They will not stop trying to get Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: “Banned Lizard.”]

Not so fast, Trump, says the DOJ. Don’t think you’re home free if you’re elected president.

A WaPo report [my emphasis]:

Justice Department officials plan to pursue the criminal cases against Donald Trump past Election Day even if he wins, under the belief that department rules against charging or prosecuting a sitting president would not kick in until Inauguration Day in in January, according to people familiar with the discussions. …

The plan to continue filing motions, seeking court hearings, and potentially conducting a trial between Election Day and Inauguration Day underscores the highly unusual nature of prosecuting not just a former president, but also possibly a future one. In the months after winning election, a president-elect assumes some of the trappings of the office, such as more security and high-level briefings, but that person is not the commander in chief. …

“The Justice Department isn’t governed by the election calendar. Its prosecution of Trump is based on the law, the facts and the Justice Manual — the department’s bible that lays out the post-Watergate norms that have prevented it from being weaponized,” said Anthony Coley, a former Justice Department spokesman for Attorney General Merrick Garland who left the agency last year. “Until those norms change, or they’re ordered otherwise, I’d expect this Justice Department to be full speed ahead. And they should be.”

Of course. Perfectly normal behavior by the DOJ. Not the least bit weaponized against a political opponent, no sirree. And of course, it’s all about protecting “our democracy” – even against a newly elected president.

A bunch of power-mad, Trump-hatred-deranged, megalomaniacs.

Anyone looking at these developments and still believing that this group wouldn’t commit fraud to win an election is incredibly naive. The only question is whether they can succeed, not whether they would be willing to try their hardest.

Turnout in Iran’s election

The New Neo Posted on by

How low can you go?

This low:

While it appeared that Saeed Jalili, a former Revolutionary Guard general close to Khamenei, was set to win, the historically low voter turnout effectively transformed the electoral process into a referendum, expressing the Iranian populace’s overwhelming rejection of the regime and their desire for a transition to a democratic and secular government.

That was bad news for the mullahs, so they didn’t say anything.

But hundreds of the resistance units across Iran monitored more than 14,000 polling stations until midnight, revealing that a staggering 88% of eligible voters abstained. This act of mass boycott is particularly significant given that voting is compulsory for certain demographics, including soldiers and prisoners. As a result, in many areas under the regime’s control, nullified ballots frequently topped the polls.

The Iranians hate their hateful government. So far they haven’t been able to do much about that except to abstain from voting, and to participate in demonstrations.

Was last Thursday’s debate a game-changer?

The New Neo Posted on by

In a sane world it would be a game-changer, either in the sense that Biden would be replaced as nominee (or even removed via the 25th Amendment), or he would lose the election.

Robert Zimmerman asks the question:

Last week’s debate between president Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump appears to be another such potential game-changing event. The change however will not be whether Joe Biden will be the candidate when the election finally rolls around in November, or whether even if he will win or lose the election.

The change, should it happen, will be much more fundamental. …

The real game-changer is whether ordinary Democrats in the general public, which saw without question Biden’s growing mental incapacity during that debate, will excuse it and still vote Democrat, as they did for Clinton in 2000.

Will the general public finally recognize that the partisan mainstream media has been in the tank for the Democrats for years? Will the general public finally realize that this press has been lying to us repeatedly during that time to prop up this party of corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent hacks?

If the public finally recognizes [these] plain facts, than nothing Biden or the press will do in the coming few months will change anything. The public will see it for the lies they are, and ignore it. It will vote overwhelming[ly] to fire Biden, to an extent so overwhelming that the Democrats themselves will find it pointless or counter-productive to attempt any vote tampering, and even if they do, the vote turnout against Biden will be so high that such tampering won’t work.

I think he is correct. In order for major change to happen, minds will have to be changed not just about Biden’s mental capacity but about what it signifies regarding the decades-long partisanship of the media and the edifice of lies it has created.

I’m not too optimistic that enough people will perceive it that way because – as I’ve so often noted – a mind is a difficult thing to change. An edifice of lies can be very strong even if it is in reality a house of cards. The key is perception, as well as the humility to understand that one has been duped.

I have only talked with one liberal friend post-debate, but I’m pretty sure that this person stands for most Democrats I know and perhaps most Democrats. This person is upset that Biden might remain the nominee and would love to see a change. But the Trump derangement and all the rest remain intact. To connect the dots from Biden’s performance to a realization that the MSM has probably lied to me about how awful Trump and the Republicans are, too is apparently way too far a bridge at this point.

That doesn’t mean such a realization won’t dawn on some who would otherwise vote Democrat. But how many? I doubt it will be a number so enormous as to overcome whatever plans the Democrats may have for vote-tampering. It seems pretty clear, however, that if an honest vote were to happen right now, Trump would win. But the vote isn’t happening now, and there’s no reason to assume it will be honest when it does (although it could be; the extent of fraud and fraud capabilities are unknown, but the opportunities are there).

There is, however, a post-debate rift among Democrat operatives as to what is the best approach to take. Should Biden stay or should he go? If he goes, how could it be accomplished, considering he’s unwilling to leave voluntarily? And who would replace him? Until they solve those problems, Biden will be the nominee.

Hysteria (or pretend hysteria; sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference) from Democrats after the immunity ruling from SCOTUS

The New Neo Posted on by

From commenter “Jimmy.”:

This was Vox’s hot take:

“The biggest news out of the Court on Monday, of course, is a sweeping decision holding that former President Donald Trump was effectively allowed to do crimes while he was in office. Indeed, under the six Republican justices’ decision in Trump v. United States, it is very likely that a sitting president can order the military to assassinate his political rivals without facing any criminal consequences for doing so.”

Insane. Evidently written by 12-year-olds.

The author is Ian Millhiser, with a law degree from Duke and two books on the Supreme Court under his belt. Does he believe what he’s writing there, and that SCOTUS has actually ruled that way? Hard to tell; it depends how poor his legal education was and how extreme his partisan filter is. But my guess is that he’s well aware that it’s false, but he is making a political calculation that it will panic the rubes among the Democrats, and he’s willing to parrot the talking points that will accomplish that.

What he’s describing would be absolute immunity, which isn’t what SCOTUS ruled and the idea of being immune from prosecution for an assassination is obviously absurd (unless the assassination was accomplished by a Democrat, and the trial was in DC or NY).

But I shouldn’t blame Millhiser or the others who are saying the Court said assassination was A-okay, because it was none other than a current Supreme Court justice, Sotomayor, who gave them their cues for the assertion in her dissent. Here’s what the wise Latina wrote, and the other two liberal justices concurred:

In her dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the conservative majority had enabled presidents to assassinate political rivals without fear of criminal prosecution.

“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor wrote. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

No, Sotomayor and the others are not insane. They are either stupid or lying – or there’s always both. I can’t read their minds, but I believe they know exactly what they’re doing here, and I believe they are well aware that’s not what the majority said or did. From the same article, here’s a summary description of the majority’s ruling:

…[T]he court found that presidents enjoy “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution” for actions taken within their constitutional authority and at least “presumptive immunity” for all other official acts.

The president does not have the constitutional authority to murder his rivals, nor would that be an official act of any sort even if he used the military to do it. But it serves the left to say otherwise, because their goal is to fan the flames of Trump fear.

None other than Bill Barr, no fan of Trump, points out the preposterous nature of Sotomayor’s so-called reasoning:

Former Attorney General Bill Barr brushed off what he called “horror stories” raised by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent on the high court’s ruling on former President Trump’s immunity claim.

“The worst example I think, the one that makes no sense whatsoever, is the idea he can use SEAL Team 6 to kill a political opponent. The president has the authority to defend the country against foreign enemies, armed conflict and so forth,” Barr said Monday on Fox News.

“He has the authority to direct the justice system against criminals at home. He doesn’t have authority to go and assassinate people,” he added. “So, whether he uses the SEAL team or a private hit man, it doesn’t matter; it doesn’t make it a carrying out of his authority. So, all these horror stories really are false.”

Even a non-lawyer ought to be able to understand that. But I repeat: Sotomayor’s dissent was aimed at inciting panic in those who either are unaware of the limits set by the majority opinion, or are susceptible to Trump derangement, or both.

Common sense? Not all that common these days.

[NOTE: And right on schedule:

One British Broadcasting Corporation presenter took it to a whole new level, though, openly encouraging Biden to assassinate his rival for the presidency:

“David Aaronovitch, who presents BBC Radio 4’s “Briefing Room” programme, had apparently clamoured for the 45th President’s killing online ‘on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security’.

“Posting on social media, Aaronovitch said: ‘If I was Biden I’d hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security’ – sparking instant outrage online.”

SCOTUS rules on presidential immunity …

The New Neo Posted on by

… and says about what was expected. The idea is that immunity is presumed but certainly not automatic, and can be rebutted.

Here’s Professor Jacobson’s take:

The SCOTUS Opinion pretty much came down as I predicted after the oral argument (link above):

“I think they will simply find in response to their question that there is presidential immunity for official acts while done in office and send it back down to the district court to opine on whether the charges in this case involve official acts or not.”

Some selective passages from the majority opinion which may be relevant to how this plays out.

As to charge of unlawfully colluding with DOJ officials, absolute immunity:

“The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. App. 186–187, Indictment ¶10(c). And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”

As to the charge of unlawfully pressuring Pence, presumptive immunity:

“Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.”

The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances.

Please read the whole thing for further details.

Also, here’s Ace’s take. It’s long, but the gist is that this decision will almost certainly delay the case past the election.

So, since no one (no one I’ve read, anyway) predicted a decision that would grant immunity for every single act a person performs as president no matter what, this is about as good a result for Trump as could be expected. And in the larger sense, I believe it’s the generally correct result.

The Biden administration is withholding weapons systems from Israel; Netanyahu to address Congress in a few weeks

The New Neo Posted on by

The Biden administration continues to engage with the world in its usual fashion:

The Biden administration has held up transfers of seven weapon systems to the Jewish state, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Shannon Bream on the program Fox News Sunday.

“This is what is most disturbing to me—is that we’re withholding weapon systems that I have signed off on and Congress has appropriated with the intent of sending those weapons to Israel,” McCaul said.

Netanyahu is scheduled to address the US Congress on July 24. Nine years ago when he did the same in connection with Obama’s disastrous Iran deal, sixty Democrats boycotted his address. Now, with Israel at war in the fight of its life, more Democrats will almost certainly refuse to attend:

Many are torn between their long-standing support for Israel and their anguish about the way Israel has conducted military operations in Gaza. …

While some Democrats are saying they will come out of respect for Israel, a larger and growing faction wants no part of it, creating an extraordinarily charged atmosphere at a gathering that normally amounts to a ceremonial, bipartisan show of support for an American ally.

They’re “torn” about the optics, actually, in an election year in which many Democratic voters have expressed anti-Israel and anti-Jew sentiments.

The invitation was tendered by Speaker Johnson and the Republicans. There is no plan for Biden and Netanyahu to meet during the visit.

More:

A large portion of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — lawmakers who are among the most critical of Israel’s handling of the war — is expected to skip. Among them is Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the caucus, who told The Associated Press that it was a “bad idea,” to invite Netanyahu.

“We should be putting pressure on him by withholding offensive military assistance so that he sticks to the deal that the president has laid out,” she said.

Netanyahu’s visit is expected to draw significant protests and some members of Congress are planning an alternative event.

I wonder what kind of security is planned to deal with those “significant protests.”

If the Bidens have anything to say about it, Biden will remain the nominee

The New Neo Posted on by

The question is whether ultimately they will have all that much to say about it.

Here’s a report from the Times on the current state of the Democrats’ disunion (or at least how the party mouthpiece the Times is framing it). If I were a Democrat, I’d be tearing out my hair at this point:

President Biden’s family is urging him to stay in the race and keep fighting despite last week’s disastrous debate performance, even as some members of his clan privately expressed exasperation at how he was prepared for the event by his staff, people close to the situation said on Sunday.

Mr. Biden huddled with his wife, children and grandchildren at Camp David while he tried to figure out how to tamp down Democratic anxiety. While his relatives are acutely aware of how poorly he did against former President Donald J. Trump, they argued that he could still show the country that he is capable of serving for another four years. …

One of the strongest voices imploring Mr. Biden to resist pressure to drop out was his son Hunter Biden, whom the president has long leaned on for advice, said one of the people informed about the discussions, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations.

Astounding on so many levels, even as propaganda. Hunter, that upright font of wisdom (according to Joe, the “smartest man” he knows), is telling him to hang tough.

And why did Biden do so poorly in last Thursday’s debate? Why, his advisors led him astray, apparently through over-preparation (what, did they mistakenly drug him with Quaaludes instead of uppers?).

Many of the articles and posts I’ve read blame Jill as well for the decision not to quit (see this for an example). I suppose it’s true, but to me the major player is actually the befuddled Biden, whose entire life has been focused on gaining the presidency and who isn’t about to relinquish it now.

What a terrible, terrible mess. What a terrible person and what a terrible family.

Macron gambles, Le Pen benefits

The New Neo Posted on by

Macron called elections in France and in the first round Le Pen’s party did very well indeed.

And I’d really like to see an article that doesn’t describe the party as “far right,” but I think that wish will continue to be frustrated:

Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) won the first round of legislative elections on Sunday, leaving incumbent president Emmanuel Macron’s centrist alliance lagging in third behind the left, projections by polling groups said.

The projections gave the RN 34% of the vote, compared to 29.1% for the left-wing New Popular Front alliance, and just 22% for Macron’s centrist camp.

Note that the New Popular Front alliance isn’t described as “far left.”

The election featured the highest level of voter turnout in a regular format legislative election in France since 1981.

The next round is July 7 and it’s unclear whether the National Rally party will get an outright majority. Note that the coverage – even in the Daily Mail, which isn’t a leftist newspaper – lumps Le Pen’s party in with the Nazis in that “far right” designation:

The vote could give 28-year-old RN party chief Jordan Bardella, a protege of its longtime leader Marine Le Pen, the chance to form a government, making it the first time the far-right takes the reins of power in France since the Nazi occupation during WWII.

The last far-right leaders of France were Philippe Pétai and his prime minister, Pierre Laval, who headed the Vichy regime that collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.

Twenty-eight years old is incredibly young. Who is Bardella? His Wiki entry indicates an eclectic background that might surprise you:

Jordan Bardella was born on 13 September 1995 in Drancy, Seine-Saint-Denis as the only child in a family of mostly Italian origin. The maternal side of his family immigrated to France from Turin in the 1960s. His paternal grandmother, a native of La Ferté-sous-Jouarre, is also partly of immigrant origin, with an Algerian father who came to France in the 1930s in Villeurbanne working as a labourer in the construction industry. His paternal grandfather later converted to Islam and married a Moroccan woman, settling in the Bourgogne district of Casablanca.

He’s a Sorbonne dropout who became seriously interested in politics at an early age:

In January 2016, Bardella launched the organization Banlieues Patriotes. The group sought to “break with the politics of the city and reach out to voters in the forgotten territories of the Republic.” …

Bardella puts the global migrant crisis as one of his top priorities besides climate. Bardella says that immigration would lead to the extinction of France, the French identity, French sovereignty, and “France’s soul”. … Shortly after the 2024 European parliament election, Bardella stated his intention of abolishing the birthright to citizenship … He also wants to ensure that border controls are stepped up to limit refugees’ freedom of movement. …

Jordan Bardella stressed that the environmental protection should not be left to the political left, but resorted to patriotism, confirming that it meant the protection of the people and their environment. With that statement he associates the climate crisis with the anti-immigrant stance of the RN, since he agrees with the left-wing party that the climate crisis will lead to an unstoppable global mass refugee crisis.

Bardella must obviously have some personal qualities that are very compelling:

Bardella has risen up the ranks of the euroskeptic and anti-immigration National Rally (Rassemblement National, or RN) to become its president in 2022, with his youth, looks and social-media savviness helping to attract younger voters. …

Bardella’s rise to prominence has taken place under the aegis of party figurehead, Marine Le Pen, with reports suggesting he came to her attention after he dated the daughter of her close friend and confidant, Frederic Chatillon. Indeed, reportedly within weeks of meeting Le Pen in 2017, he had been made a party spokesperson. …

Having a young and (some say) handsome political figurehead that’s popular on social media — Bardella has 1.6 million TikTok followers — has softened the party’s hard-right image and reputation, and has boosted the party’s profile and appeal among younger people and female voters. The phenomenon has even been termed “Bardella mania” as hundreds of young women attend campaign events to get a glimpse of the young politician on stage.

That’s quite a contrast to our current geriatric candidates. Kind of like a junior Justin Trudeau of the right (“far right,” of course).