Trump's Troubles

There won't be and that is the goal.

 

Interesting that George Washington, in the first farewell address, predicted Donald Trump's rise to power. Oddly enough, Trump's lawyers have fixated on this speech, and claim that it supports the idea that Trump can commit crimes if he wants to. Apparently, being "the despot" in GW's big speech is enough to justify all actions of said despot. Washington was actually warning the U.S. about the possibility of a despotic president committing crimes, not giving a green light to said crimes.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/politics/george-washington-trump-immunity-what-matters/index.html#:~:text=Citing Washington's “Farewell Address to,Trump from prosecution for election

This is the part of Washington's speech that Trump's lawyers are using:

The lawyers are arguing that "horrid enormities" are perpetrated all the time throughout different ages and countries, so why shouldn't our president perpetrate horrid enormities as part of his daily routine? It's normalized--everybody does it. Even George Washington talked about it matter-of-factly. It's not like this could lead to a frightful despotism condition that we would want to avoid, does it? That would make it sound negative.

This is the rest of the speech:

Amazing that Washington had so much foresight to predict a con-man becoming president and committing crimes over two hundred years later. Less amazing is the fact that sleazy lawyers are willing to carve up a speech to pretend it means something 180-degrees opposite of what was originally intended.

 

Good tweet thread on the Trump teams conscious distortion of a Ben Franklin quote to invert its meaning in terms of the US Constitution. They suggest that he was stating that prosecuting the president would be unconstitutional. He was referring to the English Constitution and a monarch and then went on to state why that was problematic and should not be adopted here. They only use the first part of the quote, deceptively.

 

Thomas’ inferred argument, raised by other J6 defendants and routinely rejected, is that Smith had to be appointed directly by Biden, not by Garland under the Special Counsel Act. It is derivative of the absurd Unitary Executive Theory which may currently be the most dangerous idea out there, put in Trump’s head by the satanic Opus Dei operative Bill Barr, that DT can wield the legal machinery of the US Government against who he pleases without restraint of existing law, limited only by Congress’ willingness to impeach and convict. Pure hogwash.

But what’s ironic about the argument, and likely the reason DT’s lawyers have not raised it to date, is that Trump has been stating that these are Biden directed prosecutions. That’s false as a matter of objectively verifiable reality but remains true in the way the conservative mind processes perception.

To now argue to the contrary, to state that Biden did not initiate these prosecutions, would be to make an argument based on objective reality, not Trump “truth”.

 

He doesn’t even hide it.

 

For those interested, HCR coincidentally talks about Barr and Unitary Executive Theory, highlighting a speech he made to the Federalist Society in which he claimed that the Declaration of Independence should be read as a protest against Parliament unfairly restricting George III, and looping a young DOJ lawyer in 1986 named Samuel Alito for propagating this nonsense.

In November 2019, in a speech to the right-wing Federalist Society, Barr ignored the Declaration of Independence, which is a list of complaints against King George III, to argue that Americans had rebelled in 1776 not against the king, but rather against Parliament. In the modern world, Barr argued, Congress has grown far too strong. The president should be able to act on his own initiative and not be checked by either congressional or judicial oversight.

That theory is known as the theory of the “unitary executive,” and it says that because the president is the head of one of the three unique branches of government, any oversight of that office by Congress or the courts is unconstitutional, although in fact presidents since George Washington have accepted congressional oversight.

The theory took root in 1986, when Samuel Alito, then a 35-year-old lawyer for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice, proposed the use of “signing statements” to take from Congress the sole power to make laws by giving the president the power to “interpret” them. In 1987, president Ronald Reagan issued a signing statement to a debt bill, declaring his right to interpret it as he wished and saying the president could not be forced “to follow the orders of a subordinate.”


April 28, 2024


Parenthetically, it is not serious to say that Congress is subordinate to the President in the original constitutional structure, no matter how much the Imperial Presidency has grown. Congress controls the purse and passes laws. The President can veto but can be overridden by Congress, and then must faithfully execute the laws. The President cannot initiate proceedings against members under the Speech and Debate Clause, but Congress can remove the President. Technically, the President is not even CinC until Congress declares war, though we don’t really follow that. Congress technically regulates the military outside wartime. The Senate must ratify treaties and Executive appointments.

Yes, the President was far more powerful under the Constitution than the Articles of Confederation, poor John Hanlon, technically our first ”President in Congress assembled”. But in no way was the President over Congress. Typical Alito BS.

 

Just to add, the “enumerated powers” are in Article I (Congress), and anyone who thinks the original text meant the President controlled national defense and the military should consider:


To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Compare

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

And I forgot this original language - tell me who’s over who in the original structure

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

 

Trump found in contempt, fined, and threatened with jail time for further violations. For those who think the judge should have gone straight to jail time, I'm pretty sure New York law would not have permitted that. I haven't researched it directly but that's generally not how contempt works. You're only supposed to do as much as necessary to compel compliance and escalate gradually

 

More detail. Typically solid reporting by Lisa Rubin

 

Actually accurate sentiment based upon the time and review, which also goes into letting States jail women and using the Comstock Act against birth control.

 

Hope the judge is prepared to follow through as Trump continues to violate the order. Otherwise it bolsters a precedent that is already building: he gets special treatment other defendants would not. I would already be behind bars and so would the rest of you.

 

I think this is perfect. He has now given him the slap on the wrist, but with a warning that next time it will be jail time.

There will of course be a next time (expecting that to be later this afternoon). We will then see if the judge has the nerve to send him to jail, but the judge will have completely covered his base as he has given Diaper Don more then enough warning. I really hope the judge has the nerve.

 

I would agree except that I think Trump is deliberately trying to provoke the judge into ordering him to jail. Remember, political violence is perhaps the core belief of MAGA. DT has been trying to stir protests but no one seems to show up outside the courthouse, either because they don't care, or they're because they're convinced that New York City is too dangerous. He may be calculating that the image of him being jailed will be enough to provoke political violence, which is his stock in trade.

 

It's a tricky situation, but we can't let the fear of violence from those who disagree get in the way of upholding the rule of law.

 

He would love civil conflict in his name. Stroking ego

 

Absolutely - well said. If you back down when there are obvious violations of a direct judicial order for trial management, you signal that anything goes in terms of trial disruption. In another era or with a different defendant, it would be obvious that the provocation strategy is unwise. But with the Leo judiciary and with this individual, who knows?

 

If the maga mob acts out in a violent way: prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Screw the brownshirt intimidation crap.