Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

What? You can say ‘I hate you’ with all fury and force, but if you actually act out that hate and cause harm, you should be held accountable. The WSJ EB thinks that holding someone accountable for their actions (not speech) is breaking some new ground, when it has always been that way.

 

The WSJ is in an interesting position and maybe (?) a kind of bellwether to track in the months ahead. On the one hand, they've now told the GOP to move on from Trump, and IIRC, said he really has nobody but himself to blame. That kind of statement, acknowledging his own role in his problems, is really rare on the right. But then they're the first to start a defense of him in the new indictments and attack Jack Smith. I wonder if there's a bit of battle at the editorial board right now or whether simply "both things can be true": they think Trump's time as the standard bearer should be done, but they also doubt whether he should have been charged with anything (grand jury's work and the actual indictments be damned).

@Os Trigonum , I'm curious. I saw your sarcastic "yay" and I assume (not to put words to your keyboard) that you think this is simply a bad day for America (agreed) and that we'd be better off just trying to move on from Trump without bringing these indictments related to the 2020 election (that sounds more radical to me). Have you read the indictments? I was surprised by the amount of info there. I guess my "yay" moment was January 6, and I remember it clearly. I knew a day like yesterday would come, if the mechanisms of federal law moved forward. To me, this seemed inevitable, especially now reading what investigations have found and what so many of his former employees and compatriots have shared. Would you still say the nation would be best burying all of this because of his incredibly loyal following? We can't run a parallel earth, and we'll never know.

To me, this is the ultimate Trumpism. For his entire life, from what I can tell, he puts people around him in difficult, compromising positions all for his own benefit and profit. If you're his accountant, his lawyer, his business manager, his campaign manager, his property manager with security cameras, etc, etc, he's going to put you in a no-win situation where you go along with something a bit (or more than a bit) shady or you'll be hurt or damaged if you don't go along. So now the whole country is in that position. Do we just brush something super shady under the oval office rug, hold our nose, and look forward (somehow) or do we finally go through the pain of trying to hold the central character, the prime mover of all this shite, accountable?

 

Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!

But but but her emails, his laptop, crime family, so unfair.

So many excuses from the right while their cult continues to go up in flames faster than the Branch Davidian compound.

 

He probably sent Trump donations. You can't reason with people defending a psychopath.

 

And it's going to get worse .

 

Political indictments, such as cases against former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and Democratic Senator Bob Menendez. Your statement is a political statement against a prosecutor who is known to aggressively prosecute cases independently of their political party.

blind cultish projection

 

I wonder if even more indictments are coming over this.

 

I think with the WSJ they are trying to have it both ways like so many closeted Trumpers do all the time. "I'm no Trump fan, but the Democrats....." Or in this case "But Jack Smiths case...."

If people bend over backwards constantly to defend Trump or MAGA with Whataboutism I think it's only fair to just assume in the end they are supporters still of Trump and his cult movement. Especially when they are dishonest about the facts of something as basic as the predicate of this indictment.

 

Smith already stated that the work continues. I think the idea was he purposely narrowed the scope of the initial indictments to ensure they get to trial before the election.

 

There certainly will be indictments for the 6 unnamed unindicted co-conspirators, but not until Trump has his day in court.

 

I read that by naming them as co-conspirators it opens them up to testimony whereupon they can choose to commit perjury or turn on Trump instead of having what they say be considered hearsay.

 

The co-conspirators can also plead the fifth, methinks.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has likely asked the six co-conspirators to go on the record under oath. They declined, so they had their chance pre-trial and I am unsure if they will get a second chance in the J6 Trump trial.

 

Pillow Boi? Aka MyPillow Boy Aka Jared's Humping Doll

 

it wasn't totally sarcastic . . . but not without some sarcasm. I continue to believe that each of these kinds of moves simply re-energizes his supporters without the necessary slam dunk. The quicker we wake up from the bad dream that was the Trump era the better. From what I've read (and I probably don't have the patience you do to read the whole thing, you're a better man than I) a lot of this hinges on proving Trump's state of mind. I don't even think Trump knows what his state of mind is 90% of the time. And I think the conspiracy theme will be a difficult row to hoe, although maybe not so much in D.C. It will be interesting to see how this progresses through the courts.

 

I'm surprised Ted Cruz isn't on there.

 

When the first indictment came out, I thought, if trump were to somehow say I am sorry and never run for office again I would have been ok with it, now after all this comes out there is no way I would want this.....not that he would do it mind you, but if he had ONE shred of decency for this country he would go back to MAL and never be seen again but there is no way in hell his ego will allow that...........he wil stall, stall, stall, talk big and bad and then just before the trial, I think he tries t find a way out............if this goes to trial I think he goes to jail and there is no way he wants to be in jail. He`s a bully and bullies will talk a big talk right up to the point they have to face the music. I bet a dollar to the tip jar that just before the trial starts he will plead this out. The MFer deserves his day in court, but does he really want that??? He will move heaven and earth to delay but if this trial happens before the elections he will cave.................albeit, he will say he is doing it for the good of the country or some BS, but if he has to actually go through with this he will be found guilty by a jury of sane people, I would say a jury of his peers, but his peers are MAGA cooks so let's just say sane citizens

 

Althouse takes issue with a fellow law professor's take on the Trump indictments

August 2, 2023
"After nearly a decade of Trump convincing many in the public that all charges against him are politically motivated, he’s virtually inoculated himself..."

"... against political repercussions for deadly serious criminal counts. He’s miraculously seen a boost in support and fundraising after each indictment.... 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...."

Writes Richard Hasen in "U.S. v. Trump Will Be the Most Important Case in Our Nation’s History" (Slate).

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.

It is ludicrous to celebrate the use of a trial for the purpose of generating "constant publicity" against a political candidate right after you've bemoaned that candidate's success in convincing people that the charges against him are "politically motivated." Trump made his argument in the political arena where it belongs. He spoke effectively enough for his cause. If his opponents can't counter his speech with speech, that's a terrible concession. It will serve poetic justice if their use of the criminal process only heightens Trump's argument that the charges against him are politically motivated.

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.

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.

Posted by Ann Althouse at 8:37 AM
​

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/08/after-nearly-decade-of-trump-convincing.html