DJT indicted on four counts related to January 6

present, esquire. wrote:

Better off bread wrote:

But… he could just pardon himself as president. The law moving methodically doesn’t work if they don’t move with some urgency.

First, it's not at all clear that he could pardon himself. I think SCOTUS (yes, even this court) would nix that at least 7-2. But a POTUS should be able to shut down a federal criminal case--just have the DOJ withdraw from the case--and I think that's the main thing that President Trump and his lawyers are hoping for. Even though it's unlikely to help them with state charges in NY and (presumably) GA and (possibly) MI, his status as a sitting president would almost certainly delay the state trials as long as he was in the White House (and push them past the statutes of limitations?).

Second, those who are experienced with such things would suggest that Jack Smith, at least, has moved with "some urgency." He's been on the job only about eight months and has produced two detailed indictments; as these things go, that's not warp speed but pretty damned fast.
Nevertheless, I'll be surprised if any of Trump's criminal cases begin in this calendar year. You have to share all your discovery with the other side; you have to give them a decent time to examine the discovery and formulate a defense; and you have to know that his lawyers will do everything they can to push actual litigation past Election Day.

SB wrote:

Serious question for Trump stalwarts (and, presumably, intended 2024 Trump voters):

While you clearly reject the idea that he's a potential criminal, do you not think that what this latest indictment has revealed indicates that Trump is unfit for high office, let alone one with as much attendant power as the US Presidency?

Think about it: If he knew the election had not been stolen and acted to undermine the peaceful transfer of power anyway, then he is a clear and present danger to the rule of law in the most fundamental sense. If he somehow believed that election had been stolen (as per his legal defense), in spite of all evidence and expert counsel to the contrary, does this not indicate that he is dangerously delusional, and thus unfit for high office?

Note: This is a question for people whose rational faculties are still intact Please don't bother responding if you're crazy enough to think the election actually was stolen. Not even Trump's legal defense is sticking with that insane line.

P.S. My own view is that a non-trivial number of diehard Trump supporters (maybe even close to a majority) believe that he knowingly tried to prevent the legitimate and peaceful transfer of power with the aim of remaining in office unconstitutionally, and that he was right to do so even if Biden won the election. American fascism today is founded on the belief that extreme defensive measures are required to prevent what amounts to a "lib/woke/communist" destruction of American society and culture (they believe it has already subverted the political order beyond reform). The increasingly mainstream American far right sees erstwhile partisan political struggle as having morphed into total war in which the majority of the country's major institutions are arrayed against it, the "real America", and are prepared to use every means available, legal and otherwise, to maintain a decadent and corrupt liberal order. It (the far right) sees establishment attempts to stop Trump as clear evidence of this intent. In attempting to stop Biden's ascension to the Presidency, many see Trump as having merely played by rules established long ago by corrupt liberals and their "deep state". In which case, he's only called out liberal establishment hypocrisy. There are no crimes when your enemy is criminal.

Better off bread wrote:

SB wrote:

Serious question for Trump stalwarts (and, presumably, intended 2024 Trump voters):

While you clearly reject the idea that he's a potential criminal, do you not think that what this latest indictment has revealed indicates that Trump is unfit for high office, let alone one with as much attendant power as the US Presidency?

Think about it: If he knew the election had not been stolen and acted to undermine the peaceful transfer of power anyway, then he is a clear and present danger to the rule of law in the most fundamental sense. If he somehow believed that election had been stolen (as per his legal defense), in spite of all evidence and expert counsel to the contrary, does this not indicate that he is dangerously delusional, and thus unfit for high office?

Note: This is a question for people whose rational faculties are still intact Please don't bother responding if you're crazy enough to think the election actually was stolen. Not even Trump's legal defense is sticking with that insane line.

P.S. My own view is that a non-trivial number of diehard Trump supporters (maybe even close to a majority) believe that he knowingly tried to prevent the legitimate and peaceful transfer of power with the aim of remaining in office unconstitutionally, and that he was right to do so even if Biden won the election. American fascism today is founded on the belief that extreme defensive measures are required to prevent what amounts to a "lib/woke/communist" destruction of American society and culture (they believe it has already subverted the political order beyond reform). The increasingly mainstream American far right sees erstwhile partisan political struggle as having morphed into total war in which the majority of the country's major institutions are arrayed against it, the "real America", and are prepared to use every means available, legal and otherwise, to maintain a decadent and corrupt liberal order. It (the far right) sees establishment attempts to stop Trump as clear evidence of this intent. In attempting to stop Biden's ascension to the Presidency, many see Trump as having merely played by rules established long ago by corrupt liberals and their "deep state". In which case, he's only called out liberal establishment hypocrisy. There are no crimes when your enemy is criminal.

No one rejects he is a criminal.

If Trump gets the GOP nomination, Republicans are going to vote for him regardless of the crimes. They truly believe that teachers are trying to turn kids transgender and that the libs want milk to cost $10/gallon. Every Republican senator/congressperson who is critical of Trump now will vote for him. Everyone knows who he is and what he believes. They know he is a criminal. That is why they love him.

SB wrote:

Better off bread wrote:

No one rejects he is a criminal.

If Trump gets the GOP nomination, Republicans are going to vote for him regardless of the crimes. They truly believe that teachers are trying to turn kids transgender and that the libs want milk to cost $10/gallon. Every Republican senator/congressperson who is critical of Trump now will vote for him. Everyone knows who he is and what he believes. They know he is a criminal. That is why they love him.

As per my P.S., I'm inclined to agree. What both fascinates and repels me, however, are the deeper reasons why an actual movement seems to have coalesced around these beliefs. It won't do to just say that 30% of the country and 50+ percent of its elected leadership (i.e. counting GOP dominated state legislatures) is simply "crazy" or "stupid".

In spite of the idiotic back-and-forth you see on this site, this is not a battle between the "smart/realistic" and the "stupid/deluded". Basic intelligence and common sense, or lack thereof, is always pretty evenly distributed within any population. What I genuinely wonder is exactly what kind of country (and larger world), practically speaking, the newly radicalized GOP and it hardest core supporters actually envisions for itself and other Americans. We now have an idea of what sorts of things it's giving itself permission to do in order to realize this new "post-lib" order (i.e. crash the most basic institutions of the country), but what do they imagine this order actually looking like? What is their plan for the 100s of millions of people who just don't fit into or accept their vision?

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

SB wrote:

As per my P.S., I'm inclined to agree. What both fascinates and repels me, however, are the deeper reasons why an actual movement seems to have coalesced around these beliefs. It won't do to just say that 30% of the country and 50+ percent of its elected leadership (i.e. counting GOP dominated state legislatures) is simply "crazy" or "stupid".

In spite of the idiotic back-and-forth you see on this site, this is not a battle between the "smart/realistic" and the "stupid/deluded". Basic intelligence and common sense, or lack thereof, is always pretty evenly distributed within any population. What I genuinely wonder is exactly what kind of country (and larger world), practically speaking, the newly radicalized GOP and it hardest core supporters actually envisions for itself and other Americans. We now have an idea of what sorts of things it's giving itself permission to do in order to realize this new "post-lib" order (i.e. crash the most basic institutions of the country), but what do they imagine this order actually looking like? What is their plan for the 100s of millions of people who just don't fit into or accept their vision?

What is radical about the GOP?

If you compare the two parties it seems the Democrats are much more radical than the GOP and the core of the Democrat party is clearly more radical than the core of the GOP.

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

SB wrote:

As per my P.S., I'm inclined to agree. What both fascinates and repels me, however, are the deeper reasons why an actual movement seems to have coalesced around these beliefs. It won't do to just say that 30% of the country and 50+ percent of its elected leadership (i.e. counting GOP dominated state legislatures) is simply "crazy" or "stupid".

In spite of the idiotic back-and-forth you see on this site, this is not a battle between the "smart/realistic" and the "stupid/deluded". Basic intelligence and common sense, or lack thereof, is always pretty evenly distributed within any population. What I genuinely wonder is exactly what kind of country (and larger world), practically speaking, the newly radicalized GOP and it hardest core supporters actually envisions for itself and other Americans. We now have an idea of what sorts of things it's giving itself permission to do in order to realize this new "post-lib" order (i.e. crash the most basic institutions of the country), but what do they imagine this order actually looking like? What is their plan for the 100s of millions of people who just don't fit into or accept their vision?

What is radical about the GOP?

If you compare the two parties it seems the Democrats are much more radical than the GOP and the core of the Democrat party is clearly more radical than the core of the GOP.