For the record, I am royally sick of this topic already, and it’s just starting, with more than a year to go. I’m sick of Trump, I’m sick of the Democrats’ “destroy the village to save it” obsession with stopping Trump without just winning elections fairly and squarely, and I’m sick of the hypocrisy on all sides, and I’m really sick of reading obnoxious comments in moderation from single-minded ignoramuses who won’t even try to examine all sides of a complex issue, probably because they aren’t capable of it.
Sure, I’ll double down. I wrote on Friday that the decision to indict Trump was wildly irresponsible (if you didn’t discern that from my comparison to cloning dinosaurs, maybe you need to find another blog to hang out at) and was a utilitarian botch of existential proportions, and the tsunami is already developing, as that tweet above from a generally perceptive conservative Twitter wag indicates. Also predictably, gloating Democrats are tossing more of the afore-mentioned jet fuel on the fire, like this asshole:
Yecchhh. But let’s dig in…
1. The last post on this matter has surpassed the number of comments that allow normal people to read them all, so I’ll be overlapping a bit. For example, Alan Dershowitz also framed the indictment as I did, writing in Newsweek that it was “The Most Dangerous Indictment in History,” and saying in part,
This moment portends a massive change in the norms of this nation that all Americans who care about the neutral rule of law should pay close attention to, for it raises the specter of the partisan weaponization of the criminal justice system—not just by the Democrats targeting Trump but by Republicans who will certainly retaliate when they regain control of the criminal charging process.
That is how a large proportion of the public will regard it, and the evidence is irrelevant. Dershowitz also reminded me of Big Lie #6, “Trump’s Defiance Of Norms Is A Threat To Democracy.”
Remember? Democrats are hoping you won’t, but throughout the Trump Presidency, the accusation from the “resistance”/Democratic Party/mainstream media alliance (The Axis of Unethical Conduct) was that Trump was undermining democracy by not following unwritten “norms”—you know, like not using impeachment as a partisan tactic, not attempting to de-legitimatize the President, his election, and the Supreme Court, not weaponizing a health emergency to justify loosening election integrity measures, not intentionally violating the Constitution with Executive Orders like the one requiring Federal workers to be vaccinated, not giving a national speech declaring anyone who opposes his policies of being fascists and dangers to democracy…wait, I’m sorry! Those were some of the norms Democrats chose to defy; I get confused sometimes. My point is that the hypocrisy is staggering. There is a reason no former President or current major Presidential constender has ever been arrested or indicted by the rival party: it reeks of Third World dictatorships, and almost guarantees dangerous national division. This is why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon.
2. However, Dershowitz wrote his essay before the indictment was released. He owes us an update, having written: “How do we know this is about political retribution, not the rule of law? Look at the case. One would expect that such an unprecedented criminal prosecution would be the strongest one in political history. And yet, what information we do have suggests a weak case that would never have been brought if it wasn’t being brought against Donald Trump.” But most of the public won’t read the indictment, and if they did, they wouldn’t understand it. What he wrote is how many will perceive the prosecution, regardless of the facts and law.
3. Jonathan Turley, who also expressed the belief that the indictment was dangerous here, issued his update today. Among his points worth pondering:
—“The fact is that many people will see this indictment as confirmation of their worst expectations of either Trump or the Justice Department.”
—“It will be difficult to get through a trial before the 2024 presidential election. Even if the Justice Department pushed for a trial, judges likely would balk at the notion of trying this case months before the election. Either way, Trump — if he won reelection to the White House — could give himself a pardon before or after any conviction.”
—“It remains baffling why Trump forced this issue over these documents rather than just give them all back. (He could still have gotten access to them from the National Archives.) He knew that he was unlikely to receive much deference from the DOJ. Yet, he allowed this collateral controversy to consume his campaign.”
—“[T]here could be a method to the madness, as Trump seeks to try this case before the public.Indeed, the ultimate jury in this case could prove to be the American people. The 2024 election could become a referendum on this case. I have long maintained that Presidents can pardon themselves, and Trump could well use his mugshot as a campaign poster.”
Of course he will! The indictment could easily help Trump, and that alone was a good reason to avoid it.
4. Meanwhile, many on the Right are already off the rails in a rush to defend Trump. Look at this “gotcha!” tweet from reporter and pundit Paul Sperry:
5. Nah, there’s no double standard! CNN reported,
The National Archives is pushing back on claims made by former President Donald Trump, his lawyers and his allies over his retention of classified documents, for which he now faces a federal indictment. On Friday, the Archives took the rare step of releasing a public statement rebuking claims suggesting that Trump was allowed to keep classified materials under the Presidential Records Act: “Recent media reports have generated a large number of queries about Presidential records and the Presidential Records Act (PRA). The PRA requires that all records created by Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) at the end of their administrations”,” according to the statement released by the National Archives on Friday afternoon.”
It has been noted that the National Archives hasn’t made a peep about Joe Biden’s classified documents in multiple locations.
6. Others have been unkind enough to remind readers of the full statement from the FBI’s James Comey stating that Hillary Clinton repeatedly broke the law but he wouldn’t recommend charges. The major issue in Trump’s case is intent. Remember how Hillery used the BleachBit and hammers to destroy evidence? Of course, legally what Hillary got away with is irrelevant to Trump’s guilt…but not to the perception that this is a political and partisan prosecution designed to take him out of the 2024 race.
7. Naturally, “Republicans pounced” on this story: Jennifer Granholm, Biden’s Secretary of Energy, sent a letter to Congress on last week admitting that she was wrong when she testified under oath addressing her ownership of individual stocks during her confirmation hearing. Every example like this—and you know there will be others—will be cited as examples that Democrats can avoid consequences of illegal conduct even as the administration persecutes Donald Trump.
8. [Added] Francis Minton, “The Manhattan Contrarian,” offers this interesting analysis.
9. Finally, Althouse found this quote in a live chat during a live stream of Trump speaking at the Georgia GOP Conference: “Who gets a federal indictment with 100 years potential jail time and comes out to do an event?! The man is titanium!!” I think for every potential voter Trump loses because of the indictment, he may pick up more because of this factor. I admired Bill Clinton’s mettle during the Lewinsky scandal, and I have to admire Trump’s resiliency and determination through his latest travail as well as the hate and abuse aimed at him during the past seven years. It doesn’t mean he’s fit to be President, and it won’t make me less determined to do what (little) I can to try to make sure he isn’t the GOP candidate in 2024. But as the pathetic father in “Little Miss Sunshine” keeps saying (he’s a failed self-actualization guru), successful people never give up, and refuse to lose. If nothing else, Trump is a role model for that.
I’m sure there will be more, many more, posts like this to come.
Unfortunately.
Ethics Alarms 
From Newsbusters just now, as Sen. Lindsey Graham was interviewed by the former Clinton staffer who has been allowed to run ABC’s Sunday news show :
“Donald Trump has said repeatedly that he did nothing wrong,” Stephanopoulos noted. Do you believe that?”
The Senator didn’t take the bait and instead turned it around on the Democrat activist. “Well, here’s what I believe. We live in an America where if you’re the Democratic candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, you can set up a private server in your basement to conduct government business,” Graham said before getting rudely cut off.
“Senator,” Stephanopoulos said in frustration.
Graham angrily shot back: “No, let me finish!”
“But you didn’t answer the question,” the host replied.
Shoving his leftist bias back in his face, Graham rebutted “I am trying to answer the question from a Republican point of view. That may not be acceptable on this show.”
Finally getting a chance to utter a complete thought without getting rudely interrupted, Graham schooled him:
What I don’t like is a system in America where the Secretary of State, who’s a Democratic candidate for president, has people take a hammer to social media devices and break them apart, apply bleach bit to a hard drive to erase emails, allowed classified information to get on a felon’s computer, Anthony Weiner. You haven’t even mentioned that! Most Republicans believe we live in a country where Hillary Clinton did very similar things and nothing happened to her. President Trump will have his day in court. But Espionage charges are absolutely ridiculous. Whether you like Trump or not, he did not commit Espionage. He did not disseminate, leak, or provide information to a foreign power or a news organization that damaged this country. He’s not a spy. He’s overcharged. Did he do things wrong? Yes, he may have. He will be tried about that. But Hillary Clinton wasn’t.
Graham then brought up a sore subject that is rarely mentioned on ABC’s This Week, that one of the moderators is a former Clinton administration staffer: “Your old boss committed perjury in a civil lawsuit. Lost his law license, obstructed justice in a dozen ways and he didn’t get prosecuted.”
“And he was impeached,” Stephanopoulos responded trying to deflate Graham’s argument.
“Well, he was impeached but he wasn’t prosecuted,” Graham shot back.
Stephanopoulos then stuttered and attempted to change the subject: “You’ve made your point.”
Graham’s posture should be that of every Republican appearing on these shows: Righteous Indignation to the point of abuse.
Every time they say that they did not answer the question, the Republican talking point should state: “Because it is a stupid question and completely irrelevant to the importance of the underlying issues here.”
-Jut
Bingo.
“In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”
That was about Clinton.
Unlike Trump. Again, Trump is being charged mainly because of his attempts to obstruct justice and there being audio recordings of him showing secret documents to people he knows he shouldn’t be showing them to.
The indictment in this case is overwhelmingly strong and if Smith can prove those facts, that is far more than enough to convict Trump. The only arguments against it are political.
The Principles of Federal Prosecution suggest that if Jack Smith thinks that if Trump’s prosecution serves an important federal interest (it does) and the evidence is objectively factually and legally sufficient (it is), then he’s bound to bring the case.
Nowhere does it say adverse political outcomes should be considered. I’d even argue it goes out of its way to say there shouldn’t be any such consideration.
And, I think Comey was wrong on intent.
I think he used intent as a rationalization.
And, he may have been wise to do so.
Jack Smith is opening a can of worms no one has wanted to open before.
But I think calling that an “adverse polítical outcome” minimized what is going on.
Trump voters may have chanted, “Lock her up.” But nothing was done.
Next time: something will.
And, you should expect ongoing impeachments of every President from here on out. Or, don’t be surprised when it happens.
You should not be surprised when outgoing Presidents routinely pardon their entire staffs.
And, you should not be surprised if political figures are routinely prosecuted after they leave office.
The end of a functioning republic is not just some “adverse political outcome,” it is the fundamental threat to democracy Democrats have been wringing their hands over for several years.
-Jut
Comey probably didn’t recommend charges because he believed Hillary was a shoe-in and if he recommended charges she would have replaced him on day one. He later saw her sputtering and decided to be honest after all by reopening the investigation when issues with her former chief of staff’s husband came to light.
Of course then he tried to play Douglas MacArthur to Donald Trump’s Harry Truman and got himself fired anyway, and his “last honest man” act is long since played out.
A few points:
1) I really don’t think the Trump and Clinton situations are comparable. We don’t know what went through Clinton’s private servers, the levels of classification, or the national security implications. Also we don’t know her motives for deleting and destroying. It could have just to not have embarrassing personal information in the hands of her rivals. In Trump’s case, the evidence and obstruction are 100 percent clear. With Clinton it’s really speculation.
2) Trump did use the Clinton emails heavily in the 2016 election. Doesn’t the voting public have the right to know that he has done something worse (in the eyes of Democrats), or at least comparable (in the eyes of Republicans)?
3) I honestly don’t get the Republican outrage. Politics is tough, and if you make an unforced error like the ones Trump made here, the wolves will descend. Of course there are political motives here but both parties will jump on an opportunity like this. Including people like Lindsey Graham. If Biden did something like this, I would not be particularly outraged if he got into serious trouble over it. In fact I might be glad because then maybe we’d get a more inspiring nominee.
You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that everyone is going to behave rationally and reasonably in response to this. They won’t. This is not going to go anywhere good.
People are going to go on political quests to destroy their political opposition by any means necessary. It will be open war. All the rules thrown out the window. The country will be unrecognizable in 10 years or less.
“You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that everyone is going to behave rationally and reasonably in response to this.”
After the past 7 years, how could ANYONE be operating under that impression?
I have absolutely no idea. I find it difficult to believe anyone can argue in good faith that they don’t understand the republican outrage, so it is the only conclusion I can draw which makes that statement make sense.
“Also we don’t know her motives for deleting and destroying.”
That a Babylon Bee submission…?
That is beside the point.
To argue that the Cunt®™ (legally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton) smashing phones with hammers and using BleachBit on servers was cooperating with the investigation is exactly like arguing that a drug dealer flushing fentanyl down the toilet was cooperating with the investigation.
“ We don’t know what went through Clinton’s private servers, the levels of classification, or the national security implications. ”
Don’t we? I thought Comey thoroughly outlined the violations of the law she committed and just said that no rational prosecutor would prosecute it.
To me, I don’t see the distinction.
Yes, politics is tough and both parties will jump on an opportunity like this, but not “like this.” Jack can correct me if I am wrong, but this is the first indictment of a former President EVER. You might be able to pile a bunch of other first on top of that one.
This is not politics as usual.
This is unprecedented.
Do you dispute that?
-Jut
I should have said we don’t know what was in her missing emails, not that we didn’t know what went through her private servers. Her side claims they were personal matters unrelated to her work.
It certainly is unprecedented. Not sure if it’s because it’s harder to get away with things now or because our politicians are more corrupt than before.
I think the situations are comparable.
Clinton was obligated to use the State Department dedicated email server. She used an unsecured server with off-the-shelf anti-viral and anti-malware software as Secretary of State. Their website is jazzed up now, but at the time her server was discovered, Network Solutions marketed its home servers with banners like ‘keep your grandchildren’s photos safe’. Home servers, not business servers, never mind government grade…her email address was either Hillary Clinton.com or Clinton.com, I can’t lay my hand on it at the moment. Ownership of her domain was transferred to the Virgin Islands (with others) and it took Network Solutions 5 days to discover it. Just a shit show start to finish.
Government employees are, if I recall correctly, required to turn in their devices when they upgrade. Hillary was on her 12th phone when interviewed by Comey. 3-4 were accounted for. She had her staff smash some of them with hammers and dispose of them; the possibility remains that there are a few phones out in the ether with classified information on them. She ‘loses’ government issued devices like other people lose socks.
Her response to ‘turn over your server’ was to wipe it. I fail to see how Democrats can just gloss over this stuff, and can’t see it’s just as serious.
Folks, in Clinton’s case the statutes don’t give a tinker’s damn about intent. Mens rea is not required to violate them. Pardon me, audio proof that covers physical actions. If there had been concurrent indictments of Clinton, Biden junior,
Then it would not seem to be politics, playing favorites, or whatever spin is brought up.
As Jut just said, “I think [Comey] used intent as a rationalization.” You know as in, “She didn’t MEAN it!” But of course she did.
Here was what William Jacobson wrote about the Cunt®™ (legally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton).
Any discussion of this indictment must start with the fact that the Justice Department, starting in 2016, used its resources to lend credence to a hoax created by the Cunt®™ (legally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton).
For them to accuse Trump of anything is like Wanetta Gibson accusing anyone (even Brian Banks again, even Harvey Weinstein) of rape!
Please don’t use that term for Hillary here. Thanks.
Sure. Not here.
How about Her Thighness? How about Hilary Rotten Clinton?🤣
Yes, now that they have finally uncovered Hilary’s misdeeds, certainly she could be prosecuted for that, no?
How about cleaning house of all of the FBI agents who signed off on bogus FISA warrants?
Those prosecutions would be far more defensible and serve a much greater purpose than the Trump indictment.
-Jut
Just to be clear, I think both Clintons, Obama, Trump, the Bidens, and Comey are all irredeemable miscreants. I won’t engage in discussions of which is more evil than the other. Trying to convince the zealots on either side is a fool’s errand. I will, however, give Comey a partial pass in his dismissal of Clinton’s mishandling of secret documents and recommending she not be prosecuted. While I have my doubts as to his motives, the effect of his action was very similar to Ford’s pardoning of Nixon. It is not that Clinton and Nixon didn’t deserve to be tried in a court of law and be acquitted or convicted of their alleged crimes. Rather it effectively avoided grievously wounding our country. It demonstrated our Republic is more important than a pound of flesh, complete with blood.
I am, however, appalled by the entrenched Washington elected and unelected establishment’s unending quest to acquire, maintain and wield power. Furthermore, the Democrat’s and some Republican’s unprincipled and unending efforts to destroy Donald Trump, since even before the 2016 election, is extremely dangerous to the continuation of our once great Republic.
I have no respect for the multitude of the press and individuals who blindly and foolishly believe that the persecution of one man, Donald Trump, is more important than our country and the limited freedoms we currently retain. The actions of the Biden administration, Democrats, the press, and Democratic sycophants to indict Trump is the most selfish, short-cited, destructive action that will guarantee the country will be further torn apart. Perhaps irreparably.
In the late 1700s, our country’s founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to give birth to a country unlike any on the planet. They bequeathed to us a country governed by the rule of law and not men. A country where most could advance based on the merits of their efforts, skills, intelligence, and luck. They gave us a country where freedom of religion, speech, and press was sacrosanct. They gave us a federal government of very limited power. Was it a perfect governmental structure? Of course not, it was an idea and an ideal never before tried. It was a government created by men. Accordingly, how could it be anything other than imperfect? As flawed as it was, it continued to be the envy of the world. What other country on earth then and for many years to come provided more freedom, opportunity, or higher standard of living for the vast majority of its inhabitants? Alas, very little of our founding principles remain unscathed primarily due to the efforts of the progressive movement and unprincipled power-hungry politicians. I have nothing but contempt for what the progressive movement has done to the United States.
I am old enough to remember what true freedom was like. I remember when individuals were more accepting of their fellow man. My high school was composed of students from mostly affluent families. I grew up in one of the poorer areas of the township. I never felt unwelcome. I had friends in all the cliques. We had a black male in our graduating class who routinely would come to class dressed in a Nazi Officer’s uniform. Black boots, cap, the whole works. No one I knew in our class of 640 complained. We all thought he was a little weird but no big deal. He never caused any problems. The administration did not complain and none of my Jewish friends complained: Richard was just different. I’d like to see someone try that today. I wonder how long it would take a SWAT team and news cameras to show up.
I remember when JFK inspired the country to strive to do great things. Go to the moon, and urge the youth to be physically fit. The Presidential Fitness Test for school children was begun under Eisenhower and eliminated by Obama. Today our politicians and progressive educators are indoctrinating our youth with the notion that white people are born with irredeemable racism. The progressive’s version of original sin. Politicians don’t bother to inspire the nation to achieve more. Rather they buy votes by printing money or taking money from one group of individuals and giving it to another group. They explain the reason you didn’t achieve more is not your fault. Someone else, usually a white male, is holding you back, but don’t worry. The right politicians will fix that for you.
The various banters back and forth in this blog post of who is worse Hilary, Donald, or Joe serves no purpose. Having philosophical discussions on fine points of law is absurd. Our house is burning down! You are adding fuel to the fire. But I will not contribute to it. Stop fighting amongst yourselves. Tell the politicians and media ‘NO MORE”! I honestly do not know if further destruction of the United States can be averted. I also concede there are plenty that “there are none so blind as those who will not see.” However, this is one individual who will not take up arms but who won’t go gentle into that good night. I will continue to advocate to stop feeding the politician’s and media’s bloodlust. Please do your part.
“INCUMBENT ADMINISTRATION SEEKING TO IMPRISON OPPOSITION PARTY LEADER DURING ELECTION SEASON”
Venezuelan headlines coming to a country near you.