer seem to hold that view these days.
Althouse then adds:
Hasen proceeds to fret about Trump’s ability to push the trial date beyond Election Day, win the presidency, put his own people in charge, pardon himself, and then “then sic his attorney general on political adversaries with prosecutions not grounded in any evidence.” Yes, that’s a lowly incentive for protecting freedom of speech and the rule of law: You might be able to take out your enemies, but when the tables turn, they are enabled and motivated to come after you. Hasen knows this. He admits it. But he won’t come out and say this prosecution is a terrible mistake.
That harks back to how I began this post, with the old-fashioned idea that such actions can come back to bite you in the end. However, as I also indicated, I don’t think that Hasen or other Democrats who believe as he does ever intend to relinquish power and let such a thing happen. To twist a phrase that Hasen himself used in his essay in regard to Trump, I think Hasen believes that the Democrats have “inoculated themselves against political repercussions” for what they are doing. That is why he not only doesn’t come out and admit that this prosecution is a terrible mistake, he also doesn’t think it. He thinks it’s an absolutely necessary corrective.
But the Democrats are acting like they have nothing of that sort to fear anymore. And maybe they don’t, whether by hook or by crook.
No, they don’t, because too many Republican Party politicians are not willing to use the power they have to retaliate in kind–for example, Democrat politicians are not being indicted on trumped-up charges in any jurisdiction Republicans control.
Why that is, reasonable people can disagree. I have my take it on it, but there are others that might fit the evidence. I think the most charitable explanation is that too many Republican politicians are fine with it being done to Trump or other outsiders. They assume the crocodile will not eat them. There’s more than one reason why that could be: perhaps they’re naive, or perhaps they’re crocodiles themselves.
I wonder whether Hasen believes what he says or whether he’s just using rhetoric to further his own political ends. I’m not sure which possibility would be worse; they’re both bad enough.
In her blog post, Althouse writes this about Hasen’s Slate article:
And yet that is what Hasen is advocating, although he also at least seems to think that Trump is actually guilty of the crimes for which he is being indicted, …
Sorry for the long quote. So nicely put, and I think it is a crucial point.
“at least seems to think …” neo leaves open the notion that Hasen means what he says, because why? Because he says it? It depends on who is saying something, and what that something is, but I gave up on the idea that these people have any kind of commitment to saying what they believe a long time ago. For many, it is all propaganda and manipulation.
_______
But the Democrats are acting like they have nothing of that sort to fear anymore. And maybe they don’t, whether by hook or by crook.
It does seem that way. And I’ll stick with the word “seems” here. It’s hard to know for sure. It is interesting that Hasen brings up voting rights, because as I see it, our voting system is a complete shambles now. A joke.
We’ve covered so many of the issues here, but one of the rather incredible elements is all the stuff associated with Dominion voting machines. Way back, when the option of having computer chips inside voting machines first came up, everyone in the US tech world was clear. Don’t do it!
To take a tiny element: I recall that with the 2020 election in AZ, the machines were supposed to be inspected and certified well in advance of the election and have their software update function disabled. After the election, we were told that some of these machine did not have their software update function disabled. Oops. So sorry. Move along. Completely unacceptable.
Then somehow, Dominion corp. completely revamps the Fox News broadcast lineup!? The phrase “red flag” doesn’t do this justice.
Addiction can be a useful metaphor for human behavior.
Democrats are addicted to power. If one has dealt with addicts, one knows they will say and do whatever is necessary to maintain their supply.
Arguing with an addict that his or her stated reasoning is spurious is besides the point.
The Globetrotter cannot imagine that anyone has any courage or convictions.
Thus speaks the voice of infinite cynicism. Enervation and apathy follows that path.
Frederick:
Be specific. Who could the Republicans charge with what, and in what venue?
The House in 2014 recommended that Holder be charged, but guess what? The DOJ declined to do so. The DOJ is majority Democrats in the rank and file. As far as directors go, under Trump it was headed first by Sessions, who was totally and utterly worthless, and then by Barr, who was only marginally better. Either one of them might have instituted some sort of prosecution, but “the Republicans” in general had no say in the matter. Federal prosecutors are all under the aegis of the DOJ. I don’t know exactly how it works, but I’m assuming they need DOJ approval to indict someone.
Or are you talking about a state prosecution? For what? Who?
Then somehow, Dominion corp. completely revamps the Fox News broadcast lineup!? The phrase “red flag” doesn’t do this justice.
The best explanation I have seen is that Rupert is senile and Dominion’s lawyers were going to subpoena him. To avoid having him testify, Fox settled.
Holder and Obama filled the DoJ with leftists and got civil service status for them. Bush left Clinton’s US attorneys in place.
The country is screwed but the voters who enabled it will only be half of those hurt. What comes after the crisis? Pinochet?
If he really does believe that the reason people still love Trump is because they somehow don’t know all about Trump’s various sins or whatever than he really doesn’t comprehend the level of utter distrust and contempt that an overwhelming majority of Trump supporters have for this regime and its “Justice” Department at all levels. Any and all pretense to fairness and justice was burned away long, long ago in the eyes of most Trump supporters, in some cases going back to well before even the Russia collusion narrative fell appart.
Can he really be stupid enough to think that this is some kind of communication failure at this late a stage? Does he believe that there’s any institutional level credibility left here? If so he must be mentally deficient in some way.
“Attack on democracy” how? Questioning the results of an election? Is this guy trying to pretend that elections have never been questioned in the past? You would think that a law professor would have better reasoning abilities.
I have asked people I know over the last three years how could Trump steal the election? How could an election be overturned? Nothing in the constitution describes any process for this. He also seems to have conveniently forgotten that many of the charges against Trump turned out to be false.
I guess what I really want is honest answers to my questions. How could a candidate who lost overturn the lost election? The quick answer is they can’t. You would think an election law professor would know this. When non Orange Man Bad people see writing like this it’s impossible not to think A) the writer is lying or B) the writer is mental.
@neo:Who could the Republicans charge with what, and in what venue?
Remember I’m talking about retaliation; a motivated prosecutor will find something. It would necessarily be for something unfair and ginned up, and it would be in a red state with some blue districts. Get some Dem Congressmen or a Senator or Governor like they did to Ted Stevens and Tom Delay and Bob McDonald. Until that starts to happen, the Dems are going to keep doing it to Republicans. It need not be Federal (and won’t be as you point out), but Tom Delay was indicted by Travis County, Texas and it took two tries.
Republicans have to start using the power they have, and they need to do it just as unfairly as the Dems, it’s the only thing that has a chance of putting a stop to this nonsense. It’s not guaranteed to work, but it would work a lot better than what’s been done so far.
You have been writing at length about the two-tier justice system. Republicans doing it back just as unfairly is not the country we want to live in, but it’s a better one than the one we have now. The Dems are not going back to the old norms until they’ve been made to pay a price for breaking them. It has to be unfair and it has to be ginned up or the message is not sent. That’s Games Theory 101.
If the Democrats would do this, what wouldn’t they do? Yet we’re supposed to take it as a matter of faith that the 2020 election was conducted honestly.
Frederick:
Just as I expected, you can’t say.
One other thing – if a person actually has integrity and believes in the rule of law, it becomes more difficult for that person to abuse the law and use it in an “ends justifies the means ” way. I think that prosecutors on the right are more likely to fit that description.
It’s ironic that this indictment stems from the fact that although Trump was claiming that the 2020 election was won by Biden through fraud, he actually knew that of course there was no fraud at all.
Was that a “slip of the tongue” or do you really consider it a “fact” that “he actually knew that of course there was no fraud at all”?
@neo:Just as I expected, you can’t say.
De Lay was indicted for conspiracy and money laundering. He didn’t actually do those things. They took something he did do and turned it into that. So let’s charge red state Dems with that. This could be done with practically any politician. Mopery with intent to loiter. The point is, it’s ginned up. Take something that lots of people do that’s on the edge or difficult to prove compliance and turn into a crime. You yourself have posted on lots of these.
if a person actually has integrity and believes in the rule of law… I think that prosecutors on the right are more likely to fit that description.
Right, Republicans are too pure. Then I guess we’d better figure out how to live under a one-party state, or we’d better find some less-pure Republicans who actually want to try to put a stop to it.
Your banner at the top still showcases a Churchill biography. Churchill wasn’t a war-monger, but he knew when it was time to get serious, and he was called a war-monger by people who weren’t ready for that.
It’s not wrong to fight back in a measured and proportionate way that informs the other side they have gone too far and need to dial it back.
From Nonapod:
“Any and all pretense to fairness and justice was burned away long, long ago in the eyes of most Trump supporters,”
I would say it’s not just Trump supporters. I’m not one at present, and I would suspect most of us here would agree that fairness and justice have been burned away long ago. In fact most of the conservative bloggers, commentators, no matter who they support in the primary process, that I read and watch agree that the justice system is so screwed up now.
Trump is the symptom. Come DeSantis, or someone else, the same thing will happen. Not just the name calling and smearing by the Ds and the press, but full out legal weaponization against any Democrat opponent. They fully intend to remain in power no matter the cost. As I’ve said before, with the feckless GOP, there’s not a clear path to remedy this short of the unthinkable, which is becoming more thinkable.
look at what they have actually done, they killed at least one unarmed protester, on the Capitol interior, and one who died from complications inside the tunnels,
and if you look further there are other collateral victims of the ‘fortifying of the election,
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1686819921353654275
The Globetrotter moves the backboard by now claiming the expectation is that Republicans be faultless angels as opposed to unprincipled scoundrels that will do anything to obtain and maintain power. Even Saint Mittens, a “Republican and severe concervative,” isn’t one of Globetrotter’s Republican angels. He is reputed to have gotten his hands dirty in politics, if only a little.
globetrotter is not here, he might show up shortly,
note the way the dominion case was presented, opinions about the case were leaked but not practically no technical evidence from the whistleblowers, except for the national pulse,
so the helderman report, the carter-baker report on mail ballot deficiencies should be allowed, not third hand hearsay, but will judge chutkin allow it, will the corporate press print it,
Hasen is evil. Simply reverse the parties and his attitude changes. Hence, the blatantly obvious conclusion that he is willing to subvert justice, disenfranchise voters and deny millions of people basic human rights. Those are bad things. Vile, nasty things. Good people would never try to find a way to justify such evil.
Hasen believes he is mentally and morally superior to us. That his mental and moral superiority entitles him to deny us our rights. This is hubris of the worst possible kind. It takes him and the nation straight down the path to hell.
Is there a Democrat with the moral character to call BS on this? To pull his or her party from the brink of plunging the nation into war?
I don’t see one.
ee cervantes:
Globetrotter sees the Uniparty behind every curtain and he’s passed through these parts earlier this afternoon.
and re one part of the travesty of a mockery:
https://twitter.com/OversightPR/status/1686508548694372352
but there’s a pony in there somewhere,
https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1686551175863148544
bof:
“…he actually knew that of course there was no fraud at all.”
The instant I read it, the same question occurred to me
there’s that mind reading gizmo they might try,
some things we aren’t meant to know
https://twitter.com/15poundstogo/status/1686868500915097600
Frederick:
The charge would require that it be a fact proven beyond a reasonable doubt for Trump to be found guilty, obviously. As a regular reader here, you are or should be well aware that I don’t consider it a fact in the least. I don’t know why you would insinuate that I do.
In addition, when I describe that it is harder to find a lawyer on the right willing to “cut down all the laws in England to get after the Devil,” I am merely stating a practical truth. It isn’t about “purity.”
I don’t know of any Republicans, politician, pundit, lawyer or voter, who believes they are morally superior and by such superiority entitled to dictate and rule over others.
There are millions of such Democrats.
Difference.
certainly in dc, the quotient is over represented, as in new york and atlanta, it’s just a coincidence that those boroughs are falling apart even though the more affluent neighborhoods are somewhat more insulated, the beltway communities in virginia,
Political show trials do not require a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump’s real crime was and is, in having tried to overturn their ‘apple cart’.
The whirlwind has already begun to stir and when he’s jailed, it will begin to gather an unstoppable power. For there is no America when the rule of law has been slain and buried. None of us here want what is coming and to avoid it we have bent over backwards and suffered innumerable insults. We have been disenfranchised, impoverished and even murdered.
But the left will have it no other way. They are mad with power and will let no element of decency stand in their way. Their blatant sexualization of the very young, their contempt for free speech, their covert and overt opposition to the very concept of inalienable rights, their unremitting determination to disarm only the law-abiding, their eager willingness to destroy the lives of any who strongly disagree, all of these actions and much, much more make of them those who are no longer our countrymen.
“all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
“No fraud at all”? I live in Pennsylvania. The Republican observers in Philadelphia were kept away from the count for three days, while plenty of activity was going on in that building. The corruption of the election counting process in Philly is well known and has gone on for many years. Give me a break.
I despair of ever seeing a fair statewide election in my state. Local elections are relatively clean, but not the statewide ones.
@neo:As a regular reader here, you are or should be well aware that I don’t consider it a fact in the least. I don’t know why you would insinuate that I do.
Sorry, you’re responding to someone else, not me, probably “bof”. If he’s insinuating something I’d rather not take the blame.
I describe that it is harder to find a lawyer on the right willing to “cut down all the laws in England to get after the Devil,”
Ok–but this is not at all what I am suggesting anyone do, and of course those are not my words.
I am suggesting proportionate and measured retaliation in kind for norm-breaking, the kind that has kept chemical warfare between armed forces at bay for a century and which has been shown to work in countless other instances.
Do you see that there is a difference between a measured strategy of retaliation and the reversion to lawlessness you describe with the Bolt quote? If you don’t see it, what do I need to explain better? Note that I’m not asking you if you agree, but if you see that I’m saying something different from “cut[ting] down all the laws in England to get after the Devil.”
re 2020 fraud, read 2000 Mules by Dinesh D’Souza
Regarding election fraud: it was there and in spades. I downloaded and extracted the Edison Research election day vote time series from the NYT election day web pages, one for each state. It was there in plain sight, sudden very large dumps of votes for Biden, votes subtracted from Trump and transferred to Biden, and massive throttling of the rate at which Trump received votes are just three ways that the votes were manipulated. And of course there were the three ladies caught on video in the Atlanta center running the same ballots into the machines over and over.
The results of a group who used exactly the same Edison data published their results here, https://election-integrity.info/Vote_Spikes_Report.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
None of this was reported by the MSM and the other organs of the State. All this was suppressed by the MSM, Twitter, …
Globetrotter siezes on chemical warfare in WWII as his metaphor for politics. It was used against the Ethiopians by Italy in the 1930s, by Iraq against Iran and against other Iraqis in the 1980s and 90s, against the Syrians by Syrians
(cough, cough, and Russians), and maybe by the Japanese against the Chinese(?). It works best if your enemy (victim) is surprised or unprepared or without defenses. Good at killing civilians; peer soldiers not do much. It didn’t solve the trench warfare problem in WWI.
So Globetrotter may want to find another metaphor for politics IMO.
Frederick:
I believe it is quite clear what I meant, which is that stretching the law or outright bogus prosecutions – like this one of Smith’s and the current DOJ – are more unlikely to be used by prosecutors on the right, and the same is true for prosecuting people on obscure never-used laws, merely for retaliation. You twisted that into some supposed demand of mine that the right be “pure.” Do you really not understand my point?
Also, the reason I asked you for an example is because the right isn’t letting obvious prosecution opportunities slide, as far as I can tell. If you could have named some such opportunities that were in their power to prosecute and that they ignored, I certainly would have given your suggestion serious consideration. I’d like to think of one myself. But since you could not, I consider that your demands for such prosecutions are either wishful thinking, or a desire for bogus prosecutions like the ones in which the left specializes.
I would add that judges and juries in red states are less likely to convict under a bogus political prosecution than are juries in blue states.
@neo: You twisted that into some supposed demand of mine that the right be “pure.”
I simply did not say this. I’m not sure why you so often seem to read my comments as though they have some invidious intent to try to trap you or distort your meaning. I think on this occasion it’s because you confused my comment with bofs? At any rate please try to take my words at their surface meaning…
“Right, Republicans are too pure” is simply my loose rephrase of what you said; there’s not enough words in that sentence to be “twisting” anything. I intended only that you were being descriptive, not prescriptive. “Are” is typically used as a descriptive verb, that is the sense in which I intended it. Hence my expression of hope that we can find some that have fewer scruples, and my fear of what will happen if we do not.
a desire for bogus prosecutions like the ones in which the left specializes.
Exactly. Measured, proportionate retaliation for breaking a specific norm. Which is different, I hope you see, from “cut[ting] down all the laws in England to get after the Devil.”
I would add that judges and juries in red states are less likely to convict under a bogus political prosecution than are juries in blue states.
I’d be curious to see on what evidence that’s based, but that’s really beside the point. The process is the punishment, and the three Republicans I mentioned eventually got out of legal trouble–but not before the Left got what they wanted out of it. The point is to curb the behavior by demonstrating the willingness to respond in kind, because that’s the only thing that has a chance of restoring the norm.
If they can gin up a case against Trump for saying there was fraud then the same can be done for Stacey Abrams or any other Dem in 2016 who doing the same. And the campaign finance irregularities she was associated with can surely be made use of by a motivated prosecutor.
Frederick:
First you quoted my statement: “if a person actually has integrity and believes in the rule of law… I think that prosecutors on the right are more likely to fit that description.” Then your commentary on that was this:
So, I was saying that on average, it’s harder for prosecutors on the right to cut corners and not follow the rule of law than it is for prosecutors on the left, because those on the right are more likely to have some integrity and want to follow the rule of law, and those on the left are more likely to believe that the ends justify the means and they can twist the law in any way they want to get what they want.
And you replied by saying Republicans are too pure. Therefore it certainly sounds as though you were saying that (1) I was asking for and describing “purity” among prosecutors on the right, which I certainly was not, and (2) that if prosecutors on the right are more likely to be as I describe – have integrity and are interested in following the rule of law – then such “purity” means that the Democrats will always be in control. What follows, according to you, is that we have to find Republican prosecutors who will fight just as dirty as the Democrats – not have integrity; not follow the rule of law. And that it’s only those Republican prosecutors, and not the other “pure” ones (the ones with integrity who follow the rule of law) who “actually want to try to put a stop” to what the Democrats are doing. They others are just pretending to want to do it.
That’s the only interpretation I can get out of what you wrote.
Then you quoted me as saying that you had expressed “a desire for bogus prosecutions like the ones in which the left specializes.” And you answered:
No, it is not different. It is the same. You like to call it “measured” and “proportionate” retaliation. But that’s exactly and precisely what people almost always think they’re doing when they decide the ends justify the means. That’s exactly what that line in the play is about. If you believe that sometimes it’s necessary, then you believe it – but I think you should recognize what you are saying and what it means.
As for as your saying “the same can be done for Stacey Abrams,” once again we run into the federal court problem that the DOJ must be involved in any prosecution at the federal level, and the DOJ will not do this. That is a practical issue.
And I am still waiting to hear exactly how you think this could be done at the state level: in what state, and what venue, and what the crime would be. Are you thinking that a Georgia DA could figure out how to do it on the state level? Which DA? Stacey Abrams’ campaign finance case was dropped for these reasons. Do you believe she’s really guilty, despite that? Do you believe they’re just covering up for her? If so, why do you believe that? Or do you believe she should be prosecuted anyway, even if she’s not guilty? What would a “motivated prosecutor” do, and how would he or she do it?
No, it is not different. It is the same.
What makes it different is that the response is equal and opposite, not escalated. It’s done all the time in many contexts is often, but not invariably, successful.
But that’s exactly and precisely what people almost always think they’re doing when they decide the ends justify the means.
And so do people who think they are using means that are appropriate.
That’s exactly what that line in the play is about.
What did the play say to do when the laws had already been cut down, and the winds were already blowing, and Devil already loose in England working his will? You’ve been posting nearly every day something about how the laws are being twisted and selectively applied. And in the play, of course, More was beheaded, and how many more people lost their lives to Henry’s persecutions afterward? More got his reward in heaven, and for some maybe that’s enough….
I am still waiting to hear exactly how you think this could be done: in what state, and what venue, and what the crime would be.
I’m a private citizen and I don’t have a staff who can dig into where my political opponents are vulnerable in 50 states and 435 Congressional districts. But Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was charged with receiving improper gifts and loans from a Virginia businessman; $27 million in legal fees later the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and the Justice Department decided not to prosecute the case, since of course there was nothing there.
So, let’s have a Texas prosecutor bring equivalent charges against “Beto” O’Rourke for violating Texas election laws when he ran for Governor in 2022. I’m sure at some point someone gave him something. They did it to Sarah Palin over her husband’s JACKET. Charge Stacey Abrams, she ran for governor. Charge Charlie Crist in Florida with it, he ran for governor. Charge Terry McAuliffe in Virginia and Ben Salango in West Virginia. They ran in state races, and they probably at some point accepted something from someone. Convicting is not the point. The point is to make the point: when they do it to Republicans, Republicans do it back.
At that point the Dems will either back down, or escalate. But the thing is they are already escalating it now, and every day you are describing a new case. They are escalating now because the rewards keep getting bigger and there’s no negative consequence to offset. We have to make it costly or it will get worse and worse.
Right now we have one kind of law for Dems and one for Republicans. We used to have one law for both. If Republicans start doing back what Dems do, then the legal system is no longer one-sided. It’s not as good as it was, but it’s better than what it is now, when they get to do whatever they want with no consequence.
At some point it is okay to fight back. Reasonable people can differ about where that is. Martyrs may never fight back at all, but I’m not ready to give up on earth quite yet.
Globetrotter’s ends justify his means. Reasons (sophistry).
Some of the heat over the Trump indictments seems to me to be related to the questions considered in this post by Arnold Kling, since a lot of what the MSM and DOJ are pushing depend ultimately on lies.
https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/an-epistemic-crisis
I wish everyone would do what he advises, and I think news consumers & producers on the right do it more than most on the left — Taibbi, Turley, Weiss, and a few others are notable exceptions. Conservative reporters are more likely to show their work, because they have to explain WHY they are bucking the MSM story line.
I sincerely doubt that anyone has the legal authority to pardon himself.
This post contains a very long transcription of the interview, which I found very interesting in setting out a lot of Vivek’s reasons for running for president.
I am excerpting a few of his comments regarding the Trump Indictments.
https://www.thefp.com/p/vivek-ramaswamy-bari-weiss-honestly-interview
If it’s illegal to contest an election, how are these people not in jail?
(Rhetorical question, of course.)
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/08/flashback-video-of-democrats-denying-the-2000-2004-2016-and-2018-elections/#comment-1429203
They would if they could.
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/08/02/at-this-point-why-not-bypass-the-legal-niceties-and-just-put-trump-in-jail-n568586
John Hinderaker makes a lot of valid points about the Democrat Lawfare against Trump, but he concludes with an opinion that is frames the basic point in dispute.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/08/trump-indictment-sad-story-lousy-legal-theories.php
Maybe that’s true, and maybe not, but the point is that the Democrats, via the DOJ, want to make the decision for all of the voters, which subverts the entire purpose of elections.
As Neo paraphrased their position, “The American people are just too stupid to reject Trump, so we who know better must educate them.”
But they want to do far more than educate; they want to eliminate one of the candidates completely: even if the nomination of Trump is their goal, in expectation of him losing to Biden-or-whoever, I think that they would prefer to knock him out of the race completely, just to be sure.
Or even better than jail:
Nonapod on August 2, 2023 at 3:29 pm said:
At least one of the charges potentially carries the death penalty. I guess that’d be one way to absolutely garauntee that Trump will never again be president.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2023/08/02/the-new-charges-against-trump-carry-the-death-penalty-n1715460
Caroline Glick and David Wurmser hold an interesting discussion of strategic passivity in the context of the question whether Israel ought to turn away from American military “aid”. Deterrence as tactic arises there, illumined by its insufficiency over-against strategic thought. Some discussion of self-screwing, so to speak, occurs.
Israeli strategic peril may seem on the surface to be a topic far afield from that of this thread; I believe it is not so much so, rather, quite akin to the net of a multitude of issues in which we all find ourselves enwrapped today.
https://youtu.be/OZrRArC1cqs
One of the things that I believe the (end’s justifies the means) Dems don’t get is that the non-Trump supporters are starting to say “Hey! What the hell is this?” I’ve been seeing an old Trump meme on the internet again. The one with the caption, “They’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you and I’m just in the way”
Responding to Frederick at 12:31 am –
Here’s a good example from 2016:
‘Kaine Accepted Clothes, Vacation as Gifts’ – https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/tim-kaine-virginia-veep-mcdonnell-clinton-224888
“…the gifts could become attack-ad fodder after similar presents led to corruption charges for Gov. Bob McDonnell, whose conviction the Supreme Court overturned Monday. ”
Corruption charges should have been brought against Kaine. Let the process be the punishment for some Democrats for a change….or even just ONCE.
I keep thinking of the movie ‘The Untouchables’….
“What are you prepared to do?”
“Never stop, never stop fighting till the fight is done.”
they went after palin, you recall the most honest and earnest person, you could ever imagine, with all her faults, the face of the so called deplorables, who warned of every disaster, the Russian incursions, the need for energy independence, the treating of foreign terrorists as criminals, so we couldn’t obtain information from them (it turns they just wanted to turn ordinary citizens into terrorists,)
over an acquisition of clothing she didn’t make and she promptly returned, they went after christine o’donnell, a commoner who dared to challenge biden’s seat, which has been held for a dozen years by the self proclaimed bearded marxist,
they stole the country, so they could ban electric stoves, so they could mutilate children, so they could target law abiding citizens and leave criminals alone, so they could crash our wonderful transportation system, and ultimately capitulate to China, that is the motive for their larceny,
It all stands or falls with the media. Nobody expects our politicians to be too honest to tell a lie or get a little shady in their dealings with political opponents, but if we had good, impartial journalists none of this would get a pass. It’s happening because the Dems know they can get away with it.
“It all stands or falls with the media.”
Anything from the ‘media’ should be taken with a grain of salt. Their ‘talking points’ may originate from Uncle Sam.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Smith-Mundt+modernization+act+2012&va=b&t=hr&ia=web
well ben rhodes, who is as profound as a thimble himself, stated to david samuels, the real confessor, that journalists don’t know anything, (expanding on william goldman’s line about hollywood,
I agree with neo that retaliaion by Republicans is going to be problematic. Stating the same argument in a slightly different way – prosecutors on the right who bring weak charges against Democrats would be aware that they were doing wrong in a way that (I believe) the Democrat prosecutors going after Trump are not.
There truly is no left-of-center judicial philosophy other than adherence to leftist political principles. And leftist political principles are dressed up and described using previously-familiar words such as “justice,” “democracy,” and “the rule of law.” The job of the progressive judge is to utilize his or her intelligence and mastery of law to concoct the strongest possible argument for cramming leftist political principles into the existing written law. That’s how Elena Kagan, who really is smart enough to know better, can make such awful arguments with a straight face. She starts with the sanctity of leftists political principles as a brute fact. Racial quotas are legal because “justice,” “democracy,” and “the rule of law,” so of course clear legal requirements for “equal protection under the law” and clear legal prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of race must permit racial quotas. Except in that case, and many others, the best possible argument is laughably weak. But I don’t think Elena Kagan perceives this because she accepts the brute fact that racial quotas are good and the desired end result is making them legal.
It’s the same with the prosecutors after Trump. “Justice,” “democracy,” and “the rule of law,” require that the bad man go to jail. The job of the progressive prosecutor is to make that happen, thereby making the justice system “work” and vindicating “justice,” “democracy,” and “the rule of law.” Some of them are better at it than others. (And I still maintain that Trump makes it much, much easier for them than it is/was with other Republicans.)
On the other hand, most legal thinkers on the right still adhere to the classical standards of justice, democracy, and the rule of law. Under the classical principles, the law should be interpreted based on what it meant at the time it was enacted. Criminal indictments are not, and should never be, an exercise in creative legal theorizing. And these principles are to protect all of us, even if they cause a few bad eggs to avoid the consequences of their actions.
So, if right-of-center prosecutors start making up BS charges against Democrats, Democrats (including left-of-center judges) will oppose them because “justice,” “democracy,” and “the rule of law.” The right-of-center prosecutors will be hypocrites (and know it), and all of the principled right-of-center judges that we have been working so hard to put on the bench over the past few decades will be very ill-disposed towards these cases. (Think of all the times that the Trump administration was shot down by his own appointed judges.) To me, this doesn’t sound like a recipe for success.
There might be an exception here if the Trump indictments stand, especially the January 6th indictment. Under Smith’s standard, couldn’t W.’s DOJ have indicted Al Gore? Couldn’t W.’s DOJ have indicted Barbara Boxer and the other Democrats who voted against certification of the election results in 2004? Shouldn’t Trump’s DOJ have indicted Hillary for tampering with electors using bogus Russiagate tropes?
What a mess we have unleashed.
you miss the point, the dems have incited violence, real violence, not animal house shenanigans that have destroyed cities, they have presented falsified documents like the danchenko dossier, they have argued to present such work to electors, in 2016, (interestingly when hunter’s employer collapsed a bank)
my curse is to remember everything these jackalopes have said, even dersh who makes arguments for our side, recall said dismiss katherine harris’s role in the election, because she lobbied for some dirty petroleum extract, of course vincent bugliosi who is no longer with us, went stark raving mad, around 2000, the mouth of the flint river, michael moore’s expectorations, and lets not even get into the pampered dauphin, al gore and his rages, which ventured into actually arguing from the enemy camp in jiddah, ubl’s birthplace,
Ok, well, everybody’s had something to say, and there’s probably not much to add; I only have only have one other thing, that the lawfare I propose is at least not violence. We’re already being victimized by violence, as miguel points out, and the perpetrators of that violence are being protected by the same people who are using the legal system persecuting our side.
It’s not just Trump, remember? Dinesh D’Souza was convicted. James O’ Keefe was convicted. Sarah Palin was run out of office with bogus ethics complaints that could have bankrupted her. Besides Tom Delay and Ted Stevens and Bob McDonnell, who all got convicted and had to spend millions to clear it up. Besides the J6 crowd, who doesn’t have millions. How many more figures on the Right can we think of? There’s many more I did not mention.
Perhaps we can revisit this discussion in a few years after some more conservatives go to jail. Those of us in jail ourselves may have some trouble participating, and of course it could be that neo is deplatformed and debanked by then. But it should be enlightening discussion.
Frederick – The argument being made against your position is not that the right shouldn’t fight back, just that the way that you propose will fail. Lefties control the legal system. We do (thankfully) have a critical mass of conservative judges in high places. For the very reasons that we picked them, though, those judges are not going to be favorably disposed to retaliatory lawfare.
(I understand that the process is the punishment, but it is also at least somewhat mitigating that conservative judges are going to be a check on the worst excesses of the progressive prosecutors.)
When there IS no ‘Rule of Law’, when the ptb can incarcerate their enemies for no reason whatever, then what we ‘…have heah..’ is ANARCHY.
Under the rules of ANARCHY we can do to our enemies whatever we like. There are no longer any laws, so they cannot be broken. The Dems really should fear what they are unleashing.
Depends what you mean by “risks” and “system,” Professor Hasen. If you mean risks of incredible disruption and strife, in which at least half of US voters feel disenfranchised and perceive that their favorite candidate was railroaded by his political opponents for naked political reasons, I’d say the risk of prosecution is higher.
Maybe there will be more disruption and strife if Trump is reelected. There won’t be an “insurrection” because the feds won’t provoke and lead one, but Antifa and BLM will find reasons to take to the streets in 2025. Republicans and conservatives have been quite restrained compared to what the left does. In power or out of power, Republicans don’t “weaponize” everything like Democrats do.
Hasen’s (60 page!) resume is viewable here. It does suggest that 1) he really does think he is smarter than other people, and 2) he has very little time to consider opposing views and rethink his own opinions. I was able to read much of his 2022 NYT op-ed No One is Coming to Save Us from the ‘Dagger at the Throat of America,’ before the paywall went up. Hasen’s MO seems to be to deny any fraud in the 2020 election and bang the drum about Trump stealing the 2024 election.
Not ANARCHY…so much as…
TYRANNY (for whom(!) anarchy does have its uses…i.e., until it doesn’t…which is when “the long knives” come out…)
YMMV.
(Of course we could split it down the middle: “anarcho-tyranny”….
though with “President” Fentanyl “in charge” (heh), it’s probably a lot closer to “anarcho-narco-tyranny”….)
“…and bang the drum about Trump stealing the 2024 election…”
…which was the script the Democrats used for the 2020 election. (With Michelle oh-so-earnestly warning us about perfidious Republican violence to STEAL that election—I tell ya’, Uncle Joe Stalin got NOTHIN’ on Decent Joe Biden.)
Worked like a charm, then.
So no reason they won’t pull out the same script again…and again…and again…
(After all, they’re STILL using “Russia, Russia, Russia”. Seem to like it, if a bit stale…BUT it’s tried and true…and tested, so why not? As they say, “If it works, don’t fix it!”)
File under: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFUfY9bQMgI
Abraxas – FWIW, I think there is a good chance that Trump will never take office again even if he manages to win the general election, which I seriously doubt. All of these Jack Smith legal theories will go right down the memory hole if Trump wins. And unlike Trump, the left might actually have the power to reverse an election.
(Actually, I suspect we’d have Larry Tribe and the rest of the the legal academy high priests assuring us that it’s legal when its done to Trump.)
you mean like timothy kelly who has gone along with the larger outrages re the delta house gang, or royce lamberth, who failed to erase that stupid charge against chansley
seriously we have seen the criminal abuses of power against cancer stricken grandmas who took selfies, against decorated veterans who weren’t even on the premises,
they still have not charged ray epps, who explicitly urge to enter the Capitol
It’s been an interesting debate on what Republicans should do to counter the weaponization of the legal system by the Democrats (read “conservatives” and “leftists” if you prefer; the circles overlap, but not completely).
Frederick is correct that the Republicans don’t fight back when they should, even when they have both the law and the facts on their side.
Examples could be generated easily, but start with the known (even conceded) reality that Democrats have stolen elections at every level of government for decades, and the GOP has never significantly succeeded in pinning it on them, and in far too many cases (if not all) has never even tried. (Nixon vs JFK, Johnson in Texas for some well-known examples, and see prior comments in this thread.)
However, it is against the nature of conservatism in principle to prosecute anyone when one or the other element of a criminal charge is missing, and yet that is what the Democrats do routinely. Indeed, recently, they have neither the law (as enacted, not twisted) nor the facts behind their lawfare.
@ Frederick > “Republicans have to start using the power they have, and they need to do it just as unfairly as the Dems, it’s the only thing that has a chance of putting a stop to this nonsense. It’s not guaranteed to work, but it would work a lot better than what’s been done so far.”
@ Bauxite > (paraphrased for brevity)…”The argument being made against your [Frederick’s] position is not that the right shouldn’t fight back, just that the way that you propose will fail.”…”if right-of-center prosecutors start making up BS charges against Democrats”
— and I believe this is correct.
Going after people for the purpose of deliberate prosecutorial harassment, instead of from a genuine concern for law and order (to coin a phrase), is just not a path open to ethical conservatives.
However, as Janet pointed out (“Corruption charges should have been brought against Kaine. Let the process be the punishment for some Democrats for a change….or even just ONCE.”) —
Republicans do not have to MAKE UP any charges: many, many Democrats have done plenty of things that are illegal, even without twisting the text and intent of the statutes as the Democrats are doing against Trump and others.
(Note that genuine concern can also generate plenty of “process is the punishment” in our sclerotic system, but that is not the purpose, as it is for Democrats in political cases.)
I include statutes such as those against lying to federal agencies or to Congress, and many others, that are seen as mostly political but are wielded against Republicans ad nauseum, and never against Democrats — even by Republican majorities in the House or Senate.
Granted, the current DOJ (including as far back as Bush jr) won’t press charges against Democrats even when they deserve it, but there other legal fora where complaints can be brought, at the state and municipal level.
Frederick is correct, I think, that making the Democrats live by the same standard that they impose on Republicans, whenever possible and ethical, will add up; not all the cases have to be of the prominent top dogs to have a deterrent effect — analogous to the “broken windows” policing that used to keep crime in even leftist cities to a reasonable level.
Are there any objections (philosophical, rather than practical) to using existing laws to prosecute Democrats who have actually broken them?
AesopFan:
I’m still waiting for a concrete example of a time when there was an obvious prosecution opportunity of a Democrat that the Republicans shied away from – something that didn’t occur over 50 years ago (LBJ etc), that is. Back then, even Democrats weren’t so much into lawfare against the right. I think the lawfare stuff really escalated in the last couple of decades, maybe signaled to start at the time of the Bork hearings, which were in 1987. I’m not exactly sure when it began, but it wasn’t a major feature of my youth, and then it became one.
The argument that Republicans don’t bring such cases even when they could succeed seems like it never contains convincing examples, just the statement that that’s the way it is. For example, I’ve seen it said and written over and over that the right didn’t challenge the voting rules put in place in 2020 because of COVID. But they certainly did challenge them in the courts, and I documented that in many posts on this blog. I refer you to this, this, this, and this. People are mostly unaware of what actually was done, and how hard it was to win the cases, and why.
First, to clarify, I don’t think the debate is about criminal activity that doesn’t primarily have a political angle where the prosecution is initiated by political actors for political reasons. Sometimes a crook is just a crook, regardless of party affiliation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson_corruption_case
In referencing the old election cases (eg LBJ), my intent is to point out that Democrats getting away with illegal activities is a long-standing operation; “an obvious prosecution opportunity of a Democrat that the Republicans shied away from” is Nixon’s refusal to challenge the fraud in his loss to Kennedy, which is a long-accepted fact.
For another “old case,” see George Parry’s post that I commented on in another thread.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2023/08/03/roundup-83/#comment-2691891
Consider, for example, the 2000 presidential election and the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore. Recall that the election’s outcome hinged on the narrow margin of victory in Florida. In that case, candidate Al Gore refused to concede the election and demanded a recount limited to heavily Democrat counties in Florida. It was anticipated that this would find additional votes for Gore.
From a legal, ethical, and commonsense standpoint, Gore’s proposal was utterly dishonest and unfair. He and his lawyers had to have known that what they were advocating was underhanded and fraudulent.
Nothing was done by the Bush administration to prosecute Gore or his advisors.
Nothing was done by the Trump administration to prosecute Hillary Clinton for blatant crimes, or any of the people who lied repeatedly to Congress (which is a crime).
Granted, the Democrat-controlled DOJ would have stonewalled or refused to cooperate, but (as with Nixon) they didn’t even try — and the Left does not reciprocate magnanimity.
I agree that weaponized politically-motivated lawfare is indeed a relatively recent process, but it escalated because Democrats were not penalized for committing politically-motivated crimes in the previous years in any significant fashion. There have been one-off victories against some Democrats occasionally (I remember mostly low-level violations of statutes by a few people handling elections), but there certainly were not any spectacularly memorable ones like the ones discussed above against Republicans (see Frederick’s list at 10:07 am).
Certainly there were challenges to illegal COVID dictates, and to the illegal changes in election procedures in 2020. I read all those posts and commented on most of them.
What happened in-between LBJ and today is where the issues lie, because that’s when the Democrats learned there were no negative consequences for their lawlessness, and many positive ones for pursuing Republicans with or without credible grounds.
I’m still waiting for a concrete example of a time when there was an obvious prosecution opportunity of a Democrat that the Republicans actually pursued.
Serious, not sarcastic.
Are there any? Because I’ve literally never read about one sufficiently important to effect the perception that Democrats can get away with breaking the law and Republicans can’t.
(apologies for the HTML fail – that should be a blockquote instead of a bold)
Here’s another Democrat who will never be prosecuted for breaking laws, or at least bending them until they came disjointed.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2023/08/03/msnbc-still-pushing-false-claim-obama-had-no-scandals-n2626586