A Right to Lie? Presidents, Other Liars

I found a little book entitled A Right To Lie, which uses current rules that allow much more restriction of what government employees say as a way around very strict First Amendment rules.  The book goes into some detail about the lies of Trump and how that is one method to address them.  

It has a chapter on the Stolen Valor Case, which involved a minor governmental official lying about being awarded a congressional medal of honor.  I'm inclined to say that Justice Alito in dissent has a point. [And, in a "how did this slip thru" bit, the book wrongly says the majority had five votes; it had six.  Kennedy wrote for three others; he made four. Breyer/Kagan concurred.]

On the narrow issue -- not "lying is never socially valuable" or something, it is at least a close case.  This is not about a "Ministry of Truth" ... it's a clear objective factual detail.  The person was also not merely a civilian or in this case running for office.  He was a member of the government.  The law, perhaps, was overbroad.  But, again, sometimes these things are taken too far.  It is not like normal bullshitting or the like.  

Everyone is assuming that Donald Trump will be indicted in New York next week. I am on record saying that prosecuting Trump is a terrible mistake. Nevertheless, there are two implications of that decision that I want to highlight.

Mark Field, a regular commentator when they allowed comments, noted once in response to my reference of this guy being self-identifying as a Never Trump type, that the label should require the willingness to adequately address the wrongs of Trump.  

This guy does not.  

He at times is useful -- his 14A, sec. 3 scholarship alone -- but takes an ivory tower approach.  He wants that provision to dominate but sees how little it is used.  A quite useful-sounding congressional bill? Goes nowhere. Possible challenges when the new congressional term began? Nothing (his reply: oh well).  The provision generally?  A few challenges, so far a single minor official is being blocked (for now at least).  

He supported an artificially high standard of proof in the first impeachment and set up a bunch of overblown concerns (including the pro tempore presiding, which my research suggests actually happened in at least one judicial impeachment, at least for part of the trial).  He was wrong, wrong, wrong about everything.  He even noted the last part.

GM also ignored that impeachment is different than denial of office-holding. Which he would challenge and we saw how that went.  Years of litigation repeatedly run out the clock.  Basically, with an assurance that we find him distasteful and all that, we will find yet another reason why he alone can avoid consequences. 

Recall Clinton settled regarding the legal proceedings connected to the impeachment, including paying a fine and having his law license suspended for five years or something.   And, he never ran for office again.  Trump? Well, he's special! 

First, a New York indictment makes a Georgia indictment more likely, even though the two cases are very different. Being the first prosecutor to indict an ex-President is daunting. Being the second one to do so . . . not so much. 

I think he's basically right there.  This is one reason I support it. It sets a precedent. It shows he is not above the law.  This is obviously a "terrible mistake."  Trump enabler says what? 

Second, a New York indictment makes the legal effort to disqualify Trump from the presidential ballot more credible. 

The argument here is more psychological.  It shouldn't matter.  The disqualification provision applies simply for being involved in the insurrection.  The Georgia indictment at least would be somewhat related to that.  This is not even related to that election.  It's a much more typical bit of campaign law-related violation.  

But, he might be right.  Nonetheless, he notes that even here only "some" judges might look at things differently.  That's of limited value.  Some nice-sounding words only take us so far without a final result.  He can blandly comment from his ivory tower as it all goes down.  Slowly oh so slowly.