This headline: “In Trump cases, experts say defendant’s rhetoric will be hard to police.”
No news organization where the ethics alarms ring beyond the janatorial staff would allow that to go out into the world unless it was confident that a totalitarian regime would soom be handing out favors.
Wrote Ann Althouse, in one of her better distillations of an ethics issue: “Rhetoric should be hard to police.” Funny, that creature of the First Amendment, the Washington Post, think it’s a problem, writing, “Advisers say the Trump campaign sees a benefit in him testing boundaries by publicly attacking judges and prosecutors — either he gets away with it, or he gets to play the victim for being censored by the courts.”
Ann’s reaction, in my terms, is “Good!” She comments, “It’s a great free-speech safeguard that restrictions on free speech generate the argument that there’s a violation of free speech. Those whose freedom of speech is violated should “play the victim.” If you don’t like your opponents “playing the victim,” one option is not to victimize them.”
Whatever sadistic god decided to make a repulsive creep like Donald Trump the target of the most ominous and dangerous attack on the democratic system and the Constitution in our history has a lot of explaining to do. It is essentially impossible to feel sorry for Trump, but fair and civically responsible citizens must rally to his side while condemning the mob pursuing him, at least on principle. It literally doesn’t matter whether Trump is a jerk, a secret cannibal or Jack the Ripper come to the 21st Century in H.G. Wells’ time machine. If we let the corrupt Democratic totalitarians silence and punish him to clear the field for what’s left of Joe Biden, nobody is safe. There has to be some way to punish the Left without letting a vicious, unaccountable creep sit in the place of Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan.
Isn’t there? Please?
Jonathan Turley sees what Democratic judges, prosecutors and elected officials are trying to do in their plot to avenge themselves on Trump and neutralize his threat to their power as pointing American politics to a “slippery slope, as partisan judges and members would seek to block opposing candidates from ballots, all supposedly in the name of protecting democracy.’
The question is, who cares enough about the future of our Constitutional democracy to support an unsympathetic creep against would-be dictators?
So far, I don’t see enough members of the public with the awareness, acumen, courage and dedication to do it.
Ethics Alarms 
“Whatever sadistic god decided to make a repulsive creep like Donald Trump the target of the most ominous and dangerous attack on the democratic system and the Constitution in our history has a lot of explaining to do. It is essentially impossible to feel sorry for Trump…”
You just answered your own question. Nothing supernatural about it. Agents of corruption, if they are at all intelligent, will use the least sympathetic members of society as excuses to abolish the rights that make corruption more difficult. They may even believe their own rationalizations, that they’re doing good, that those rights harm more than they protect.
“…but fair and civically responsible citizens must rally to his side while condemning the mob pursuing him, at least on principle.”
Choosing from the sides we’re presented is how we got into this situation, and all the ones like it before. We need to create new sides that are better than the ones presented to us. We already know the principles on which to base them and we know the outcomes we are aiming for. The community of this blog alone would be able to design the broad strokes of a constructive faction. The only thing missing is the willingness to listen to opponents, enough to learn what they care about beneath what they demand and to demonstrate that we can help them achieve it.
Getting started only takes the Visionary Vocabularies reconciliation method:
1. Understand one’s own values
2. Understand others’ values
3. Frame the situation constructively
It’s so easy a human could do it.
“If we let the corrupt Democratic totalitarians silence and punish him to clear the field for what’s left of Joe Biden, nobody is safe. There has to be some way to punish the Left without letting a vicious, unaccountable creep sit in the place of Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan.”
There isn’t, Jack, as much as you wish there were.
I understand your distaste for Trump, and I wouldn’t argue the point with you.
The fact is, he already sat “in the place of Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan.”
Fwiw, he seems to be the only person who can stand up to the left. Let’s watch the debate and see who could. Can you imagine anyone else that could have survived the onslaught already aimed at him, including 4 indictments, 750 felonies and 10000 years In jail. DeSantis is already a racist Hitler to the democrats and the media. Maybe Asa Hutchinson could stand up…I can’t even finish the sentence as joke.
Here’s what I agree with you on: “fair and civically responsible citizens MUST rally to his side while condemning the mob pursuing him, at least on principle. It literally doesn’t matter whether Trump is a jerk, a secret cannibal or Jack the Ripper come to the 21st Century in H.G. Wells’ time machine.” (emphasis mine).
[Kate just isn’t very bright—this comment was an especially telling example. You know, whatever his other problem, A Friend’s illicit comments are at least intelligent, well-reasoned, civil and provocative. I think he’s the only banned commenter I can say that about.]
Jack
I’ve got a few more bales in the back of my pickup if you’re running out of hay for your strawmen. Show me where in the post Jack proposes people get away with their crimes. Show me where immigrants where mention in any form.
So my question to you – what rights should be forfeited by someone you think is guilty? What rights forfeited by someone with different political views or opinions? What rights forfeited by someone who’s a crude, obnoxious, jerk like Trump?
Extremely shallow thinking. This comment effectively refutes Cephalopod’s comment above.
How can humans ever rise above the current situation if the average human, which Kate probably accurately represents, cannot reason? Assumes that defending someone’s inalienable rights equals accepting all their behavior? Assumes anyone who disagrees with them must have some character flaw?
Oh, I think she’s probably a bit brighter than the average human. Faint praise.
Stipulated: There is disapproval of the Democrat position of allowing people get away with crimes. So the plan in response is to support someone who… may or may not be an actual criminal, but is definitely not trusted enough to allow anywhere near political power. That’s the sort of thinking that perpetuates the cycle, and it prompts respsonses that further perpetuate it. We can’t solve this problem with the same thinking that created it.
Don’t wait until people are defeated to put forth good solutions. Just do it. If you make aure the solutions have a place for them, not as they are now, nor as who they pretend to be, but as they would be proud to become, they will join you.
*make sure
That’ll teach me to type while I’m flossing.
How many arms do you HAVE????
As many as it takes to tackle a situation from all angles.
Got to keep that beak clean.
You owe me a keyboard.
Hey, what did the mother cephalopod tell her son? You better get KRAKEN on your homework! Honk! Honk! Wocka! Wocka!
Some of my suction cups have teeth on them, but the radula takes the most time to floss.
Well played. I had to look that one up.
Not sure I understand your comment in relation to mine. Are you saying that supporting Donald Trump as a way to fight back against the Democrats is furthering the situation that we’re currently in, and that a better action is to propose a solution that both sides can agree to?
If so, I agree with that, but I don’t see how it’s relevant to what I said.
Kate’s comment reflects a very infantile (but unfortunately very common) view on human behavior. What percentage of people today are okay with “punch a Nazi” or torturing child molesters or mutilating justice in order to stop Trump from running for president?
In my view, it’s way too large a percentage. It’s probably not an unprecedented percentage, but I think it does represent that we’re not really making very good progress towards an enlightened future–that we’re still the same dumb humans who have committed all sorts of atrocities and supported corrupt regimes, movements, and systems in the past.
I do not foresee a time where we can move beyond being human–being tribal, vindictive, and shallow thinkers in general. I do not think what you are trying to do is futile–I applaud it, because there are a good percentage of people who will respond and can move society forward, such as the founding fathers. But I guess I don’t hold out the hope that you seem to.
Right, who of us ever imagined defending a Donald Trump? Yet here we are; count me in. And the defense -so as to have any success at all- needs to become, for prophylactic purposes, an offense. Not an afterthought: then after the vermin are rudely dispatched, we may have some nation (re) building to do .. Who of us ever would have ever apppreciated being likened to an Alan Dershowitz, the most died-in-the-wool, hard-core blue Harvard Crimsonite, yet there he is in this same -same as a Jack Marshall- choir, singing a social protest song , Stop The Faux. Stop the wannabe dictators not in the name of defending a creep but in the name of defending the constitution, including its amendments. The defense of America in this corrupt vein is not an effort to be undertaken “at least on principle” but as well at least on specific ethical violations which rise to the level .. in this little red white and blue mind .. of crimes againt American humanity
Once again, Wendell Willkie is appropriate here:
“It is well to remember that any man who denies justice to someone he hates prepares the way for a denial of justice to someone he loves.”
“There has to be some way to punish the Left without letting a vicious, unaccountable creep sit in the place of Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan.”
If referring to Trump, I think “vicious” and “unaccountable” are unwarranted. Can he be mean and nasty? Yes. So can many of the erudite members of the commentariat here. Sometimes, being mean and nasty is appropriate while most of the time it is not necessary. I associate viciousness with a desire to inflict harm. Perceived harm on the other hand is subjective as Reverend Al and his compatriots illustrate every time they get hold of a microphone. Unaccountable? Why don’t we compare the judicial machinations to which Trump was subjected to that of his predecessors. I am not going to itemize a list of questionable acts by other presidents or their direct subordinates all I can say is that who is held accountable is often determined by those whose own actions are suspect.
I can’t imagine how willingness to accept someone like Donald Trump as leader of the united States of America—meaning all that represents—that this is what the country is and stands, for, that this man’s values are our values, etc, can teeter on the distance between “mean” and “vicious.” His treatment of, among others, Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions, was definitely viscous, but no need to quibble_–“mean” is in the viscous synonym list along with nasty, callous, harsh, cruel, immoral, spiteful, vindictive, awful, dreadful, rancorous and many others that fit Trump to a T. And the fact that he has been accused and blamed when he shouldn’t be doesn’t mean that he hasn’t done and said many, many, MANY things that would have ended the careers of every single man in the line from Washington to Joe. That’s unaccountable by definition. He should not be running.
Does it matter if the ridicule emanates from an erudite linguist or someone with the vocabulary of John Q. Public.
As for Pence and Sessions, neither are standout stars. The former is a milquetoast politician who sees himself as some moral standard bearer. I do not fault him for not acquiescing on the electoral vote count but his time as VP was unremarkable and he remained silent regarding the first impeachment. Hardly a stand up guy in my book. Sessions abdicated his role so he deserved to be dismissed. To be honest, the highly toted Bill Barr, in my mind, served only as a place holder and did nothing to address the problems at the DOJ which he should have known about.
Yeah, Trump calls em’ as he sees em’. He is rude, amoral, a narcissist and probably many more pejoratives. But, like most who rise to become captains of industry or politics he was effective on the world stage and at home in dealing with issues affecting the average American. It was when the military industrial complex began feeling threatened by peace or government workers believe they might be riffed does the deep state show its colors.
Would I prefer someone as President who exemplifies George Washington’s rules of conduct? Sure I would but none exist in our factionalized, sound bite driven world of politics.
In a perfect world, methods of conflict resolution would reflect EC’s ideals for dealing with opposing ideas. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a world that seeks solutions we live in a world that seeks power through the ability to print money. We have a population that wants the person promising them the most stuff to win.
Why would people on the dole, teachers, nurses, government, employees all want big spending Democrat politicians? They want stuff. Why do business leaders favor both sides? Because both sides will provide policies or spending that benefit them.
The average Joe who supports Trump without equivocation is the one who simply wants less government in their lives and leaves them to achieve economically on their own.
The answer to your question about who could help us avoid Trump and the totalitarian forces at work is simply find a person that speaks for minimalist government and does not equivocate when challenged by various special interests. Therein lies the rub. Alienating all special interest groups leads to losing at the polls and you wind up with a liar in chief who will tell you what you want to hear and make you happy while his minions undermine your rights. Sometimes you just have to accept toxicity to rid yourself of a totalitarian cancer.
I have never been a Trump acolyte. My candidate came in second in 2016 and DeSantis is not showing any mettle. If an alternative emerges I am willing to give that candidate a look.
The problem is that the alternative is allowing an increasingly totalitarian Democratic Party to cement its control and risk our entire constitutional system.
Greater problem: A substantial danger that Trump’s conduct and personality will drive visceral, low-information citizens into the ranks of that party, and exacerbate what is already dangerous polarization.
That’s an interesting view and one I hadn’t considered before.
I default to: if Biden is not soundly rejected in the coming election, he and many others will see it as tacit acceptance of his style of government, most notably a distinct lack of concern about adhering to the Constitution.
Which is the greater risk? Not soundly rebuking the train wreck administration or driving more people into the party that seems bent on putting equity over equality? Seems a Scylla and charybdis situation to me.
How many more people could Trump’s behavior drive to the other party?
It is not as if his behavior was forgotten in the past three years.
I will quote my Facebook friend, Stephen Michael Stirling.
I will comment on Will Baude’s and Michael Stokes Paulsen’s claims.
1. Baude and Paulsen claimed that 14th Amendment, Section 3 “covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support”.
There is, of course, no support for their interpretation. To the contrary, Article I of the Constitution defines treason as waging war on the United States, or providing aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. The reason for specifying what treason is was because nations in Europe were infamously known for adopting broad, sweeping definitions of treason. By narrowly defining treason, the authors of the Constitution sought to limit the abuse.
Section 3 simply disqualifies people for insurrection; it does not redefine insurrection to include a broad range of conduct.
2. Baude and Paulsen claimed that 14th Amendment Section 3 is self-executing. . No, it is not. In fact, Section 5 plainly reads “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Indeed, in the context of providing a remedy for equal protection violations, Congress had provided federal courts jurisdiction, and of course, continued to provide the Supreme Court jurisdiction to review state court judgments on federal law issues, which now include equal protection. It does not mean, for example, you could simply kill someone because you feel they had violated equal protection.
They claimed that state election officials could remove federal candidates from the ballot notwithstanding an express grant of authority either by a provision of the Constitution or Section 5 legislation. But why does it stop there.
If it is self-executing, anyone can enforce this provision. A person who just signed an enlistment contract with the United States Marine Corps and took the opath of enlistment could, under their view, feel that FJB provided aid or comfort to the Taliban by botching the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and, as such, could legally depose FJB from office.
But would this not be mutiny and likely a whole host of UCMJ offenses? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and, under the Baude/Paulsen interpretation of the Constitution, a Marine private would have the authority to depose FJB no matter what the inferior UCMJ reads.
If a freshly-enlisted person decided to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, are Baude and Pualsen willing to represent that enlistee pro bono if the enlistee is court-martialed for mutiny?