Trump Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've only heard some pretty radical socialists argue that the criminal process should be done away with for its 'vindictiveness'.

Criminal Process in the United States has always included the use of a Presidential Pardon when that was deemed appropriate. Nor is the type of media-frenzied witch-hunt that a Nixon trial would have generated all that close to what we revere as due criminal process. Your choice to misconstrue my answer as calling for us to do away with criminal process is incorrect and your tone a little insulting.

I would say that the pardoning of Nixon, and the refusal to hold serious crimes to account in general, is what breeds apathy and disaffection. It's dangerous to blithely promote the legal invincibility of the POTUS, as though the most powerful person in the world needs special allowances and comforts.

I heard that argument at the time. There were assertions that only by spelling things out in a lengthy trial, meticulously cataloguing every abuse of power by Nixon and every effort to cover up, obfuscate, or obstruct justice had to be trumpeted to cleanse our system. I understand that concept, but I do not think it would have the "cleansing" effect you suppose. The Impeachment process is there to counter "legal invincibility" in the President. While it has, at times, been mis-used, it did force the resignation of a President who had clearly abused his power in office.

I don't give a crap about "punishment". The public needs to know the facts of the matter, and see the actors responsible held liable. This history must not be brushed under the rug for future generations to rediscover, or to fester in the form of a revanchist mythology.

Watergate and the fall of the Nixon Presidency is one of the most thoroughly covered events in modern history. We know practically day by day who did and said what and to whom. There is more hard information available to the public on this than is available on the Kennedy assassination.

And all it takes to form a revanchist mythology is the desire to do so. Those who believe in the "Stab in the back," or the coverup of aliens at Rosswell, or the moral triumph of the "blood-stained banner" don't let anything like real facts obscure their mythological belief anyway. 2/3 of the students in my classes can name everyone to have been a season judge on The Voice while barely half could name the sitting VPOTUS and fewer than 1 in 5 could name both of Florida's senators. Mostly "the public" just doesn't give a rats ass once the person has been fired unless there are some good T&A pictures to go with it.

It is important that Trump partisans feel shame(d), because it is a necessary step in the process of de-Trumpifying them, which is a necessary step in bringing them away from a worldview tham demands the exclusion, marginalization, or destruction of their perceived opponents. Otherwise our politics will surely continue to get worse, and blatant, committed demagogues who outright promise the end of our system of government as we know it will be the next development. These won't be socialists.

Those inclined toward shame for having supported him now that they see him in action already feel ashamed. Those who don't already will not likely feel that shame as a result of the kind of resignation and trial you envisage. They might drop him in the event of the old 'dead girl or a live boy' standard, but I doubt anything less tawdry would make a dent.

Though when Trump leaves office, they will slowly de-trumpify themselves in the natural course of things.

The severity of offenses matters too. Do you really see NO circumstances in which the sitting OR former POTUS should be subjected to the criminal process for acts during tenure of office?

Proof of treason, gross malfeasance, crimes of violence would all, I believe, be prosecuted as appropriate once the President was impeached of upon leaving office. The problem with too free a use of the legal system against an executive is it can criminalize acts of governance when the biggest problem with those acts of governance is disagreement therewith. One of the reasons Caesar crossed the Rubicon was the virtual certainty that he would have been tried for treason, stripped of his property, and exiled by the Roman Senate.

In the case of Nixon, I believe that removal from office and the subsequent and continuing tarnish of his reputation was enough of an exemplar.

In all, to the extent that Trump has committed serious offenses, a recommendation to refrain from hashing it out publicly promises to be devastating to our nation. Of course pulling out the barbed arrow is painful. But you can't let it sit and live well that way.

See earlier discussion above on refusing to hold accountable

Trump's approach to government, and his affinity to his base, is essentially fascist. Trumpism is fascistic. Don't make the mistake of running Zeno's treadmill when assessing the presence of fascism in contemporary times.

Fascism may be what Trump would like, and I have noted elsewhere that all of the fascist elements in the USA are his adherents whether or not he claims them. I made that point above BEFORE noting, after skipping lines, that the term fascism was altered from its original form and that we now use it as a synonym for jack-booted authoritarian thuggery. So the mere mention of the outdated meaning of the term is me trying to water down the argument against Trump by playing argumentation games? You are overstating things.

You apparently believe Trump to be a clear and present danger to the republic and that tyranny is at hand. Why don't you go and use your first amendment and second amendment rights, convince enough of your friends to join you, and go end the threat.


I'll settle for seeing him leave office on 1/20/2020 EDIT: 1/20/2021. Might even contribute a few bucks to someone who'll best him in both the popular vote AND the electoral college.

[AE Bravo]

I’ve reached my free WP limit, so I’ll reflect on those as soon as it restarts tomorrow. This has been an eye-opening discussion (for me) so far. Although I think there's some miscommunication.

Or if this estimation of your mindset is wrong, then what's your argument?

That the problem isn’t the fact that Trump is a liar, but that he comes from a system whose tradition is to lie to further its interests. Demonization of Russia (or the kindred China demonization) is a convenient means to weaken Trump and externalize evil rather than fixing what is broken internally. In Empire as a Way of Life, William Appleman Williams talks about how “empire turns a culture away from its own life as a society or community” and the “imperial propensity to externalize evil.” Acting like Russia is the only threat when a bigger one is right above you approaches hysteria yes. Outside powers don’t create divisions and mistrust, they may exploit them.

Or, maybe they've lost their minds and are chasing shadows despite their training and experience, and are not so brilliant or sound of judgement as you to conclude otherwise.

And you know more than the Atlantic Council members who say that Trump has been tough on Russia. But anyway.

In fact, with time the government has come to confirm a fairly wide-ranging effort to target power systems throughout the country, at a minimum for espionage. To be fair, North Korea is reportedly implicated as well here, and Russia surveils utilities throughout the world, not merely America. And to be extra fair, the US has previously gone so far as to conduct a successful attack on industrial controls themselves through Stuxnet. To be extra-extra fair, Russia was recently successful with an attack of similar depth on the Ukrainian power grid.

I don’t see how these are good measuring sticks for hacks on election infrastructure.

The news of these actions have unfortunately been equally abused against Russia by the disinformation you claimed was spreading in favor of them, which I was taking issue with the one-sided way you put it. For example, the basis for the January Intelligence Community Assessment was that the Russians had hacked the guidance systems of the Ukrainian artillery, which was contradicted by both the Ukrainian military and the British International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Stories of Russian interference in France and Germany were not discredited. Provide strong proof that it could not have been Russia, or that it was someone else; otherwise, that's a lie.

I don’t understand how you can call this a lie unless there have been drastic changes lately I haven’t heard of. The stories were thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services.

Though if you can present some hard facts that would be great too.

The last quoted sentence is an example of why you make me so frustrated. Why on earth would you type that sentence? Around 20 states so far have reported Russian attempts or successes in penetrating to varying extents their voting framework. Twenty means fewer than 50 FFS. That we know of. To suggest that if 2 states report no evidence of Russian breaches in their own systems, no state was breached, is insultingly dumb.

Yes but did the other states refute it? That would actually be helpful to my ‘motivated reasoning.’

As for the campaign itself, a few names pertaining to the Middle East and its economic interests vis-a-vis the US and Russia:

Prince
Flynn
Kushner
Papadopoulos
McFarlane
McFarland
Nader
Barrack

How is this unusual? I’m absolutely shocked that the US and Russia are negotiating their designs over the middle east. I’m shocked that they brought them to the table after their growing influence there. Come on…

The fact that there are challenges in the world you could enumerate does not obviate the existence or importance of other, additional challenges. They have to be placed against each other and synthesized, not dismissed, to be effectively addressed. Geez, talk about Oppression Olympics.

Fair enough.

For that matter, how could one possibly think that the influence of billionaires and elite lobbyists is a threat to free and democratic elections, but oligarchs and autocrats actually concretely capturing a US Presidential campaign IS NOT a problem???? It's a clear bloody manifestation of the underlying sickness!

No. It exposed the underlying sickness. The dirt was already there.

[Montmorency]

That the problem isn’t the fact that Trump is a liar, but that he comes from a system whose tradition is to lie to further its interests. Demonization of Russia (or the kindred China demonization) is a convenient means to weaken Trump and externalize evil rather than fixing what is broken internally. In Empire as a Way of Life, William Appleman Williams talks about how “empire turns a culture away from its own life as a society or community” and the “imperial propensity to externalize evil.” Acting like Russia is the only threat when a bigger one is right above you approaches hysteria yes. Outside powers don’t create divisions and mistrust, they may exploit them.

And what I want you to understand is that there is no "evil", just problems, both internal and external, besetting the country (some of which are shared with the wider world). If Trump were removed and enough shields raised against Russian influence, then suddenly the priority of the Russia thing would drop. It would have been alleviated to an extent. It would even be possible to approach Russia with intent towards reaching small interim agreements on the way to improving relations.

The fact that elections cannot be free anywhere while plutocrats wield money as speech as power is not a separate problem, it is the 'root and soil' from which Trump and Russian influence have grown. We need to acknowledge these things simultaneously, or we can hardly work on any improvement.

If you want to criticize imperialist neoliberals for not recognizing the bigger picture of American decline and malfeasance, and the global crises affecting all the poor brown people, go ahead. Knock yourself out. Just don't apologize for Russia or try to deny facts just because your opponents uphold them, it invariably looks partisan and in bad faith.

Why the hell shouldn't I spit in the face of some schmuck who, when catching me beset in the street, on my back, receiving fists to the face and knees to the gut, lectures me so glibly, smugly, confidently: 'Hey, my dude, stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself.'

Because that's what it feels like. That's why it angers me. Why do I stay out of creationism debates? That stuff hacks me off too. Those people spew an endless stream of drivel in the hopes of levitating a set of ideas that have been bankrupt for 150 years. But in the end, you shrug. What can you do? Zealots gonna zealot. Evolution, geology, astronomy - all of these will develop just fine without me. They don't, as abstractions, enter into my daily life.

But when you deny lived reality, a reality shared and felt by millions, with political designs, it becomes a very personal insult. Tell me "what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening" and I expect extraordinary evidence, not antagonistic and discredited lies: abuse.

/vent

And you know more than the Atlantic Council members who say that Trump has been tough on Russia. But anyway.

Be careful not to shuck into the position that disables argument against someone with more credentials than you. My point was that you have no basis for your claims, whereas I do for mine.

The people you cited are people with PhDs who read a lot and circulate in certain intellectual spheres. There are many examples of similar people who reject the assertion that 'Trump toughest on Russia EVAR'. Claims therefore have to be evaluated on independent evidence. Meanwhile, the consensus within intelligence and security spheres across the world is clear. Do you have evidence they may not have considered? Keep in mind that I have endeavoured in these posts to demonstrate that all publicly available evidence - that is, beyond whatever may be held in secret by governments - is supportive of the case against Russia.

I don’t see how these are good measuring sticks for hacks on election infrastructure.

The news of these actions have unfortunately been equally abused against Russia by the disinformation you claimed was spreading in favor of them, which I was taking issue with the one-sided way you put it. For example, the basis for the January Intelligence Community Assessment was that the Russians had hacked the guidance systems of the Ukrainian artillery, which was contradicted by both the Ukrainian military and the British International Institute for Strategic Studies.

What do you mean by "measuring stick"? I was using examples to demonstrate that Russia has the will and the wherewithal to conduct hacks of diverse nature, and has done so in the past. I've never heard of any hacking of Ukrainian artillery. What does this have to do with hacking of the Ukrainian electric grid or elections, or hacks elsewhere?

I don’t understand how you can call this a lie unless there have been drastic changes lately I haven’t heard of. The stories were thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services.

Though if you can present some hard facts that would be great too.

I presented some links. You should present some links. I recall that the French and German intelligence services confirmed interference. You suddenly claim otherwise. Moreover, that would be a clear example of motivated reasoning as well, trusting a source (intelligence agencies) when they accord with your beliefs, dismissing them when they contradict.

Yes but did the other states refute it? That would actually be helpful to my ‘motivated reasoning.’

Refute what? I don't follow.

How is this unusual? I’m absolutely shocked that the US and Russia are negotiating their designs over the middle east. I’m shocked that they brought them to the table after their growing influence there. Come on…

Because the US and Russia were not doing so. Private citizens Trump and co were doing so, and at the expense of the United States for personal gain. Unilaterally exercising economic policy negotiations with foreign powers without authority of government is also technically illegal (besides being generally corrupt) under the Logan Act; however we shouldn't put stock in the legalism because the statute has never been properly exercised (since the 18th century) and is likely unenforceable. The more important takeaway is the corruption.

The only examples I know of in US history are similarly unsavory:

1. Nixon's Chennault Affair, in which he negotiated with the South Vietnamese government to delay peace talks with the North to boost Nixon's election campaign. This has been confirmed after the fact, and the best you can say about it is that it probably didn't affect the course of the war (though Nixon certainly did affect the course of the war in office, killing millions...).

2. I'll preface by noting I'm not fully sure this was a bona fide conspiracy: Reagan's October Surprise and the Iranian refusal to release hostages until after the election.

This were and are not "normal", they are sordid and clearly treacherous if not treasonous.

Criminal Process in the United States has always included the use of a Presidential Pardon when that was deemed appropriate. Nor is the type of media-frenzied witch-hunt that a Nixon trial would have generated all that close to what we revere as due criminal process. Your choice to misconstrue my answer as calling for us to do away with criminal process is incorrect and your tone a little insulting.

You misconstrued my construal, which is that the POTUS is somehow vulnerable to not receiving due process, or vulnerable to judicial excesses. The POTUS is not, not in the United States. This isn't yet a banana republic. :P

I was simply explaining that no one in the world could expect to receive a fairer trial.

What we're arguing is an empirical question that doesn't have clear precedents for us to rely on for evidence, except the adjacent examples of the outcomes of the Civil War and WW2.

I believe the country would have healed through the process of litigating Nixon. It would have healed through the process of litigating Reagan, or the process of litigating Bush II.

My premises are:

1. More Trump supporters will change their views the stronger the 'shock' to their vitals. If even 5% more are affected, it will have been worth it. The fascist government of Germany was more thoroughly discredited and publicly examined in the immediate post-war in Germany than in Italy. Italy did not come to grips with its history in the same way as Germany. We see now that Italy has been further along fascist resurgence than other Western European countries, Funnily enough, neither did the United States, which brushed its mirror-image evils under the rug and, in the words of Showtime below, "externalized" evil. You know, America good, Nazis bad - no Nazis in America, no sirree. Same with the Confederacy and Reconstruction. We're STILL plagued by this genealogy today. We've been through this before. It keeps resurfacing. Preferring a peace that is the absence of tension rather than the presence of justice will leave you with neither. It's kicking the can down the road to avoid the work of picking it up and depositing it in a public trash receptacle. Eventually the public park is one teetering mountain of garbage, and you do your best to ignore it until eventually it collapses and cascades and buries you. ...

2. Trumpism is fascist, and persists beyond Trump in person and in time. He's only the current avatar. His merely fading away would leave fascism as strong as ever in America, and he would anyway more likely take up the role of full-time propagandist against the System ("Swamp") unless incarcerated or incapacitated. There will be even worse, and more committed, fascists than Trump along the line, and they will want to harm with malice aforethought rather than with callous negligence. What you took as an overstatement against your semantics was merely me pointing out that Trump doesn't need to have a concrete ideology to be a fascist, and indeed that fascism is not known for its concrete ideology in practice. It's all a kind of theater - sound familiar?

3. The political class takes different lessons than the commoners do. Direct retribution is a lesson they understand much better than the nebulous loss of reputation for a single character.

The problem with too free a use of the legal system against an executive is it can criminalize acts of governance when the biggest problem with those acts of governance is disagreement therewith.

So not all men are equal before the law? The two-track system for the rich and powerful is another one of the diseases corroding society. Crime cannot be expunged merely through wearing some royal or aristocratic privilege. Only the singular power of clemency can (for federal crimes). No one is proposing we try a sitting or former executive for jaywalking. No office should be so sanctified against secular law.

You whisper poisonous words, 'Why do you care so much? Don't make a fuss. Just let it go. Just let it go.' People will not let it go, neither partisans for nor against Trump will let it go. We all want resolution. I think you are making a big mistake; our country's dolors can't be resolved only at the ballot box, and they will not be resolved by 2021. (And nothing will never be solved through "Second Amendment" solutions. Those who propose Second Amendment solutions are just the tyrants we should beware.)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Maybe this is what Monty is saying (in a more precise and technical language than me) but here is my HOT TAKE.

Seamus,

The Office of the President of the United States is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership than it is an administrative job, so said FDR (can't find the source of this quote however).

If for no other reason, presidents must be held accountable in the court of law so that the American people may examine for themselves in excruciating detail the character of the men who represent the soul of America 4 years at a time.
We cannot say that we know a candidate by the time he enters office, just as we cannot say we know our co-workers after their job interviews.

If we insist on a presidential wall that codifies "I will do what I can, and let the fallout judge me once I am gone." Then we insist on an American soul of expediency and might makes right. No Republic will survive long with such a tainted culture.

We may be reluctant to allow the potential abuse of the legal system in order that we may pick out the repugnant along with the politically weak...but I think the exercise of the rule of law regardless of the intent of its players is preferable to the creation of a bubble in which law is non-existent.

[AE Bravo]

@Montmorency

I agree that Trump's administration is disastrous, that he abuses his power and that his officials are engaged in wholesale widespread corruption. I am also of the opinion that his predecessors Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton all contributed to the current problems in the country. Going even further back, I feel that the massive expansion of the military, corrupt campaign finance laws (or lack thereof) and aggregation of power to the executive branch have resulted in an unrepresentative government which acts purely for specific interests. This precedes Trump's presidency, but he has contributed to it as well. He is responsible for his part, but not responsible for everything. To me he is more of a symptom than the root problem.

That's all I have to say. That's my hot take however shitty you think it is.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I feel that the massive expansion of the military, corrupt campaign finance laws (or lack thereof) and aggregation of power to the executive branch have resulted in an unrepresentative government which acts purely for specific interests

To me he is more of a symptom than the root problem

While I don't disagree with anything you've stated, I don't feel that the root of the problem sits at the top. Instead, I believe the problem lies with the American people themselves.

I understand that societies must evolve, and each new generation will have different goals and ideas. When I look around at what we've become, I feel nothing but utter disgust and a fear that a day of reckoning is in the not-too-distant future. Society (at least here in the US) has become fat and lazy. Everyone wants what they want, and they want it right now. Push a few buttons on your phone and things magically appear on your doorstep. Push more buttons to talk to friends (rather than speak in person). Hard work? In my profession (building trades), young folks want to get paid for just showing up (if they even do that).

This laziness has led to, IMHO, a very lackadaisical attitude towards our leadership. As long as those leaders don't mess with cell phone plans, keep the price of fuel down, pander to all our selfish interests, and keep interest rates low, anything else they do will be tolerated.

Our infrastructure (which was mostly put into place after WWII) is falling apart, our school and health care systems are failing badly, the number of homeless people continues to grow by leaps and bounds, but people are more concerned about their next Facebook post, or Tweeting out some utter nonsense just to put their name out there, rather than being concerned about the growing number of problems facing society.

At either end of the spectrum, we have a Congress whose dictionary doesn't contain the word 'compromise', and children who don't understand the meaning of the word 'no'.

That a complete moron like Trump got elected President, doesn't surprise me in a society where people don't pay attention to the world around them, but are too busy mashing buttons on their smart-phone.

Until Americans get their heads out of their asses, their eyes off their cell-phones, and start paying attention to what's happening around them, there will continue to be more Trump's and all the other idiots on Capital Hill getting elected.

Sooner or later, these deficits will come due, and the people of the US will wake up to a very different day than they are used to, and they aren't going to like it one bit

It's not American leaders who are the root problem.....it's the American people.


Btw, I haven't posted in a thread concerning politics in a very long time, but I have strong feelings concerning our society here in the US, and just thought to add my 2cents

[Montmorency]

Maybe this is what Monty is saying (in a more precise and technical language than me) but here is my HOT TAKE.

Seamus,

The Office of the President of the United States is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership than it is an administrative job, so said FDR (can't find the source of this quote however).

If for no other reason, presidents must be held accountable in the court of law so that the American people may examine for themselves in excruciating detail the character of the men who represent the soul of America 4 years at a time.
We cannot say that we know a candidate by the time he enters office, just as we cannot say we know our co-workers after their job interviews.

If we insist on a presidential wall that codifies "I will do what I can, and let the fallout judge me once I am gone." Then we insist on an American soul of expediency and might makes right. No Republic will survive long with such a tainted culture.

We may be reluctant to allow the potential abuse of the legal system in order that we may pick out the repugnant along with the politically weak...but I think the exercise of the rule of law regardless of the intent of its players is preferable to the creation of a bubble in which law is non-existent.

That's parallel, but I was focusing on the implications at the grassroots. So here's this big, vague (for most), all-consuming story of Trump and his connections to all sorts of shadiness and criminality. It gets so bad that he finishes his first term in disgrace. Maybe he is impeached. Maybe he resigns. Maybe he loses the 2020 election by a significant margin. But then... nothing happens. The mainstream forgets the story, only digging it up when Trump gets back in the news for some shenanigans or rowdy rallies. He was right, Trump rages, that the system was rigged against him, that the deep state had nothing on him, the globalists and coastal elites just wanted to get him out of the way before he could MAGA.

And his supporters would wonder, if Trump did wrong, why wasn't he tried for it in a court of law?

And his detractors would wonder, if Trump did wrong, why wasn't he tried for it in a court of law?

Shouldn't heinous allegations receive their due process? Isn't this a profound corruption of the system, that the palm greasers can find no palm they are unwilling to grease if it unburdens themselves of accountability and scrutiny?

And they would all of them be right. What kind of country puts itself through a crisis and aggressively blockades its mind against learning from it, for the sake of cossetting establishment pretense?

There are more people in the United States who fervently support or oppose Donald Trump than there are people who are apathetic, fence sitters, or materially unaffected regardless of who occupies the office or the seats of power. Polite society wants to sit back and hope we let it go? Because they feel more comfortable that way? Do they hope most of us will have our spirits crushed and sink back into apathy rather than civic engagement? Navel gazing. There needs to be resolution, or the trauma remains open, an undrained hematoma in the body politic. Don't roll the dice on thrombosis, treat the injury.

@Montmorency

I agree that Trump's administration is disastrous, that he abuses his power and that his officials are engaged in wholesale widespread corruption. I am also of the opinion that his predecessors Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton all contributed to the current problems in the country. Going even further back, I feel that the massive expansion of the military, corrupt campaign finance laws (or lack thereof) and aggregation of power to the executive branch have resulted in an unrepresentative government which acts purely for specific interests. This precedes Trump's presidency, but he has contributed to it as well. He is responsible for his part, but not responsible for everything. To me he is more of a symptom than the root problem.

That's all I have to say. That's my hot take however shitty you think it is.

I am agreeable to everything you wrote. I've said as much to you and with others for a while now. This was never the object of controversy.

Let me apologize for any hard feelings lately. Please read the following analogy without any insinuation: A lot of Arabs deny the Holocaust. I'm not saying you do, but that many do. Why do they do it? One commonly cited reason is that they see it wielded in defense of the state of Israel and its policies, like a 'get-out-of-jail-free card'. Basically, these individuals are so angered by the behavior of Israel or of "Zionism" that they defensively reject what they consider to be one of Zionism's most potent propaganda tools. And it's obvious isn't it, that if the Holocaust were a hoax, that would make the defense of Israel much more tenuous and much more perverse? So in a sense it's understandable that anti-Israel Arabs would be internally and socially motivated to deny the Holocaust, to deprive their opponents of that authority and leverage.

The problem is two-fold. Concretely, the existence of the Holocaust is an indisputable historical fact and its denial reflects poorly on the denier. Abstractly, facts should not be twisted or disregarded on the basis of ideology or motivation. It is possible to believe that one thing is true without excusing or encouraging another tangentially associated. You can oppose Israeli policies without denying the Holocaust, and in fact properly contextualizing the Holocaust may even strengthen one's position with respect to Israel. As some Israeli once said, "Nazism is Nazism, even if carried out by Jews."

The lesson here is not that denying something of the Russia or Trump allegations is as bad as denying the Holocaust - after all the Holocaust is better-documented and witnessed than even the moon landings - but that the impulse comes from a similar place of mistrust and animosity. It's a misguided and unhelpful impulse. If one has faith in their worldview, it should be able to robustly incorporate new information, even if that may superficially or temporarily bolster 'the other side'.


As a palate cleanser, here is some stuff about Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, who has worked himself into a close second place for winning the Michigan Democratic gubernatorial primary.

Abdul is a Muslim, a medical doctor, an assistant professor, a successful public health administrator, and a vocal progressive. His experience has enabled him to develop a detailed manifesto for launching universal healthcare in Michigan, among other progressive priorities. Of course the central party is against him.

The primary is on August 7.


(There are more views on other platforms)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[a completely inoffensive name]

And his supporters would wonder, if Trump did wrong, why wasn't he tried for it in a court of law?

And his detractors would wonder, if Trump did wrong, why wasn't he tried for it in a court of law?

Shouldn't heinous allegations receive their due process? Isn't this a profound corruption of the system, that the palm greasers can find no palm they are unwilling to grease if it unburdens themselves of accountability and scrutiny?

We need to look at the case made by Ford on why he pardoned Nixon.

Ladies and gentlemen:
I have come to a decision which I felt I should tell you and all of my fellow American citizens, as soon as I was certain in my own mind and in my own conscience that it is the right thing to do.
I have learned already in this office that the difficult decisions always come to this desk. I must admit that many of them do not look at all the same as the hypothetical questions that I have answered freely and perhaps too fast on previous occasions.
My customary policy is to try and get all the facts and to consider the opinions of my countrymen and to take counsel with my most valued friends. But these seldom agree, and in the end, the decision is mine. To procrastinate, to agonize, and to wait for a more favorable turn of events that may never come or more compelling external pressures that may as well be wrong as right, is itself a decision of sorts and a weak and potentially dangerous course for a President to follow.
I have promised to uphold the Constitution, to do what is right as God gives me to see the right, and to do the very best that I can for America.
I have asked your help and your prayers, not only when I became President but many times since. The Constitution is the supreme law of our land and it governs our actions as citizens. Only the laws of God, which govern our consciences, are superior to it.
As we are a nation under God, so I am sworn to uphold our laws with the help of God. And I have sought such guidance and searched my own conscience with special diligence to determine the right thing for me to do with respect to my predecessor in this place, Richard Nixon, and his loyal wife and family.
Theirs is an American tragedy in which we all have played a part. It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must.
There are no historic or legal precedents to which I can turn in this matter, none that precisely fit the circumstances of a private citizen who has resigned the Presidency of the United States. But it is common knowledge that serious allegations and accusations hang like a sword over our former President's head, threatening his health as he tries to reshape his life, a great part of which was spent in the service of this country and by the mandate of its people.
After years of bitter controversy and divisive national debate, I have been advised, and I am compelled to conclude that many months and perhaps more years will have to pass before Richard Nixon could obtain a fair trial by jury in any jurisdiction of the United States under governing decisions of the Supreme Court.
I deeply believe in equal justice for all Americans, whatever their station or former station. The law, whether human or divine, is no respecter of persons; but the law is a respecter of reality.
The facts, as I see them, are that a former President of the United States, instead of enjoying equal treatment with any other citizen accused of violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.
During this long period of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused. And our people would again be polarized in their opinions. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad.
In the end, the courts might well hold that Richard Nixon had been denied due process, and the verdict of history would even be more inconclusive with respect to those charges arising out of the period of his Presidency, of which I am presently aware.
But it is not the ultimate fate of Richard Nixon that most concerns me, though surely it deeply troubles every decent and every compassionate person. My concern is the immediate future of this great country.
In this, I dare not depend upon my personal sympathy as a longtime friend of the former President, nor my professional judgment as a lawyer, and I do not.
As President, my primary concern must always be the greatest good of all the people of the United States whose servant I am. As a man, my first consideration is to be true to my own convictions and my own conscience.
My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I, as President, have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal this book. My conscience tells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic tranquility but to use every means that I have to insure it. I do believe that the buck stops here, that I cannot rely upon public opinion polls to tell me what is right. I do believe that right makes might and that if I am wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference. I do believe, with all my heart and mind and spirit, that I, not as President but as a humble servant of God, will receive justice without mercy if I fail to show mercy.
Finally, I feel that Richard Nixon and his loved ones have suffered enough and will continue to suffer, no matter what I do, no matter what we, as a great and good nation, can do together to make his goal of peace come true.
Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969, through August 9, 1974.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.
President Gerald R. Ford - September 8, 1974

Would we find resolution in what could be half a decade of legal battles? Could we say at the end that it was in any way a proper exercise in the rule of law?

Ford is essentially telling the American people that by closing off any option to prosecute there is nothing to get agitated over, the war has ended and there is nothing anyone can do. He was right though.

Let me ask you a question Monty. Do you believe that America has in any way gotten closure from the OJ Simpson trial?

[Montmorency]

We need to look at the case made by Ford on why he pardoned Nixon.

Would we find resolution in what could be half a decade of legal battles? Could we say at the end that it was in any way a proper exercise in the rule of law?

Ford is essentially telling the American people that by closing off any option to prosecute there is nothing to get agitated over, the war has ended and there is nothing anyone can do. He was right though.

"[D]omestic tranquility." I doubt many decisions in the name of it have been farsighted as opposed to self-interested by political actors in their own time. (Andrew Johnson, FDR's internment camps, "too big to fail".) Was Richard Nixon a warlord whose further persecution (sic) would unleash his sectarian militias to rampage throughout the country? If we had so alarming a concern, it would be a defining statement of national fragility. If we had not, then we should ask what's really going on.

There is a direct genealogy from Nixon ordering his White House tapes destroyed and promising pardons - "total pardon" - to all his close aides and officials - and the Trump virulence. There is a direct genealogy not just between sick tactics but whole sick administrations. The possibility of having mitigated this with decisive judiciousness and lucid reforms is nothing to sneer at.

Leaders need to know by heart that there will be consequences to approaching governance as though malfeasance justifies "keeping [them] in this fucking office".

They need to know scapegoating and self-preservation will go badly for them.

With time running out, Haldeman requested pardons for everyone involved. Nixon’s lawyers were opposed. “If the president grants this pardon, he will be insuring his own trial,” one lawyer said. “He will be forcing it. The public has to have a head, and if the president takes the heads away, the public will have his.”

Ford and Nixon were good friends? Ford preferred the clean stroke of instant pardon to a national inquest dogging his presidency? Ford's patrician blandishments quickly lose their patina of nobility and statesmanship.

The new president had misjudged the mood of the country. Rather than sympathy, the public and the media voiced outrage at the pardon. It seemed to be totally on Nixon's terms -- early, complete and without acknowledgment that he had committed crimes or even impeachable offenses. Suspicions about a deal surfaced almost immediately. Ford agreed to testify about his decision before a House subcommittee. His staff went to work preparing his statement.

Twenty-three years later, on Sept. 22, 1997, in a suite at the Waldorf Towers in New York, I asked Ford whether he thought Haig had offered him a deal.

"Well, I guess I was naive," Ford said. "I was naive that anybody would offer a deal, because all my political life people never came to me, 'I'm going to give you a political donation, I expect something in return.' People never came to me that way, because they knew damn well I wouldn't be a part of it. So when Al Haig comes with those six terms, I just didn't visualize him as one making a proposition to make a deal. It never went through my mind."

I continued to press Ford. Did he agree, when all the facts and conclusions were examined now, decades later, that Haig had offered a deal?

"I would agree," Ford said, "because after talking to Hartmann, Marsh and Harlow, I wanted the record clear that I did not agree to consummate. . . . So that it has to be very clear that, yes, on paper, without action it was a deal, but it never became a deal because I never accepted."

I do acknowledge it is a delicate issue. The inquisition into Richard Nixon could not be allowed to exist as a singular event, it would have to apply just as well to all actors from that point on. It would be a radical application of law that probably has not existed anywhere, and as many leftists argue cannot exist - because Law is not impartial in the end. It would have been a rocky transition to the new legal order, in which favor and priority by virtue of connections, wealth, power, or position would be minimized. It is fair to say as well that applying the strict scrutiny ephemerally and then returning to the status ante quo would be more damaging in the short term, for having tantalized the People the way.

It is worth imagining. What would it look like carried over today? It would mean levying fines or probation or something like that against Hillary Clinton for ignoring proper procedures. Beyond Clinton, it would mean doing the same to the innumerables in DC who are guilty of the same, a collective smack on the bottom. This approach is inherently more trustworthy and less partisan. Of course it hinders the discretion of politicians and prosecutors. If that turned out to be an improvement, would we be surprised? To see candidates for national offices burdened with minor convictions would be appropriately humbling.

There was about a quarter of the population that never accepted the necessity or legitimacy of Nixon's impeachment/resignation. We can expect something like that with Trump in amplitude but more intense, besides the presently-unknown numbers on both sides who are increasingly prepared to disregard final election results in the future. My opinion is airing laundry compels one to smell the roses.

But there's no such thing as "what if", so I only speculate from negative outcomes and not positive ones. At least, the only positive ones I know of have been the various third-world "truth and reconciliation" initiatives, the impact of which I don't really know.

Let me ask you a question Monty. Do you believe that America has in any way gotten closure from the OJ Simpson trial?

Unfortunately, I never bothered to learn much about the OJ trial. I filed it away as a "celebrity thing". I know that it was a significant event to a lot of people, but I don't know specifics. Even if I didn't know the first about it, I would be able to infer it was in large part a racial issue. What I know actually lends itself toward my stance. I read a piece on The Root within the last year that referred in passing to the OJ trial, couching it as something celebratory for black people not because many of them believed OJ was innocent, but because it gladdened them to see one of their own cheating the Law for once. Where is your rule of law now, conservatives? Reap what you sow. Reap what you sow.


A conscience-based politics cares less for political expediency than for moral truth. - Marianne Williamson

[Montmorency]

Maybe this is what Monty is saying (in a more precise and technical language than me) but here is my HOT TAKE.

Seamus,

The Office of the President of the United States is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership than it is an administrative job, so said FDR (can't find the source of this quote however).

If for no other reason, presidents must be held accountable in the court of law so that the American people may examine for themselves in excruciating detail the character of the men who represent the soul of America 4 years at a time.
We cannot say that we know a candidate by the time he enters office, just as we cannot say we know our co-workers after their job interviews.

If we insist on a presidential wall that codifies "I will do what I can, and let the fallout judge me once I am gone." Then we insist on an American soul of expediency and might makes right. No Republic will survive long with such a tainted culture.

We may be reluctant to allow the potential abuse of the legal system in order that we may pick out the repugnant along with the politically weak...but I think the exercise of the rule of law regardless of the intent of its players is preferable to the creation of a bubble in which law is non-existent.

You go to far, however, in calling my language precise and technical.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You go to far, however, in calling my language precise and technical.

Well, let's put it this way. You have a better vocabulary than I do.

[Husar]

I'll settle for seeing him leave office on 1/20/2020. Might even contribute a few bucks to someone who'll best him in both the popular vote AND the electoral college.

Interesting... If you really see him leave on 1/20/2020 there's no need for anyone to run against him in the election that takes place on 11/3/2020.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting... If you really see him leave on 1/20/2020 there's no need for anyone to run against him in the election that takes place on 11/3/2020.

Grrrrrrrr.

1/20/2021. You get so used to thinking in terms of election years, even when you know it works out the other way in practice. Sorry about that.