Short and Long Term Reactions

A conservative who is not just a Trump suck-up but has shown not much concern decided yet again to be an anti-anti-Trump critic, a quite annoying breed. 

It did not receive much attention, and I eventually decided to respond. This might have led to more attention. Well, twenty more comments as I begin these comments. 

One reply to a comment noted:

Congress has passed laws. Trump is flagrantly defying them. Congress should either be using the tools at its disposal (hearings, impeachment, lawsuits) to check Trump, or — if it actually agrees with Trump that those laws are bad — it should be repealing them.

Similarly, Trump is doing things Congress never authorized him to do. Congress should either be using the tools at its disposal (hearings, impeachment, lawsuits) to check Trump, or — if it actually agrees with Trump that he should have that authority — it should be giving him that authority.

I pushed back at someone else who said Congress did not have a "duty" necessarily to do these things. Checks and balancing is the role of each branch, with special focus on the courts sometimes overblown. 

The legislative role in upholding constitutional rights (or potentially so) is shown in an interesting article on women's suffrage. It is ever more important when the stakes are congressional power. 

These are things to think about when planning for the future. The time to start planning a long-term response to current problems is yesterday.  Here is a good top 10 list. I'm unsure how much debate many will have with it, except for the expansion of the Supreme Court. It's a question of how. 

Dan Froomkin (generally a good read) also cites another person, providing three categories:

The first is the post-Watergate model, which primarily involves codifying unwritten norms in legislation and executive branch rules. The second is the politically treacherous path of judicial reform. The third, amending the Constitution, is only a dim possibility but still useful to consider, because some of the problems highlighted by Trump lie in the Constitution itself.

The "norms" thing is important. Trump is significant in that he is willing to say "fuck you" to norms. Mitch McConnell did too with Merrick Garland. Democrats are more wary, being more about productive governing, but that can be taken too far. It also gets them a lot of scorn.

Froomkin notes that, in the short term, noncompliance is one method of resistance. Consider how slaves used that tool. If slaves can, people with more power can do it as well. More about the current situation in D.C. is found here. 

The immediate concern here is Trump (including Putin owning him in Alaska, when in a sane world, Putin would be arrested for human rights violations, including illegal aggressive war). There are wider lessons. For instance, what do you do in Florida or Texas if you support trans rights?

My three rules continue to hold: point out a problem, find a way to address it (short and long term), and explain how you would handle things if given the chance.  All matter, but doing only one isn't enough.

===

Note: The last two links are two LGM entries by the latest reasonable addition, who, by chance or not, is again a woman. They often talked about foreign policy issues. And, they are my favorite additions to the blog. One was replaced by the blog's weak leak, whose purpose often seems to be to troll. 

Latest In Eric Adams/Trump Bribery Case

Yeah, we could see this one coming a mile away.

Yes, National Review person, "we" could. And, that is why so many of "we," including to be fair probably a few over your way, didn't want him back in power. The pushback is a bit surprising.

Manhattan’s U.S. attorney on Thursday resigned rather than obey an order from a top Justice Department official to drop the corruption case against New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams.

Then, when Justice Department officials transferred the case to the public integrity section in Washington, which oversees corruption prosecutions, the two men who led that unit also resigned, according to five people with knowledge of the matter.

Several hours later, three other lawyers in the unit also resigned, according to people familiar with the developments.

[A list of the resignations is found here.]

Mayor Adams worked to fulfill his "quid" for the promised "quo" by planning to help ICE. Meanwhile, Gov. Hochul is more open about removing him. 

It's time for other N.Y. powerbrokers to send a message that it would be fine with them if she did. I'm with TPM in thinking the situation has changed. He has to go. I didn't think so before. Things change. 

To remind people of the law:

The mayor may be removed from office by the governor upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. Pending the preparation and disposition of charges, the governor may suspend the mayor for a period not exceeding thirty days.

For now, it is appreciated that even loyal Republican types have started to think things have gone too far. 

This includes a bit about the Acting Deputy Attorney General -- following Trump's lead during the Mueller investigation -- being mad that the lawyers were taking notes. During a f-conspiracy? Come now!

Rachel Maddow's book on the investigation of Vice President Spiro Agnew was partially a celebration of the integrity of some members of the Nixon Justice Department. We are going to have to rely on some feeling of lines that must not be crossed by people we otherwise would not trust. 

Many argue Merrick Garland was the wrong choice for the Attorney General. He was chosen largely as a symbol of a return of integrity in the Justice Department, which the critics might now think is a tad more important than they did then. The independence President Biden promised is no more. 

For now, after the "Thursday Night" massacre, this little drama among all the others continues to be incomplete. A judge has to sign off on dropping the prosecution. Good luck with that now. Will this end up with a pardon? An endorsement of Eric Adams if he runs as a Republican? Something else?

Stay tuned!

Jack Smith Report (Partially) Released

Senator Elizabeth Warren said back in 2019: 

First, a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election to help candidate Donald Trump get elected. Second, candidate Donald Trump welcomed that help. Third, when the federal government tried to investigate, now President Donald Trump did everything he could to delay, distract, and otherwise obstruct that investigation. 

That's a crime. If Donald Trump were anyone other than the President of the United States right now, he would be in handcuffs and indicted. Robert Mueller said as much in his report, and he said it again on Wednesday. 

That's why I came out in favor of impeachment after reading all 448 pages of Mueller's report. This is not about politics — it's our constitutional duty as members of Congress. It's a matter of principle.

Warren supported changing the current policy against indicting sitting presidents. She supported a special task force to investigate the Trump Administration when she ran for president. 

I cannot find the exact words but as I recall it would be separate from a normal investigation in the Justice Department. President Warren probably would have appointed a special counsel before Trump ran for re-election (2024). Biden did not do #2 and #3.

Attorney General Elliot Richardson promised Congress he would not fire the Watergate special counsel except for cause. Merrick Garland did not promise Congress to appoint a special counsel to investigate Trump. The Senate Democrats could have made that a grounds for their confirmation vote.

The release of Jack Smith's report related to the election interference case brings to mind these things. In hindsight, at least, a special counsel should have been appointed earlier. But, this is not just about Merrick Garland. The investigation of Nixon was not just about one person either. We need to know the full story to assign responsibility and know how to act in the future. Scapegoating is not advisable.  

One analysis takes a strong potshot -- "dithering coward" etc. -- at Merrick Garland for not changing the policy against prosecuting a sitting president. What good was that going to do in context? 

The policy allegedly is constitutionally required. I disagree but many liberal law types disagree with me. It is not just Merrick Garland. And, if the prosecution continued, Trump would have gone to the courts to try to block it. There was not enough time after the election to prosecute Trump before January 20, 2025.  

Jack Smith's report argued that if Trump did not win the election, that evidence was there to convict. Chief Justice Roberts and his conservative crew slowed things down via Trump v. U.S. The trial could have been over months before the election. 

The impeachment managers in Trump's first impeachment warned that if he was not convicted and removed he would "do it again." He did. As summarized by the Washington Post:

[Trump] pressed officials in key swing states to ignore the popular vote and flip electoral votes from Joe Biden to Trump; tried to submit fraudulent slates of electors from such states; threatened Justice Department leaders to open sham investigations and falsely claim election fraud to get states to join the plan; and pressured Vice President Mike Pence to use his ceremonial role overseeing Congress’s election certification on Jan. 6, 2021, to overturn the results.

The second impeachment involved a charge of insurrection. Others pointed to the 14A, sec. 3. disqualification provision. Jack Smith argued that as a criminal matter, the case was not clear enough to warrant that route. He used other criminal provisions. 

The interference of the electoral count cited in the criminal indictment very well involves the sort of thing that is "insurrection" for purposes of 14A, sec. 3. The provision is not a criminal provision for purposes of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. 

But, even there, there were seditious conspiracy convictions in a few January 6th cases. There is a clear overlap between insurrection and sedition:

In order to win a seditious conspiracy case, prosecutors have to prove that two or more people conspired to “overthrow, put down or to destroy by force” the U.S. government or bring war against it, or that they plotted to use force to oppose the authority of the government or to block the execution of a law.

Garland did not release the second part of the special counsel's report respecting the classified documents case. First, let us recall the multiple delays there involved different issues than in the election interference case. Garland himself has even less blame in that case for the delay. Judge Aileen Cannon had a large role, for instance, in multiple delays. 

Second, the reason is that two prosecutions are pending involving Trump flunkies involved in the mishandling of the documents. There is a sort of formal reasonableness to that but (1) without Trump, the cases are fairly trivial (2) the Trump Justice Department is likely to drop them. 

(Yes, something to ask the presumptive Attorney General.)

The rest of the report will then likely be stuffed (again, ditto). Why not just drop the two cases and release the report now? I think it is correct to call out Attorney General Merrick Garland (who overall I think is a tragic figure who some people think was there to do one thing) here.

Trump is already a felon for election interference in New York related to the 2016 election. I heard on Fox News (someone else was watching it as I put together a table) an argument that the unconditional discharge shows how the prosecution was phony. 

A confusion of cause and effect. The judge only provided that sentence for the same reason why Jack Smith dropped the prosecutions -- the rules for a sitting you know what. The special counsel's reminder is no less true because of its bad taste:

The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.

If you want an assured happy ending, watch a Hallmark Channel movie. But, gaslighting aside, guilt is not washed away with nearly fifty percent of the fraction of the voting population that deigned to vote. 

There are certain safeguards in place when handling dangerous items. Let us remember that when handling things after noon next Monday.  

SCOTUS Watch: Order Day

While we, as noted yesterday, on in the "final countdown," SCOTUS is back to remind us how the courts on on the ballot. The oral argument today might have been dull but they can't avoid that.

Today's Order List, which is (as usual) not too fascinating has various reminders of this fact. Some lower court cases are disposed of with reference to SCOTUS cases involving administrative law and gun regulation. (Amy Howe has more.)

Court personnel and the federal government's position in these cases are significantly affected by who controls the other two branches of government. 

Jurisdiction is noted in two cases involving the use of race in districting with oral argument pending. Election cases are one of the few areas where Congress restricted the Supreme Court's ability to pick and choose what cases to take. Liberals regularly hold their breath in such cases.

One case involving immigration law was granted. Riley v. Garland might have a different caption (name) when the case is handed down. It is likely that whoever wins that we will have a new attorney general.  Let's see how this one is judged.

There is also a short per curiam that sends back a case involving intellectual disability and the death penalty to clarify what the lower court meant. Thomas and Gorsuch would have taken the case now. The case had been "relisted," suggesting some complications behind the scenes. This result feels like a compromise that kicks things down the road.  

===

Today's Strict Scrutiny Podcast talked about Alito and the princess, which is the stuff they (especially Meghan Markle fan, Melissa Murray) LIVE for. One wrinkle is a possible violation of the Titles of Nobility Clause. Sure, why not? 

Steve Vladeck talked about presidents and justices in his weekly substack. And, what is a Vladeck post without a helpful spreadsheet?

President Biden had one justice vacancy to fill while Trump had three. Let's not give him two more.  

Hunter Biden Trial

As we await sentencing in the New York Trump election interference trial, Hunter Biden's trial is taking place. 

Slate provides an excellent summary of how different the two trials are. The defense portrays Hunter Biden as a reformed addict who sympathetically got his life back together. His family, including his mother and sister, are supportive. The defense carefully makes a limited argument and handles prosecution witnesses gingerly.  And so on.

We have a more slipshod analysis, including the obligatory Merrick Garland* and Democrat-bashing (it really amounts to a criticism of President Biden, which is just asinine) from the weakest link at another blog. 

I again wonder how Garland was going to get rid of the obviously biased special prosecutor here without looking like a hack in hock to his boss. Democrats have defended Hunter Biden and criticized Republicans who tried to weaponize his case. House Democrats did so when House Republicans had one of their show hearings. 

Yes, laying on the defense too thick probably would be bad politics. But, they are not just letting him swing in the wind. Furthermore, how much more would it help Hunter Biden if they were more vocal? His best bet is either a sympathetic jury or the appeals court overturning a weak case.

[The Slate article notes that a key piece of evidence involves him not disclosing that he is an "addict" on his gun registration form. Aside from the possible Second Amendment concerns here, the "knowingly" intent required is somewhat hard to prove.]  

A typical person would not be prosecuted for the tax and gun crimes involved here. Biden tried to plea out but the whole thing was screwed up by the special prosecutor. The prosecutor appears to have a vendetta against Hunter Biden. The N.Y. case was a more carefully handled affair. 

We do not have the election-related concerns found in the Trump case or the fact that multiple other people involved were prosecuted or obtained non-prosecution agreements. The defendant has not been a criminal all his adult life with multiple serious cases pending. 

The limited overlapping -- including little prosecuted felony charges in the N.Y. case -- details do not make the two cases the same. I hope he either is not found guilty or the appeals court correctly finds multiple things wrong with the conviction. 

Anyway, even though they tried so very hard, Biden critics received little benefit from going after Hunter Biden. The "Biden Crime Family," unlike the actual nefarious acts of Trump and his associates (including members of his family), is just a fantasy. 

Let this peter out as it should. 

ETA: "A federal jury found Hunter Biden guilty on all three federal felony gun charges he faced, concluding that he violated laws meant to prevent drug addicts from owning firearms." 

This judgment is probably fair. My concern is a biased prosecution, which should not have been brought in the first place. 

There is still a possibility of criminal tax charges, which would normally not be brought as long as the money was repaid. 

==

* Garland did begin investigating the January 6th attacks shortly after he came into office. Multiple things held up the investigation, including the FBI and Republican stonewalling. Trump was indicted twice. 

He didn't immediately appoint a special prosecutor since he was not conflicted. Trump running for office was a new development there. Sen. Elizabeth Warren proposed a special investigatory committee. Biden did not. And so on and so on.

Some readers are opposed to this line of scapegoating. They upvoted me when I called it out or spoke against it themselves. I didn't see any doing so on the thread, perhaps because they know how pointless it is at this point.

Presidential Primary Season Ends (And Other Biden Stuff)

There is an allusion in Around The World In Eighty Days regarding how many elections take place in the U.S. The primary season continues, even after yesterday ended the presidential primary season. The New York local primaries are at the end of the month.

We do not have the final results (especially in South Dakota), but we can have a sense for Montana, South Dakota, New Mexico, and New Jersey. Trump is alone in South Dakota. Biden has about 74% of the vote with the rest divided with some guy named Mando Perez-Serrato (4%) mixed in. 

Christie isn't around anymore in New Jersey. It's Trump (98) and write-in. Biden has 88, 9% uncommitted, and some anti-abortion person named Terrisa Bukovinac with 3%. The only place with actual Republican opposition was New Mexico with Haley getting 9%, Christie (and Uncommitted) 3%, and mini-Trump with 1%.

It's Trump 91% and Uncommitted (with a handful of write-ins) in Montana. Biden got about the same. Meanwhile, so far, Uncommitted (I wonder how that is allotted) has thirty-five delegates, Jason Palmer has three, and Dean Philips (who wants Gov. Hochul to pardon Trump, which should lead to his delegates being taken away) has four. 

Haley has 93, DeSantis 9, and Mini-Trump has three. Haley has had some support since she dropped out but it didn't translate to any delegates given how things were allotted.

The primaries have been somewhat of a joke this year. There was a chance for around 20% (a few times more, depending on the county) to not vote for Trump. I put aside Iowa and New Hampshire here as special cases. Biden's main opposition was uncommitted (an Israel/Gaza referendum basically) though in places like West Virginia, a significant minority didn't vote for him. So, there was that reason to vote. 

Anyway, someone praised the Secretary of Interior, basically because that is one of his interests (along with labor). He tacks on a dig on Garland, who he cites as the worst member of the Cabinet. Do people ever fully judge his work? The main disgust comes from Trump/January 6th. Some people call out the criticism. As Mueller, She Wrote noted recently:

If not for Garland's early privilege battles with Trump and co., Jack Smith wouldn't have been able to indict Trump. Garland also gave the green light to search Mar-a-Lago over objections from Trump holdovers at the FBI. Garland began investigating Trump for 1/6 the week he arrived at DoJ, creating a group called "The Investigations Unit" to carry out the work. He also authorized use of Inspector General Agents and Postal Cops to seize phones from folks like Eastman and Clark when Trump holdovers at the FBI refused to do it. He's far from useless, and I'm not going to stop correcting the record on this.

People used to compare Fani Willis positively but now her love life caused problems (the court of appeals will hear arguments in October; no rush). Garland's integrity, including no leaks, alone is notable. What about how the department handled other civil and criminal matters? I am not even saying it does things well. When does that even come up?

The other thing flagged is how he handles special prosecutors. How was he supposed to handle investigating President Biden and Hunter Biden? Fire Hunter Biden's special prosecutor (who clearly is a hack)? That would go down well. I am not giving the guy a pass. I just think it would have been hard regardless of your fantasy replacement to thread the needle.

An issue that sometimes comes up is Biden's handling of the border. People remind the critics sometimes that the public is conservative on this issue. Republicans blocked a conservative-leaning reform bill to allow Trump to campaign on how bad things are. 

Since only Democrats have agency, this is bad, and President Biden felt a need to announce a new policy. There are various framing like this NYT article that Biden and Trump now have the same policy. It then buries a comment like "president correctly notes that he has ruled out some of his predecessor’s extreme policies." Right. Not the same.

A libertarian spells it out:

Biden’s overall immigration policy is still vastly better than Trump’s, and he deserves credit for a variety of improvements. But he also deserves blame when he adopts cruel Trump-like asylum policies in the hope of scoring political points.

The accurate way to frame that is "Trump-lite" with the knowledge that litigation will temper the problem. The reality of the situation is that President Biden is acting within a political system in an election year. He has to "score political points." He does not have the freedom to just act above the fray. Criticism him. Still, realize the whole situation.

A popular line in 2016 is that the voters had to pick from two unpopular evils. A horrible framing. President Biden is not an "evil." And, the country these days is strongly divided along partisan lines. Biden is likely to always have around forty percent of the people not liking him, a combination of the passionate conservative core and people just upset about things.

My final thought is to wonder just how popular various other people were over the years. Was Bob Dole very popular in 1996? People wanted change in 2008 and 2020 but overall how excited were people over the years? 

Garland Again

You know who doesn't get enough attention? Merrick Garland. 

At least, that is the concern of some people at LGM. Second is not having enough sarcastically (upping the usage of the meme) saying "but Biden is old." NYT is HORRIBLE. But, hey, it's okay (someone blatantly said this in the comments) to link them for this reason! 

(I read LGM regularly, and it is my place to go for political news that provides a chance to comment, so I highlight it here as a well-read political website. But, the sentiment here is far from unique. It is a fair general stand-in.) 

Garland is a stupid institutionalist. In comments, the author of that blog piece says that the implication is that Biden was not aware of this aspect of Garland when he nominated him. This is moronic. Biden himself is an institutionalist (when he ran, many on the website didn't like that aspect of him). Garland is around seventy. His general leanings are known. 

Mueller She Wrote is one of the people who has gone in the weeds of these investigations. She provides a somewhat different slant of things from those who think Garland "is a Republican" or simply slow-walked this. 

She noted this in recent Twitter threads. For instance:

• DoJ opened an IG investigation into Trump’s DoJ’s involvement in the coup on January 25, 2021. 19 days after the insurrection. 
• In 9/2021, shortly after DoJ got data from Rudy’s seized phones, subpoenas were issued for coup fundraising groups including Sidney Powell’s. At this time, Biden’s DC US Atty pick was being blocked by Ron Johnson - who participated in the fraudulent elector scheme himself. 2/
• In 11/2021, Matthew Graves was finally sworn in a U.S. Attorney in DC. Senators Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Tommy Tuberville & Rick Scott told Garland in July they would continue to block his nomination until Garland treated the BLM protestors the same as 1/6 guys. 3/
• That same month, November 2021, Thomas Windom - who is now a key member of Jack Smith’s team - was detailed to the USAO DC to continue the already ongoing probe into the top of the coup. 4/
• Within months, more subpoenas were issued for info on 1) members of Congress 2) members of the executive branch 3) ellipse rally organizers, speakers, and VIPs (which would include Ginny Thomas) and anyone who tried to obstruct, influence, impede or delay the certification. 5/
• A few months later, the 1/6 hearings would begin. These are just facts. Whatever your opinion is, it continues to be incorrect to say DoJ waited 18 months or even 2 years to begin investigating the coup. That’s all I’m saying. Thanks 🙏 END/

Note that last part. After a bunch of things happened, the 1/6 hearings would BEGIN. Got that? Read that list. All before the 1/6 hearings -- which the Trump Indictments book I wrote about implied was a major push for the Justice Department -- a bunch of things occurred. 

If there is a problem here, it is not just Merrick Garland. But, over and over and over again the same scapegoat brigade suggests otherwise. The author of this piece in comments even takes Biden partially off the hook (who would know a -- spit -- institutionalist would act this way? My fantasy option -- like a moderate red state senator -- would!).  

I very well think our institutions did not act strenuously enough. This is true even if people are correct that in the long run, a quicker prosecution will not help in the November elections. I am not sure if this is true. Still, it is something to keep in mind. The elections are of fundamental importance.

My complaint is a selective focus, one that does not even treat the specific person covered fairly.  

So, people root on the 1/6 Committee or cite favored Democrats like Adam Schiff (who helped the Republican candidate in the Senate race to have a loser opponent) as if they did more than they did. They talk a good game though.

Likewise, they selectively cite the details regarding Garland. One big thing is the timing of the appointment of the special prosecutor. It would have made sense if he was appointed upfront. Elizabeth Warren when running for president proposed a separate process to investigate Trump. 

President Biden could have done something similar. Biden was particularly concerned about an independent Justice Department. He still has agency regarding who he chooses or general policies. 

Likewise, Democrats have agency regarding the level of pressure they put on the Justice Department, the timing of a 1/6 Committee, and things like not passing legislation to enforce the insurrection clause.  

The media also has agency. It is charming when the same people who hate on the NYT  seize catnip articles like this to reaffirm that pre-existing disgust of Garland. They will nod when told that expecting one person will "save us" is naive, given the complications of the real world.

But, this time, Garland should have saved us. Sure. Yet again, this is not some total defense of Merrick Garland. It is a request to look at the whole story. It is a request to stop with all of these posts harping on the same thing as if there is not a lot more to talk about. Or we can have more choir talk.

Democrats In Disarray! 

SCOTUS Watch

Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas continues to be amid ethical violations. 

Justice Rehnquist (Roberts' old boss) did not participate in the Nixon tapes case because of his former involvement in the Administration. 

Why is Thomas continuing to participate in Trump 2020 election disputes in which Ginny Thomas (his wife and self-proclaimed best friend) had a public role? The appearance of impropriety is blatant.  Do they fear a 4-4 decision?

Meanwhile, there is the drama of appointing a former Ginny Thomas protege and Thomas houseguest, Crystal Clanton as a Thomas clerk.  Clanton was the second-in-command and field director of the hard-right youth group Turning Point USA. A group whose views alone make her a dubious option. But, the infamous "I hate black people" text* stands out.

There is a move by some (including this regular critic of SCOTUS ethics) to claim it was just a youthful indiscretion, maybe even a once-off. This is mixed in with allegations she didn't even actually do it. The people who did a deep dive (not half-assed ethical investigations) tell a different tale. Likewise, contra the first link, it is not like she repented her past actions. 

Thomas picking this person, a right-wing troll type, is far from surprising.  But, the full tale makes this a blatant case that sends a horrible signal. 

Remember when a line in a Sotomayor speech that some people inferred meant she thought Latinas were more able to interpret the law was harped upon?  Would a clerk who said "I hate white people" pass muster for many people? 

Thomas (and before him another controversial conservative Court of Appeals judge) are the ultimate people at fault here (to cite Prof. Eric Segall, who partially at Dorf at Law has been continually on this case for years) given their level of importance. The blame (aided and abetted by other defenders) includes the failure to in an above-board way admit what is going on. 

Ms. Clayton is obtaining a prime job, which will provide her with prime financial and professional rewards, under very questionable circumstances. It's a more blatant example of a wider problem with the people involved. 

Trump Immunity 

Jack Smith requested the Supreme Court to take up the question of Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution in the D.C. election case before Christmas. They denied it, letting the court of appeals hear the case.

The COA took until early this month, causing many people to be impatient, to decide the case. They unanimously addressed both the immunity argument and an even more dubious double jeopardy claim. The COA then set Lincoln's Birthday as the last day Trump could appeal it to SCOTUS before the ruling would go into effect.

Trump did so, Jack Smith replied, and then Trump's side answered. This was all done within the week. We then waited for a response. The assumption was that maybe there was a "trade" and the Court would deny a stay and the liberals would go along with the conservatives on the insurrection matter. 

Neither decision came down. Colorado has a primary on Tuesday though the results won't be final. 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (after their "no comment" in what turned out to be a botched execution) granted the stay. The question:

Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. 

One thing the justices did behind the scenes was craft this particular wording, which is not the same as what either side is asking them to address. 

What exactly this entails is unclear. I fear an opinion that even if it holds against Trump will further enable presidents to be above the law.  Similarly,  when they upheld the congressional power to obtain Trump's financial records, more hoops were inserted before that could be done.  

Also, if a new test is applied, it can further delay things as it is sent back to be applied, and that too will be appealed. 

They did not take the double jeopardy argument. Also, they will hold an oral argument on April 22nd (checks calendar).  

This furthers the concern here that -- regarding a patently bullshit argument -- they are helping Trump delay. They could have held it this month. The Court of Appeals decided things in early February. We then have to wait over two and half months after the ruling for merely an oral argument. 

It takes time to have a trial before the election. There is also a principle (which arose during the Bush Administration) that you should not have a trial close (maybe 60 days) before an election. Though a few people still cannot assume the worst, this move was more upsetting to others than many. 

Joan Biskupic on CNN said, "Former President Trump's effort to run the clock has a partner in the Supreme Court at this point." Biskupic is less likely to provide a passionate take leaning in an ideological direction. Her comment therefore reflects the bluntness found in the coverage.

The Manhattan criminal trial, where Trump waived an immunity defense (it also involved acts before he was in office), remains in place for the end of March.  For now, civil and criminal justice is best obtained here in New York.  

Media Advisory

The Supreme Court flagged two cases (social media and mifepristone) as set for special reserved seating for the press since there will be limited seats available.  

Orders 

There is an Order List on Monday. The orders are likely to be (like last time) of no significant consequence. 

The next official thing on the calendar is a March 15th Conference and non-argument public session (usually for swearing in attorneys).  

The Court now provides on its website calendar if opinions "might" be handed down. That day is not listed as such a day.  As usual, we might have unscheduled orders and other news. We have had some notable in the last few years. 

ETA: On Sunday -- which is weird -- we suddenly have a possible opinion on Monday. Which they won't show up to announce. Which is not normal these days either. Uh-huh. 

Mitch McConnell

Finally, we should note the announcement that Sen. Mitch McConnell (now in the Senate for 40 years!) will step down as Republican Leader. From holding up the Garland Seat to refusing to support the Trump impeachment (even as he said Trump was responsible), he was a poisonous influence. 

==

* The full text is:  “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story.”

SCOTUS Watch

Having observed the treatment of violent criminals in the New York area by the Manhattan DA there, Alvin Bragg, it’s safer to keep him here and keep him in custody so he can’t be out doing this to individuals either in our state or county or the United States.

Arizona Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell is trolling against DA Bragg. She has someone in custody for non-fatal crimes. 

The NY crime involves strangling and bludgeoning a Queens mom sex worker to death. A Bragg spokeswoman noted that New York’s murder rate is less than half that of Phoenix, Arizona.

There is no charge yet in the NY crime so the Art. IV extradition rule has not kicked in. Someone online said (I haven't seen it) that there already is an Arizonan policy to hold a felony defendant in such a case. I don't know what the exact rule is. I do know the woman who the Republicans chose to ask questions when someone accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual abuse is trolling in a case involving a horrible crime. It's disgusting.  

==

Fix the Court is eagle-eyed about any possible ethical problems.

A new report reveals that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas did not use the U.S. Marshals Service for their security detail for several years, limiting the public’s insight into the justices’ off-the-bench activities. 

The documentation we have is incomplete, including all of the details of multiple cases (she saw) involving Sotomayor when she used state-funded services. A full account of expenditure would meet the spirit of a constitutional provision (Art. I, sec. 9) about recording spending. 

==

C-SPAN summarizes a Sotomayor/Barrett event:

Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett spoke about the court’s processes and the importance of navigating disagreements with civility and respect during a discussion at the National Governors Association Winter meeting. This discussion highlighted Chair Gov. Spencer Cox (R-UT) and Vice Chair Gov. Jared Polis' (D-CO) bipartisan initiative “Disagree Better.” The initiative focused on getting leaders and the public to debate issues of concern but with civility and respect for each other. 

Charming. Justice Sotomayor recently was flagged as saying she was quite upset about various rulings. Now she (again) is playing nice with the people who are behind them. 

Got to use civility to dissent when a justice was put on the Court as people voted for Biden (CF: Garland) was the final vote to help enslave women. I am turned off when people sneer at her religious beliefs, okay, but my respect for her is somewhat low. Sorry. She asks good questions during oral arguments. Everyone be polite!

People flagged questioning during the Barrett confirmation hearings regarding the possible criminalization of IVF. A group Barrett endorsed supported it. She used the normal dodge that it was a live controversy that she could not discuss. The bottom line is the questioning underlined the stakes of her nomination.  

==

Meanwhile, President Biden continues to get around a 6-3 SCOTUS ruling that blocked loan forgiveness. The final binding effect of the ongoing efforts is an open question. They do overall seem on firmer footing. It's also a BFD, even if some of the framing implies otherwise. 

Orders

After a conference, no orders were dropped on Friday. We are still awaiting a judgment on the Trump immunity case. No opinion was dropped for the Trump insurrection case. 

There will be orders on Monday.  

ETA: Nothing much to note regarding the Order List except Jackson explained her recusal in a case while Chief Justice "misleading by example" Roberts did not. 

An Open Letter to Lawyers Drugs and Money Blog

I read various online sources to keep up with news, politics, legal affairs, and (to some extent) sports. 

I appreciate those who provide an option for me to comment. This ability has been reduced in recent years as those who run the sites feel unable to keep up with trolls and content deemed offensive/counterproductive. This is both understandable and unfortunate.

One of my favorites, both for the content and comments, is Lawyer Drugs and Money.  I appreciate both the content and the comments. I appreciate being able to comment. I have an evangelical side on that front. 

Of course, sometimes, I disagree with the content. I was not a fan of the idea it was stupid to enforce rules against steroids in sports. Or, that punishing the Patriots for a certain infraction was some great wrong warranted multiple posts. The "you don't have to read" reply is silly. Comments are left open. People can dissent. 

Nonetheless, I am more concerned than usual about multiple posts, from different contributors (not only the one I specifically dislike*), on political events. The overall approach simply is not helpful. I think it is counterproductive though they surely think they are helping.

Erik Loomis (whose regular entries on labor and visits to the graves of historical figures are excellent) seems to have moved on to "Biden is likely going to lose" mode. I have seen the sentiment in multiple entries. Perhaps, this is a useful psychological exercise to soften the blow. I don't know. But, I don't find it particularly helpful.

Anyway, a recent one warned people about voters (don't call them stupid! I get to call people stupid for other reasons though!) who will vote third party or whatever:

But there is a singular type of threat to Biden from the left and it is a combination of his policies toward Palestine and the importance of very specific purple states to the election.

I don't know how people will react to this issue since a lot can happen in nine months. And, I grant the concern. Still, a useful approach entails citing the multiple things he has done to help. Not just include a picture of Biden (looking a bit decrepit) hugging Netanyahu or something. 

Is this not a value of this sort of blog? Biden worked to obtain a temporary ceasefire to address human rights needs. He is supporting a two-state solution. He passed executive orders doing things like helping Palestinians extend their stays in the U.S. and penalizing wrongs in the West Bank. I have also seen reports about further efforts to work toward just resolution for both sides. Put aside the alternative (Trump) is horrible.

Furthermore, Biden is threading the needle here. There are two sides to close elections. If he is seen as anti-Israel, other voters can turn against him from the right. This balance is shown in another area where Mr. Loomis in a one-note way calls him horrible, namely, immigration matters.  

Ezra Klein is the second Times pundit to actually specify how and possibly with who Joe Biden could be replaced, which I sincerely respect more than pure Johnny Unbeatable wishcasting.

Moving on to Scott Lemieux (not a hockey player). Multiple comments, in my view correctly, strongly criticized Klein's take. His providing additional details does not really change it from "wishcasting," including some of the possible alternatives provided. 

Furthermore, Klein's reference to Ruth Bader Ginsburg is annoying. She died, allowing Trump the power to select her replacement. She was older and repeatedly had cancer. Is there some idea Biden is on death's door? The guy "reads" frail but there is no evidence of that being likely before the election. "Being another Ginsburg" here is a dubious comparison.

The blog post agrees that there is reasonable evidence that Vice President Harris is a somewhat weaker option as a candidate. This is far from surprising. Name a recent vice president who was a stronger candidate than the president with the possible exception of Joe Biden if Obama could run for a third term (Biden might have been a better candidate for 2016).  

A wider problem I have with these comments is that again they are incomplete. One commenter (Mark Field) in another context said that we should just attack Trump. I understand the sentiment. But, I think there is a place to respond to criticism as well as support our side. 

And, that is what is required here. Vice President Harris should get more of a defense. Heather Cox Richardson** in her excellent daily Substack referenced Harris:

At the Munich Security Conference, where leaders from more than 70 countries gather annually in Germany to discuss international security policy, Vice President Kamala Harris today responded to Trump’s recent attacks on America’s global leadership with a full-throated defense of global engagement.

People who want to keep up with the Vice President can also track statements posted on the White House website. Not surprisingly, one issue she has been quite vocal on is reproductive rights. 

I personally wish there was more, including an official schedule. Video of her presiding over the Senate, including providing vote after necessary tie-breaking vote to advance Democratic policies would be a nice touch. 

Overall, instead of just being concerned (one person on that blog sometimes seems to have two speeds, doom and saying doom is counterproductive), provide a reply. Show why Vice President Harris is doing her job. Thus, the possibility that she might have to take over at some point would not seem so bad. 

Finally, there is Merrick Garland. Erik Loomis has a post up basically saying "told you so." After the special prosecutor released a report saying Biden should not be prosecuted mixed with some choice Biden bashing that furthers favored frames, THREE members of the blog went after Garland. 

Talk about overkill. First, like their repeated sarcasm about "but Biden is old," this sort of thing can be counterproductive. There is no bad advertising, so they say. If you keep on referencing Biden being old, etc., even mixed with criticism of the coverage, the meme continues. The need to respond often is a defeat. And, at some point, it's belabored.

Second, the responses are too one-sided. Some comments (though the posts are catnip for the "fire Garland, that loser" brigade as if he did nothing for three years) did push back. Not just me. There is a path that allows for reasonable criticism. The blog's tendency toward sarcasm and satiric photos also can be too much. 

A basic problem here is that Garland himself is not solely to blame. I think overall (see also as a Supreme Court nominee) he has multiple good points. Let's move past that. 

First, President Joe Biden picked him, knowing he was a traditionist of a certain sort. If you wanted a strong reformer who would change "the rules," he wasn't the person to pick. Multiple other options (some wanted Doug Jones, a moderate senator from a red state) would have acted comparably.  

Special counsel rules are also problematic, even if they have some wiggle room. This is not a new thing. Again, there are two sides here. There is value in a conservative-leaning sort investigating Biden and finding him innocent of basic wrongdoing. Who do you pick in this situation? Someone that would be seen as on your side? 

(Also, Robert Mueller did good, including providing a case against Trump. He was a junior official. He could not prosecute Trump on his own. And, he was screwed by William Barr, who was specifically chosen for that reason.) 

The independent counsel law seemed like a good reform. But, there were problems, including conservative judges picking the likes of Kenneth Starr. Then, the law was allowed to run out. We are back to the administration choosing them in certain situations. There still are problems, including some of the people chosen. 

And, again, why not lead with the positive? We can quote the report (it's hundreds of pages long; it is not just a few choice anti-Biden parts) itself to show Biden supported the investigation and is innocent of wrongdoing. Post after post about old man GARLAND is helpful, how? 

To quote President Biden:

The special counsel that acknowledged I cooperated completely, I did not throw up any roadblocks, I sought no delays.  In fact, I was so determined to give the special counsel what he needed, I went forward with a five-hour in-person — five-hour in-person interview over two days on October the 8th and 9th of last year, even though Israel had just been attacked by Hamas on the 7th and I was very occupied.  It was in the middle of handling an international crisis. 

Again, as I noted in response to Mark Field, critique is warranted up to a point. It is fine for blogs to discuss the problems with the special counsel's report. Or, how Attorney General Garland is too moderate in response. And, so on. 

I think the takes repeatedly do not provide a totally fair account of what he did. But, a bigger problem is that it belabors one aspect of the conversation, furthering the doom in the process. There is too much of that. I again get the idea if Biden loses (please no), we will get a bunch of faux cynical realistic takes about how it was all so predictable.  

LGM is a successful blog. They get to write whatever they want. But, I do wish they provided a more nuanced take on things recently.  Provide a more positive, strong response to current events. Limit the promotion of the other side's doom and negativity. And, provide a more complete account.

Thanks for allowing comments so others can discuss these matters.  

ETA: Checking on Sunday, there is yet another post about "Biden is old" coverage. 

At some point, isn't this counterproductive? "Biden" and "old" are tied together as a given. People on our side then say "yeah Biden is old but." "Boy, is he old." etc. 

Why don't we just talk about President Biden and not act like the age thing is so bloody important? It is not going to change. Maybe, if WE don't keep on making it an issue, helping the meme, it will help? 

---

* I miss multiple women contributors, who provided foreign policy and social commentary in the past. One of them was replaced by someone I find not a helpful addition. 

** Fans of the film Heathers might remember her as the Heather who liked history.  

Updates On Recent Posts

The "wisdom of the stairs" (sounds better in the original French) means stuff we think about after the fact.

When write stuff on this blog, there is sometimes stuff I think about after the fact. I sometimes add it. This is more so when the subject is complicated, such as the recent Supreme Court oral argument. On that front, here is some more on the bogus concern about one state deciding a national issue. 

I have seen more complaints about Merrick Garland regarding the special counsel in the Biden records case. I continue to think belaboring the point as compared to emphasizing his innocence and overall abilities helps promote the narrative the other side wants to promote. 

Robert Hur's report has dubious aspects that have been covered by some outlets. We need to learn from the problems with special prosecutors, including the asshole in charge of the Hunter Biden matter. But, belaboring the issue does not help. Too much "Democrats in Disarray."  

The bottom line remains Biden is innocent, worked with the prosecutor, and so on. Garland also has done a lot of good. Plus, I don't see him going anywhere though maybe (he is over 70) a new attorney general (who people will complain about) will come in Biden's second term (knock on wood).

As to the memory business, "there is nothing new about Mr. Biden’s memory lapses, malapropisms and rambling, sometimes embroidered anecdotes." We know that about him. As a whole, it does not matter. He is a good president and (unlike past years) is president at the right time. 

The usual suspects will latch on to this (people are still sending memes of him sniffing hair) while Trump is out there acting unhinged and showing much greater signs of mental deficiency in various cases. It is what it is. We shouldn't help the matter by dwelling so much on it.  

People sometimes think they are being realistic cynics but might be putting on a pose that is not actually accurate.  

ETA: I noted that I would not provide a summary of the Super Bowl. Just to update that. The Harlem Globetrotters won again. After all these years, I shouldn't care, but yeah, I'm annoyed. Objectively, in my view, the predictable is not entertaining. 

And, that is what happened. I'm annoyed.

Special Counsel Says No Charges Warranted In Biden Documents Case

You would think the headline was GOOD NEWS. Well, sorta, how it is being reported and spun. The line is as much as Democrats in disarray. This includes the usual suspects who rail against MSM, the Village, or whatever overall cutesy labels are tossed around. 

And, some more Garland bashing. For instance, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo says this bit of Garland bashing is "about right":

First off, Merrick Garland is a disastrously bad AG.  He has appointed special counsels he never should have.  And he had no business allowing a report to be released that violated DOJ guidelines.  Most of all, his two years of fruitless propitiatory delay moving on the elite insurrectionists has America and the world on the doorstep of disaster.

I will correct myself here to note that who he chose in one or more cases was problematic. If that is the idea. But, I still think the responses have been unfair (including a later one calling out his "cowardice"). 

Take this "gotcha" from one online person:

Always remember: It took Garland TWO YEARS to appoint Smith. It took Garland two WEEKS to appoint Hur. 

They aren't the same thing. Hur was appointed as special counsel because Biden himself was being investigated. Smith was appointed when Trump ran for POTUS. There was much less of a reason to appoint one early though 

Elizabeth Warren's idea of a special investigator upfront was a good idea. Like with Watergate, however, I think that would have required a joint effort. Biden could have announced he wanted it. Democrats in Congress too. But, did they? It's not on Garland alone. 

"Always remember" is a tell. It's like "So you are saying." Often, no, I'm not saying that. 

Also, what the hell with this "two years of fruitless propitiatory delay" business? A single murder case can take years. The delay was far from "fruitless." I don't bow to Empty Wheel and others, but they spell out what was involved here, and what was obtained. This includes actual convictions of top leadership, if not (to cite one online critic) top Republican leaders. 

Garland is supposed to be a victim of the "elite lawyer brain" (to quote the weak link of that blog) for following standard policies. I will not give him a total pass here. 

But, who appointed him? President Biden knew who he was. He is acting as advertised. People like finding scapegoats, when the situation is wider. This is not (see another picture on that blog) Comey and the perennial Republicans for the FBI and similar jobs. 

It is logical to have a special counsel not of the same party. The problem is that the rules are not played the same there. Mueller investigated Trump; both are Republicans. 

The focus should be that President Biden did not do anything worthy of prosecution. Instead, we are focusing on the special counsel gratuitously saying the guy is an old man with a poor memory. 

Repeating it over and over, complaining about Garland in the process. Charming. Reports Biden was angry and festy about it isn't that helpful. Sure Grandpa. 

The commentariat will argue they are being truth-telling critics. But, how much are they helping? The basic line should be that Biden is not guilty. Oh? Some Republican hack is going after his memory? We saw how he is doing his job. The details are bullshit too. And, again, the guy says Biden should not be charged. 

Is this what multiple people are leading with? Nope. More horse race stuff about how this will affect the race. More Democrats in Disarray stuff about Garland and company. More doom comments. One said Garland should have charged Trump the day Garland came into office. Before an investigation? This is the mindset of too many people. 

Again, I'm not taking Garland totally off the hook. The background of Robert Hur does not make it surprising he mixed some partisan bullshit in his report here. OTOH, how much worse is it to keep on promoting his message? 

But, I think the system as a whole was at fault. If we wanted a speeder trial for Trump and others, it would have taken a system-wide shakeup and speed-up. Problems in the FBI alone were part of the problem. 

Was it possible to select someone who would be a big reformer to upset the apple cart? Maybe, though in real life systematic reforms of major departments is a very uphill battle. 

Is it likely Biden, an institutionalist, would pick such a person, even if they were available? That it might not somehow backfire in some way?

Biden had reason to trust a long-term judge and former top deputy in the Clinton Justice Department. To remind:

In the 1990s, Garland was working for the Clinton administration as Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's principal associate deputy attorney general. In that role, Garland supervised several high-profile domestic terrorism cases, including the Oklahoma City bombing, "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, and the Atlanta Olympics bombings.

Ultimately, count me as supporting (more or less) this Slate take:

Going forward, this could also set Biden up to stride easily over a low bar; if undecided voters are primed to expect someone who is literally senile, and then see him mixing up a name or two but otherwise describing various issues coherently and with evident emotional engagement, they may decide that the whole thing has been overblown.

As multiple people noted in response to the claims, the average witness in the situation, including those decades younger, would have done the same or had a much worse time of it. I would include myself.

Let the blather go. 

ETA: Again, focus on what is right. Biden did not obstruct or act in ways otherwise culpable. Put aside the scope of misuse is just not comparable. A 340-page report spells this out. Don't latch on, even just to bash Garland or whatever, to Republican talking points. 

More Hunter Biden News

While checking the news, I saw a reference to Attorney General Merrick Garland being scheduled to give a special announcement. It turns out the U.S. attorney overseeing the Hunter Biden investigation was made a "special counsel." Garland appointed two others, one for the President Biden documents investigation and Jack Smith for the Trump investigation.

Early reporting merely reported that he made the appointment, with one article referencing that Garland did it at the person's request.  We had a few comments on social media wary about the move and/or complaining about Garland bending over backward to please Republicans. 

(ETA: I saw Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, a political commentary blog, suggest the appointment is misguided means to appease the Republicans.  As I discussed, this is far from clearly the case, including what the prosecutor himself said.  

Now, maybe deep down it's all about satisfying Republicans. Or, maybe, Garland and company are doing their jobs as members of the Justice Department, and the situation as a whole warrants it.  Maybe, those whose very job it is to comment about the situation should do a more nuanced job of doing it.)  

The guy investigating asked for the change in status.  I'm sick of this Garland bashing.  I also was annoyed that the early reporting didn't clarify what this move did and why he might have done it. This is a basic thing to cover.  It's like saying someone bought a gun but failing to note that they did so because it was an antique.  

When I tried again, I found a bit more clarity.  As noted, in the words of a CNN article: "prosecutor, David Weiss, asked Attorney General Merrick Garland for the new authority after plea talks to resolve tax and gun charges fell apart, with a trial now likely."  

Weiss has clarified, recall he is a Trump-appointed prosecutor, that he did not ask for this title in the past.  Republican criticism factors into the whole equation -- sensitive investigations are a basic reason for special roles -- but that is not the reason from what I can tell.  

There was a plea deal but it broke down over the judge not being satisfied.  Seems a bit of a mess, but too soon to think they won't manage to figure things out.  Still, since the matter is being taken to a new stage, the additional discretion and powers of the role make it now appropriate.  As one article summarized the Garland statement:

“This appointment confirms my commitment to provide Mr. Weiss all the resources he requests. It also reaffirms that Mr. Weiss has the authority he needs to conduct a thorough investigation and to continue to take the steps he deems appropriate independently based only on the facts and the law,” Garland said.

Any commentary, online or not, should help the average person understand the nature of the move and why specifically it might have been done.  For instance, what difference would it make if Weiss was not given this title in such and such situation?  Overall, I think it sensible that the prosecution of the son of the president is carefully handled.  Someone sniped that this is a "private" citizen as it is some Joe Smoe.  

It also is not too surprising that Republicans are making political hay about this.  It is rather rich -- and Democrats should very well use this to their benefit -- given Trump and Trump's family.  The limited value Hunter Biden received for his family (oh the vapors!) is in no way comparable to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, both of whom had actual official roles.  

The whole thing is a sideshow and net works out to Biden's benefit in a variety of ways. First, the investigation is being handled correctly overall.  Second, Biden is showing empathy for his son.  Third, any attempt to make hay just provides a big blatant opening to remind how much the Trump family monetized their access to government.   

There is a stupidity zone here, including "both sides do it" and reporting that does not provide useful context, leaving us to kneejerk based on names and "something big happening" or something.  If we are going to have a lot of commentary, let's just do it right.  When something is done, provide full context, including the nature of the event and why it occurred.  

(For instance, I saw a tweet saying that the status would mean that the prosecutor could avoid testifying to the House Oversight Committee. I did not see this in the coverage yet.  It might be the case. Sort of useful to note.)  

Busy Tuesday: Trump Indictment #3 and more

This is being written after the fact, but Tuesday was a busy day for me keeping track of news. There was the baseball trading deadline (added an addendum to my Mets post from Saturday), the death penalty (see next post), and another Trump indictment.  August started with a bang.

The latest indictment is a federal indictment surrounding Trump's conspiracy to interfere with the 2020 election.  This is basically (rightly) seen as the motherlode.  It goes to the core of our republican system of government and involves attempts to deprive millions of their right to vote.  It involves acts that threatened the life of the vice president.  And, it involves Republicans (including many running for president, though Pence is not onboard this time, and Kevin McCarthy) trying to SQUIRREL!  

Someone who seems to be continuing a lonely 14A, sec. 3 effort (I'm sympathetic about that part) argues prosecution is a bad idea. He's dead wrong.  He was wrong about the second impeachment and the heavy standard of proof applied to the first.  His addendum doesn't help matters by citing Ford.  Nixon resigned, for one thing, even if you think that is the right decision (I'm a tad less "hell no" than others).  

There is a certain cluelessness here mixed with injustice.  Like a dog with a bone that won't give it up, he is focused on Trump being disqualified.  But, there is little interest in that.  And, even if there was, it would be subject to extended litigation (see emoluments) with judges having multiple means to delay any final result (including flagging it as a political question for Congress to handle).  If he loses, it can be declared moot.

Note the addendum underlines that he does not just question the timing.  He suggests Trump shouldn't be indicted at all (like he was opposed to impeachment).  Everyone else involved can be liable, some of whom will serve long sentences.  He's special.  Yet again, like he has all his adult life, he will get away with it with limited cost.   Cost of doing business.  

This is patently absurd and disgusting.  He has voiced his opposition to Trump himself but this self-proclaimed conservative opposes basic consequences for one's actions.  The conservative values he supports involve aiding the few, allegedly for purposes of public peace.  But, even there, it is of limited value if you are going to block the people from choosing their leader.  Ford didn't do that.  Nixon himself stepped down.

The approach is woefully mistaken and unjust.  It is better than his fellow conservatives (he in the past so self-identified) who respond to the indictment by screaming UNJUST!!!!  PARTISANSHIP!!!  Or, D.C. IS A SWAMP! UNFAIR!  The leader of the House of Representatives included. 

The indictment spells out what was done. We lived through it all.  So many Republicans are on the side of the insurrectionist.  They are unfit to rule.  They are unfit to rule.  They are unfit to rule.  They are unfit to rule.

[ETA: Credit where credit is due and we saw this in the 1/6 Committee hearings.  Republicans have a lot to answer for.  I won't give even this subset too much credit.  But, push comes to shove, some did have a limit. Senate Republicans unlike a supermajority in the House did not sign on to the electoral vote protest.  

Again, they didn't convict Trump during the impeachment trials, etc.  They are very well part of the problem, including state Republicans who even now will still go along if Trump is the nominee.

But, like state officials in swing states and top Justice Department officials who did not go along with a Seven Days in May scenario, there wasn't only one way.  This underlines the horribleness of Kevin McCarthy et. al now.]

They know the facts are put forth to a candid world.  So, they try to use something else. An illicit conspiracy is made out to be free speech.  Something that from Pence down grants is dead wrong is made out to be a partisan witch hunt.  

And, like in the Manhattan indictment, there is now apparently a problem in having a trial (per constitutional rule) where the alleged crimes were committed.  This rejection of basic constitutional values with implicit racism (given the makeup of the DC jury pool) is not too surprising when the basis of republican government is attacked.

Republican after Republican says this. Unlike the documents and campaign corruption trials -- which are still important -- Pence (given his special role alone) is not going along.  But, DeSantis, Tim Scott ("the reasonable one"), and others go along with the rhetoric. Each and every one is a disgrace and reasonable people should state and admit the fact.  If you want to bargain with the devil to get the Supreme Court, face up to the stakes. 

A final thing I will say about this all is the continual idea that Garland choked and perhaps only the 1/6 Committee pushed him (or Jack Smith) to do this.  This ignores how long this process takes (as over 1000 other people were arrested and/or prosecuted), including how the Justice Department asked the committee for information as the hearings went on.  

The committee had a job to do and it had value, including informing and preparing the public for the prosecution. It is perfectly ordinary for the legislature to do investigations that are related and largely overlap with criminal ones.  They serve related but different roles.  And, a committee to investigate 1/6 would logically overlap with the prosecution related to the events.  

The system is slow.  There are various means to address things, including the political process and public opinion.  I wish things took quicker but realize like moving a tanker around, this is a long process.  The Georgia indictments still have not come down. I have not once, not once, heard the Garland haters say a word against that prosecutor.  I grant that I might have missed something.  But, it is patently blatant.  I am not calling her out.  Just saying her case -- large as it is -- still is a fraction of what the federal Justice Department has to handle.  This balances out all things being equal probably the fact they have more resources.   

Remember that Trump cannot pardon himself -- even if that was a thing, which it should not be accepted to be -- for state charges.  He can not throw a wrench into state prosecutions by corrupt use of his or some other Republican Justice Department.  There might be some way he can try to interfere, claiming supremacy or something.  But, it will be a lot harder.  The state prosecutions are important though obviously if Trump or another Republican wins in 2024 it will have horrifying effects overall.  

I will remain agnostic as to the ability to speed things up though am inclined to be convinced by those who argue the Justice Department's timetable was reasonable.  But, these attacks on Garland remain unfounded and to some degree patently unfair to me.  The anger and basic feeling that not enough was done is understandable.  On that point, however, let us remember the blame can be and should be spread around.  Let us not focus our ire on the wrong people, using them as misguided scapegoats. 

ETA: The Trump stuff is talked about ad nauseam but some basic FAQs are helpful.  I find this person generally on the ball.  

Anthony Michael Kreis is an expert on Georgia matters.  He's also playful on Twitter.  

Odds and Ends As Spring Ends

Today's the last full day of spring and various things happened.

==

I finished Starstruck: A Memoir of Astrophysics and Finding Light in the Dark by Sarafina El-Badry Nance.  She is a thirty-year-old scientist who has advocated for multiple issues, including science and women's health.  

She had the same protective double mastectomy after being found to be prone to certain cancer as people like Christina Applegate.  The book also talks about her troubled relationship with her mother, anxiety issues, and an abusive boyfriend.  Her life is so full already that it didn't even include her Sports Illustrated swimsuit pictorial.  A viral tweet where she talked about the importance of failure also is not included.  

It is well written (no "as told by" apparently) and covers a lot of ground. Each chapter has an opening science discussion.  

===

The Order List today was nothing much of note, including one case granted for full argument.  Justice Jackson didn't take part in deciding one matter and didn't say why.  It seems like she was involved in the case in the court of appeals.  Only Kagan so far (with Alito and Jackson the two I recall having a chance) in recent weeks decided to flag why.  

A federal appeals court will get another chance to decide if a state can deny a Planned Parenthood affiliate Medicaid payments for non-abortion related care, thanks to the US Supreme Court. It is an application of a near-unanimous recent case, showing the implications might not always be positive.  Two opinion days Thursday and Friday.

Julie Rikelman, of Dobbs advocacy fame, was confirmed as a First Circuit Court of Appeals judge.  This took over an hour.  It is rather ridiculous how many minor offices go through this process.  It is appropriate for a position like this to get Senate confirmation. Still, it shouldn't take this long.  It should just be a simple vote on the record.  

==

It might shock you, but a close family member of an elite politician has benefited from his family connections.  Oh, I don't the wife of Mitch McConnell or the son of Antonin Scalia.  Surely not Jared Kushner or Ivanka Trump, both of who held official jobs in the Trump administration.  

Hunter Biden, who did not, and who the Republicans might be wary about after Trump's impeachment-related attempts to use him to help win a presidential election (he lost, just to be clear).  A Trump-appointed U.S. attorney has been on this case for FIVE years.  WITCHHUNT! 

What did this result in? Two minor tax charges and a gun charge which he can avoid if he promises not to violate the rules.  Darn threat to the Second Amendment.  I can see why Republicans are crying foul though it is basically a mix of just wanting it hard enough and their usual vibe.

The "partisan Justice Department" that indicted Trump since he just couldn't stop criming is so crooked it is prosecuting Biden's own son. But, it's a sham, of course, since the charges are so minor.  Not that even then would it be likely a non-Biden would get charged criminally. Roger Stone (pardoned after being prosecuted in the Mueller investigation), for instance, avoided criminal charges for tax wrongdoing.  

I should have noted originally but will add now, that a major thing this whole thing shows (and people have noted this) is President Biden's humanity.  He has repeatedly said he loves his son, who basically is the "troubled" one (one person reminded us of his early tragedy of surviving the crash that killed his mother and young sister) in various respects.  

This is normal behavior, and though he wears his emotions on his sleeve at times as much as Bill Clinton (though it comes off as less fake), it isn't even truly novel among presidents. Still, it underlines why he is such a comfortable choice.  

==

Meanwhile, those who just want to find a reason to bash Garland, even after (they assured us it would not happen) Trump is indicted, have some fodder.  But, those who respond to such things point out that the case is stacked and there are reasons for their approach.  And, to the degree the FBI (head by a Trump pick) has issues, we know that.  Not the same as the "DOJ" or "Garland." 

As to the link, my response is that granting the importance (obviously) doesn't really change the argument the approach taken made sense (see also).  And, maybe there is some argument about the need to speed things up somehow, but the blame to me is systematic. For instance, Congress ignored emoluments, and 14A, sec. 3 legislation potential when Democrats still had control.  

I have not gone into the weeds in this thing, to be completely above board, but I'm still not on board with the Garland bashing.  I will repeat that if you don't like him, blame President Biden.  And, We the People too.