Are the guilty verdicts for seditious conspiracy keeping bigger fish awake tonight? Will Roger Stone, Mike Flynn and others in their circle face consequences? An equally important question, will those in Congress and working in the Trump administration who played a role in the events of Jan. 6 be held accountable?
Are the guilty verdicts for seditious conspiracy keeping bigger fish awake tonight? Will Roger Stone, Mike Flynn and others in their circle face consequences? An equally important question, will those in Congress and working in the Trump administration who played a role in the events of Jan. 6 be held accountable?
I'm in the camp that justice will finally find Trump, both with federal and state crimes. But what about his enablers? All of them must pay a heavy price for the damage they have wrought.
"I'm in the camp that justice will finally find Trump, both with federal and state crimes."
I think I will join the historical record camp then. In the historical record of the United States, rich White Men have so very rarely gone to jail, for obvious and proven crimes, that one can hardly find reference to such events in any history book anywhere. One can, of course, find rich white men committing crimes all day, every day, without any consequences. Starting on day 1 of arrival in the Americas.
And, as a long time mathematics fan, I can say, linear extrapolation is the best way to extrapolate existing, past data.
So, if I extrapolate the past into the future, which, is the best way to predict the future, I am forced to conclude that Trump's most likely outcomes are:
1. Become President for a second term and move the US into full on fascism.
2. Run for President but lose to some other Fascist and move back to Mara Lago to rant on Twitter for the rest of his miserable life.
3. After losing the Presidency a second time, Trump will stage a coup that is not organized by incompetents like Michael Flynn and Roger Stone and will have half of Congress killed and be installed as President by his now well trained para military group, which, includes half of the US Military the second time around.
4. Trump will use another run for President to "fund raise" off his base thereby continuing his long time pick pocketing of all the poor souls who love Trump more than their own families, and, after losing, put an addition on Mara Lago for some of his girlfriends to stay in when he moves back.
I am feeling a bit more optimistic. How about this for
#5. Trump will be dismissed as a 3 time loser. A liability for the GQP. He will ultimately perform a perp walk twice. In Georgia and then when Smith recommends his arrest to Garland.
Nikki Haley will survive the primary and become the GQP nominee for President. If Biden runs he may lose by a tiny number of votes or because a swing state betrays him in the stupid Electoral College. If Biden (who I love and respect) wisely decides to pass the baton to someone who might attract Gen Y and Z, we win by a significant margin. And we also get the House back, because the shit show led by the likes of MJT and Co, is viewed by most as just stupid and boring political theater.
I agree — and have long thought that Haley is a force (albeit shallow and dishonest) to be reckoned with. DeSantis has less charisma than my muddy boots. Media scrutiny will help him fade. He won't be able to take the heat.
While I admire Biden's many accomplishments under challenging circumstances, I don't believe he's the type of candidate needed for 2024. I'm intrigued by Gretchen Whitmer. I also very much like Pete Buttigieg but worry about his electability.
I can't stand Haley. And as for DeSatan. The thought of him makes me sick. He can get sucked up by a Florida sinkhole. I do see, as you do, some younger possibilities. I like Pete (I was born and raised in Elkhart, next door to South Bend), but share your concerns. We do have a new governor in Oregon who is open about her sexuality and has a wife. I also see her as quite capable, being both aware and compassionate about the problems, knowing how the legislature works, and being tough as nails when she has to be. Right now she is putting out positive messages and plans to visit first those places who voted for her opponent.
I also hope Biden does not run and not because I do not like him, but because like the Ds in the House, it is time to pass the baton. I have no idea who the Rs will nominate. Most of them who are likely to run are not fit to pick up dung in a parade.
Not willing to go there yet. Nope! I am a kinesthetic learner and wish not to future “trip”. I just can’t and am unwilling to listen to scenarios about the what “ifs”. We have to use our energy to untangle the web of lies and deceit that Trump, his ilk, and the Pro-Rape Party (PRP) have done, first and foremost!
Our history speaks volumes, our population is subject to propaganda which puts all of America at risk. Rupert is trying to change to a more competent fascist wannabe, can he do it after creating the most successful Frankenstein ever?
Best short sentences describing the "judicial" system I have seen!
It helps to remember that our system of laws are designed to protect property and that our law enforcement agencies were created with that foundational basis: protect property. No "duty to serve" or "protect the public".
From that article.... Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes." With all due respect to you and your former occupation, isn't that often the problem? In the final paragraph, Justice Breyer writes of judges needing "a degree of discretion." So, if discretion is to be necessary for enforcement of laws, are we indeed a nation of laws and not men?
Interesting question, because application of the laws as they are written would be so incredibly cumbersome as to hopelessly clog the system. Discretion is huge in law enforcement; do you cite every traffic violation you see, or is a warning sometimes sufficient? Does every theft of a candy bar require an arrest?
With respect to discretion, the only "mandatory" arrest statute in Oregon is under the Abuse Prevention Act, which requires law enforcement at the scene of a dispute where Assault (injury), Menacing (threats of serious physical injury) or Sexual Abuse (non-consensual sexual intercourse, deviant sexual intercourse*) has taken place to arrest the primary aggressor. This law evolved out of its original (between spouses, former spouses, adult persons related by blood or marriage, parents of a minor child, adult family members, and "adult persons of opposite sexes who reside together or formerly resided together) to then include same-sex couples. In the "before times", there were far, far fewer domestic violence arrests.
*Oregon defines deviant sexual intercourse as sexual non-vaginal genital contact, be it oral or anal.
Discretion is absolutely necessary for law enforcement. Law is a written text, but it is not inerrant scripture: the whole of the judiciary, from county to state to federal, is a long historical endeavor to interpret that written law in light of past interpretations and judgments, as well as taking into account ongoing changes in (legal, social, and even political) circumstances both within whatever jurisdiction a judgment is required as well as in surrounding jurisdictions and larger, containing ones.
Because law *is* men, to use those words. Or: we who use language to write the laws to govern ourselves must also figure out how best to apply them in situations where what is written will offer some clarity on what should be done, but often, less than perfect clarity.
Our system of law has more than a little in common with Jewish law, where past interpretation of the Torah determines future interpretation of the law. I'm not a scholar of law by any means, so I cannot say exactly how much of this process derives also from English Common Law, but I have been told that at least some does.
To me, the necessity of interpretation is a feature (not a bug!) of language. The multiple rubs come when trying to find a way to interpret law without personal interests interfering, which is next to impossible. Which is at least one good reason to have courts of appeal: so more experienced jurists can review cases in light of their own knowledge.
This unavoidable interpretation is also why the far right Supreme Court justices' "originalism" is a sham. There is no way to discern what, precisely, the writers of the Constitution originally "intended" in the first place; all we have are these written words, and it is an act of interpretation even to take them as literally as one can make out, because there simply is no way to get to a word's meaning immediately, without one's own biases and judgments intervening.
It's an imperfect system from any angle, but it is what we have, and why vigilance over legal power is so, so necessary.
Erik, you may not (in your words) be a scholar of law, but you’re a teacher who has helped deepen my understanding of it with your words.
You said, “Because law *is* men, to use those words. Or: we who use language to write the laws to govern ourselves must also figure out how best to apply them in situations where what is written will offer some clarity on what should be done, but often, less than perfect clarity.”
I’m glad I kept reading this morning. Thank you. Thanks to Ally too.
Yeah Mike - your #2 seems to have good odds IMO. Not so much the others. I think, at this point, an indictment will come, perhaps more than one. It will not be very soon, and then everything that results, the lawsuits, the stalling, the trial preparations, jury selection, etc, will draw out so long that it will extend beyond 2024 such that he will still run, making a total mockery of our country's system of law and order. He will not get the nomination; another equally fetid candidate will instead. Like DeSantis. Should he win (I actually think he would not), he would pardon Trump, thus legally ending the sordid affair. Who knows what Trump's health will be by then - he may be deceased by then. What we want - to see him behind bars - I think is very unlikely. And it bugs the sh_t out of me.
You're right, of course, Mike. But there is a small difference. If you look back into European history, you'll find that the one time rich white men tended to lose their heads was in cases of sedition, treason, and attempted assassination of the king. In other words, Steal from the Peasants, Steal from the Other Rich, but if you mess with the Throne, you'd better win, or catch a boat for Scotland.
Mr. Orange Bloat messed with the Throne, and he lost. I think his prospects are not as good as you say.
And if (and that's a pretty big "if") Smith is able to catch some of those big fish currently sitting in Congress, what will that do to the numbers? If a few of the co-conspirators just happen to be sitting on the red side of the aisle(s), what then?
It would further rile up the already demented MAGA base. But so what at this point? I believe the majority of voters, including independents, wants accountability.
Yes, I totally agree with you. How are these members of Congress who refused to certify the election legitimately representing their constituents when they believe that Biden is not the rightful POTUS?I don’t get it.
Are the guilty verdicts for seditious conspiracy keeping bigger fish awake tonight? Will Roger Stone, Mike Flynn and others in their circle face consequences? An equally important question, will those in Congress and working in the Trump administration who played a role in the events of Jan. 6 be held accountable?
I'm in the camp that justice will finally find Trump, both with federal and state crimes. But what about his enablers? All of them must pay a heavy price for the damage they have wrought.
All those enablers who were at the early January Williard Hotel meetings to plan Sedition.
Plus good ole Ginni T too!
along with her deeply compromised hubby... who 'knew nothing'
"I'm in the camp that justice will finally find Trump, both with federal and state crimes."
I think I will join the historical record camp then. In the historical record of the United States, rich White Men have so very rarely gone to jail, for obvious and proven crimes, that one can hardly find reference to such events in any history book anywhere. One can, of course, find rich white men committing crimes all day, every day, without any consequences. Starting on day 1 of arrival in the Americas.
And, as a long time mathematics fan, I can say, linear extrapolation is the best way to extrapolate existing, past data.
So, if I extrapolate the past into the future, which, is the best way to predict the future, I am forced to conclude that Trump's most likely outcomes are:
1. Become President for a second term and move the US into full on fascism.
2. Run for President but lose to some other Fascist and move back to Mara Lago to rant on Twitter for the rest of his miserable life.
3. After losing the Presidency a second time, Trump will stage a coup that is not organized by incompetents like Michael Flynn and Roger Stone and will have half of Congress killed and be installed as President by his now well trained para military group, which, includes half of the US Military the second time around.
4. Trump will use another run for President to "fund raise" off his base thereby continuing his long time pick pocketing of all the poor souls who love Trump more than their own families, and, after losing, put an addition on Mara Lago for some of his girlfriends to stay in when he moves back.
Hi Mike,
I am feeling a bit more optimistic. How about this for
#5. Trump will be dismissed as a 3 time loser. A liability for the GQP. He will ultimately perform a perp walk twice. In Georgia and then when Smith recommends his arrest to Garland.
Nikki Haley will survive the primary and become the GQP nominee for President. If Biden runs he may lose by a tiny number of votes or because a swing state betrays him in the stupid Electoral College. If Biden (who I love and respect) wisely decides to pass the baton to someone who might attract Gen Y and Z, we win by a significant margin. And we also get the House back, because the shit show led by the likes of MJT and Co, is viewed by most as just stupid and boring political theater.
What do you think?
I agree — and have long thought that Haley is a force (albeit shallow and dishonest) to be reckoned with. DeSantis has less charisma than my muddy boots. Media scrutiny will help him fade. He won't be able to take the heat.
While I admire Biden's many accomplishments under challenging circumstances, I don't believe he's the type of candidate needed for 2024. I'm intrigued by Gretchen Whitmer. I also very much like Pete Buttigieg but worry about his electability.
I can't stand Haley. And as for DeSatan. The thought of him makes me sick. He can get sucked up by a Florida sinkhole. I do see, as you do, some younger possibilities. I like Pete (I was born and raised in Elkhart, next door to South Bend), but share your concerns. We do have a new governor in Oregon who is open about her sexuality and has a wife. I also see her as quite capable, being both aware and compassionate about the problems, knowing how the legislature works, and being tough as nails when she has to be. Right now she is putting out positive messages and plans to visit first those places who voted for her opponent.
Agree totally with your thoughts. Pete would govern better than anyone else I can imagine. But the electability risk is real.
I also hope Biden does not run and not because I do not like him, but because like the Ds in the House, it is time to pass the baton. I have no idea who the Rs will nominate. Most of them who are likely to run are not fit to pick up dung in a parade.
Not willing to go there yet. Nope! I am a kinesthetic learner and wish not to future “trip”. I just can’t and am unwilling to listen to scenarios about the what “ifs”. We have to use our energy to untangle the web of lies and deceit that Trump, his ilk, and the Pro-Rape Party (PRP) have done, first and foremost!
Do not ignore the power of incumbency. I personally think Biden shouldn’t run; but we got Trump on the last jump ball in 2016.
If only.
Our history speaks volumes, our population is subject to propaganda which puts all of America at risk. Rupert is trying to change to a more competent fascist wannabe, can he do it after creating the most successful Frankenstein ever?
White collar crime doesn't count in our judicial system. It's not "dangerous."
Best short sentences describing the "judicial" system I have seen!
It helps to remember that our system of laws are designed to protect property and that our law enforcement agencies were created with that foundational basis: protect property. No "duty to serve" or "protect the public".
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?unlocked_article_code=TNyPfr9uVERzKSqgl6rhkdpIgvjlERi8drtw1P8DNSt85iYkrzkTZN31Rvhss2kuyjpR4Y7Hd4sPXm6ESk6YlyRszQ6AVUYXvT9A-M3wyjMbHp8OQ6CEbcR3byxVKcJbmnO2iyQ_0img2VgzAosw88rHnXcbX1IJf2eiP2P1eJlgJDCMC37DdDj3VLOWUCaupMxRsfRmu907i6WjyRUFTTethy7Gu_W4-IlOTAggQqiCpt8RiFD4nJjxHkmDUSGgYcS2dThcfIXrtQvS7HYB2xOLjbPwB6eLQFcAsR9XODruk0KUDLX6ETClQyXWosXY0y6pMlP9Y6JbYiTGaZC22XIZE8aF48JDjXvNCfIaGiAb-xp5xNbKXNkZ-3OzoXyW3sWLaEgzaFbtHpf9&smid=share-url
From that article.... Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes." With all due respect to you and your former occupation, isn't that often the problem? In the final paragraph, Justice Breyer writes of judges needing "a degree of discretion." So, if discretion is to be necessary for enforcement of laws, are we indeed a nation of laws and not men?
Interesting question, because application of the laws as they are written would be so incredibly cumbersome as to hopelessly clog the system. Discretion is huge in law enforcement; do you cite every traffic violation you see, or is a warning sometimes sufficient? Does every theft of a candy bar require an arrest?
With respect to discretion, the only "mandatory" arrest statute in Oregon is under the Abuse Prevention Act, which requires law enforcement at the scene of a dispute where Assault (injury), Menacing (threats of serious physical injury) or Sexual Abuse (non-consensual sexual intercourse, deviant sexual intercourse*) has taken place to arrest the primary aggressor. This law evolved out of its original (between spouses, former spouses, adult persons related by blood or marriage, parents of a minor child, adult family members, and "adult persons of opposite sexes who reside together or formerly resided together) to then include same-sex couples. In the "before times", there were far, far fewer domestic violence arrests.
*Oregon defines deviant sexual intercourse as sexual non-vaginal genital contact, be it oral or anal.
Yes. Ally and Erik, thank you. I’m glad I followed this thread.
Ally and Erik, thank you very much for this discussion.
Discretion is absolutely necessary for law enforcement. Law is a written text, but it is not inerrant scripture: the whole of the judiciary, from county to state to federal, is a long historical endeavor to interpret that written law in light of past interpretations and judgments, as well as taking into account ongoing changes in (legal, social, and even political) circumstances both within whatever jurisdiction a judgment is required as well as in surrounding jurisdictions and larger, containing ones.
Because law *is* men, to use those words. Or: we who use language to write the laws to govern ourselves must also figure out how best to apply them in situations where what is written will offer some clarity on what should be done, but often, less than perfect clarity.
Our system of law has more than a little in common with Jewish law, where past interpretation of the Torah determines future interpretation of the law. I'm not a scholar of law by any means, so I cannot say exactly how much of this process derives also from English Common Law, but I have been told that at least some does.
To me, the necessity of interpretation is a feature (not a bug!) of language. The multiple rubs come when trying to find a way to interpret law without personal interests interfering, which is next to impossible. Which is at least one good reason to have courts of appeal: so more experienced jurists can review cases in light of their own knowledge.
This unavoidable interpretation is also why the far right Supreme Court justices' "originalism" is a sham. There is no way to discern what, precisely, the writers of the Constitution originally "intended" in the first place; all we have are these written words, and it is an act of interpretation even to take them as literally as one can make out, because there simply is no way to get to a word's meaning immediately, without one's own biases and judgments intervening.
It's an imperfect system from any angle, but it is what we have, and why vigilance over legal power is so, so necessary.
Erik, you may not (in your words) be a scholar of law, but you’re a teacher who has helped deepen my understanding of it with your words.
You said, “Because law *is* men, to use those words. Or: we who use language to write the laws to govern ourselves must also figure out how best to apply them in situations where what is written will offer some clarity on what should be done, but often, less than perfect clarity.”
I’m glad I kept reading this morning. Thank you. Thanks to Ally too.
Oh Mike!
Think I'll go out and smell what flowers survived Ian.
Nature is resilient Lynn, as I found after Irma. Sending positive vibes to all of you impacted by such a horrendous event. ❤️
Excellent idea!! I fully support beautiful flowers and their fragrance!
And, landing zones for pollination.
Yeah Mike - your #2 seems to have good odds IMO. Not so much the others. I think, at this point, an indictment will come, perhaps more than one. It will not be very soon, and then everything that results, the lawsuits, the stalling, the trial preparations, jury selection, etc, will draw out so long that it will extend beyond 2024 such that he will still run, making a total mockery of our country's system of law and order. He will not get the nomination; another equally fetid candidate will instead. Like DeSantis. Should he win (I actually think he would not), he would pardon Trump, thus legally ending the sordid affair. Who knows what Trump's health will be by then - he may be deceased by then. What we want - to see him behind bars - I think is very unlikely. And it bugs the sh_t out of me.
I hope you are right James!!
You're right, of course, Mike. But there is a small difference. If you look back into European history, you'll find that the one time rich white men tended to lose their heads was in cases of sedition, treason, and attempted assassination of the king. In other words, Steal from the Peasants, Steal from the Other Rich, but if you mess with the Throne, you'd better win, or catch a boat for Scotland.
Mr. Orange Bloat messed with the Throne, and he lost. I think his prospects are not as good as you say.
(Whistling in the dark on this one.)
Suz-an,
I just completed reading the 1619 Book Project, which, has left me in quite the state of mind.
To say that my eyes have been opened would be an understatement.
Enablers? More like puppet masters, here and abroad.
I can dream, if only our populace understood the consequences of sedition run amok, especially among the govt representatives
I agree, Michael, but I worry that they will all escape to Saudi Arabia Idi Amin-style before we get to have their day in court.
I have wondered if there is extradition when this happens?
Marj, I just googled it. It appears there is no extradition treaty between the US and Saudi Arabia. Not surprising.
And if (and that's a pretty big "if") Smith is able to catch some of those big fish currently sitting in Congress, what will that do to the numbers? If a few of the co-conspirators just happen to be sitting on the red side of the aisle(s), what then?
It would further rile up the already demented MAGA base. But so what at this point? I believe the majority of voters, including independents, wants accountability.
Failing this, surely, would be the disgrace of our generation forevermore.
Failure would serious weaken our already weakened republic.
Correct.
and THAT to me is the big issue.
Yes, I totally agree with you. How are these members of Congress who refused to certify the election legitimately representing their constituents when they believe that Biden is not the rightful POTUS?I don’t get it.
1. They are white.
2. They have money or people who have money are backing them.
That's all it takes to stay out of jail folks.
See my other comment today.
Their constituents reelected them?
...and this is the piece that keeps me up at night.
An uncomfortable thought, but true.
Elected and re-elected
They signed an oath to support the constitution. Why is that not leveraged?
excellent question!!!!
I totally agree!